Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/19pdf/17-1498_8mjp.pdf
Page Number: 6

2 

ATLANTIC RICHFIELD CO. v. CHRISTIAN 

Opinion of the Court 

damages  and,  if  not,  whether  the  Act  requires  the  land-
owners to seek EPA approval for their restoration plan. 

I 

A 
In 1980, Congress enacted the Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 94 Stat. 
2767, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §9601 et seq., also known as 
the Superfund statute, to address “the serious environmen-
tal and health risks posed by industrial pollution,” Burling-
ton N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States, 556 U. S. 599, 602 
(2009).  The  Act  seeks  “to  promote  the  timely  cleanup  of
hazardous  waste  sites  and  to  ensure  that  the  costs  of 
such cleanup efforts [are] borne by those responsible for the 
contamination.”  CTS Corp. v. Waldburger, 573 U. S. 1, 4 
(2014) (internal quotation marks omitted).

The Act directs EPA to compile and annually revise a pri-
oritized  list  of  contaminated  sites  for  cleanup,  commonly 
known as Superfund sites.  42 U. S. C. §9605.1  EPA may
clean those sites itself or compel responsible parties to per-
form the cleanup.  §§9604, 9606, 9615.  If the Government 
performs the cleanup, it may recover its costs from respon-
sible  parties. 
§9607(a)(4)(A).    Responsible  parties  are
jointly and severally liable for the full cost of the cleanup,
but may seek contribution from other responsible parties.
§9613(f )(1). 

Prior to selecting a cleanup plan, EPA conducts (or orders 
a  private  party  to  conduct)  a  remedial  investigation  and 
feasibility study to assess the contamination and evaluate
cleanup options.  40 CFR §300.430 (2019).  Section 122(e)(6) 
of the Act provides that, once the study begins, “no poten-

—————— 

1 The Act vests powers and duties in the President, who has delegated 
the  responsibilities  relevant  here  to  the  EPA  Administrator.    See  42 
U. S. C. §9615; Exec. Order No. 12580, 3 CFR §193 (1988).