Last week, in the case of Maroz v. Arcelormittal Monessen LLC, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 140660 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 15, 2015), a judge of the Western District of Pennsylvania declined to dismiss a proposed class action in which residents living near ArcellorMittal’s coke plant in Monessen, Pennsylvania alleged that noxious odors and air particulates from the plant polluted their properties.  After allowing the residents to amend their original complaint, U.S. District Judge Arthur J. Schwab found that the residents adequately pled the state common law tort claims for private nuisance, negligence, and trespass, despite the judge’s acknowledgement that there was “not a large number of detailed facts” set forth in the amended complaint.   However, the Court did dismiss claims for public nuisance and punitive damages. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Class Actions, Clean Air Act, Emissions, Nuisance, Odors, Pennsylvania, Preemption, Trespass

An issue that insurers and industry have grappled with is whether a company can obtain environmental insurance coverage for costs to address violations of the Clean Air Act, when the costs at issue are aimed at curbing future air emissions, rather than remediating emissions that have already occurred.  Last week, one federal judge in Louisiana answered that question in the affirmative in La Gen Louisiana Gen. LLC, et al. v. Illinois Union Ins. Co., Dkt. No. 3:10-cv-00516 (M.D. La., Aug. 5, 2015).  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Cases to Watch, CERCLA, Clean Air Act, Decisions of Note, Defense Costs, Electric, Emissions, Energy, Enforcement Action, EPA, Fifth Circuit, Indemnification, Insurance, Insurance Coverage, Louisiana, Remediation

Last summer we reported on Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, 903 F. Supp. 2d 314 (3rd Cir. 2013), a Third Circuit decision which held that the Clean Air Act does not preempt state law claims for personal and property damage caused by air pollutants.  And in March, we noted, not unsurprisingly, that defendant GenOn Power had filed a Petition for Cert to the U.S. Supreme Court.  On June 2, that Petition was denied, which may have been the impetus for the Supreme Court of Iowa to release its decison in Freeman v. Grain Processing Corp., No. 13-0723 (June 13, 2014), holding that neither the Clean Air Act nor Iowa's analogous state act pre-empted similar state law claims.  The decision is a hefty one, providing a historical overview of the Clean Air Act and preemption law and an in-depth discussion leading to the Court's final determination.  Put this one aside for one evening when you're sitting in the recliner with a glass of wine at your side.   

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Case Update, Clean Air Act, Iowa, Nuisance, Preemption, Third Circuit, Toxic Torts, Trespass

This summer, we reported on the Third Circuit’s decision in the Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station case, which held that the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) does not preempt state common law tort claims in a putative class action filed by over 1,500 residents complaining that the operations of GenOn Power Midwest, L.P.’s (“GenOn’s) coal-fired electric generation station constituted a nuisance under Pennsylvania common law.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Case Update, Cases to Watch, Class Actions, Clean Air Act, Emissions, Nuisance, Pennsylvania, Preemption, Supreme Court, Third Circuit

Yesterday, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit issued a unanimous precedential opinion in Bell v. Cheswick Generating Station, No. 12-4216 (3d Cir. Aug. 20, 2013), holding that the federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”) does not preempt state common law tort claims.  In doing so, the Court reversed the Western District’s dismissal of the Complaint, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Class Actions, Clean Air Act, Emissions, Negligence, Nuisance, Pennsylvania, Preemption, Third Circuit, Trespass

Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit published two decisions in cases involving environmental groups’ challenges to EPA’s efforts to regulate certain classes of hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”).  Both cases concerned Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act, a provision enacted by Congress in 1990 that requires EPA to (1) complete a list of sources of seven specified HAPs that accounts for at least ninety percent of the total emissions of each of the seven HAPs and (2) subject these listed sources to emissions standards.  42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(6).  Section 112(c)(6) gives EPA a choice among two emission standards:  (1) a stringent standard known as “maximum achievable control technology” (“MACT”) or (2) a standard based on health thresholds.  See § 112(c)(6), (d)(2) and (d)(4).  The cases decided last Friday highlight both procedural and substantive aspects of regulating air pollution. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Administrative Procedures Act, Air, Clean Air Act, D.C. Circuit, Decisions of Note, HAPs, Hazardous Air Pollutants, Mercury, Rulemaking

On Tuesday, in Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future v. Ultra Resources, Inc., No. 4:11-CV-1360 (M.D.PA. Sept. 24, 2012) — a case watched closely by natural gas stakeholders in Pennsylvania — Judge Mariani of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania refused to dismiss a citizen suit brought by an environmental group challenging the validity of state air permits issued to the operator of a series of natural gas compressor stations, potentially opening the door for similar Federal court challenges to air permits previously issued by state regulators in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.  Approximately three years ago, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (“PADEP”) issued separate authorizations for Ultra Resources, Inc. (“Ultra”) to construct seven compressor stations pursuant to a state general permit generally known as “GP-5.”  In issuing these authorizations, PADEP considered each of the compressor stations as a separate “facility.” If PADEP had considered the compressor stations to be a single “major” facility, then Ultra would have been required to obtain a more stringent non-attainment new source review (“NNSR”) permit before commencing construction. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Cases to Watch, Clean Air Act, Drilling, Emissions, Federal Procedure, Marcellus Shale, Oil and Gas, Pennsylvania, Permits

Counsel and courts continue to adapt to the “new world” of class certification following the United States Supreme Court decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, and the recent case of Ratner v. Georgia-Pacific Consumer Products, LP, Case No. SU11CV343-W (Effingham County Ga. July 5, 2012), is a good example.  Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Class Actions, Nuisance, Procedure, Real Estate, Toxic Torts, Trespass

Back in October, we reported on a Complaint filed in California, in the case of Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. Union Pacific Corporation, No. CV11-8609 (C.D. Cal.) that contended that particulate matter in diesel fuel combustion exhaust is a hazardous waste which is “disposed of” when emitted and therefore is subject to the requirements of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).  Creative as it might have been, on a Motion to Dismiss, the Honorable S. James Otero threw out the case without leave to amend. Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Cancer, Case Update, Cases to Watch, Clean Air Act, Emissions, RCRA, Toxic Torts, Waste

On May 25, 2012, the Sixth Circuit rendered its decision in Sierra Club v. Korleski, No. 10-3269 (6^th Cir. May 25, 2012), holding that there is no private right of action under Section 7604 of the  Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 U.S.C. § 7604, to compel a state to enforce its own State Implementation Plan (“SIP”) of the national air quality standards.  In doing so, it effectively overruled its own precedent, relying on an intervening Supreme Court decision which found no similar private right of action under the Endangered Species Act (“ESA”). Read More »

Share | Email| Comments|  Topics: Air, Clean Air Act, Private Right of Action, Procedure, Sixth Circuit