The court affirms in part and vacates in part a district court's award of attorney fees to environmental groups that sought to rescind new mining permits issued to a company that owned a mine in violation of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA). The U.S. Department of the Interior'...
The Fourth Circuit held that an environmental group was entitled to attorney fees in their action challenging an OSM decision that resulted in a remand to the agency for additional investigation. The group filed a citizen complaint with the OSM alleging that a reclaimed surface mining site, which ha...
The court upholds the dismissal of individuals' employment retaliation suits against the state of Rhode Island and the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management concerning potential Solid Waste Disposal Act violations. The state has not waived its right to sovereign immunity, and the U.S. ...
A district court dismissed environmental groups' claim that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has never undertaken the study of coal mining wastes requested by Congress and, accordingly, has failed to determine whether such wastes should be regulated as "hazardous" under Subtitle C of t...
When the 103d Congress convened on January 5, 1993, many observers believed that it would make up for the dismal environmental record of its predecessor. The 102d Congress had tried and failed to reauthorize the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), the Endangered Species Act (ESA), and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Its attempt to elevate the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to a cabinet-level department had been blocked in the House of Representatives, and its attempt to reform the General Mining Law of 1872 had been blocked in both houses.
There seems to be agreement across a wide spectrum of those involved in Superfund cleanups that such cleanups should take into consideration the kinds of activities that are expected to take place at the site after the remedial work is completed. While cleaning every site to levels suitable for all conceivable uses may be a laudable goal, doing so can impose costs that are out of proportion to the added amount of protection obtained.
The court upholds a district court's order affirming the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM's) denial of plaintiff-appellant's request for a coal lease suspension pursuant to §39 of the Mineral Leasing Act. The court first holds that the district court's decision affirming BLM's denial of a §39 susp...
The court holds that the Federal Mine Safety and Health Act (FMSHA) did not authorize the Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission's (FMSHRC's) issuance of a significant and substantial finding to a mine for failure to comply with the nonmandatory requirement of investigating refuse pile c...
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.