After the Environmental Protection Agency issued a Unilateral Administrative Order to a Canadian company to conduct a study on contamination of the Columbia River in this country from its smelter in Canada, an Indian tribe sued to enforce the order. The company argued that the EPA does not have jurisdiction under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), but the U.S. federal district court ruled otherwise. The company appealed, and the Ninth Circuit affirmed, ruling 7/3/06 that the EPA’s order only applied to a “facility,” as it’s defined in CERCLA, within the territorial boundaries of the United States. Even though the smelter was located in Canada, the definition of a facility under CERCLA is an area where a hazardous substance has been deposited or otherwise comes to be located. This is a very broad definition of facility that subjects foreign companies to liability for pollution in the United States.
The court also ruled that the slag located in the United States was leaching hazardous substances, thus satisfying the legal requirement for liability that there be a “release” from the facility into the environment. EPA’s jurisdiction did not extend to the smelter across the border, but does cover the underwater facility and hazardous releases in the United States.
The NAM joined with the National Mining Association in 2 briefs supporting Teck Cominco’s appeal and petition for rehearing in 2005 and 2006. We argued that CERCLA applies only within this country unless Congress clearly expresses an intent to apply it extraterritorially, which it did not. These kinds of disputes are quintessentially an international concern, not for unilateral action by one country's EPA. Private litigation upsets the resolution of such disputes through diplomatic means, or through the long-standing model of an arbitration group that was specifically established for the smelter in the 1930s. Allowing such litigation in U.S. courts opens them up to worldwide claims, particularly as environmental science improves, and could subject U.S. firms to retaliatory litigation abroad, imposing multiple and conflicting standards on environmental behavior.
The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. On May 2, 2007, the NAM and the National Mining Association filed an amicus brief urging the Court to take the case. We argued that the lower court's decision invites retaliation against American businesses and fosters uncertainty and discord for many industries with respect to the definition of "arranger liability." We argued that arranger liability under CERCLA applies when a company owns hazardous material and arranges with a third party for its disposal or treatment, not when the company does it itself.
On Jan. 7, 2008, the Supreme Court declined to review this appeal. The United States Government had earlier filed a brief opposing the appeal.