Summit Petroleum v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
690 F.3d 733 (2012)
- Written by Tanya Munson, JD
Facts
Summit Petroleum Corporation (Summit) was a producer of natural gas and owned and operated a natural-gas sweetening plant in Rosebush, Michigan. Summit’s plant sweetened sour gas by removing hydrogen sulfide from approximately 100 gas-production wells. The wells were connected to the plant through subsurface pipelines and located over an area of approximately 43 square miles at various distances from the plant. None of the well sites shared a common boundary and ranged from 500 feet to eight miles away from the plant. The wells and the plant emitted sulfur dioxides and nitrous oxides, which were pollutants regulated under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The plant alone emitted under 100 tons of these pollutants per year. Each well site emitted much less, but if they were combined, the total would exceed 100 tons of pollutants per year. The CAA required the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to require every major source of air pollution to obtain a Title V operating permit. A major source was any stationary source that emitted or had the potential to emit 100 tons per year of any pollutant. The EPA defined a stationary source as a building, structure, or facility that emits or may emit a regulated air pollutant. Multiple pollutant-emitting activities could be aggregated and considered one stationary source under Title V if they were under common control, located on one or more contiguous or adjacent properties, and belonged to the same industrial grouping. In 2005, Summit and the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) submitted a request to the EPA to determine whether Summit’s facilities met the definition of a Title V major source of air pollution. The EPA was unable to determine whether Summit’s facilities were adjacent but finally determined in 2010 that Summit’s facilities were a single stationary source. The EPA concluded that Summit’s facilities were functionally interrelated and should not be considered separate entities. Summit filed a petition for review.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Suhrheinrich, J.)
Dissent (Nelson Moore, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.