State of Idaho v. Hanna Min. Co.
| Decision Date | 10 August 1989 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-3760,88-3760 |
| Citation | 882 F.2d 392 |
| Parties | , 19 Envtl. L. Rep. 21,358 STATE OF IDAHO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The HANNA MINING COMPANY; Noranda Mines Limited; Noranda Exploration, Inc., Defendants-Appellants. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Anthony O. Garvin and R. Christopher Locke, Landels, Ripley & Diamond, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants-appellants.
Merrilee Caldwell, Deputy Atty. Gen., Natural Resources Div., Boise, for plaintiff-appellee.
Charles J. Sheehan, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for amicus curiae, U.S.
Atonette B. Cordero, Deputy Atty. Gen., Los Angeles, Cal., for amici curiae, State of Cal. and State of N.Y.
Margaret J. Livingston, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, Colo., for amicus curiae, State of Colo.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Idaho.
Before FARRIS, NOONAN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Idaho seeks recovery for natural resource damages under the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607. The district court ruled that the environmental impact statement exception of Sec. 9607(f), which states that no liability shall be imposed if the damages "were specifically identified as an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources in an environmental impact statement," did not apply. The district court based its decision on the failure of the EIS to incorporate the exact language in the statute, and certified that issue for interlocutory appeal.
The district court narrowly defined the issue it certified for appeal as whether the specific terms "irreversible" and "irretrievable" must be used in the EIS in order for the EIS exception of Sec. 9607(f) to apply.
Idaho and amici raise an additional issue. They argue that the EIS defense of Sec. 9607(f) should not apply to damages that arise from activities which occurred prior to issuance of the EIS. We affirm on this alternate ground.
The State of Idaho filed suit in December 1983 against Hanna Mining Co., Noranda Mines, Inc., Noranda Exploration, Inc., and Howmet Turbine Component Corp., 1 for injunctive relief and damages. Idaho alleged that mining wastes, produced by the operation of the Blackbird Mine, approximately 21 miles west of Salmon, Idaho, in Lemhi County, contaminated ground and surface waters and damaged aquatic life and wildlife in the area.
Mineral deposits were discovered at the mine site in 1893. Various companies mined and milled cobalt and copper sulfides at the Blackbird Mine from 1917 to 1967. Open pit mining at the site left approximately 3.8 million tons of waste rock deposited in the headwaters of the Blackbird and Bucktail Creeks. Approximately one million tons of waste rock were removed during underground mining operations and deposited in the drainage of Blackbird, Meadow, and Bucktail Creeks. Until the 1950's, ore tailings were disposed of throughout the Blackbird Creek drainage system, including direct deposits into the creek. In 1950, a tailings dam was constructed to collect the tailings that washed downstream. The dam currently contains approximately two million tons of tailings. Drainage from the tailings contains acidic concentrations of copper, cobalt, and iron.
In 1967, Hanna acquired the Blackbird Mine and several surrounding properties, but conducted no commercial mining activities. In 1980, Hanna transferred its interest in the properties to a limited partnership composed of Noranda as the general partner and Hanna as the limited partner. Noranda conducted assessment activities in the area between 1979 and 1982, and removed approximately 2500 tons of ore from the mine as part of a pilot project to determine the feasibility of operating the mine.
Noranda obtained various permits as part of its pilot project. In September 1980, Noranda and Idaho entered into a compliance schedule order for operation of the mine. EPA then issued a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit to Noranda. In accordance with the compliance order and NPDES permit, Noranda constructed a $1.5 million waste water treatment plant at Blackbird Mine for the treatment of drainage from the mine. Following preparation of an environmental assessment report, the U.S. Forest Service issued a use permit to Noranda. The Forest Service also approved Noranda's proposal for full-scale operation of the mine in February 1982, following issuance of an Environmental Impact Statement. Noranda ceased all activities at the mine in 1982 and never undertook full-scale operation of the mine. No further activities have been conducted at the mine, although Noranda continues to operate the waste water treatment plant in compliance with its permit.
Idaho alleged four causes of action in its December 1983 complaint: strict liability under CERCLA; strict liability under the common law theory of abnormally dangerous activity; negligent creation of a continuing public nuisance; and negligent maintenance of a continuing public nuisance. In March 1985, Hanna and Noranda filed motions for summary judgment on a variety of grounds. The district court ruled on those motions in January 1986, dismissing Idaho's case for failure to comply with the 60 day notice requirements set out in Sec. 9612(a). See Idaho v. Howmet Turbine Component Corp., 627 F.Supp. 1274 (D.Idaho 1986). The court also ruled that Idaho's action was not barred by the three year statute of limitations of Sec. 9612(d), dismissed the state claims for lack of pendent jurisdiction, and reserved ruling on the remaining issues.
We 1) reversed the district court's ruling on the 60 day notice requirement, holding that the requirement did not apply to causes of action against private parties, 2) affirmed the district court's ruling that the limitations period of Sec. 9612(d) did not bar the Idaho CERCLA claim, and 3) reinstated the pendent state law claims. See Idaho v. Howmet Turbine Component Corp., 814 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1987). Hanna and Noranda then brought a motion for summary judgment based on a number of contentions, including the claim that Sec. 9607(f) barred the state's action for natural resources damages because the damages claimed by the state had been identified in an EIS and an Environmental Assessment. The district court ruled that the EIS exception of Sec. 9607 did not apply, because the specific words "irreversible" and "irretrievable" were not used in the EIS. See Idaho v. Hanna Mining Co., 699 F.Supp. 827 (D.Idaho 1987). The district court also rejected the other alleged defenses to CERCLA liability and the state law claims. Hanna and Noranda successfully asked the district court to certify the Sec. 9607(f) issue for interlocutory appeal.
CERCLA was enacted "[t]o provide for liability, compensation, cleanup, and emergency response for hazardous substances released into the environment and the cleanup of inactive hazardous waste disposal sites." Pub.L. No. 96-510, 94 Stat. 2767 (1980). CERCLA generally imposes strict liability on owners and operators of facilities at which hazardous substances were disposed. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a); New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1044 (2d Cir.1985). CERCLA imposes liability for damages to natural resources caused by the release of hazardous substances. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(a)(4)(C).
Natural resource damages include injury or loss of land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water, ground water, drinking water supplies, and other resources belonging to, managed by, or otherwise controlled by the United States or state or local governments. 42 U.S.C. Secs. 9601(6), 9601(16). Either the United States or the affected state may sue as trustee on behalf of the public to collect damages for injury to natural resources. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9607(f); See generally F. Cross, Natural Resource Damages Valuation, 42 Vand.L.Rev. 269, 273-75 (1989); Developments in the Law--Toxic Waste Litigation, 99 Harv.L.Rev. 1458, 1565-73 (1986); Note, Theories of State Recovery Under CERCLA for Injuries to the Environment, 24 Nat.Resources J. 1101 (1984).
Section 9607(f) provides that no liability for natural resource damages shall be imposed:
where the party sought to be charged has demonstrated that the damages to natural resources complained of were specifically identified as an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of natural resources in an environmental impact statement, or other comparable environmental analysis, and the decision to grant a permit or license authorizes such commitment of natural resources, and the facility or project was otherwise operating within the terms of its permit or license....
The meaning of this exception to liability for natural resource damages is the certified question on appeal.
The district court's interpretation of CERCLA is reviewed de novo. Howmet, 814 F.2d at 1378.
The district court chose to frame the issue on appeal as whether the specific terms "irreversible" and "irretrievable" must be recited in the EIS in order for the EIS exemption of Sec. 9607(f) to apply. Idaho and all of the amici consider the primary issue to be whether the Sec. 9607(f) EIS exception encompasses descriptions of past activities that create continuing harm. Hanna and Noranda respond that the past activities issue is beyond the scope of our inquiry, because it was not part of the interlocutory appeal. Under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(b), we may consider and resolve questions other than those regarded as controlling by the district court. See Bersch v. Drexel Firestone, Inc., 519 F.2d 974, 994 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 1018, 96 S.Ct. 453, 46 L.Ed.2d 389 (1975). The appeal is from the entire order of the district court, not simply the question stated in the order. Id.
The district...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
US v. Iron Mountain Mines, Inc., Civ. No. S-91-768 MLS
...F.Supp. 1143, 1147 (D.Ariz.1984); State of Idaho v. Hanna Mining Co., 699 F.Supp. 827, 833 (D.Id.1987), aff'd on other grounds, 882 F.2d 392 (9th Cir.1989) with United States v. Iron Mountain Mines (Sept. 21, 1992), at 1537-40. Others have reasonably recognized that section 101(14) is susce......
-
BF Goodrich Co. v. Murtha
...exception is that it applies to subparagraph (C)."); State of Idaho v. Hanna Mine Co., 699 F.Supp. 827, 833 (D.Idaho 1987), aff'd, 882 F.2d 392 (9th Cir.1989); United States v. Metate Asbestos Corp., 584 F.Supp. 1143, 1147 (1984). In Eagle-Picher, mining wastes and fly ash, suspended from r......
-
Gopher Oil Co., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of California
...Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that CERCLA did not specifically provide for the recovery of attorney fees. In Idaho v. Hanna Mining Co., 882 F.2d 392, 396 (9th Cir.1989), the court held that "CERCLA does not state whether attorneys' fees may be awarded for actions for natural resource ......
-
3550 Stevens Creek Associates v. Barclays Bank of California
...as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). The district court's interpretation of CERCLA is also reviewed de novo. Idaho v. Hanna Mining Co., 882 F.2d 392, 395 (9th Cir.1989). We may affirm the district court's decision on any ground supported by the record. Marino v. Vasquez, 812 F.2d 499, 50......
-
Toxic apportionment: a causation and risk contribution model.
...disposal center). (187) See, e.g., United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 2 F.3d 1265, 1268 (3d Cir. 1993); Idaho v. Hanna Mining Co., 882 F.2d 392, 393 (9th Cir. 1989). (188) CERCLA [section] 107(a)(4)(A) permits the recovery of "all costs of removal or remedial action incurred by the Unite......
-
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act: the correct paradigm of strict liability and the problem of individual causation.
...a defendant bears the burden of proving that costs are inconsistent with the National Contingency Plan. See Idaho v. Hanna Mining Co., 882 F.2d 392, 396 (9th Cir. 1989); In re Acushnet River & New Bedford Harbor Proceedings re: alleged PCB Pollution, 716 F. Supp. 676, 687 n.19 (D. Mass.......
-
THE CIRCLE OF CERCLA OR IS THE SILVER TARNISHED
...Colorado v. Idarado Mining Co., 916 F.2d 1486 (10th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1584 (1991); State of Idaho v. Hanna Mining Co., 882 F.2d 392 (9 Cir. 1989). [53] See, e.g., Bunker Hill. 635 F. Supp. at 672. [54] See, e.g., Coeur d'Alene Tribe v. ASARCO, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 1094, 112......
-
CHAPTER 15 GROUNDWATER ISSUES AFFECTING THE MINING AND MILLING INDUSTRIES
...resources provisions of the law were recently interpreted by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in State of Idaho v. Hanna Min. Co., 882 F.2d 392 (9th Cir. 1989). The State of Idaho brought a CERCLA action against the owners of a copper and cobalt mine for contamination that allegedly was c......