3. Learning Objectives
v The development of environmental
regulation
v Air pollution regulation
v Water pollution regulation
v Waste disposal regulation
52 - 3
4. Overview
v The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) was created in 1970 to protect human
health and the environment
v Human health and our environment are
protected by:
v Regulatory law (stick)
v Market incentives (carrot)
v Voluntary Measures (carrot)
52 - 4
5. The Subject of the Laws . . .
Health & Safety
Sewage Treatment Plant ↑
Warning Sign →
52 - 5
6. The Subject of the Laws . . .
Environmental Damage
Strip Mine ↑
Clearcut →
52 - 6
7. The Subject of the Laws . . .
Conservation Efforts
Illegal Wildlife Products ↑
Protecting Ridley Turtle eggs →
52 - 7
8. The Subject of the Laws . . .
Pollution
Industrial Air Pollution ↑
Seabird Killed in Oil Spill →
52 - 8
9. Definition of Pollution
v Pollution is any substance in the environment
that endangers human welfare
v Toxic substances in pollutants linked to:
v Carcinogenesis
v Mutagenesis
v Teratogenesis
v Behavior disorders
Bald eagle faced extinction due to
mutagenic effect of DDT
52 - 9
10. Sources of Environmental Law
v Principal sources of environmental law:
v Civil (Common Law) Actions
v Federal Regulation
v State, Tribal, and Municipal Regulation
v International Treaties and Conventions
52 - 10
11. Civil Action for Nuisance
v One of the oldest lawsuits to
remedy environmental harm
is nuisance
v A person may be liable for
nuisance if they use property
in a manner that interferes
unreasonably with another’s
rights to use or enjoy their
property
52 - 11
12. Civil Action for Tort
v A lawsuit to remedy environmental harm
may be based on negligence or strict liability
v A person may be liable for in tort if they
failed to use reasonable care toward a party
whose injury was foreseeable and caused
by the lack of reasonable care
Demanding
Compensation
for Exposure to
Agent Orange
52 - 12
13. Federal Regulation
v Federal environmental policy is achieved by
statutes that are implemented through
federal and state agencies and supporting
environmental programs
v Litigation, injunction, and penalties (civil &
criminal) are possible consequences of
violating environmental laws
52 - 13
14. Federal Regulation
v In the 1970s, in response to citizen
demands for environmental protection,
Congress began to enact numerous
environmental laws, including:
v National Env’tl Policy Act (1969)
v Clean Air Act (1970)
v Clean Water Act (1972)
v Endangered Species Act (1973)
52 - 14
15. Federal Regulation
v In the 1970-80s, additional laws enacted:
v Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA, 1976)
v Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA, 1976)
v Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA,
1980, including Superfund program)
52 - 15
16. Agency Enforcement
v The EPA, Occupational Safety & Health
Admin. (OSHA), and Dept. of Justice
(DOJ) work together to implement &
enforce law
v Agencies issue regulations pursuant to
Administrative Procedure Act to support
and implement federal laws
52 - 16
17. State & Tribal Regulation
v States and Tribes may enact laws to
regulate the environment within their
jurisdiction
v State laws implemented by state agencies
v State law may not conflict with federal law
Muscogee Nation
Tribal Police Officer
52 - 17
18. Local Regulation
v County and municipal governments regulate
some aspects of the environment
v Location and conditions of parks, streets and
other public areas
v Methods of waste and garbage removal
v Local zoning laws
52 - 18
19. Zoning
v Purpose is to
ensure orderly
physical growth
and development
of regulated area
v Generally, based
on a municipal Urban sprawl surrounding
ordinance habitat of threatened California
gnatcatcher
52 - 19
20. Nature of Environmental Law
v Most environmental laws are implemented
through permitting programs that establish
pollution limits for air emissions or effluent
discharge into waterways by businesses or
governmental entities
v Environmental laws do not prevent pollution,
but merely set pollution limits and establish a
system to compensate for environmental
harm
52 - 20
21. Test Your Knowledge
v True=A, False = B
v Pollution is any substance in the environment
that endangers human welfare.
v States and Indian tribes may enact and
enforce environmental laws that do not
conflict with federal environmental laws.
v Environmental law prevents pollution.
v Violating an environmental law may result in a
civil penalty, but cannot be a crime.
52 - 21
22. Test Your Knowledge
v Multiple Choice
v The sources of environmental law include:
(a) Federal legislation enacted by Congress
(b) Federal agency regulations
(c) State and tribal environmental law enacted
pursuant to state and tribal legislative bodies
(d) All of the above
(e) All of the above plus international treaties
52 - 22
23. Thought Questions
v Why is environmental law necessary? Is
environmental health a human right?
52 - 23
25. National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA)
v The first modern environmental law, NEPA
does not deal with pollution control
v Applies only to government agencies
v Created the Council on Environmental
Quality
v Requires federal agencies to prepare an
environmental impact statement (EIS) for
major Federal actions significantly affecting
the quality of the human environment
52 - 25
26. NEPA
v NEPA applies to states and private parties
when actions are planned and subject to (at
any point) federal approval of permits, loan
guarantees, federal loans or insurance, or
other federal involvement
v Eighteen states, Guam and Puerto Rico
have enacted environmental planning laws
similar to NEPA
52 - 26
27. The EIS
v An Environmental Impact Statement must
analyze the:
v Impact of proposed action on the
environment
v Any expected adverse effects of the
action
v Practical and feasible alternative methods
v Any irreversible effects the action might
generate
52 - 27
28. MEDIA SPECIFIC LAWS
v Air Pollution
v Water Pollution
v Land Pollution
v Hazardous Wastes
v Toxic Chemicals
Acid leachate pond near
mining operation
52 - 28
29. Air Pollution Programs
v Toxic air pollutants
v Acid rain
v Indoor air pollution
v Ozone-depleting
substances
v Greenhouse gases
and global warming
“End-of-pipe” air
emissions at paper mill
52 - 29
30. Primary Statute: Clean Air Act
v Goal of the Clean Air Act is to improve
National Ambient Air Quality through
standards (NAAQS)
v Focus of the law is controlling pollution from
mobile sources and stationary sources by
issuing permits to polluters
v http://www.epa.gov/air/oaqps/peg_caa/pegcaai
52 - 30
31. Primary Statute: Clean Air Act
v Implemented by agency standards or rules
v Air quality standards remain unchanged since
1978 when standards established for six
criteria pollutants: lead, CO, VOCs, SO2,
particulates, and NO2
v Act enforced by agency action and citizen
suits against polluters who failed to obtain a
permit or violated their permit limitations
52 - 31
32. Clean Air Act Implementation
v Each state is required to develop a state
implementation plan for meeting national
ambient air quality standards
v Consequently, major emitters of pollutants
within the state must reduce their emissions
to a level that ensures that state overall air
quality meets national standards
52 - 32
33. Clean Air Act Implementation
v State environmental agencies issue permits
to companies that emit pollutants
v Permits specify type of pollutants allowed
and amount for each type
v New sources treated more stringently than
older facilities
Mobile point sources
52 - 33
34. U.S. v. Ohio Edison Company
v Facts:
v The Sammis Plant, an Ohio Edison coal-fired
electric generating plant, required substantial
renovation
v Ohio Edison intended and achieved a
significant increase in operational output, but
emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides,
and particulate matter also increased
v Ohio Edison denied needing a new permit
52 - 34
35. U.S. v. Ohio Edison Company
v Procedural History and Ruling:
v U.S. and some states brought suit against
several operators of coal-fired power plants
to gain compliance with the Clean Air Act
New Source Review provisions
v By failing to obtain a permit for increased
emissions related to renovations of the
Sammis plant, Ohio Edison violated the
Clean Air Act
52 - 35
36. U.S. v. Ohio Edison Company
v Result:
v In March 2005, EPA agreed to a consent
decree by which Ohio Edison agreed to
reduce emissions at an expected cost of
approximately $1.1 billion, pay a $8.5 million
civil penalty, and spend $25 million to
perform environmentally beneficial projects
related to air pollution within the affected
states
52 - 36
37. International Environmental
Law
v The Clean Air Act
specifically supports
U.S. obligations under
the Montreal Protocol,
an international
agreement to reduce
air pollution and
ozone-depleting
substances
Pulp and paper mill
52 - 37
38. Massachusetts v. Environmental P
v Facts:
w 19 private organizations filed a rulemaking petition in
1999 asking EPA to regulate “greenhouse gas
emissions … under § 202 of the Clean Air Act”
w EPA requested and received public comment for years,
yet denied the petition in 2003 for two reasons:
w (1)Clean Air Act did not authorize EPA to issue
mandatory regulations to address global climate change;
and (2) even EPA had authority to set greenhouse gas
emission standards, it would be unwise to do so
47 - 38
39. Massachusetts v. Environmental
Protection Agency
v Facts:
w The original 19 organizations, 12 states, and local
governments sought review of EPA’s order denying the
petition in the U.S. Court of Appeals, which deferred to
the EPA’s decision
w U.S. Supreme Court granted the petitioners’ request for
certiorari
47 - 39
40. Massachusetts v. Environmental
Protection Agency
v Supreme Court’s Decision by Justice
Stevens:
w Court discussed standing of litigants, especially
sovereign status of states such as Massachusetts
w “The harms associated with climate change are serious
and well recognized…EPA has refused to comply with
[a] clear statutory command…EPA [cannot] avoid its
statutory obligation by noting the uncertainty
surrounding various features of climate change.”
w On remand, EPA must ground its reasons for action or
inaction, but Court did not order EPA to make an
endangerment finding and issue a rule
47 - 40
41. Water Pollution Programs
v Wetlands, Ocean, and
Coastal Zone Pollution
v Groundwater & Drinking
Water Protection
v Wastewater
Holding a dead sea otter
killed by oil from the
Exxon Valdez
52 - 41
42. Primary Statute:
Clean Water Act
v Clean Water Act (CWA) goals:
v Ensure that navigable water
is safe for drinking, fish &
wildlife protection, and
recreational use
v Eliminate or limit discharge
of pollutants into coastal
and inland waterways
Point source pollution
52 - 42
43. Clean Water Act Standards
v For non-point and point sources, EPA sets
CWA water quality criteria or standards
based upon:
v Designated Use of Water Body
v Fishable/Swimmable Qualitative Criteria
v Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs)
v Specific limits on pollution for particular water
body, included in pollution permits
52 - 43
44. NPDES Permit Program
v Every industrial or municipal facility must
apply for a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit to
discharge pollutants into inland waterways
or oceans
v Pollution control is largely achieved through
requirement that a polluter use specific
technologies to reduce effluent
52 - 44
45. State Implementation
v Most states have taken primacy (primary
authority) for Clean Water Act enforcement
for their jurisdiction
v A state environmental agency issues
NPDES permits based on state
determinations about the quality of specific
water bodies
52 - 45
46. Wetlands
v Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
protects wetlands by requiring a permit from
the Army Corps of Engineers before
dredged or fill material may be discharged
into waters of the United States
Endangered green pitcher
plant found in some
southern wetlands
52 - 46
47. Definition of Wetlands
v Wetlands refers to "those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally
include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar
areas." See EPA wetlands page.
52 - 47
48. Violating Water-Related Laws
v Federal and state environmental agencies
may enforce the Clean Water Act and water-
related programs with civil fines and/or
criminal penalties, including prison for those
who knowingly violate the laws
v See U.S. v. Hopkins
v Citizens also may file suits to remediate or
compensate for environmental harm
52 - 48
49. Land Pollution Programs
v Primary Laws:
v FIFRA
v TSCA
v RCRA
v CERCLA
Iron Mountain Superfund site in California
caused by acid mine drainage
52 - 49
50. Pesticide Regulation
v The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) regulates use of
pest control chemicals in process of food
growth through food packaging, to
minimize presence in consumable foods
52 - 50
51. Toxic Substances Control Act
v The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
requires anyone planning to sell or market
chemicals to first determine effect on human
health and the environment
v Gives EPA authority to
track, investigate, or ban
industrial chemicals
currently produced or
imported into U.S.
52 - 51
52. Waste Disposal Laws
v In a cradle to grave regulatory system,
RCRA and CERCLA regulate storage,
disposal, and remediation of toxic and
hazardous substances on land
Toxic waste,
bankrupt company
52 - 52
53. RCRA
v The Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act authorizes EPA to regulate monitoring,
transporting, storage, treatment, and
disposal of solid waste and hazardous
waste
v Tracking from creation of waste through
disposal or treatment (cradle to grave)
v Any person who fails to follow regulations
strictly violates RCRA
52 - 53
54. United States v. Dean
v Facts:
v Dean was production manager at a metal
fabricating plant that violated permitting,
storage, treatment, and disposal rules of
RCRA
v Dean, plant owners, plant manager, and
parent company were indicted
v Owners and parent company of the plant
pled guilty to a felony and paid a fine
52 - 54
55. United States v. Dean
v Facts:
v Dean was convicted – and his conviction
was affirmed – because he dumped and
buried 55 gallon drums of hazardous waste
on land for over five years
52 - 55
56. CERCLA
v Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
of 1980, or Superfund, authorizes EPA to
ensure the clean-up and remediation of
hazardous waste sites
v Also authorizes EPA to assign liability for
clean-up costs to any potentially responsible
party (PRP) or all PRPs
52 - 56
57. Potentially Responsible Party
v A PRP is defined as:
v Current owners or operators of facility or vessel;
v Former owners or operators of facility or vessel,
if they owned the property at time of disposal;
v Those who arrange for treatment or disposal of
hazardous substances at a facility (usually the
generators); and
v Transporters of hazardous substances who
selected the disposal site
52 - 57
58. Retroactive Nature of CERCLA
v In general, a law may not be retroactive
v However, CERCLA liability is retroactive,
meaning that parties may be held liable for
releases that occurred prior to the
enactment of the statute in 1980
v See U.S. v. Domenic Lombardi Realty
v Reason: entire purpose of law is to clean
up past mistakes and protect human health
52 - 58
59. Conservation Efforts
v A number of laws, such as the Endangered
Species Act, attempt to identify, list, and
protect threatened or endangered species
v See U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service webpage
v 398 U.S. species of animals are listed and
599 U.S. species of plants are listed
v The ESA provides for habitat recovery plans
and species recovery plans
52 - 59
60. Endangered Species Act
v The ESA began and remains in controversy
despite the obvious need for and apparent
success of the law
Bald eagle, California gnatcatcher, Florida panther
52 - 60
61. International Wildlife Law
v The
Convention on International Trade in Endangere
(CITES) prohibits trade in threatened and
endangered species, whether animal, plants,
or parts of animals or plants
Illegal wildlife
parts and
products
confiscated by
U.S. agents
52 - 61
62. Environmental Management
v Partly because of the regulatory web and
partly for corporate social responsibility,
many companies implement an
environmental management system (EMS)
v Examples include
ISO 14001,
Responsible Care, and
Smart Wood
52 - 62
63. Test Your Knowledge
v True=A, False = B
v NEPA applies only to federal agencies.
v The Clean Air Act applies to mobile and
stationary sources of pollution.
v One goal of the Clean Water Act is to
eliminate or limit discharge of pollutants into
navigable waterways.
v Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
protects wetlands.
52 - 63
64. Test Your Knowledge
v True=A, False = B
v Both RCRA and CERCLA establish a cradle
to grave regulatory system for hazardous
waste.
v Retroactive laws are always unconstitutional.
v Only the U.S. EPA may enforce the Clean Air
Act or Clean Water Act.
v RCRA requires companies to track and
monitor hazardous waste from creation
through disposal or treatment.
52 - 64
65. Test Your Knowledge
v Multiple Choice
v An environmental impact statement must
analyze:
(a) The impact of the proposed action on the
environment
(b) Any expected adverse effects of the action
(c) Practical and feasible alternative methods
(d) All of the above
(e) Both A and B only
52 - 65
66. Test Your Knowledge
v Multiple Choice
v A potentially responsible party may be:
(a) A current owner of the facility
(b) A former owner of the facility
(c) The plant manager who arranged for the
disposal of hazardous substances from the
facility
(d) The company that operates the facility
(e) All of the above
52 - 66
67. Thought Question
v Given technological
improvements in
alternative energy
(wind or solar power,
biofuels), does a
company have a
social responsibility Anaerobic bioreactors for
to use the best sludge digestion and methane
production in Kiel, Germany
available technology?
52 - 67
Editor's Notes
The link is to the main page of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The limitation within the definition of pollution that focuses on human welfare reflects the enforcement limitations placed on EPA with most of the environmental laws. The photo of the bald eagle is a reference to the mutagenic properties of toxins, specifically DDT ( d ichloro- d iphenyl- t richloroethane ). Rachel Carson’s seminal book, Silent Spring (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Spring), warned that we would have a silent spring when no birds were left because of the harmful effects of DDT. Specifically, DDT was used to kill insects and birds ate the toxin-covered insects. Ingesting the DDT caused the eggshells of birds to thin, so that a bird sitting on the egg would crack it and destroy the egg; no surviving eggs, no birds. The mutagenic property was particularly noticeable in the bald eagle and other raptors because of “toxic loading” in which fish ate many toxin-covered insects, and birds ate many fish, which increased the levels of DDT in the bloodstream of predators. The bald eagle population rapidly declined and was on the verge of extinction before DDT was banned from use in the United States. However, DDT was simply shipped to other nations. Toxic effects: Carcinogenesis means “cancer-causing.” For example, leukemia (blood cancer) is a signature disease linked to benzene exposure. Mutagenesis means “mutation-causing.” The classic example of this effect is harm caused by DDT. Teratogenesis means “birth defect-causing.” The maquilladoras along the El Paso/Mexico border are reknowned for the toxins dumped into the environment and the teratogenic effect in which babies are born without brains (anencephaly). Behavior disorders commonly associated with toxin exposure, especially heavy metals, include neurological damage and auto-immune dysfunction. The classic example of behavior disorders was the connection between mercury and illness. In the 1950s, the Chisso Corp. chemical plant was releasing methylmercury directly into Minamata Bay. More than 111 people from Minamata City, Japan suffered from severe neurological disorders from eating fish contaminated with extremely high concentrations of methylmercury. The toxic effect of mercury is known as Minimata Syndrome or Mad Hatter’s Syndrome. The Japanese government officially recognizes 2,265 victims as of October 2001. According to the Public Broadcasting System investigate program, NOW, “In America one-in-six children born every year have been exposed to mercury levels so high that they are potentially at risk for learning disabilities and motor skill impairment and short-term memory loss.” See the EPA report on fish consumption: http://www.cfsan.fda.gov/~dms/admehg3.html.
Classic example of the nuisance action is the “smelly” factory or hog farm that locates next to the edge of town. In this case, neighbors or residents affected by the odiferous operation might be able to prevent the construction of the farm or factory, or they may be able to obtain remedies for the nuisance (harm) they suffer due to the unpleasant odor. Compare this to a town that grows in population to abut or surround the factory or farm. In this case, the factory or farm existed first and may have no legal liability to those who move nearby.
These actions typically are used to remedy or obtain compensation for harm caused by toxic pollution and product liability. For example, the litigation to obtain compensation for the toxic effects of Agent Orange sprayed on U.S. military service men and women during the Viet Nam war, or the lawsuit to obtain compensation for the property damage and personal injury to residents of Love Canal (hazardous waste pollution).
True. True. False. Environmental laws do not prevent pollution, but merely set pollution limits and establish a system to compensate for environmental harm. False. Most environmental laws provide for civil remedies and criminal penalties.
The correct answer is (e).
Opportunity to discuss nexus between environmental degradation and human health, as well as the human rights aspect of environmental harm.
The phrase “significantly affecting” generally is the key issue in litigation, though the first issue is always whether a governmental activity is a “major federal action.”
Example: Each state must comply with it’s statewide environmental permits (CWA, CAA, etc.) from the federal government. A state environmental agency that considers issuing a permit to a private developer to build a residential sub-division must follow federal and state environmental law. NEPA, along with other environmental laws, will require the private party and/or the state agency to prepare an EIS since the environment will be impacted in a number of ways. Moreover, the developer probably will obtain federally-guaranteed loans to undertake the development. The bottom line – and practical advice – is to do the EIS if an opponent to the action might raise a claim of governmental action.
The phrase “practical and feasible” implicitly means that financial impact is included within the analysis, allowing cost-benefit analysis.
The photograph depicts an acid leachate pond used for mining in the Western United States. “ The formation of mine acid drainage and the contaminants associated with it has been described by some as the largest environmental problem facing the U.S. mining industry.” (U.S. Forest Service 1993, Ferguson and Erickson 1988, Lapakko 1993b) “In the western U.S., the Forest Service estimates that between 20,000 and 50,000 mines are currently generating acid on Forest Service lands, and that drainage from these mines is impacting between 8,000 and 16,000 kilometers of streams (U.S. Forest Service 1993). In addition to the acid contribution to surface waters, AMD may cause metals such as arsenic, cadmium, copper, silver, and zinc to leach from mine wastes. According to the Forest Service, the metal load causes environmental damage, and is of greater concern than the acidity in environmental terms. See the U.S. EPA Technical Document, Acid Mine Drainage Prediction, EPA 530-R-94-036 NTIS PB94-201829 (December 1994), available at http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/other/mining/techdocs/amd.pdf.
The link is to the EPA website, The Plain English Guide to the Clean Air Act. Mobile sources: vehicles. Stationary sources: industrial smoke stacks, light industrial operations (including drycleaners and restaurants).
Hyperlink is to the case opinion on the Findlaw.com website. On March 18, 2005, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Justice announced a major Clean Air Act (CAA) New Source Review Program (NSR) settlement with Ohio Edison Company (Ohio Edison), a subsidiary of FirstEnergy Corp., to resolve CAA violations at the company’s W.H. Sammis Power Plant located in Stratton, Ohio, several of the company’s coal-fired power plants in Illinois. The states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut were co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit and also joined the settlement. Under the settlement, Ohio Edison will spend $1.1 billion between now and 2012 on various pollution controls to substantially decrease emissions at the Sammis plant and other nearby Ohio Edison power plants. The Sammis plant must comply with an annual tonnage cap for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions that declines over time.
The Sammis plant was one of the largest sources of air pollution in the nation, emitting a total of about 205,000 tons of SO2 and NOx in 2003.
Ohio Edison agreed to reduce emissions of harmful sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the Sammis plant, as well as from other Ohio Edison and its parent company’s coal-fired power plants, with an expected cost of approximately $1.1 billion. Ohio Edison also will provide a total of $10 million to the states of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut to perform environmentally beneficial projects related to air pollution in those states. The $8.5 million civil penalty imposed is the second largest penalty against a power plant. The $25 million amount for mitigation projects, to compensate for the harmful effects of Ohio Edison's past violations, is the largest mitigation project commitment in any of the United States' NSR settlements with utilities to date. See the EPA press release: http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/b1ab9f485b098972852562e7004dc686/11e00336eca5561e85256fc8005470fc!OpenDocument
International agreement and cooperation to protect the stratospheric ozone layer began with the negotiation of the Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer, concluded in 1985. The terms of the agreement were set forth in the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, signed in September 1987 and effective in 1989. In 1990, the signatory parties to the Montreal Protocol agreed to phase out controlled substances, including CFCs (chloro-fluoro carbons), halons, carbon tetrachloride, methyl chloroform, HCFCs, HBFCs, and methyl bromide. The obligations under the treaty required signatory nations to implement laws to enforce the phase out schedule. The US signed the Kyoto Protocol, or next phase of the climate change agreement in 1997, but has yet to ratify or support the agreement . The text of the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change may be found at http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
The hyperlink is to the Supreme Court’s opinion on the Oyez.org website. The federal Clean Air Act was enacted in 1970 and was later amended on more than one occasion. Section 202 (a) (1) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), provides: “The [Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. . . .” The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” § 7602(g).
Note that there’s a lot of politics involved in this case related to emissions controls on new vehicles and the issue of global warming!! Interestingly, the Clean Air Act specifically links to the Montreal Protocol which is an international treaty to reduce ozone-depleting substances (i.e., to reduce the greenhouse effect and global warming). For a good summary of the status of the Clean Air Act, see the Congressional Research Staff Report for Congress available at http://www.cnie.org/NLE/CRSreports/06Nov/RL32483.pdf. For further information on global warming and download of important documents, visit the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (awarded a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007) at http://www.ipcc.ch/
Two important points: (1) the Supreme Court did NOT order EPA to issue a rule, and (2) Massachusetts had standing to sue. With regard to the first point, the Court stated: “ We need not and do not reach the question whether on remand EPA must make an endangerment finding, or whether policy concerns can inform EPA.s actions in the event that it makes such a finding. Cf. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 843.844 (1984). We hold only that EPA must ground its reasons for action or inaction in the statute.” With regard to the second point, a notable fact is that Justice Stevens wrote the 5-4 opinion for the majority and both Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Scalia dissented. Chief Justice John Roberts, appointed to the Supreme Court in 2005 by George W. Bush, was Acting Solicitor General in 1990 and argued on behalf of the U.S. an important case related to the Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency case: Lujan v. National Wildlife Federation , 497 U.S. 871, 883-889, 111 L. Ed. 2d 695, 110 S. Ct. 3177 (1990). Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion in the National Wildlife Federation case, which held in a 5-4 decision that a plaintiff claiming injury from environmental damage must use the area affected by the challenged activity and not an area roughly "in the vicinity" of it. The ruling denied standing (right to sue) to the National Wildlife Federation in a challenge to an administrative agency (Bureau of Land Management). Of the four justices in the National Wildlife Federation minority, only Justice Stevens remained on the bench when Massachusetts v. EPA came before the court and he wrote the majority opinion ruling that Massachusetts had standing to sue the EPA. Sidebar: In Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (two years after the National Wildlife Case), Stevens was again in the minority (5-3) of a decision denying standing to an environmental organization challenging an agency. To summarize the Supreme Court’s “standing” on this issue, environmental organizations representing citizens do not have standing but a state representing citizens does have standing.
Link to the EPA presentation on the Clean Water Act at: http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/cwa/
Literally, the “fishable/swimmable” term means that humans may fish or swim in the river. Many water bodies are designated as “impaired.” The link is to the EPA TMDL website: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/tmdl/index.html
See EPA information about the regulatory authority for wetlands under Section 404: http://www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/pdf/reg_authority.pdf
Because of the very broad definition, a ditch that sometimes retains water long enough to grow cattails or other wetland vegetation may be a “wetland” by definition.
In U.S. v Hopkins , Robert Hopkins was Spirol’s vice president for manufacturing and falsified documents about compliance with an EPA consent decree. Hopkins was convicted following a jury trial and sentenced to 21 months in prison, with two years probation following that, and a $7,500 fine. Hopkins appealed, arguing that the government should have been required to prove that he intended to violate the law and that he had specific knowledge of the particular statutory, regulatory or permit requirements imposed under the Clean Water Act. The government contended that it was enough to prove that he had acted voluntarily or intentionally to falsify, tamper with, or render inaccurate a monitoring method—or to violate the permit—and that he did not do so by mistake, accident, or other innocent reason. The government was correct, of course!
“ Extremely acidic drainage with high concentrations of toxic heavy metals discharges from inactive underground mines and surface waste piles at Iron Mountain, California. The acid mine drainage (AMD) contains high concentrations of copper, cadmium, and zinc which are harmful to aquatic life and pose a potential threat to human health. The AMD from Iron Mountain discharges to creeks that flow into the Sacramento River between Shasta Dam and Redding. The creeks draining Iron Mountain are essentially devoid of aquatic life. The AMD discharges have significantly contributed to the decline of the Sacramento River fishery. The Winter Run chinook salmon has been designated as a federal endangered species, and other species of fish that spawn in the river are designated as threatened species.” See the full USGS documentation at http://ca.water.usgs.gov/projects00/ca527.html
About 350 pesticides are used on the foods we eat in the U.S. See the EPA Citizen Guide to Pest Control & Safety at http://www.epa.gov/OPPTpubs/Cit_Guide/citguide.pdf Other EPA fact sheets on pesticides are available at: http://www.epa.gov/pesticides/factsheets/health_fs.htm
Not considered to be an effective law.
In the U.S. v Dean case: General Metal Fabricators, Inc. (GMF), owned and operated a facility for metal stamping and plating. The facility utilized hazardous chemicals and generated hazardous waste but did not have a RCRA permit nor did it maintain the required records of the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. The hazardous waste disposal practices at GMF were discovered by chance by state waste-management authorities whose attention was caught, while driving to an appointment at another facility, by two 55-gallon drums abandoned among weeds on GMF’s property. The owners of GMF, Joseph and Jean Sanchez, as well as Clyde Griffith, the plant manager, and Gale Dean, the production manager, were indicted for conspiracy to violate RCRA, and, individually, for violations of various sections of RCRA. At his request, Dean’s trial was severed from that of the other defendants. Dean dumped and buried drums of hazardous waste for five years rather than properly dispose of the materials. Dean was convicted of conspiracy to violate RCRA as well as of (1) failure to file documentation of hazardous waste generation, storage, and disposal; (2) storage of spent chromic acid without a permit; (3) disposal of chromic acid rinse water and sludges in a lagoon without a permit; and (4) disposal of paint sludge and solvent wastes in a pit without a permit, all in violation of RCRA. Dean appealed his conviction. The government won, of course! In U.S. v. Sanchez Enterprises, Inc., et al. (the suit against the parent company of General Metal Fabricators and the company’s owners), on August 22, 1991, Sanchez Entelprises, Inc. entered a plea of guilty to a single felony violation of RCRA for the illegal disposal of hazardous waste. The corporation was fined $150,000, of which $25,000 is to be paid into an environmental fund for the State of Tennessee.
In the U.S. v Dean case: General Metal Fabricators, Inc. (GMF), owned and operated a facility for metal stamping and plating. The facility utilized hazardous chemicals and generated hazardous waste but did not have a RCRA permit nor did it maintain the required records of the treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous substances. The hazardous waste disposal practices at GMF were discovered by chance by state waste-management authorities whose attention was caught, while driving to an appointment at another facility, by two 55-gallon drums abandoned among weeds on GMF’s property. The owners of GMF, Joseph and Jean Sanchez, as well as Clyde Griffith, the plant manager, and Gale Dean, the production manager, were indicted for conspiracy to violate RCRA, and, individually, for violations of various sections of RCRA. At his request, Dean’s trial was severed from that of the other defendants. Dean dumped and buried drums of hazardous waste for five years rather than properly dispose of the materials. Dean was convicted of conspiracy to violate RCRA as well as of (1) failure to file documentation of hazardous waste generation, storage, and disposal; (2) storage of spent chromic acid without a permit; (3) disposal of chromic acid rinse water and sludges in a lagoon without a permit; and (4) disposal of paint sludge and solvent wastes in a pit without a permit, all in violation of RCRA. Dean appealed his conviction. The government won, of course! In U.S. v. Sanchez Enterprises, Inc., et al. (the suit against the parent company of General Metal Fabricators and the company’s owners), on August 22, 1991, Sanchez Entelprises, Inc. entered a plea of guilty to a single felony violation of RCRA for the illegal disposal of hazardous waste. The corporation was fined $150,000, of which $25,000 is to be paid into an environmental fund for the State of Tennessee.
Superfund was created as part of a set of amendments (Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986) to be an “insurance” to cover remediation of sites where the PRPs were not identifiable or defunct. Check the photo gallery of the EPA Superfund site to see a number of “before and after” photos: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/action/process/sfgallry.htm
In United States v. Domenic Lombardi Realty, a subsequent purchaser was held liable for cleaning up a property that had been contaminated, in part, by the actions of its predecessor in title.
The link is to the FWS endangered species webpage: http://www.fws.gov/endangered/ Statistics on listed species current as of 2/10/06.
Photos left to right: Bald eagle (recovering), California gnatcatcher (threatened), Florida panther (endangered, with approximately 30 animals in the wild). According to the Sierra Club: The U.S. has destroyed more than half its wetlands The U.S. has logged 95-98% of its virgin forests in the lower 48 states At least 80% of the coastline in the lower 48 states has been developed. The Earth is losing up to 50,000 species per year (E.O. Wilson & Stephen Kellert, Eds., 1993. The Biophilia Hypothesis. Washington, DC: Island Press.).
CITES is an international version of the U.S. Endangered Species Act, requiring each nation to list threatened and endangered species and for each nation to protect the listed species from other nations. The link is to the CITES webpage.
The links are to the relevant programs
False. While the statute literally applies to federal agencies, by the nature of the regulatory scheme, NEPA also applies to state agencies and impacts private entities desiring a permit from a state or federal agency. True. True. True.
True. False. CERCLA is a constitutional and retroactive law. False. Most states have taken primacy for implementation and enforcement of the laws. True.
The correct answer is (d). An Environmental Impact Statement must analyze the: Impact of proposed action on the environment Any expected adverse effects of the action Practical and feasible alternative methods Any irreversible effects the action might generate
The correct answer is (e). A PRP is defined as: Current owners or operators of facility or vessel; Former owners or operators of facility or vessel, if they owned the property at time of disposal; Those who arrange for treatment or disposal of hazardous substances at a facility (usually the generators); and Transporters of hazardous substances who selected the disposal site
Opportunity to discuss environmental issues, corporate social responsibility, and society.
