With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". plaintiff has already received a full remedy and its action is moot is therefore denied. 3. CERCLA Claims Against The Government Defendants a. Release Of A Hazardous Substance CERCLA defines a “release” as “any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment.... ” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22). Courts have construed this definition broadly. See, e.g., Amoco Oil Co. v. Borden, Inc., 889 F.2d 664, 669 (5th Cir.1989) (“the definition of release should be construed broadly”); Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 889 F.2d 1146, 1152 (1st Cir.1989) (“The courts have construed CERCLA’s definition of ‘release’ broadly”); State of New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1045 (2d Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>); City of Tulsa v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 258

A: recognizing the courts continued holding that visual observation is no search at all
B: holding that leaking tanks and pipelines continued leaching and seepage from earlier spills and leaking drums were all releases
C: holding that all inclusive language  from the beginning of the world to the days present barred all claims arising prior to releases execution
D: holding intent may be inferred from all facts and circumstances
B.