discharged into any waters, including ground waters.” See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6903(3); 9601(29). As discussed in Section B of this opinion, PERC, a hazardous waste, did leak into the ground of the facility at issue and entered the environment. Therefore, there has been a "disposal” as defined by the statute. 95 . Defs.’ Post-Trial Br. at 6 (Docket No. 326) (citing Rubin v. United States, 449 U.S. 424, 430, 101 S.Ct. 698, 66 L.Ed.2d 633 (1981)). 96 . See, e.g., Gen. Battery, 423 F.3d at 298 (quoting Exxon Corp g proof of personal ownership or physical possession as a precondition for liability frustrates CERC-LA's broad remedial purposes); United States v. Union Corp., 259 F.Supp.2d 356, 393 (E.D.Pa.2003) (citing Aceto); United States v. Mottolo, 629 F.Supp. 56, 60 (D.N.H.1984) ("Mottolo I") (<HOLDING>); R.R. Street II., 166 S.W.3d at 242 (citing
holding that a requirement that the defendant not use or possess alcoholic beverages should not have been imposed as a special condition of probation holding that congress did not authorize the states to enforce federal law where it gave states regulatory control through enforcement of their own laws holding without discussion that a cercla arranger must own or possess the hazardous substance at issue holding that alien on student visa could not lawfully possess intent to be domiciled in the united states holding that section 107a3 clearly states that arrangers need not own or possess the waste