Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves RSR Corporation's legal challenge against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) concerning the listing of its site on the National Priorities List (NPL) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). RSR contested the Human Toxicity Factor (HTF) value assigned to lead, arguing that new studies render it inappropriate. However, the court found RSR's challenge untimely, as it was raised nearly three years after the EPA's regulation promulgation, in violation of CERCLA's Section 113(a) which requires challenges to be made within ninety days. RSR further sought to rely on the Geller exception for changed circumstances, but the court dismissed this argument, highlighting the potential to undermine the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) and burden the EPA with excessive litigation. Additionally, RSR's objections to the EPA's site naming and background level determinations were rejected, with the court affirming the EPA's procedural correctness. The court advised RSR to pursue a rulemaking petition for any reconsideration of the lead HTF value. As a result, RSR's petition was denied, and the site's inclusion on the NPL was upheld.
Legal Issues Addressed
EPA's Assessment of Contamination and Procedural Compliancesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld EPA's procedures in determining lead contamination levels at the RSR site and found no arbitrary or capricious actions in the EPA’s designation and procedural conduct.
Reasoning: The court also upheld EPA's procedures in determining lead levels at the site and found no arbitrary or capricious actions in the site's designation.
Narrow Application of the Geller Exceptionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court rejected RSR's attempt to invoke the Geller v. FCC exception based on new studies allegedly constituting changed circumstances, emphasizing that broad application would undermine the HRS's purpose.
Reasoning: RSR attempted to invoke the Geller v. FCC exception, asserting that the new studies constituted changed circumstances warranting a new cause of action, but the court rejected this claim, stating that allowing such challenges would undermine the HRS and burden EPA with unnecessary litigation.
Procedure for Contesting EPA Regulationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court advised RSR to present its concerns through a formal rulemaking petition process, which allows structured review for new data without jeopardizing the HRS framework.
Reasoning: RSR is advised to present its argument through a rulemaking petition, which would provide a structured review process for new data without jeopardizing the HRS.
Site Naming and Background Level Determinationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: RSR's challenges to the EPA's determination of the site's background levels and naming were dismissed as the court found EPA's actions justified and procedurally sound.
Reasoning: RSR challenged the determination of the site's background levels and the appropriateness of the site naming, but these challenges were addressed by the EPA.
Timeliness of Judicial Review under CERCLA Section 113(a)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court found that RSR Corporation's challenge to the lead HTF value was untimely as it was filed nearly three years after the EPA's regulation promulgation, violating the 90-day review period mandated by CERCLA Section 113(a).
Reasoning: The court ruled RSR's challenge was untimely, as it was filed nearly three years post-promotion, violating CERCLA's Section 113(a), which mandates that challenges be made within ninety days of regulation promulgation.