Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dept. of Interior
| Decision Date | 05 August 1996 |
| Docket Number | 94-1462,94-1468,94-1467,94-1472,94-1474 and 94-5249,Nos. 93-1700,94-1470,s. 93-1700 |
| Citation | 88 F.3d 1191 |
| Parties | , 319 U.S.App.D.C. 128, 65 USLW 2102, 26 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,489 KENNECOTT UTAH COPPER CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the INTERIOR, Respondent, American Iron and Steel Institute, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
On Petitions for Review of an Order of the United States Department of the Interior and Appeal from the District Court.
Angus Macbeth and Richard B. Stewart, Washington, DC, argued the cause for petitioners Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation ("Kennecott") and the Industry and Sanitation Districts ("Industry Petitioners"). James L. Connaughton, and Dennis D. Hirsch, Washington, DC, were on the briefs for Kennecott and Industry Petitioners. Robin S. Conrad, Washington, DC, Jan Amundson, Alexandria, VA, Phillip D. Brady, Kathy D. Bailey, Cynthia H. Evans, Phyllis B. Levine, Roderick T. Dwyer, Christopher Harris, G. William Frick, Washington, DC, Philip A. Cooney, Wyndmoor, PA, David F. Zoll, Washington, DC, Ronald Shipley, Germantown, MD, Barbara A. Hindin, Washington, DC, Maurice H. McBride, Robert Brager, Nancy D. Tammi, Karl S. Bourdeau, Washington, DC, Karl S. Lytz, Kimberly M. McCormick, San Francisco, CA, David J. Barrett, Albany, NY, Paul B. Galvani, Roscoe Trimmier, Boston, MA, Frank Rothman, Los Angeles, CA, Peter Simshauser, San Francisco, CA and Lloyd S. Guerci, Washington, DC, were also on the briefs for Industry Petitioners.
Charles E. Magraw, Helena, MT, argued the cause and filed the briefs for petitioner State of Montana.
Naikang Tsao and Greer Goldman, Washington, DC, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellee. With them on the brief was Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General, Natalie M. Duval, Attorney, United States Department of Justice, and Steven K. Linscheid, United States Department of the Interior. Jacques B. Gelin and John A. Bryson, Attorneys, United States Department of Justice, entered appearances.
Gordon J. Johnson, New York City, argued the cause for the State intervenors. With him on the briefs were Dennis C. Vacco, Albany, NY, Scott Harshbarger, William Pardee, Karen McGuire, Boston, MA, Joseph P. Mazurek, Charles E. Magraw, Helena, MT, Tom Udall, Charles De Saillan, Santa Fe, NM, Betty D. Montgomery, Stamford, CT, Margaret A. Malone, Columbus, OH, Richard Blumenthal, Hartford, CT and Brian J. Comerford, Columbus, OH. Barton C. Green, Pocatello, ID and Jack A. Kley entered appearances.
Richard B. Stewart, James L. Connaughton, Robin Conrad, Washington, DC, Jan Amundson, Alexander, VA, Phillip D. Brady, Kathy D. Bailey, Cynthia H. Evans, Phyllis B. Levine, Roderick T. Dwyer, G. William Frick, Washington, DC, Philip A. Cooney, Wyndmoor, PA, David F. Zoll, Washington, DC, Ronald Shipley, Germantown, MD, Barbara Hindin, Washington, DC, Maurice H. McBride, Robert Brager, Nancy D. Tammi, Karl S. Bourdeau, Washington, DC, Karl S. Lytz, Kimberly M. McCormick, San Francisco, CA, David J. Barrett, Albany, NY, Paul B. Galvani, Roscoe Trimmier, Boston, MA, Frank Rothman, Los Angeles, CA, Peter Simshauser, San Francisco, CA and Lloyd S. Guerci, Washington, DC, filed a brief for Industry Petitioners as intervenors.
Before: GINSBURG, RANDOLPH and TATEL, Circuit Judges
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. BACKGROUND ........................................................... 136
II. ANALYSIS ............................................................. 139
A. Procedural Challenges ......................................... 139
1. Kennecott's Freedom of Information Act claim ............ 139
2. Kennecott's Federal Register Act claim .................. 140
3. Kennecott's APA claim ................................... 144
4. Industry Petitioners' APA claim ......................... 144
B. Substantive Challenges ........................................ 146
1. Statute of limitation ................................... 146
2. Time bar to substantive challenges ...................... 150
3. Protocols and procedures ................................ 152
4. Cost effectiveness ...................................... 154
5. Gross disproportionality ................................ 155
6. Consistency with response ............................... 155
7. Services ................................................ 157
8. Acquisition of federal lands ............................ 158
9. Cultural and archaeological resources ................... 158
10. Indirect costs .......................................... 160
11. Reasonableness of assessment costs ...................... 161
12. Interim services ........................................ 163
13. Priority of remedies .................................... 166
III. CONCLUSION ........................................................... 168
In these consolidated cases we once again consider challenges to the Department of the Interior's "Type B" Natural Resource Damage Assessment regulations. Under both the federal Superfund statute and the Clean Water Act, federal and state officials, acting as trustees for the public, may recover money damages for the harm that the release of hazardous substances into the environment causes to certain natural resources. Type B NRDA regulations set forth a process that trustees may follow not only in calculating the monetary value of that injury to natural resources, but also in collecting and spending the funds they recover.
Interior first published final Type B NRDA regulations almost a decade ago. We invalidated portions of those regulations in Ohio v. United States Department of the Interior, 880 F.2d 432 (D.C.Cir.1989). In response to Ohio, Interior finally released revised regulations in March 1994.
Today we address four arguments that the Government violated various procedural requirements in promulgating the 1994 Regulations and twelve arguments that the regulations are substantively defective. The procedural challenges come to us through: Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation's appeal of a summary judgment order issued by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia; a separate petition filed by Kennecott; and petitions filed by fifteen trade associations, seven corporations, and two county sanitation districts, collectively referred to as Industry Petitioners. The substantive challenges include eleven arguments presented in petitions filed by Industry Petitioners and one argument raised in a petition filed by the State of Montana.
In Part I we provide the factual and procedural background for this case. In Part II.A we address and reject each of the procedural challenges. In Part II.B we consider the substantive issues, rejecting Montana's challenge and all but two of Industry Petitioners' arguments. We therefore affirm the district court's order, deny Montana's petition, and grant in part Industry Petitioners' petitions for review.
The federal Superfund statute, more formally known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or "CERCLA," Pub.L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980) (), makes specified classes of parties--including past and present owners and operators of hazardous waste sites, transporters of hazardous substances, waste generators, and others who arrange for the disposal, treatment, or transport of hazardous substances--potentially liable for the expenses that the federal and state governments, as well as Indian tribes, incur in responding to the release of hazardous substances into the environment. See 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(1)-(4)(B). These include expenses not only for the "removal" of hazardous wastes themselves, but also for more permanent "remedial action[s]," such as destroying or recycling hazardous substances, repairing leaking containers, and establishing a protective perimeter around hazardous waste sites. See § 9601(23)-(24).
In addition, and at the heart of this case, responsible parties are financially liable for "injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss," caused by the release of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(4)(C). The term "natural resources" means all "land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by the United States[,] ... any State or local government, any foreign government, any Indian tribe, or, if such resources are subject to a trust restriction on alienation, any member of an Indian tribe." § 9601(16). Section 107 of CERCLA authorizes federal and state officials, acting as public trustees, to sue responsible parties to recover damages for the harm to natural resources caused by the release of hazardous substances. § 9607(f)(1). Trustees may use the funds they recover "to restore, replace, or acquire the equivalent of such natural resources." Id.
Section 311 of the Clean Water Act also authorizes federal and state officials to sue as public trustees to recover "any costs or expenses incurred by the Federal Government or any State government in the restoration or replacement of natural resources damaged or destroyed as a result of a discharge of oil or a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bonnichsen v. U.S., Dept. of Army
...United States v. WT Grant Co., 345 U.S. 629, 632-33, 73 S.Ct. 894, 897-98, 97 L.Ed. 1303 (1953); Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Department of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1996); Doe v. Harris, 696 F.2d 109, 112 (D.C.Cir. In City of Mesquite v. Aladdin's Castle, Inc., 455 U.S. 283, ......
-
Outdoor Amusement Bus. Ass'n, Inc. v. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
...been reasonably anticipated.’ " Sierra Club v. E.P.A. , 551 F.3d 1019, 1025 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Dep't of Interior , 88 F.3d 1191, 1227 (D.C. Cir. 1996) and Envtl. Def. v. EPA , 467 F.3d 1329, 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ). Even assuming, arguendo , that the Fo......
-
S. Envtl. Law Ctr. v. Council On Envtl. Quality
...(ordering district court on remand to direct an agency to search specific sets of documents); Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1202–03 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (FOIA granted no power to require "publication" of documents to the public but only "production" to the......
-
Growth Energy v. Envtl. Prot. Agency
..."indicates a willingness to reconsider such a regulation by inviting and responding to comments," Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Interior , 88 F.3d 1191, 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1996), or "changes the regulatory context in such a way that could not have been reasonably anticipated by ......
-
Valuing Nature in Environmental Law: Lessons for Animal Law and the Valuation of Animals
...(to be codiied at 43 C.F.R. pt. 11)). 79. 43 C.F.R. §11.71(e) (2014). 80. Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1220 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (quoting 51 Fed. Reg. 27686 (1986) (to be codiied at 43 C.F.R. pt. 11); 51 Fed. Reg. 27967 (1968) (to be codiied at 40 C.F......
-
THE CIRCLE OF CERCLA OR IS THE SILVER TARNISHED
...e.g., Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. ASARCO, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 1094, 1124 (D. Id. 2003). [55] Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. Dept of Interior, 88 F.3d 1191, 1224 (D.C. Cir. 1991). [56] See, National Assoc. of Manufacturers v. U.S. Dept. of Interior, 134 F.3d 1095 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Kennecott, 88 F.......
-
Valuing the environment: courts' struggles with natural resource damages.
...Duffield, Nonmarket Valuation and the Courts]. (70) Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. United States Dep't of Interior (Kennecott), 88 F.3d 1191, 1200 (D.C. Cir. (71) Id. at 1204. (72) Id. at 1200-01. (73) Natural Resource Damage Assessments, 59 Fed. Reg. 14,262 (Mar. 25, 1994) (codified at 43 ......
-
THE CONVERGENCE OF MINING LAW AND ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
...Bell Petroleum Servs., Inc., 3 F.3d 889 (5th Cir. 1993). [112] E.g., Kennecott Utah Copper Corp. v. United States Dep't of the Interior, 88 F.3d 1191 (D.C. Cir. 1996). [113] CERCLA § 108(b). [114] Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. C 08-01409, 2009 WL 482248 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 25, 2009) (unpublished)......