Jun 13: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 07-12903. Appellant, the Gulf Fishermen’s Association (GFA), appealed the district court’s order granting the Appellees’ (Department of Commerce, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service) motion for summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction. The district court held that the GFA’s complaint was time-barred under the limitations provision of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (the Act). On appeal, the GFA argued that its suit challenging Amendment 18A to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (Amendment 18A) was timely under the judicial review provisions of the Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f), because it was filed within thirty days after an action by the Secretary of Commerce (the Secretary).
The Appeals Court indicated that, "By its own terms, the Act permits a challenge to a regulation implementing a fishery management plan so long as it is filed within thirty days after the publication of the regulation or an action by the Secretary
under that regulation. Because the GFA filed its challenge to Amendment 18A nine days after the Federal Register published a Secretarial action implementing that regulation, we find the suit was timely and reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction."
Explaining further, the Appeals Court said, "After reviewing both the text and the legislative history of § 1855(f), we hold that a petition filed within thirty days of the publication of a Secretarial action, as defined in § 1855(f)(2), may challenge both the action and the regulation under which the Secretarial action is taken. In this case, the Secretarial action to delay the effective date of the VMS [Vessel Monitoring System] requirement was an 'action' taken under Amendment 18A. Because this action was published in the Federal Register on December 6, 2006, and the GFA filed its complaint on December 15, 2006, we conclude that the complaint was timely-filed under the limitations period of 16 U.S.C. § 1855(f). The district court thus erred in granting the Appellees’ motion for summary judgment for lack of jurisdiction."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Thursday, June 19, 2008
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Boston Gas Company v. Century Indemnity
Jun 10: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit, Case No. 07-1452. As explained by the Appeals Court, this is a dispute between Boston Gas Company (Boston Gas), the largest provider of natural gas in the New England area, and one of its insurers, Century Indemnity Company (Century). Before natural gas became the primary source of energy in New England, Boston Gas produced gas fuel at facilities called manufactured gas plants (MGPs). The MGPs created gas by heating coal in large ovens, generating gas which was then purified and piped out for use. The process also produced a variety of byproducts, including ash, drip oil, tar and coke. Many are non-biodegradable and some are deemed carcinogenic, and they now contaminate the ground and water around many former MGP sites; further, MGPs were often sited near waterways which were contaminated in turn. Contamination has been discovered at twenty-nine former Boston Gas MGPs; this case concerns only one of those sites, located in Everett, Massachusetts.
At trial, the jury awarded Boston Gas over $6.1 million in past remediation expenses; the district court also issued a declaratory judgment obligating Century to pay all future costs associated with the investigation and environmental cleanup of the Everett site. Century now appeals on multiple grounds from the district court's judgment.
Among other conclusions, the Appeals Court said, "We conclude that as to future costs, Century cannot reargue matters that have already been decided, but conversely, Boston Gas cannot properly seek to recover for future costs spent purely to remediate its own property where no threat exists of contamination outside the site. The district court will be able to determine the scope of litigation when a dispute arises, using doctrines like collateral estoppel, waiver, and the like to prevent relitigation of matters that have been, or could have been, decided.
"By its literal terms the declaratory judgment could be read to encompass costs that are not recoverable under Century's policy; the district court may not have considered that requiring Century to indemnify Boston Gas for all costs related to 'investigation and cleanup' may apply more broadly than it intended. On remand an adjustment is needed in order to clarify that Boston Gas' entitlement extends only to costs incurred for remediation not barred by the terms of Century's policies and consistent with the findings of the jury." Additionally, the Appeals Court certified three questions concerning allocation of liability to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for its consideration.
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the certified order (click here).
At trial, the jury awarded Boston Gas over $6.1 million in past remediation expenses; the district court also issued a declaratory judgment obligating Century to pay all future costs associated with the investigation and environmental cleanup of the Everett site. Century now appeals on multiple grounds from the district court's judgment.
Among other conclusions, the Appeals Court said, "We conclude that as to future costs, Century cannot reargue matters that have already been decided, but conversely, Boston Gas cannot properly seek to recover for future costs spent purely to remediate its own property where no threat exists of contamination outside the site. The district court will be able to determine the scope of litigation when a dispute arises, using doctrines like collateral estoppel, waiver, and the like to prevent relitigation of matters that have been, or could have been, decided.
"By its literal terms the declaratory judgment could be read to encompass costs that are not recoverable under Century's policy; the district court may not have considered that requiring Century to indemnify Boston Gas for all costs related to 'investigation and cleanup' may apply more broadly than it intended. On remand an adjustment is needed in order to clarify that Boston Gas' entitlement extends only to costs incurred for remediation not barred by the terms of Century's policies and consistent with the findings of the jury." Additionally, the Appeals Court certified three questions concerning allocation of liability to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court for its consideration.
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access the certified order (click here).
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Norton Construction v. U.S. Army Corps
Jun 2: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case No. 07-3826. The appeal involved plaintiff Norton Construction Company’s application for a permit to construct a new landfill in an area subject to defendant United States Army Corps of Engineers’ jurisdiction. The Corps refused to process the application, citing a Congressional appropriation act that the Corps construed as forbidding it from processing applications for new landfills in the area that it considered to be within the Muskingum Watershed. Norton unsuccessfully challenged the decision in district court. The district court ruled that the Corps reasonably interpreted the statute and that the law did not violate Norton’s constitutional rights. Norton appealed the decision and the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court decision.
Norton applied for a Section 404 permit, but the Corps returned the application without acting upon it because Congress enacted a temporary appropriations rider, which in the opinion of the Corps, prohibited the Corps from processing its application. Subsequently, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, 119 Stat. 2247 (2005). Section 103 of the Act, enacted as a regular appropriations statute rather than as a temporary appropriations rider, prohibited the Corps from granting new landfill applications, "In order to protect and preserve the integrity of the water supply against further degradation," in the “Muskingum Watershed.”
The Appeals Court indicates that the case was made more difficult by its "ever-changing legal landscape." At first, by means of a temporary appropriations rider, Congress prohibited the processing of new landfill applications in the area of the Muskingum Watershed. Later, Congress reenacted this prohibition as part of a nonexpiring appropriations statute, thus prompting the current suit. Finally, while the present appeal was pending, Congress acted yet again by passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. The Appeals Court explains that under different arguments it would still affirm the district court ruling and concludes "that declaring the case moot and again remanding for reconsideration in light of the latest statute would be a futile exercise and a needless waste of valuable judicial resources."
Norton applied for a Section 404 permit, but the Corps returned the application without acting upon it because Congress enacted a temporary appropriations rider, which in the opinion of the Corps, prohibited the Corps from processing its application. Subsequently, Congress passed and the President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-103, 119 Stat. 2247 (2005). Section 103 of the Act, enacted as a regular appropriations statute rather than as a temporary appropriations rider, prohibited the Corps from granting new landfill applications, "In order to protect and preserve the integrity of the water supply against further degradation," in the “Muskingum Watershed.”
The Appeals Court indicates that the case was made more difficult by its "ever-changing legal landscape." At first, by means of a temporary appropriations rider, Congress prohibited the processing of new landfill applications in the area of the Muskingum Watershed. Later, Congress reenacted this prohibition as part of a nonexpiring appropriations statute, thus prompting the current suit. Finally, while the present appeal was pending, Congress acted yet again by passing the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008. The Appeals Court explains that under different arguments it would still affirm the district court ruling and concludes "that declaring the case moot and again remanding for reconsideration in light of the latest statute would be a futile exercise and a needless waste of valuable judicial resources."
Humane Society Of The U.S. v. Kempthorne
Jun 3: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 06-5396 & 06-5397. Dirk Kempthorne, Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior (Secretary), the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of the Department of the Interior (Interior) and H. Dale Hall, Director of the FWS (collectively Federal appellants), together with the Safari Club International and Safari Club International Foundation (collectively Safari Club), appeal the district court judgment enjoining the FWS “from authorizing the lethal take of any more gray wolves for depredation control purposes” by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (Wisconsin DNR).
The Humane Society of the United States (Humane Society) and other environmental organizations had sought the injunction because, in their view, the gray wolf, as an endangered species, could not be the object of a lethal depredation control program under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The district court agreed. While the appeal was pending, Interior removed the gray wolf
population located in the Western Great Lakes Region (which includes Wisconsin) from the endangered species list [72 FR 6052, 2/8/07. The parties agreed that the delisting moots the appeal.
The Federal appellants and the Safari Club have moved to vacate the district court judgment and the Humane Society opposes vacatur. The Appeals Court granted the appellants’ motion and vacated the district court judgment saying, ". . .vacatur was sought by non-governmental intervenors. And 'because the party seeking appellate relief is not the party responsible for mooting the case, the orderly operation of the appellate system is not being frustrated.'"
Access the complete opinion (click here).
The Humane Society of the United States (Humane Society) and other environmental organizations had sought the injunction because, in their view, the gray wolf, as an endangered species, could not be the object of a lethal depredation control program under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The district court agreed. While the appeal was pending, Interior removed the gray wolf
population located in the Western Great Lakes Region (which includes Wisconsin) from the endangered species list [72 FR 6052, 2/8/07. The parties agreed that the delisting moots the appeal.
The Federal appellants and the Safari Club have moved to vacate the district court judgment and the Humane Society opposes vacatur. The Appeals Court granted the appellants’ motion and vacated the district court judgment saying, ". . .vacatur was sought by non-governmental intervenors. And 'because the party seeking appellate relief is not the party responsible for mooting the case, the orderly operation of the appellate system is not being frustrated.'"
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Monday, June 9, 2008
Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA
Jun 6: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 07-1053, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC) v. U.S. EPA, with American Chemistry Council intervenor. In short summary the Appeals Court explains that synthetic organic chemicals have few direct consumer uses, but they often serve as raw materials in the production of plastics, rubbers, fibers, protective coatings, and detergents. Petitioners, the NRDC and the Louisiana Environmental Action Network (LEAN), challenged EPA’s "residual risk" rulemaking under subsection 112(f) of the Clean Air Act for facilities that use or produce synthetic organic chemicals (the industry). Petitioners also challenged EPA’s technology review under subsection 112(d)(6). The Appeals Court said, "In a rather unusual bit of rulemaking, the agency determined by rule not to change its previous rule, which gave rise to petitioners’ challenge. We deny the petition."
Explaining further, after submitting a required report to Congress in 1999, EPA commenced residual risk rulemaking, apparently because it read the statute as requiring a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether to revise the technology-based standards, since the industry’s emissions pose lifetime excess cancer risks of "greater than one-in-one million."
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA listed two options for the residual risk rulemaking, one of which would have imposed somewhat stricter standards. But the other, which EPA adopted in the final rule, was a reaffirmation of the existing rule. EPA determined that under the existing technology-based standard, no individual would face "an excess lifetime cancer risk of greater than 100-in-one million," which EPA regards as the “presumptively acceptable” level under its precedents.
In the same regulatory procedure, EPA sought to satisfy another statutory requirement, subsection 112(d)(6), which commands the Administrator to “review, and revise as necessary” the technology-based standards in light of technological developments at least every eight years. It concluded there were no such developments.
In conclusion, the Appeals Court said, "In sum, petitioners’ arguments boil down to one simple point: EPA could have used better data in conducting its risk analysis. Whether or not this is true, it misstates the inquiry under the arbitrary and capricious standard. . . In other words, the sole question before us is whether EPA has acted reasonably, not whether it has acted flawlessly. On the record before us, EPA explained why it chose to rely on industry-supplied data, and it reasonably responded to petitioners’ objections to its data analysis. . ."
In response, NRDC issued a release saying the court "upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to protect American families from cancer risks posed by the chemical industry." NRDC said as a result it is launching a campaign "to force EPA to re-open scores of toxic air pollution regulations to correct public health and legal deficiencies identified by prior court rulings." NRDC said, “We are disappointed that the court sided with EPA’s refusal to protect the American people from cancer-causing toxic air pollution. While the Bush EPA will celebrate this perverse victory for polluters, today’s ruling is a loss for the American people and the fight against cancer.”
In the coming weeks, NRDC said it will submit a formal legal petition to the EPA Administrator demanding that EPA conduct rulemakings to strengthen the vast majority of existing toxic air pollution regulations that suffer from "common legal and health deficiencies. . . One such regulation is the 1994 rule governing the chemical industry that was part of the backdrop for today’s court decision." They said that previous lawsuits brought by NRDC and other environmental groups, have produced a series of court rulings from 2005-2007 that found the "EPA-created defects to be squarely in violation of the Clean Air Act."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) applauded the decision. ACC President and CEO Jack Gerard said, “We are thrilled by the unanimous decision made by the panel judges. The business of chemistry represents the gold standard in responsible product management and is committed to continual emissions improvement. ACC helped defend EPA’s decision and we are pleased that the agency’s determination, based in sound science, was upheld.” ACC indicated that EPA’s 2006 residual risk and technology review rule was largely based on emissions data submitted by ACC member companies. ACC indicated that, "The rule affirmed that the application of maximum achievable control technology since 1994 has resulted in a substantial reduction of hazardous air pollutant emissions from the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry.
Access the complete 18-page opinion (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here).
Explaining further, after submitting a required report to Congress in 1999, EPA commenced residual risk rulemaking, apparently because it read the statute as requiring a rulemaking proceeding to consider whether to revise the technology-based standards, since the industry’s emissions pose lifetime excess cancer risks of "greater than one-in-one million."
In the notice of proposed rulemaking, EPA listed two options for the residual risk rulemaking, one of which would have imposed somewhat stricter standards. But the other, which EPA adopted in the final rule, was a reaffirmation of the existing rule. EPA determined that under the existing technology-based standard, no individual would face "an excess lifetime cancer risk of greater than 100-in-one million," which EPA regards as the “presumptively acceptable” level under its precedents.
In the same regulatory procedure, EPA sought to satisfy another statutory requirement, subsection 112(d)(6), which commands the Administrator to “review, and revise as necessary” the technology-based standards in light of technological developments at least every eight years. It concluded there were no such developments.
In conclusion, the Appeals Court said, "In sum, petitioners’ arguments boil down to one simple point: EPA could have used better data in conducting its risk analysis. Whether or not this is true, it misstates the inquiry under the arbitrary and capricious standard. . . In other words, the sole question before us is whether EPA has acted reasonably, not whether it has acted flawlessly. On the record before us, EPA explained why it chose to rely on industry-supplied data, and it reasonably responded to petitioners’ objections to its data analysis. . ."
In response, NRDC issued a release saying the court "upheld the Environmental Protection Agency’s refusal to protect American families from cancer risks posed by the chemical industry." NRDC said as a result it is launching a campaign "to force EPA to re-open scores of toxic air pollution regulations to correct public health and legal deficiencies identified by prior court rulings." NRDC said, “We are disappointed that the court sided with EPA’s refusal to protect the American people from cancer-causing toxic air pollution. While the Bush EPA will celebrate this perverse victory for polluters, today’s ruling is a loss for the American people and the fight against cancer.”
In the coming weeks, NRDC said it will submit a formal legal petition to the EPA Administrator demanding that EPA conduct rulemakings to strengthen the vast majority of existing toxic air pollution regulations that suffer from "common legal and health deficiencies. . . One such regulation is the 1994 rule governing the chemical industry that was part of the backdrop for today’s court decision." They said that previous lawsuits brought by NRDC and other environmental groups, have produced a series of court rulings from 2005-2007 that found the "EPA-created defects to be squarely in violation of the Clean Air Act."
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) applauded the decision. ACC President and CEO Jack Gerard said, “We are thrilled by the unanimous decision made by the panel judges. The business of chemistry represents the gold standard in responsible product management and is committed to continual emissions improvement. ACC helped defend EPA’s decision and we are pleased that the agency’s determination, based in sound science, was upheld.” ACC indicated that EPA’s 2006 residual risk and technology review rule was largely based on emissions data submitted by ACC member companies. ACC indicated that, "The rule affirmed that the application of maximum achievable control technology since 1994 has resulted in a substantial reduction of hazardous air pollutant emissions from the synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry.
Access the complete 18-page opinion (click here). Access a release from NRDC (click here). Access a release from ACC (click here).
Miami-Dade County v. EPA
Jun 6: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, Case No. 06-10551, 10-574- 76, 10579, 10583. Miami-Dade County, four cities, and a regional wastewater treatment facility and the Sierra Club all petition for review a Final Rule promulgated by U.S. EPA that amended the current Federal underground injection control (UIC) requirements for Class I municipal disposal wells in Florida. The petitioners argued that the Final Rule conflicts with the plain language of the authorizing statute, that EPA’s approach to UIC regulation in South Florida is arbitrary and capricious, and that EPA gave insufficient notice of certain terms of the Final Rule in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Eleventh Circuit denied the petition.
Some of the many arguments raised by the petitioners include the following. The Sierra Club said EPA impermissibly considered the utility of underground injection of waste in comparison with other disposal options, and EPA failed to address the existence of several potential threats to human health posed by pathogens, nutrients, and other contaminants. The Municipalities and County complained that the Final Rule failed to take into account differences in Florida geology and hydrology. The County also argued that the Final Rule’s imposition of a high-level disinfection requirement, as opposed to some lower level of
disinfection, is arbitrary and capricious.
The Municipalities also argued that the Final Rule is not supported by the record due to four alleged flaws in the Risk Assessment’s methodology: (1) failure to consider the concentration of contaminants already present in the aquifers, (2) failure to employ a quantitative probabilistic risk analysis methodology, (3) failure to consider the results of a then-unpublished University of Miami study of well disposal practices, and (4) faulty assumptions about contaminant plumes. The criticisms were based on a review of the Risk Assessment performed by two scholars, a geologist, and a public utilities manager.
In a 49-page decision the Appeals Court said, "We conclude that the EPA afforded sufficient public notice of both the elimination of the non-endangerment demonstration requirement and the application of the Final Rule to new Class I wells as required by the APA. We further conclude that the petitioners have failed to show that the Final Rule is inconsistent with the statutory authority granted the EPA under the SDWA or that the Final Rule is unsupported by the record, or otherwise arbitrary and capricious."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Some of the many arguments raised by the petitioners include the following. The Sierra Club said EPA impermissibly considered the utility of underground injection of waste in comparison with other disposal options, and EPA failed to address the existence of several potential threats to human health posed by pathogens, nutrients, and other contaminants. The Municipalities and County complained that the Final Rule failed to take into account differences in Florida geology and hydrology. The County also argued that the Final Rule’s imposition of a high-level disinfection requirement, as opposed to some lower level of
disinfection, is arbitrary and capricious.
The Municipalities also argued that the Final Rule is not supported by the record due to four alleged flaws in the Risk Assessment’s methodology: (1) failure to consider the concentration of contaminants already present in the aquifers, (2) failure to employ a quantitative probabilistic risk analysis methodology, (3) failure to consider the results of a then-unpublished University of Miami study of well disposal practices, and (4) faulty assumptions about contaminant plumes. The criticisms were based on a review of the Risk Assessment performed by two scholars, a geologist, and a public utilities manager.
In a 49-page decision the Appeals Court said, "We conclude that the EPA afforded sufficient public notice of both the elimination of the non-endangerment demonstration requirement and the application of the Final Rule to new Class I wells as required by the APA. We further conclude that the petitioners have failed to show that the Final Rule is inconsistent with the statutory authority granted the EPA under the SDWA or that the Final Rule is unsupported by the record, or otherwise arbitrary and capricious."
Access the complete opinion (click here).
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. EPA
May 23: In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, Case No. 06-73217. The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), along with the Oil and Gas Accountability Project (OGAP), Amigos Bravos, and Powder River Basin Resource Council (Powder River), challenged aspects of U.S. EPA's Clean Water Act (CWA) storm water discharge rule. This rule, known as “Amendments to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Regulations for Storm Water Discharges Associated With Oil and Gas Exploration, Production, Processing, or Treatment Operations or Transmission Facilities” [71FR 33,628, 6/12/06, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26)]. The rule exempts from the permitting requirements of the CWA discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction activities that contribute to violations of water quality standards.
NRDC, et al contend that the rule’s NPDES permitting requirement exemption for storm water discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction activities is unlawful under section 402(l)(2) of the CWA, as amended by section 323 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Appeals Court granted their request and vacated the rule, and remanded the matter to EPA for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
The two Judge majority concluded in part, ". . . Clearly, EPA’s June 12, 2006, storm water discharge rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, represents a complete departure from its previous interpretation of what constitutes “contamination” under section 402(l)(2). As such, we conclude that EPA’s inconsistent and conflicting position regarding the discharge of sediment-laden storm water from oil and gas construction sites causes its interpretation of amended section 402(l)(2), as reflected in the storm water discharge rule, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, to be an arbitrary and capricious one. . . This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that neither the amending statute (section 323), the statutory definition (section 503(24)), nor the statutory exemption (402(l)(2)) make any mention at all of 'sediment' -- or of whether it is covered or not.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Callahan said, ". . . as the majority correctly concludes, this dispute must be resolved at step two of the Chevron analysis, with the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided a -- not the only or the best -- permissible interpretation of section 402(l)(2). It is at this point that I respectfully part course with the majority and accord EPA’s permissible interpretation appropriate deference. . . because EPA’s 'interpretation is at least as plausible as competing ones,' this court should defer to its construction."
Commenting on the decision, Aaron Colangelo, senior attorney at NRDC said, "It is well known that sediment pollution from oil and gas development can impair water quality and destroy aquatic habitat. Yet under the guise of enforcing the 2005 Energy Act, EPA exempted projects from the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Today, the court rightly decided that the EPA rule was arbitrary and capricious. The law clearly requires oil and gas projects to apply for permits and install pollution controls to protect water quality. The explosion of oil and gas exploration and production poses a serious threat to water quality throughout the West. Sediment from projects runs off into streams and rivers; harming aquatic life; increasing water treatment costs for towns and cities; decreasing property values; and interfering with recreational activities, such as boating, swimming and fishing."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access more information about exemptions in federal environmental laws for the oil and gas industry in the NRDC report, Drilling Down: Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Pollution (click here). Access EPA's docket for this rulemaking (click here).
NRDC, et al contend that the rule’s NPDES permitting requirement exemption for storm water discharges of sediment from oil and gas construction activities is unlawful under section 402(l)(2) of the CWA, as amended by section 323 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, and under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). The Appeals Court granted their request and vacated the rule, and remanded the matter to EPA for further proceedings in accordance with the opinion.
The two Judge majority concluded in part, ". . . Clearly, EPA’s June 12, 2006, storm water discharge rule, codified at 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, represents a complete departure from its previous interpretation of what constitutes “contamination” under section 402(l)(2). As such, we conclude that EPA’s inconsistent and conflicting position regarding the discharge of sediment-laden storm water from oil and gas construction sites causes its interpretation of amended section 402(l)(2), as reflected in the storm water discharge rule, 40 C.F.R. § 122.26, to be an arbitrary and capricious one. . . This conclusion is reinforced by the fact that neither the amending statute (section 323), the statutory definition (section 503(24)), nor the statutory exemption (402(l)(2)) make any mention at all of 'sediment' -- or of whether it is covered or not.
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Callahan said, ". . . as the majority correctly concludes, this dispute must be resolved at step two of the Chevron analysis, with the question of whether the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) provided a -- not the only or the best -- permissible interpretation of section 402(l)(2). It is at this point that I respectfully part course with the majority and accord EPA’s permissible interpretation appropriate deference. . . because EPA’s 'interpretation is at least as plausible as competing ones,' this court should defer to its construction."
Commenting on the decision, Aaron Colangelo, senior attorney at NRDC said, "It is well known that sediment pollution from oil and gas development can impair water quality and destroy aquatic habitat. Yet under the guise of enforcing the 2005 Energy Act, EPA exempted projects from the requirements of the Clean Water Act. Today, the court rightly decided that the EPA rule was arbitrary and capricious. The law clearly requires oil and gas projects to apply for permits and install pollution controls to protect water quality. The explosion of oil and gas exploration and production poses a serious threat to water quality throughout the West. Sediment from projects runs off into streams and rivers; harming aquatic life; increasing water treatment costs for towns and cities; decreasing property values; and interfering with recreational activities, such as boating, swimming and fishing."
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a statement from NRDC (click here). Access more information about exemptions in federal environmental laws for the oil and gas industry in the NRDC report, Drilling Down: Protecting Western Communities from the Health and Environmental Effects of Oil and Gas Pollution (click here). Access EPA's docket for this rulemaking (click here).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
