§Why CasetextPricing

Riverkeeper, Inc. et al v. United States Environmental Protection Agency et al

REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 17 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction.. Document

14 Cited authorities

  1. National Wildlife Federation v. E.P.A

    286 F.3d 554 (D.C. Cir. 2002)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that “we do not review EPA's cost figuring de novo, but accord EPA discretion to arrive at a cost figure within a broad zone of reasonable estimate”

  2. Waterkeeper Alliance, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A

    399 F.3d 486 (2d Cir. 2005)   Cited 74 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding manure spread across fields is a point source

  3. Natural Resources Defense Coun. v. U.S.E.P.A

    859 F.2d 156 (D.C. Cir. 1988)   Cited 94 times
    Holding that agency speculation is "not adequate grounds upon which to sustain an agency's action"

  4. Riverkeeper, Inc. v. U.S. E.P.A

    358 F.3d 174 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 36 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that the EPA acted rationally in determining that dry cooling was not nationally available due to its high cost, air emissions resulting from increased energy use, and other factors

  5. Riverkeeper v. U.S. E.P.A

    475 F.3d 83 (2d Cir. 2007)   Cited 27 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Rejecting EPA's attempt to "create ambiguity when none otherwise exists by defining statutory terms contrary to their plain meaning"

  6. Consolidation Coal Co. v. Costle

    604 F.2d 239 (4th Cir. 1979)   Cited 35 times
    Upholding EPA regulation of discharges from "coal preparation plants and associated areas" that defined "point source" to include "coal refuse piles"

  7. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. U.S.E.P.A

    882 F.2d 287 (7th Cir. 1989)   Cited 16 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that EPA's regional "policy statement" on dioxin tolerances is not reviewable; only the denial or modification of a permit would be reviewable

  8. Appalachian Power Co. v. Train

    566 F.2d 451 (4th Cir. 1977)   Cited 23 times

    Nos. 76-1474, 76-2057. Argued March 17, 1977. Decided November 11, 1977. George C. Freeman, Jr., Richmond, Va. (Henry V. Nickel, Michael B. Barr, Washington, D.C., Hunton Williams, Richmond, Va., on brief), for petitioners. James T. Harrington, Chicago, Ill., for U.S. Steel Corp. Thomas A. Larsen, Atty., Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C., Sarah Chasis, New York City, for Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Peter R. Taft, Asst. Atty. Gen., Alfred T. Ghiorzi and Michael P. Carlton

  9. Virginia Elec. Power Co. v. Costle

    566 F.2d 446 (4th Cir. 1977)   Cited 19 times
    In Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Costle, 566 F.2d 446 (4th Cir.1977) (“VEPCO ”), the Fourth Circuit addressed consolidated petitions challenging EPA regulations prescribing requirements for the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures used to withdraw from, rather than discharge into, covered waters.

  10. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. C.A.B

    380 F.2d 770 (2d Cir. 1967)   Cited 27 times
    Standing for same proposition

  11. Section 1369 - Administrative procedure and judicial review

    33 U.S.C. § 1369   Cited 338 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Vesting jurisdiction in the Courts of Appeals to review the EPA’s action "in making any determination as to a State permit program submitted under section 1342(b) of [Title 33] ...."

  12. Section 125.90 - Purpose of this subpart

    40 C.F.R. § 125.90   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) This subpart establishes the section 316(b) requirements that apply to cooling water intake structures at existing facilities that are subject to this subpart. These requirements include a number of components. These include standards for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of cooling water intake structures and required procedures (e.g., permit application requirements, information submission requirements) for establishing the appropriate technology requirements at

  13. Section 125.91 - Applicability

    40 C.F.R. § 125.91   Cited 3 times

    (a) The owner or operator of an existing facility, as defined in § 125.92(k) , is subject to the requirements at §§ 125.94 through 125.99 if: (1) The facility is a point source; (2) The facility uses or proposes to use one or more cooling water intake structures with a cumulative design intake flow (DIF) of greater than 2 million gallons per day (mgd) to withdraw water from waters of the United States; and (3) Twenty-five percent or more of the water the facility withdraws on an actual intake flow

  14. Section 125.80 - What are the purpose and scope of this subpart?

    40 C.F.R. § 125.80   Cited 2 times

    (a) This subpart establishes requirements that apply to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures at new facilities. The purpose of these requirements is to establish the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact associated with the use of cooling water intake structures. These requirements are implemented through National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits issued under section 402 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)