ELR Citation: ELR 20178
No(s). 08-01897 (E.D. Cal. Aug 5, 2009)

A district court denied a machinery company's motion for summary judgment on claims that it released hazardous substances at a Superfund site. Between 1985 and 1994, the machinery company held its operations on a portion of property now subject to CERCLA litigations. There, the company machined small metal parts and released cutting oils with metal shavings into the soil. It argued that its release of cutting oils does not create CERCLA liability because cutting oil is not a hazardous substance under CERCLA's petroleum exclusion. The petroleum exclusion, however, does not apply to hazardous substances that are added to petroleum products during use. The company also argued that the metal shavings were not a hazardous substance. But there is at least a question of fact as to whether the alloy steel used by the company contained chromium or lead, both of which are listed hazardous substances. The court also rejected claims that the term "chromium and compounds" as used in CERCLA's list of hazardous substances is ambiguous. Because there is some evidence that the company's metal shavings included hazardous substances, there is a genuine issue of fact for trial as to whether hazardous substances were released at the site while the defendant carried on its operations there. The operator's motion for summary judgment was therefore denied.

[A prior decision in this litigation can be found at 39 ELR 20169]