|
if
<br /> 1
<br /> +• 818 F.Supp.292
<br /> Page 7
<br /> (Cite as: 818 F.Supp.292,*294)
<br /> i15 i
<br /> further. The California Supreme Court is clear meaning of CERCLA." Id. at 810. The logic in
<br /> concerning statutory interpretation: Wilshire Westwood is compelling here.
<br /> To determine the intent of legislation,we first consult i€
<br /> the words themselves, giving them their usual and FN2? Theipetroleum exclusion provision' in the ;
<br /> ordinary meaning. When "statutory language is ... Comprehensive Environmental Response,
<br /> clear and unambiguous there is no need for Com'pensatioii, and Liability Act ("Superfund") is
<br /> construction, and courts should not.indulge in it." contained within the statute's definition of the term !
<br /> The plain meaning of words in a statute may be "hazardous substance"and states: "The term[hazardous
<br /> disregarded only when that meaning is " 'repugnant to substance] does not include petroleum, including crude
<br /> oil or any fraction thereof which is not otherwise
<br /> the general purview of the act,' or for some other specifically listed or designated as a hazardous
<br /> compelling reason...." substance....".42 U.S.C.§9601(14). !
<br /> DaFonte v. Up-Right, Inc., 2 Cal. 4th 593, 601, 7
<br /> Plaintiff does not offer an alternative reading of the
<br /> Cal.Rptr.2d 238, 828 P.2d 140 (1992) (citations statute, but challenges this interpretation of section
<br /> omitted). 25317 on two fronts. l
<br /> The starting point for deciding whether the terms of First, plaintiff argues that two California courts have
<br /> the Act apply to gasoline is section 25317's petroleum examined ;the scope of the exclusion and decided it
<br /> exclusion. That section states expressly that petroleum, should not apply, to refined petroleum. However, C
<br /> crude oil, and crude oil "fractions" are excepted from neither case is persuasive. Sachs v. Exxon Co. U.S.A.,
<br /> the Act's reach, provided those fractions are not 9 Cal.App.4th 1491, 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 237 (1992),
<br /> themselves listed hazardous substances. A crude oil modified and reh'g denied, 10 Cal.App.4th 151213,
<br /> fraction is a mixture or chemical compound derived review deified, (Dec. 17, 1992), merely mentions the
<br /> from crude oil through "cracking" or a distillation Act in dicta, stating "we do not express any opinion
<br /> process; as a compound obtained
<br /> p through gh the with respect to they scope of the petroleum exclusion set
<br /> distillation process, gasoline is universally forth in [the Act].!p.." Id. 9 Cal.App.4th at 1497, n. 4,
<br /> acknowledged to be a crude oil fraction. See Hawley's 12 Cal.Rptr.2d 237. Totrinello v. Johnson, No.
<br /> Condensed Chemical Dictionary 892 (11th ed. 1987) 645739 (San Diego Superior Court, filed March 27,
<br /> (Gasoline is among "[t]he most important petroleum 1992) is #an unpublished trial court minute order
<br /> fractions, obtained by cracking or distillation...... overruling,without analysis, a demurrer based on the
<br /> Thus,because gasoline is a crude oil fraction,but is not Act's petroleum exclusion, with the trial court only
<br /> a specifically listed hazardous substance, see Cal. assumed for purposes of the demurrer that responsible
<br /> Health & Safety Code §§ 25316(a)-(f), a plain reading regulatory'lagencies could consider refined petroleum
<br /> of the statute reveals gasoline is exempt from the Act. products to be included in the Act.
<br /> This is the same result reached b the Ninth Circuit in
<br /> y [3] Second, both plaintiff and Amicus Department
<br /> interpreting the almost identical statute in the argue that the petroleum exclusion contained in the Act
<br /> petroleum exclusion provision of the federal Superfund precludes state regulation only of unrefined petroleum
<br /> law. [FN2] In Wilshire Westwood Assoc. v. Atlantic and crude' oil. Once petroleum and crude oil are
<br /> Richfield, 881 F.2d 801, 803 (9th Cir.1989) the Ninth refined, they argue, the refined petroleum is subject to
<br /> Circuit considered whether leaded gasoline and its state regulation if it is a specifically listed hazardous
<br /> various constituent parts--including benzene, toluene, substance'or if.it ,contains specifically listed hazardous
<br /> and xylene (the same constituents alleged by plaintiffs substances. [FN3] Therefore, it is argued, because the
<br /> in this action)--fall within the scope of the federal materials that leaked from the tanks were alleged to be
<br /> CERCLA petroleum exclusion. The court found the "refined petroleum , along with other hazardous
<br /> "plain meaning" of the exclusion in CERCLA *295 substances, including but not limited to, benzene, f
<br /> made it "unnecessary" to resort to legislative history toluene, and xylene," Fourth Amended Complaint at 4, !
<br /> and agency interpretation of the exclusion. The court 11, the--,"petroleum exclusion does not apply. This }
<br /> held that "the petroleum exclusion in CERCLA does argument is not convincing. [FN4] The Act contains a
<br /> apply to unrefined and refined gasoline even though specific exclusion'Ifor petroleum and its fractions. The
<br /> certain of its indigenous components and certain language of section 25317 specifically requires the
<br /> additives during the refining process have themselves fractions--riot thecomponents of the fractions--to be
<br /> been designated as hazardous substances within the listed hazardous substances in order to be subject to the
<br /> �F F
<br /> Copr. ©West 1998 No Claim to Orig.U.S 'Govt.Works #
<br /> i� •
<br /> 1
<br /> h
<br />
|