hazardous substances found at the site are also found in the defendant’s waste. There appeal's to be some confusion in the parties’ briefs regarding the issue of causation under CERCLA. Where, as here, a plaintiff is seeking recovery from numerous generator potentially responsible parties (“PRPs”), “the issue of causation would involve a factual determination of not whether defendants hazardous waste caused response costs, but, rather, whether a release or threatened release caused plaintiffs to incur response costs.” Arizona v. Motorola, 805 F.Supp. 742, 746 (D.Ariz.1992). Thus, Acme is not required to show that any particular “fast-track” defendant’s waste was the cause or a cause of the release. See, e.g. Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, 889 F.2d 1146, 1157 (1st Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Ottati & Goss Inc., 630
holding that plaintiffs may have a property interest in real property holding that cercla does not require proof that defendants hazardous substance in fact contaminated plaintiffs property holding that apprendi does not require the government to prove that defendant knew type and amount of controlled substance holding without discussion that a cercla arranger must own or possess the hazardous substance at issue holding that possession of a controlled substance is a crime only if the defendant knowingly possesses the substance and has knowledge of the nature of that substance