United States v. United States Steel Corp., 16 F. Supp. 3d 944

Background

In 1990 U.S. Steel performed a full "reline" (major modification) of its No. 4 furnace at Gary Works without obtaining NSR/PSD preconstruction permits; EPA alleges this violated the Clean Air Act.
EPA (with state co-plaintiffs) sued seeking civil penalties and injunctive relief for permitting violations tied to the 1990 work; damages claims were previously dismissed as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. § 2462.
The court originally permitted the EPA’s request for injunctive relief but granted U.S. Steel’s motion to reconsider that portion after reviewing Seventh Circuit precedent.
The central legal question is whether the government can still obtain injunctive relief more than five years after an alleged preconstruction permitting violation that was completed decades earlier.
The court accepts EPA’s allegation that the 1990 work was a "major modification" for purposes of the motion-to-dismiss analysis and treats both PSD (42 U.S.C. § 7475) and nonattainment NSR (42 U.S.C. § 7503) preconstruction claims as functionally the same for this issue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether injunctive relief is available for preconstruction permitting violations that were completed >5 years ago	Injunction still available; violation is continuing because the facility operates without required permits/BACT	Time-bar applies; violation was completed when construction commenced, so relief is untimely	Dismissed injunction claims as time-barred under the Seventh Circuit's Midwest Generation approach
Whether § 2462's five-year limit applies to equitable relief in government enforcement actions	Ongoing operation renders violation current; no limitations problem	§ 2462 bars enforcement that accrued >5 years ago; concurrent-remedy and laches defenses don't bar government suits but Midwest Generation applies a five-year limit to these injunctions	Court follows Midwest Generation and treats the claim as untimely for injunctions
Whether failure to install BACT creates a continuing violation tied to the original construction-permit violation	EPA: ongoing failure to use BACT makes the violation current	U.S. Steel: operating without BACT is not a continuing § 7475 violation; any current operations-based violation would arise under other statutes/regulations	Court adopts Seventh Circuit view: § 7475 addresses construction, not continued operations; failure to install BACT during past construction is not a current § 7475 violation
Whether analogous § 7503 nonattainment claims survive because § 7475 limitation reasoning is inapplicable	EPA: § 7503 may reach ongoing operation and thus be actionable now	U.S. Steel: EPA pleaded § 7503 as a preconstruction claim mirroring § 7475, so same limit applies	Court treats § 7503 allegations as preconstruction claims and applies Midwest Generation logic to dismiss injunctive relief

Key Cases Cited

United States v. Midwest Generation, LLC, 720 F.3d 644 (7th Cir. 2013) (preconstruction PSD claim accrues at construction; injunctions for long-completed construction claims are untimely)
United States v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 727 F.3d 274 (3d Cir. 2013) (construction-permit injunctions limited to ongoing violations; post-construction claims are not enjoinable under § 7475)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility pleading standard under Rule 12(b)(6))
Bell Atlantic v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading must state a plausible claim for relief)
Cope v. Anderson, 331 U.S. 461 (1947) (concurrent-remedy doctrine: equity may withhold relief when a statute-of-limitations bars the legal remedy)
Hollander v. Brown, 457 F.3d 688 (7th Cir. 2006) (plaintiff may plead facts that establish an affirmative defense such as untimeliness)
Bogie v. Rosenberg, 705 F.3d 603 (7th Cir. 2013) (appellate court may affirm on any ground supported by the record and not waived)