## Facts

- A municipal landfill in Morris County, New Jersey operated from 1945 to 1972 and received municipal refuse and hazardous chemical waste, contaminating soil and groundwater.
- Dowel Associates purchased about 10 acres within the landfill property in 1981; the parcel was vacant and remained unused for waste disposal or industrial activity during Dowel’s ownership.
- Dowel’s only site activity was a soil investigation involving drill borings that penetrated waste materials and groundwater to assess construction feasibility.
- In 1987, Dowel sold the parcel to HMAT Associates, Inc., disclosing that the property was part of the landfill and under state and federal investigation as a potential Superfund site.
- In 1989, federal and state agencies brought actions to recover cleanup costs from potentially responsible parties; HMAT, as current owner, was named, but Dowel was not.
- HMAT filed a third-party contribution claim against Dowel, asserting Dowel was liable as a former owner “at the time of disposal” under CERCLA § 107(a)(2), despite conceding no dumping occurred on the parcel during Dowel’s ownership.
- HMAT alleged “disposal” occurred during Dowel’s ownership via (1) passive migration of preexisting contamination and (2) contaminant dispersal caused by Dowel’s soil borings.
- The district court granted summary judgment for Dowel and denied HMAT’s summary-judgment motion; HMAT appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether “disposal” under CERCLA § 107(a)(2) includes passive migration of hazardous substances already present in the ground during a prior owner’s tenure.
2. Whether a prior owner’s soil-boring investigation that disturbs contaminated media constitutes “disposal” sufficient to impose § 107(a)(2) liability on the summary-judgment record.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Dowel.
- “Disposal” for § 107(a)(2) purposes does not encompass mere passive migration of contamination that predated the defendant’s ownership.
- Although intrusive site work can, in principle, constitute “disposal” if it actively spreads or relocates hazardous substances, HMAT’s evidence did not show Dowel’s borings caused a qualifying disposal on this record.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA’s definition of “disposal” (via RCRA) is a term of art centered on discrete actions (e.g., discharge, deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, placing), not natural migration alone.
- Prior-owner liability under CERCLA § 107(a)(2) requires ownership “at the time of disposal,” meaning at the time of a relevant disposal event rather than during continuing effects of earlier disposals.
- Passive migration of preexisting contamination, without additional human-caused release or redistribution, is insufficient to establish “disposal” during a prior owner’s tenure.
- Intrusive activities (including investigations) may qualify as “disposal” only if evidence shows they caused an actionable release or redistribution within the statutory definition.

## Conclusion

The court held that a prior owner is not liable under CERCLA § 107(a)(2) solely because preexisting contamination continued to migrate during its ownership, and it affirmed summary judgment where the current owner failed to show that the prior owner’s soil-boring investigation actually caused a statutory “disposal.”


United States v. CDMG Realty Co., 96 F.3d 706 (3d Cir. 1996)