Tuesday, January 8, 2013

Supreme Court Rules In LA County Flood Control Dist. v. NRDC

Jan 8: The U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion in the case of Los Angeles County Flood Control District, Petitioner v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., et al. (SupCt. docket 11-460). The high profile case with 22 amicus briefs, deals with the issue of pollutants stemming from municipal stormwater systems [See WIMS 11/30/12]. In March 2011, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit (Case No. 10-56017) ruled partially in favor of NRDC, et al [See WIMS 3/11/11] and overturned a district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of two municipal entities and Los Angeles County. In that case Plaintiffs contended that Defendants County of Los Angeles (County) and Los Angeles County Flood Control District (District) were discharging polluted urban stormwater runoff collected by municipal separate storm sewer systems (ms4) into navigable waters in Southern California. 
 
    Today, the Supreme Court said, "The Court granted review in this case limited to a single question: Under the Clean Water Act (CWA), 86 Stat.816, as amended, 33 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., does the flow of water out of a concrete channel within a river rank as a 'discharge of a pollutant'? In this Court, the parties and the United States as amicus curiae agree that the answer to this question is 'no.' They base this accord on South Fla. Water Management Dist. v. Miccosukee Tribe, 541 U. S. 95, 109–112 (2004), in which we accepted that pumping polluted water from one part of a water body into another part of the same body is not a discharge of pollutants- under the CWA. Adhering to the view we took in Miccosukee, we hold that the parties correctly answered the sole question presented in the negative. The decision in this suit rendered by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is inconsistent with our determination. We therefore reverse that court's judgment."
 
    In its unanimous decision, the Supreme Court explained further, "In Miccosukee, polluted water was removed from a canal, transported through a pump station, and then de-posited into a nearby reservoir. 541 U. S., at 100. We held that this water transfer would count as a discharge of pollutants under the CWA only if the canal and the reservoir were 'meaningfully distinct water bodies.' Id., at 112. It follows, a fortiori, from Miccosukee that no discharge of pollutants occurs when water, rather than being removed and then returned to a water body, simply flows from one portion of the water body to another. We hold, therefore, that the flow of water from an improved portion of a navigable waterway into an unimproved portion of the very same waterway does not qualify as a discharge of pollutants under the CWA. Because the decision below cannot be squared with that holding, the Court of Appeals' judgment must be reversed."
 
    Further, the Supreme Court said, "The NRDC and Baykeeper urge that the Court of Appeals reached the right result, albeit for the wrong reason.The monitoring system proposed by the District and written into its permit showed numerous instances in which water-quality standards were exceeded. Under the permit's terms, the NRDC and Baykeeper maintain, the ex- exceedances detected at the instream monitoring stations are by themselves sufficient to establish the District's ability under the CWA for its upstream discharges. See Brief for Respondents 33–62. This argument failed below. See 673 F. 3d, at 898, 901; App. to Pet. for Cert. 100–102. It is not embraced within, or even touched by,the narrow question on which we granted certiorari. We therefore do not address, and indicate no opinion on, the issue the NRDC and Baykeeper seek to substitute for the question we took up for review."
 
    NRDC issued a release commenting on the decision saying the groups had sought to hold the county responsible for the "toxic mix of mercury, arsenic, cyanide, lead and fecal bacteria found in billions of gallons of stormwater runoff." NRDC said, Today's Supreme Court ruling resolved a narrow legal issue that the parties all agreed on: that the flow of polluted water within a single river does not constitute a 'discharge of pollutants' under the Clean Water Act. The Court did not excuse the County from liability for ongoing water pollution in the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers."

    Steve Fleischli, senior attorney and director of NRDC's national water program said, "We'll continue to seek to hold the Los Angeles County Flood Control District responsible for cleaning up its water pollution. Unless something changes, stormwater pollution will continue to sicken up to one million people in Southern California every year, while local government turns a blind eye and avoids basic infrastructure solutions that will protect people, preserve water quality and increase water reserves." Liz Crosson, Executive Director of L.A. Waterkeeper said, "The county has managed to game the system in a way that has allowed the pollution of our waterways to go unaddressed for many years. The county is the largest source of stormwater pollution to local waterways, and today it has escaped accountability, but only temporarily."

    The groups indicated that, "This pollution can be prevented, however, through the development of green infrastructure solutions, such as on-site water capture and filtration. These techniques trap stormwater pollution at the source, rather than allow it to flow to sea untreated, and allow rainwater to be reused rather than wasted. Green infrastructure is not only good for public health and smart environmental policy, it will save money, increase water supplies, reduce flood risks and clean up local beaches and rivers. The county has not used these available techniques as effectively as it should."

    Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access the SupCt docket for the case (click here). Access links to all of the merit and amicus briefs in the case (click here). Access the complete opinion of the Ninth Circuit (click here).  [#Water, #SupCt]

GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
For a short time you can access the complete issue (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Brodsky v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Jan 7: In the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 11-2016. Appeal from an award of summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court awarded a summary judgment in favor of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on plaintiffs' challenge to the NRC's grant of an exemption to the Indian Point nuclear power plant from compliance with certain fire safety regulations. The Appeals Court summary indicates, "A summary order filed today affirms the judgment in part as to those of plaintiffs' challenges that we hold to be without merit. This opinion vacates the judgment in part, insofar as the district court rejected plaintiffs' argument that the exemption was granted in violation of the National Environmental Policy Act's public participation regulations, and remands the matter for further proceedings." The decision is affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
 
    The Appeals Court explains further, "By summary order filed today, we affirm the challenged judgment in all respects but one, which is the subject of this opinion. Specifically, insofar as plaintiffs contend that the NRC granted the challenged exemption in violation of NEPA's regulations, which allow for public involvement where appropriate and practicable, see 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.4(b), 1506.6(c), we conclude that the agency record does not permit a reviewing court to determine whether a reasoned basis exists for the NRC's decision not to afford any such public involvement in the exemption decision. We therefore vacate the judgment of the district court, which implicitly rejected this argument, with respect to plaintiffs' NEPA challenge only, and we remand this case to the district court with instructions for it in turn to remand to the NRC so that the agency may (1) supplement the administrative record to explain why allowing public input into the exemption request was inappropriate or impracticable, or (2) take such other action as it may deem appropriate to resolve this issue. See Florida Power & Light Co. v. Lorion, 470 U.S. 729, 744 (1985) ('[I]f the reviewing court simply cannot evaluate the challenged agency action on the basis of the record before it, the proper course, except in rare circumstances, is to remand to the agency for additional investigation or explanation.'). This panel will retain jurisdiction for the purpose of ruling, if necessary, on any appeal from a further district court judgment addressing the agency's action on remand."
 
    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #CA2]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
For a short time you can access the complete issue (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals

Beyond Nuclear v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Jan 4: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Case No.12-1561. Petition for review from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The Appeals Court explains that NextEra Energy Seabrook, LLC, operates the Seabrook, New Hampshire, Unit 1 nuclear power plant, which provides a significant portion of the baseload electric power used in New England. NextEra applied on May 25, 2010, to renew the Seabrook operating license, which will otherwise expire on March 15, 2030. Renewal is allowed up to twenty years in advance. With its application, NextEra submitted an environmental report, as required. That report discussed the feasibility of alternative sources of electric energy.
 
    As part of that licensing process, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), on March 8, 2012, issued a decision denying the
admission of a contention by Beyond Nuclear, the New Hampshire Sierra Club, and the Seacoast Anti-Pollution League (collectively BN), which questioned and sought a hearing on the conclusion in the environmental report by NextEra that offshore wind electric generation was not a reasonable alternative to the extended licensing of Seabrook. In doing so, the NRC reversed the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board's (ASLB) admission of that contention. The NRC's denial of admission of a contention here means that it ruled petitioners were not entitled to have a hearing on the merits about their contention that generation of electricity from offshore wind was a reasonable alternative source of baseload energy to the relicensing of Seabrook.
 
    On petition for review, BN advances two primary challenges to the NRC's decision. First, it argues that in formulating its contention-admissibility standard the NRC misapplied case law interpreting the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Second, it argues that when the NRC applied its contention-admissibility standard to the facts, its conclusion that the contention was inadmissible was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or not otherwise in accordance with the law. The Appeals Court said, "Neither argument is persuasive. . . we deny BN's petition for review."
 
    The case provides an interesting overview of wind energy potentials and limitations. As an example, BN argues that one study indicated that shallow offshore wind power is viable today (because of its use in Europe) and cited a report from the European Wind Energy Association, "Oceans of Opportunity," (Sept. 2009), discussing the growth of offshore wind in Europe. However the Appeals Court notes that as the NRC correctly noted, another of BN's citations, U.S. Department of Energy, "20% Wind Energy by 2030" (July 2008), stated that such European shallow-water technology is too expensive and too difficult to site in U.S. waters. And, both citations are silent on the critical issue of baseload generation. Thus the Appeals Court restates, "The NRC's decision was not arbitrary or capricious and there is no basis in law to set it aside."
 
    The Appeals Court added, "If new information about the technical and economic feasibility of offshore wind as a source of baseload power, which differs materially from that which was available when the contention at issue was filed, becomes available prior to Seabrook's license renewal, NRC regulations would permit the filing of a new contention, if timely submitted. . ."       
 
    Access the complete opinion (click here). [#Energy/Nuclear, #Energy/Wind, #CA1]
 
GET THE REST OF TODAY'S NEWS
For a short time you can access the complete issue (click here)
Access subscription information (click here)
Want to know more about WIMS? Check out our LinkedIn company website (click here).
33 Years of Environmental Reporting for serious Environmental Professionals