Bloomberg Law’s combination of innovative analytics, research tools and practical guidance provides you with everything you need to be a successful litigator.
April 6 — A Ninth Circuit panel appeared disinclined to find that the Superfund law includes contaminants that traveled by air from a Canadian smelter onto a contaminated U.S. site.
The seemingly skeptical three-judge panel considered sharply contrasting oral arguments on how far the U.S. hazardous waste law extends Apr. 6.
The appeal, based on the judges' questioning, may turn on the court's interpretation of a related law with terms similar to those in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., 9th Cir., No. 15-35228, oral arguments 4/6/16).
Kevin M. Fong, of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman in San Francisco, who represented smelter owner Teck Cominco Metals Ltd., argued that Teck had no “arranger liability” for aerial emissions from its smokestacks because CERCLA requires a direct deposit of contaminants onto land or into water .
But the State of Washington, the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, and the Department of Justice (as an amicus party) panned that narrower view, saying it would subvert CERCLA's remedial intent.
Superfund liability attaches when an entity “arranges” for the disposal of hazardous substances and those substances are “deposited” or “disposed of” at a site, at which point the site becomes a “facility,” here the Upper Columbia River Superfund Site.
Whether deposits of emissions from the smelter's smokestacks in British Columbia fit the CERCLA mold is the crux of the appeal.
David Gualtieri, who argued for the Department of Justice, said the lack of court decisions on the aerial emission issue in the case reflected long-accepted notions of CERCLA's broad reach and its goal of remediating contamination of land and water—even when, as here, it arrives by air .
“Why shouldn't we take the government's arguments as the tie-breaker even though it's in an amicus brief?” Judge Consuelo M. Callahan asked Fong, noting a lack of specific EPA pronouncements on CERCLA's applicability to aerial emissions.
But the panel also had to wrestle with a 2014 Ninth Circuit ruling on a related statute—the Resource Conservation & Recovery Act—in which the court limited the meaning of a “disposal” of hazardous substances to solid waste discharged directly onto land or into water (Ctr. for Cmty. Action & Envtl. Justice v. BNSF Ry.Co., 764 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2014).
Judge Johnnie B. Rawlinson asked counsel whether the court was bound by BNSF's definition of “disposal” even though the terms arise in two different statutes.
“We're bound by the decisions of a prior panel,” Rawlinson said.
Fong agreed, but Gualtieri countered that BNSF doesn't apply because it involves a fact-specific application of RCRA not intended to apply to CERCLA.
Andrew Fitz, who argued for the Washington State Attorney General's office, concurred with Gaultieri, adding that CERCLA's application to air emissions is well-established despite a lack of specific EPA regulations.
“A disposal occurs when it hits the land or water,” said Fitz, who disagreed that CERCLA excludes emissions that travel any distance through the air.
“If I carry a barrel of waste in the air, under Teck's argument there's no liability,” said Fitz, adding that involved railroad waste.
The court didn't seem fully convinced.
“If the only distinction is that it was a railroad, you have to do better than that,” replied Callahan.
A decision in the appeal isn't expected for several months.
Judges Michael Daly Hawkins, Johnnie B. Rawlinson and Consuelo M. Callahan heard the case.
The law offices of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman represented Teck Cominco Metals Ltd.
The Washington State Attorney General's Office represented the State of Washington.
The Department of Justice represented the federal government as amicus curiae.
To contact the reporter on this story: Steven M. Sellers in Washington at firstname.lastname@example.org.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Peter Hayes at email@example.com
The oral arguments are available at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)