CERCLA Litigation Watch: First Subsurface Intrusion NPL Site Listing Challenged in D.C. Circuit
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.28.19
We may soon know whether the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) first attempt to list a site on the National Priorities List (NPL) due to subsurface intrusion will hold up in court. In September 2018, EPA listed two sites – the Rockwell International Wheel & Trim (Rockwell) Site in Grenada, Mississippi, and the Delfasco Forge Site in Grand Prairie, Texas – on the NPL due solely to subsurface intrusion risks. 83 Fed. Reg. 46408 (Sept. 13, 2018). (More information on those listings can be found here.)
While the Delfasco Forge Site’s listing did not garner so much as a comment on its proposal, the Rockwell Site’s listing received more scrutiny, including comments that on-site mitigation measures were already providing effective remediation. Nevertheless, EPA listed the Site.
The Rockwell Site operator now is challenging the NPL listing. Meritor v. EPA, No. 18-1325 (D.C. Cir. filed Dec. 11, 2018). In its statement of issues, Meritor has indicated that it will be challenging as arbitrary and capricious (1) EPA’s disregard of the on-site mitigation measures when calculating the Site’s Hazard Ranking System score, (2) EPA’s scoring of the Site under residential exposure scenarios in lieu of industrial scenarios, and (3) EPA’s calculation of the Site’s score looking at the entire facility’s footprint instead of the smaller portions of the facility where EPA had identified exposure and subsurface contamination areas. Statement of Issues to be Raised, Meritor v. EPA, No. 18-1325 (D.C. Cir. filed Jan. 17, 2019).
Briefing is set to occur later this spring, with final briefs due June 12, 2019. If that schedule holds, oral argument may occur in the fall of 2019. Companies with sites under investigation or that may be subject to investigation in the future should monitor the developments in this case, which has the potential to affect future EPA listings.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25
Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality
On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument.
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.11.25
Director Squires Revamps the Workings of the U.S. Patent Office
Client Alert | 8 min read | 12.10.25
Creativity You Can Use: CJEU Clarifies Copyright for Applied Art
Client Alert | 4 min read | 12.10.25
Federal Court Strikes Down Interior Order Suspending Wind Energy Development
