Mayaguezanos v. US

Case Date: 12/21/1999
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 99-1412

United States Court of Appeals
For the First Circuit
____________________


No. 99-1412


MAYAGUEZANOS POR LA SALUD Y EL AMBIENTE, ET AL.,

Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ET AL.,

Defendants, Appellees.


____________________


APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

[Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]

____________________

Before

Lynch, Circuit Judge,
Campbell, Senior Circuit Judge,
and O'Toole, District Judge.

____________________


Juan A. Giusti-Cordero, with whom Pedro J. Varela-
Fernandez was on brief, for appellants.
Sean H. Donahue, Attorney, Environmental and Natural
Resources Division, U.S. Department of Justice, with whom Janet
Masters, Trial Attorney, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Department
of Energy; Horst Greczmiel, Office of Environmental Law, United
States Coast Guard; James F. Simon, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Environmental and Natural Resources Division, U.S.
Department of Justice; Guillermo Gil, United States Attorney,
Isabel Munoz Acosta, Assistant United States Attorney; Ellen
Durkee, John T. Stahr, and Stephen G. Bartell, Attorneys, U.S.
Department of Justice, were on brief, for appellees.

____________________

December 20, 1999
____________________ LYNCH, Circuit Judge. On February 3, 1998, the Pacific
Swan, a British-flag freighter carrying a cargo of vitrified high-
level nuclear waste, passed through the Mona Passage, a stretch of
seas between the islands of Puerto Rico and Hispaniola. It was
bound for Japan, by way of the Panama Canal, from France. A day
earlier, a group of fishermen and environmental organizations from
western Puerto Rico, fearing an accident or maritime disaster,
brought this action for an injunction to stop the shipment until
the United States filed an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), 42
U.S.C.  4321 et seq. After the parties filed cross-motions for
summary judgment, the district court denied the claim for
injunctive relief and dismissed the action. See Mayag