Justia U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

This case arose from California's decision to extend its control to cleanup of radioactive pollutants (Senate Bill 990). Boeing filed suit challenging the validity of SB 990, which controlled cleanup of the Santa Susanna Laboratory grounds. The district court agreed with Boeing that the federal government had preempted the field of regulation of nuclear safety, and alternatively that clean up of radioactive materials at the Santa Susanna site is a federal activity. California appealed. The court concluded that Boeing had standing where it could clearly demonstrate an injury in fact; SB 990 violates intergovernmental immunity and is invalid under the Supremacy Clause because the activities of the federal government are free from regulation by any state and state laws are invalid if they regulate the United States directly or discriminate against the federal government or those with whom it deals; the court agreed with the district court that the terms of SB 990 are unseverable; and the court declined to construe SB 990 as limited to non-radioactive cleanup. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "The Boeing Co. v. Raphael" on Justia Law

CDA entered into a settlement with the government under provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-75, for payment of the costs of hazardous waste clean-up efforts at a mine site in Idaho. The district court approved the settlement over the objections of intervenor FRC. The court rejected FRC's contention that the district court was required to analyze the comparative fault of the parties in order to determine whether its consent decree was substantively fair where, because the decree was based on CDA's ability to pay, it is unclear what effect, if any, a comparative fault analysis would have had on the district court's determination. The court also rejected FRC's contention that the district court erred by failing to consider the substantial evidence submitted by FRC indicating the existence of liability insurance where the court saw no reason to reject the district court's determination that the record shows that the Government appropriately considered the financial health of the CDA and concluded that the proposed settlement represented the maximum amount of money it could contribute to the cleanup costs. The district court's conclusion was well supported. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "United States v. FRC" on Justia Law

MEIC filed suit against the Director of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, claiming that the Director will violate duties imposed by the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA), 30 U.S.C. 1201-1328. The district court granted the Director's motion for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) and Intervenors' motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c). MEIC alleged a pattern or practice of the Director granting mining permit applications without doing proper cumulative hydrologic impact assessments (chias). The court concluded that, assuming arguendo, those allegations established that the Director will not do a proper CHIA for the application at issue, MEIC did not establish a substantial risk that the Director will grant the application at all. Even if the court assumed that MEIC could bring suit on behalf of its members, the members do not have standing because they did not suffer an actual or imminent injury in fact. Under a constitutional ripeness standard, MEIC also failed to allege a substantial controversy of sufficient immediacy and reality because MEIC failed to demonstrate a substantial risk that the Director will grant the application. In regards to MEIC's argument under the firm prediction rule, the court concluded that the rule's standards were not met where the court could not make a firm prediction about whether or not the Director will grant the application. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.View "MEIC v. Stone-Manning" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs appealed the district court's grant of summary judgment to defendants. The district court concluded that defendants were shielded from liability under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1251, where defendants' non-stormwater discharges of coal into Resurrection Bay, Alaska, complied with the Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity - a general permit under EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. The court concluded that the district court erred in concluding that the General Permit shielded defendants from liability for their non-stormwater coal discharges where the express terms of the General Permit prohibited defendants from such acts. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded.View "Alaska Cmty. Action v. Aurora" on Justia Law

ASARCO, LLC ("Asarco") appealed the district court's dismissal of its contribution action brought under section 113(f) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA"). Asarco sought to recover from Union Pacific Railroad Co. and Union Pacific Corp. a share of $482 million in cleanup costs Asarco paid for environmental harm at the Coeur d'Alene Superfund Site in Northern Idaho. The district court dismissed the action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), concluding that although Asarco's claim was timely, it was barred by a 2008 settlement agreement between the parties that settled Union Pacific's claims against Asarco at the same site. Upon review, the Ninth Circuit concluded that Asarco's claim was timely, but that the parties' 2008 settlement agreement did not unambiguously release Asarco's claim in this case. Therefore reversed the district court's judgment dismissing the case under Rule 12(b)(6). View "ASARCO LLC v. UPRC, et al" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit against defendants, owners and operators of railyards, under the citizen suit provision of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the emission from defendants' railyards of particulate matter found in diesel exhaust. The court concluded that defendants' emission of diesel particulate matter does not constitute "disposal" of solid waste within the meaning of RCRA, and that plaintiffs therefore could not state a plausible claim for relief under section 6972(a)(1)(B). Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss with prejudice.View "Ctr. for Cmty. Action v. BNSF" on Justia Law

Avenal Power filed suit seeking to compel EPA to issue a Prevention of Significant Deterioration Permit under the old applicable air quality standards that would have applied had EPA acted within the statutory deadline. EPA eventually granted Avenal Power the Permit without regard to the new regulations. Petitioners challenged EPA's action. As a preliminary matter, the court concluded that petitioners had associational standing. On the merits, the court held that the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7475(c), unambiguously requires Avenal Power to demonstrate that the Avenal Energy Project complies with the regulations in effect at the time the Permit is issued; because Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue in Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., EPA cannot grant the petition for review; and, therefore, the court vacated the decision to issue the permit and remanded for further proceedings. View "Sierra Club v. EPA" on Justia Law

Riverkeeper attempted to intervene in an effort to prevent LNG from constructing a liquefied natural gas facility and pipeline along the Columbia River in Oregon. Riverkeeper sought review of the Coast Guard's issuance of a letter of recommendation regarding the suitability of the waterway for vessel traffic, contending that the court has jurisdiction under the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717r(d)(1). Section 717r(d) authorizes judicial review of agency orders and actions that issue, condition, or deny any permit, license, concurrence, or approval. The court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed the petition for review because the letter of recommendation was not such an order or action under section 717r(d)(1). View "Columbia Riverkeeper v. U.S. Coast Guard" on Justia Law

This case concerns liability under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9601-75, and its state law counterpart, the Arizona Water Quality Assurance Revolving Funds, A.R.S. 49-281-391, for cleanup costs resulting from the contamination of the Broadway-Patano Landfill Site. The court reaffirmed that a district court has an obligation to independently scrutinize the terms of proposed consent decrees by, inter alia, comparing the proportion of total projected costs to be paid by the settling parties with the proportion of liability attributable to them. The court concluded that the district court properly declined to issue declaratory relief regarding the intervening parties' future CERCLA liability; held that the district court erred in entering the parties' proposed CERCLA consent decrees because the district court failed to independently scrutinize the terms of the agreements, and in so doing, afforded undue deference to the ADEQ; and therefore, the court affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Arizona v. Raytheon Co." on Justia Law

WildEarth petitioned for review of the EPA's approval of Nevada's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for regional haze under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 1983. The court concluded that WildEarth lacked Article III standing to challenge the EPA's approval of the SIP's formulation of reasonable progress goals for improving visibility conditions in the Jarbridge Wilderness Area; although WildEarth has standing to challenge the EPA's decision to approve Nevada's Sulfur Dioxide Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determination for the Reid Gardner Generating Station in southern Nevada, the EPA's decision was not arbitrary and capricious; the EPA's approval of Nevada's SIP did not violate any requirements imposed by section 7401(1); and, therefore, the court dismissed in part and denied in part the petition for review. View "WildEarth Guardians v. USEPA, et al." on Justia Law