The court holds moot challenges to the mixture and derived-from rules that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issued under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), holds moot a challenge to EPA's rule applying the mixture rule to Bevill wastes mixed with listed hazardous waste,...
The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was not constitutionally barred from considering a facility's boiler and industrial furnace (BIF) permit application while a federal government suit over the facility's alleged incineration of hazardous waste without a permit was pe...
The court refuses to approve a proposed consent decree requiring the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to issue a notice of proposed revisions to its hazardous waste identification rule by August 15, 1995, and to issue its final rules by December 15, 1996. The court first holds that a state...
The court refuses to issue a writ of mandamus overturning a district court refusal to order the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to initiate enforcement action against hazardous waste generators for shipping material to petitioner hazardous waste treatment company, which lacks a Resour...
A district court denied environmental groups’ motion for partial summary judgment with respect to their claim that the United States’ maintenance of the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet violated EPA’s surface water criterion regulations promulgated pursuant to §4004(a) of RCRA. Althou...
A district court dismissed a city's RCRA and the California Hazardous Substances Account Act against the United States in a dispute concerning the environmental remediation of Old Hammer Field in Fresno, California. The site, presently occupied by an airport, was used by the United States as an Army...
The court holds that summary judgment cannot be granted on the issue of corporate officers' Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) liability, but a successor corporation may be held liable under CERCLA. After a U.S. Virgin Islands clothing manufacturer dissol...
In the past few years, owners of contaminated land, seeking to supplement possible causes of action under the Comprehensive Environmental, Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and under state common law and state statutes, increasingly have looked to §7002(a)(1)(B) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to shift responsibility for remediation costs to former owners or operators.
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) represent federal regulatory regimes for protecting the environment. Although each statute initially places administrative responsibility in the hands of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), each encourages states, to varying degrees, to take primary responsibility for implementing the statutory regime.
In Environmental Federalism Part 1: The History of Overfiling Under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA Prior to Harmon, Smithfield, and CLEAN, the history of judicial and administrative decisions relating to overfiling under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the Clean Water Act (CWA), and the Clean Air Act (CAA) was analyzed. The history showed that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), with limited exceptions, generally was understood to have overfiling authority under RCRA, the CWA, and the CAA. The limited exceptions focused on two situations.