Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 18

14 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of the Court 

this provision would require the landowners to obtain EPA 
approval for their restoration plan if the landowners qualify 
as potentially responsible parties.

To determine who is a potentially responsible party, we
look to the list of “covered persons” in §107, the liability sec-
tion of the Act.  §9607(a).  “Section 107(a) lists four classes
of potentially responsible persons (PRPs) and provides that 
they  ‘shall  be  liable’  for,  among  other  things,  ‘all  costs  of 
removal or remedial action incurred by the United States
Government.’ ”    Cooper  Industries,  Inc.  v.  Aviall  Services, 
Inc., 543 U. S. 157, 161 (2004) (quoting §9607(a)(4)(A)).  The 
first  category  under  §107(a)  includes  any  “owner”  of  “a
facility.”  §9607(a)(1).  “Facility” is defined to include “any 
site or area where a hazardous substance has been depos-
ited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be
located.”  §9601(9)(B).  Arsenic and lead are hazardous sub-
stances.  40 CFR §302.4, Table 302.4.  Because those pollu-
tants have “come to be located” on the landowners’ proper-
ties, the landowners are potentially responsible parties.

The landowners and JUSTICE GORSUCH argue that even 
if the landowners were once potentially responsible parties, 
they are no longer because the Act’s six-year limitations pe-
riod for recovery of remedial costs has run, and thus they 
could  not  be  held  liable  in  a  hypothetical  lawsuit.  42 
U. S. C. §9613(g)(2)(B).

This argument collapses status as a potentially responsi-
ble party with liability for the payment of response costs.  A 
property owner can be a potentially responsible party even
if he is no longer subject to suit in court.  As we have said, 
“[E]ven parties not responsible for contamination may fall 
within  the  broad  definitions  of  PRPs  in  §§107(a)(1)–(4).” 
United States v. Atlantic Research Corp., 551 U. S. 128, 136 
(2007).  That  includes  “ ‘innocent’  . . .  landowner[s]  whose
land  has  been  contaminated  by  another,”  who  would  be
shielded from liability by the Act’s so-called “innocent land-
owner” or “third party” defense in §107(b)(3).  Ibid.  See also