US justices won't hear border mining pollution case

[sharder8]

By James Vicini

WASHINGTON, Jan 7 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Monday to hear an appeal by Canadian mining company Teck Cominco Ltd (TCKb.TO) of a ruling that an American environmental law applies to a foreign company when some of its pollution reaches U.S. territory.

Vancouver-headquartered Teck appealed in an effort to block a lawsuit by two members of the Colville Confederated Tribes in Washington state who contended that pollution from the company's lead and zinc smelter in Trail, British Columbia, had flowed into the Columbia River and into the United States.

The state of Washington joined the lawsuit, which was brought under a U.S. law called the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act.

The company appealed to the high court after a U.S. appeals court ruled the lawsuit can proceed.

The appeals court "has decided that American environmental laws can be applied to the activities of a foreign company in a foreign country in compliance with that country's laws," Teck said in its appeal that argued that the ruling was wrong.

UPDATE 1-US justices won't hear border mining pollution case | Industries | Industrials, Materials & Utilities | Reuters

Studies have shown that the Canadian Company is responsible and they've been sued to pay for the clean up . . . but they're continuing to drag it through the U.S. Court system and refusing to accept responsibility. The Canadian Govenment has sided with the company (as well as some U.S. interests), in denying the company should be required to clean up their pollution that flowwed into the U.S.

Harder

[Beemer]

Show me where they are refusing to accept responsibility.

Horswill said the U.S. Supreme Court's action should have no impact on a case before Canada's courts between Teck and its insurance companies over who is responsible for the potential costs of a clean-up.

Spinning things a bit?

Pack it in, pack it out seems to apply. Any company responsible for the spread of pollution is responsible to make sure a clean-up happens. If the company is defunked then the country the company operated from does the clean-up.

[sharder8]

Show me where they are refusing to accept responsibility.Spinning things a bit?

Pack it in, pack it out seems to apply. Any company responsible for the spread of pollution is responsible to make sure a clean-up happens. If the company is defunked then the country the company operated from does the clean-up.

The original settlement was in 2006, the company has been dragging it through the courts, trying to get the original lawsuits thrown out.

The company in 2006 reached a settlement with the Bush administration and agreed to fund an environmental and health study of the pollution, to be carried out under the supervision of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

The only thing they have agreed to do is to fund an environmental and health study of the pollution.

Harder

[Beemer]

That was the settlement, yes. What's your point about it.