PennEnvironment v. PPG Industries, Inc.
W.D. Pa., Civ. No. 12-342
Settlement Documents
Court Documents
PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 12-342, 2014 WL 6982461 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2014) (ECF No. 192) (Injunction granted – PPG must apply for an NPDES permit)
PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., 127 F. Supp. 3d 336 (W.D. Pa. 2015) (ECF No. 228)(PPG liable for CWA violations 1973-2015; liable under RCRA for the Slurry Lagoon Area)
PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 12-342, 2018 WL 1784555 (W.D. Pa. April 13, 2018) (ECF No. 331)( PPG liable under RCRA for the Solid Waste Disposal Area)
PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 12-342, 2019 WL 2210692 (W.D. Pa. May 22, 2019) (ECF No. 420), recons. denied 2019 WL 4860940 (W.D. Pa. Oct. 2, 2019) (ECF No. 444)(Claims for injunctive relief under RCRA not rendered futile by deal struck by PPG and PADEP)
PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., 587 F.Supp.3d 286 (W.D. Pa. 2022) (ECF No. 501) (Civil penalty not rendered moot by deal struck by PPG and PADEP; PPG liable for CWA violations 2015-2019)
Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board Appeal
Notice of Appeal of PADEP’s Action by PennEnvironment and Sierra Club, May 10, 2022
Other Environmental Cases
Hackensack Riverkeeper v. Honeywell International, Inc.
Raritan Baykeeper v. NL Industries, Inc.
We represent PennEnvironment and Sierra Club in a citizen suit brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act, and the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Law to remediate contaminated water and soil and to stop the discharge of pollutants into the Allegheny River in Ford City, Armstrong County, Pennsylvania, from a waste site formerly owned by PPG.
The district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania ordered PPG to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to address its discharges to the Allegheny River. PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 12-342, 2014 WL 6982461, at *17-*18 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 10, 2014). The court found PPG liable for violations of the Clean Water Act for discharging pollutants to the Allegheny River without an NPDES permit from 1973 to 2019. PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., 127 F. Supp. 3d 336, 385-386 (W.D. Pa. 2015); PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., 587 F. Supp. 3d 286, 304-305 (W.D. Pa. 2022). And the court further ruled PPG liable under RCRA at the Ford City waste site because its contamination of water and soils may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to human health or the environment. 127 F. Supp. 3d at 386; PennEnvironment v. PPG Indus., Inc., No. 12-342, 2018 WL 1784555, at *25 (W.D. Pa. April 13, 2018).
From 2019 to 2021, in coordinated agreements among the plaintiffs PennEnvironment and Sierra Club, PPG, and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP), a partial settlement was reached requiring PPG to implement a remedy for the contaminated soils and water.
The settlement, entered by the federal court in March 2021, left open for a trial Plaintiffs’ claim that PPG should pay significant civil penalties to the US Treasury for its decades of violations of the Clean Water Act. The trial is expected to be held in 2023.
PennEnvironment and Sierra Club also filed an appeal to the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board challenging PADEP’s approval of a financial assurance package as inadequate to fund the PPG Site remedy in perpetuity as required by the parties’ agreements.
For more information about the case contact Nicholas Soares at 202-204-8481.