Gravel2Gavel Construction & Real Estate Law Blog

The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that ICG Hazard, LLC’s Clean Water Act (CWA) general permit defense, located in the CWA at 33 U.S.C. 1342(k), shielded the mining company from a CWA enforcement lawsuit filed by the Sierra Club. The case is Sierra Club v. ICG Hazard, LLC, decided January 27, 2015. Relying on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal’s 2001 ruling in Piney Run Preservation Association v. County Commissioners, 268 F.3d 255 (4th Cir. 2001), a divided panel of the Court of Appeals held that the general permit issued pursuant to delegated authority by the Kentucky Division of Water shielded ICG Hazard from this lawsuit. The pollutant in question is selenium, and the Court of Appeals held that the agency was aware of the potential for discharges from ICG Hazard’s surface mining operations. The Court of Appeals also held that the permit shield applies to both individual and general National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permits. Moreover, the provisions of the CWA presumably trump contrary provisions of Surface Mining Act.
Continue Reading ›

In a very long opinion (111 pages), making rulings on motions for summary judgment and the controverted exclusion of expert witness testimony, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington held that the manure management practices of a number of large dairy operations in Washington State generated dangerous amounts of what the District Court determined to be solid waste regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). In doing so, it concluded that the defendants in a RCRA Citizen Suit have violated RCRA’s open dumping and substantial and imminent endangerment prohibitions. The case is Community Association for the Restoration of the Environment, Inc., et al., v. Cow Palace, LLC, et al., and this decision was issued on January 14, 2015. This ruling makes the point that even innocuous, non-hazardous waste management practices can have adverse consequences if the waste is not properly managed and monitored for compliance.
Continue Reading ›

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit decided the case of Hobart Corporation, et al., v. Waste Management of Ohio, Inc., et al., 758 F. 3d 757 (2014), holding that the statute of limitation applicable for the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) cost reimbursement actions is 3 years from the effective date of an administrative settlement with EPA. Yesterday, the Supreme Court denied Hobart’s petition for certiorari.

Yesterday, I posted my client alert Reversing Course, EPA Tightens Its RCRA Hazardous Waste Recycling Rules. This Alert discusses the EPA’s harder line on its interpretation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act rules that govern industrial recycling following years of relative easing into these rules. A recently issued regulation makes recycling almost as heavily regulated as other hazardous waste management activities under the RCRA.

On January 14, 2015, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided an important Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(3)(“CERCLA”), liability case: Vine Street LLC v. Borg Warner Corporation. The Court of Appeals held that as a result of a 2009 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, Burlington Northern & Sante Fe Railway Co., et al., v. United States, 556 U. S. 599 (2009), Borg Warner was not liable to Vine Street for CERCLA cleanup costs under a theory of “arranger liability” or for cleanup costs under the Texas Solid Waste Disposal Act (“TSWDA”).
Continue Reading ›