P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 04- 4546

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA , A ppel l ant v. E

. I

. DUP ONT DE NE M OUR S AND C OM P ANY I N CO RPO RA TED ; CI BA SPE C IA L T Y CH EM I CA LS CO RP OR AT I ON

O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

fo r t h e D ist ri ct of

D elaw are D

. C

. C i vi l A ct i on N o. 02- cv- 01469 ( H onor abl e Sue L. R obi ns on)

A r gued En B anc Sept ember 8, 2005 B e f o re : S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge , S L OVI T E R, AL I T O, RO TH, REN DELL, AM BRO , FUEN TES, SM I TH, FI SHER

a n d N Y G A A R D , C i r cui tJudges ( Fi l ed D ece m ber22, 2005)2 

### KA TH ER INE J

. BA RT ON , ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) Un it ed Stat es Departm ent of Justi ce Envi r onm e nt

& Nat ur a l Re s our c e s Di vi s i on, Appe l l at e Se c t i on P. O. Box 23795, L' Enfant Pl a z aSt at i on W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20026 Att orne y for Appe l l ant PE TE R B US CE MI , ES QU I RE ( AR GU ED ) MI CHAEL W

. STEINBERG, ESQUI RE Mo r gan, Le wi s & Bo c ki us LL P 11 11 Penn sylvania

Av enue, N.W

. W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20004 RAYMOND M. RI PPLE, ESQUI RE E. I

. DuPont

de Ne m our s and Com

pany Le ga l De partm e nt 1007 Marke t

Str e e t , Sui t e D- 7012 W i l m i ngt on, De l awar e 19898 A tto rn ey s f

o r Ap p ellees, E

. I

. D uPont de N emours and C om panyand C i ba Speci al t yC hemi cal s C orpor at i on 

### LOI S J

. SCHI FFER, ESQUI RE Ba a c h R ob i ns on& Le wi s PL LC 1201 F Str e e t , N. W

. , Sui t e 500 W a s hi ngt on, D. C. 20004 A tto rn ey f o r A m ici C uriae-Ap p ellees, A m ericanC h em istry

C o un cil3 

### A m ericanP etro leum

In stitute Ch am ber of C omm er ce of

the Unite d S tate s of A m eric a C o rp o rate E n v iro n m en tal E n f o rcem en t C o un cil Nati on alAssoci at ion o f M anuf ac ture rs Nat i ona l Pe tr oc he m i c a l and Re fi ne r s As s oc i at i on Superfun d S ettl em ents Proj ec t

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

S C IR IC A , C hi ef

Judge

. A t i s su e i s w het hert he C om pr ehens i ve Envi r onm ent al R esp o n se, C o m p en sati o n an d L iabili ty A ct of 1 9 8 0 (C E R C L A ), 42 U

. S. C

. § 9601 et

s eq . , aut hor i zes t he U ni t ed St at es t o r ecove r c o sts in c u r r e d in th e c o u rse o f su p e rv isin g a h a z a rd o u s w a ste c lea n u p c o n d u c ted b yre sp o n sib le p r iv a te p a rties . W e h o ld C E R C L A p ro v id e s f

o r su c h re c o v e ry . A c c o rd in g ly , w e w ill over r ul e U

ni t ed St at es v. R ohm & H aas C o. , 2 F. 3d 1265 ( 3d C ir. 1 9 9 3 ), an d re v e rse th e o rd e r o f th e D istric t C o u rt. I. T h e m aterial fa cts are u n d ispu ted. T h e D u P o n t N ew p o rt Super fund Si t e i s an i ndus t r i al s i t e i n D el aw ar e, ow ned and o p era ted a t v ariou s ti m es b yap p ell ee s E

. I. D u P o n t de N em o u rsF o ll o w ing the conve nt i on of t he par t i es , w e r efe r t o t he 1 a p p e lle e s c o lle c tiv e ly as “ D u P o n t.” 4 and C om panyand C i b a S peci al t yC hemi cal s C orpor at i on. 1 B e c a u s e o f

se v e re c o n tam in a tio n to th e p ro p e rtya n d its groun dw at er, t he si t e w a s id e n t i fi ed in t he earl y19 80 s as a pot ent i al t hr eatt o hum an hea l t h. I n Febr uar y1990, i t w as p la c e d o n C E R C L A ’s N a tio n a l P ri o ri tie s L is t. See 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 5 (a)(8)(B ) (estab li sh ing the N ati o n al P ri o ri ti es L ist ). T he EP A devel oped a r emedi al act i on pl an, w hi ch ca l l ed forvar i ous m eas ur es , i ncl udi ng excava t i ng and dr edgi ng cont ami nat ed s oi l , m oni t or i ng cont ami nated gr oundw at er , and cons t r uct i ng t r eat m entfac i l i t i es . B eca us e t he par t i es coul d not agr ee on i m pl ement at i on, the E PA i s s ued a uni l at er al a d m in istra tiv e o rd e r d ire c tin g D u P o n t to re m e d iate th e site in t he mann e r s e t fo r t h i n t he r e medi a l a c t i on pl a n, s ub j e c t t o EPA o v e rs ig h t an d a p p ro v a l. See § 9606 ( aut hor i zi ng admi ni s t r at i ve o rde rs “a s m ay b e n ec essa ryto p rotec t pu b li c h ea lth an d w elfa re an d the e n v ir o n m en t”). D uPont compl i ed w i t h t he E PA ’ s admi ni s t r at i ve orde r and exe cut ed a tw o- s t age “ pr ivat e par t ycl eanup a ct i on. ” The fi r s t s t age— a “r emoval act i on” underC E R C L A § 1 0 1( 23) , 42 U

. S. C

. § 9 6 0 1 ( 2 3 )

— c ons i s t ed of de vel opi ng pr oj ect s peci fi cat i ons and s chedul es t ai l or ed t o t he EP A ’ s s t at ed obj ect i ves . T he s econd s t age— a “r emedi al act i on” under C E R C L A § 101( 2 4 ), 42 U

. S. C

. § 9601( 24)

— cons i s t ed of t he actual cl eanup w or k, i ncl udi ng s oi l exca vat i on, r emedi al “ca p”5 cons t r uct i on, gr oundw at erbar r i eri ns t al l at i on, gr oundw at er m oni t or i ng and t r eat m ent , and w et land r es t or at i on. D uPont c o m p lete d th e p rojec t u n d e r b u d g e t, ah e a d o f sc h e d u le, a n d to t he EP A ’ s s at i s fac t i on. T he EP A su p ervi s ed bot h s t ages of t he cl eanup. O ver s i ght of t he fi r s t s t age ent ai l ed re vi ew i ng and appr ovi ng ( 1) pr oj ects pec ifi ca ti o n s, (2) treatm en t t ec h n o log ies, (3) testi n g and s ampl i ng m et hods , and ( 4) cons t r uct i on s chedul es . O ver s i ght of t he s econd s t age e nt ai l ed moni t or i ng, r evi ew i ng, and appr ovi ng ( 1) des i gn pl an i m pl ement at i on, ( 2) cons t r uct i on s chedul es , ( 3) heal t h and saf

ety i s s ues , ( 4) fi el d w or k, and ( 5) fi el d change request s. T he p art i es s tip ulat e t hat, i n sup ervi si ng t he fir st sta g e ’s r e m o v a l ac tio n , th e g o v e rn m e n t in c u rre d o v e rsig h t co sts of $746,279. 77. T heyal s o s t i pul at e t hat , i n s uper vi s i ng t he se c o n d sta g e ’s r e m e d ial a c ti o n , th e g o v e rn m e n t in c u rre d c o sts of $648, 517. 17. T h e t ot al cos t t o t he governm entw as $1, 394, 796. 94. T he g ov ernm ent conced es R ohm & H a as , 2 F. 3d 1265, bar s r ecove r yof over s i ght co sts o f a r emoval act i on, but as ks t hatw e r econs i dert hatdeci s i on and al l ow t he EP A t o r ecove r over s i ght cos t s i ncur r ed i n s uper vi s i ng bot h t he r emo v al and r emedi al ac t i ons of D uPont ’ s cl eanup. A l t er nat i vel y , t he go vernm ent cont end s R oh m & H aa s d o es n o t con tr o l r ec o v ery of r emedi al act i on o ver s i ght cos t s and as ks t hatw e al l ow for r ecove r yof i t s cos t s in s uper vi s i ng t he r emedi al act i on c o m p o n e n t o f

D u P o n t’ s c le a n u p .6 In a m em o ran d u m o rde r an d o p inion , the D istri ct C o u rt hel d t he governm ent ’ s r ecove r yof bot h “r em oval ” and “re m ed ial ” a cti o n o v ersigh t cos ts i s b arred u n d er R ohm & H aas . S e e Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . E. I

. d u Po n t de Ne mo u rs & Co

. , N o. 02- 1 4 6 9 , 2 0 0 4 W L 1 8 1 2 7 0 4 , at *6 -9 (D

. D el. A u g . 5 , 2 0 0 4 ). A ccor di ngl y , t he D i s t r i ct C our t gr ant ed sum m ar yj udgm entfor D u p o n t o n a ll r e le v a n t c la im s . T he governm entappea l ed and pe t i t i oned fori ni t i al hear i ng en banc

. B eca us e of t he i m por t ance of t he i s s ue and sev eral i nter ven i ng decis i on s fr om ou r s i st er court s of a p p e a ls ques t i oni ng or r ej ect i ng our anal y s i s i n R ohm & H aas , s ee, e. g. , Un i t e d S t a t e s v . L o we , 118 F. 3d 399 ( 5 th C ir

. 1997) ( hol di ng s u c h c o s ts re c o v e ra b le ), w e g ra n te d th e p e t i tio n . See F e d

. R. A p p . P . 3 5 (b )( 1 )( B ). II. Th e Di s t r i c t Co u r t e x e r c i s e d j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r 2 8 U. S

. C. § 1331. W e have j ur i s di ct i on under§ 1291. O ur r evi ew on s um m ar yj udgm entof t hi s i nt erpr et at i on of fe der al s t atut or yl aw is p le n a ry. S e e W

h e e lin g& L a k e E rie Ry . C o . v. P u b . Util

. C o m m ’n , 1 4 1 F

. 3 d 8 8 , 9 4 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 8 ). III . C E R C L A is a b ro a d re m e d ial s tatu te, e n a c ted in 1 9 8 0 to e n su re th a t p a rties re sp o n s ib le f o r h a z a r d o u s w a ste c o n ta m in a tio n “ m a yb e ta g g e d w ith th e c o s t o f t h e ir a c tio n s .” Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Be s t

f oods , 524 U. S. 51 , 56 ( 19 98 ) ( qu ot i ng S.C E R C L A § 1 0 4 (a )(1 ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 4 (a )(1 ), p ro v id e s in 2 p a rt: W h e n e v e r (A ) a n yh a z a rd o u s s u b sta n c e is r el eas ed ort here is a s ubs t ant i al t hr eatof s uch a rel ease i nto t he en vir o n m e n t, or ( B ) there i s a r el eas e ors ubs t ant i al thr eatof r el eas e i nt o t he envi r onm ent o f anypol l ut antor cont ami nant w hi ch may pr es entan i m m i nentand s ubs t ant i al dangert o t he publ i c hea l t h or w elfa re, t he Pr es i dent i s aut hor i zed t o act , cons i s t entw i t h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an, t o r emove or ar r ange for t he r emoval of, and pr ovi de forr emedi al 7 R e p . N o . 9 6 -8 4 8 , a t 1 3 (1 9 8 0 ), a s r e p rin tedin 1980 U

. S

. C

. C

. A

. N

. 6119)

. C E R C L A i s a pr oductof C ongr ess’s j udgm entt hat“t hos e r es pons i bl e forpr obl ems ca us ed byt he di s pos al o f chem i cal poi s ons [m us t ] beart he cos t s and r es pons i bi l i t yforr emedy i ng t he har m ful co ndi t i ons t hey cr eat ed. ” I

n r e TuTu W

at erW el l s C ER C LA Li t ig. , 326 F. 3d 201, 206 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( quot i ng F M CC or p. v. D ept

. of

C om m er ce , 2 9 F

. 3 d 8 3 3 , 8 4 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 4 ) (en b an c)). C E R C L A g ra n ts th e e x e c u tiv e b ra n c h , ac tin g p rim a rily t hr ough t he E PA , “br oad pow ert o comm and governm ent a g e n c ie s a n d p ri v a te p a rt ie s to c le a n u p h a z a rd o u s w a s te s ite s .” K ey Tr oni c C or

p. v. U ni t ed St at es , 5 1 1 U

. S

. 8 0 9 , 8 1 4 (19 9 4 ). T h is “ b ro a d p o w e r” m a yb e e x e rc ise d th ro u g h a g o v e rn m e n tcon du ct ed cleanup , 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 60 4(a) (1) , foll ow ed bya cost 2act i on r el at i ng t o su ch hazar dous s ubs t ance , pol l ut ant , or con t ami nantatanyt i m e ( i ncl udi ng i t s r emoval fr om anycont ami nat ed natur al reso u rce ), or tak e a n yo ther res p o n se m ea su re cons i s t entw i t h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an w hi ch t he Pr es i dentdeems n ec es s ar yt o pr ot ect th e p u b lic h e a lth o r w e lf a re o r th e e n v iro n m e n t. C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 (a ), p ro v id e s in p a rt: 3 (1) the o w n er a n d o p era tor o f a v esse l or a f a c i l i t y, ( 2) anyper s on w ho at t he t i m e of di s pos al of any haza r dous s ubs t ance ow n ed or oper at ed any fa cil ityat w h ich su ch h az ard o u s su b stan ce s w ere di s pos ed of, ( 3) anyper s on w ho bycont r act , agr eement , or ot her w ise ar r anged f

or di s pos al or t r eat m ent , or ar r anged w i t h a t r ans por t erfortr an s por t for di s po s al or t r eat m ent , of haz ar dous s ubs t ance s ow ned orpos s es s ed by s uch per s on, byanyot her par t yor ent i t y , atanyfac i l i t yor i nci n er at i on ves s el ow ned o r o per at ed byanot herpar t yor enti t yand con t ai ning such hazardo us subst ances, and ( 4) anyper s on w ho acc ept s or accept ed any haza r dous s ubs t ance s fort r ans por t t o di s pos al or 8 r ecove r y act i on, § 9607( a) , or t hr ough a pr i vat e par t ycl eanup, 3t r e a t me n t f a c i l i t i e s , i n c i n e r a t i o n v e s s e l s o r s i t es sel ect ed b ysu c h person, from w hich t here i s a r el eas e, or a t hr eat en ed r el eas e w hi ch ca us es t he i ncur r ence of r es pons e cos t s , of a ha zar dous s ubs t ance , s hal l be l i abl e for– ( A ) al l cos t s of r emoval or r emedi al act i on i ncur r ed by t he U ni t ed St at es G over nm ent or a St at e or an I ndi an t r i be noti ncons i s t entw i t h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an; ( B ) any o t hernece s s ar ycos t s of r es pons e i n curr ed byanyot her per s on cons i s t entw i t h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an; ( C ) damages for i nj ur yt o, des t r uct ion of, or l os s of natur al re so u rc e s, in c lu d in g th e re a so n a b le c o s ts o f a s s e s s in g s u c h in

ju r y, des t r uct i on, o r l os s r es ul t i ng fr om s uch a r el eas e; and (D ) th e c o st s o f

a n yh e a lth asses s m entor heal t h eff ect s s t udy carr i ed out under s ect i on 9604( i ) of t hi s t i t l e. 9 § 9606. A pr i vat e par t y cl eanup t ypi cal l ybegi ns w i t h a cl eanup

4C E R C L A § 1 06 (a) , 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 60 6(a) , provides: 4 I n addi t i on t o anyot heract i on t aken bya St at e or l ocal gover nm ent , w hen t he Pr es i dentdet er m i nes t hatt her e may b e an i m m i nentand s ubs t ant i al endange r m entt o t he publ i c hea l t h or w el far e or t he envi r onm entbeca us e of a n actual or t hr eat ened r el eas e of a haza r dous s ubs t ance fr om a fa ci l i t y , he may r equi r e t he A t t or neyG ener al of t he U ni t ed St at es t o s ecur e s uch r el i ef a s m aybe nece s s ar yt o abat e s uch dange r or threat , and t he d istric t co u rt o f th e U n ited S tate s in th e d istric t in w h ich th e th re a t o c c u rs s h a ll h a v e ju risd ictio n to gr ants uch r el i ef a s the publ i c i nt er es t and t he equi t i es of t he ca s e may r equi re. T he Pr es i dent m ayal s o, aft ernot i ce t o t he af fec t ed St at e, t ake ot heract i on undert hi s s ect i on i ncl udi ng, but not li m i t ed t o, i s s ui ng s uch or der s as m aybe nece s s ar yt o pr ot ect publ i c hea l t h and w el far e and th e e n v iro n m e n t. C E R C L A § 1 04 (c) (4) , 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 60 4(c) (4) , provides: 5

T h e P re sid e n t sh a ll se lec t re m e d ial a c tio n s to carr yout t hi s s ect i on i n acc or dance w it h s ect i on 9 6 2 1 o f th is t it le (rel ati n g to clea n u p stan d ard s). 10 pl an deve l oped byt he E PA

. §§ 9604( c) ( 4) , 9621( a)

. T he pl an 5 6C E R C L A § 1 21 (a) , 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 62 1(a) , provides: 6 T he Pr es i dents hal l s el ectappr opr i at e r emedi al act i ons d eter m i ned t o be nec es s ar yt o be ca r r i ed out under s ect i on 9604 of t hi s t i t l e o r secur ed u n d e r se c tio n 9 6 0 6 o f th is titl e w h ich a re in acc or dance w i t h t hi s s ect i on and, to t he ext ent pr act i cabl e, t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an, and w h ich p rov ide f

o r co st- ef

fe cti v e re s p o n se. In eval uat i ng t he cos t eff ect i venes s of pr opo s ed a ltern a tiv e re m e d ial a c tio n s, th e P re sid e n t sh a ll take into a cc o u n t th e total sh o rt - an d lon g -t erm cos t s of s uch act i ons , i ncl udi ng t he cos t s of oper at i on and mai nt enanc e fort he ent i r e per i od dur i ng w hi ch s uch ac t i vi t i es w i l l be r equi r ed. C E R C L A § 1 2 2 (a ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 2 2 (a ), p ro v id e s in p a rt: 7 T he Pr es i dent , i n hi s di s cr et i on, m ay ent eri nt o an agr eem en t w i t h anyper s on ( i ncl udi ng t he ow ner or oper at or of t he faci l i t y fr om w hi ch a r el eas e or s ubs t ant i al t hr e a to f r el eas e emanat es , or anyot her pot ent i al l yr es pons i ble per s on) , t o per for m any re sp o n se a c tio n (in c lu d in g a n y a c tio n d e sc rib e d in s ect i on 9604( b) of t h i s t i t l e) i f t he Pr es i dent d e ter m in e s th a t su c h a c tio n w ill b e d o n e p ro p e rly by s uch per s on. W heneve r pr act i cabl e and i n t he 11 is im p lem en ted b yresp o n sible p ri v ate p arti es, un d er e ith er a co n sen t ag ree m en t, § 9 6 2 2 , o r a u n il ateral ad m inist rati v e o rde r, 7publ i c i nt er es t , as det er m i ned byt he Pr es i dent , t he Pr es i dents hal l actt o fac i l i t at e agr eement s under t hi s s ect i on t hatar e i n t he publ i c i nt er es t and c o n sis ten t w ith th e N a tio n a l C o n tin g e n c y P lan in or dert o expedi t e ef

fec t i ve r emedi al ac ti o ns and m i ni m i ze l i t i gat i on. See s upr a n o te 4 f

o r t ex t of 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 6 (a). 8 12 § 9606( a)

. T hr oug h out t he cl eanup, t he EP A m ai nt ai ns

8 re s p o n s ib ility f

o r o v e rs ig h t a n d c e rt if

ic a tio n . See 4 0 C .F .R . § 300. 400( h) ( 2005) ( “EP A w i l l pr ovide over s i ght w hen t he r es pons e is p u rsuantt o an EP A or deror fede r al cons ent d e c re e ” ); s ee al

s o §§ 96 22 ( a ) , ( f) ( 3) , ( f) ( 5) ( c on t e mpl a t i ng EPA r evi ew and cer t i fi cat i on of pr i vat e par t ycl eanups )

. A ccor di ng t o t he EP A , pr i vat e par t ycl eanups compri s e a s i gni fi cant p e rc e n ta g e o f

a ll C E R C L A re m o v a l an d re m e d ia l ac tio n s . See U .S . E P A , Super

f und: B ui l di ng on t he Past , Looki ng t o t he F uture 72- 74 ( A pr i l 22, 2004) ( r epor t i ng t hat pr i vat e par t i es per for m ed 49% of r emoval act i ons and 88% of r emedi al act i ons c o m m e n c e d in 2 0 0 3 ). I n R ohm & H

aas , w e hel d t he U ni t ed S tat es ca nnot recover “r em ov al act i on ” ov ers i gh t cost s i ncu rr ed w hil e s u p e r v i s i n g a p r i v a t e p a r t yc l e a n u p . 2 F

. 3 d a t 1 2 7 8

. We re a so n e d th a t N

at i onalC abl e Tel evis i on A s s ’n, I nc. v. U ni t ed St at es , 41 5 U

. S

. 33 6 ( 19 74 ), bars r ecov eryof suc h co st s “unles s th e s ta tu to ry la n g u a g e c le a rl ya n d e x p lic itly re q u ir e s th a t r e s u lt .”W i t hout r efe r ence t o R ohm & H aas , o th e r co u rts o f

a p p e a ls 9 h a v e re je c te d th e re a s o n in g u p o n w h ic h w e re lie d

. See U ni t ed St at es v. H

yundai Mer ch. M

ar i ne C o. , 172 F. 3d 1187, 1190- 91 ( 9 t h C i r . 1 9 9 9 ) ( d e c l i n i n g t o a p p l y N at i onalC abl e in sim i l ar c o st re c o v e rya c tio n u n d e r th e O il P o llu tio n A c t); N ew Y or k v. Shor e Real t

y C or p. , 759 F. 2d 1032, 1043 ( 2d C i r . 1985) ( not i ng E PA over s i ght cos t s “s quar el yfal l w i t hi n C E R C L A ’ s defi ni t i on o f re sp o n se c o sts”). 13 R ohm & H

aas , 2 F. 3d at 1274. E m phas i zi ng t he l ack o f any

“ e x p licit re f

e re n c e to o v e rsig h t o f a c tiv iti e s co n d u c ted a n d p a id for by a pri v ate p ar t y , ” i d. at1275, and “the dr amat i c and u n u su al ef

fe ct of req u ir ing reg u lat ed p arti es to p ay a larg e sh are o f th e a d m in is tr a tiv e c o s ts in c u rr e d b y th e o v e rs e e in g a g e n c y ,” i d. at1274, w e hel d C E R C L A l acke d t he r equi s i t e “c l ear s t at ement

. ” I

d. A ft erw e d ec i ded R ohm & H aas , everyot hercour t of appea l s t hat addr es s ed t he i s s ue ei t her ques t i oned orr ej ect ed our h o ld in g . S e e Un i t e d

S t a t e s v . L o we , 1 1 8 F .3 d 3 9 9 , 4 0 1 , 4 0 4 (5 th C i r . 1997) ( r e

j e c t i n g appl i cabi l i t yof N a tio n a l C a b le and hol di ng C E R C L A authori zes E P A recovery o f pri vate partyres po nse a c tio n o v e rsig h t co sts ); U ni t ed St at es v. D ico, I

nc. , 266 F. 3d 8 6 4 , 8 7 7

- 7 8 ( 8 th C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (s a m e ); A t l

. R i c h f i e l d Co

. v . A m. A i r l i nes , I

nc. , 98 F. 3d 564, 568- 69 ( 10t h C i r . 1996) ( ques t i oni ng appl i cabi l i t yof N

a tio n a l C a b le and hol di ng C E R C L A pr ovi des fo r reco v eryo f re m ed ial ac ti o n o v ersigh t cos ts)

. 914 I V. A. W e begi n our anal y s i s w i t h t he cl ears t at ement doct r i ne, es t abl i s hed i n N

a tio n a l C a b le , 4 1 5 U .S . 3 3 6 , an d a p p li e d in R o h m & H

a a s, 2 F

. 3 d at 1273- 74. U ndert he cl ears t at ement d o c trin e , “C o n g re ss m u st in d ica te c le a rlyits in ten tio n to del egat e t o t he E xecut i ve t he di s cr et i onar y aut hor i t yt o r ecove r admi ni s t r at i ve cos t s not i nur i ng di r ect l yt o t he bene fi t of regul at ed p art i es byi m po si ng add i t i on al fi nan ci al bu rdens, w h e th e r c h a ra c te ri z e d a s ‘f e e s ’ o r ‘ ta x e s ,’ o n th o s e p a rt ie s .” Sk in n e rv . Mid -A m . P ip e lin e C o ., 4 9 0 U. S. 2 1 2 , 2 2 4 ( 1 9 89) ( expl ai ni ng N

a tio n a l C a b le ). F urt herm ore, w hen C on gress i nt ends t o del egat e t hi s t ype of di s cr et i onar yaut hor i t y t o a f e d e ra l ag e n c y , itm u st s e t f o rth “ a n in tellig ib le p rin c ip le” to c o n s tr a in th e a g e n c y . N a tio n a l C a b le , 415 U

. S. at342 (qu o tat ion o m it ted). N a tio n a l C a b le addr es s ed t he I ndepende nt O ffi ces A p p rop ri ati o n A ct, 1 9 5 2 , P u b

. L

. N o . 1 3 7 , 6 5 S tat

. 2 9 0 (19 5 2 ), w hi ch al l ow ed fe deral ag enci es t o pr es cr i be any“s uch fe e, char ge orpr i ce, i f any , as [t he age ncy ] s hal l det er m i ne . . . t o be fai rand equi t able ta ki ng i nt o cons i der at i on di r ectand i ndi r ect cos t t o t he G over nm ent , val ue t o t he r eci pi ent , publ i c pol i cyor i nt er es t s er ved, and ot herper t i nent fac t s . ” N a tio n a l C a b le , 415 U

. S. at337. T hi s open- en d ed congr es s i onal del egat i on w as in te n d e d to e n c o u ra g e s e lf s u f f ic ie n c y a m o n g th e a g e n c ie s . I d. T h e C o u rt f

o u n d th a t in lig h t o f C o n g re ss ’ s c o n stitu tio n a lly15 v e s te d ta x in g p o w e r, s ee U. S. Con s t

. a r t

. I , § 8 , a nd t he appar ent l yunbr i dl ed t axi ng di s cr et i on gr ant ed t o t he age nci es undert he t er m s of t he st atut e, t he A ctappr oache d t he out er boundar i es of C ongr es s ’ s pow er t o del egat e. I n t he abs ence of a cl ears t at ement of C ongr es s ’ s i nt entt o del egat e i t s t axi ng p o w e r to f

e d e r a l a g e n c ies , an d a n in tellig ib le p rin c ip le cons t r ai ni ng t he agency ’ s exer ci s e of s uch pow er , t he C our t r ead t he A ct“narr ow l yt o avoi d cons t i t ut i onal pr obl ems, ” fi ndi ng t he phr as e “va l ue t o t he r eci pi ent ” t o b e “the m eas ur e of t he aut hor i zed f

ee. ” N a tio n a l C a b le , 4 1 5 U .S . a t 3 4 2 -4 3

. A ft er N a tio n a l C a b le w as deci ded, t he C our t cl ar i fi ed t hatt he nondel egat i on pr i nci p le is i m pl i cat ed onl yw hen C o n g re ss f

a ils to p ro v id e “ a n a d m in istra tiv e a g e n c yw ith sta n d a rd s g u id in g its a c tio n s su c h th a t a c o u rt c o u ld a sc e rta in whe t h e r t h e wi l l o f Con g r e s s h a s b e e n o bey ed. ” Ski nner , 490 U .S . at 2 1 8 (q u o ta ti o n o m itt e d ). In a p p ly in g th e “ in tellig ib le p ri n ciple” test to p a rt icu lar st atuto ryd eleg ati o n s, the C o u rt ’s “j ur i s pr udence has been dr i ven bya pr act i cal under s t andi ng t hat i n our i ncr eas i ngl ycompl ex soci et y , r epl et e w i t h everchangi ng and more t echni cal pr obl ems, C ongr es s s i m pl y cannotdo i t s j ob abs ent an abi l i t y t o del egat e pow er under br oad ge n era l di r ect i ves . ” Mis t r et t a v. U ni t ed St at es , 488 U

. S. 361, 372 (1 9 8 9 ). T h e C o u rt h a s “ f o u n d th e re q u isite ‘ in tellig ib le pr i nci pl e’ l acki ng i n onl y t w o s t atut es , ” one w hi ch pr ovi ded “no gui dance fort he exe r ci s e of d iscret i on, ” and the ot herw hi ch

“ c o n f e rre d a u th o rity to re g u late th e e n tire ec o n o m yo n th e b a sis of no m or e pr eci s e a s t andar d t han s t i m ul at i ng t he ec onom yby16 assuri ng ‘ fai r compet i t i on. ’ ” W h itm a n v. A m . T

ru ck ing A ss’n , 531 U

. S. 457, 474 ( 2001) ( ci t i ng P anam a R ef i ni ng C o. v. Ryan , 299 U

. S. 388 ( 1935) , and A

. L. A

. Schec t erP oul t r y C o rp . v. U ni t ed St at es , 295 U

. S. 495 ( 1935) )

. “I n s hor t , ” t he C our t has “‘al m ost nev er fel t qu al i fi ed to second -gu e ss C on gress r egar di ng t he per m i s s i bl e degr ee of pol i cy j udgm ent t hat can be l e f tt o t h o s e e x e c u t i n g o r a p p l y i n g t h e l a w. ’ ” W hi tm an , 531 U. S. a t 4 7 4

- 7 5 ( q u o t i ng M is tr e tta , 4 8 8 U .S . a t 4 1 6 (S c a lia , J ., d issen ti n g )). B. D uPont cont ends C E R C L A l acks bot h a cl ears t at ement d e leg a tin g to th e E P A th e a u th o ri ty to re c o v e r o v e rsig h t co sts a n d a n in tellig ib le p rin c ip le c o n stra in in g th e E P A ’s a c tio n s in exer ci s i ng s uch author i t y . For t hes e r eas ons , D uPont cont ends r eadi ng C E R C L A t o al l ow r ecove r y of over s i ght cos t s i s bar r ed u n d er N a tio n a l C a b le

. A ft err econsi der at i on, w e ca nnot agr ee. B eca us e of s i gni fi cantdi s t i nct i ons bet w e e n t he s t atut or yfr amew or k ati s s ue i n N a tio n a l C a b le and t he one a t i s s ue her e, w e no l o n ger bel i eve N

a tio n a l C a b le g o v e rn s o u r a n a lysis o f C E R C L A

. See D i co , 2 6 6 F .3 d a t 8 7 7 ; L o we , 1 1 8 F .3 d a t 4 0 1 ; A t l

. R i chf i eld C o. , 9 8 F .3 d a t 5 6 8

. N

a tio n a l C a b le addr es s ed t he i m pos i t i on of us er f e e s b yth e F e d e ra l C o m m u n ica tio n s C o m m iss io n o n p a rties it w a s a u th o riz e d to re g u late . 4 1 5 U .S . at 3 3 7 -3 8 ; s ee Sk i nner , 490 U

. S. at 224 ( expl ai ni ng N a tio n a l C a b le st ruck do w n “ag encies ’ e f f o rts to re c e iv e f

ro m re g u late d p a rties c o s ts f o r b e n e f its17 i nur i ng to the publ i c gene r al l y ”)

. C E R C L A nei t heri m pos es u s e r f e e s o r t a x e s , n o r i m p o s e s t h e m o n a r e g u l a t e d i n d u s t r y. C E R C L A r es pons e cos t s ar e r es t i tut i onar ypay m ent s , i m pos ed on t hos e r es pons i bl e forcont ami nat i on t o cov er cos t s of t he c o n ta m in a tio n ’s c le a n u p . S e e D ic o , 266 F. 3d at877 (“ [ P ]ro v isio n s a llo w in g th e E P A to re c o v e r c o sts a re m e a n t to m ake the gui l t ypar t i es payand t hus ar e notl i ke t he us erfee s at i s s ue i n N

a ti o n a l C a b le .”); L o we , 1 1 8 F. 3 d a t 4 0 1 ( CERCLA re sp o n se c o sts “ a re n e ith e r f e e s n o r tax e s, b u t r a th e r, p a y m e n ts byl i abl e par t i es i n t he natur e of r es t i t ut i on for t he cos t s of cl ean ing up a cont ami nat i on or a t hr eat ened c ont ami nat i on for w h ich th e ya re re sp o n sib le.” ); A t l

. R i chf i eld C o. , 98 F. 3d at568 (“EP A ov ers i g h t c o sts are not fees or t axes l evied against innoc entm ember s of a r egul at ed i ndus t r yt o payt he EP A ’s gener al admi ni s t r at i ve cos t s , but par t of t he damages caus ed or cont r i but ed t o by s peci fi c per s ons . ”)

. N or does C E R C L A t ar get r egul at ed i ndus t r i es , but r at her“r es po n sibl e par t i es , ” s ee 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 7 (a); U

ni t ed St at es v. A l can Al um i num C or p. , 964 F. 2d 252, 257 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1992) , w ho ar e hel d s t r i ct l yl i abl e for the c o sts of

clea n ing u p co n tam ination fo r w h ich they are re s p o n s ib le

. S e e U

n ite d S ta te s v . C h r o m a lloy A m . C o r p ., 158 F. 3d 345, 351 ( 5t h C i r . 1998) ( “C E R C L A es t abl i s hes ‘ a fe der al caus e of a ct i on i n s t r i ctl i abi l i t y . ’ ”) ( quot i ng H

. R

. R ep. N o. 96- 1 0 1 6 (I ), 9 6 th C o n g ., 2 d S e s s . 2 2 (1 9 8 0 ))

. A ddi t i onal di s t i nct i ons bet w een CE R C L A and t he s t atut or ys cheme i n N

a tio n a l C a b le s t r engt hen ourconcl us i on th a t C E R C L A ’ s c o st re c o v e ryp ro v isio n s d o n o t im p lica te18 N a tio n a l C a b le

. C E R L C A l i abi l i t yi s j udi ci al l ydet er m i ned und er a fede r al caus e of a ct i on— i t i s not det er m i ned by admi ni s t r at i ve l evy . N o rdoes C E R C L A di vor ce a n agenc yfr om t h e a p p r o p r i a t i o n s p r o c e s s , i m p l i c a t i n g a g e n c y a c c o u n t a b i l i t y. C om par e 26 U

. S. C

. § 9507( c) ( 1) ( r equi r i n g congr es s i onal a p p ro p ri a tio n o f

S u p e rf u n d a c c ru a ls ), w i t h R ohm & H aas , 2 F. 3d at1274 ( appl y i ng N a tio n a l C a b le t o e ns ur e EPA a c c o u n ta b ility v ia th e a p p ro p ri a tio n s p ro c e s s ). E ven i f C E R C L A w er e t o i m pl i cat e N a tio n a l C a b le , it s cost r ecove r ypr ovi s i on, 42 U

. S. C

. § 9607, pr ovi des a cl ear sta tem e n t o f th e p o w e r c o n f e rre d a n d a n in tellig ib le p rin c ip le g o v e rn in g th e e x e rc is e o f s u c h p o w e r. See Sk i nner , 490 U

. S. at 2 1 9 (“ It is ‘c o n stitu tio n a llysu f f icie n t if C o n g re ss c lea rly d e lin e a tes th e g e n e r a l p o licy , the p u b lic a g e n c yw h ich is to appl yi t , and t he boundar i es of t hi s del eg at ed author i t y . ’ ”) ( quoti ng A m . P o w e r& L ig h t C o . v . S E C, 329 U

. S. 90, 105 (19 4 6 )). T h e g o v ern m en t i s au tho ri ze d to rec o v e r, in ter a lia , “al l cos t s of r emoval or r emedi al act i on i ncur r ed byt he U ni t ed St at es gover nm ent

. . . not i ncons i s t entw i t h t he N at i on al C o n ti n g en cy P lan.” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 7 (a)(1)– (4)(A ). G o v e rn m e n t re c o v e ryo f o v e rsig h t co st s is sp e c if ica lly aut hor i zed, but l i m it ed byt he det ai l ed s t atut or ydefi ni t i ons of “r emoval act i on” and “ r emedi al act i on, ” i d. § 9 6 0 1 (23 )–(2 5 ), a n d b y th e p ro v is io n s o f th e N a tio n a l C o n tin g e n c yP la n . See 40 C .F .R . p t. 30 0 (2 0 0 5 ). T h e N a ti o n a l C o n tin g e n c yP lan se ts f o rt h , in ter a lia , “met hods and cr i t er i a fordet er m i ni ng t he appr opr i at e ext ent of r emoval , r emedy , and ot herm eas ur es , ” 4219 U. S. C. § 9 6 0 5 ( a ) ( 3 ) , a n d “ me a n s o f a s s u r i n g t h a t r e m edi al act i on m easures ar e cost -effect i ve. ” § 9 60 5(a) (7)

. T he p l an als o re q u ir e s d o c u m e n ta tio n o f a ll c o s ts th a t ar e to b e re c o v e re d

. See 4 0 C .F .R . § 3 0 0 .1 6 0 (a )( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 5 ). A r es pons i bl e pa rt y m aychal l enge ove r s i ght cos t s as in c o n s is te n t w ith th e p la n . S e e Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Har dage , 982 F .2 d 1 4 3 6 , 1 4 4 5 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) (“ [ A ] d e f e n d a n t w h o is decl ar ed l i abl e for fut ur e r es pons e cos t s m ays t i l l chal l enge t ho se cost s as unrecoverable because th e u nd erl y i ng res po nse ac ti o n s g iving ri se to the c o sts are inc o n sist en t w ith the N C P

. ”). W her e t he governm en t’ s cost s ar e i ncons i s t entw i t h t he pl an, th e ys h o u ld n o t b e a llo w e d

. See U ni t ed St at es v. U

SX C or p. , 68 F

. 3 d 811, 817 ( 3d C i r . 1995) ( not i ng t hatt he di s t r i ctcourt “dec l i ned t o gr ant s um m ar y j udgm ent i n favor of the U ni t ed St at es on i t s damage cl ai m . . . fi ndi ng t hatt her e w er e genui ne issue s of m at er i al fac t ‘ r egar di ng t he r eas onabl enes s of t he [R emedi al I nves t i gat i on and Feas abi l i t ySt udy ] and w het hert he U n ited S t at es’ res po nse cost s w ere i ncu rr ed d ue to a ‘ need l ess a n d e x p e n siv e m o n ito rin g stu d y’” ); D i co , 266 F. 3d at879; W as h. St at e D ep’ t of Tra ns p. v. W as h. N atur al G as C o. , 59 F. 3d 793, 805 ( 9t h C i r . 1995)

. T he N at i onal C ont i ngencyPl an t her efor e s et s for t h an i nt el l i gi bl e p ri nci pl e l i m i t i ng t he go vernm ent’ s aut ho ri t yt o recov er C E R C L A cost s. E PA r ecove r y i s fur t herl i m i t ed, and i t s di s cr et i on fur t her c o n s tr a in e d , b yth e s ta tu to ry d e f in itio n o f “ re s p o n s ib le p a rt ie s .” S ee 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 7 (a)(1)– (4); Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Al c an A l um i num C or

p. , 964 F. 2d 252, 257 n. 4 ( 3d C i r . 1992)

. U nder20 C E R C L A ’ s cos t r ecove r ypr ovi s i ons , 42 U

. S. C

. § 9607( a) , t he E PA can r ecove r cos t s onl yaft erm aki ng t he r equi s i t e s how i ng o f l i a b i l i t y u n d e r t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e “ r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t y” fr amew or k. T hes e s t atut or ys t anda rds gui de t he EP A and t he c o u rt s , s ee Sk i nner , 490 U

. S. at 218, and s er ve as cons t r ai nt s on th e a g e n c y ’s c o s t r e c o v e ry. In sum , C E R C L A r epresent s C on gress ’s effo rtt o ad dress a com p lex envi r onm ent al pr obl em under a compr ehens i ve r e me d i a l s t atut e. C ongr es s ’ s deci s i on t o hol d r es pons i bl e par t i es stric tlyliab le f

o r th e g o v e rn m e n t’s c o sts o f re sp o n d in g to haza r dous w as t e cont ami nat i on i s bot h a r eas onabl e exe r ci s e of l egi s l at i ve author i t yand di ffe r enti n ki nd fr om t he unbounded del egat i on of t axi ng pow erati s s ue i n N a tio n a l C a b le

. Fur t her m or e, C E R C L A § 107 cont ai ns a cl ears t at ement of t he pow erconfe r r ed a n d “i nt el l i gi bl e pr i nci pl es ” t o gui de and cons t rai n t he age ncyi n exer ci s i ng s uch pow er . W e s ee no c o n s t i t u t i o n a l d e l e g a t i o n p r o b l e m a n d h o l d N a tio n a l C a b le ’s n a r r o w r u l e o f

s t a t u t o r y c o n s t r u c t i o n d o e s n o t a p p l y.

V. B eca us e N

a tio n a l C a b le i s i n a p p o s i t e , o r d i n a ryp r i nci pl es o f s t a t u t o r yc o n s t r u ct i on g o v e r n t h e r e c o v e r yo f CERCLA over s i ght cos t s . T he st ar t i ng poi nt i s t he l anguage of t he s t atut e. If th e m e a n in g o f

th e te x t is c le a r, “ th e re is n o n e e d to

. . . c o n s u lt th e p u rp o s e o f

C E R C L A a t a ll.” C ooper I ndus

. , I nc. v. A vi al l Ser vi ces , I

nc ., 1 2 5 S . C t. 57 7 , 5 8 4 (2 0 0 4 ); s ee i d. ( “ As we have s ai d: ‘ [I ] t is ul t i m at el yt he pr ovi s i ons of ourl aw s r at her21 than the p ri n cipa l con c e rn s o f o u r l eg isl ators b yw h ich w e a re gover ned. ’ ”) ( quot i ng O n c a le v . S u n d o w n e rO ffs h o r e S e r v s ., I nc. , 5 2 3 U

. S

. 7 5 , 7 9 (19 9 8 )). W e no te at the ou tset , h o w ev er, t hat“C E R C L A i s not

. . . ‘ a mode l o f l egi s l at i ve dr aft s m ans hi p’

. ” U

ni t ed St at es v. G en. B at t er y C or p. , 423 F. 3d 294, 298 ( 3d C i r . 2005) ( quot i ng E xxon Corp. v. H

unt , 47 5 U. S. 355, 363 ( 1986) )

. W her e a st atut e’ s t exti s ambi guous , r el evant legislat ive h is to ry , alon g w ith co n side rati o n o f th e statuto ry o b je c tiv e s , c a n b e u s e f

u l i n i llu m in a tin g its m e a n in g . G en. D ynam ics Land Sys

. v. C l i ne , 540 U

. S. 581, 600 ( 2004) ( exami ning “ t he t ext , s t r uctur e, purpos e and hi s t or y ” of t he re le v a n t s ta tu te ). B y i t s t er m s , C E R C L A ’ s cos t

- r ecove r y pr ovi s i on h o lds re s p o n s ib le p a rt ie s lia b le f o r, in ter a lia , “ a ll cos t s of r emoval or rem ed ial ac ti o n incu rred b y th e U n it ed S tat es g o v ern m en t or a St at e oran I ndi an tri b e not i ncons i s t entw i t h t he nat i onal con ti n g encypl an, ” and “ any othernecessarycost s of response i n cu rr ed byanyot herper s on cons i s t entw i t h t he nat i onal c o n t i n g e n c yp l a n . ” 4 2 U. S. C. § 9 6 0 7 ( a ) ( 1 )

– ( 4 ) ( A) , ( B) (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). “R em ov al act i on ” com pri ses: t he cl eanup orr emoval of r el eas ed haz ar dous s ubs t ance s fr om t he envi r onm ent , s uch ac t i ons as m aybe nec es s ar yt aken i n t he eve nt of a t hr eatof r el eas e of ha zar dous s ubstan ces i nt o t he e n v iro n m e n t, su c h a c tio n s as m a y b e n e c e ss a ryto22 m oni t or , as s es s and eva l uat e t he r el eas e ort hr eat of re l eas e of haza r dous s ubs t ance s , t he di s pos al of r emoved m at er i al , or t he taki ng of s uch ot her act i ons as m ay be nec es s ar yt o pr event , m i ni m i ze, o r m it igate d am ag e to th e pu b li c he alt h o r w elfa re o r to th e e n v iro n m e n t, w h ich m a yo th e rw ise re su lt fr om a r el eas e ort hr eatof r el eas e. § 9 6 0 1 (23 ). “R em edial act i on ” com pri ses: t hos e ac t i ons cons i s tentw i t h per m anentr emedy t aken i ns t ead of or i n addi t i on t o r emoval act i ons i n t he eventof a r el eas e ort hr eat ened r el eas e of h a z a rd o u s s u b sta n c e s so th a t th e y d o n o t m ig ra te to ca u se su b stan ti al da n g er to p rese n t o r fu ture publ i c hea l t h or w el far e or t he envi r onm ent

. T he t er m i ncl udes , but i s not l i m i t ed t o, s uch act i ons at t he l ocat i on of t h e r e l e a s e a s s t o r age, con fi nem ent, peri m e t er pr otect i on usi ng dikes, t r enche s , or di t ches , cl aycover , neut r al i zat i on, cl eanup of r el eas ed haz ar dous s ubs t ance s and as s oci at ed cont ami nat ed mat er i al s , r ecy cl i ng or r eus e, di ver s i on, des t ruct i on, s egr egat i on of re a c tiv e w a ste s, d e g ra d in g o r e x c a v a tio n s, re p a ir or r epl ace m entof l eaki ng cont ai ner s , col l ect i ons of l eac hat e and runoff, ons i t e t r eat m entor i nci ner at i on, pr ovi s i on of al t er nat i ve w at erD u P o n t c o n ten d s th e g o v e rn m e n t’s p o sitio n c o n f licts w ith 10 the p o sit ion the go v ern m en t ad v an ce d , an d the S u p rem e C o u rt acc ept ed, i n C ooperI

ndus t r i es , I

nc. v. A vi al lSer vi ces , I

nc. , 125 S . C t. 5 7 7 ( 2 0 0 4 )

. C oopera d d re ss e d w h e th e r a p o ten tially r es p o n sible p artyw h o u n d ertak es a clea n u p w ith o u t hav ing b een su e d u n d e r C E R C L A m a yse e k c o n trib u tio n f ro m o th e r jo in tly re s p o n s i b le p a rt ie s u n d e r C E R C L A § 1 1 3 (f )( 1 ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 1 3 (f )(1 ). T h e g o v e rn m e n t u rg e d th e S u p re m e C o u rt n o t to ext end t he s t atut or yt ext of C E R C L A , w hi ch author i zes cont r i but i on cl ai m s “d ur i ng or fol l ow i ng” a c i vi l act i on under C E R C L A § 1 0 6 o r § 1 0 7 (a ), § § 9 6 0 6 , 9 6 0 7 (a ). See 4 2 U. S

. C. § 9613( f) ( 1)

. T he conf li ct, D uPont cont ends , i s t hatt he go v e r n me n t i n t h i s c a s e “ a s s e r t s t h a t CERCLA s h o u l d be c o n stru e d b ro a d lyto f

u r th e r c e rta in p o licy c o n c e rn s, so a s to 23 s uppl i es , and anym oni t or i ng r eas onabl yr equi r ed to a ss u re th a t su c h a c tio n s p ro tec t th e p u b lic h e a lth a n d w e lf

a re a n d th e e n v ir o n m e n t. § 9601( 24)

. C E R C L A al s o pr ovi des t hat“r emoval act i on” and “r emedi al act i on” s hal l i ncl ude “e nfor cement act i vi t i es r el at ed th e re to .” § 9 6 0 1 (2 5 ). T h e g o ver nm entcont ends i t s over s i ght of r emoval and rem edial act i on s fal l s w i t hin t he p l ai n m e a ning of t hese pr ovi s i ons , and i t s cos t s ar e r ecove r abl e underC E R C L A § 107, w h ich h o ld s re sp o n sib le p a rties liab le f o r “ a ll” re m o v a l, r emedi al , or ot herr espo n s e cos t s nece s s ar i l yi ncur r ed byt he U nit ed S t at es. See C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 10re a d ‘o v e rsig h t’ in to th e sta tu to rytex t in p ro v isio n s in w h ich it i s not pr es ent

. ” W e di s agr ee w i t h D uPont ’ s char act er i zat i on of t h e g o v e r n me n t ’ s p o s i t i o n . T h e g o v e r n me n t a s s e r t s , a n d we agr ee, t hatt he t extof C E R L C A aut hor i zes r ecove r y of over s i ght cos t s . Pol i cy conce r ns m ay s uppor t t hi s concl us i on, but t heydo not cons t i t ut e t he founda t i on of ourhol di ng. 24 9 6 0 7 (a )(1 )– (4 )(A ) (R e sp o n sib le p a rties sh a ll b e liab le f o r “ a ll cos t s of r emoval or r emedi al act ion i ncur r ed byt he U ni t ed St at es G over nm entor a St at e oran I ndi an t r i be noti ncons i s t ent w i t h t he nat i onal co nt i ngencypl an. ”)

. For t he fol l ow i ng re a so n s, w e a g r e e th a t E P A o v e rsig h t f a lls c o m f

o rta b lyw ith in th e d e f in itio n s o f

“ re m o v a l a c tio n ” a n d “ re m e d ia l a c tio n .”

A. “R em oval act i on” ent ai l s cont ai ni ng and cl eani ng up haza r dous w as t e subs t ance s and i ncl udes m oni t or i ng, as s es s i ng, and ev aluat i ng “t he r el eas e ort hr eatof r el eas e of ha zar dous s ubs t ance s , t he d ispo s al of r emoved m at er i al , or t he t aki ng of s uch ot her act i ons as m ay be neces s ar yt o pr event , m i ni m i ze, or m i t i gat e damage t o t he publ i c hea l t h or w el far e orto the e n v iro n m e n t.” 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 1 (2 3 ). T h e te r m “ m o n ito r” in t hi s d ef i ni t i on i s m os t r eas onabl yr ead t o encompas s agenc y o v e rs ig h t. L o we , 1 1 8 F. 3 d a t 4 0 3

. W e c o n s t r u e a t er m not defi ned i n a s t atut e i n acc or dance w i t h i t s or di nar yand natur al m e a n in g . U

nit ed S t ates v. A l varez- Sa nch ez, 511 U

. S. 350, 357 (1 9 9 4 ); L o w e , 118 F. 3d at402. T he cour t i n L o we s ur vey ed di ct i onar yand t hes aurus m eani ngs of “moni t or ” and e xpl ai ned:25 “The verb ‘ m oni t or ’ i s gener al l y s y nony m ous w i t h audi t , chec k, c o n t r o l , i n s p e c t , i n v e s t i g a t e , o b s e r v e , o v e r s e e , r e g u l a t e , r e v i e w, scrut i ni ze, s t udy , s ur vey , t es t and w at ch. ” L o we , 1 1 8 F. 3d at 4 0 3 ; s ee al

s o A t l

. R i chf

i eld C o. , 9 8 F

. 3 d at 56 9 (sam e). E PA over s i ght act i ons

— r evi ew i ng, appr ovi ng, and supervi si ng proj ect speci fi cat i on s, t reat m ent t echn ologi es, tes tin g a n d sa m p lin g m e th o d s, a n d c o n stru c tio n sc h e d u les

— f a ll squarel y w i t hin t he “m on i t ori ng ” of a “rem ov al act i on . ” T hese over s i ght act i ons i nvol ve i ns pect i ng and s uper vi s i ng bot h t he r elea s e of ha zar dous s ubs t ance s , and t he s ubs equentr emoval an d d ispo sal o f re lease d su b stan ce s, an d are n ec essa ry to en su re a pr i vat e par t ycl eanup i s adequa t e t o pr ot ectpubl i c hea l t h, p u b li c w el far e, and t he envi r onm ent

. A ccor di ngl y , “t he t erm r e mova l a c t i on i nc l ud e s t he moni t ori ng c on du c t e d b yt he EPA vi a i t s over s i ght act i vi t i es . ” L o we , 118 F. 3d at403. D u P o n t co n ten d s th e ter m “ m o n ito r” re f e rs o n ly t o m oni t or i ng t he “r el eas e or t hr eat of r el eas e o f h azar dous su b sta n c e s,” 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 1 (2 3 ), an d d o e s n o t re f e r to m oni t or i ng the conduc t of al l r emoval act i ons . W e di s agr ee. W e b el i eve “ m oni t or ” i s m eantt o ext end t o t he phr as es t hat fol l ow t he phr as e “r el eas e ort hr eatof r el eas e of haza r dous s ubs t ance s , ” and t o i ncl ude al l as pect s of pr event i ng haza r dous r el eas es fr om adver s el yaff ect i ng publ i c hea l t h, publ i c w el far e, a n d th e e n v ir o n m e n t, in c lu d in g E P A o v e rs ig h t. See § 9 6 0 1 (23 ). J us t as E PA over s i ght i s a nec es s ar y p art of the m o n it o ri n g en tai led in a “re m o v al ac ti o n , ” so too is i t nec essa ry26 t o t he moni t or i ng of a pe r m anent“r emed ia l act i on. ” The defini t i on of “rem edial act i on ” focu ses on pe rm anen t sol uti on s, compri s i ng t hos e agency act i ons “cons i s t entw i t h [a] per m anent r emedy take n ” t o cl ean up a nd pr eventt he mi gr at i on of h a z a rd o u s s u b s ta n c e s . See § 9 6 0 1 ( 2 4 ). T h is in c lu d e s , “ b u t is notl i m i t ed t o . . . an ym o n it o ri n g rea so n ab lyreq u ir ed to as su re t hats u ch ac ti o ns pr ot ectt he publ i c hea l t h and w el far e and the envi r onm ent

. ” I

d. ( emphasi s added)

. W e bel i eve ove r s i ght of a r emedi al act i on— i ncl udi ng r evi ew i ng, approvi ng and s uper vi s i ng des i gn pl an i m pl ement at i on, w at ers ampl i ng and t r eat m ent act i vi t i es , and hea l t h and s afe t yi s s ues

— i s m oni t or i ng “r eas onabl y r equi r ed t o as s ur e” a pr i vat e par t y r emedi al act i on w ill “ p ro tec t th e p u b lic h e a lth a n d w e lf a re a n d th e e n v iro n m e n t” u n d e r § 9 6 0 1 (2 4 ). See D i co , 266 F. 3d at878 ( fi nding a “c l ear s t at ement ” i n t he s t atut or yl anguage aut hor i zi ng r ecove r yof t he g o v e rn m e n t’s re m e d ial a c tio n o v e rsig h t co sts ); s e e a l s o L o we , 118 F. 3d at403; A t l

. R i chf i eld C o. , 98 F. 3d at 569. G over nm ent over s i ght ens ur es a pr i vat e par t yr emedi al act i on w i l l be eff ect i ve in p r event i ng, m i ni m i zi ng, and mi t i gat i ng cur r entor th re a te n e d re le a s e s . D u P o n t co n ten d s th e ter m “ m o n ito rin g ” u se d in “r emedi al act i on” r efe r s onl yt o “t es t i ng and s ampl i ng t he p h ys ic a l en v iro n m e n t.” W e n o te n o su c h lan g u a g e a p p e a rs in t he defi ni t i on of “r emedi al act i on. ” B ut D uPon t con t ends b e c a u se th e ter m s p re c e d in g “ m o n ito rin g ” d e sc rib e sp e c if ic act i ons t aken t o addr es s t he phy s i cal envi r onm en t af fec t ed by t he r el eas e of a haza r dous s ubs t ance , “moni t ori n g ” shoul d beD u P o n t als o c o n tra sts C E R C L A ’s u se o f “ m o n ito rin g ” w ith 11 u s e o f t h e s a me t e r m i n t h e Oi l P o l l u t i o n Ac t o f 1 9 9 0 , P u b

. L. N o . 1 0 1 -3 8 0 , § 1 0 0 1 , 1 0 4 S tat. 4 8 6 (1 9 9 0 ) , a s d isc u ss e d in U n ite d S t a t e s v . H

y u n d a i Me r c h . Ma r in e C o ., 172 F. 3d 1187 ( 9t h C i r . 1999)

. D uPont not es t hatt he O i l Pol l ut i on A ct i ncl ud e s a n e x p l i c i t p r o v i s i o n a u t h o r i z i n g t h e EPA t o r e c o v er cos t s t o “moni t or al l Feder al , St at e and pr i vat e act i ons t o r emove a di s char ge, ” s ee H

yundai , 172 F. 3d at1189- 90 (qu o ti ng 33 U

. S. C

. § 1321( c) ( 1) ( B ) ( i i ) ) , and cont ends C ongr es s w oul d have in c lu d e d sim ilar la n g u a g e in C E R C L A h a d it i n ten d e d to aut hor i ze r ecove r yof EP A over s i ght cost s. W e not e t hatt he l anguage D uPont quot es does not appea r i n t he O i l Pol l ut i on A ct i t s el f, b u t i s r at hercr os s - r efe r ence d fr om t he Feder al W at er P o llu tio n C o n tr o l A c t. See § § 1 3 2 1 ( c )

- ( e )

. M o r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y, i n i nt erpr et i ng t he O i l Poll u t i on A ctt o al l ow forr ecove r yof m o n ito ri n g c o s ts , H

yundai r el i es not onl y on t h e q u o te d l anguage above, but al s o on l anguage pr ovi di ng forr ecove r yof

“ c o s ts to p re v e n t, m in im iz e , o r m itig a te ” o il p o llu tio n . H yundai , 1 7 2 F .3 d a t 1 1 9 0 ( q u o ti n g 4 2 U .S .C . § 2 7 0 1 (3 1 )). T h is l anguage i s i dent i cal t o t he l anguage i n C E R C L A ’ s defi ni t i on of rem o v al act i on, w hi ch w e i nt erpr ett o encompas s over s i ght c o s ts

. See § 9601( 23) ( defi ni ng r emoval act i on t o i ncl ude a c tio n s n e c e ss a ry“ to p re v e n t, m in im ize , o r m iti g a te” d a m a g e to t he publ i c hea l t h, w el far e or t he envi r onm ent )

. I n anyevent , t he O i l Pol l ut i on A ctw as enac t ed t en y ear s aft er C E R C L A and cannotpr ovi de gui dance forC ongr es s ’ s i nt entw hen i t enac t ed 27 sim ilarly lim ited

. T h e g o v e rn m e n t c o n ten d s th e sta tu to ryru le 11CE RC L A. 28 o f c o n stru c tio n o n w h ich D u P o n t re lies

— re q u irin g th a t a g e n e ra l w o rd a ss o c iate d w ith o r f o llo w in g a se rie s o f

sp e c if ic w o rd s m u s t b e re a d in lig h t o f th e s p e c if

ic te rm s , s ee J

ar eck i v. G .D . S e a r le & C o ., 3 6 7 U .S . 3 0 3 , 3 0 7 (1 9 6 1 )— is in a p p lica b le he r e . W e a g r e e . Th e t e r m mo n i t o r i n g i n t h e d e f i ni t i on of “r emedi al act i o n ” i s not i nt ended a s one of t he enumer at ed s peci fi c act i ons i m m edi at el ypr ece di ng, but r at heras an ac t i on di s t i ncti n and of i t s el f, w hi ch i ncl udes s uper vi s i ng t he ac t i ons t aken a t t he l ocat i on of t he release. O ne s uch ac t i on i s t he “cl eanup of

r el ea sed hazar dous s ubs t ance s and as s oci at ed con t am i nated m at eri al s. ” 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 60 1(24). B ecause m o n ito rin g a c lea n u p n e c e ss a rily e n tails o v e rsig h t o f th e a c tiv ity that co n sti tutes the clea n u p , w e c o n clud e E P A o v ersigh t is a p art of t h e mon i t o r i n g a c t i v i t i e s r e f e r r e d t o i n t h e d e f

i n i t i o n of “r emedi al act i on. ” I n a statute desi gned t o i m pos e t he cos t s of cl eanup on t ho se r espon si ble for con t am i nati on , t he ter m “m on i t or” i s m ost n atural l yr ead i n t he def i ni t i ons of bot h “r emoval act i on” and

“ re m e d ial a c tio n ” a s e n c o m p a s sin g a g e n c yo v e rsig h t. B u t in r eac hi ng t hi s concl us i on, w e do noti m pl yt he t er m encompas s es o n ly a g e n c yo v e r s i g h t

. Ba s e d o n t h e l a n g u a g e o f t h e s t a t u t e , we bel i eve the moni t or i ng of r emoval and r emedi al act i ons i ncl udes t he i ns pect i on and s uper vi s i on of al l s t ages of a r es pons e ac t i on, fr om r i s k as s es s m ent , t o r es pons e pl anni ng, t o exec ut i on of t he r emoval and r emedi al act i ons . W e re cogni ze moni t or i ng t he29 p h y sic a l en v iro n m e n t at t h e s it e o f a re lea se is c ru c ial to defi ni ng t he r i s k and des i gni ng an appr opr i at e r es pons e, and our i nt erpr et at i on i n no w ayunder m i nes t he E PA ’ s aut hor i t yt o do s o . B. T he defi ni t i ons of bot h “r emoval act i on” and “ r emedi al a c tio n ” in c lu d e a c tio n s tak e n to p re v e n t o r m in im ize d a n g e r to t he publ i c and t o t he envi ron m entr es ul t i ng fr om a r el eas e of h a z a rd o u s s u b s ta n c e s . See § 9601( 23) ( “[R]e m oval act i on” in c lu d e s “ s u c h o th e r a c tio n s a s m a yb e n e c e ss a ryto p re v e n t, m i ni m i ze, or m i t i gat e dam age t o t he publ i c hea l t h or w el far e or t o the e nv i ronm ent, w hich m ay other w i se resul t from a rel ease or t hr eatof re l eas e. ”) ; § 9601( 24) ( “[R]e m edi al act i on” i ncl udes act i ons “t o pr eventor m i ni m i ze the r el eas e of haza r dous s ubs t an ce s s o t hatt heydo not m i gr at e t o caus e s ubs t ant i al dangert o pr es entor futur e publ i c hea l t h or w el far e ort he e n v iro n m e n t.”). T h e g o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s E P A o v e rsi g h t f its w i t hin t his aspect of both defini t i on s becau se t he v erypu rpose of E PA over s i ght i s t o pr event , m i ni m i ze, and mi t i gat e damage t hatcoul d ot her w i s e r es ul t fr o m a rel eas e of ha zar dous s u b s t a n c e s b ye n s u r i n g p r i v a t e p a r t y cl ea n u p s me e t CERCLA s t andar ds

. W e agr ee. M i ndfu l that C E R C L A del egat es s i gni fi cantaut hor i t yt o t he exec ut i ve br anch, act i ng t hr ough t he E P A , to f

ac il it ate c lean u p s an d to en fo rce stat u to ry re q u ire m e n ts, w e b e liev e E P A o v e rsig h t o f c lea n u p a c tiv iti e s is nece s s ar yt o ens ure “compl i ance w i t h s t andar ds ai m ed att he publ i c hea l t h, ” L o we , 1 1 8 F .3 d a t 4 0 3 , an d is a c c o rd in g lyC E R C L A § 1 01 (25), 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 60 1(25), provides: 12 T he t er m s “r espond” or“r es pons e” means r emove, r emoval , r emedy , and re m edi al act i on; [] al l s uch t er m s ( i ncl udi ng t he t er m s “r emoval ” and “r emedi al act i on”) i ncl ude enf or cement act i vi t i es r el at ed t her et o. 30 nece s s ar yt o pr ot ectt he publ i c hea l t h and w el far e under C E R C L A § 1 0 1 (23 ) an d § (24 ), § § 9 6 0 1 (23 ), (24 ). C.

“ R e m e d ial ac tio n ” a n d “ re m o v a l a c tio n s” a r e e x p re ss ly defi ned i n C E R C L A t o i ncl ude “e nfor cement act i vi t i es . ” 42 U

. S. C

. § 9601( 25)

. A pr i vat e par t y cl eanup i s i m pl ement ed by 12 r es pons i bl e pr i vat e par t i es , but i s s uper vi s ed t hr oughout byt he E P A

. See 40 C

. F. R

. § 300. 400 ( h) ( 2005) ( “EP A w i l l pr ovi de over s i ght w hen t he r es pons e i s pur s uantt o an EP A or d er or f e d e ra l co n se n t d e c re e .”); s ee al s o 42 U

. S. C

. §§ 9622( f) ( 3) , ( 5) (re q u irin g re v iew a n d c e rtific a tio n o f p riv a te p a rtyc lea n u p s); § 9611( c) ( 8) ( cont empl at i ng over s i ght of r emedi al act i vi t i es r e s ul t i ng fr om co ns e ntor de r s or s e t t l e ment a gr e e ment s )

. EPA over s i ght of cl eanup a ct i ons cons t i tut es “enf or cement act i vi t i es,” des i gned t o ens ur e pr i vat e par t ycompl i ance w i t h a c o n s e n t a g re e m e n t o r a u n ila te ra l a d m in is tr a tiv e o rd e r. See Low e, 118 F. 3d at403 ( fi ndi n g E PA over s i ght i s an “i nher ent and necessarye n f

o rc em ent el em ent of pri vate partyres po nse a c tio n ” ); A t l

. R i chf

i eldC o. , 98 F. 3d at570 ( “[M ] oni t or i ng or over s i ght o f a pr i vat e par t yr emedi al act i on t o det er m i neT he governm entcont ends C ongres s w as w el l aw ar e t he 13 E PA vi ew ed over si ght of r es pons i bl e par t ycl eanups as an “enf or cement act i vi t y ” w hen i t added t hi s t er m t o t he def i ni t i ons o f “ rem o v al a cti o n ” an d “re m ed ial ac ti o n . ” D u ri n g C o n g ress’s c on s i de r a t i on of

t he 19 86 a mend ment s to CE RC LA , t he EPA su b m itt e d in f

o rm a tio n to th e h e a rin g re c o rd th a t p lain ly id e n tifie d re sp o n sib le p a rtyo v e rsig h t as a n e n f o rc e m e n t ac tiv ity an d co s t. S ee R eau t ho ri zat i on of Superf

un d: H eari ngs bef

ore t he H ous e Subcom m i t t ee on W at er R es our ces of

t he C om m i t t ee on P ubl i c W

or ks , 9 9 th C o n g . 6 6 7 (19 8 5 ).

31 w het her t he act i on compl i es w i t h a cons ent decr ee and the pr ovi s i ons of C E R C L A is e n for cement act i vi t yr el at ed t o a rem ed ial ac ti o n , an d there fo re, i s a re sp o n se u n d er § 1 0 1 (25 ). ”). D u P o n t ar g u e s “ e n f

o rc e m e n t a c tiv iti e s” re f e rs o n lyto s peci fi c enf

or cement act i ons t aken t o compel compl i ance w hen a p r i v a t e p a r t y f

a i l s t o p e r f

o r m a r e s p o n s e a c t i o n s a t i s f a c t o r i l y. B ut t he governm entcont ends t he t er m encompas s es act i vi t i es de s i gn e d t o e va l uate co mpl i a nc e , a nd t he r e fo r e i nc l ud e s EPA o v e rsig h t. W e b e liev e “ e n f o rc e m e n t a c tiv iti e s” in c lu d e a ll 13 as p ec ts of ens ur i ng C E R C L A compl i ance , fr om m oni t or i ng whe t h e r a p r i v a t e p a r t yi s i n c o mpl i a n c e wi t h CERCLA stan d ard s to b ri n g ing a sp ec ifi c e n fo rce m en t acti o n w h ere c o m p lia n c e is la c k i n g . See O ffi ce of Sol i d W as t e and E m e rg e n c yR e s p o n s e , U .S . E P A , G ui dance on EP A O ver s ight of R em edi alD es igns and R em edi alA cti ons P er f or m ed by P ot ent i al l

y Respons i bl e Part i es , EPA/ 5 4 0 / G- 9 0 / 0 0 1 , OSW ER32 D ire c tiv e 9 3 5 5 .5 -0 1 (A p r. 1 , 1 9 9 0 ) (c h a ra c ter izin g p riv a te p a rty cl eanups as “enf

or cem en t le ad cl eanups ” and pr ovi di ng for en fo rce m en t a ct i vi t i es t o b o th ev alua te an d co m p el co m p li an ce ). W e c o n c l u d e E P A o v e r s i g h t i s a n “ e n f o r c e m e n t a c t i v i t y” encompas s ed byt he def i ni t i ons of “r emedi al act i on” and

“ re m o v a l a c tio n .” D. C E R C L A § 1 0 7 ’s a u th o riz a tio n to re c o v e r “ a ll” governm entcos t s o f “ m o n it o ri n g , ” “ en fo rce m en t a ct i vi t i es , ” and a n y o th e r a c tio n “ n e c e ss a ryto p re v e n t, m in im ize , o r m iti g a te d a m a g e to th e p u b lic h e a lth o r w e lf a re o r to th e e n v ir o n m e n t,” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 7 (a) (C E R C L A ’s ge n era l cos t r ec o v ery pr ovi s i o n ), d em o n str ates tha t C o n g ress inten d ed the governm ent t o rec overcos t s i ncur r ed i n over s eei ng and moni t or i ng t he cl eanup a ct i ons of r es pons i bl e pr i vat e par t i es . T hi s concl us i on co m p o rt s w ith the o v era ll stru cture o f C E R C L A an d the E P A ’s c e n tra l ro le in C E R C L A ’s e n f o rc e m e n t. T h e E P A is re q u ire d to m anage C E R C L A cl eanups fr om begi nni ng t o end, and has a u th o ri z a tio n to re c o v e r t h e c o s ts o f d o in g s o . Id

. D u P o n t’ s nar r ow cons t r uct i on of § 107 m i ght di s cour age the EP A fr om s uper vi s i ng a cr i t i cal s t ep i n t he cl eanup pr oces s

— t he ac t ual re m o v a l a n d re m e d ial a c tiv ity c o n d u c ted b yre sp o n sib le p riv a te par t i es . A m or e natur al r eadi ng of C E R C L A § 107 per m i t s t he E PA t o r ecove r t he cos t s as s oci at ed w i t h over s eei ng everys t age of a c l eanup a ct i on, i ncl uding thatof t he s i t e cl eanup i t s el f, w h e t h e r t h a t a c t i o n i s p e r f o r me d b y t h e g o v e r n me n t or by re s p o n s ib le p ri v a te p a rt ie s . S e e L o we , 118 F. 3d at403C E R C L A § 1 0 4 (a )(1 ), 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 4 (a )(1 ), p ro v id e s in 14 p a rt: W h e n e v e r (A ) a n yh a z a rd o u s s u b sta n c e is r el eas ed ort her e i s a s ubs t ant i al t hr ea t o f s uch a rel ease i nto t he en vir on m e n t, o r ( B ) there i s a r el eas e orsu b s t ant i al t hr eatof r el eas e i nt o t he envi r onm entof anypol l ut ant o r cont ami nant w hi ch may pr es entan i m m i nentand s ubs t ant i al danger to the publ i c hea l t h or w el far e, t he Pr es i denti s aut hor i zed t o act , cons i s t ent w i t h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypla n, t o r emove or ar r ange fort he r emoval of, and pr ovi de forr eme d i al act ion r el at i ng t o s uch haz ar dous s ubs t ance , pol l ut ant , or cont ami nant at any t i m e (i ncl udi ng i t s r emoval fr om any cont ami nat ed natur al reso u rce ), o r t ak e a n yo ther res p o n se m ea su re cons i s t entw i t h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an w hi ch t he Pr es i dentdeem s nece s s ar yt o pr ot ect

33 ( “G over nm entm oni t or i ng or o v er s i ght i s an i nher entand necessaryenfo rcem ent el em ent of pri vate partyres po nse ac ti o n . ”). E. R el y i ng on Ro h m & Haas , 2 F. 3d at1277- 78, D uPont c o n t e n d s a l l o wi n g o v e r s i g h t c o s t r e c o v e r y u n d e r CE RC L A § 1 0 7 ren d ers o ther s ta tu toryp rov isi o n s su p erf luo u s. In par t i cul ar , D uPont ci t es C E R C L A § 104( a) ( 1) and § 14th e p u b lic h e a lth o r w e lf a re o r th e e n v iro n m e n t. W hen t he Pr es i den t det er m i nes t hats uch ac t i on w i l l be done pr oper l yand pr om pt l ybyt he ow ner or oper at or of t he fa ci l i t yor ves s el or by anyot her r es pons i bl e par t y , t he Pr es i dentm ay all ow s uch per s on t o carr yout the act i on, conductt he re m e d ial in v e stig a tio n , o r c o n d u c t th e f e a sib ili ty s t udyi n acc or dance w i t h s ect i on 9622 of t hi s t i t l e. N o r emedi al i nves t i gat i on or fea sibi l i t ys t udy ( R I / FS) s hal l be author i zed e xcepton a d e ter m in a tio n b yth e P re sid e n t th a t th e p a rtyis qual i fi ed t o conduct t he R I / FS and onl y if t he P re s id en t con tr ac ts w ith o r arran g es f o r a q u a lifie d p e rso n to a ss ist th e P re sid e n t in over s ee ing and r evi ew i ng t he conduc t of s uch R I/F S a n d if

th e re sp o n sib le p a rtya g re e s to r ei m bur s e t he Fund foranycos t i ncur r ed byt he Pr es i dentunder , or i n connec t i on w i t h, t he o v e rs ig h t c o n tr a c t o r a rr a n g e m e n t. . . . C E R C L A § 1 11 (c) (8) , 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 61 1(c) (8) , provides: 15 U se s o f

th e F u n d u n d e r su b se c tio n (a ) o f th is s ect i on i ncl ude—

. . . T he cost s of cont r act s or ar r angement s ent er ed in to u n d e r se c tio n 9 6 0 4 ( a )(1 ) o f th is titl e to over s ee a nd r evi ew t he conduc t of r emedi al

34 111( c) ( 8)

. Sect i on 104 addr es s es gover nm entcl eanup a ct i ons

15i nves t i gat i ons and fe as i bi l i t ystudi es under t aken b y p e rso n s o th e r th a n th e P re sid e n t an d th e c o sts of appr opr i ate Feder al and St at e over s i ght of r emedi al act i vi t i es atN at i onal Pr i or i t i es L i s t s i t es resul t i ng fr om cons entor der s or s et t l ement agreem ents

. See sup ra n o te 14 fo r t ex t of 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 4 (a)(1). 16 35 and s et tl em en ts, w h il e § 111 addr es s es Super fund di s bur s ement s . §§ 9604( a) ( 1) , 96 1 1 (c) ( 8)

. W e bel i eve our i nt erpr et at i on does not r endert hes e pr ovi s i ons s uper fl u ous or r edundantbut r at herevi dence s C ongr es s ’ s i nt entt o aut ho ri ze re im b u rse m e n t f

o r a ll cle a n u p c o sts , inc lu d in g o v e rsig h t. N onet hel es s , w e addr es s D uPont ’ s clai m s and conc l ude C E R C L A § 104 and § 111 onl ys t r engt hen ouri nt erpr et at i on of § 107. C o n g re ss a m e n d e d § 1 0 4 in 1 9 8 6 to a u th o riz e th e E P A to ent eri nt o s et t l ement s w i t h pr i vat e par t i es forpr i vat e cl eanup a c tio n s . See 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 4 (a)(1). S ec ti o n 1 0 4 (a)(1) in p art 16 pr ovi des t hat any s et t l ement agr eement or cons ent orde r a u th o riz in g a p riv a te p a rty re m e d ial inv e stig a tio n o r f e a sib ili ty s t udym us t i ncl ude r ei m bur s ement of gover nm entexpens es i ncu rr ed in ove rs eei ng t hat s t ud y . S pecifi cal l y , § 1 04 al l o w s a r es pons i bl e pr i vat e par t y t o conduct a re m edi al i nves t i gat i on or f e a sib ili tystu d y(R I/F S ) in a c c o rd a n c e w ith § 1 2 2 (p e rta in in g to sett le m ent s ) i f, but onl yi f, “t he Pr es i dentcont r act s w i t h or36 a rra n g e s f

o r a q u a lifie d p e rso n to a ss ist th e P re sid e n t in o v e r s e e in g a n d re v iew in g th e c o n d u c t o f su c h R I/F S ,” a n d “ if t he respon si ble par t yagrees t o r ei m bu rs e t he F un d fo r anycost i ncur r ed byt he Pr es i dentunder , o r in connec t i on w i t h, t he o v e rsig h t co n tra c t o r a rra n g e m e n t.” D u P o n t c o n te n d s th is d ir ec ti v e w o u ld b e u n n e ce ssary if o v ersigh t cos ts w ere r ecove r abl e as “r es pons e cos t s ” i n a l i abi l i t y act i on under§ 107. T he governm entr es ponds t hatt he t w o s ect i ons aut hor i ze di s t i nctfor m s of cos t r ecove r y

— § 104 does not r ender§ 107( a) s uper fl uous beca us e t he for m ercompel s an agr eement t o pay over s i ght cos t s i n advanc e of a s et t l ement , w hi l e t he l at t er m er el y i m pos es gener al l i abi l i t y on al l r es pons i bl e par t i es , w ho w ill h a v e to p a y th o se c o sts if th e g o v e rn m e n t o r a n o th e r p a rty pur s ues a cos t r ecove r yact i on aft ert he cl eanup. W e a g ree w ith the g o v ern m en t. U s e o f th e term “over s i ght ” i n § 104 nei t hercompel s nor i m pl i es t he conc l us i on t hat C on gress i ntended t o ex cl ud e t hat t erm from t he co st recoveryprovis i on of § 10 7. O u r read i ng of § 10 7 m akes a p a rtyliab le f

o r o v e rsig h t c o sts b u t d o e s n o t c o m p e l th e p a rtyto agr ee i n advanc e t o pays uch cos t s. T h i s i s t he func t i on of § 104, w hi ch r equires thatas par t of a s et t l ement agr eement or cons entor der , a r es pons i bl e par t ym us t agr ee i n advanc e t o pay c o s ts in c u rr e d in o v e rs e e in g a n R I/ F S

. C ongr es s enac t ed t he 1986 amendm ent s , w hi ch adde d § 104( a) ’ s over s i ght l angu age, t o fur t herC E R C L A ’ s gener al p o lic yo f e n c o u ra g in g s e ttle m e n t. See Al can Al um i num C or p. , 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 4 (“ C o n g re ss a m e n d e d C E R C L A b e c a u se it37 w a n ted to en co u rag e e arlysett lem en t. ”). L eg isl ati v e h ist o ry su g g e sts C o n g re ss w a s c o n c e rn e d th e E P A m ig h t n o t p u rsu e its o v e r s ig h t c o s ts in s e tt le m e n t n e g o ti a ti o n s , l e a d in g to f is c a l s tra in o n th e S u p e rf

u n d

. See S

. R e p . N o . 9 9 -1 1 a t 3 9 (1 9 8 5 ). In th is c o n te x t, in c lu sio n o f

th e ter m “ o v e rsig h t” in § 1 0 4 su g g e sts C ongr es s i nt ended t o g u ard t he s ol vencyof t he Super fund by eas i ng t he EP A ’ s r ecove r yof over s i ght cos t s , al r eadyaut hor i zed by§ 107, i n s et t l ement cont ext s . B y r equi r i ng an expr es s , pr i or a g re e m e n t f

o r p a y m e n t o f c e rta in o v e rsig h t co sts w h e re p riv a te par t i es have ne got i at ed t o under t ake c l eanup a cti v it ie s , § 104 al l evi at es t he E PA ’ s bur den i n l i t i gat i ng cos t r ecove r yaft ert he f a c t. T h e g o v ern m en t co n tend s D uPont ’ s contrary i nt erpr et at i on cr eat es a di s i ncent i ve fors ett l ement , confl i ct i ng w ith f u n d a m e n ta l C E R C L A p o lic y . See 42 U

. S. C

. § 9622( a) ( encour agi ng s et t l ement s “i n or d er to e xpedi t e ef fec t i ve r emedi al act i ons and mi ni m i ze l i t i gat i on”)

. W e agr ee. W er e t he E PA r equi r ed t o r ecov er o ver s i ght cos t s fr om s et t l i ng par t i es under§ 104, but pr ohi bi t ed fr om r ecove r i ng cos t s fr om nons et t l i ng par t i es , r es pons i bl e par t i es m i ght avoi d s et t l ement s o as t o avoi d pay i ng s uch cos t s . A bs ent t extual s uppor t , w e dec l i ne to ac ce p t an in terpretati o n co n tr aryto C E R C L A ’s st atuto ry l ang uag e and obj ect i ves. D uPon t a l s o c i t e s CERCLA § 1 1 1 a s e v i d e n c e t h at ov ers i gh t cost s ar e no t enco m p assed by t he ter m “res po nse c ost s. ” S ect i on 11 1 gov erns S up erfund dis bu rs em ents t o sta te an d fede r al gover nm ent s . U nder t he i nt r oduct or y headi ng “In38 gener al , ” § 111( a) br oadl yaut hor i zes Super fund paym entof cer t ai n “governm ent al r es pons e cos t s . ” § 9 611( a) ( 1)

. Sect i on 111( c) , i n t ur n, pr ovi des t hatacc ept abl e “us es of t he Fund under su b se c tio n (a ) o f

th is s e c tio n in c lu d e ” a h o st o f sp e c if ic gover nm entact i ons , m anyof w hi ch ar e encom p ass ed byt he pr ece di ng and m or e gener al defi ni t i on of “r es pons e cos t s . ” See § 9611( c) ( 1) –( 14)

. Sect i on 111( c) ( 8) al l ow s di s bur s ement fr om th e S u p e rf

u n d o f “ th e c o sts o f

a p p ro p ria te F e d e ra l an d S tate over s i ght of r emedi al act i vi t i es . . . r es ul t i ng fr om cons ent or der s or s et t lem entagr eement s . ” § 9611( c) ( 8)

. D uPont cont ends C ongr es s w oul d not have e xpr es s l ypr ovi ded for Super fund paym entof “o v ers i ght ” cos t s i n § 111( c) ( 8) i f s uch cos t s w er e consi der ed “r es pons e cost s ” undert he pr ece di ng and m o re g en era l l an g u ag e o f § 1 1 1 (a). W e fi nd t hi s ar gum entunconvi nci ng. A s t he governm ent expl ai n s , s ubs ect i on 111( c) ( 8) w as not added t o al l ow for re c o v e ry o f

c o s ts n o t o th e rw is e re c o v e ra b le a s “ re s p o n s e c o s ts .” R at her , i t w as added t o ens ur e t hat t he s t at es , i n addi t i on t o t he E P A , c o u ld re c o v e r o v e rs ig h t c o s ts

. See 1 3 0 C o ng. R ec. H 2 3 5 5 6 (1 9 8 4 ). M o re o v e r, su b se c tio n 1 1 1 (c )(8 ) is n o t alo n e in o v erlap p ing w ith the m o re g en era l pro v isi o n s o f su b sec ti o n (a). O t herpr ovi s i ons of s ubs ect i on 111( c) , cl ear l y encompas s ed by th e te rm “ re s p o n s e c o s t,” o v e rl a p a s w e ll. S e e , e .g ., 4 2 U. S

. C. § 9 6 1 1 ( c ) ( 3 ) ( a u t h o r i z i n g u s e o f t h e S u p e r f

u n d t o “ i d e n t i f

y, i nv est i gate, and t ake en forcem ent and ab at em ent act i on against r el eas es of haza r dous s ubs t ance s , ” act i ons cl ear l yembra ced by “r es pons e cos t s ”)

. I n eac h of t hes e cas es , t he over l ay does notW e r e a c h o u r c o n c l u s i o n b a s e d o n t h e l a n g u a g e of t he 17 stat u te. B u t th e g o v ern m en t con tend s, an d w e a g ree , the E P A ’s r e a s o n a b le c o n stru c tio n o f § 1 0 4 (a )(1 ) a n d § 1 1 1 (c )(8 ) is ent i t l ed t o s om e meas ur e of Skidm ore d e f e re n c e . See U

ni t ed St at es v. Mead C or

p. , 533 U

. S. 218, 234- 35 ( 2001) ( expl ai ni ng Ski dm o re v. Sw i

f t& Co. , 323 U

. S. 134 ( 1944) )

. A l t hough t he m or e def

er en ti al doct r i ne of Ch e v r o n , U. S

. A. , I n c . v . NRDC, I nc. , 467 U

. S. 837 ( 1984) , i s i nappl i cabl e, t he “w el l

- r eas oned 39 demonst r at e t hatt he s peci fi ed ac t i ons ar e out side o f t he s cope o f other w i se recoverabl e “res po nse cost s. ” R at her, i t d e m o n stra tes th a t th e f

u n c tio n o f

su b se c tio n s (c )(1 )– (1 4 ) is to il lustrat e a n d ex p lai n the m o re g en era l t erm s o f su b sec ti o n (a). W e a re n o t convi nced § 111 be ar s on our i nt erpr et at i on of the cost re c o v e ryprovis i on of § 10 7. T o the ext ent i t do es, the sect i on s t r engt hens our r eadi ng t hatgover nm entover s i ght cos t s ar e r ecove r abl e. T he s ect i on pr ovi des , on i t s fac e, t hatt he “r es pons e cos t s ” r ecove r abl e fr om t he Super fund “i ncl ude” the “cos t s of appr opr i at e Feder al and s t at e ove rsi g ht

. ” §§ 9 6 1 1 (c)(1), ( 8 ). T h a t § 1 0 4 a n d § 1 1 1 sp e c if yre c o v e ryo f

o v e rsig h t co sts d o e s n o t m e a n th e g o v e rn m e n t is un a b le to re c o v e r th o se c o sts u n d e r § 1 0 7 . R a th e r, itd e m o n stra tes C o n g re ss ’s in ten t in am en d ing C E R C L A to p arti cu lar ize the g en era l cos t r ec o v ery pr ovi s i ons of § 107 bys peci fy i ng t hatt he EP A s houl d r ecove r cost s befo rehand i n set t l em ent act i on s, and t o en sure t hat s t at es, in a d d iti o n to th e E P A , rec o v e r o v e rsig h t c o sts

. W ith th is in 17vi ew s of t he age nci es i m pl ement i ng a s t atut e cons t i t ut e a body of ex p erie nce a nd i nfor m ed j udgm entt o w hi ch cour t s and l i t i gant s m ay pr oper l y r es or t forgui dance

. ” Mead , 533 U

. S. at 227 (cit ati ons om i t t ed)

. W i t h r es pectt o t he purpos es of § 104( a ) ( 1 ) a n d § 1 1 1 ( c ) ( 8 ) , t h e p e r s u a s i v e n e s s o f t he gover nm ent ’ s pos i t i on r es t s on t he “s peci al i zed e xper i ence ” t he E P A b ri n g s to b e a r o n th e is s u e o f C E R C L A e n f

o rc e m e n t. I

d. at235. 40 m i nd, w e bel i eve the s peci fi c r efe r ence s t o r ec o v ery cos t s i n § 104 and § 111 r efl ectC ongr es s ’ s i nt entt o aut hor i ze br oadl yt he r ecove r yof gover nm entover s i ght cos t s i ncur r ed i n connec t i on w ith a c lea n u p a c tio n . R a th e r th a n e v id e n c in g a n in ten t to f o re c lo se re c o v e ryo f

th e se c o sts , th e sta tu te a p p e a rs d e sig n e d to g u a ra n tee it. F. F in a lly , w e n o te r e c o v e ryo f th e E P A ’s o v e rsig h t co sts co m p o rt s w ith C E R C L A ’s fu n cti o n al objecti v es. T h e struc ture and purpos es of C E R C L A l end s u p p o rt to ourr eadi ng of t he p lai n m ea n ing o f th e stat u te’s tex t. T h e clea n u p o f th e N ew p o rt S u p erfund s i t e w as a mass i ve under t aki ng, i nvol vi ng a compre hens i ve des i gn phas e, a t echn ical l ychal l engi ng cons t r uct i on phas e, and upw ar d of $35 m i l l i o n in cl eanup expendi t ur es byD uPont

. W or ki ng cooper at i vel yw i t h D uPont and D el aw ar e s t at e author i t i es , t he EP A pr ovi ded desi gn i nput and t echni cal over s i ght on m att ers a s di s par at e as s el ect i ng gr oundw at erbar r i ert echnol ogi es , eval uat i ng so nardat a,41 s peci fy i ng s eed mi xt ur es for l andfi l l cover , des i gni ng r emedi al caps fo r i nst al l at i on on st eep landfil l sl op es, res t ori ng w et l and s, an d rev i ew i ng pr oj ectheal t h and s afe t ypr ot ocol s . I n t he cl eanup pha s e, t he agency ’ s act i vi t i es i ncl uded coor di nat i ng and m on i t ori ng cert ai n d redgi ng op erat i on s, coll ect i ng soi l sam ples , s uperv i s i n g l a n d f

i l l exca vat i on, i ns pect i ng w et l and r emedi at i on, m oni t or i ng a per m eabl e r eac t i ve barr i erw al l , and appr ovi ng D u P o n t’ s re q u e sts to m o d if yth e c lea n u p p lan in re sp o n se to unfor s een c ondi t i ons . T he EP A al s o coor di nat ed t he as s i s t ance of t h e U

. S. A r m yC orps of Engi neer s and t he U

. S. Fi s h and W il d l i fe Ser vi ce, among ot her s , i n pr oj ectm at t er s i m pl i cat i ng their area s o f e x p e rt ise

. T h e E P A ’s t ec h n ical an d su p erv isory exper t i s e w as a keyel ement i n t he s ucce s s ful cl eanup of t he N e w p o rt S u p e rf

u n d site , sh o w in g a g e n c yo v e rsig h t is c e n tra l to e f f e c t i v e r e me d i a l a c t i o n u n d e r CE RC L A. D uP on t and i t s am i cus s uppor t er s r es pond t hatal l ow i ng t he governm entt o r ecove r over s i ght cost s encour ages inef ficien cy in C E R C L A e n fo rce m en t, cit ing the E P A ’s al l egedl yexce s s i ve over s i ght expendi t ur es and i t s “di s m al t r ack re c o rd o f S u p e rf u n d m ism a n a g e m e n t. ” If val i d, thes e a rg u m e n ts a r e b e t t e r d i r e c t e d t o war d Con g r e s s . I n a n ye v e n t , CERCLA i t s el f addr es s es t he purpor t ed pr obl em. T h e stat ut e l i m i t s t he recoveryof respon se cost s, i ncludi ng ov ers i gh t cost s, t o those t hatar e “ne ces s ar y ” and “ not i ncons i s t entw it h t he nat i onal cont i ngencypl an. ” See 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 0 7 (a)(4)(A )–(B ).42 V I. C i t i ng t he E P A ’ s “exc es s i ve cos t s and l ack of accou ntabi l i t yt o C o n g res s, ” D uP on t ’s am i ci c o n ten d th a t if o v e rsig h t c o sts a re re c o v e ra b le, re sp o n sib le p a rties w ill b e h e ld un fai rl yl i able for t he “w ast e an d ineffi ci ency ” of E P A pract i ces. W e add res s t his argum ent byrevi ew i ng t he li m i t s on co st r ecove r ypr ovi ded byt he N at i onal C ont i ngencyPl an a nd by d e tailin g th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f a n d sta n d a rd o f re v iew a p p lica b le t o a cl a i m t h a t c o s t s a r e i n c o n s i s t e n t wi t h t h e p l a n a nd acc or di ngl y , unr ecove r abl e. Th e Nat i o n a l Con t i n g e n c y Pl a n l i mi t s t h e s c o p e and n a tu re o f a c ti v iti e s th e E P A is a u th o riz e d to c h a rg e to re s p o n s ib le p a rt ie s . A s d is c u s s e d in P a rt IV . B

. supra , t he pl an s e ts f o rt h , in ter a lia , “met hods and cr i t er i a fordet er m i ni ng t he appr opr i at e ext entof r emoval , r emedy , and ot her m eas ur es , ” 42 U

. S. C

. § 9605( a) ( 3 ), and “m eans of as s ur i ng t hatr emedi al act i on m easures are cost -effect i ve, ” § 960 5(a) (7)

. T he p l an als o re q u ir e s a ll r e c o v e ra b le c o s ts to b e d o c u m e n te d

. See 4 0 C. F

. R. § 3 0 0 .1 6 0 (a )( 1 ) ( 2 0 0 5 ). C E R C L A ’s c o s t r e c o v e ry p ro v is io n , § 9 6 0 7 (a )(4 )(A )– (B ), re q u ire s re sp o n sib le p a rties to p a ya ll co sts t hatar e noti ncons i s t entw i t h t h e pl an. T hi s s t andar d ens ur es t hatcos t s w i l l onl ybe r ecove r abl e i f t heyr es ul t fr om compl i ance w i t h t he pl an’ s m et hods and cr i t er i a fordet er m i ni ng appr opr i at e, co st- eff

ect i ve r es pons e ac t i ons . A ccor di ngl y , t he req u ir em en t that resp o n sible p arti es pa y o n lytho se c o sts t h at are not i ncons i s t entw i t h t he N at i onal C ont i ngencyPl an l i m i t s t he E P A ’s dis cret i on i n recov eri ng ov ers i gh t cost s.43 I n U n itedS ta tes v . N

o rth e a st P h a rm a c e u tica l & C h e m ic a l C o ., th e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e E ig h th C irc u it h e ld r es pons e cos t s not i ncons i s t entw i t h t h e N at i onal C ont i ngency P lan a re c o n clus ivelyp resu m ed rea so n ab le an d there fo re r ecove r abl e, and r es pons i bl e par t i es have t he bur den of pr ovi ng c e rt a in c o s ts a re in c o n s is te n t a n d n o t r e c o v e ra b le

. See 810 F. 2d 7 2 6 , 7 4 7 -48 (8th C ir

. 1 9 8 6 ). T h e c o u rtfu rt h er h eld th e a rbit rary and capr i ci ous s t andar d i s t he prope r m eas ur e of r evi ew fort he E PA ’ s act i ons i n i ncur r i ng r es p o n se cost s , i ncl udi ng over s i ght c o s ts

. Id. ; s ee als o M i nn esot a v. Kalm an W

. A bram s Met als , In c ., 155 F. 3d 1019, 1024 ( 8t h C i r . 1998)

. O t hercour t s of ap p eal s have a dopt ed t hi s bur den of pr oof and s t andar d of re v ie w . See W

as h. St at e D ep’ tof Trans p. v. W as h. N at ur alG as C o ., 5 9 F .3 d 7 9 3 , 8 0 2 (9 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ); U ni t ed St at es v. H

ar dage, 9 8 2 F .2 d 1 4 3 6 , 1 4 4 2 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 2 ); U ni t ed S t at es v. A z ko C o a tin gs o

f A m ., In c ., 9 4 9 F

. 2 d 1 4 0 9 , 1 4 2 4 (6th C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ). W e agr ee EPA r es pons e cos t s are pr es um ed cons i s t ent w ith th e N a tio n a l C o n tin g e n c yP lan u n les s a re sp o n sib le p a rty ov ercom es t his presum pti on by est abli shi ng t he E P A ’s res po nse act i on gi vi ng r i s e t o t he cos t s i s i ncons ist en t w i t h t he N at i onal C o n tin g e n c yP la n . S e e N e . P h a r m ., 8 1 0 F

. 2 d a t 74 7

. By aut hor i zi ng t he gover nm ent ’ s r ecove r yof al l r es pons e cos t s not i n c o n s i s t e n t wi t h t h e Nat i o n a l Con t i n g e n c yPl a n , CERCLA c re a tes a n e x c e p tio n f

o r c o sts th a t are in c o n s is te n t. See 42 U

. S. C

. § 9607( a) ( 4) ( A ) –( B )

. R es pons i bl e par t i es

— t he par t i es cl ai m i ng t he benef

i t of t hi s s t atut or y exce pt i on— carry the bur den of pr ovi ng t hat cer t ai n cos t s fal l w i t hi n t he e x cept i on.44 S e e N e . P h a r m ., 810 F. 2d at747; see als o U nit ed S t ates v. F i rst C i t y N at

. B ank , 3 8 6 U

. S

. 3 6 1 , 3 6 6 (19 6 7 ). T o e sta b lish a n E P A re sp o n se a c tio n is i n c o n sis ten t w ith t he N at i onal C ont i ngencyPl an, a r es pons i bl e par t ym us t s how t he E P A act ed arbi t r ar i l yand ca pr i ci ous l yi n choos i ng t he re sp o n se a c ti o n . A s th e sta tu te itse lf p ro v id e s, a “ c o u rt sh a ll upho l d t h e [ EPA’ s ] d e c i s i o n i n s e l e c t i n g t h e r e s p o n s e a ct i on unl es s t he obj ect i ng par t ycan de m ons t r at e, on th e a d mi n i s tr at i ve r ecor d, t hatt he dec i s i on w as arbi t r ar yand ca pr ici o us or o therw ise n o t in ac co rda n ce w ith law

. ” 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 9 6 1 3 (j )(2). W e bel i eve “det er m i ni ng t he appr opr i at e r emoval and r emedi al act i on i nvol ves s peci al i zed know l edge a nd exper t i s e, ” and “ t he cho i c e o f

a p a r t i c u l a r c l e a n u p me t h o d i s a ma t t e r wi t h i n t he di s cr et i on of t he EP A

. ” N e . P h a r m ., 810 F. 2d at748. D uPont h a s n o t es tab lish e d a rb itrar y o r ca p ric io u s g o v e rn m e n t a c tio n in t a k i n g r e s p o n s e a c t i o n s t h a t l e d t o o v e r s i g h t c o s t s . A c c o r d i n g l y, w e “gi ve def

er ence t o t he EP A ’ s choi ce of r es pons e ac t i on and w ill n o t s u b s titu te o u r o w n ju d g m e n t f o r t h a t o f

th e E P A .” H a r d a g e , 982 F. 2d at1442. O ur di s sen ti ng col l eague s cont end t her e w i l l be “no natur al l i m i t t o t he t ype and s cope of act i vi t i es t hatt he EP A can char ge t o a r es pons i bl e par t y , ” i n par t beca us e t he arbi t r ar yand c a p ric io u s s tan d a rd “ is a d if f icu lt o n e f

o r re sp o n sib le p a rties to m eet

. ” D i s s ent at 7 6. W e ca nnot agr ee. Set for t h i n t he A dm i ni s t r at i ve Pr oced ur e A ct , 5 U

. S. C

. § 706( 2) ( A ) , t he arbi t r ar yand ca pr i ci ous s t andar d is w el l es t abl i s hed as t he a p p ro p ri a te s t a n d a rd f

o r m o s t a g e n c ya c tio n . S e e C iti ze n s to45 P r es er ve O ver t on P ar k v. V ol pe , 4 0 1 U

. S

. 4 0 2 , 4 1 3 -14 (19 7 1 ). W hi l e def

er ent i al t o agenc y deci s i on m aki ng, “t he arbi t r ar yand c a p ric io u s s tan d a rd

. . . co n tem p la tes a se a rc h in g ‘in q u iryin to t he fa ct s ’ i n or dert o det er m i ne ‘ w het hert he dec i s i on w as bas ed on a cons i der at i on of t he r el evantfac t or s and w het hert her e has been a cl ear er r or of j udgm ent

. ’ ” I n d u s . Uni o n Dep 'tv . API, 448 U

. S. 607, 705 ( 1980) ( ci t i ng C i t izens t o P reser ve O vert on P ark , 401 U

. S. at416)

. W e s ee no mer i t i n t he ar gum entt hatj udi ci al rev iew u n d er this st an d ard p rov ides n o c h ec k o n the E P A ’s r ecove r yof over s i ght cos t s . N or do w e un der s t and our d iss e n tin g c o llea g u e s’ c o n c e rn th a t th e E P A w ill b e a b le “ to rou ti n elyb il l r es p o n sible p arti es f o r co sts t h at are u n n ec essa ry or exce s s i ve, but do not r i s e t o t he l evel of ‘ arbi t r ar yand capr i ci ous . ’ ” D i s s entat76 n. 25. C os t s t hat ar e unnece s s ar yand ex ce ssive in li g h t o f the N ati o n al C o n ti n g en cy P lan a re a rbit rary and ca pr i ci ous and s houl d be di s al l ow ed under t hi s s t andar d of re v ie w . S e e Ka lm a n W . A b r a m s Me ta ls , In c ., 155 F. 3d at1025 ( hol di ng cer t ai n r es pons e cos t s i ncons i s t entw i t h t he N ati onal C ont i ngencyPl an undert he arbi t r ar y and capr i ci ous s t andar d of re v iew ); W

a s h . N a tu r a l G a s C o ., 5 9 F .3 d a t 8 0 5 (s a m e ).

V II. I n l i g h t o f

t h e p l a i n me a n i ng of t he r e l e v a n t CERCLA pr ovi s i on s, t he over al l s t atut or yfr amew or k, t he func t i onal b en ef it s o f a g en cy o v ersigh t, an d th e o v era rch ing stat u tory obj ect i v e o f

e n s u r i n g t h a t t h o s e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r e n v i r o n me n t al har m ar e “t agged” w i t h “t he cos t of t hei r act i ons , ” B es t f oods , 524 U

. S. at56 ( quot i ng le gi s l at i ve hi s t or y ) , w e conc l ude46 C E R C L A § 1 0 7 a u th o riz e s th e U n ited S tate s to re c o v e r c o sts i ncur r ed i n over s eei n g p ri vat e par t yr emoval and r emedi al act i ons t hatar e noti ncons i s t entw i t h t he N at i onal C ont i ngency Pl an. W e w i l l over r ul e R ohm & H aas , r ever s e t he or derof t he D i s t r i ctC our t , and r emand for ent r y of j udgm enti n favorof t he U nit ed S t at es.

R O T H , C irc u it Ju d g e , co n c u rrin g in p a rt: I j oi n t he maj or i t yi n t he r es ul t i t r eac hes and, fort he m o st p a rt, in th e re a so n s fo r w h ich it d o e s so . I w rite s e p a ra tely f o r th e lim ited p u rp o se o f e x p re ss in g m y c o n c e rn w ith its appl i cat i on of t he or di nar ypr i nci pl es of s t atut or yco n struct i on fo u n d thro u g h o u t Se cti o n V , p arti c u la rl y in S u b sec ti o n A

. In this pa rto f th e o p inion , the m a jo ri ty argu es th at t h e term

“ m o n ito r” in th e d e f

in iti o n o f

re m o v a l an d re m e d ial a c tio n is m os t r eas onabl yr ead t o encompas s agenc yover s i ght

. A l t hough not t he ful l ext entof t h e maj or i t y ’ s ar gum ent , t he moni t or i ng pr ovi s i on i s an i m por t anthook upon w hi ch t he opi ni on l ocat es a g e n c yo v e rsig h t w ith in C E R C L A ’s m a n d a te. I d isa g re e w ith t he m aj or i t y ’ s r el i ance on t he “moni t or i ng” pr ovi s i on. I ns t ead, I agr ee w i t h t he governm ent ’ s pos i t i on t hatt he over s i ght as pect of re m oval and re m edi al act i vi t i es fal l s w i t hi n t he des cr i pt i on of t he var i ous act i vi t i es as t heyar e def i ned i n “R emoval act i on” and “R emedi al act i on” i n C E R C L A §§ 101( 23) and ( 24), andB yanal ogy , w hen one c ont r act s t o have a hous e bui l t , t he 18 co n tr ac t inc lud es co sts fo r t h e c o n tr ac tor t o o v erse e h is w o rke rs and s ubcont r act or s . G ener all y , the r e i s no need t o i ncl ude a s epar at e fe e forover s i ght s i nce i t i s natur al l yi ncl uded i n the la rg e r e n d e a v o r. 47 t hatt her efor e t he cos t of t he over s i ght as pect of r emedi al and rec o v eryac ti v it ies i s rec o v era b le un d er C E R C L A § 1 0 7 (a). Fi r s t , I concl ude t hatt he r el i ance on t he “moni tor i ng” pr ovi s i on i s unnece s s ar y . A gency over s i ght s houl d natur al l ybe i ncl uded as an i nher entpar t of any rem o val or r emedi al act i on t aken pur s uantt o C E R C L A

. T h at th e r emoval or r emedi at i on be done pr oper l yand ef fec t i vel yi s a vi t al par t of i t s bei ng done i n t he fi r s t pl ace . I fi nd t hatt he nee d t o s epar at e outt he over s i ght por t i on of t he per for m ance of t he enumer at ed r emoval and rem edial act i vit i es i s superfl uo us. 18 S ec ond, not onl yi s t he maj or i t y ’ s r el i ance on “moni t or i ng” not nece s s ar y , but i t r i s ks confl at i ng t w o di s t i nct c o n c e p ts: th e o v e rsig h t re q u ire d to m a k e su re th a t a p rojec t is done pr oper l yand ef

fec t i vel yver s us t he t aki ng of w at er , s oi l , or ai r sa m p les t o det er m i ne t he l evel of pol l ut ant s ata s i t e. T he in ter p re tatio n o f

m o n ito r in g a s s im p lyth e tak in g o f sa m p les is s uppor t ed bycas e l aw . See B l ack H or s e Lane A s s oc. v. D ow C h e m . C o rp ., 2 2 8 F .3 d 2 7 5 , 2 9 8 n .1 3 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“ th is l anguage pl ai nl yr efe r s t o actual m oni tori n g , as s es s m entor e v a lu a tio n ‘o f

a re lea se o r a th re a t o f re lea se .’”) (e m p h a sis a d d e d )

. I wou l d n o t wan t o u r d e c i s i o n h e r e , e quat i ng48 m o n i t o r i n g wi t h o v e r s i g h t o f e v e r y a s p e c t o f a r e mova l or re m e d ial a c tio n , to p r e c lu d e th e ter m “ m o n ito rin g ” a s u se d in C E R C L A fr om bei ng i nt erpr et ed i n i t s m or e par t i cul ars ampl i ng s ens e. T he moni t or i ng pr ovi s i on, once meant t o des cr i be one as pectof a pr oj ect , s houl d not now be confi ned t o encompas s i ng onl ygener al “over s i ght ” of t he ent i r et y of a r emoval or r emedi al act i on.



### R E N D E L L , Ci rc ui t

J udge , di s s e nt i ng, wi th who mJudge S M IT H j o in s. Whi l e I a gr e e wi th the m a jor i ty th at

the ana l y s i s of the issu e b ef o re u s sh o u ldp ro ceedalo n g lin es d istin ct f ro m th o se e m pl oye d i n the Supr e m e Court ’ s opi ni on i n N a tio n a l C a b le Tele vi si on Ass’n v. Unite d States , 415 U. S. 336 ( 1974) , and, a c c or di ngl y , our

op in ion i n Uni te d States v . Rohm &Haas , 2 F. 3d 1265 ( 3d Ci r . 1993) , I di s a gr e e that the pr ope r r e a di ng of th e re le vant st at

utory prov is ions le ads t o the conclusi onthat o v ersig h t co sts are reco v erab l e b y th e g o v ern m en t inth is s e tt i ng. I s ugge s t , furthe r , that N a tio n a l C

a b lest il l off

er s valuable le ss on s that are helpfu l t o u s her e. I. T h e last th o u g h t–th at N a tio n a l C

a b ler e t a i n s s o me re le vance–is wo rthy

of discu ss ion at t

he ou ts et . The concern ani m at i ng that

op i ni onwa s that the go ve rnm e nt wa s pa s s i ng of f on to privat e parti es ce rt ai n exp ense s that gov er nm ent a gencie s49 

### incurr ed as part

of thei r norm al op er at ions. Th e Cou rt felt that the p o w er t o r e c ove r

a dm i ni s tr at i ve c os t s s houl d not be unbr i dl e d, e s pe c i a l l y

whe n that

powe r wa s e xe r c i s e d at

the d iscretio no f

th e E x ecu tiv e. See i d. at

34 1 (expres si ng concern that the Federa l Co mm

un ic at ions Co mm is si on ’s fee stru ct ure m ight fo rc e broadcas te rs to pay “not on ly fo r the benefits they r e c e i vedbut

for the pr ot e c t i ve s e rvi c e s r e nde r e d the publ i c by th e C o mm issio n ”); see a lso Sk i nne r v . Mi d- Ame r i c a Pi

pe l i ne Co. , 490 U.S. 21 2, 22 4 (19 89 ) ( “Nat i onal CableTe le v i

s i on . . . stan d [ s] . . . f

o r th e p ro p o sitio nth at C o n g ress m u stin d icate cl earl y its i ntenti onto dele gate to the Executi ve disc re ti on ar y au th o r i ty to reco ver a d

m in istra tive co sts n o t in u rin g directly to the benefi t of re

gu late d p arti es by

im po si ng additi on alfinancia l bur de ns . ” ( e m

pha s i s a dde d) )

. The s e s am e c onc e rns form e d the ba s i s for our opi ni on i n Uni te d States v . Roh m & H a as Co , 2 F. 3d 126 5 (3d Ci r . 1993)

. The r e , we a ppl i e d N a tio n a l C a b le b ecause we c on clud ed that EP A o vers ight cost s wer e
“ ‘ a dm i ni s trativ e c os t s not i nur i ng di r e c t l y

t o the be ne fi t

of re gu late d p arti es ’ but rather to the pub li c at l ar ge.” I

d. at 1273 ( quot i ng Skinner , 490 U.S. at 22 4). Today we r e je c t our r e a s oni ng i n Rohm &Ha as that e quat e d the CERCLA s c he m e wi th the i m pr ope r de l e gat i on of powe r t o a s s e s s fe e s i n N

a tio n a l C a b le

. In so d o in g , w e a l so r e je c t th e n o tio n that

we ne e d t o fi nd a“ c l e ar s t at e m e nt ” of Congres s ’ s i nt e nt

t o i m pos e the a ge nc y ’ s c os t s of r e m ova l or r e m e di a l a c t i on ont o pr i vat e part i e s . Howe ve r, w e s houl d not r e je c t out of hand Judge St a

pl e t on’ s we l l

- c r a ft e d di s c us s i on and50 

### s t udy of CERCLA, hi s we l l

- s upport e d thes i s r e gar di ng the lang uage of the rel evant p rovisi on s, or his c on clusion that t hey d o not r e fl e c t an i nt e nt

t o foi s t ont o pr i vat e part i e s the go vernm ent’ s overs ight cost s. I s ug gest that Judg e Sta

plet on ’s ana l y si s , i f m e a s ur e d unde r a“ pl a i n m e ani ng, ” r athe r than a
“ c l e ar s t at e me n t , ” s t an d ar d , w o u l dh av e r e a c h e dth e s ame c o n c l u s i o n . A n dw e s h o u l dr e a c hth e s am e c o n c l u s i o nt o d ay. Th e other as pe c t

of N a tio n a l C a b leand Rohm &Haas that we s houl d r e fl e c t

upon–e ve n i f we do not e nd o rse the “clear statem en t” ru le– is th e h ealth y av ersio n v o iced i n th o se op inions to p ermi tt ing agencie s t o“bill ” pri vate part ie s for a p o rtio no f

th e i r co st o f

d o in g b u sin ess. C

f. i d. at 1274 (co n stru in g C E R C L A to allo wreco v ery o f E P A o v ersig h t co sts “c re at e[s] the dram at ic and u nu sualeffect o f re qu iring regulat ed part ie s t o p ay

a l ar ge shar e of the adm inis tr at ive costs incurr ed b y th e o v erseein g ag en cy”). I n th i s case, th e b ill am o un ts to a l m os t $1. 4 m i l l i on, as i gni fi c ant port i on o f

whi c h wi l l go t oward s E PA pay

r ol l e xpe ns e s , i n a ddi t i on t o the ne ar l y $35 m i l l i o n that

DuPont ha s a l r e a dy

e xpe nde d t o c l e an up the N ewp o rt site. Whi l e i t i s e a s y t o s ay , a s the m a jo r i ty do e s , that “o v ersig h t” p erf

o rm edb y anag en cy

as p art o f its statuto ry

du ty e qu at e s t o n e c e s s ary

m on i t ori ng a c t i vi ty , qu e ry wh e the r we sh o u ldco n stru e a s t a tu to ry p ro v isio nto allo wa w h o lesale tr ans fe r of the e xpe ns e s of ope r at i ng gove rnm e nt t o pr i v ate part ie s wh er e no inte nt to do so–and ce rt ai nly no cl ear s t at e m e nt –a pp e ar s onthe face of

the s t at ut e . I n C ER CL A,51 

### Congr e s s unde rt ook t o s pe c i fi c a l l y de l i ne at e the boundar i e s of privat e party li abil it

y to the E PA . Cer

ta in prov is ions authoriz ed the r e c ove ry o f o v er s i ght c os t s . Othe r s ar e s i l e nt

. Judge St a pl e t onbe l i e ve d that , “ [g ]i ve n thec ont e xt i n w hi c h C E R CL A was enac te d,” it was “highly si gn ific ant that Con gres s om itte d any m enti onof

ov er si gh t, or of

go vernm ent a ct ivit ie s c on du c te d un der [CE RC LA ] § 10 6, in the definit ion o f rem ov al .” Rohm &Haas , 2 F

. 3 dat

1 2 7 6

. G i v e nth i s , an dg i v e nth e S up r e me C o urt’ s r e l u c t an c e t o s h i f

t g o v e rn me n t

o p e r at i n g c o sts to p riv ate part i e s a s e xpr e s s e d i n N a tio n a l C a b le , we s ho uld n ot st

re tc h the m eaning of

the s tatute to im

po se m on et ar

y ob li gati on s that ar e not re ference d within the f ou r corners of

CE RC LA . Rather, we s houl d foc us our

i nqui ry on what

the pr ovi s i ons of the statu te actu ally

say . C f. Uni te d States v . Ol

s on , 125 S. Ct

. 510, 51 1 (20 05 ) ( inte rpre ti ng wo rds in the Feder alTo rt Clai m s Act to “m eanw h at th ey

say”). A n aly

zin g C E R C L A un d er th is fr am e wo rk, I c ann ot

agre e wi th the m a

jo r i ty that CE RC LA re flec ts any

inte nt onthe p art of C on gres s, cl ear or other wise , t o a l l ow the EPA t o r e c ove r the c os t s of ove r s e e i ng r e m ova l or rem ed ial actio n s. II. C E R C L A sectio n1 0 7 p ro v id es th at a resp o n sib le p arty

“ s ha l l be l i abl e for

–a l l c os t s of rem o v al or r e m e di a l a c t i on i nc urr e d by

the Uni t e d St at e s Gove rnm e nt

. . . not i nc ons i s t e nt w ithth e n atio n al co n tin g en cy p lan .” 4 2 U .S .C . § 96 07 (a )( 4)(A). Neither se ction 107 no r any of the o th er pr o v i s i o n s o f

th e s t at u t e th at d e f i n e th e t e rm s u s e di ns e c t i on52 

### 107 us e s the t e rm

“ ove r s i ght

. ” The m a

j o rity ’ s r e a s oni ng in v o l v e s tw o tex tu al leap s th at I can n o t en d o rse. T h e f irst i nvol ve s e quat i ng the wor d “ m oni t or i ng” i n the s e c t i ons de fi ni ng “ r e m ova l” and “ r e m e di a l a c t i on” wi th “ gove rnm e nt o v ersi ght of pr i vat e party a c t i vi ty . ” Thi s i s s i m pl y no t a p erm issib le m ean in g o f

th e w o rd“m o n ito rin g ” as it is u sedin the s t at ut e . The s e c ond l e a

p is i n s ayi ng that

the author i ty

for r e c ov ering the c os t s of ove r s e e i ng the c l e anup c an be found w ith in th e d ef

in itio n s o f

“rem o v al” an d“rem ed ial actio n ” w h ile at the s am e t im e c on te nd ing that t hese cost s are re coverabl e a s
“ ov e r s i ght of r e m ova l or r e m e di a l a c t i on. ” Thi s i nt e r pr e t at i on is clearly at o d d s w ithth e p recise lan g u ag e o f th e d ef in itio n s, wh ic h include “m on it oring” w ith in the a c tiv it i e s that m ake up a c leanup . A s a tex tu al m atter, o versigh t o f r e m o v a l and r e m ed ial a c t i ons i s not

s ubs um e d wi thi n the de fi ni t i ons of “rem o v al” an d“rem ed ial actio n .” I s ugge s t that i n Rohm &Haas w e w ere ap p ro p riately skepti ca l of the re ading the m ajority adop ts here . We state d that “[t]he go vernm ent’ s role in ov er se ei ng a pri vate cl eanup eff ort i s far r e m ove d from

any s ort of gove rnm e nt

‘ r e m ova l ’ or ac ti vity periph er al ly

conn ec te d to such rem o v al .” 2 F .3d at 1278. Thi s obs e rvat i on is c onfi rm e d by c ontr a s t i ng the activ ities f

o r w h ich th e E P A seek s to reco v er its co sts h ere w ith those that DuP on t und ertookin ac tual ly pe rform ing the re m ov al and rem edia l a ct io n . Whil e DuP on t e xcavat ed contam inat ed so il, cap p edlan d f

ills, i n s t alledg ro un dw ater b arrier w alls, r e c ove r e d, tr e at e d and m on i t o r e d g ro un dwat e r , and r e s t or e d and53 

### m on it ored wetl ands and the Ch ri st ina River , the EP A revie wed Du Po nt’s re m edia l desig n s, re viewed and app roved D uP on t’ s prop osed changes t o the re m edia l p la n , overs aw Du Po nt’s ac tivi ti es , c o o rd in at edD u P o n t’ s a ct iv it ie s, supervis ed Du Po nt’s r e s pons e , m oni t or e d DuPont , r e vi e we d the r e s ul t s o f o n e of DuPont ’ s tr e at abi l i ty

s t udi e s , and ove r s aw DuPont ’ s gr ound w ater stu d ies. T h e E P A itself

co n sid ers its o v ersig h t o f p riv ate p arty re m ov aland rem edia l a ct ion to b e s epar at e f rom the a ct ual pe r form anc e of the r e m ova l and r e m e di a l a c t i on. I n a50- pa ge m anua l de t a i l i ng i t s ove r s i ght pol i cy , Gui da nc eon EP A Ov e r s i ght of Re me d ia l

Des i gns and Re me di al

Ac t i ons Perf ormed B y Potenti allyR es

po nsiblePa rties , OS W ER D irectiv e 9 3 5 5 .5 -0 1 (Ap ril 1 9 9 0 ), th e E P A tak es g reat p ain s to clarif y th at th e p riv ate p arty , n o t th e E P A , b ears resp o n sib ility for the c l e anup a ctio n . See, e . g. , i d. at 1 -1 (“P RP s an dth eir a g en ts ar e r e s pons i bl e for the a de qua c y

of the de s i gn and the im plem entati onof

re m edie s [i. e. , r em ov aland r em edia l actio n ] .”; i d. at

1-2 (“[EP A] ove r s i gh t m

ust a lways be s tr

ucture d s o the PRPs , not

EPA, r e m a i n l e ga l l y

r e s po n s i bl e and acco un tab le f

o r th e su ccess o f

th e resp o n se actio n .”); i d. at 2-2 ( “ A l l w o rki s d o n e un d e r th e P RP ’ s c o n tr o l an dth e y [ sic ] are re sp o nsible fo r the long te rm perform ance of

the r em edy .” ). Th e a gency ’s role , by co ntra st , i s both limit ed and rem ov ed f ro m th e d irect resp o n se. Se e, e . g. , i d. at 5 -1 (“It is i na ppr opr i at e for

the Ove r s i ght

Offi ci a l t o di r e c t

or de t e rm i ne th e m ean s an d m eth o d s o f co n stru ctio n . Clea rly d

efin in g th ese54 

### roles , and a dhe r i ng t o the m , e ns ur e s that the r e s pons i bi l i ty

and a c c ount abi l i ty

of the c ons tr

uc t i on pr oje c t

r e m ai ns wi th the P RP .” (em

p h a sis ad d ed )); i d. 2 -2 (“E P A ’s p rim ary g o al is to co n f irm th e P RP s [ sic ] m ee t

a l lpe rform ance st andards s peci fied in th e S ettlem en t A g reem en t.”); i d. at x ( “ The ul t i m at e goa l of PRP ove r s i ght i s t o hol d PRPs r e s pons i bl e and a c c ount abl e for the r e m ed i a l a c t i ons . ” )

. I n l i ght of the EPA’ s own di s t i nc t i on be twe en the c onduc t

of r e m ova l or

r e m e di a l a c t i ons and the ov e r s i ght of such ac ti on s, I find its ar gu m ents to the c on tr ar y h ere to b e d isin g enu o u s. As we s a i d i n Rohm &Haas , I “th in k i t f ar m o re lik ely th at C on gres s vie wed E PA ’s ov er se ei ng of a pri vate party ’s rem o v al activ ities as qu alitativ ely d if f eren t f ro m E P A ’s actu ally perform ing rem ov alac ti viti es and intended f or EP A to rec ov er the c osts of

the l atte r but no t t

he cost s o f the fo rm er .” 2 F .3d at 1277. A re vi e w of the s t at ut e c onfi rm s thi s the ory . The definiti on s of “re m ov al” and“r em edia l a ct ion” ar e c on ce rned onl y wi th a c t i ons t ake n di r e c t l y t o a ddr e s s ar e l e a s e or thr e at of r e l e a s e of aha z ard o u s s ubs t anc e , not wi th the ty

pe of s e c ondti er re view fo r which the EPA se ek s to re cover i ts cost s her e. An d o ther

se ctions of

the s tatute indicate that

Co ng re ss kn ew how t o author i z e r e c ove ry for the EPA’ s “ ove r s i ght ” func t i ons w h e n it w an tedto . Inth e ab sen ce o f su chau th o rizatio nin s e c t i on 107, I c onc l ude that the EPA’ s o v e r s i ght

c os t s ar e not re coverabl e.55 

### A. T h e m aj o rity

co n cl u d e s th at th e E P A ’s “o v ersig h t” ac ti viti es fallwithin the definit ions of “r em ov al ” and “rem edia l actio n ” b ecau se b o thd ef

in itio n s i nc ludet

heword “ monito rin g .” It assum es th at, b ecau se “o v ersee” is o n e o f th e p o ssib le m ean in g s o f

“m o n ito r,” th e statu te can , an dsh o u ld , b e readto encom pass “m on it oring” in the sense of “overs ight.” Like other co urts th at h av e f

o u n dth at o v ersig h t co sts are reco v erab le un der C ER CL A, the m ajority anal y ze s the m eaning of

the word “m on it or” in a vac uu m . But the Sup re m e Cou rt has dir ec te d that “ the m e ani ng of awor d c annot be de t e rm i ne d i n i s ol at i on, bu t m ust be drawnfrom

the c on te xt in wh ic h it i s use d.” De al v. Un ited States , 50 8 U

. S. 12 9, 13 2 ( 19 93 )

. “ [W ]h e r e awo rd i s c a pabl e of m any

m e ani ngs , ” i t sh o u ld b e c ons tr ue d i n the c ont e xt of the pr ovi s i on as awhol e “ i n or de r t o avoi d gi vi ng un i nt e nd e d b r e a dth t o the Ac t s of Co ng r e s s . ” J

are c k iv . G. D. Se ar le&Co. , 3 6 7 U .S . 3 0 3 , 3 0 7 (1 9 6 1 ) ; see a lso Co op er Indu s. , Inc. v. A vi all Servs ., Inc. , 543 U. S. 157, 125 S. Ct

. 577, 58 3 (20 04 ) ( re

ject ing p er

m is si v e con struct ion o f the wo rd

“ m ay ” i n s e c t i on 9613( f) ( 1) of CERCLA i n favor of “ the natura l m eaning of ‘m ay ’ in the context” of the b roader s t at ut ory pr ovi s i on)

. Re a di ng the de fi ni t i ons of “ r e m ova l ” and “rem ed ial actio n ” caref

u lly , an d in th eir en tireties, it is clear to m e that Con gres s was concerned with m on it oring the a ct ual r e l e a s e , or

thr e at of r e l e a s e , of ha z ar dous subs t anc e s , not m on it oring the p a rtype r form i ng the r e mo v a lo r r e m e d i a l a c t i on.56 

### T h e d ef in itio no f a “rem o v al” is sp ecif

i c a l l y lim itedto

“ s uc h a c t i ons a s m ay be ne c e s s ary t o m oni t or . . . the r e l e a s e or th reat o f release o f

h azard o u s sub stan ce s . ” 4 2 U .S .C . § 9601( 23)

. The othe r

a c t i ons l i s t e d i n the de fi ni t i on–the c l e anup or r e m ova l of ha z ar dous m at e r i a l s , “ ne c e s s ary” r e s pons e s to th reaten edreleases, th e d isp o sal o f rem o v edm aterials, security fencing andother m ea sure s t o limit ac cess to contam inat ed si te s–ar e s imil arly

dire ct ed towards the re le as e or threate ned release. I d. A s w e h av e p rev io u sly exp lain ed , th e d ef in itio nis c onc e rne d wi th “ a c t i ons t ake n t o de fi ne , ” and c ontai n, “ the s c ope of the r i s k c r e at e d by ar e l e a s e or thr e at e ne d r e l e a s e , ” not w ith“actio n s tak ento ev alu ate th e p erf o rm an ce o f

o th ers to d eterm in e w h eth er th ey

are m eetin g th eir leg al o b lig atio n s.” Rohm &Haas , 2 F .3 dat 1 2 7 6

. See al s o Uni te d States v . Lowe , 118 F .3 d399, 403 ( 5th Ci r . 1997) ( “ Unde r apl a i n l angua ge s t at ut ory r e a di ng w ith an e ye t o c ont e xt , the m oni t or i ng pr ovi de d unde r

the r e m ova l de fi ni t i on re l at e s t o an e va l uat i on of the e xt en t o f a‘ r e l e a s e or thr e at of r e l e a s e of ha z ar dous substances .’ ”)

. Li ke the de fi ni t i on of “ r e m ova l , ” the def i ni t i on of

“ r e m e di a l a c t i on” i nc l ude s s om e “ m oni t or i ng” a c t i vi t i e s . At the end o f a la

un dry li st of ac ti viti es that

m ake up a “re m edia l ac ti on ,” the definit ion add s “ any mon i t ori ngr e a s on a

bly r e qu i r ed to assur e th at su chactio n s [ i. e. , the a c t i ons s pe c i fi e d i n the pr e c e di ng l i s t ] pr ot e c t

the publ i c he a l th and we l far e and the e nvi r onm e nt

. ” 42 U. S. C. § 4601( 24)

. As i n th e de fi ni t i on of

“ r e m ova l , ” a l l of the s pe c i fi c a c t i ons l i s t e d i n the d ef i ni t i on57 

### wo uld ty pica ll y be un dert aken by

a fir st p arty

re spon der addr e s s i ng ar e l e a s e or

thr e at e ne d r e l e a s e di r e c t l y . Mo r e over , the de fi ni t ion s pe c i fi e s that the s e a c t i ons a l l t ake pl a c e “ at the l oc at i on of the r e l e a s e . ” No t e xt s ugge s t s that the phr a s e “ any m oni t or i ng r e a so n abl y

r e qui r e d, ” c om i ng a s i t

doe s at the e nd of a long li st of ac ti on s “at the locati on of the re le as e” th at e nc om pa s s the s c ope of aty

pi c a l r e m e di al a c t i on, s om e how i m pl i c at e s athi r d party o ve r s e e r of anothe r ’ s r e m e di a l a c t i on. C ons tr ui ng “ m oni t or i ng” he r e “ by the c om pany i t ke e p s,” Jare ck i , 367 U.S. at

30 7, I there fo re conclu d e that “mo n i to rin g ,” inth e o v erall co n tex t o f th e d ef in itio n , is b est unde r s t ood t o m e an dire ct m on it oring o f the co n ta m in a ted site , not m oni t or i ng of the party

who i s pe r form i ng the cleanup of the s it e. B. The m a jor i ty a l s o poi nt s t o l angua ge i n the de fi ni t i ons of thes e phras es that

includ es ac ti on s t aken to prevent or m inimiz e dange r t o the publ i c and the e nvi r onm e nt from ar e l e a s e or th reat o f r e l e a se insup p o rt o f its b ro adread in g o f

th o se p ro v isio n s. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 9601( 23)

- ( 24)

. Of c our s e , i n the abs tr a c t , EPA ove r s i g h t, and, i nde e d, othe r ty pe s of EPA a c t i vi ty , c oul d pr e ve nt dam a ge that m i ght othe rwi s e r e s ul t fr om ar e l e a s e o r

thr e at of r e l e a s e , jus t

a s EPA ove r s i ght

m i ght g en erally b e d escrib edas “m o n ito rin g .” B u t th e d ef in itio n s’ emp h ase s on dire ct

resp o n ses to releases o r th reats o f release be l i e s thi s in t e r

pr e t at i on. Re a d i n c ont e xt , the “ othe r a c t i on” l angua ge m e ans s uc h othe r a c t i ons t ake n by th e direc tT h e m a jo rity ’s a ttem p t to b o lste r its re a d in g o f th e sta tu te 19 b y r e v i e wi n g t h e c o n d u c t o f t h e Newpo r t c l e a n u p and concl udi ng t hati t demonst r at es t hat “age ncy over s i ght i s centr al t o ef fe ct i ve r emedi al act i on underC E R C L A , ” M aj

. O p. at40- 41, i s t o no avai l

. T he fa ct s of t he N ew por t cl eanup ha ve no b ea ri n g o n w h at co sts C E R C L A au tho ri ze s the E P A to rec o v er. T hatE PA over s i ght cont r i b ut es t o a r emedi al act i on does not m e a n th a t it is a r emedi al act i on undert he t er m s of t he s t atut e. 58 

### respon der , not ac ti on s t aken to ov er se e the d ir ec t r es po nse; ther e i s no ind ic at io n in th e t ext that Con gres s i ntended o th erw ise. S im ilarly , th e f act th at C E R C L A d eleg ates au th o rity to the EPA to “fac il it at e c le anup s and to enf orce st at utory req ui r e m e nt s , ” doe s not i m pl y that i t author i z e s the EPA to r e c ove r the c os t s of thos e a c t i vi t i e s i n a ct i ons unde r s e c t i on 107. Congr e s s s pe c i fi c a l l y de fi ne d the par am e t e r s of 19 

### pe rm issib le r e c ove ry

i n r e m ova l a c t i ons i n s e c t i ons 107 and 101( 23) & ( 24)

. As di s c us s e d a bove , the pl a i n l angua ge of the de fi n i t i o n s i n c l u d e s a c t i o n s t ak e n t o c o n t a i n an d c l e an up re leas es of

hazardou s was te , but no t a ct ions taken to o vers ee an o th er’s co n tain m en t an dclean in g up o f th o se sites. C. The m a jor i ty ’ s fi na l t e xt

ua l ar gum e nt

i s that i t s ove r s i ght a c t i vi t i e s qua l i fy

a s “ e nfor c e m e nt activi t i e s , ” whi c h s e c t i on 101( 25) ( the de fi ni t i on of “ r e s pond” or “ r e s pons e ” ) a dds t o the definiti on of “r em ov al ” and“r em edia l a ct ivit ie s. ” SeeMa j. Op. at 3 1 (“We b eliev e ‘en f

o rcem en t activ ities’ in clu d e all asp ects59 

### of ensurin g C ER CL A com pliance . . . .” ) The m ajority here fol l ows the l e a d of othe r c ourt s that have a ddr e s s e d the i s s ue of o v ersig h t co sts an dh av e co n stru ed “en f o rcem en t activ ities” in Sect ion 1 01 (25) broadly

to com po rt with CE RC LA ’s re m edia l obje c t i ve s . I n Atlantic Richfi el d Co. v. Am er ic an Airlines, I nc. , 98 F. 3d 564 ( 10 th Ci r . 1996) , the Court of Appe a l s for

the Te nth Ci r c ui t

a c knowl e dge d that

the Suprem e Court , i n Key T ro n ic Co rp. v . United

States , 511 U.S. 80 9 (19 94 ), had c ons tr ue d the t e rm

“ e nfor c e m e nt

a c t iv itie s ” narr owl y , but n ev erth eless co n clu d ed : i t doe s not s tretch or

di s t ort the m e ani ng of the phr a s e t o c onc l ude that

m oni t or i ng or

ove r s i ght o f apr i vat e party

r e m e di a l a c t i on t o de t e rm i ne whe the r the a c t i on c om

pl i e s wi th ac ons e nt d ecree an dth e p ro v isio n s o f C E R C L A is e nfor c e m e nt

a c t i vi ty r e l at e d t o a r e m e di a l a c t i on, and there fo re , i s a

re spon se un der § 10 1(25 ). We no te th at

beca use CER CL A is r em edia l leg islatio n , it sh o u ldb e c o n stru edlib erally to carr y ou t i ts pu rpose. 98 F. 3d at 570 ( c i t at i ons om i tt e d)

. The Court of Appe a l s for the F if thC ircu it reach edth e sam e co n clu sio nb ecau se it dete rmined, bas ed onother provisi on s of the st at u te, that

“ [g]ove rnm e nt

m oni t or i ng or

ove r s i ght

i s an i nhe r en t

and n ecessary en f o rcem en t elem ent o f

p riv ate p arty

resp o n se ac ti on .” Lowe , 118 F. 3d at 403.60 

### Th e quest ion is not wh ether i t wou ld “str et ch or dist ort the m e ani ng of the phr a s e ” “ e nfor c e m e nt a c t i vi t i e s ” t o i nc l ude EPA ove r s i gh t c os t s ; nor i s i t whe the r the s t at ut e r e qui r e s the E P A to o v ersee p riv ate p arty resp o n se actio n s. T h e qu estio nis whe the r , i n a ddi ng the phr a s e “ e nfor c e m e nt a c t i on s” to the d ef in itio n s o f “ r em o v al” an d“rem ed ial actio n ,” C o n g ress inte nd ed to authoriz e the EP A to rec ov er from private p arti es th e co st o f o v e rseein g th eir rem o v al an drem ed ial actio n s. I conclude that

it did n ot. T h e co mm onse nse definit ion o f an en f o rcem en t activ ity is an actio ntak ento co m p el a resp o n sib le party t o pe r form

a r e m ova l or r e m e di a l a c t i on. Be c aus e I do not th in kth at th e “rem ed ial p urp o ses” o f th e statu te are relev an t to th is in qu iry , I see n o n eed to read “en f o rcem en t a c t i v i ties” br oa dl y , a s the m a

jor i ty doe s , t o e nc om

pa s s the ful l s pe c tr

um of th e E P A ’s C E R C L A -relatedactiv ities. D. H adC o n g ress in ten d edto in clu d e E P A o v ersig h t w ith in th e sco p e o f

activ ities f

o r w h ich th e E P A canreco v er, it co u ld have ve ry

e a s i l y i nc l ude d the wor d “ ove r s ig ht ” i n s e c t i on 107( a ) ( 1) ( A ) or

the s t at ut ory de fi ni t i ons of “ r e m ova l ” or
“ r e m e di a l a c t i on . ” As we have s e e n, i t c ho s e no t t o do s o. An inspec ti onof

other provisi on s of C ER C L A ind ic at es that C o n g ress kn o w s h o wto au th o rize reco v ery f o r “o v ersig h t” exp en ses w h enit w an ts to ; it am en d edtw o p r o v i s i o n s to e xpl icitly in clu d e reco v ery

o f E P A “o v ersig h t” co sts inth e 1 9 86 S A RA A m en dm en ts. T h e s e am en d edp ro v isio n s set f o rth limite d circumstances in w h ich C o n g ress in ten d ed th e E P A to61 

### reco v er its o v ersig h t exp en ses f ro m a p riv ate p arty

an do b tain pay m e nt of s uc h e xpe ns e s fr om the Supe r fund. To c ons tr ue the definiti on s of rem ov aland rem ed i a la c ti on t o autho ri ze re covery of ove r s i ght co sts i n a l l c a s e s r e nde r s the s e pr ovi s i ons superf lu o us, which we are “l oath to do .” Co op er Indu st ri es , 125 S. Ct

. at

583. SA RA am ended C ER CL A sec ti on10 4(a) (1), wh ic h au th o rizes th e E P A to co n du ct th e cleanup o f a h azard o u s w aste site itself , to au th o rize th e E P A to allo wresp o n sib le p arties to c onduc t the r e m e di a l i nve s t i g at i on and fe a s i bi l i ty s t udy ( “ RI /FS” ) for

pot e nt i a l l y

c ont am i nat e d s i t e s i n s om e c a s e s . The RI /FS i s adi s t i nc t , pr e l i m i nary pha s e of r e m ova l

. The s e c t i on, as am en d ed , requ ires th e E P A to retaino u tsid e co n su ltan ts to

“ ove r s e e [ ] and r e vi e w[ ]” ar e s pons i bl e party RI /FS, and p rovi de s that

the r e s pons i bl e party

m us t a gr e e t o r e i m

bu rse S up erf un df o r co sts in curredun d er s u c h an“o v ersig h t” c o n tr a c t

. 42 U. S. C. § 9604( a ) ( 1)

. Our obs e rvat i on r e gar di ng thi s s e c t i on i n Rohm &Haas a p p l i e s w i the qu a l f

o r c e t o d ay: “[ a] nR I/F S is . . . clearly a r e mo v al actio n . If C o n g ress c ons i de r e d gove rnm e nt a l ove r s i ght of apr i vat e r e m ova l a c t i on to be a r em ov al ac ti o n in its el f, the provisi onof § 1 04 (a ) r e qui r i ng r e i m

bur s e m e nt

of c os t s i ncu rr e d by

the gove rnm e nt ov er se ei ng the pri vate RI/FS w ou ld be un nece ss ar y as § 1 07 (a ) woul d author i z e the r e c ove ry of s uc h ove r s i ght c os t s . ” 2 F. 3d at 1 2 7 7

. T h e m aj o ri ty p r o f

f ers a co m p licatedexp lan atio nas to what s e c t i on 104 m ean s, r e a s oni ng that i t pe r form s afunc t i onT he maj or i t y ’ s ar gum entt hatt he r eadi ng of s ect i on 104 t hat 20 I p ro p o se a b o v e c re a tes a d isin c e n tiv e f o r pr iv a te p a rties to se ttl e w ith th e E P A , s ee M aj

. O p. at 37, i s bas ed on a m i s under s t andi ng of w hats ect i on 104 actual l ys ay s . T hat s ect i on r equi r es t he E PA t o r ecove r over s i ght cos t s fr om s et t l i ng p a r t y onl y f r om t he RI/

F S s t age o f

th e c lea n u p a n d a p p lies to s et t l i ng and non- s et t l i ng p art i es al i ke. I t does not , as t he m ajorit y su g g ests, req u ir e sett li n g p arti es to ag ree to p ay fo r a ll of t he EP A ’ s over s i ght cos t s . For exampl e, al t hough i t di d not s et t l e w i t h t he EP A , D uPont agr eed t o pay , and di d pay , t he cos t s of over s i ght fort he R I / FS port i on of t he cl eanup, a c c o rd in g to th e te rm s o f th e s ta tu te

. See A ppel l ees ’ B r . at13. W het hera s et t l i ng par t y i s r equi r ed t o paynon- R I / FS over s i ght cos t s depends on our deci s i on t oday

. T he maj or i t y ’ s fea r s t hat p a r t i e s wi l l d e c l i n e t o s e t t l e t o a v o i d p a y i n g s u c h c o s t s u n d e r my r eadi ng ar e t hus unfounded. U nder m y r eadi ng, nei t hers et t l i ng no r no n- s e t t l i ng part i e s w ou l d p a yt he EPA ’ s no n- RI / FS ov e r si gh t c os t s be c a us e CE RC LA do e s no t a ut ho r i z e EPA recoveryfor such co st s. 62 

### inad d itio nto sectio n1 0 7 b ecau se it co m p els a resp o n sib le p arty t o a gr e e i n a dvanc e t o pay ove r s i ght c os t s , whe r e a s s e c t i on 107 allo w s reco v ery

o f su chco sts o n ly

af te r th e f act. T h is is 20 

### i nc orr e c t

. Al l s e c t i on 104 s ay s i s that , i f a pr i vat e party i s goi ng to conduct the re me di al

i nv es t i gat i on or the f e as i bi l i t ys tudy , and the go vernme nt willbe expend ing m on ey to ov er se e that pr e l i m i nar

y a c t i vi ty , the n the pr i vat e party m us t a gr e e t o pay

for that

. If , a s the m a

jor i ty c ont e nds , the “ pl a i n l angua ge ” of63 

### C E R C L A s e c t i o n1 0 7 au th o rizes th e E P A to reco v er its o v ersig h t co sts in all cases, th ere w o u ld certain ly b e n o n eedto a me n d th e statu te to state th at th e E P A sh o u ldreco v er its o v ersig h t co sts f

o r th is sp ecif

ic asp ect o f a rem o v al. In d eed , a p riv ate p arty

w o u ldh av e n o ch o ice b u t to “ag ree” to reim b urse the EPA for

i t s c os t s of ove r s e e i ng the RI /F S w ork i n l i ght of th e f act that the EPA woul d have ar i ght t o r e c ove r

a l l of its ov er sig ht cost s a s a

m atte r of law, and could sue to rec ov er those c osts un der s ec ti on10 7. F u rth er m ore, if Co ng re ss ’s in ten t w as to en sure th at th e E P A reco v ers its o v e r s i g h t co sts fr om s e tt l i ng part i e s , one woul d th in kthat i t woul d have am e nde d the s t at

ute to sp ec i fy

that s uc h part i e s m

us t a gr e e up f r o n t t o p ay a ll

of the EPA’ s ove r s i ght c os t s . But

the am en dm en t to sectio n1 0 4 requ ires settlin g p arties t o ag ree to pay the c os t s of ove r s e e i ng o n lythe pr e l i m i n ary a s s e s s m e nt work. I t i s the r e for e m or e nat ur a l l y r e a d a s an e

x c e pt i on t o the s t at ut e ’ s ge ne r a l r

ul e that r e c ove ry

of EPA ove r s i ght

c os t s i s not o th erw ise au th o rized

. SA RA al so am ended C ER CL A to all ow the E PA to se ek reim b ursem en t f

rom theSupe r

f und f o r its o v ersig h t c o sts in part ic ular si tuat ions. Sec ti on11 1 d efines the ty pes of exp ense s for whi c h the Supe r fund c an be us e d. Be for e SARA, s e c t i on 1 1 1 ( a ) s p e c i f

i c a l l y p r o v i d e dth at

th e E P A c o u l du s e the Supe r fund t o pay for

r e m ova l or

r e m e di a l a c t i ons that

the EPA c on du c t e d i t s e l f und e r

s e c t i on 10 4. 42 U. S. C. § 9 61 1( a ) ( 1)

. To the e xt e nt that the de fi ni t i ons of “ r e m ova l ” or “ r e m e di a l a c t i on” i nc l ude ove r s e e i ng rem o v al or r e m e di a l a c t i ons , a s the EPAO f c o u rse , g iv e n th e m a

jo r it y’s d isc laim e r th a t Skidm ore 21 d e f e re n c e is n o t th e b a sis f o r its d e c isio n , it s c o m m e n ts o n th is 64 

### co n ten d s, th is sectio n w o u ld p resum ab ly au th o rize th e E P A to fund the c os t s of ov erseein g pr i vat e party a c t i ons out

of the S up erf un d . B u t th e S A RA am en d men ts sp ecif iedth at, in ad d itio nto th e g o v ern m en tal resp o n s e co sts p ro v id edf o r in s e c t i on 111( a ) , the Supe r fund c oul d a l s o be us e d t o pay for the c os t s of c ontr a c t s t o ove r s e e pr i vat e party RI /FS’ s pursu an t to se ct ion 1 04 (a )( 1) and the cost s of ov er se ei ng re m edia l a ct ivit ie s c onduc t e d by

apr i vate party

thr ough ac ons e nt

or de r or s e tt l e m e nt

a gr e e m e nt

. 42 U .S .C. § 9611( c ) ( 8)

. I f ove r s i ght co sts w ere already

in clu d edas g o v ern m en tal resp o n se co sts unde r s e c t i on 111( a ) ( 1 ), th e r e woul d have be e n no ne e d for Congr e s s t o s pe c i fi cal l y author i z e r e i m

bur s e m e nt

fr om Supe r fund for

the EPA’ s e xpe ns e s i n ove r s e e i ng pr i vat e RI /FS ac ti on s i n sec ti on11 1(c) (8). Ap plying the “s ettl ed rule ” that “we m ust, if po ss ible , c on stru e a st at ute t o g ive e very

wo rd som e operat ive e ff

ec t, ” Co op er

Indu st ri es , 1 2 5 S

. C t. at 5 8 4 , I m u st o n ce ag ain co n clu d e th at th e co sts o f o v erseein g p r i v ate party cl eanup eff

orts ar e not includ ed in the “ go vernm enta l resp o n se co sts” th a tsectio n1 1 1 (a) au th o rizedth e E P A to r e c ove r fr om the Supe r fund. Fi na l l y , a l though i t

pur port s t o ba s e i t s c onc l u si on on CERCLA’ s l ang u age , the m a jor i ty i ne xpl i c abl y

a dds that the E P A ’s co n stru ctio no f sectio n s 1 0 4 (a)(1 ) an d1 1 1 (c)(8 ) is e nt itled t o S

kid m o red ef eren ce. M aj . O p . at 3 9 n .1 7 . I

21poi nt ar e es s ent i al l ydi ct a. 65 

### di s a gr e e . An a ge nc y

i s e nt i t l e d t o S

kid m o red ef eren ce w h ere its po li cy is “m ade in pu rs uance of of fici al du ty , bas ed up onm ore s pe c i a l i z e d e xpe r i e nc e and b ro a de r i nve s t i gat i ons and info rm at i onthan i s l i ke l y t o c om e t o a

ju dg e i n a

part i cular ca se .” Sk

i dmorev . Swi

f t &Co. , 32 3 U.S. 13 4, 14 0 (1 9 4 4). Althou gh the EPA m ay

have m ore “ spec ia li ze d exp erie nce” th anw e d o inth e d ay-to -d ay co n du ct o f

C E R C L A en f

o rcem en t, the det er m inat ion o f the m eaning of st at utory lang uage in order to deci de wh at

cost s the EP A canre cover und er a s tatutory pr ovi s i on ha s a l way s be e n aque s t i on for the c ourt s . I nde e d, no othe r c ourt t o c ons i de r

the i s s ue of the r e c ove r abi l i ty of ov er si gh t c osts un der CER CL A h as deferre d to the EPA ’s view as a b asis f

o r its d ecisio n . See Un ited States v. Dico, I nc. , 266 F .3 d8 6 4 , 8 7 7 -7 8 (8 thC ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Uni te d States v . Lowe , 118 F. 3d 399, 401- 04 ( 5th Ci r . 1997) ; Atl

. Ri c hf ie ld Co

. v . Am

. Airlines, I

nc. , 98 F .3d 5 64 , 570 (1 0 th C ir . 199 6). The EP A’s pos i t i on i s e nt i t l e d t o no deference here

. III. In my m ind, the on ly way to re ac h th e maj ority ’s co n clu sio nth at C E R C L A au th o rizes th e E P A to rec o v e r its ove r s i ght c os t s i s t o c onduc t the ana l y s i s ba c kwar ds –be gi nni ng with the pre m is e that CER CL A au thoriz es cost re covery broadly and scouring the st at

ute to f in d a plac e t o sho ehorn ove r s i ght c os t s i nt o i t s t e xt

. I n a dopt i ng th is a ppr oa c h, the ma j o r i ty f o llo w s o th er C o urts o f

Ap p eals th at h av e, I su g g est,T he Second C i r cui t C our t of A ppeal s r emar ked , in N ew 22 Y or k v. Shor e R ea lt

y C or p. , 7 5 9 F

. 2 d 1 0 3 2 , 1 0 4 2 -43 (2d C ir

. 1985) , t hat“[t ] he S t at e’ s cos t s i n . . . s uper vi s i ng t he r emoval of the d rum s o f h az ard o u s w aste sq u are lyfa ll w ith in C E R C L A ’s defi ni t i on of r es pons e cos t s , even though t he S t at e i s not u n d e rta k in g to d o th e re m o v a l.” T h is ca se is o f lit tle p re c e d e n tial v a lu e h e re , h o w e v e r. T h is s tate m e n t w a s m a d e in t he cour s e of eval uat i ng t he defe ndant ’ s cl ai m s t hathe w as not l i abl e foranycos t s un d er C E R C L A ; t he r ecove r abi l i t yof t he cos t s t hemsel ves does not appea r t o have be en r ai s ed orar gued as an i ssue i n eit her t he d i st ri ct cou rtor t he co urt o f app eal s. See i d. at 1042- 49. For t hes e r eas ons , and bec aus e Sh o re R e a lty d o es n o t exp lai n w h yitco n clud es th at su p erv is ing co sts are r ecove r abl e ( al t hough i t does ci t e t o s ect i ons 101( 23) , ( 24) and ( 25) , t he def

i ni t i ons of “r emoval , ” “r emedi al act ion ” and

“ re sp o n se a c tio n ” ), I d o n o t d isc u ss it. 66 

### b eenle ss th anp recise inreaso n in g th at C E R C L A is a

“ r e m e di a l ” statut e that

s houl d be br oa dl y

c ons tr ue d, and allo w in g th i s t o in f

lu en ce th eir an aly sis o f

th e statu te, w h ile pu rportin g to apply

“pla in lang uage” and other te xtual pr i nc i pl e s of statu to ry

i nt e r pr e t at i on. Four

othe r Court s of Appe a l s have ad d res s e d the i s s ue of whe the r EPA ove r s i ght c os t s ar e r e c ove r abl e unde r CERCLA. As the EP A and the m ajority po int out, in ea ch ca se the c ou rt s have hel d that s uch cost s are re coverabl e. Th e r ationale f o r tho se find ings, where i t i s d i s c u s s e d , a

p p e ar s t o b e b a s e d( a l th o u g hn o t a l w ays 2267 

### exp licitly) at least inp art o nth e n o tio n th a t C E R C L A , as a rem ed ial statu te, sh o u ldb e co n stru edb ro ad ly

. The Court of Appe a l s for the Te nth Ci r c ui t de clin edto ad o p t Rohm &Haas ’s an aly sis b ecau se it co n clu d edth at “Rohm &Haas d ep arte d significantly from prior c as e l aw that

had co n stru edth e co st reco v ery p r o v isio n s o f C E R C L A b ro ad ly .” Atl. Richfi el

d Co . v. A m. Airlines, I

nc. , 9 8 F .3 d5 6 4 , 5 6 8 (1 0 th Cir. 19 96 ). It ch ar ac te ri ze d o ur use of the N a tio n a l C a b le

“ c l e ar s t at e m e nt ” s t andar d i n R o h m &H a a s as “qu estio n ab le,” i d. , but u lti m at e l y

c onc l ude d that

CERCLA’ s de fi ni t i ons of

“ r e m e di a l a c t i on” an d “ r e s pons e a c t i on, ” i n s e c t i ons 101( 24) an d (25 ), sati sfy

the N a tio n a l C a b lest andard because they “un ab ig u o u sly” allo wreco v ery o f E P A o v ersig h t co s t s. I

d. at 5 6 9 -5 7 1

. A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, th e p lain lan g u ag e o f th e statu te d o es not m e nt i on or s upport r e c ove ry of ove r s i ght c os t s ; it certai n l y d o es n o t sup p o rt su chreco v ery “un am b ig u o u sly .” Th us, i t i s at le as t r ea sonable t o inf er that the Tenth Circ uit’ s anal y si s o f the m eaning of the statute was inf luence d by it s vie w that CERCLA s houl d be c ons tr ue d br oa dl y

and i t s a s s e s s m e nt that the Rohm &Haas r e s ul t r e pr e se nt e d ade part

ur e fr om p rev ailin g C E R C L A case law inth is reg ard

. See i d. at 568 (l is ti ng ca se s that h el d that the EPA could rec ov er

it s i nd ir ec t and adm inis tr at ive c osts un der s ec ti on10 7 anddist ri ctcourt c a s e s r e je c t i ng Rohm &Haas ). T h e C o urts o f Ap p eals f

o r th e F if than dE ig h thC ircu its ech o ed th e T en thC ircu it’s co n cernth at Rohm &Haas m ar ked a“ s i gn i fi c ant

de part ur e ” fr om

pri or c a s e l aw that

c on s tr ued68 

### C E R C L A b ro ad ly

. Un ited States v. Dico , 266 F. 3d 864, 878 (8 thC ir. 2 0 0 1 ); Uni te d States v . Lowe , 1 1 8 F .3 d3 9 9 , 4 0 1 n .2 (5 thC ir. 1 9 9 7 ). T h e E ig h thC ircu it ex p r e ssly “d eclin e[ d ] to fol l ow the Thi r d C ircui t ’ s narr ow a ppr oa c h” t o c ons tr

ui ng C E R C L A , Dico , 266 F.3dat 87 8, and the Fifth C ir cuit no te d that , “ [i ]n r e

je c t i ng Rohm &Haas ,” it w as “ing o o dco m p an y .” Lowe , 1 1 8 F .3 d at 401 n.2. Like the A tla n tic R ich field co urt, the c ourt s i n Dico and Lowec onc l ude d that the EPA’ s ove r s i ght cost s wer e r ec ov er able un der CER CL A. T h e Lowecourt rein f o rced its in terp retatio n o f C E R C L A ’s tex t b y e x p licitly i nvo k in g the s t at

ut e ’ s r e m e di a l pur

pos e , c onc l udi ng that

“ any o th er read in g o f

th e statu to ry

term s u n d er d iscu ssio nw o u ld produc e ar e s ul t

that c onfl i c t s wi th CERCLA’ s goa l of com pell ing pri vate part ie s to perform cl ean-up op er at ions.” I d. at 404 . A s in A tla n tic R ich field , the c ourt s i n Dico and Lowe an a l y z e dth e s t at

u t e ’ s t e x t , b u t

th e r e s u l t th at th e y r e a c h e ds e e ms t o have be e n i nfl ue nc e d by the a s s um e d tr a di t i on of i nt e r pr e t i ng CE RC LA broadly

in ac cordance wit

h its re m edia l purpo se . T h e m aj o rity

h ere f alls in to th e tr ap set f

o r it b y th ese othe r Court s of Appe a l s . Li ke the c ourt s i n A tla n tic R ich field, Dico and Lowe , the m ajority proceeds from

the a ss um

ption that C E R C L A en co m

p asses ev ery

th in g th at c o u ldco n ceiv ab ly f it within it s ter

m s. As a res ult, it igno re s what the st at ute says in favo r o f ar e a di ng that

c om port s wi th i t s vi e w of what the s t at ute sh oul d do . For exam

ple, the m ajority

re ads the te rm
“ m oni t or ” br oa dl y i n l i ght of i t s vi e w of the br oa d pur pos e s of th e statu te: “

I n a s tatute des i

gne d to i mpos e t

he c os t s of c le anup69 

### on th o seres

pons i blef

or c ontami nat i on , th e term ‘m o n ito r’ is m o s t n at ur a l l y r e a di nth e d e f

i n i t i o n s o f

b o th‘ r e m o v a l a c t i on’ and ‘ r e m e di a l a c t i on’ a s e nc om pa s s i ng a ge nc y ove r s i ght

. ” Ma j. Op . at 28 (em

ph as is added). Similarly , i ts conclusi onthat ov er si gh t fal ls within the statutory lang uage al lowing re covery f o r actio n s d i r e c tedat th e p ub lic h ealthan dw elf are is in f lu en cedb y

its n o tio no f w h at C E R C L A d o es: “ Mi ndf ul t hat CE RC LA dele ga tes s ign if

ican t autho ri tyto the e xe cuti ve b ra n ch , a ctin g

th ro ugh th e E

P A , to fa cilita te clea n u

p s a n d to en fo rce sta tu to ry req u irem en ts , we be l i e ve EPA overs i ght of cleanup activ ities is n e cessary to en sure ‘co m

p lian ce w ith s t and ar ds a i m e d at

the publ i c he a l th.’” I

d. at 2 9 (em

p h asis added; ci tati on s om itte d). Al though the re m ay

be good ar gum e nt s for

c ons tr ui ng rem ed ial statu tes, an dC E R C L A inp articu lar, b ro ad ly , se e B lak e A . Watso n , Li be ral Cons truc t i on of

CERCLA Unde r

t he Re me di a l P u r

p o s e C a n o n : H a v e t h e L o w e r Co u r t

s T a k e n a G o o d T h i n g T o o F a r? , 20 Harv. Envt l

. L. Re v. 199, 294- 297 (1 9 9 6 ), th e S up rem e C o urt h as n o t en d o rsedth is ap p ro ach

. See i d. at 258- 61 ( “ [T]he Supr e m e Court h a s n ot employed the r e m e di a l pur

pos e c anon whe n co n str ui ng the num e r ous e nv i ro nm e nt a ls t at

ut e s [i nc l udi ng CERCLA] e na c t e d dur i ng the ‘m o d ern ’ en v iro n m en tal e r a .” (em p h asis ad d ed )). Inits m o st r e c e nt pr onounc e m e nt s o nC E R C L A, i n Co op er Indu st ri es, I nc. v. Aviall Serv ic es, I

nc. , 543 U. S. 157, 125 S. Ct

. 577 ( 2004) , the Court e m pha s i z e d that CERCLA i s s ubje c t t o the s am e c anons of st at utory constructi onthat

go vern al l other

federalst at

utesSee, e. g. , K ey Tr oni c C or p. v. U ni t ed St at es , 511 U

. S. 809, 23 81 4, 81 8-19 (19 94 ) ( ackn ow l edg i ng th at C E R C L A i s a “compr ehens i ve s t atut e” thatconfe r s “br oad pow er s ” on t he exec ut i ve br anch, but decl ining t o r ead the t er m “enf or cement act i vi t i es ” b roadl yt o aut hor i ze pr i vat e par t i es t o r ecove r att o rne y s’ fe es). 70 

### and c aut i one d l owe r

c ourt s a ga i ns t

s tr ayi ng t oo far

fr om the statu te’s tex t. Co op er

Indu st ri es is o n ly

th e latest ex am

p le in the Cou rt ’s CE RC LA ju ri sprudence to decl ine to apply spec ia l r u l e s of s t at

ut ory i nt e r pr e t at i on that

woul d t i l t the s c a l e s t owar ds CE RC LA ’ s r e m e di a l pur po s e . I r e a d t

he Co ur t ’ s CE RC LA 23 

### c a s e s , and Co op er

Indu st ri es i n part i c ul ar , t o c aut i on a ga i ns t the e xpans i ve i nt e r

pr e t at i on of CERCLA’ s pr ovis i ons that the m ajority es po uses here

. Co op er Indu st ri es i nvol ve d s e c tio n 113( f) ( 1) of CE RC LA , which auth o ri ze s pri vate part ie s who have cl eaned up prop erti es contaminat ed by hazard o u s sub st ance s t o see k co n tr i but i on fr om

othe r CERCLA “ r e s pons i bl e part i e s . ” The f irst se nt e nc e of s e c t i on 113( f) ( 1) a l l ows aparty t o obt a in contribu tio n “d uring o r following any ci vil a ct ion” un der CE RC LA se ct ion 1 06 or 10 7(a) ; the la st se ntence prov ides that

“ [n]othi ng i n thi s s ubs e c t i on s ha l l di m i ni s h the r i ght of any pe r s ont o b r i ng an a c t i onfo r c ontr i but i oni n the abse nc e of a c i vi l a c t i on unde r ” CERCLA s e c t i on 106 or 107( a )

. 42 U. S. C.T he fu l l t ext of 42 U

. S

. C

. § 9 61 3(f) (1) reads: 24 A ny per s on m ays eek c ont r i but i on fr om anyot her per s on w ho i s l i abl e or p o tent i al l yl i abl e under s ect i on 9607( a) of t h is ti t l e, dur i ng or fol l ow i ng anyci vi l act i on under s ect i on 9606 of t hi s t i t l e or u n d e r s e c t i o n 9 6 0 7 ( a ) o f t h i s t i t l e . S u c h c l a i ms s hal l be bro ught i n acc or dance w i t h t hi s s ect i on and t he Feder al R ul es of C ivil P r ocedur e, and s hal l be governed byFeder al l aw . I n r es ol vi ng c o n trib u tio n c laim s, th e c o u rt m a ya llo c a te r es pons e cost s among l i abl e par t i es us i ng s uch eq u it ab le fa ctors a s the co u rtd eterm ines are a p p ro p ria te. N o th in g in th is s u b se c tio n sh a ll di m i ni s h t he r i ght of anyper s on t o br i ng an ac t i on f o r c o n t r i b u t i o n i n t h e a b s e n c e o f a c i v i l a ct i on under s ect i on 9606 of t hi s t i t l e or se ct i on 9607 of t hi s t i t l e. 71 

### § 9 61 3( f) ( 1)

. Th e qu e s t i on fo r the Co ur t wa s wh e ther

a 24 

### pr i vat e party w ho ha s not be e n s ue d unde r

s e c t i on 106 or 1 0 7 (a), i. e. , who conducte d a CE RC LA cl e a nu p v olun tari ly , c an o b tain co n trib u tio n un d er sectio n 1 1 3 (f )(1 ). Co op er

Indu st ri es , 12 5 S . Ct. at

58 0. Th e Cou rt

concluded that th e “natural m e ani ng” of th e f

irs t s e nt e nc e of s e c t i on 113( f) ( 1) , the

“ e nabl i ng c l aus e , ” i s that “ c ontr i but i on m ay

onl y be s ought s ubje c t t o the s pe c i f

iedc ondi t i ons , nam e l y , ‘ dur i ng or fo ll ow ing’ a s peci fied ci vi l ac ti on .” I d. at 5 8 3 . T h e last sen ten ce, w h ichth e C o urt ch aracterizedas a “ s av i n g clau se,”72 

### pr ovi de s onl y that s e c t i on 113( f) ( 1) “ doe s nothi ng t o ‘ di m i ni s h’ an y c aus e ( s ) of a c t i on for c ontr i but i on that

m ay e x ist independ entl y

of § 1 13 (f)( 1)”; it

do es no t, onit s own , a

utho ri ze c ontr i but i on c l a i m s out s i d e the s c ope of thos e s pe c i fi e d i n the sectio n s’s f

irst sen ten ce. I

d. at 583- 84. Th e Cou rt

of Ap peal s for the Fifth C ircuit , s itti ng en b an c, h ad reach ed th e o p p o site co n clu sio n , inp art b asedo nits v i e wth at th e p ur p o s e s o f C E R C L A w o u l db e f

urth e r e db y a m ore e xp ansi ve re ading. Th e m ajority no te d the EPA ’s broad re m edia l pow er s und er

CE RC LA and the st atu te ’s broad d ef in itio no f a “resp o n sib le p arty .” “T h ese circu m stan ces,” it c onc l ude d, “ t oge the r wi th the e norm ous c os t s of rem e di at i ng ha z ar d o u s w a s t e s i t e s , m ak e th e av a i l ab i l i ty o f c o n tr i b u t i on am on g P RP s a llthe m ore im po rt ant f or ac hieving the purposes of the s tatute .” Aviall Serv s. , Inc. v. Co op er Indu s. , I nc. , 312 F

. 3 d6 7 7 , 6 8 1

- 8 2 ( 5 thC i r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e n b an c )

. T h e S up r e me Court , howe ve r , foc us e d exclu sively o n th e statu te’s tex t. It f irst e xam i ne d the “ nat

ur a l m e ani ng” o f th e fi r s t s e nt e nc e . The Court c ons tr ue d the wor ds i n the s e nt e nc e nar r owl y i n l i ght of the s e nt e nc e ’ s “ e nabl i ng” func t i on: “ the nat ur a l m ean ing of ‘m ay ’ in th e co n text o

f th e en a b lin g

cla u seis that

it authoriz es c e rt a i n c ontr i but i on a c t i ons –one s that s at i s fy the s ubs e que nt spec ifie d con diti on–a n d n o others .” I d. at 5 8 3 (em

p h asis ad d ed ). T h e C o urt also f

o un d th at a p erm issiv e read in g w o u ld

“ r e nd e r part of the s t at ut e e nt i r e l y

s up e r fluo us , s om e thing w e ar e l oath to do ,” i d. ( c i t i ng Hi bbs v . W i nn , 1 2 4 S

. Ct

. 2276, 2286 ( 2004) ) , i n l i ght

of l i m i t i ng l angua ge i n s e c t i on 113( f) ( 1)73 

### itself an dan o th er sect io n , sectio n1 1 3 (f )(3 )(B ), th at p erm its c ontr i but i on a c t i ons a ft e r s e tt l e m e nt s . I t

r e je c t e d the ar gum e nt that the l as t s ente nce of sectio n 1 13 (f)( 1) authoriz ed co n trib u tio nclaim s o u tsid e o f th e sco p e o f th o se au th o rizedin the fi r s t s e nt e nc e be c aus e that

i nt e r pr e t at i on “ woul d a g ain violat e the se tt le d rule that we m ust, if p o ss ible , c on strue a st at ute t o g ive e very

wo rd som e operat ive e ff ec t. ” I d. at 5 84 ( c i t i ng Un ited States v. No rdic Vill ag e, Inc. , 503 U. S. 30, 35- 36 ( 1992) )

. Fi na l l y , the Court de c l i ne d t o c ons i de r ar gum e nt s fr om bo th part ie s t o the e ff e c t that the pur po s e of CE RC LA sup p o rt e dits p o sitio n : “G iv enth e clear meanin g o f th e tex t, th ere is n o n eedto reso lv e th is d isp u te o r to co n su lt th e p urp o se of CE RC LA at

al l. ” I d. at 5 8 4

. Th e Co op er

Indu st ri es Co urt a lso im

plie dly ca utioned lower c ou rt s a gainst

applying speci alrule s of statutory c ons tr uc t i on i n the CERCLA c ont e xt

. The Court not e d that the statu te, as o rig in ally

en acted , d idn o t exp ressly p ro v id e a p riv ate rig h t o f actio nf o r co n trib u tio n , b u t th at sev eral d istrict co urts had “n o n ethe l e s s he l d” that s uc h ar i ght

e xi s t e d e ve n though “C E R C LA did n ot m enti onthe word ‘contribu ti on .’ ” I d. at 58 1. It ch ar ac te ri ze d the ho ldings of those opinion s a s “debat able ” i n light of

Suprem e Cou rt

deci si on s that had r e f u s e d t o r e c o g n i z e i m

p l i e d o r c o mm o n l aw r i g h t s of co n trib u t i o n i n o th er statu tes. I d. And l at e r

i n the opi ni on, wh en the Cou rt

re m anded the ca se fo r consider at ion of w hether CERCLA s e c t i on 107 c r e at e s a pr i vat e right

of a c t i on for c ontr i but i on, the Court

warne d that

“ thi s Court

ha s vi s i t e d the74 

### sub j ec t o f im

plie d rights of con tribution b efore.” Th e Cou rt f urth er n o tedth at “inen actin g § 1 1 3 (f )(1 ), C o n g ress exp licitly r e c ogni z e d a p artic ul ar

s e t of c l a i m s . . . of the c ontr i but i on r i ght s pr e vi ous l y

i m pl i ed by c ourt s fr om

the pr ovi s i ons of CE RC LA and the comm onlaw,” i d. at 5 8 6 , an d c i t eda case that explai ns th at “i t is an ele m entary cano n o f statutory constr ucti onthat wh er e a st at

ute expres sl y prov ides a parti cular rem edy o r rem ed ies, a co urt m

u st b e ch ary o f read in g o th ers in to it .” T ra n sa m . M

o rtgage A d

vis o rs, In c. v. L ew is , 444 U. S. 11, 19 ( 1979)

. The Court thus l e ft l i tt l e doubt about whe r e i t s t ands o nth e sp ecif

ic issu e o f i mp liedrig h ts o f co n trib u tio nin CE RC LA , andhinted strong ly that it disa pp roves of the pract ic e of constr uing CE RC LA broadly to “give effect” to it s r em edia l pu rpose. Co op er Indu st ri es thus pr ovi des s e ve r a l l e s s ons for the inte rpre tati on of CE RC LA that apply with equal f orce here . In co n stru in g C E R C L A , co urts sh o u ld p ay p articu lar atten tio nto the t e xt of the pr ovi s i ons at

i s sue . W e s houl d c ons tr ue CE RC LA to av oid renderi ng prov is ions, or e ven ind ividual w or ds , s upe r fl uous , and the s t at ut e ’ s r e m e di a l pur

pos e s h o u ld n o t af f ect th e an aly sis if th e m ean in g o f th e tex t i s “clear.” He r e , we r e we to hee d thi s a dv i c e by r e a di ng CE RC LA ac cording to it s ter

m s, I con clud e that w e w ou ld findthe EPA ’s ove r s i ght c os t s not t o be r e c ove r abl e a s c os t s of “ r e m ova l ” or “rem ed ial actio n .”75 

### IV . M y read in g o f

th e statu te is f

urth er b o lstered b y

certain pr ude nt i a l c onc e rns i m

pl i c at e d by

the m a jor i ty ’ s a ppr oa c h. Firs t, constr

uing CE RC LA to au thoriz e the EP A to rec ov er o v ersig h t co sts raises qu estio n s o f f airn ess an ddu e p ro cess. Principles of fu nd am enta l fai rnes s anddu e proces s r equire that th o se w h o v io late th e law kn o w o f th eir p o ten tial exp o sure. See B M W o f N .A ., In c. v. G o re , 517 U. S. 559 , 5 7 4 ( 1996) (“ Elem entary

no ti on s o f f

ai rnes s e nshrined in ou r c on st it utional j ur i s pr ude nc e di c t at e that

ape r s on r e c e i ve fa i r

not i c e not

only of the c onduc t that wi l l s ubje c t hi m t o puni s hm e nt , but a l s o of the s e ve r i ty

of the pe na lty that

aSt at e m ay

i m pos e . ” )

. I n the CERCLA c ont e xt , r e s pons i bl e part i e s c an work wi th the EPA t o de ve l op ar e m e di a l a c t i on pl an, w h i c h s houl d pr ovi de the p arty w ith a reaso n ab le estim ate o f its u ltim ate liab ility

. See42 U.S.C. § 9 60 4(a) (a ll ow ing p ri vate part ie s t o con du ct p relim in ary

rem ed ial in v estig atio nan df easib ility s tu d ies); § 96 21 (a ) ( re qu iring the EP A t o det er m ine approp ri at e r em edia l ac tio n p lan “wh ic h p rovide[s] f or cost -e ff

ec ti ve re spon se ”)

. U n d er sectio n1 0 6 , th e resp o n sib le p arty canth enun d ertak e to im p lem en t th at p lan itself

. O n e o f th e p rim ary

b en ef its o f th is arr ange m e nt

i s that the pr i vat e party

c an c ontr ol the c os t

of the cleanup o p eratio n w ith in th e p aram eters o f th e p lan

. See Rohm &Haas , 2 F.3d at 12 70 (“ [S ec ti on ] 1 06 consent orders appear to be the favo re d m etho d of c le aning up w as te si te s s ince they general ly ar e quicker and invo lve les s g ov er nm ent e xp ense than cl eanups conducte d b y th e g ov er nm ent pursuant t o § 10 4.”)

.T he m aj ori t yci t es Mi nn esot a v. Kalm an W

. A bram s Met als , 25 I nc. , 155 F. 3d 1019 ( 8t h C i r . 1998) , t o s how t hatcour t s can a nd hav e app l i ed the “arbi t rar yand capri ci ou s” st and ard t o l i m i t cost r ecove r i es . M aj

. O p. at45. B ut tha t ca se pr es ent ed egr egi ous c irc u m s ta n c e s a n d a c tu a llyd e m o n stra tes th e ra re situ a tio n in w hi ch an a gency ’ s cos t s coul d be cha l l enged. I n Kal m an Me ta ls , t he cour t deni ed t he s t at e agenc y ’ s cos t r ecove r yact i on b e c a u se th e sta te a g e n c y th a t c o n d u c ted th e c lea n u p “ o b stin a tely i n s is te d o n e m p lo y in g a n u n tr ie d , h ig h -r is k , h ig h -c o s t r e m e d y; fai l ed t o a d e q u a t e l ys t u d yt h e n a t u r e a n d e x t e n t o f t he c o m m u n ica tio n p ro b lem in a d v a n c e ; an d f a iled to m o n ito r [ its cont r act or ] and modi fyt he r emedy w hen t he uneva l u at ed pr obl em t ur ned out t o be gr eat ert han ant i ci pat ed. ” 155 F. 3d at 1025. T hatt he cour t denied co st r ecove r yi n t hatcas e does n o th in g to a llev iate m y c o n c e rn th a t th e re su lt t h a t th e m a jo rity re a c h e s p ro v id e s n o c h e c k o n th e E P A ’s a b ili tyto ro u tin e lyb ill r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t i e s f

o r c o s t s t h a t a r e u n n e c e s s a r yo r e x c e s s i ve, b u t d o n o t r is e to th e le v e l o f “ a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s .” 76 

### A llo w in g th e E P A to b i l l th e resp o n sib le p arty f o r its

“ o v e r s i g h t ” a c t i v i t i e s a f

t e r th e f a c t d e s tr o y s th e f

a i rn e s s and p red ictab ility

o f th e statu to ry

arran g em en t. Se c ond, I worry that the r e i s no nat ur a l l i m i t t o the ty

pe and sc op e of act ivit ie s that th e E P A canch arg e to a resp o n sib le party unde r the m a jor i ty ’ s ratio n al e . The “ ar bi tr ary and c a p r i c i o u s ” s t an d ar d i t art i c u l at e s i s a d i f f i c u l t o n e for re spon sible p arti es to m ee t. An d altho ug h the m ajority takes 25T h e se c tio n s o f th e n a tio n a l co n tin g e n c yp lan th a t d e a l w ith 26 r emo v a l a n d r e me d i a l a c t i o n u n d e r CERCLA , 4 0 C. F. R

. §§ 300. 410, 300. 415 ( r emoval ) ; §§ 300. 420- 300. 4 3 5 ( r emedi al act i on) , s etfor t h t he cr i t er i a, m et hods and pr ocedures t hatan agenc ym us t fol l ow i n conduct i ng a cl eanup. T hey do not even m e n tio n , let a lo n e p ro v id e sta n d a rd s a g a in st w h ich a c o u rt c o u ld evaluat e, a n agen cy ’s over s ightof a c l e a n u p c o n d u c t e d b y a r e s p o n s i b l e p a r t y. 77 

### co m f o rt inth e statu te’s lim itatio no f th e E P A ’s co st reco v ery

to thos e c os t s that

ar e “ ne c e s s ary” and “ not i nc ons i s t e nt

wi th the n atio n al co n tin g en cy

p lan ,” 4 2 U .S .C . § 9 6 0 7 (a)(4 )(A )-(B ), it has n ot identi fied any

st andards within the nati on alcontingency pl an that woul d a ppe ar t o l i m i t the EPA’ s di s c r e t i on t o s pe nd m on ey to ov er se e private party cl eanups. I nd ee d, ther e are none . By c ontr a s t , the pl a i n r e a di ng of the s t at ut e that I have 26 

### out l i n e d above c l e ar l y

di s t i ngui s he s be twe e n r e c ove r abl e and n o n -reco v erab le co sts. T h e co sts o f d irect actio n to in v estig ate or addres s a re le as e o r threat of rel ea se of a haz ar do us substance are reco v erab le. “O n th e o th er h an d , if w h at th e g o v ern m en t is m oni t or i ng i s not

the r e l e a s e or

haz ar d i t s e l f, but

r athe r the pe r form anc e of apr i vat e party , the c os t s i nvol ve d ar e nonre coverabl e ov er si gh t cost s. ” Rohm &Haas , 2 F. 3d at 1278- 79. I n a ddi t i on t o be i ng m or e fa i thful t o the s t at ut ory t e xt , I be l i e ve th at th is read in g p ro v id es resp o n sib le p arties w ith a f airer resu lt.78 

### V. Fo r a llo f th e r ea sons st at ed abov e, I c on clud e that CERCLA doe s not

author i z e the EPA t o r e c ove r the c os t s of o v erseein g rem o v al an d rem ed ial actio n s co n du ctedb y p riv ate p arties. I th eref

o re resp ectf

u lly d issen t.