Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 20

16 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of the Court 

that the terms “use different language, appear in different 
statutory sections, and address different matters.”  Post, at 
7 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part).  He 
contends  that  “potentially  responsible  party”  as  used  in 
§122(e)(6) should be read as limited to the settlement con-
text,  and  that  if  Congress  intended  the  phrase  to  have 
broader reach—to refer more generally to those potentially
liable under §107(a)—then Congress would have used the
term “covered person.”  Post, at 7–8. 

But  there  is  no  reason  to  think  Congress  used  these 
phrases to refer to two distinct groups of persons.  Neither 
phrase  appears  among  the  Act’s  list  of  over  50  defined 
terms.  42  U. S. C.  §9601.    “Covered  persons,”  in  fact,  ap-
pears  in  the  caption  to  §107(a)  and  nowhere  else.    Mean-
while,  “potentially  responsible  parties”  are  referenced  not 
just in the section on settlements, but also in the Act’s sec-
tions regarding EPA response authority, cleanup standards
and  procedures,  cleanup  contractors,  Superfund  moneys,
Federal  Government  cleanup  sites,  and  civil  proceedings.
§§9604,  9605,  9611,  9613,  9619,  9620,  9622.    Across  the 
statute  “potentially  responsible  parties”  refers  to  what  it
says:  parties  that  may  be  held  accountable  for  hazardous
waste  in  particular  circumstances.    The  only  place  in  the
Act that identifies such persons is the list of “Covered per-
sons”  in  §107(a).  Congress  therefore  must  have  intended 
“potentially responsible party” in §122(e)(6) (as elsewhere
in the Act) to refer to “Covered persons” in §107(a). 

Turning from text to consequences, the landowners warn
that  our  interpretation  of  §122(e)(6)  creates  a  permanent 
easement on their land, forever requiring them “to get per-
mission  from  EPA  in  Washington  if  they  want  to  dig  out  
part of their backyard to put in a sandbox for their grand-
children.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 62.  The grandchildren of Mon-
tana can rest easy: The Act does nothing of the sort.

Section  122(e)(6)  refers  only  to  “remedial  action,”  a  de-
fined  term  in  the  Act  encompassing  technical  actions  like