Bradley Min. Co. v. U.S.E.P.A

8 Citing cases

  1. Meritor, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

    966 F.3d 864 (D.C. Cir. 2020)

    In conducting this review, we afford the EPA "significant deference" with respect to the "highly technical issues involved[.]" Carus Chem. , 395 F.3d at 441 (quoting Bradley Mining Co. v. EPA , 972 F.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ). We are also mindful that the National Priorities List is meant to be a "rough list of priorities, assembled quickly and inexpensively."

  2. Tex Tin Corp. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    992 F.2d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1993)   Cited 17 times
    In Tex Tin, we vacated the NPL listing of a tin manufacturing facility because the EPA had failed to comply with our remand directing the agency to explain how a tin-production byproduct deposited arsenic in soil adjacent to the facility.

    The risk and magnitude of hazardous release into each of these three pathways is separately rated and then combined into an aggregate score; all sites receiving an HRS score of 28.50 or greater are listed on the NPL. See generally Bradley Mining Co. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 972 F.2d 1356, 1357-58 (D.C. Cir. 1992). The Agency first declared its intention to include petitioner Tex Tin's Texas City, Texas, smelting facility on the NPL in August 1990.

  3. Daikin Applied Americas Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

    39 F.4th 701 (D.C. Cir. 2022)   Cited 2 times

    Given "the ‘highly technical issues involved’ [in an NPL listing] and because the NPL serves merely as a ‘rough list of priorities, assembled quickly and inexpensively,’ " we afford the EPA "significant deference" in NPL listing decisions. Carus Chem. , 395 F.3d at 441 (quoting Bradley Mining Co. v. EPA , 972 F.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ). If an agency has "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem [or] offered an explanation for its decision that runs counter to the evidence before the agency," Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass'n of U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. , 463 U.S. 29, 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856, 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983), we will vacate its decision as arbitrary and capricious.

  4. Genuine Parts Co. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency

    890 F.3d 304 (D.C. Cir. 2018)   Cited 29 times
    Noting irrelevance of groundwater flow to HRS analysis when assessing targets

    " State Farm , 463 U.S. at 43, 103 S.Ct. 2856. "Given the highly technical issues involved," the EPA's listing decisions are entitled to "significant deference." Bradley Mining Co. v. EPA , 972 F.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C. Cir. 1992). But "our reviews of listing decisions" are not "of the rubber-stamp variety."

  5. CTS Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency

    759 F.3d 52 (D.C. Cir. 2014)   Cited 142 times
    Concluding that petitioner's reliance on post-decision expert report critiquing methodology used by EPA to evaluate groundwater contamination at a hazardous waste site was "procedurally foreclosed"

    On the merits, there is no dispute that material levels of TCE, the hazardous contaminant used, stored, and released by CTS at its property for decades, were found at four wells in the Oaks Subdivision. CTS, however, levels three objections to the EPA's identification of the CTS property as the source of any portion of the Oaks Subdivision contamination. That attribution of responsibility is critical because the EPA does not dispute that it was the four observed releases at those Oaks Subdivision wells that pushed the Hazard Ranking System score for the CTS Site over the 28.50 benchmark for listing. This court affords “significant deference” to the EPA's decision to add a site to the List “because of the ‘highly technical issues involved’ and because the [List] serves merely as a ‘rough list of priorities, assembled quickly and inexpensively.’ ” Carus Chemical Co. v. EPA, 395 F.3d 434, 441 (D.C.Cir.2005) (quoting Bradley Mining Co. v. EPA, 972 F.2d 1356, 1359 (D.C.Cir.1992)). Accordingly, to prevail, CTS bears the burden of establishing that the EPA's decision that the CTS Site contributed in “[s]ome portion” to the contamination of the Oaks Subdivision wells, see40 C.F.R. Part 300, App. A, § 3.1.1, was “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

  6. Carus Chemical Co. v. U.S.E.P.A

    395 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 2005)   Cited 15 times
    Explaining that when the relevant statute does not specify an applicable standard of review, we "proceed under the standard prescribed by the [APA]"

    In applying that standard, we remain mindful of the "significant deference" we owe to the EPA's decision to list a site on the NPL because of the "highly technical issues involved" and because the NPL serves merely as a "rough list of priorities, assembled quickly and inexpensively." Bradley Mining Co. v. EPA, 972 F.2d 1356, 1359 (1992). Even so, we must assure ourselves the EPA has "examined relevant data and has articulated a rational explanation for its actions."

  7. East West, Inc. v. U.S.

    No. 11-455C (Fed. Cl. Sep. 21, 2011)

    Such information might include tacit knowledge possessed by offeror and agency personnel of a highly technical and complex nature, requiring explication via affidavits or expert testimony. See Hunt Bldg., 61 Fed. Cl. at 272; Gentex, 58 Fed. Cl. at 649; Bradley v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 699, 701 (1992). Upon a proper showing, discovery might be allowed seeking information intentionally left out of the record, such as evidence of bias or bad faith.

  8. East West, Inc. v. United States

    No. 11-455C (Fed. Cl. Sep. 21, 2011)

    Such information might include tacit knowledge possessed by offeror and agency personnel of a highly technical and complex nature, requiring explication via affidavits or expert testimony. See Hunt Bldg., 61 Fed. Cl. at 272; Gentex, 58 Fed. Cl. at 649; Bradley v. United States, 26 Cl. Ct. 699, 701 (1992). Upon a proper showing, discovery might be allowed seeking information intentionally left out of the record, such as evidence of bias or bad faith.