
Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- Supreme Court Issues “Course Correction” to NEPA Jurisprudence, Emphasizing Statutory Text and Common Sense
- Court Dismisses Bucks County’s Lawsuit Against Oil Companies based on Federal Preemption
- California District Court Promotes Settlement of Contribution Claims by Making Finding of Good Faith
- New Jersey Appellate Division Gives Clarity to Spill Act Statute of Limitations for State Claims
- Colorado District Court Puts Brakes on Denver Dam Work Pending Environmental Review
Topics
- NJDEP
- Pollutants
- Connecticut
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Agency Action
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Title VI
- Massachusetts
- Internal Investigation
- Evidence
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Operator Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- Divisibility
- National Contingency Plan
- Strict Liability
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Historic Resources
- Utilities
- Public Utilities Commission
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- Ohio
- PFAS
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Commonwealth Court
- Fees
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Utah
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- New Mexico
- Tribal Lands
- Gold King Mine
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- National Forest Management Act
- FERC
- Chevron Deference
- Endangered Species Act
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Corporate Veil
- Alter Ego
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- PCBs
- Building Materials
- First Circuit
- Property Damage
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Innocent Party
- Brownfields
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- PHMSA
- FOIA
- Effluents
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Texas
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Drinking Water
- Michigan
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Clean Streams Law
- Civil Penalties
- Arranger Liability
- Sovereign Immunity
- Retroactive
- Property Value
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Damages
- Storage Tank
- Indemnification
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Taxes
- Administrative Appeals
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- Residential
- New York
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Natural Gas Act
- D.C. Circuit
- Mercury
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Natural Gas
- Storage
- Takings Clause
- Flooding
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Tenth Circuit
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- California
- Zoning
- Act 13
- Insurance Coverage
- Duty to Defend
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Consent Decree
- Enforcement
- EPA
- Laches
- Boiler MACT
- Delay Notice
- Rulemaking
- Equity
- CISWI
- Second Circuit
- Contribution
- Declaratory Relief
- Procedure
- Standing
- NPDES
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Certification
- Contamination
- Louisiana
- Dukes
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Decisions of Note
- Expert Witness
- Discovery
- Work Product
- CERCLA
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Cost Recovery
- Real Estate
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Remediation
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Hog Barn
- Kentucky
- Trespass
- Farming
- Odors
- Nuisance
- Class Actions
- New Jersey
- ISRA
- Informal Agency Action
- Administrative Hearing
- Cancer
- Emissions
- Waste
- Air
- Combustion
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Speaking Engagements
- Third Circuit
- Toxic Torts
- Removal
- Federal Procedure
- Title V
- Clean Air Act
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Cleanup
- Supreme Court
- Superfund
- Camp Lejeune
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Tolling
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Mineral Rights
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Due Process
- Deeds
- Leases
- Exploration
- Royalties
- Drilling
- Oil and Gas
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Showing 1 post in Mercury.
Last Friday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit published two decisions in cases involving environmental groups’ challenges to EPA’s efforts to regulate certain classes of hazardous air pollutants (“HAPs”). Both cases concerned Section 112(c)(6) of the Clean Air Act, a provision enacted by Congress in 1990 that requires EPA to (1) complete a list of sources of seven specified HAPs that accounts for at least ninety percent of the total emissions of each of the seven HAPs and (2) subject these listed sources to emissions standards. 42 U.S.C. § 7412(c)(6). Section 112(c)(6) gives EPA a choice among two emission standards: (1) a stringent standard known as “maximum achievable control technology” (“MACT”) or (2) a standard based on health thresholds. See § 112(c)(6), (d)(2) and (d)(4). The cases decided last Friday highlight both procedural and substantive aspects of regulating air pollution. Read More »