Opinion ID: 728910
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Negligible Amounts

Text: 42 The coalitions further contend that the district court impermissibly required a showing that appellees disposed of hazardous substances above a threshold amount. It granted summary judgment to an appellee where the amounts of hazardous substances it disposed of were minuscule, Murtha III, 840 F.Supp. at 184, or [n]ominal, Murtha II, 815 F.Supp. at 545. Twice we have said that quantity is not a factor when determining CERCLA liability because had Congress wanted to distinguish liability on the basis of quantity, it would have so provided. Murtha I, 958 F.2d at 1200; see also Alcan, 990 F.2d at 720 (The statute on its face applies to 'any' hazardous substance, and it does not impose quantitative requirements.). The absence of threshold quantity requirements in CERCLA leads logically to the conclusion that the Act's hazardous substance definition includes even minimal amounts. See Alcan, 990 F.2d at 720. The dismissals on these grounds constitute legal error.