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

The Clean Water Act: What's Commerce Got to Do With It?

Few commentators doubt the value of clean, unadulterated waters teeming with varied and colorful aquatic life. The debate centers instead on more pragmatic concerns, that is, how to best accomplish the accepted imperative. Some maintain that the primary responsibility should fall on the federal government because of its insularity from regional economic and political pressures. Others suggest that states should take the lead because of their familiarity with and ability to respond to local environmental concerns. Both sides have valid points.

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: When Does a Waste Escape RCRA Subtitle C Regulation?

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.

RCRA Subtitle I: The Federal Underground Storage Tank Program

Editors' Summary: Congress first addressed the problem of leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) in 1984, by enacting Subtitle I of RCRA. The UST regulatory program addresses, inter alia, corrosion protection, reporting, corrective action, and financial responsibility. In this Article, the author provides an overview of the federal UST program. The author outlines the program's significant elements and explores specific regulations in the context of the technical problems they are intended to address, giving particular attention to how, to what, and to whom the regulations apply.

Regulatory Framework for the Management and Remediation of Contaminated Marine Sediments

Editors' Summary: In 1989, a National Research Council study concluded that contaminated sediments are "widespread in U.S. coastal waters" and have "potentially far-reaching consequences to both public health and the environment." A 1996 interim EPA report reached a similar conclusion. This concern over contaminated sediments is not new. It has manifested itself in a dizzying array of statutory and regulatory restrictions on the disposal of these sediments.

Trends in Regulation of Stormwater and Nonpoint Source Pollution

Editors' Summary: Regulation of point source discharges under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) has resulted in significant improvements in water quality. Further progress, however, will require attention to stormwater and nonpoint source discharges. This Article describes current legal schemes that regulate point source stormwater discharges and encourage control of nonpoint source releases. The author first discusses phases I and II of EPA's program to regulate stormwater under the FWPCA.

76 FR 64379

United States v. Ryland Group, Inc., No. 3:11-cv-00499 (W.D.N.C. Oct. 7, 2011). A settling CWA defendant responsible for stormwater violations must pay a $625,000 civil penalty and must institute a companywide management, reporting, and training program to improve compliance with stormwater requirements.

76 FR 63954

United States v. City of Welch, No. 1:11-cv-00647 (S.D. W. Va. Sept. 21, 2011). Settling CWA defendants that violated NPDES permit requirements must pay a $5,000 civil penalty to the United States and West Virginia, must pay stipulated penalties for periods of noncompliance, and must perform a series of injunctive relief measures.

76 FR 63954

United States v. Smith, No. 3:10-cv-05364-BHS (W.D. Wash. Oct. 6, 2011). Settling CWA defendants that discharged pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit must pay a civil penalty contingent upon certain circumstances.

76 FR 63326

United States v. Nicholson, No. C01-809RBL (W.D. Wash. Sept. 28, 2011). Settling CWA defendants that discharged pollutants into waters of the United States without a permit must pay a civil penalty, must perform mitigation, and must enter into a separate agreement with the Lummi Nation regarding a shore defense structure.

76 FR 61738

United States v. Newport Sand & Gravel Co., Inc., No. 2:11-cv-228 (D. Vt. Sept. 26, 2011). Settling CWA defendants that discharged process and stormwater at concrete plants in New Hampshire and Vermont must pay a $200,000 civil penalty and must implement other measures to prevent unauthorized stormwater discharges.