The court holds that although a state department of transportation is technically liable under the Washington Model Toxics Control Act (MTCA) for the disposal of a tank car at a Superfund site, the department need not pay remedial action costs to a group of utilities that cleaned up the site. The de...
The court holds that a Native American council and an environmental group lack standing under the Federal Power Act (FPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) to challenge a Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) order authorizing a Canadian power generator to sell power in the Unit...
The 1990s mark the end of an era when pitched legislative battles can lead to either sound or timely public policy. Rather, the formulation of consensus by a critical mass of private-sector stakeholders is the only way to achieve the timely reauthorization of Superfund and may be the best (if not the only) way to break the gridlock that paralyzes other legislative debates.
Editors' Summary: Property owners often respond to solid and hazardous waste contamination of their properties by cleaning up the contamination and then seeking reimbursement of cleanup costs from responsible parties under federal and state hazardous waste laws. RCRA is one such law; however, RCRA §7002 does not explicitly provide for recovery of damages. A court faced with a RCRA §7002 citizen suit to recover cleanup costs must imply a private cause of action for damages. This Article addresses the availability of a private cause of action for damages under RCRA §7002.
Congress enacted the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) in 1976, to regulate management of solid and hazardous waste. RCRA Subtitle C regulates hazardous waste management and Subtitle D governs nonhazardous, solid waste. In 1984, Congress passed the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA), significantly amending and expanding RCRA Subtitle C. HSWA added to RCRA the Land Disposal Restriction (LDR) Program, or land ban, which bars land disposal of hazardous wastes that fail to meet U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency)-promulgated treatment standards.
In November 1995, five federal agencies—the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Natural Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration—issued joint guidance concerning wetland mitigation banking. The guidance's chief virtue is its detailed explanation of the approval process for the establishment and operation of mitigation banks. Its chief flaw, however, flows from the complexity of this approval process.
Keynote Presentation: Making the Partnership Work
Panel Discussion: Regulation of Nuclear Materials
Regulation of Air Quality
Regulation of Water Quality: Is EPA Meeting Its Oblilgations or Can the States Better Meet Water Quality Challenges?
Regulating Solid and Hazardous Wastes
In a suit raising constitutional challenges to the siting of a regional low-level radioactive waste disposal facility, the court holds that freedom from environmental releases of nonnatural radiation is not a fundamental, unenumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment, and differences in the fe...
The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or the Agency) failed to justify application of its toxicity characteristic rule to mineral processing and electric utility wastes, and remands portions of the rule to the Agency for further proceedings. In the Resource Conservation ...
The court affirms a district court decision that the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS') and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD's) participation in a Hawaii Department of Water Supply (DWS) transmission project did not constitute a major federal action that triggered the National E...