Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, No. 15-35228 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiffs' fouth amended complaint alleged that, in addition to dumping hazardous substances into the Columbia River, Teck also emitted hazardous substances into the air, in violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit issued Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. BNSF Railway Co., which held that emitting diesel particulate matter into the air and allowing it to be “transported by wind and air currents onto the land and water” did not constitute “disposal” of waste within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. The court held that the owner-operator of the smelter can not be held liable for cleanup costs and natural resource damages under CERCLA. The court concluded that, while plaintiffs present an arguably plausible construction of “deposit” and “disposal,” Carson Harbor Vill Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., compels the court to hold otherwise, and while Center for Community Action does not totally foreclose plaintiffs’ interpretation of CERCLA, its textual analysis of 42 U.S.C. 6903(3) is persuasive. Accordingly, the court reversed the district court's orders denying Teck’s motion to strike and/or dismiss and motion for reconsideration, and remanded for the processing of plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
Court Description: Environmental Law. The panel reversed the district court’s denial of a smelter owner-operator’s motion to dismiss claims brought against it under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. The panel held that the owner-operator could not be said to have arranged for the “disposal” of hazardous substances that were emitted by the smelter into the air, and contaminated land and water downwind. The owner-operator therefore could not be held liable for cleanup costs and natural resource damages under 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). The panel found persuasive Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. BNSF Railway Co., 764 F.3d 1019 (9th Cir. 2014), which held that emitting diesel particulate matter into the air and allowing it to be “transported by wind and air currents onto the land and water” did not constitute “disposal” of waste within the meaning of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. In addition, the panel was PAKOOTAS V. TECK COMINCO METALS 3 bound by the interpretation of the terms “deposit” and “disposal” in Carson Harbor Vill Ltd. v. Unocal Corp., 270 F.3d 863 (9th Cir. 2001) (en banc) (addressing former owner liability under § 9607(a)(2), rather than arranger liability under § 9607(a)(3)). The panel remanded the case to the district court for the processing of plaintiffs’ remaining claims.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.