Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
recovery under that section. We note that pre-SARA, Conrail could make a viable claim for contribution under § 107(a)(4)(B). As originally enacted, CERCLA lacked any express mechanism by which one party could recover from another for paying more than its pro rata share of the costs of a clean-up. See United Technologies v. Browning-Ferris Industries, Inc., 33 F.3d 96, 100 (1st Cir.1994). Courts filled this gap by interpreting § 107(a)(4)(B) as providing a private right of action by which a party, who had expended resources on cleanup efforts, could obtain contribution from others. See Key Tronic Corp. v. United States, 511 U.S. 809, 816 n. 7, 114 S.Ct. at 1965 n. 7, 128 L.Ed.2d 797 (1994) (noting interpretation); United States v. New Castle County, 642 F.Supp. 1258, 1269 (D.Del.1986) . Until the passage of SARA in 1986, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing cause of action for loss of consortium
B. recognizing cause of action for wrongful death
C. recognizing cause of action for wrongful discharge
D. recognizing cause of action
E. holding that dismissal is proper for a derivative cause of action but not for a direct cause of action
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.