The court issues a mandatoryinjunction against an oil company for extensive contamination of a river and surrounding land, but due to lack of evidence refuses to enjoin three other companies. The court first declines to invoke the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The doctrine does not mandate blind...
The court holds that a company that allegedly sold the United States a lesser grade oil than required under contract specifications and then charged it for the higher grade oil is liable under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for violating oil management regulations. The court first...
The court upheld in part and vacated in part U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) regulations, known collectively as the Land Disposal Restrictions (LDR) Phase IV rule, addressing residual or secondary materials generated in mining and mineral proc...
The court denies a petition for review of a final determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) not to add 14 solvent wastes to its list of hazardous wastes under Subtitle C of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. The court first holds that EPA did not clearly err in interpr...
The court vacates a portion of a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulation in which it determined that oil-bearing wastewaters generated by the petroleum refining industry are solid wastes under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), but upheld EPA's determination that recove...
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...
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.
Editor's Summary: In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its most recent pronouncement on the executive foreign affairs preemption doctrine in American Insurance Ass'n v. Garamendi. In this Article, Kimberly Breedon argues that lower courts are prone to overbroad applications of Garamendi because the Court assumed the presence of three elements when it developed the standard for executive foreign affairs preemption of state law: (1) formal source law; (2) nexus to a foreign entity; and (3) indication of intent by the executive to preempt the state law under challenge.
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.