Lead Opinion
Thе current owner of land contaminated by storm water runoff and oil production filed this action against prior owners and operators of the property, as well as certain local government entities, to recover cleanup costs under, inter alia, the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 (“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), and California common law. The district court dismissed the case on cross motions for summary judgment, reasoning that plaintiff failed to meet its burden on at least one of the CERCLA elements, and that its common law claims were without merit.
I. Factual AND PRocedural Background
Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. (“Carson Harbor”) owns and operates a mobile home park on 70 acres of land in the City of Carson, California. Carson Harbor Village Mobile Home Park, a general partnership run by Richard G. Braley and Walker Smith, Jr. (collectively, the “Partnership Defendants”), owned the property from 1977 to 1983 and also operated a mobile home park there. Between 1945 and 1983, Unocal Corporаtion (“Unocal”) held a leasehold interest in the property and used it for petroleum production. Specifically, Unocal operated a number of oil wells, pipelines, above-ground storage tanks, and production facilities.
An undeveloped open flow wetlands area covers approximately 17 acres of the property. The wetlands form a natural drainage course that bisects the trailer park from the northeast to the southwest. At the northeast edge of the wetlands, storm water controlled by the City of Carson, the City of Compton and the County of Los Angeles (collectively, the “Government Defendants”), feeds into the wetlands through two storm drains. The drainage area immediately upstream from plaintiffs property includes California Highway 91, operated by the California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”), as well as mixed use industrial and residential properties. Runoff from approximately three miles of the freeway drains to the wetlands.
In the course of seeking refinancing for the property in 1993, plaintiffs lender commissioned an environmental assessment which revealed slаg and tar like material in the wetlands. Subsequent investigation disclosed (1) that the material had been on the property for several decades prior to its development as a mobile home
Because the lead concentrations exceeded state reporting limits,
In the RAP, plaintiff proposed to remove the tar and slag material and impacted soils without addressing other areas of elevated TPH and lead contamination in the wetlands because the highest concentrations were associated with the tar and slag material. The RAP recommended post-cleanup levels of 1,000 ppm for TPH and 1,000 ppm TTLC/5 ppm STLC for lead. Ross approved the RAP subject to the condition that plaintiff bring TTLC lead values down to 50 ppm, rather 1,000 ppm.
The cleanup went forward in the summer of 1995 and over the course of five days 1,042 tons of material were removed, varying in depth from one to four feet and covering an area approximately 75 feet by 160 feet. In all but four of the soil samples taken after the excavation, TPH and lead levels were within the established limits.
the removal is complete to the extent required by this Board.... [W]e havе concluded that all the requirements established by this Board in our RAP approval letter dated February 27, 1995, have been complied with. In addition, the contamination has been successfully removed and the remaining soil in the bottom of the watercourse poses no further threat to surface waters of the State. We, therefore, conclude that no further action is required at this site.
Within a year of the “no further action letter,” plaintiff filed suit against the Partnership Defendants, the Government Defendants, and Unocal, seeking to recover the costs of its remedial action as well as damages arising from its inability to refinance the property.
With respect to the common law claims of nuisance, trespass, and injury to easement against the Government Defendants, the district court held that California Civil Code § 3482 provides a complete defеnse since from 1990 forward the storm water runoff systems were covered by National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits issued pursuant to the Clean Water Act, and prior to 1990 there was no direct evidence of lead-containing runoff. Id. at 1197. Finally, as to the claim for express indemnity under the purchase agreement with the Partnership Defendants, the court reasoned that since the cleanup was not required by the RWQCB, plaintiff had not discharged an obligation of the Partnership Defendants. The indemnity provision covered only losses resulting from “any liability or obligation of seller which buyer is not specifically required to assume hereunder.” Id. at 1198 (quoting indemnity provision).
II. STANDARD Of REVIEW
A grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Robi v. Reed,
“Whether the district court correctly construed the hearsay rule is a question of law reviewed de novo.” United States v. Bao,
III. Discussion
A. CERCLA
1. Necessary Costs of Response
A private party seeking to recover the costs of cleaning up hazardous waste has the burden of proving:
(1) the site on which the hazardous substances are contained is a “facility” under CERCLA’s definition of that term, 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9);
(2) a “release” or “threatened release” of any “hazardous substance” from the facility has occurred, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4);
(3) such “release” or “threatened release” has caused the plaintiff to incur response costs that were “necessary” and “consistent with the national contingency plan,” 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a)(4) and (a)(4)(B); and
(4) the defendant is within one of four classes of persons subject to the liability provisions of Section 107(a).
3550 Stevens Creek Assoc. v. Barclays Bank of California,
In order to reach the conclusion that plaintiffs response costs were not “necessary” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B), the district court followed G.J. Leasing Co., Inc. v. Union Electric Co.,
In G.J. Leasing, the seminal case followed in Yellow Freight and Foster, the district court considered a CERCLA claim brought by a company that purchased a power plant and decided to convert the plant buildings into a warehouse, transportation terminal, and office space. The salvage company hired to dismantlе and remove the plant machinery exposed widespread asbestos contamination in the buildings and the new owners decided to have the asbestos removed in order to accommodate the new uses. The owners then filed a cost recovery action against the power company.
Following a bench trial, the district court held that none of the removal costs were “ ‘necessary’ costs of response as that term is intended under CERCLA.” G.J. Leasing,
In order to show that any response costs were necessary under CERCLA, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they responded to a threat to public health or the environment. Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden, Inc.,889 F.2d 664 , 669-70 (5th Cir.1989); Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. ASARCO, Inc.,735 F.Supp. 358 , 362 (W.D.Wash.1990). A theoretical threat is not enough. For response costs to be “necessary,” plaintiffs must establish that an actual and real public health threat exists prior to initiating a response action. See, e.g., Matter of Bell Petroleum Services, Inc.3 F.3d 889 , 904-06 (5th Cir.1993). To show that costs incurred were “necessary” under CERCLA, a party must show (1) that the costs were incurred in response to a threat to human health or the environmеnt, and (2) that the costs were necessary to address that threat. Artesian Water Co. v. Government of New Castle*1203 County,659 F.Supp. 1269 , 1278 (D.Del.1987).
Id. at 561-62. Applying this standard to the asbestos removal, the court went on to hold that the response costs incurred by the new owners were not necessary because there was evidence that the remediation was motivated by business reasons (i.e., the desire to convert the property to new uses) as opposed to “an actual and real public health threat,” there was no evidence that asbestos in the building would reach the outside environment, and employee exposure to asbestos is not a threat redressible under CERCLA. Id. at 562-63 (“In this case the evidence established that plaintiffs had other business reasons for undertaking site investigations and abatement actions. To the extent that these actions were taken for purposes other than responding to an actual and real public health threat, there is no CERCLA liability.”) (emphasis added).
Here the district court followed the G.J. Leasing ulterior motive analysis, emphasizing Ross’s testimony that the RWQCB would “not likely” have required remediation if Carson Harbor had not come forward with a plan. Ross testified as follows:
Q: Now, I’ve got another hypothetical question: If the owners had not come to you with a remediation plan, if they had simply reported to you that this is what we see here, would you have required them to develop some remediation plan?
Ross: Not likely.
Q: As far as you were concerned, this stuff, even the slag and tar-like material, could have just stayed there? Ross: Very likely.
Q: So then, basically, this remediation was done at their initiative for their own reasons and not because of any environmental or health problem that was perceived by the Regional Board?
Ross: Yes.
See Carson Harbor,
There are three flaws in the district court’s analysis. First, however well the ulterior motive analysis fits the facts of G.J. Leasing and its progeny, we decline to endorse it as a factor of any significance in the determination whether costs are incurred in response to a palpable threat to human health or the environment. In the private cost recovery context, the plaintiff with no business or financial motive for investigating and cleaning up a site will be rare indeed. Thus a court must focus on the nature of the threat presented by the contamination at issue and whether the response action is addressed to that threat. Thesе are factual questions requiring attention to the objective circumstances of each case, not a party’s subjective intent. See Cadillac Fairview/California, Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co.,
Second, although the district court correctly noted that “costs associated with voluntary remediation efforts are recoverable,” Carson Harbor,
Finally, it appears that the district court took an unnecessarily cramped view of the facts. A careful review of the record demonstrates that there are indeed genuine issues as to whether the RWQCB ordered the excavation of the tar and slag material and whether the identified contamination posed a legitimate threat. Ross’s deposition testimony two years after the cleanup that he did not require remediation is contradicted by the testimony of Carson Harbor’s environmental consultant as well as correspondence contemporaneous with the cleanup memorializing Ross’s comments at the site meetings.
A prior inconsistent statement is admissible to raise the suggestion that if a witness makes inconsistent statements, then his entire testimony may not be credible; such an inference does not depend on whether either the prior statement or the subsequent in-court statement is true. Therefore, because a declarant’s prior inconsistent statement is not offered for its truth, it is not hearsay.
Bao,
Ross’s testimony is further undermined by other admissible evidence suggesting that Carson Harbor acted subject to RWQCB mandates. First and foremost, in the same deposition in which he answered the hypothetical question, Ross conceded that lead contamination from the tar and slag material presented a threat to both surface and groundwater,
2. Active/Passive Disposal
CERCLA creates four categories of potentially responsible parties (“PRP’s”):
(1) the owner and operator of a vessel or a facility;
(2) any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facility at which such hazardous substances were disposed of;
*1206 (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 or incineration vessel owned or operated by another party or entity and containing such hazardous substances, and
(4) any person who accepts or accepted any hazardous substances for transport to disposal or treatment facilities, incineration vessels or sites selected by such person....
42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(l)-(4). Only a party who falls within one of these classes is subject to liability under the statute.
The district court ruled that the Partnership Defendants were not PRP’s under § 9607(a)(2) because there was no evidence of a “disposal” between 1977 and 1983 when they held the property. To reach this conclusion the court rejected plaintiffs claim that the spread of contamination from the tar and slag material into the surrounding soil constituted a “disposal.” As the court reasoned:
While CERCLA wаs intended to reach broadly, it also clearly expresses limits to the contemplated statutory liability. To find otherwise would subject previous owners who had no knowledge of or control over hazardous substances on their property to liability under the statute. This result is in stark conflict with the intent of CERCLA, which is to affix the ultimate cost of cleaning up disposal sites on the parties responsible for the contamination.
Carson Harbor,
There is a circuit split on the question whether the statutory definition of disposal encompasses passive migration of hazardous substances, compare Nurad, Inc. v. William E. Hooper & Sons Co.,
As with any question of statutory construction, we begin with the language and structure of the statute. CERCLA states that the term “disposal” shall have the meaning provided in RCRA. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(29). According to RCRA:
The term “disposal” means the discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water so that such solid waste or hazardous waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment or be emitted into the air or discharged into any waters, including ground waters.
42 U.S.C. § 6903(3). The argument that this definition encompasses passive migration is straightforward. First, at least three of the listed terms have well-recognized passive meanings. A hazardous waste may plainly “discharge,” “spill,” or “leak,” without any active human participation. Although other courts have focused on “spill” and “leak,” the passive meaning of “discharge” is especially broad. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 644 (Philip Babcock Gove & the
Second, in the context of RCRA-the statute from which the definition of disposal is imported-the Fourth Circuit squarely rejected the “strained reading” that would limit disposal to active human conduct. United States v. Waste Indus., Inc.,
Finally, including the passive meaning of the statutory definition coheres with the structure and purpose of CERCLA’s liability provisions. As this court has observed:
CERCLA was enacted to “provide for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites.” Pub.L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980). It generally imposes strict liability on owners and operators of facilities at which hazardous substances were disposed.
3550 Stevens Creek,
The district court’s view of the CERC-LA definition of disposal is also at odds with CERCLA’s strict liability emphasis. The trigger to liability under § 9607(a)(2) is ownership or operation of a facility at the time of a disposal, not culpability or responsibility for the contamination. See United States v. Monsanto,858 F.2d 160 , 167 (4th Cir.1988) (“The traditional elements of tort culpability on which the site-owners rely simply are absent from the statute.”); New York v. Shore Realty Corp.,759 F.2d 1032 , 1044 (2d Cir.1985) (noting that Congress specifically rejected a causation requirement). We must decline therefore to engraft onto the statute ad*1208 ditional prerequisites to the reimbursement of response costs which Congress did not place there.
We are not dissuaded from reaching this conclusion by the thoughtful opinion of the Third Circuit in CDMG or its progeny. Briefly, in CDMG the Third Circuit highlighted a number of irrationalities that apparently result from giving “disposal” a passive meaning. First, according to the сanon noscitur a sociis, “leak” and “spill” must be read together with the surrounding words in the definition, all of which “envision a human actor.”96 F.3d at 714 . Reading “leak” and “spill” as passive when the surrounding words are active undermines the coherence of the list. Second, giving “disposal” a passive meaning makes the term synonymous with “release,” which Congress explicitly defined to include not only “disposal” but terms typically used to describe passive migration such as “leaching.” Id. at 714-15 (“Congress’ use of the term ‘leaching’ in the definition of ‘release’ demonstrates that it was aware of the concept of passive migration in landfills and that it knew how to explicitly refer to that concept. Yet Congress made prior owners liable if they owned land at the time of ‘disposal,’ not at the time of ‘release.’ ”).17 Third, the reference to the “time of disposal” in § 9607(a)(2) is arguably an awkward means of creating liability for all owners “after the introduction of waste into the facility,” if that is all Congress meant to do. Id. at 715. Fourth, if “disposal” includes passive migration, the so-called innocent landowner defense would be rendered meaningless since no one could show that he or she acquired the property “after disposal.” Id. at 716; see also 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(A) (defendant asserting innocent landowner defense must
Even if we were to concede that these concerns do indeed arise from reading “disposal” to include passive migration, it is far from obvious that an “active-only” interpretation must prevail. Even the CDMG court recognized that “[b]ecause of the great haste with which CERCLA was passed, inconsistencies and redundancies pervade the statute.”
Returning to the CDMG court’s reasoning, however tidy the application of nosci-tur a sociis renders the definition of “disposal,” it conflicts with the plain meaning of the passive terms included in the definition. Moreover, insofar as the canon operates to narrow the definition of “disposal,” it also conflicts with the well established
As for the redundancy of “release” and “disposal,” it has long been recognized that “[i]t is not possible to interpret these two definitions without some degree of inconsistency” because both definitions share terms. United States v. Petersen Sand & Gravel, Inc.,
The reference to “time of disposal” is neither awkward nor superfluous under our reading. Rather, the time of disposal requirement draws an important distinction in CERCLA’s otherwise capacious liability framework by making disposal a temporal trigger for prior owner liability: owners and operators who precede the disposal of hazardous substances are not covered by the Act, regardless of their knowledge that selling the property to a certain buyer (take, for instance, a company that operates landfills or hazardous waste sites) may result in contamination. The time of disposal requirement would certainly do more work under an active disposal interpretation since it would import a form of causation analysis into § 9607(a)(2), but given that Congress pushed causation requirements as a general matter into the statutory defenses, we are loathe to assume that it intended anything unique in the liability provision governing prior owners and operators.
And contrary to the CDMG court’s analysis, an active construction of “disposal” is not required to preserve the innocent landowner defense. The CDMG court reasoned that the innocent landowner defense would almost never apply under a passive migration theory “as there would generally be no point ‘after disposal.’ ”
Finally, an active theory of “disposal” creates inconsistencies of its own. Under an active theory one must assume that Congress intended to create a major distinction between current and former owner/operators. Current owners are PRP’s without regard to fault, but prior owners would be completely immune from suit if they did not own the property during an act of disposal. Even prior owners who knew or should have known that their prоperty was contaminated and that the waste was spreading would be immune.
Here, the district court’s endorsement of an active theory would completely immunize the Partnership Defendants. But there is very little to distinguish the current owner plaintiff from the Partnership Defendants. Both came into ownership long after the tar and slag material was “actively” disposed on the property, and neither directly caused any contamination by their use of the property as a mobile home park. Instead, both parties were owners while lead and TPH from the tar and slag discharged into the wetlands. The only significant distinction between the parties is that, during the Partnership Defendants’ ownership, Unocal was still engaged in oil production on the property. Thus, if anything, the Partnership Defendants had more reason to be vigilant about the possibility of contamination from oil production. Yet by reading “at the time of the disposal” to require human agency, the Partnership Defendants would be completely exempt from liability for the cleanup costs incurred by Carson Harbor. Under a passive theory, by contrast, the Partnership Defendants are responsible parties unless and until they establish a statutory defense. A passive theory fits better with Congress’ decision to eschew a causation-based liability framework and to ensure prompt cleanup by drawing in all “potentially responsible parties.” Accordingly, we hold that “disposal” includes passive migration and that plaintiffs are entitled to proceed in their CERCLA' claim against the Partnership Defendants.
We decline to decide, in the first instance, all but one of the other issues raised by the Government Defendants to support summary judgment in their favor on the CERCLA claim.
In deleting causation language from section 107(a), we assume as have many other courts, that Congress knew of the synergistic and migratory capacities of leaking chemical waste, and the technological infeasibility of tracing improperly disposed waste to its source.... See United States v. Wade,577 F.Supp. 1326 , 1332 (E.D.Pa.1983) (“[T]o require a plaintiff under CERCLA to ‘fingerprint’ wastes is to eviscerate the statute.”).
Monsanto,
B. State Claims Against the Government Defendants
California Civil Code § 3482 provides that “[n]othing which is done or maintained under the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance.” There was no error in the district court’s decision that this provision precludes all of Carson Harbor’s state law claims against the Government Defendants. California courts have read § 3482 to preclude common law challenges to statutorily authorized conduct. See Farmers Ins. Exch. v. California,
C. Express Indemnity From the Partnership Defendants
The district court granted summary judgment to the Partnership Defendants on Carson Harbor’s claim for indemnity under the purchase agreement because it had already concluded that the cleanup was not necessary within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(B). The indemnity provision applies only if the Partnership Defendants would have been obliged to remove the hazardous substances in 1983. In view of our holding that there are genuine issues as to whether Carson Harbor’s response costs were necessary, we reverse the grant of summary judgment on the claim for indemnity.
IV. Conclusion
The district cоurt’s grant of summary judgment in favor of all defendants on the CERCLA claim is REVERSED. We also REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment for the Partnership Defendants on plaintiffs claim for indemnity under the purchase agreement. The case is REMANDED for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. All parties are to bear their own costs.
AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART AND REMANDED.
Notes
. Plaintiff's causes of action under the Resource Conservation ■ and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), and the Clean Water Act ("CWA”), 33 U.S.C. § 1365, also rejected by the district court, are not before this court on appeal.
.The property is located within the Dominguez Oil Field in Los Angeles County.
. Testing revealed the following concentrations:
TPH Tar sample: 120,000 parts per million ("ppm”)
Slag sample: 35 ppm
Underlying soil: 2,300 ppm
Lead Tar sample: 1600 ppm (TTLC)
Slag Sample: 590 ppm (TTLC) and 12 ppm (STLC)
Underlying soil: 2,300 ppm (TTLC) and 86 ppm (STLC)
"TTLC” refers to "total threshold limit concentrations,” and "STLC” refers to the "soluble threshold limit concentrations.” The latter reflects water soluble lead concentrations.
.Upgradient testing revealed the following concentrations:
TPH 13 to 560 ppm
Lead 11 to 220 ppm (TTLC) and 0 to 23 (STLC)
An off-site sample taken from the highway, 1,000 feet upstream from the tar and slag material, revealed TPH at 1,900 ppm and lead at 150 ppm (TTLC).
.The mandatory reporting limits for lead are 1,000 ppm (TTLC) and 5 ppm (STLC).
. On August 30, 1994, one month after reporting the contamination to the RWQCB, plaintiff's environmental consultant wrote to Ross: "Our goal in reporting [the contamination] to the Regional Board is to comply with thе legal reporting requirements and also to obtain in writing any additional requirements that the Board may deem appropriate. If no further action is required, we would appreciate a letter so stating." No letter came. Instead, Ross met with the consultant at the property in October 1994 to discuss remedial options and an RAP was submitted to the RWQCB by January 1995.
. Ross also stated that a health risk assessment would have to be performed and that, following cleanup, a no further action letter would cover only the tar and slag area.
.In the four deviant samples, lead levels were still slightly above the TTLC and STLC limits. In the closure report, plaintiff’s environmental consultant indicated that "[t]he elevated lead concentration at those locations may be attributed to a greater occurrence from the impacts of runoff” because the samples "were collected along the western edge of the excavation adjacent to the wetland portion of the stream channel.”
. Although Caltrans and James Van Loben Seis are also named in the complaint, they are not identified in any of the causes of action at issue in this appeal.
. Yellow Freight is another asbestos abatement case. The owner of a former railroad car manufacturing plant decided to conduct asbestos abatement and PCB removal in the process of demolishing buildings to make the site suitable for trucking operations.
[T]he evidence showed that Yellow Freight had business reasons for undertaking the investigation, sampling and abatement actions at the site.... To the extent Yellow Freight’s actions were taken for purposes other than responding to a public health threat, it cannot establish that its costs expended were necessary under CERCLA.
Id.
Similarly, in Foster, the owner of contaminated land decided to remove hazardous waste only after a prospective purchaser abandoned negotiations upon discovering the contamination. Following G.J. Leasing’s ulterior motive analysis, the court held that the costs incurred were unnecessary becаuse they were not in response to a public health threat.
. This is not to say that government involvement is altogether irrelevant. As we held in NL Industries, where an agency requires action, the agency mandate is sufficient to derm onstrate that the costs incurred pursuant to the mandate were necessary.
. In his deposition, plaintiff’s consultant, Dr. Hassan Amini, testified that "Mr. Ross said that the material needed to be removed ... [in] concurrence with our recommendation.” Dr. Amini’s testimony is corroborated by two letters he sent to Ross while the RAP was under consideration. In the cover letter submitted with the RAP Dr. Amini said: "Since our field meeting with you, and in response to your request, wе have collected additional soil samples surrounding the impacted area and have developed the attached remediation workplan for removal of the waste material and impacted soil.” (Emphasis added). And in a subsequent letter Dr. Amini again confirmed that “the remediation being undertaken by Carson Harbor Village, Ltd. is being required pursuant to our meeting, our conversations and in accordance with the [RWQCB’s] Water Quality Plan to preserve and enhance water quality and protect the beneficial uses of all waters within the basin.”
Prior to the cleanup a Unocal representative who participated in the remediation plans also wrote an internal memorandum stating: "We met with Jim Ross of RWQCB and confirmed that he wants the ‘slag-like’ and ‘tar-like’ material removed from the creek bed.”
. Ross testified:
Q: Do you agree that this project was a surface water quality protection issue?
Ross: In part, yes.
Q: What do you mean "in part”?
Ross: Well, it also has the potential to be groundwater.
Q: Okay. So do you think that there might be a threat to groundwater as a result of the contamination on the property?
Ross: Certainly occurred to me.
Q: What hazardous substances on the property did you think were a threat to groundwater?
Ross: Lead primarily.
Q: Did the levels of lead thаt were found on this property have the potential to get into the groundwater?
Ross: Yes, the soluble lead.
. Because a PRP may be eligible for one or more of the defenses set forth in 42 U.S.C. § 9607(b), one’s status as a PRP is a necessary but not sufficient condition of CERCLA liability.
. District courts within the Ninth Circuit are divided on the question. Compare Carson Harbor,
. According to 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22):
The term "release” means any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment (including the abandonment or discarding of barrels, containers, and other closed receptacles containing any hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant) ....
. In any event, the CDMG court does not appear to have been completely convinced of its noscitur a sociis argument. The court said only that “Congress may have intended active meanings of ‘leaking’ and 'spilling.' ”
. Tellingly, as we have seen, the common definition of "discharge” includes "release.” Other terms in the statute present similar conundrums. Compare, for instance, CERC-LA's use of the terms "hazardous substance” and "hazardous waste” on the question whether CERCLA covers the voluntary removal of hazardous building material from a commercial building under the prior owner provision. See 3550 Stevens Creek,
. The CDMG court dismisses the disjunctive reference to placement on the grounds that it is redundant since the definition of disposal includes placement.
. This argument assumes without deciding that the innocent landowner defense is equally available to current and former owners and that nothing in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(35)(C) creates liability beyond the class of PRP’s established in § 9607(a). Compare CDMG,
.We find no error, however, in the district court's conclusion that Carson Harbor failed
. We leave it to the district court to resolve on remand the Government Defendants' additional claims that plaintiff’s response costs were not consistent with the national contingency plan ("NCP”), that federally permitted releases are exempt from CERCLA coverage under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(j), and that the third party defense applies. Although we will generally uphold summary judgment on any ground supported by the record, the third party defense and the federally permitted release exemption are affirmative defenses as to which the Government Defendants bear the burden of proof — a burden they have failed to meet on the record before this court. Moreover, we decline to take up the Government Defendants’ passing reference to the NCP consistency issue. We have not only held that substantial compliance is sufficient to establish that response costs were incurred consistent with the NCP, see Louisiana-Pacific,
Concurrence in Part
dissenting in part:
While I join Parts I, II, III A 1, III B and III C of the panel opinion, I cannot agree that CERCLA liability extends to the so-called passive migration of hazardous wastes. Accordingly, I dissent from Part III A 2.
In adopting the passive migration theory, first espoused eight years ago by the Fourth Circuit in Nurad, Inc. v. William E. Hooper & Sons Co.,
To be considered a potentially responsible party under CERCLA, one must be “the owner or operator at the time the hazardous substances were disposed” on the property. Section 9607(a)(2). “Disposal,” in turn, is defined as the “discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into or on any land or water.” Section § 6903(3). Nurad held that, under § 9607(a), a landowner can be held to have disposed of hazardous material if he passively allowed that material to migrate in the environment during his ownership. Nurad,
In its verb tense, “leak” is defined as “to permit to enter or escape through a leak.” Id. at 1285. Even an accidental leak requires human activity to cause it. Whether one let a metal drum rust to the point of leakage or fails to ensure the container is leakproof before it is fillеd, leaks don’t occur without someone actively placing the hazardous waste in the container and creating the conditions under which it could, with the passage of time, begin to escape.
“Discharge” arguably requires less human interaction to occur than does a spill or a leak since discharge can be a naturally occurring event. For example, spring water can discharge from the earth under its own pressure. I believe that this is the sense that the majority uses when it notes that “discharge” can be defined as “to give outlet or vent to: emit.” But in the sense the word is used in the statute, I believe a discharge, to be actionable under CERC-LA, must also result from active human conduct. Congress must have intended “discharge” to be read in pari materia with the other verbs and to be defined in the sense most applicable to the evil CERCLA seeks to prevent. Thus, I believe Congress also intended that the definition of discharge be limited to “unload or empty,” or “to pour forth contents,” both of which imply active conduct.
The statutory distinction between “disposal” and “release” supports this limitation. Release is a broadеr term than disposal since disposal is included within the definition of release. Compare 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22) with § 9601(29). As the Sixth Circuit stated quite recently in 150 Acres of Land, it makes more sense for the statutory scheme, as well as the words themselves, to have disposal stand for activity that precedes the entry of a substance into the environment and release stand for the actual entry of the substance.
While the majority argues that the definition of potentially responsible party (PRP) is broad, leaving defendants to prove the absence of a causal role as an affirmative defense, I believe this puts the cart before the statutory horse. Congress intended strict liability only for PRPs and offered a specific definition of that term which incorporates only the disposal requirement. If Congress had intended
In conclusion, I would hold that one who merely owns a site upon which previously dumped chemicals or, in this case, naturally occurring lead contamination has spread, does not meet the definition of a potentially responsible party. A passive migration theory, permitting an otherwise non responsible party to be held liable, fails to comport with the overriding legislative intent to place strict liability upon those who created the pollution. Kaiser Aluminum v. Catellus Development Corp.,
. In Nurad, the prior owners of a property, Hooper and Mumaw, were held liable under CERCLA for cleanup costs incurred by the incumbent owner Nurad. Hooper had installed underground storage tanks (USTs) which he used to store mineral spirits used in textile finishing. The USTs leaked and the mineral spirits were found in surrounding soils. Although the district court concluded that Hooper was liable because he had disposed of the mineral spirits and then abandoned them in the USTs, it held that Mumaw was not liable, even though passive migration of hazardous substances may have occurred during his ownership, because Mumaw had no active role in managing the tanks or their contents. The Fourth Circuit concluded that
. Noting that CERCLA provides for an "innocent owner” defense, §§ 9607(b)(3), 9601(35), the CDMG Realty court added that if "disposal” were defined to include the gradual spread of waste aftеr a spill, the innocent owner defense would be almost a nullity.