or treatment of hazardous waste; and (4) any person who accepted or accepts hazardous waste for the purpose of transporting it to a disposal facility. Bancroft-Whitney, California Civil Practice, Environmental Litigation, § 3:28 (1993); 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(l)-(4); 40 C.F.R. § 35.6015(a)(32). We have interpreted CERCLA to hold PRPs strictly liable for the investigation and remediation of hazardous waste sites. Moreover, like many of our sister circuits, we have also held that CERCLA liability is joint and several. Atchison Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Brown & Bryant, Inc., 159 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir.1998). This means that all PRPs are assigned liability for the whole amount of the cleanup costs, and then permitted to allo Suburban Sanitary Comm’n, 66 F.3d 669, 675-80 (4th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Under CERCLA, the cleanup of listed hazardous
recognizing that city may be liable for negligent maintenance of sewer system even though doctrine of res ipsa loquitor was inapplicable holding that a municipal sewer system that leaked hazardous waste could rely on a thirdparty defense to avoid liability under cercla holding that a municipal sewer system is liable for the acts of a third party that discharged hazardous waste into the system holding a city liable for a dangerous condition caused by a submerged municipal sewer pipe in federal waters holding county liable for false arrests when it has no system to check validity of warrants on computer system