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

2 Citing cases

  1. 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.

  2. 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."