Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

The Superfund Site encompasses the Lower Fox River and Green Bay, into which paper mills discharged PCBs until the 1970s, and is the subject of remedial efforts under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9606. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources divided the Site into five “operable units” (OUs) and issued records of decision (RODs), calling for dredging in OU1, for monitored natural recovery in OU2; dredging in OU3 and OU4; and monitored natural recovery in OU5. Several potentially responsible parties (PRPs) agreed to perform the work in OU1. NCR and another PRP agreed to perform remedial design work for OU2–OU5. The agencies amended the ROD for OU2–OU5, keeping dredging as the default approach but allowing for capping and sand covering. EPA ordered the PRPs to conduct cleanup required by the amendment. NCR led the remedial efforts in OU2 and OU3 and conducted significant action in OU4. NCR sought contribution from the other PRPs and declined further compliance with EPA’s 2007 order. The district court ordered NCR to complete work scheduled for 2012. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court then held that NCR was not entitled to contribution from paper mills that recycled its scraps and that those mills had meritorious counterclaims for recovery from NCR. The Seventh Circuit vacated the decision to hold NCR responsible for all of the response costs at OU2- 5 in contribution, but affirmed that NCR may proceed only under CERCLA section 113(f); that NCR is not liable as an arranger; that another PRP’s insurance settlement may not be offset against NCR’s contribution share; that NCR can be required to contribute for natural resource damages; and that state-law counterclaims are preempted. View "NCR Corp. v. WTM I Co." on Justia Law

The Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, allows each state to craft a state implementation plan to control the levels of certain air pollutants. Most state plans include “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PSD) programs, to prevent backsliding in “attainment areas” that meet or exceed the Act’s air quality standards, while allowing some new sources of pollution. A PSD program prevents designated sources from propelling the region’s aggregate emissions over specified limits. The Act establishes these limits by setting a baseline and a cap on pollutants above that baseline. The Act grandfathers sources operational before 1975: the baseline incorporates their emissions, with post-1975 sources counting against the allowance. Title V of the Act requires each covered stationary source to have an operating permit. In 2002 Georgia-Pacific asked Wisconsin to renew the Title V permit for its pre-1975 paper mill. Meanwhile, Georgia-Pacific modified a paper machine at the plant. The application was unopposed and the modification permit issued in February 2004. In 2011 Wisconsin reissued the plant’s operating permit. Objectors claim that modifications to any part of a plant require all emissions from the plant, including pre-1975 emissions incorporated into the baseline, to count against the state’s allowance, so that the whole plant might need to close for lack of available allowance. The U.S. EPA declined to object, concluding that Wisconsin’s approach is consonant with its understanding of the statute. The Seventh Circuit denied a petition for review. EPA presented a reasonable interpretation of an ambiguous statutory provision.View "Clean Water Action Council of NE WI, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency" on Justia Law

The linkage of the Mississippi River system to the Great Lakes and the effort to control weeds in southern aquatic farms by importing Asian carp, a voracious non-native fish, have combined to create a situation in which two species of carp have overwhelmed the Mississippi River and its tributaries and threaten to migrate into the Great Lakes. Plaintiffs, five states bordering the Great Lakes and an Indian tribe assert that the Asian carp either will soon invade, or perhaps already have invaded, the Great Lakes and are poised to inflict billions of dollars of damage on the ecosystem. Plaintiffs sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, seeking a preliminary injunction that would require aggressive interim measures to maximize the chances of preventing the spread of the carp. The district court denied that motion; the Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court then dismissed the case. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding that the plaintiffs did not allege facts showing that the Corps and the District are operating in a manner that is likely to allow the Asian carp to reach Lake Michigan. View "State of Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs" on Justia Law

Until the early 1970s, CBS (formerly Westinghouse) manufactured electrical capacitors at a Bloomington plant, using insulating fluid containing PCBs, which are carcinogens to humans and wildlife. CBS deposited defective capacitors at landfills where PCBs escaped and entered the environment and discharged PCB-laden water to a local sewage treatment plant. After PCB contamination was discovered and traced to six sites, federal, state, and municipal governments filed a Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9600, enforcement action, which resulted in a 1985 consent decree requiring CBS to dig up all PCB-contaminated materials at the sites and destroy them in a high-temperature incinerator. The Indiana legislature blocked the plan. The parties agreed on modified remedies for three sites but were unable to agree on remedies for the Lemon and Neal Landfills and Bennett’s Dump, all on CERCLA’s National Priorities List. The parties negotiated in stages to allow clean up to begin before resolution of all issues and established three phases. Stage 1 required CBS to remove sediment from the landfill contamination hot spots, to clean sediment at Bennett’s Dump to “industrial standards,” and to install caps at all three sites. After CBS completed Stage 1 in 2000, tests showed that PCBs had migrated into the bedrock and were still being released from into water and sediment. Stages 2 and 3 address current and future contamination of groundwater and sediment. In 2009 the district court approved a consent amendment in the ongoing CERCLA action and rejected citizens’ claims with respect to phases two and three. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Section 113(h)(4) prevents the courts from reviewing claims about stages in progress, but does not bar judicial review of claims about the first remedial stage that are not affected by continuing clean-up efforts.View "Frey v. Envtl. Prot. Agency" on Justia Law

Conrad, the “Banana Lady,” a self‐employed singer and dancer, performs in a giant banana costume. After performing a “singing telegram” at a credit union trade association event, she sued, charging infringements of intellectual property rights. Although Conrad claims that she stated that her performance was not to be recorded, except for “personal use,” photos were posted on websites. The district judge dismissed, finding most of the claims precluded by an earlier Wisconsin state court suit, also dismissed. The judge rejected a claim of copyright infringement, over which federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction, on the merits. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, first questioning Conrad’s copyright on the costume, because similar costumes are a common consumer product. The performance was not copyrightable, not being “fixed in any tangible medium of expression,” 17 U.S.C. 102(a). While she has the exclusive right to create or license reproductions of and derivative works from works that she has validly copyrighted, 17 U.S.C. 106(1), (2), it is unlikely that the photos and videos were derivative works. The Act forbids unauthorized recording of a musical performance, 17 U.S.C. 1101(a), and unauthorized display of copyrighted musical or choreographic work, section 106(5), but she did not cite either provision. The court noted Conrad’s “incessant filing of frivolous lawsuits” and suggested that the lower courts “consider enjoining her from filing further suits until she pays her litigation debts.” View "Conrad v. AM Cmty Credit Union," on Justia Law

In 1983 Bitler leased gas stations to Marathon. The Environmental Protection Agency adopted new regulations so that that underground petroleum tanks and pipes at the gas stations had to be removed, upgraded, or replaced, 40 C.F.R. 280.21(a). In 1992 the parties amended the leases to make Marathon “fully responsible for removing” the tanks and pipes, filling holes created by the removal, complying with all environmental laws, “leav[ing] the Premises in a condition reasonably useful for future commercial use,” and “replac[ing] any asphalt, concrete, or other surface, including landscaping.” Marathon agreed to return the Premises “as nearly as possible in the same condition as it was in prior to such remediation work,” and to be responsible “for any and all liability, losses, damages, costs and expenses,” and to continue paying rent. The properties can be restored as gas stations with above‐ground storage tanks, and may be suitable for other commercial outlets. After completion of the work Bitler sued Marathon, alleging breach of contract and “waste.” The Seventh Circuit vacated to waste regarding Michigan properties, with directions to double those damages. The court affirmed dismissal of some of the contract claims. It would not conform to the reasonable expectations of the parties to limit liability for waste or other misconduct by a tenant simply because a lease had to be extended for an indefinite period to allow a response to unforeseen changes. View "Bitler Inv. Venture II v. Marathon Petroleum Co. LP" on Justia Law

About 150 property owners in a village near the Mississippi River claim that defendants’ refinery leaked benzene and other contaminants into the groundwater. They sued, alleging nuisance and related torts. The district court certified the class. The Seventh Circuit reversed. The court first rejected an argument that most class members had suffered no injury. How many class members have a valid claim is determined after certification. Predominance of issues common to all class members, like other certification requirements, goes to the efficiency of a class action as an alternative to individual suits. In this case, the alleged contamination occurred over a 90‐year period and involved different levels of contamination, caused by different polluters. Not every class member has experienced the same diminution in property value even if everyone had the same level of contamination. Plaintiff’s hydrogeologist, intended to measure contamination by the benzene levels in the groundwater beneath the plaintiffs’ properties, even though their water does not come from groundwater, but from an uncontaminated aquifer. It cannot be assumed that a decline in the value of property in the village is the result of proximity to a refinery. The district judge did not explore any of these issues, but treated predominance as a pleading requirement. View "Shell Oil Co. v. Parko" on Justia Law

An asbestos survey showed that the Kankakee building contained 2,200 linear feet of asbestos‐containing insulation around pipes. The owner hired Origin Fire Protection, to modify its sprinkler system. O’Malley, who operated Origin, offered to properly remove the pipe insulation for a cash payment ($12,000) and dispose of it in a lawful landfill. O’Malley provided no written contract for the removal work, but provided a written contract for the sprinkler system. O’Malley and Origin were not licensed to remove asbestos. O’Malley hired untrained workers, who stripped dry asbestos insulation off the pipes using a circular saw and other equipment provided by O’Malley. The workers were given paint suits, simple dust masks, and respirators with missing filters. They stopped working after inhaling dust that made them sick. Asbestos insulation was packed into garbage bags and taken to abandoned properties and a store dumpster. The Illinois EPA discovered the dumping; Superfund contractors began cleanup. O’Malley attempted to mislead federal agents. O’Malley was convicted of removing, transporting, and dumping asbestos‐containing insulation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the government did not prove the appropriate mens rea for Clean Air Act violations. O’Malley argued that the government was required to prove that he knew that the asbestos in the building was a regulated type of asbestos. View "United States v. O'Malley" on Justia Law

The Wisconsin DNR decided to terminate a separate Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) permit for Flambeau’s mining operation and to regulate Flambeau’s storm water discharge under its mining permit, allowing more frequent inspections. Flambeau has been in compliance since the permit issued in 1998. Plaintiff filed suit under the Clean Water Act’s citizen‐suit provision, 33 U.S.C. 1365(a)(1), alleging that Flambeau violated the CWA by discharging pollutants without a permit. They argued that the CWA permit shield did not apply because Flambeau did not have a WPDES permit and its mining permit was not issued pursuant to the CWA because Flambeau could not establish that the EPA had specifically approved the regulation under which the DNR issued the permit. The district court agreed and, after a trial, determined that Flambeau had violated the CWA and assessed penalties. The Seventh Circuit reversed, finding that the permit shield applies, characterizing the suit as an attempt to collaterally attack the WPDES program. View "WI Res. Prot. Council v. Flambeau Mining Co." on Justia Law

Third Site is a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) site that was part of a larger area, under common ownership by the Bankerts, used for recycling industrial wastes. Cleanup initially focused on other sites, but in 1987 and 1992 consultants found concentrations of volatile organic compounds; Third Site was transferring pollutants to Finley Creek, which flows to Eagle Creek Reservoir, which supplies Indianapolis drinking water. The creek was realigned. In 1999, the EPA entered into an Administrative Order by Consent (AOC) with potentially responsible parties. Non-Premium Respondents agreed to undertake an Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis (EE/CA) of removal alternatives and to settle a trust to bankroll the EE/CA. Premium Respondents, allegedly de minimis contributors, were entitled to settle out with a one-time Trust contribution under 42 U.S.C. 9622(g). Non-Premium Respondents met their obligations. In 2002, the parties entered into a second AOC to perform work described by the Enforcement Action Memorandum: Non-Premium respondents had the same Trust obligations for removal efforts. The Bankerts are Non-Premium Respondents under both AOCs, but have not met their obligations. In 2008, the Trustees sued the Bankerts and their insurers, seeking cost recovery under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a), and Indiana law. One of the insurers argued that its successful litigation in connection with cleanup of the adjoining site precluded a finding of coverage. Entering summary judgment for the Bankerts, the district court construed the CERCLA claim as seeking contribution under 42 U.S.C. 9613(f), and barred by the statute of limitations, so that issues concerning the insurer were moot. The Seventh Circuit remanded reinstated claims under 42 U.S.C. 9607(a)(4)(B), to recover costs incurred under the 2002 AOC and against the insurer. On rehearing, the court clarified that a party responsible for contamination may obtain an immediately effective release from the EPA in a settlement, or it may obtain only a performance-dependent conditional covenant not to sue with an accompanying disclaimer of liability. Whether, and when, a given settlement “resolves” a party’s liability under 42 U.S.C. 9613(f)(3)(B) is case-specific and depends on its terms. In this case, the AOC did not provide for resolution upon entering into the agreement. View "Bernstein v. Bankert" on Justia Law