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.
A more substantive precautionary principle of international law is evolving as new treaties articulate new measures of precaution in different contexts. Although there is considerable controversy over how to articulate or define a precautionary "principle" of law, the goal is to ensure that the mere lack of scientific knowledge about risks cannot justify a failure to take appropriate precautions. Where we have sufficient evidence of risk, we often take precautions, despite a lack of certainty about those risks.
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.
On January 11, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Act), which includes numerous amendments to the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The new legislation is designed to relieve small businesses from the financial burden of CERCLA liability, promote brownfields redevelopment, define transactional due diligence standards, and encourage state primacy in enforcement matters. The Act to some degree codifies U.S.
Editors' Summary: With their often substantial assets, parent corporations make attractive targets for parties seeking to remedy environmental harm. However, by challenging a court's jurisdiction over the parent, the parent may force a change of forum or, ultimately, a dismissal of the claims. This Article examines the scope of a parent's liabilities for the actions of its subsidiaries and discusses the jurisdictional issues.
Editors' Summary: Defining the scope of parent corporation liability under CERCLA has been a source of disagreement between appellate courts for years. This Article examines this disagreement and how it led to the U.S. Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bestfoods. First, the Article examines the two contradictory lines of cases that spawned the disagreement. Courts using the remedial purpose doctrine have held parent corporations directly liable under CERCLA based on general involvement with the business and not due to specific involvement in the polluting activities.
What is an appropriate regulatory response to the enormous growth of pesticide use in developing countries? The question falls within the broader issue of how developing countries deal with the consequences of their application of technological packages to agricultural production. As developing countries step up efforts to improve agricultural production, there are rising concerns about the social and economic costs of their agricultural development in terms of the negative health and environmental impact that pesticides are or are likely to cause.
In late 1999, the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) proposed an expansive ergonomics standard. Its genesis, however, goes back to 1979, when OSHA hired its first ergonomist. Now, more than 20 years later, OSHA is moving forward with a proposed standard that is both extremely far-reaching and, in many ways, unique among health and safety requirements. The proposal, however, suffers from a number of serious deficiencies, including inherent ambiguities within the regulatory language itself.
One of the more daunting tasks facing environmental practitioners over the past decade or two has been the recovery of cleanup costs and related relief at sites contaminated with petroleum substances. Parties seeking relief face significant hurdles under the federal environmental statutes. The key federal environmental cost-recovery statute, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) often provides little help because of its petroleum exclusion.