CTS Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency
411 U.S. App. D.C. 243
D.C. Cir.2014Background
- CTS owned and operated an electroplating/manufacturing plant near Asheville, NC from 1959–1986 where trichloroethylene (TCE) was used, stored, and released; operations ceased and property was sold in 1987.
- Investigations since the 1980s found elevated TCE in soil and groundwater on the CTS property and later in residential wells in the nearby Oaks Subdivision (detected concentrations exceeded the 5 µg/L drinking-water MCL).
- EPA applied its Hazard Ranking System (HRS) using the groundwater migration pathway and counted seven observed releases (including four Oaks wells) to compute an HRS score; the proposed score was 48.64 and the final score after adjustments was 38.40 (threshold for listing: 28.50).
- EPA listed the CTS Site on the National Priorities List (NPL) in 2012, making it eligible for Superfund attention; CTS petitioned for review arguing EPA’s listing was arbitrary and unsupported.
- The D.C. Circuit considered standing, found CTS had a cognizable injury from the expanded listing and potential Superfund leverage, and then reviewed whether EPA’s attribution of some Oaks contamination to the CTS property was arbitrary or capricious.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether EPA failed to investigate or properly evaluate alternative sources (e.g., septic tanks) | EPA ignored likely local sources and failed to follow its expert recommending more testing | EPA and its contractor performed additional testing, later concluded septic systems unlikely, and reasonably declined further tests before listing | EPA’s inquiry was adequate; CTS’s challenge waived in part and otherwise meritless |
| Whether EPA had sufficient evidence of a hydraulic connection from CTS property to Oaks wells | EPA lacked "actual data" proving hydraulic connection; inference unsupported | EPA relied on multiple hydrogeologic indicators, packer tests, USGS/North Carolina surveys, and well-capping results linking wells | Substantial evidence supports EPA’s inference of hydraulic connection; EPA not required to prove connection beyond reasonable inference |
| Whether EPA improperly relied on or concealed isotope data and whether court may consider CTS’s new isotope analysis | New isotope expert report shows TCE couldn’t have migrated from CTS; court should consider it | CTS did not submit the analysis to EPA during rulemaking; extra-record evidence cannot be considered absent narrow exceptions | Extra-record isotope analysis is procedurally barred; CTS forfeited opportunity to present or seek administrative reconsideration |
| Standard of review and adequacy of EPA’s HRS-based listing decision | EPA’s conclusions are arbitrary and capricious given alleged evidentiary gaps | Court should defer significantly to EPA on technical decisions and permit reasonable inferences at the listing stage | Court applied deferential review and upheld EPA’s HRS scoring and listing decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. EPA, 759 F.2d 905 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (describing CERCLA’s remedial purpose and agency factfinding deference)
- Mead Corp. v. Browner, 100 F.3d 152 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (standing where NPL listing increases risk of enforcement and cleanup costs)
- Carus Chemical Co. v. EPA, 395 F.3d 434 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (significant deference to EPA listing decisions due to technical issues)
- Board of Regents v. EPA, 86 F.3d 1214 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (agency must examine relevant data and articulate rational explanation)
- Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. EPA, 822 F.2d 132 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (agency may make reasonable inferences from hydrogeologic indicators for listing)
- Tex Tin Corp. v. EPA, 992 F.2d 353 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (agency cannot rely on unsupported assumptions where a much more likely source is evident)