On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided the case of State of Texas v. U.S., et al. The Court of Appeals held that the petition for mandamus filed by the State of Texas essentially seeking to compel the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish a schedule for the operation of the Yucca Mountain, NV nuclear waste depository was untimely filed. The depository is very controversial in Nevada, and as a consequence, none of the many deadlines established by Congress have been met. As a result, considerable amounts of nuclear waste are held in Texas which the State of Texas argues should be transferred to Yucca Mountain, NV. However, the Court of Appeals notes that the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act includes a “timeliness requirement,” which provides that any complaint must be filed in court no later than 180 days after the date the administrative decision, action, or failure to act, occurred. Therefore, the State of Texas finds itself in the posture of complaining about NRC actions that “came and went years ago,” and its resort to a continuing violations argument was, under these circumstances, unavailing.
Articles Posted in Environmental
NY Law Reviving Time-Barred Claims Not Unconstitutional
On June 6, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held, in the matter of In re: World Trade Center Lower Manhattan Disaster Site Litigation, that the District Court’s decision to dismiss, as being time-barred, many claims alleging tort and labor law claims arising from the plaintiffs’ participation in post -9/11 cleanup efforts must be vacated. After the initial dismissal, the New York Legislature enacted a special law which revived for one year all of these otherwise time-barred claims. However, in response the arguments made by the defendant Battery Park City Authority, the District Court held that this new law was unconstitutional under the New York State Constitution. The Second Circuit certified two questions on state law to the New York Court of Appeals, which opined that the law is constitutional. With this opinion in hand, the Second Circuit held that the Battery Park City Authority lacked the capacity to challenge this law as unconstitutional, and therefore its challenge must be rejected. The case was then remanded to the District Court.
“Positive Limiting Barriers” Are An Open and Obvious Condition, Relieving Owner of Duty to Warn
On June 1, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided the case of Potvin v. Speedway, Inc., a personal injury case subject to the laws of Massachusetts. In Massachusetts, environmental rules require the installation of “positive limiting barriers” at gasoline service stations to contain gasoline spills of up to 5 gallons. At a self-service station now owned by Speedway, Inc., the plaintiff, a passenger in a car being serviced, exited the car but tripped on these barriers and was injured. She sued Speedway in state court, and the case was removed to federal court. Affirming the District Court’s ruling in favor of the defendant, the Court of Appeals notes that Massachusetts law provides that property owners are relieved of any duty to warn a visitor or invitee of an open and obvious condition since it is logical to expect that a lawful visitor would exercise reasonable care to avoid the obvious and open danger these positive limiting barriers around the gasoline pump may present. Therefore, the Court of Appeals found that speedway, Inc., had no duty to warn the plaintiff and there was no triable negligence claim.
Colorado Supreme Court Interprets TABOR, Holding City’s “Waste Reduction Fee” is Not a Tax
Municipalities wield considerable power over local businesses as a recent Colorado Supreme Court decision demonstrates.On May 21, the Colorado Supreme Court decided the case of Colorado Union of Taxpayers Foundation v. City of Aspen. The Court held, in a 4 to 3 ruling, that a City of Aspen ordinance imposing a charge of $0.20 on the right to use a paper bag at a grocery store was not a tax, subject to Colorado’s Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR), which was enacted in 1992.
New Federal Register Notices (May 30, 2018)
The following notices were published yesterday:
1. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will be taking another look at its implementation of FAST Act Section 61003 regarding the security and resilience of energy infrastructure in the face of emergencies. EEI asked that FERC reconsider the rules it promulgated in November 2016 or at least clarify certain provisions with respect to Critical Energy/Electric Infrastructure Information (CEII). A clarification has been issued, effective July 30, 2018. (83 F.R. 24656)
Fifth Circuit Upholds Dismissal of Complaint for Actions and Inactions of City of Houston
On May 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in an unpublished ruling, affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of a complaint that the actions and inactions of a City of Houston tax reinvestment zone, as well as the City of Houston, resulted in multiple serious flooding incidents that damaged their properties. The case is Residents Against Flooding, et al., v. Reinvestment Zone Number Seventeen, et al.
EPA Offers Companies Path to Manage Risks from Upstream Oil and Gas Transactions
Recently, our colleagues Matt Morrison and Brendan Hennessey published their Client Alert titled A New Path to Managing Risks from Upstream Oil and Gas Transactions, EPA incentivizes new owners to conduct compliance audits by offering penalty forgiveness for violations found. Takeaways include:
- The Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) newest enforcement proposal offers companies in the oil and gas production sector a valuable opportunity to reduce compliance risks inherent in the purchase of facilities
- EPA remains focused on ensuring storage tanks and associated equipment are properly sized and designed to prevent emission leaks
- EPA’s draft agreement recognizes that the timing of audits and corrective action should depend on the number of acquired facilities and the scope of the audit
District Court Confirms that City of Oakland Breached its Development Agreement with Coal Terminal Developer
On May 15, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California held that the City of Oakland’s attempt to apply a new “coal ban” ordinance to a coal handling terminal was invalid. The District Court concluded that the record evidence placed before the City Council did not satisfy the ”substantial evidence” criteria contained in the development agreement entered into by the City and Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal (“OBOT”) governing a bulk cargo shipping terminal to be built and operated by OBOT. The case is Oakland Bulk & Oversized Terminal, LLC v. City of Oakland.
Alaska District Court Rejects Constitutional Challenge to the Use of the Congressional Review Act to Overturn a 2016 Department of the Interior Rule
On May 9, the U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska dismissed a challenge the constitutionality of the Congressional Review Act (CRA); the case is Center for Biological Diversity v. Zinke. While the District Court ruled that, while CBD had sufficient standing to make some of its arguments regarding the CRA, on the whole, it found that the constitutional and statutory arguments were inadequate to withstand the Government’s motion to dismiss.
Companies Held Criminally and Vicariously Liable for Deliberate Violations of MARPOL
On May 7, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the jury’s verdict that two shipping companies were guilty of criminal violations of the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL. Both companies are headquartered in Greece, with Oceanic Illsabe Ltd. (Oceanic) being a Liberian corporation and Oceanfleet Shipping Ltd. (Oceanfleet) being a Marshall Islands corporation. The case is U.S. v. Oceanic Illsabe Ltd. and Oceanfleet Shipping Ltd.