United States v. Sharon Steel Corporation
United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
30 ERC (BNA) 1778 (1989)

- Written by Sarah Hoffman, JD
Facts
Sharon Steel Corporation (Sharon) (defendant) operated a steel-production plant that discharged wastewater into a tributary of the Mahoning River in Ohio. A provision of the Clean Water Act (CWA) established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), under which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) could issue permits that allowed for the discharge of pollutants and that required the permit holders to monitor and sample their discharge. After discharging wastewater for some years, Sharon filed a permit application under the CWA. While waiting for the permit to be approved, Sharon continued to discharge polluted wastewater. The discharge of the polluted wastewater went on for more than five years, including the time before and after the permit application was filed. Sharon’s permit was eventually granted. The EPA subsequently issued a finding and order against Sharon on the grounds that it had discharged illegal pollutants prior to the permit being issued. The United States (plaintiff), on behalf of the EPA, then brought this enforcement action against Sharon claiming it had illegally discharged pollutants under the CWA. Sharon argued that it had complied with the CWA by applying for the permit and was therefore shielded from liability. It further argued that enforcement of any illegal-discharge actions that took place more than five years ago was blocked by the statute of limitations. The United States moved for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Mason, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.