Justia Environmental Law Opinion Summaries

SCRG purchased a St. Croix alumina refinery in 2002. The plaintiffs (more than 500 individuals) alleged that for 30 years, the facility refined bauxite, creating mounds of the by-product, red mud. Hazardous materials, including chlorine, fluoride, TDS, aluminum, arsenic, coal dust ,and other particulates were buried in the red mud, outdoors, in open piles, as high as 120 feet and covering up to 190 acres. Friable asbestos was also present. The substances were dispersed by wind and erosion. According to the plaintiffs, SCRG purchased the site knowing about the contamination, did nothing to abate it, and allowed it to continue. The district court remanded to the Superior Court of the Virgin Islands, finding that the action did not qualify as a “mass action” under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1453(c)(1), because all the claims arise from an event at a single facility, with resulting injuries confined to the Virgin Islands. The Third Circuit affirmed. An event, under CAFA, encompasses a continuing tort, resulting in a regular or continuous release of hazardous chemicals, where no superseding occurrence or significant interruption breaks the chain of causation. Congress intended to allow state or territorial courts to adjudicate claims involving truly localized environmental torts with localized injuries. View "Abraham v. St Croix Renaissance Grp., LLLP" on Justia Law

This case concerned whether ILU had a duty to defend LaGen in an underlying suit filed against it by the EPA and the LDEQ for alleged Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7401, and state environmental law violations. Reading all of the relevant provisions together and giving them their plain meaning, the underlying EPA suit included allegations and prayers for relief that could potentially result in covered remediation costs. The court rejected ILU's argument that injunctive relief was excluded from coverage by the Fines and Penalties exclusion. Because the court found that ILU had a duty to defend on other grounds, the court declined to decide on interlocutory appeal whether New York law allowed indemnification for CAA civil penalties. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's holding that under the policy ILU had a duty to defend LaGen in the underlying EPA and LDEQ suit. The court remanded for further proceedings and denied ILU's motion to dismiss LaGen's cross-appeal as moot. View "Louisiana Generating, L.L.C., et al v. Illinois Union Ins. Co." on Justia Law

As the tanker Athos neared Paulsboro, New Jersey, an abandoned anchor in the Delaware River punctured its hull and caused 263,000 gallons of crude oil to spill. The owner of the tanker, Frescati, paid $180 million in cleanup costs and ship damages, but was reimbursed for nearly $88 million by the U.S. government under the Oil Pollution Act, 33 U.S.C. 2701. Frescati made claims against CARCO, which ordered the oil and owned the terminal where the Athos was to unload, claiming breach of the safe port/safe berth warranty made to an intermediary responsible for chartering the Athos and negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The government, as a statutory subrogee for the $88 million reimbursement reached a limited settlement agreement. The district court held that CARCO was not liable for the accident, but made no findings of fact and conclusions of law, required by FRCP 52(a)(1). The Third Circuit remanded for findings, but stated that the Athos and Frescati were implied beneficiaries of CARCO‘s safe berth warranty; that the warranty is an express assurance of safety; and that the named port exception to that warranty does not apply to hazards that are unknown and not reasonably foreseeable. The court noted that it is not clear that the warranty was actually breached, absent findings as to the Athos‘s actual draft or the clearance provided. The court further stated that CARCO could be liable in negligence for hazards outside the approach to CARCO‘s terminal. View "United States v. Citgo Asphalt Ref. Co." on Justia Law

The Tribe filed a complaint regarding the government's management of the Central and Southern Florida Project for Flood Control in the Everglades. The gist of the four-count complaint the Tribe filed was that the project diverted excessive flood waters over tribal lands. The district court dismissed three of the complaint's counts for failure to state a claim for relief and the fourth on summary judgment. The court concluded that the district court properly dismissed Count I because the complaint contained nothing to support Count I's allegation that the Corps had an obligation to protect and not interfere with the Tribe's rights; the district court properly dismissed Count II because it contained no allegation of the process the Tribe claimed was due, much less that it was inadequate; the district court properly dismissed Count III because it failed for the same reasons the court found Count I insufficient to state a claim; and the district court properly dismissed Count IV because its allegations were vague and ambiguous. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of FL v. United States, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs commenced this action to challenge the fill permit issued under section 404 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(a), contending, inter alia, that the Corps, in conducting its analysis for the section 404 permit, "materially misapprehended" the baseline conditions in the relevant watershed, thus corrupting its analysis of the cumulative impact that the Reylas mine would have on the streams in the watershed. The court found no merit to plaintiffs' claim that the Corps "misapprehended" the baseline conditions where the Corps considered the relevant factors, evaluating both the impact site and the entire watershed. Because the Corps' analysis satisfied the National Environmental Policy Act's, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., procedural requirements, the Corps' finding of cumulative insignificance was neither arbitrary nor capricious. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "Ohio Valley Environmental v. U.S. Army Corps" on Justia Law

This case arose from actions taken by the Commission approving an application by Southern for combined licenses to construct and operate new Units 3 and 4 of the Vogtle Nuclear Plant and an application by Westinghouse for an amendment to its already-approved reactor design on which the Vogtle application relied. After the close of the combined-license hearing record, petitioners sought to reopen the hearing to litigate contentions relating to the nuclear accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi complex in Japan. The court held that the Commission acted reasonably in denying petitioners' contentions where the Task Force Report, studying the implications of the Fukushima accident for the United States, alone was not a "new and significant" circumstance requiring a supplemental environmental impact statement and petitioners' contentions lacked specific links between the Fukushima Accident and the Vogtle Site. Accordingly, the court denied the petitions for review. View "Blue Ridge Env. Defense League, et al v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs sued the Agencies, challenging changes to the Survey and Manage Standard (Standard) of the Northwest Forest Plan. Plaintiffs and the Agencies negotiated a settlement which the district court approved and entered in the form of a consent decree. D.R. Johnson appealed, contending that the district court's approval of the consent decree was an abuse of discretion. At issue was whether a district court could approve resolution of litigation involving a federal agency through a consent decree, which substantially and permanently amended regulations that the agency could only otherwise amend by complying with statutory rulemaking procedures. Because the consent decree allowed for substantial permanent amendments to the Standard, it impermissibly conflicted with laws governing the process for such amendments. Therefore, the district court abused its discretion in approving it in its current form. Finally, D.R. Johnson waived its C & O Act, 28 U.S.C. 1291, argument. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded for further proceedings. View "Conservation Northwest v. Sherman" on Justia Law

Mingo Logan applied to the Corps for a permit under section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1344, to discharge dredged or fill material from a mountain-top coal mine in West Virginia into three streams and their tributaries. The Corps issued the permit to Mingo Logan, approving the requested disposal sites for the discharged materials. Four years later, the EPA invoked its subsection 404(c) authority to "withdraw" the specifications of two of the streams as disposal sites, thereby prohibiting Mingo Logan from discharging them. Mingo Logan then filed this action challenging the EPA's withdrawal of the specified sites. The court reversed the district court's grant of summary judgment to Mingo Logan and concluded that the EPA had post-permit withdrawal authority. Accordingly, the court remanded for further proceedings. View "Mingo Logan Coal Co. v. EPA" on Justia Law

Defenders sued the EPA based on the EPA's alleged failure to promptly promulgate revisions to certain effluent limitations and effluent limitations guidelines under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. UWAG, an association of energy companies and three national trade associations of energy companies, appealed the denial of intervention and also asserted that the court should vacate the district court's order entering a consent decree between Defenders and the EPA because the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. The court affirmed the denial of intervention because UWAG lacked Article III standing and, as there was no appellant with standing, dismissed the remainder of the appeal. View "Defenders of Wildlife, et al v. Jackson" on Justia Law

In 2007, the Army Corps of Engineers issued two nationwide general permits that authorized surface and underground coalmining operations to discharge dredged and fill material into waters of the United States. The Corps conducted a public notice-and-comment period and completed a cumulative-impacts analysis that projected the permits’ respective environmental impacts before determining that compensatory mitigation would reduce adverse impacts to a minimal level. The Corps disclosed its analyses and findings in each permit’s Environmental Assessment in lieu of an environmental impact statement. Riverkeeper sued, alleging violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344(e), the National Environmental Protection Act, 42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C), and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 706, during the Corps’ issuance of two nationwide coal-mining waste-discharge permits in 2007. The district court granted summary judgment to the Corps. During Riverkeeper’s appeal, the permits at issue expired. The Sixth Circuit concluded that the case remains in controversy and reversed in part. Although the Corps repeatedly objected to the feasibility of Riverkeeper’s demands, in taking the “easier path” of preparing an environmental assessment instead of an environmental impact statement the Corps failed to follow CWA and NEPA regulations by documenting its assessment of environmental impacts and examining past impacts. View "KY Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Rowlette" on Justia Law