Document 3JqVOJ2jrQKpxKyQjp8gYqdvn

Message From: Genovese, Robert (BP) [Robert.Genovese@bp.com] Sent: 1/5/2018 3:36:43 PM To: Benevento, Douglas [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=93dba0f4f0fc41c091499009a2676f89-Benevento,]; Kelly, Albert [/o=ExchangeLabs/ou=Exchange Administrative Group (FYDIBOHF23SPDLT)/cn=Recipients/cn=08576e43795149e5a3f9669726dd044c-Kelly, Albe] Subject: Montana Supreme Court opinion: Christian v Atlantic Richfield Attachments: Christian v. AR - MT Supreme Court Opinion and Order.pdf; OP 16-0555 Amicus - Brief.pdf Doug and Kell, I hope that you are doing well and had a relaxing break during the holidays. Last week, the Montana Supreme Court issued the attached decision in the Christian v Atlantic Richfield case. The court ruled against Atlantic Richfield and rejected the views expressed by the Department of Justice in the amicus brief that the United States filed in the case. Atlantic Richfield had petitioned the Montana Court to hold that private landowners cannot use state law to require Atlantic Richfield to perform a remedy at the A30nayceoanrsd.a ANsPyLosuitekntohwat, wuonudledr bCeERmCatLeAri,aollynldyiftfheereEnPt AthahnasthteheclaeuatnhourpityprtoogdreatmertmhianteEtPheA rheamseddiryefcoter da for over superfund site. TtoChwhEeenyRMCrceoLomnAnfetlaitdconiteadwseSitatheunrpdtmhreetionmeEsePuthCeAeo'csuaosrpotep'pslreeodcrpaetertciidanistgieroenPmeonoetvpedirenyo.ntinasmNlltyhoeetnRotdaenolslyporeordmnfooseeridbspyletr,hivbiPsauatetrrutiitlleianasnglsdtoocohwfuuannnllededrenstrghmieenisntMeheeosdnitEsthaPpenaAairn'asttteoeagudrrteeihtymvoeroeliotfdyptiehuestnhedeveirern if consent decree process in Montana since the regulated community cannot rely upon the remedy that the EPA selects to implement through a consent decree. A PRP could face an unending litany of conflicting remedies aproislicinygafnrodmlepgarilvamteatltaewr fsourittshethaEtPmA.ake it impossible to complete the clean up. This ruling creates a significant Atlantic Richfield intends to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court by the end of March. The Solicitor General will have the opportunity to submit an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court sreuqpupeosrttinthgethveiewcosmopfathney,Swohliiccihtowr Gouelndebrael dinuereastptohneseentdo tohfeAcporiml. pIannayd'sdiptieotnit,iotnh.e U.S. Supreme Court may Obtaining review by the US Supreme Court is a difficult undertaking. Nonetheless, Atlantic Richfield believes that the case is worthy of Supreme Court review and that Supreme Court review is necessary to protect the ainntearemsitcsusofbtrhieefUinnisteudppSotratteosf .AtTlahneticodRdischoffierledv'siepwetwitoiounldfoinr carewarsiteosf icgenritfiiocraanrit.ly if the Department of Justice files The United States previously filed an amicus brief in support of Atlantic Richfield in the State court proceeding and made oral arguments before the Montana Supreme Court. The DOJ's amicus brief for the State court proceeding is attached. fIrwomoutlhdelikEePtAo faorrraanSgueparepmheonCeocuarltl rweivthiewyooufttohidsismcautstesrt.hisI thcianskeitawndoupldosbseibeleffinceiexnttsitfetphsettohrceoensoifduesr scouuplpdotrat lk along with our legal advisors. aLsest imsteanktnsotwo aifrryaonugaerea otimpeen. to scheduling a call during the next two weeks. If so, I will work with your Best Regards, Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 2 ED 002061 00114797-00001 Bob Genovese \ Personal Matters / Ex. | Sierra Club v. EPA 18cv3472 NDCA Tier 2 ED 002061 00114797-00002