Beginning around 1915, Natural Products Refining Corporation (NPRC) operated a chemical plant in Jersey City, New Jersey, at which it turned chromite ore into chromium chemicals (primarily sodium bichromate) used for dyeing cloth and tanning leather. The manufacturing process generated hazardous chemical waste in various forms, including large amounts of “mud” or “sludge.” Most of the waste was stockpiled outdoors, “uncovered and exposed to the elements.” Consequently, hazardous substances eventually seeped into the soil and groundwater.

During both World Wars, the government regulated the production of chromium chemicals like the ones NPRC manufactured in Jersey City. During World War II, the government designated chromium chemicals as “critical” war materials—products manufactured for direct military use—and implemented price, labor, and production controls as well as subsidies. Although the government exercised substantial control over chromium producers like NPRC, it never actually took direct control of any plants.

PPG purchased the site from NPRC in 1954 and processed chromium chemicals there until 1963. PPG used essentially the same processes as NPRC had, including stockpiling the waste outdoors. Since 1990, PPG has spent $367 million (by its own estimate) to remediate the site, as well as other areas contaminated by the waste produced there. In 2012, PPG sued the government under § 107

(a) of CERCLA, seeking recovery and contribution for costs associated with past and future cleanup efforts. In 2018, after over four years of discovery, PPG and the government brought cross-motions for summary judgment. The district court granted the government’s motion, reasoning that the government was not liable to PPG as an operator under § 107

(a) of CERCLA. PPG appealed. Did the government’s exercise of considerable control over chromium producers make it a “former owner or operator” under CERCLA? Should the appellate court reverse the district court’s ruling? Why or why not?