
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Federal Court Tells WWII Waste Generators, “You'd Better Not Pout,” Awards Government $50 Million in Cleanup Costs
- Court Upholds Private NGO Settlement Agreement That Supplements Federal Consent Decree
- First Circuit Upholds Remand of Climate Change Suit To State Court
- PA Court Rejects Environmental Rights Amendment Challenge to Appropriation of Oil and Gas Lease Funds for DCNR’s General Operations
- Southern District of Texas’s Opinion Offers a Look Behind the CERCLA Allocation Curtain
Topics
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- National Priorities List
- Price-Anderson Act
- Successor Liability
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Apportionment
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- Endangered Species Act
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Property Damage
- Building Materials
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Innocent Party
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Coal Ash
- Injunction
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Damages
- Stigma
- Property Value
- Tax assessment
- Fair Market Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Electric
- Fifth Circuit
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- OPRA
- Attorney-Client
- Iowa
- Fourth Circuit
- Discovery Rule
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Inspection
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- D.C. Circuit
- HAPs
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- Mercury
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Fifth Amendment
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Causation
- Spill Act
- NEPA
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Eminent Domain
- Landfill
- Private Right of Action
- Sixth Circuit
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Montana
- Navigability
- Riverbed
- Indiana
- Seventh Circuit
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Green House Counsel
- Delay Notice
- EPA
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- Equity
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- CISWI
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Procedure
- NPDES
- Standing
- Dimock
- Medical Monitoring
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Dukes
- Louisiana
- CLE
- Discovery
- Expert Witness
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Rapanos
- Farming
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Class Actions
- Nuisance
- Odors
- Trespass
- Administrative Hearing
- Informal Agency Action
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Air
- RCRA
- Waste
- Cancer
- Combustion
- Emissions
- Railroad
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Removal
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Permits
- Statute of Limitations
- Cost Recovery
- Cleanup
- Superfund
- Supreme Court
- Camp Lejeune
- Multi-District Litigation
- Statute of Repose
- Tolling
- Mineral Rights
- Enforcement Action
- Wetlands
- Cases to Watch
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Clean Water Act
- Deeds
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Leases
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Decisions of Note
- Real Estate
- Drilling
- Exploration
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Back in October, we reported on a Complaint filed in California, in the case of Center for Community Action & Environmental Justice v. Union Pacific Corporation, No. CV11-8609 (C.D. Cal.) that contended that particulate matter in diesel fuel combustion exhaust is a hazardous waste which is “disposed of” when emitted and therefore is subject to the requirements of Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Creative as it might have been, on a Motion to Dismiss, the Honorable S. James Otero threw out the case without leave to amend.
In its analysis, the Court accepted as true the allegation that the diesel particulate matter (DPM) emitted by the defendants’ trains created an imminent and substantial danger to the health of those living and working near the railyards at issue. However, it did not agree that DPM is a solid or hazardous waste under RCRA.
First, the Court addressed the defendants’ argument that the government regulates diesel emissions under the Clean Air Act (CAA) such that application of RCRA to DPM would create an impermissible conflict between the two statutory schemes. Indeed, as the Court noted, the CAA expressly regulates locomotive emissions, although it exempts certain older engines. The CAA also prohibits federal regulation of most “indirect sources,” facilities which “attract” mobile pollution. Contending that the railyards are “indirect sources,” plaintiffs argued that because the railyards are not subject to the CAA, there is no conflict. But the Court found that the CAA’s exemption was intended to prohibit federal regulation, not to allow such regulation pursuant to a different (in this case, RCRA) federal statute. Thus, the Court held that the case had to be dismissed because the locomotive emissions were regulated by the CAA and, to the extent that the railyard might be considered indirect sources, federal regulation was prohibited – and the Court would not do, indirectly, what the legislature failed to do directly.
Although the Court’s resolution of the conflict issue settled the matter, the Court went on to opine, in dicta, whether DPM constituted a discarded waste subject to RCRA. Here as well the Court found in favor of the defendants, relying on the fact that uncontained gases do not fall within the statutory definition of a “solid waste” and to define particulate contained in gasses as “solids” would “stretch[] the boundaries of the term to a point where it retains little meaning.” Moreover, such an interpretation would cause all diesel emissions, regardless of the source, to be subject to RCRA, despite the fact that the CAA addresses diesel exhaust directly. As the Court noted, the plaintiffs “presented no authority that would justify such a significant expansion of RCRA to cover an area expressly regulated under the CAA.”
But this isn’t the last we’ll hear of this case. On June 12, 2012, plaintiffs filed an appeal to the Ninth Circuit, so for the time being, this litigation will continue to motor along.