Overfiling: Can the EPA Pursue a Case Where the State has Taken Enforcement Action? What Courts Have Done Since Harmon

The federal government sets environmental standards, but the states enforce them. If a state doesn’t do a good job, the EPA can step in and enforce the rules instead. However, there are some rules about when the EPA can do this, and courts have had different opinions about it. Harmon Industries in Grain Valley, Missouri was in trouble for dumping chemicals on the ground and not following environmental rules. The EPA wanted them to pay a big fine, but a court in Missouri said they didn’t have to. Now the EPA is trying to appeal that decision. In 1999, the Eighth Circuit court said the EPA couldn’t sue a company for breaking environmental laws if the state already made a deal with the company. The EPA tried to appeal, but the court didn’t change its decision. The EPA decided to follow this in the states in the Eighth Circuit, but not in other states. The court also said the EPA can sue if a state doesn’t do anything about a problem. Since the Harmon case, there have been a few other court cases that have changed the way enforcement actions are defined. These cases include U.S. v. Murphy Oil USA, Inc., U.S. v. Power Engineering Company, and U.S. v. Flanagan. It’s not exactly clear what counts as “initiating enforcement action,” but these court decisions have had an impact on how it’s understood. In the cases of Murphy’s Oil and Power Engineering, the courts ruled that the EPA has the authority to take legal action against a company for environmental violations, even if the state has already taken action. The courts disagreed with a previous case called Harmon and said that the EPA can enforce environmental laws on its own. In Power Engineering, the court also said that if the state’s action didn’t cover a specific issue, the EPA can step in to address it. Both companies are appealing the court’s decisions. In the case of Flanagan, the court denied a motion to dismiss a four-count indictment for violations of hazardous waste regulations. The court recognized that the EPA does not lose its power to enforce regulations in states where it has authorized a program.

In U.S. v. Elias, the Ninth Circuit held that the EPA maintains enforcement power after a state receives authorization for hazardous waste programs. The case involved a man who was convicted of RCRA-related charges after exposing employees to hazardous waste. The court ruled that the EPA retains authority to enforce regulations in states with authorized programs.

In simple terms, the courts ruled that the EPA can still enforce hazardous waste regulations in states where it has authorized programs, even after the state takes on the primary role of enforcement. In some cases, the EPA can take legal action even if the state has already taken action. The courts have said that the EPA has the power to enforce environmental laws, even in states that have their own programs. The EPA can do this to make sure environmental issues are addressed properly. However, there are still some issues that need to be worked out in future cases. Overall, it seems like the EPA can still take action even if the state has already done so. This article was written by a person and does not necessarily represent the opinion of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. It was submitted by the Environmental and Land Use Law Section. The main idea is about promoting duty, service, and justice in the legal profession.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/overfiling-can-the-epa-pursue-a-case-where-the-state-has-taken-enforcement-action-what-courts-have-done-since-harmon/