Nucor Steel - AR v. Big River Steel, No. 15-1615 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseAfter Big River, a Nucor competitor, received a permit from ADEQ to construct a new steel recycling and manufacturing facility in Osceola, Arkansas, Nucor filed a citizen suit under the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7475, seeking injunctive relief to stop Big River from constructing or continuing to construct the steel mill. The district court dismissed the suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court concluded that, even though Nucor’s allegations that Big River violated the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP) present a challenge to an “emission standard or limitation” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. 7604(f)(4), Nucor has not alleged the repeated or ongoing violations necessary to support a citizen suit under section 7604(a)(1). Accordingly, the district court did not err by concluding that it lacked jurisdiction under section 7604(a)(1). The court also concluded that the district court did not err by finding it lacked jurisdiction under section 7604(a)(3) to entertain Nucor’s allegations that Big River did not meet the requirements to obtain the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit needed to begin construction; the district court did not err by finding that the CAA does not authorize a preconstruction citizen suit against a party that already has obtained a permit; and the district court did not err in barring Nucor’s Title I claims based on the availability of Title V review. Therefore, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Gruender, Author, with Loken and Kelly, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Environmental law. While plaintiff's allegations that Big River violated the Arkansas State Implementation Plan (SIP)presented a challenge to an emission standard or limitation as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. Sec. 7604(f)(4), plaintiff did not allege the repeated or ongoing violations necessary to support a citizen suit under Section 7604(a)(1) of the Act, and the district court did not err in concluding it lacked jurisdiction under Section 7604(a)(1); defendant had a permit and the district court did not err in finding it lacked jurisdiction under Section 7604(a)(3) to entertain plaintiff's allegations that defendant did not meet the requirements to obtain the permit; in sum, the district court did not err in finding the Clean Air Act does not authorize a preconstruction citizen suit against a party that has obtained a permit; the district court did not err in barring plaintiff's Title I claims based on the availability of Title V review.