ELR Citation: 42 ELR 20069
No(s). ELH-11-02267 (D. Md. Mar 14, 2012) (Hollander, J.)

A district court dismissed an insurance company's CERCLA claim against a tree nursery to recover response costs incurred by firefighters responding to a fire. The fire involved chlorine, a hazardous substance, and the company asserted that its insureds--two fire companies—"removed" and "remediated" the chlorine at the nursery within the meaning of CERCLA. But the firefighters were responding to a fire, not embarking upon an environmental cleanup. In the course of fighting a fire, they moved cylinders containing a hazardous substance from an area of the nursery where they were at risk of ignition, to an area of the facility where they were not; once removed from the shed, the hazardous substance in the cylinders was vented into the environment; and the cylinders were ultimately left behind at nursery. These actions do not constitute a "permanent remedy" with respect to the storage of chlorine. Nor did the fire companies undertake any removal action.