Search Results
Use the filters on the left-hand side of this screen to refine the results further by topic or document type.

Kennedy Bldg. Assocs. v. CBS Corp.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed a lower court order holding that a company substantially complied with a state's remediation plan for cleaning up PCB contamination at a hazardous waste site. The company's predecessor-in-interest operated an electrical transformer repair facility on the subject property,...

Morris v. NRC

In denying a petition for review, the Tenth Circuit held that the NRC did not violate the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) or NEPA when it issued a license to a company to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico. In issuing the license, NRC interpreted its regulations t...

New Jersey v. Gloucester Envtl. Management Servs., Inc.

A district court denied New Jersey's motion to amend a 1997 consent decree concerning the Gloucester Environmental Management Services, Inc., landfill and ordered it to comply with the terms of the decree. The state alleged that the detection of the presence of radionuclides requires a new remedy fo...

Fisher v. Ciba Specialty Chems. Corp.

A district ruled on several pre-trial motions of both defendants and plaintiffs alleging property damage caused by a defendant's contamination at its nearby chemical manufacturing facility (a designated Superfund site), negligence, fraud, fraudulent concealment, strict liability, trespass, and civil...

Regulation of Radiological and Chemical Carcinogens: Current Steps Toward Risk Harmonization

Editors' Summary: Until recently, the regulation of chemical carcinogens and the regulation of radiological carcinogens developed independently. Different governmental agencies operating under different statutory directives were responsible for addressing the dangers from these carcinogens. As a result, different policies and practices were developed. This Article explores these differences and the record on resolving them. It first examines the history of federal regulation of chemical and radiological carcinogens and summarizes EPA's approach to risk assessments for them.

When Is a Transporter an Arranger Under CERCLA?

In New York v. SCA Services, Inc., the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected the notion that a transporter cannot be an arranger under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). This Dialogue reviews the parties' arguments and the court's opinion. It then analyzes the impact this case will have on transporters.

Centerior Serv. Co. v. Acme Scrap Iron & Metal Corp.

The court holds that potentially responsible parties (PRPs) compelled to initiate a hazardous waste site cleanup are precluded from joint and several cost recovery from other PRPs under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) §107(a), and, thus, are limited to...

Bouchard Transp. Co. v. Updegraff

The court holds that a district court erred in ruling that Florida is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity in a limitation of liability proceeding, but it correctly dismissed the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and Florida Pollution Discharge Prevention Act claims brought against the owners of th...

Boeing Co. v. Cascade Corp.

The court holds that when a party is liable for pollution response costs under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), it must share them regardless of whether it is the sole cause of the costs. An airplane manufacturer brought a contribution action agains...

El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Neztsosie

The court holds that the Price-Anderson Act does not expressly prohibit the Navajo tribal court from determining its jurisdiction over tribal members' personal injury and wrongful death claims arising from uranium mining activities on the Navajo Nation Reservation. The court first holds that defenda...