Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd.

• Decision Date: 14 September 2018
• Docket Number: No. 16-35742,16-35742
• Citation: 905 F.3d 565
• Parties: Joseph A. PAKOOTAS, an individual and enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Donald R. Michel, an individual and enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Coville Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Plaintiffs-Appellees, State of Washington, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee, v. TECK COMINCO METALS, LTD., a Canadian corporation, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

905 F.3d 565

Joseph A. PAKOOTAS, an individual and enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation; Donald R. Michel, an individual and enrolled member of the Confederated Tribes of the Coville Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

State of Washington, Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
TECK COMINCO METALS, LTD., a Canadian corporation, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 16-35742

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted February 5, 2018, Seattle, Washington
Filed September 14, 2018

905 F.3d 571

Kevin Murray Fong (argued), Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, San Francisco, California; Christopher J. McNevin, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Austin, Texas; for Defendant-Appellant.

Paul Jerome Dayton (argued) and Brian S. Epley, Short Cressman & Burgess PLLC, Seattle, Washington; for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Andrew Arthur Fitz (argued), Senior Counsel; Robert W. Ferguson, Attorney General; Kelly T. Wood, Assistant Attorney General; Office of the Washington Attorney General, Olympia, Washington; Intervenor-Plaintiff-Appellee.

Before: Ronald M. Gould and Richard A. Paez, Circuit Judges, and Michael J. McShane,^* District Judge.

GOULD, Circuit Judge:

This appeal is the latest chapter in a multi-decade dispute centered on Teck Metals’ liability for dumping several million tons of industrial waste into the Columbia River. Since we last heard an interlocutory appeal in this case, the district court dismissed Teck’s divisibility defense to joint and several liability on summary judgment. At Phase I of the trifurcated bench trial, the court held that Teck was a liable party under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). At Phase II, the court found Teck liable for more than $8.25 million of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation’s response costs. The district court then certified this appeal by entering partial judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). We conclude that we have jurisdiction, and we affirm.

I

The Columbia River, the fourth-largest river in North America, begins its 1,200-mile journey to the sea from its headwaters in the Canadian Rockies. The River charts a northwest course in British Columbia before bending south toward Washington. It then widens and forms the Arrow Lakes reservoir until, thirty miles before the international border, it reaches the Hugh Keenleyside Dam. After passing through the dam’s outlet, the River is free-flowing until south of the border near Northport, Washington. There it again starts to slow and pool at the uppermost reaches of Lake Roosevelt, the massive reservoir impounded behind the Grand

905 F.3d 572

Coulee Dam. This case concerns the more than 150-mile stretch of river between the Canadian border and the Grand Coulee Dam, known as the Upper Columbia River.

From time immemorial, the Upper Columbia River has held great significance to the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation. These tribes historically depended on the River’s plentiful fish for their survival and gave the River a central role in their cultural traditions.¹ And the Colville Tribes continue to use the Upper Columbia River to this day for fishing and recreation. Under the applicable treaties, the Tribes retain fishing rights in the River up to the Canadian border. See Okanogan Highlands All. v. Williams , 236 F.3d 468, 478 (9th Cir. 2000) (citing Antoine v. Washington , 420 U.S. 194, 196 n.4, 95 S.Ct. 944, 43 L.Ed.2d 129 (1975) ). Those treaties draw the Colville Reservation’s eastern and southern boundaries "in the middle of the channel of the Columbia River." Act of July 1, 1892, ch. 140, § 1, 27 Stat. 62, 62–63. The Tribes claim equitable title to the riverbed on their side of the channel, and the United States has long supported this claim. See Confederated Tribes of Colville Reservation v. United States , 964 F.2d 1102, 1105 n.7 (Fed. Cir. 1992) ; Opinion on the Boundaries of and Status of Title to Certain Lands Within the Colville and Spokane Indian Reservations , 84 Interior Dec. 72, 75–80, 1977 WL 28859, at *3–5.

For nearly a century, however, the Upper Columbia River has been fouled by Teck Metals’ toxic waste.² Teck operates the world’s largest lead and zinc smelter in Trail, British Columbia, just ten miles upstream of the U.S. border. During smelting, lead or zinc ore is heated to a molten state, during which the desired metal is separated from impurities in the raw ore. These impurities cool to form glassy, granular slag. Between 1930 and 1995, Teck discharged about 400 tons of slag daily—an estimated 9.97 million tons in total—directly into the free-flowing Columbia River. Teck washed this debris into the river using untold gallons of contaminated effluent. These solid and liquid wastes contained roughly 400,000 tons (800 million pounds) of the heavy metals arsenic, cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, and zinc, in addition to lesser amounts of other hazardous substances.³

At least 8.7 million tons of the Trail smelter’s slag and nearly all of the dissolved and particulate-bound metals in its effluent made the short trip downstream into the United States. Upon reaching the calmer waters of Lake Roosevelt, Teck’s smelting byproducts came to rest on the riverbed and banks, with larger detritus settling upstream and smaller particles settling downstream near the Grand Coulee Dam.⁴ Once settled, these wastes began

905 F.3d 573

to break down and release hazardous substances into the River’s waters and sediment.

In 1999, the Colville Tribes petitioned the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to assess the threats posed by the contamination of the Upper Columbia River Site. Two years later the Tribes and EPA signed an intergovernmental agreement coordinating a site investigation and assessment. After completing its preliminary assessment, EPA issued a unilateral administrative order against Teck. The order directed Teck to perform a remedial investigation and feasibility study ("RI/FS") of the Site under CERCLA. Teck disputed whether it was subject to CERCLA, however, and EPA decided not to enforce the order during negotiations with the company.

The Colville Tribes then tried to enforce EPA’s order by funding a CERCLA citizen suit by two of their tribal government officials in 2004. These plaintiffs were later joined by the State of Washington as a plaintiff-intervenor and eventually by the Colville Tribes as a co-plaintiff.

Teck moved to dismiss the action. It primarily argued that CERCLA does not apply extraterritorially to its activities and that it cannot be held liable as a person who "arranged for disposal" of hazardous substances. The district court denied this motion to dismiss and certified the issues for immediate appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b).

While the appeal was pending, Teck and EPA entered a settlement agreement withdrawing EPA’s order and committing Teck to fund and conduct an RI/FS modeled on CERCLA’s requirements. The study aims to investigate the extent of contamination at the Site, to provide information for EPA’s assessment of the risk to human health and the environment, and to evaluate potential remedial alternatives. But the settlement agreement is silent as to Teck’s responsibility for cleaning up the Site.

We accepted Teck’s interlocutory appeal and affirmed the district court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. See Pakootas v. Teck Cominco Metals, Ltd. , 452 F.3d 1066, 1082 (9th Cir. 2006) ( Pakootas I ). We held that the suit did not involve an extraterritorial application of CERCLA because Teck’s pollution had "come to be located" in the United States. Id. at 1074 (quoting 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9) ). We also held that the complaint had stated a claim for relief because the actual or threatened release of hazardous substances at the Site could subject Teck to "arranger" liability under CERCLA. Id. at 1082 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3) ).

On remand, the Tribes and the State each filed amended complaints seeking cost recovery, natural resource damages, and related declaratory relief under CERCLA.⁵ Litigation was ultimately trifurcated into three phases to sequentially determine: (1) whether Teck is liable as a potentially responsible party ("PRP"); (2) Teck’s liability for response costs; and (3) Teck’s liability for natural resource damages.

Before the first bench trial, the Tribes and the State moved for partial summary judgment on Teck’s divisibility defense. The district court granted the motions and dismissed the defense, concluding that

905 F.3d 574

Teck did not present enough evidence to create a genuine issue of fact as to whether the environmental harm to the Upper Columbia River was theoretically capable of apportionment or whether there was a reasonable basis for apportioning Teck’s share of liability.

In Phase I of trial, the district court concluded that Teck was liable as an arranger under CERCLA section 107(a)(3), 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3). In doing so, the court rejected Teck’s argument that Washington courts lack personal jurisdiction over the company. The district court then held that without...