The court holds that placer mining operations disturbing five acres or less of public lands are not federal actions under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and thus the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is not required to perform environmental assessments (EAs) and subsistence studies befo...

The court holds that the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) must prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) addressing the cumulative impacts of placer mining operations that contribute incrementally to siltation and other environmental degradation in a national wild river watershed. Twenty-three ...

The court holds that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) exceeded its authority by amending its definition of "solid waste" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to include secondary materials destined for reuse within an industry's ongoing production process. The court initi...

The court appoints a special master in a suit brought by the United States under § 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) against parties potentially responsible for conditions at an Oklahoma hazardous waste site. The court first holds that excepti...

The court holds that a defendant in a cost recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) may bring compulsory counterclaims against the United States pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The court first holds that it lacks jurisdi...

On reconsideration, the court holds that defendant's counterclaims in a cost recovery action brought by the United States under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) are barred by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)....

The court holds that the government is entitled to a protective order to prevent a defendant in a cost recovery action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) from taking certain depositions because judicial review is limited to the administrative rec...

The court holds that it does not have jurisdiction to review the Environmental Protection Agency's listing of bacitracin as an extremely hazardous substance under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA). Although enacted as part of the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization ...

The court holds that a challenge to a district court's placement of a company into receivership for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) violations is moot, and separate issuance of a contempt order by the district court and assessment of civil penalties by a magistrate for the SDWA violations did not vio...

The court holds that the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) November 1985 rule establishing recommended maximum contaminant levels for eight volatile organic compounds is within its authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The court first holds that EPA's decision to establish reco...