Opinion ID: 482542
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Liability under CERCLA Sec. 107(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(1)

Text: 74 First, appellants argue the district court erred in finding them liable under CERCLA Sec. 107(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(1), as the owners and operators of a facility where hazardous substances are located. Appellants argue that, regardless of their relationship to the NEPACCO plant, they neither owned nor operated the Denney farm site, and that it is the Denney farm site, not the NEPACCO plant, that is a facility for purposes of owner and operator liability under CERCLA Sec. 107(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(1). We agree. 75 CERCLA defines the term facility in part as any site or area where a hazardous substance has been deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located. CERCLA Sec. 101(9)(B), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(9)(B); see New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1043 n. 15 (2d Cir.1985). The term facility should be construed very broadly to include virtually any place at which hazardous wastes have been dumped, or otherwise disposed of. United States v. Ward, 618 F.Supp. at 895 (definition of facility includes roadsides where hazardous waste was dumped); see also United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.Supp. at 185 (stereotypical waste disposal facility); New York v. General Electric Co., 592 F.Supp. 291, 296 (N.D.N.Y.1984) (dragstrip); United States v. Metate Asbestos Corp., 584 F.Supp. 1143, 1148 (D.Ariz.1984) (real estate subdivision). In the present case, however, the place where the hazardous substances were disposed of and where the government has concentrated its cleanup efforts is the Denney farm site, not the NEPACCO plant. The Denney farm site is the facility. Because NEPACCO, Lee and Michaels did not own or operate the Denney farm site, they cannot be held liable as the owners or operators of a facility where hazardous substances are located under CERCLA Sec. 107(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(1). 76