Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
United States v. Continental Group, USA
Citations: 595 F. Supp. 1021; 15 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20131; 1984 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22732Docket: Civ. A. No. 84-C-886
Court: District Court, E.D. Wisconsin; October 17, 1984; Federal District Court
Continental Can Company, operating a food and beverage can manufacturing plant in Glendale, Wisconsin, is the defendant in a civil action under the Clean Air Act, specifically 42 U.S.C. 7413(b). The case is being heard in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. The court has denied Continental's motion for a stay of proceedings. The manufacturing process involves the use of coatings, varnishes, and compounds that release volatile organic hydrocarbons (VOCs) into the atmosphere, contributing to ozone formation when combined with nitrogen oxides under sunlight. The Clean Air Act Amendments mandate federal enforcement to ensure compliance with air quality standards, requiring states to develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for emission limits, which must be approved by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers the state's SIP and adopted regulations in 1979 to limit VOC emissions from can manufacturing. Continental submitted an alternate compliance plan in 1979, aiming to create low-VOC coatings and compounds, which require FDA approval due to their contact with food. Continental projected compliance with DNR regulations by December 31, 1985, but has not yet received a formal decision on its request and claims that it will not meet the final emission limits by the deadline, citing delays associated with FDA testing and customer requirements. Approximately 50,000 man-hours have been dedicated to developing these new materials. On October 28, 1983, the EPA issued a Notice of Violation to Continental for exceeding VOC emissions limits under DNR regulations related to can coatings and end seam compounds. Continental filed its action on June 29, 1984, arguing for a stay by claiming entanglement in state-federal relations due to the absence of Wisconsin's participation and asserting that the DNR should first address its compliance request. Continental contended it had largely complied with interim emission limits set by the DNR in August 1983 and expressed confusion over federal claims regarding the DNR's regulatory shortcomings. However, the court found that Continental's request for an alternative compliance plan did not justify abstention from federal jurisdiction, as established by Burford v. Sun Oil Co., which pertains to significant federal jurisdictional abdication rather than mere postponement. The court emphasized that Congress explicitly allows federal enforcement of state plans in federal court, making it inappropriate to avoid jurisdiction under these circumstances. The continued delay by the DNR in ruling on Continental's request, which had persisted for five years, was viewed as contrary to Congress's intent to address delays in pollution control efforts. The court concluded that whether Continental was in compliance with DNR limits or the agency's enforcement reputation was irrelevant, given the lack of DNR action. Consequently, the motion for a stay was denied, reinforcing the court's duty to exercise its jurisdiction as conferred by Congress.