2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74428
D. Minn.2014Background
- This is a CWA and APA action by WaterLegacy and MCEA challenging EPA Region 5's December 2012 approval of a Minnesota variance for Mesabi Nugget's Hoyt Lakes facility.
- Bands of Lake Superior Chippewa have an interest in Minnesota water quality and join the challenge; Mesabi Nugget is the intervenor defendant in the variance approval.
- EPA filed an unopposed motion to remand the variance with vacatur on March 10, 2014; Mesabi Nugget moved to intervene for limited purposes to delay remand and oppose vacatur.
- MPCA initially issued a variance from Minnesota water quality standards; the MPCA’s variance was approved by EPA on December 27, 2012.
- NPDES framework: facility discharges require an NPDES permit; MPCA issues permits consistent with state standards; EPA must approve or disapprove state standards and any variances before they become effective.
- The EPA Board previously dismissed the challenges for lack of jurisdiction; the cases were consolidated and amended complaints filed in November 2013; the court considers the EPA remand motion and Mesabi Nugget’s intervention.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May Mesabi Nugget intervene as of right or permissively? | Nugget seeks limited intervention to oppose remand; plaintiffs argue for proper Rule 24 application. | Nugget has a real interest and inadequate representation; intervention appropriate for limited purpose. | Intervention granted in part for limited purpose. |
| Is the intervention moot after remand motion? | Remand renders controversy non-live. | Remand preserves live issues, including intervention propriety and vacatur decision. | Not moot; live issues remain. |
| Is Mesabi Nugget's intervention timely? | Timeliness questionable due to near-resolution via remand. | Limited-purpose intervention and timing (three days after remand motion) supports timeliness. | Timely for limited purpose; intervention granted. |
| Should the court grant remand with vacatur? | Remand with vacatur protects environmental interests if deficiencies are serious. | No vacatur; remand alone suffices; any vacatur would disrupt permit status and cause unnecessary delay. | Remand granted; vacatur denied without prejudice. |
| What is the scope of relief granted to Mesabi Nugget on remand? | Nugget may contest remand terms; no expansion beyond limited intervention. | Remand terms should be limited; vacatur not granted. | Intervention granted for limited purpose; remand without vacatur denied now but may be revisited. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Alexandria Lake Area Sanitary Dist. NPDES/SDS Permit No. MN0040738, 763 N.W.2d 303 (Minn.2009) (state-agency permit framework and delegation for NPDES permits)
- United States v. Ritchie Special Credit Invs., Ltd., 620 F.3d 824 (8th Cir.2010) (liberal interpretation of Rule 24; intervene liberally for limited purposes)
- Tweedle v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 527 F.3d 664 (8th Cir.2008) (timeliness factors in intervention analysis)
- ACLU of Minn. v. Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy, 643 F.3d 1088 (8th Cir.2011) (timeliness and prejudice considerations in intervention)
- Center for Native Ecosystems v. Salazar, 795 F. Supp. 2d 1236 (D. Colo.2011) (vacatur decisions on remand and agency action review)
- Sugar Cane Growers Coop. of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F.3d 89 (D.C. Cir.2002) (remand without vacatur when remand is appropriate)