CTS Corporation v. EPA

<> CTS Corporation v. EPA - 7/8/14. In the U.S. Court, D.C. Circuit. Case No. 12-1256. CTS Corporation has petitioned for review of the EPA's decision to add to the National Priorities List a site centered around property formerly owned by the company. The Panel ruled, "Because each of CTS's objections is without merit, forfeited, or impermissibly based on extra-record evidence, we deny the petition for review."

 

Get more news from WIMS Daily Environmental HotSheet

Recent cases

<> NO Gas Pipeline v. FERC - 7/1/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case Nos. 12-1470, 12-1474, 12-1475. Environmental plantiffs challenged a decision of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) granting a certificate of public convenience and necessity for the construction of a natural gas pipeline connecting New York and New Jersey. The Panel said, ". . .we conclude that we do not have jurisdiction over any of the petitions, and we will therefore dismiss all without reaching the merits of any."

<> National Liab & Fire Ins Co. v. R & R Marine, Inc. - 7/1/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 10-20767. R&R Marine's liability insurer, National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (National), initiated this suit to disclaim liability under its policy for the the sinking of a vessel. The district court found that R&R was negligent and that National was liable for the ensuing damage. National and R&R appeal. The Panel said, "We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion."

Aransas Project v. Bryan Shaw, et al

<> Aransas Project v. Bryan Shaw, et al – 6/30/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, Case No. 13-40317. After the deaths of some whooping cranes -- an endangered species -- The Aransas Project ("TAP") sued directors of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality ("TCEQ") under the Endangered Species Act ("ESA" or the "Act"). TAP sought and was granted an injunction prohibiting TCEQ from issuing new permits to withdraw water from rivers that feed the estuary where the cranes make their winter home. The Panel ruled, ". . .the injunction is an abuse of discretion. The judgment is reversed."

Recent Supreme & Appeals Court Cases

<> Corey v. Rocky Mountain Farmers Union – In the U.S. Supreme Court, appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Docket No. 13-1308. Petition denied with no comment.

<> Sierra Club v. EPA - 6/27/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 08-1144. Petitioners sought review of EPA's Gasification Exclusion Rule, arguing that it violated RCRA's plain language requiring the regulation of hazardous wastes used as fuel. The Panel said, "We hold that the regulation violates the plain language of RCRA and, for that reason, is vacated."

<> Natural Resources Defense v. EPA - 6/27/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, Case No. 98-1379. Petitioners seek review of a portion of a 1998 EPA's rule creating a "Comparable Fuels Exclusion" from regulation under RCRA. The Panel said, "We conclude the
Comparable Fuels Exclusion is inconsistent with the plain language of section 6924(q), which requires that EPA establish standards applicable to all fuel derived from hazardous waste. . . and vacate the Comparable Fuels Exclusion."

Asarco LLC v. Goodwin

<> Asarco LLC v. Goodwin - 6/25/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case No. 13-3954. The Panel concluded that the district court properly dismissed Asarco's direct contribution claims because they are barred by the applicable three‐year statute of limitations, and that its subrogation claims were properly dismissed because Asarco is not a subrogee.   

Asarco LLC v. Union Pacific

<> Asarco LLC v. Union Pacific - 6/23/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit, Case No. 13-1435. ASARCO sought contribution from Union Pacific, et al defendants, under CERCLA. The district court ruled that ASARCO's direct contribution claim was time-barred under CERCLA and the Appeals Court Panel agreed.

Recent Environmental Cases

<> Utility Air Regulatory Group v. U.S. EPA - 6/23/14. In the U.S. Supreme Court, Docket No. 12–1146. Appealed from the U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit. The opinion indicates: "We must decide whether it was permissible for EPA to determine that its motor-vehicle greenhouse-gas regulations automatically triggered permitting requirements under the Act for stationary sources that emit greenhouse gases." The Majority concludes: "We hold that EPA exceeded its statutory authority when it interpreted the Clean Air Act to requirePSD and Title V permitting for stationary sources based on their greenhouse-gas emissions. . . The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part."

• Complete background and details from the SCOTUS Blog
• NYT: "Justices, With Limits, Let E.P.A. Curb Power-Plant Gases"
• WSJ: "Supreme Court Reins In Some of EPA's Greenhouse-Gas Efforts"
• API welcomes high court decision EPA carbon rules - WASHINGTON, June 23, 2014 ─ API welcomed a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court to curtail aspects of the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) regulations on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from stationary. . .

<> Latin Am. for Soc. & Econ. Dev., et al. v. FHWA, et al. - 6/20/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, Case Nos. 12-1556/1558. The Panel explains: "Latin Americans for Social and Economic Development and other plaintiffs sued the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and certain FHWA officials challenging the FHWA's Record of Decision (ROD) selecting the Delray neighborhood of Detroit, Michigan as the preferred location alternative for a new international bridge crossing between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario. Plaintiffs claim that the ROD and preceding process violated the National Environmental Protection Act, Administrative Procedures Act, principles of environmental justice, and other federal laws. 
The district court granted the defendants' motion to affirm the ROD. For the reasons that follow, the decision of the district court is affirmed.

• U.S. appeals court upholds Detroit-Windsor bridge plan - A three-judge federal appeals court panel Friday upheld a decision by the Federal Highway Administration to select the Delray neighborhood of Detroit as the preferred location for a new. . .

<> Sacramento Municipal Utility District v. U.S. DOE - 6/20/14. In the U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, Case Nos. 2013-5086, -5087. SMUD agreed to pay $40 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund and DOE promised to begin accepting and disposing of SMUD's spent nuclear. The Panel reversed the combined judgment of $38,845,398 for the period of 1992–2009 and reinstated a prior $53,159,863 award for the period of 1992–2003.