Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc. v. Severstal Sparrows Point, LLC
794 F. Supp. 2d 602
D. Maryland2011Background
- Sparrows Point Facility spans about 2,300 acres in Sparrows Point, MD with waters adjacent to the Chesapeake Bay.
- Plaintiffs, CB Foundation, Baltimore Water Harbor Keeper, and several individuals, sue Severstal Sparrows Point LLC and ArcelorMittal USA Inc. for RCRA, CWA, and Maryland-law violations.
- A 1997 Consent Decree with EPA and MDE required site-wide investigations, interim measures, corrective measures, and landfill compliance for Coke Point and Greys Landfills.
- Bethlehem Steel filed Chapter 11 in 2001; facility assets/liabilities were transferred to ISG, then Mittal Steel and finally ArcelorMittal, with ownership disputes ongoing.
- Plaintiffs served NOI letters in May 2010; filed the complaint July 9, 2010; Defendants moved to dismiss; motion hearing held March 11, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count I is barred by diligent prosecution | Consent Decree addresses endangerment claims; count I should proceed. | EPA/MDE ongoing enforcement precludes Count I. | Count I dismissed; precluded by diligent prosecution. |
| Whether Count II RCRA permitting claims are barred | Count II not covered by the Decree and capable of being pursued under §6972(a)(1)(A). | Count II barred by Decree for the endangerment and related concerns; some aspects precluded. | Count II denied only as to permitting claims; other aspects barred. |
| Whether Count IV CWA nonpoint source discharges are enforceable | Discharges violate CWA provisions and are subject to citizen enforcement. | Nonpoint source discharges are not subject to citizen-suit under §1365. | Count IV dismissed for nonpoint source limitations. |
| Whether Count VI CWA NPDES notice was adequate | NOI provided sufficient notice of location and violations. | NOI inadequate under 40 C.F.R. § 135.3(a). | Count VI dismissed for inadequate NOI notice. |
| Whether Maryland state-law Counts III, V, VII are enforceable by citizen suit | Statutes preserve private rights to enforce nuisance/ Pollution; citizen suits permitted. | MD agencies have exclusive enforcement authority under Titles 7, 9; Title 4 limits enforcement to designated entities. | Counts III and V dismissed; Count VII addressed in separate order; discussion clarifies enforcement scope under Title 4. |
Key Cases Cited
- Piney Run Pres. Ass'n v. Cnty. Comm'rs, 523 F.3d 453 (4th Cir.2008) (diligence presumed for government enforcement in CWA/RCRA contexts)
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., 629 F.3d 387 (4th Cir.2011) (CWA notice requirements; § 135.3(a) mandatory notice precedent)
- Hallstrom v. Tillamook Cnty., 493 U.S. 20 (1989) (mandatory notice and delay provisions balance enforcement and compliance)
- National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 551 U.S. 644 (2007) (NPDES permitting overview and state-federal enforcement interaction)
- Sierra Club v. Hamilton Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 504 F.3d 634 (6th Cir.2007) (private enforcement role under CWA; limits on nonpoint source claims)
- Chesapeake Bay Found. v. Am. Recovery Co., 769 F.2d 207 (4th Cir.1985) (preemption and jurisdictional analysis in environmental suits)