Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
undocumented utilization of the dump by the general population over a protracted period of time, the contamination could never realistically be traced to particular contributors. • The cases relied upon by the Town do not support such a counter-intuitive proposition. In Delaney, the district court had to determine whether the Town of Carmel could be held strictly liable as an owner under CERCLA because it entered into leases with private landowners to allow septic waste haulers to dispose of such waste on the landowners’ property. In answering this question in the negative, the court concluded that plaintiffs did not present “sufficient allegations of ‘site control’ to render the leaseholder Carmel a CERCLA ‘owner.’ ” Delaney, 55 F.Supp.2d at 259; but see Commander Oil, 215 F.3d at 329 . The court further rejected plaintiffs’
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing cercla successor liability
B. holding that notice not required because cercla is a strict liability statute
C. holding  substantial continuity is untenable as a basis for successor liability under cercla
D. holding that state law determines successor liability under cercla
E. holding that site control alone is an improper basis for imposition on lessees of owner liability under cercla
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.