Opinion ID: 532512
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Covered Persons

Text: The liability section of CERCLA states: 21 (a) Notwithstanding any other provision or rule of law, and subject only to the defenses set forth in subsection (b) of this section-- 22 (1) the owner and operator of ... a facility, 23 (2) any person 3 who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, 24 (3) any person who by contract, agreement, or otherwise arranged for disposal or treatment, or arranged with a transporter for transport for disposal or treatment, of hazardous substances owned or possessed by such person, by any other party or entity, at any facility ... owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and 25 (4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, ... or sites selected by such person, from which there is a release, or a threatened release which causes the incurrence of response costs, of a hazardous substance, shall be liable for-- 4 26 (A) all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the United States Government or a State or an Indian tribe not inconsistent with the national contingency plan; 27 (B) any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person consistent with the national contingency plan; 28 (C) damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss resulting from such a release; and 29 (D) the costs of any health assessment or health effects study carried out under section 9604(i) of this title. 30 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a). Thus, current owners, former owners, generators, or transporters, may be held liable if there is a release or threatened release of a hazardous substance from the relevant facility. See, e.g., State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1043 (2d Cir.1985). 31 There is no dispute that Cumberland Farms was at all times relevant to this case the owner or operator of the Cumberland Farms' Canton facility. The parties have stipulated that the Cumberland Farms' facility, including the truck maintenance building and the various surface and subsurface drainage systems, is a facility within the meaning of CERCLA. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9601(9). 5 See also United States v. Conservation Chemical Co., 619 F.Supp. 162, 184-85 (W.D.Mo.1985) (facility includes every conceivable place where hazardous substances come to be located). 32 Thus, Cumberland Farms, as the owner and operator of the Cumberland Farms' facility, fits into one of the four categories of persons who may be liable under CERCLA.