Plastics Litigation Tracker

Allegations: Petitioners, industrial and environmental organizations, brought an action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) petitioning for review of regulations promulgated by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act. EPA set limitations to the amount of discharge of pollutants were released in the nations water ways by manufacturing plants. Limitations of discharge included organic chemicals, plastics, and synthetic fibers. Petitioners alleged substantive defects in various provisions of the Act and argued that procedural defects in the promulgation in the provisions violated the notice-and-comment requirement of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Outcome: Closed. On March 30, 1989, the court denied Petitioners' requests for review and remanded the regulations in part, holding that the regulations regarding best practicable technology and regulations establishing pre-treatment standards for existing sources were reasonable, but that EPA arbitrarily failed to consider wastestream recycling as model technology when promulgating new source performance standards. See the opinion here. Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing. The court denied Petitioners request for rehearing in all respects except for remanding the limitations for priority pollutants for which in-plant biological treatment was the model technology to the EPA for further rulemaking and except for remanding an order to strike three complexed metals erroneously included in Appendix A from the Appendix, holding that it did not have jurisdiction to require the EPA to process applications for fundamentally-different-factors variances in more expeditious manner or to stay regulations pending EPA actions on variance applications.

Allegations: Plaintiff, a citizens group, brought an action against Tenneco Polymers, Inc., producers of plastics and resins, seeking declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and the imposition of civil penalties on Defendant. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant had 197 violations of its permit to discharge limited pollutants in the Delaware River, in violation of the Clean Water Act.

Outcome: Closed. Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross motions for summary judgment. On February 26, 1985, the court denied Defendant's motion for summary judgment or partial summary judgment. It granted Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, Plaintiff's' motion to amend the complaint, and Defendant's motion to exceed the page limitation in its reply brief. See the opinion here.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, milk sellers and plastic producers, brought an action against the state of Minnesota seeking to invalidate a Minnesota statute, Minn. Stat. § 116F.21 (1978), which banned the retail sale of milk in certain plastic containers. Plaintiffs argued that the statute was invalid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Outcome: Closed. On January 21, 1981, the Minnesota Ramsey County District Court held that the Act was unconstitutional and unenforceable. The court found that the Act violated the Equal Protection Clause and Commerce Clause, stating that the discrimination against plastic packaging was not related to the objectives of the Act. On appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, the ruling was affirmed. The State appealed to the Supreme Court. The Court reversed, finding a rational relation between the ban on plastic nonreturnable milk containers and the State objectives. See the opinion here. The Minnesota law in question was repealed in 1981 by H.F. No. 312 Sec. 2.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, petroleum refineries, brought an action against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) challenging regulations promulgated by the EPA under the Clean Water Act, which would regulate pollution control that includes plastic discharge. Plaintiffs argued that the regulations promulgated by the EPA were unreasonable. Filed 08/11/1976.

Outcome: Closed. On August 11, 1976, the court upheld some of the challenged regulations where the record showed reasonable support, and remanded other regulations for reconsideration because the record failed to show support that was "sufficiently reasonable." See the opinion here.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, plastics manufacturers, brought an action against the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking review of effluent limitation guidelines adopted by the EPA pursuant to the Clean Water Act.

Outcome: Closed. On March 10, 1976, the court remanded to EPA, holding that the many intangible benefits of clean water justified vesting the Administrator with broad discretion, just short of being arbitrary or capricious, in considering the cost of pollution abatement. See the opinion here.

Allegations: Plaintiff, Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), brought an action against the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) seeking to compel the EPA to publish effluent limitation guidelines called for under Section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Clean Water Act. The guidelines limited discharge of pollutants, which included plastic discharge.

Outcome: Closed. On December 5, 1974, the D.C. District Court granted summary judgment to NRDC. On appeal, the Circuit Court reversed in part, holding that Act did not require publication of guidelines within one year after its enactment as a nondiscretionary imperative. See the opinion here.

Allegations: Plaintiffs, a trade organization and plastic product producer, brought an action against the County of Suffolk, New York, challenging the constitutionality of a local law banning the use of certain plastics. The association argued that the County failed to conduct an adequate environmental review under the state Environmental Quality review Act before passing the law. Filed in August 1988.

Outcome: The Suffolk County Supreme Court declared the law unconstitutional because Suffolk County failed to perform an adequate environmental review before the law was passed. The County appealed. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the trade organization lacked standing to challenge the county legislature compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act and that the plastic product producer failed to allege any threat of cognizable injury that it would suffer different from the public at large. See the opinion here. On March 1, 2020, Suffolk County Local Law No. 9-2020 became effective. It requires that a 5 cent paper carryout bag reduction fee be charged for each paper carryout bag provided by a person required to collect tax to a customer in Suffolk County. The paper carryout bag reduction fee must be reflected and made payable on the sales slip, invoice, receipt, or other statement of the price rendered to the customer.