The court holds that a local utilities authority was not authorized under the New Jersey Municipal and Counties Utilities Authorities Law (MCUAL) to charge prior users of the authority's waste disposal facilities an environmental investment credit (EIC). The authority imposed the EIC in order to liq...
The court holds that a county in Missouri can regulate the location of solid waste facilities. A development company challenged a county regulation that prohibits the location of a sanitary landfill within one-quarter mile of any occupied dwelling. A trial court denied the company's motion for summa...
The court holds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) guidelines for carrying out the certification of Waste Isolation Pilot Plant's (WIPP's) compliance with radioactive waste disposal regulations are specific enough to qualify as "criteria" under 40 C.F.R. Part 191. The court note...
The court dismisses environmental groups' complaint alleging that the National Environmental Policy Act requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to prepare a supplemental programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) addressing new information concerning the use of the Los Alamos National L...
The court denies environmental groups' motion for a preliminary injunction to enjoin new U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) nuclear weapon Stockpile Stewardship and Management (SSM) facilities, as well as activities or major upgrades to mission capability based on alleged violations of the National Env...
Editors' Summary: EPA recently proposed for public comment a draft guidance document that discusses voluntary federal recommendations for hundreds of thousands of nonhazardous industrial waste sites that currently escape RCRA regulation. In this Dialogue, a member of the chartered advisory group that assisted the Agency in the development of the document discusses its attributes and shortcomings. The Dialogue describes the history of EPA's use of RCRA Subtitle D and the statutory and programmatic obstacles to meaningful federal regulation.
The quest by law abiding pesticide registrants for relief from illegally registered pesticides has taken a new turn. Tacitly acknowledging the futility of urging the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to initiate enforcement action against bad actors, registrants are now, in epidemic proportion, taking their case to EPA in the form of filing administrative petitions to revoke and/or cancel Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) registrations issued to competitors and alleged to be obtained illegally.
This Article considers the extent to which the United States has made progress in the management of chemicals and pesticides in light of the commitments it made in 1992 to promote sustainable development. While pesticides are types of chemicals, they are managed differently and this Article will employ the legal distinctions between the two. The term "chemicals" refers to substances that are manufactured, processed, or used in commerce, other than those marketed as pesticides, pharmaceuticals, or food additives.
Editors' Summary: When Congress passed the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA), many in the press announced that this law effectively repealed the Delaney Clause, which they claimed had banned all traces of cancer-causing pesticides in processed foods. This Article analyzes what the FQPA actually did. It begins by describing the history of the Delaney Clause. The clause appears in three statutes, most famously in the food-additive provisions of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA).