see, e.g., Dedham Water Co. v. Cumberland Farms Dairy, Inc., 889 F.2d 1146, 1152 (1st Cir.1989); United States v. A & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc., 788 F.Supp. 1317, 1324-25 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (Sweet, J.), and it is irrelevant if the PSA asserts that there are even very low levels of concentration, Murtha, 958 F.2d at 1200; see Sachs Aff., Ex. P, PSA at 1-7, or that such substances do not rise to the level of being classified as hazardous “waste.” There is no dispute over whether there was a release or a threat of release of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22) (1995) states that a “release” is “any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment.” See Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d at 1045 (<HOLDING>). The PSA concluded that “[cjontamination has
holding that all inclusive language  from the beginning of the world to the days present barred all claims arising prior to releases execution holding that direct proof of intent to defraud is unnecessary and that it may be inferred from the act of the parties and from all circumstances holding that an earlier supreme court decision interpreting the term enterprise from the pennsylvania corrupt organizations act pa coa was the first instance in which the court had addressed that question at issue and therefore the earlier ruling did not announce a new rule of law and must be deemed to have merely explicated the meaning and scope of the term from the pa coas original enactment in 1973 recognizing that the intent element is to be gleaned from all the surrounding facts and testimony and not solely from the subjective intent of the original shipper holding that leaking tanks and pipelines the continuing leaching and seepage from the earlier spills and the leaking drums all constitute releases 