Opinion ID: 677570
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Wash Cash Flow an owner or operator?

Text: 20 An owner or operator is defined in the statute as any person who owned, leased, operated, controlled or exercised significant control over a facility. See O.R.S. Sec. 465.200(12). A facility includes an underground storage tank where a hazardous substance has been stored. See Sec. 465.200(6). The parties agree that Unocal was an owner or operator of the storage tanks at least until April 30, 1985 when the lease expired. 2 21 The parties dispute, however, whether Unocal was still the owner of the storage tanks after the expiration of the lease. Cash Flow argues that it was not the owner of the storage tanks because legal title to the tanks remained with Unocal upon expiration of the lease because a bill of sale was not executed nor was consideration paid. Cash Flow fails to cite any authority supporting its position. 22 We agree with the district court that ownership passed to Cash Flow because it had two options upon expiration of the lease: accept the transfer of the property, or submit a written request for Unocal to remove the improvements and storage tanks. The plaintiff failed to request the removal of the tanks and asserted ownership over the tanks by continuing to operate the gas station. 23 Moreover, it clear that Cash Flow was at least an operator under the statute after the expiration of the lease: at that point it (or its assignors) exercised complete control over the operation of the storage tanks. The district court's conclusion that Cash Flow was an owner or operator is not erroneous. 24 Cash Flow also challenges the district court's apportionment of 25% liability to Cash Flow. Under the Oregon statute, a court may allocate remedial action costs among liable parties using such equitable factors as the court determines are appropriate. O.R.S. Sec. 465.325(6)(a). Cash Flow bears some responsibility for the contamination: Nichols continued to sell gasoline from the tank he knew or suspected was leaking and attempted to cover up the problem when it was revealed by Mascott in 1986. The statute clearly places the equitable apportionment within the discretion of the district court; the court's decision to apportion 25% liability to Cash Flow was not an abuse of that discretion. 25