Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

Defendant entered a plea of guilty to removing and disposing of asbestos in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 7413(c)(1) while replacing an apartment building heating system. He claimed that he had not known that asbestos was harmful and reserved his right to appeal the meaning of "knowingly," as used in the statute. He was sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, $12,765 in restitution, and a $100 special assessment fee. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that an "as applied" vagueness challenge to the statute was not a challenge to the court's jurisdiction and was barred by the plea. Having already admitted guilt of the substantive crime and affirmed the underlying facts of the conviction, the defendant cannot re-argue the facts on appeal and challenge the statute as vague in application.

The Clean Air Act prohibits national and state officials from making changes that cause air quality to deteriorate in parts of the country that have yet to attain the required standard, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l), 7515. In 2002 the EPA changed the rules that determine when polluters need permits to modify existing facilities and what restrictions they carry. The EPA’s models project that the new approach will have neutral or beneficial effects on aggregate emissions; environmental groups disagree and challenged the EPA's approval of Wisconsin's plan that implements the 2002 changes. The Seventh Circuit dismissed the petition. Noting that the same arguments have been made in the past, the court stated that, as in 2002 and 2005, the models supply substantial evidence for the EPA’s decision and show that it is neither arbitrary nor capricious. Opponents have no better evidence.

The "American Bottom" is a 175-square-mile floodplain of the Mississippi River in southwestern Illinois, across the river from St. Louis and contains wetlands that provide habitat for birds, butterflies, and wildlife. The owner of a landfill in American Bottom proposed a new landfill on 180 acres of a 220-acre tract between the existing facility and a state park that contains a lake. The tract has 26.8 acres of wetlands and the owner wants to destroy 18.4 acres to obtain fill for daily cover at the existing facility while the application for a new permit is pending with the Illinois EPA. The Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit requiring creation of mitigation wetlands. The district court dismissed the conservation group's suit challenging the Corps permit for lack of standing. The Seventh Circuit reversed. Affidavits from group members, alleging that destruction of the wetlands will diminish their enjoyment of wildlife and bird-watching at the state park, were sufficient to establish standing.

As part of the cleanup of PCBs in Wisconsin's Fox River, the EPA filed suit against de minimus potentially responsible parties (PRPs) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601). The district court approved a settlement and other PRPs appealed. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the government's estimate of fault was supported by the record and accounted for all sources of PCB discharge. The district court properly approved the settlement before making a divisibility determination.

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) ordered the company to remedy certain conditions at its solid waste dump in Goshen; the company moved the operation to Elkhart. Following complaints, IDEM found violations and entered into an agreement with the company. The company did not honor the agreement and IDEM filed suit. After their attempt to intervene in the state court suit was limited, residents filed suit under the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6901), specifically differentiating their claims from those in the state suit. IDEM subsequently filed a second state suit. The district court dismissed. The Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that, excepting violation claims concerning âCâ grade waste that were part of the first IDEM lawsuit, the plaintiffs met the requirements of RCRA for bringing a citizen suit, so abstention should not apply to deny them a right created by Congress. While a citizens' violation action may not âbe commencedâ if the EPA or state agency âhas commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action,â the citizens' suit went beyond the scope of the first IDEM suit. The RCRA suit complements and does not conflict with state efforts.