Deck 52: Environmental Regulation

Question 1

The U.S. Forest Service is responsible for managing the Cabinet Mountain Wilderness Area in Northwestern Montana. The wilderness area consists of approximately 94,272 acres and is part of the Cabinet-Yank ecosystem, one of only six ecosystems in the continental United States that supports populations of grizzly bears. The bears are listed as an endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. ASARCO, which holds 149 unpatented mining claims (covering 2,980 acres) located in the wilderness area, has applied to the Forest Service for permission to conduct exploratory drilling to assess the extent of copper and silver deposits in the area. ASARCO proposes to drill 36 drill holes on 22 sites in a portion of the wilderness area with a similar level of activity in each of the next three years. Each drill site is limited to an area of 20 feet by 20 feet. Over the four-year period, these sites will occupy a combined area of about one-half acre.
During the time drilling is being conducted, the drilling equipment, personnel, and supplies would be brought in by helicopter, and the company has proposed that the workers would camp overnight at the site while the drilling was being conducted. It is estimated that only about a dozen grizzly bears may inhabit the portion of the wilderness area where the drilling will take place. If the exploratory drilling reveals significant deposits of copper or silver at any particular site, the company might seek a permit to conduct developmental exploration or mineral extraction at the site. This would have some potential to impact the feeding and denning activities of the bears-and in turn their reproductive success-depending on where the activity is conducted, when it is conducted, and how substantial the activity is.
Should issuance of the requested exploratory drilling permit to ASARCO be considered "a major federal action significantly affecting the environment," thus requiring the Forest Service to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)?

Answer 1

The Law of the environment means rules and regulations formed for the safety of the environment, natural resources, forests, animals, fisheries and wildlife. If anyone violates these rules and regulations then he is punished by the environment protection authority. Everyone is living only because of nature, we fetch many things for our livelihood from nature. For the living, we need oxygen and that oxygen we get from Forest, trees, and plants. According to this law, we can protect the environment by educating people about the importance of the environment, Preserving water, plantation, etc.
This is very important to make a law for environmental safety and environmental balancing. Animals, birds they are speechless creatures of nature and this is human's responsibility to protect these animals, birds. Creatures and wildlife from any disaster. These animals, birds, and wildlife maintain a balance in the environment.
If anyone wants to do anything with the environment then he has to take permission from the environment protection authority, he has to submit the environmental impact report to the environment protection authority. Any waste material produced from any factory or any premises alloys with the water is a legal offense and the person who is related to this factory or premises is liable to punish by the environment protection authority. The cutting of trees is a legal offense the person who is cutting trees is legally enforceable under law.
In the given case, the ASARCO wants permission from FS for drilling holes in the forest. As explained above if anyone wants to do anything with the wildlife has to take permission from the concerned environment protection authority. In this case, the FS can permit drilling because this activity has not a major impact on the wildlife as explained in the question but the further extraction of minerals from the drilling site has a major impact on the forest, so the FS cannot give the permit of Extraction of minerals from the drilling site. FS can only permit drilling holes because this drilling has less impact on wildlife.
Hence, the issuance of the requested exploratory drilling permit to ASARCO is not considered 'a major federal action significantly affecting the environment. Hence the Environmental impact statement is not required by ASARCO.

Question 2

In July, Vanguard Corporation began operating a metal furniture manufacturing plant in Brooklyn, New York. The plant is located in an area that has not attained the national ambient air quality standards for ozone. The plant is a major stationary source (i.e., has the potential to emit more than 100 tons a year) of volatile organic compounds that contribute to the production of ozone in the atmosphere. The New York state implementation plan (SIP) requires that metal-coating facilities use paint that contains less than three pounds of organic solvent (minus water) per gallon at the time of coating. On August 24, EPA notified Vanguard that it was not in compliance with the SIP provision concerning coatings and issued it a notice of violation. Vanguard sought to defend against the notice of violation on the grounds that it had used its best faith efforts to comply but that full compliance was technologically and economically infeasible. It indicated that it wanted 18 more months to come into compliance. Should Vanguard be held to be in violation of the Clean Air Act?

Answer 2

The Law of the environment means rules and regulations formed for the safety of the environment, natural resources, forests, animals, fisheries and wildlife. If anyone violates these rules and regulations then he is punished by the environment protection authority. Everyone is living only because of nature, we fetch many things for our livelihood from nature. For the living, we need oxygen and that oxygen we get from Forest, trees, and plants. According to this law, we can protect the environment by educating people about the importance of the environment, Preserving water, plantation, etc.
This is very important to make a law for environmental safety and environmental balancing. Animals, birds they are speechless creatures of nature and this is human's responsibility to protect these animals, birds. Creatures and wildlife from any disaster. These animals, birds, and wildlife maintain a balance in the environment.
If anyone wants to do anything with the environment then he has to take permission from the environment protection authority, he has to submit the environmental impact report to the environment protection authority. Any waste material produced from any factory or any premises alloys with the water is a legal offense and the person who is related to this factory or premises is liable to punish by the environment protection authority. The cutting of trees is a legal offense the person who is cutting trees is legally enforceable under law.
In the given case, VC is not obeying the provisions of the SIP, that's why EPA issued a notice to the VC for not complying with the SPA provisions. Although there is no quality of air standard there is SIP meant for Furniture coating standards where the plant of VC is located, that's why the VC must obey the SIP provisions. If VC violates the SIP provision then he is punishable by the law but he is not bound by the air quality standard because VC's action gives harm to the air because as explained above if anyone gives any harm to the environment, then he is punishable under the environment act. So, in this case, VC cannot respite himself from the notice issued by the EPA.
Hence, VC is held to violate the Clean Air Act.

Question 3

In August, Tzavah Urban Renewal Corporation purchased from the city of Newark a building formerly known as the Old Military Park Hotel. While the buyer was given an opportunity to inspect the building, it was not informed by the city that the building was permeated with asbestos-containing material. At the time of the purchase, the building was in great disrepair and had been uninhabited for many years. Its proposed renovation was to be a major urban renewal project. In the following June, Tzavah contracted with Greer Industrial Corporation to "gut" the building. While the work was going on, an EPA inspector visited the site and concluded that the hotel was contaminated with asbestos. He observed Greer employees throwing asbestos-laced objects out of the windows of the building and noted an uncovered refuse pile next to the hotel that contained asbestos. The workers were not wetting the debris before heaving it out the windows and the refuse pile was also dry. As a result, asbestos dust was being released into the air. Although the hotel was located in a commercial district, there were private homes nearby. Renovation of buildings contaminated with asbestos is regulated under the Clean Air Act. The EPA regulations require building owners or operators to notify EPA before commencing renovation or demolition and prescribe various procedures for storage and removal of the asbestos. Tzavah failed to provide the required notice or to comply with procedures required. After being notified by EPA of the violation of the law, Tzavah stopped the demolition work, left the building unsecured, and left the waste piles dry and uncovered. EPA tried informally to get Tzavah to complete the work in accordance with the asbestos regulations; when Tzavah did not take action, EPA brought a lawsuit against Tzavah to do so. Should the court issue an injunction requiring Tzavah to abate the hazard posed by the dry asbestos remaining in the hotel?

Answer 3

The Law of the environment means rules and regulations formed for the safety of the environment, natural resources, forests, animals, fisheries and wildlife. If anyone violates these rules and regulations then he is punished by the environment protection authority. Everyone is living only because of nature, we fetch many things for our livelihood from nature. For the living, we need oxygen and that oxygen we get from Forest, trees, and plants. According to this law, we can protect the environment by educating people about the importance of the environment, Preserving water, plantation, etc.
This is very important to make a law for environmental safety and environmental balancing. Animals, birds they are speechless creatures of nature and this is human's responsibility to protect these animals, birds. Creatures and wildlife from any disaster. These animals, birds, and wildlife maintain a balance in the environment.
If anyone wants to do anything with the environment then he has to take permission from the environment protection authority, he has to submit the environmental impact report to the environment protection authority. Any waste material produced from any factory or any premises alloys with the water is a legal offense and the person who is related to this factory or premises is liable to punish by the environment protection authority. The cutting of trees is a legal offense the person who is cutting trees is legally enforceable under law.
In the given case, When TURC purchased a building he was not aware of that the building contains harmful material, although the seller not informed the buyer that the building contains harmful material but he gave the right to the buyer to inspect the building at the time of the selling this building. It is TURC's fault of not inspecting the building. Hence, he will be legally enforceable by the EPA for not informing about this harmful material to the EPA because as explained above if anyone gives any harm to the environment then he is punishable under law.
In this case, although TURC gives the contract of renovation to GIC the TURC will be held liable for the act done by GIC's employees, TURC cannot defend the notice issued by the EPA but the court cannot issue the retain the harmful material in the building, this material has to dispose according to the rules.
Hence, the court cannot issue an injunction requiring TURC to abate the hazard posed by the dry asbestos remaining in the hotel.

Question 4

Villegas was co-owner and vice-president of Plaza Health Laboratories, a blood testing laboratory in Brooklyn, New York. On two occasions between April and September, Villegas loaded containers of numerous vials of human blood generated from his business into his personal car and drove to his residence in a condominium complex in Edgewater, New Jersey. There he removed the containers from his car and carried them to the edge of the Hudson River, where he placed them in a bulkhead that separates his condominium complex from the river. The vials were placed during low tide in a crevice in the bulkhead that was below the high-water line.
In May, a group of eighth graders on a field trip on Staten Island discovered numerous glass vials containing human blood along the shore and in the water. Ultimately 70 vials were recovered; some of them were cracked and others remained intact. The vials, some of which contained blood infected with hepatitis-B virus, were traced back to Plaza Health Laboratories. In September, a maintenance worker at the condominium complex discovered other vials wedged in the bulkhead; they were also traced back to Plaza Health Laboratories.
The United States brought a criminal action against Villegas, charging him with "knowingly discharging pollutants from a point source into a water of the United States." The Clean Water Act defines "point source" to be a "discernable, confined and discrete conveyance, including but not limited to any pipe, ditch, tunnel, conduit, well, discrete fissure...." but does not enumerate human beings among the enumerated items. After Villegas was convicted by a jury, he appealed, contending that the government had not established one necessary element of the crime with which he was charged, namely that the discharge had come from a "point source" as that term is used in the statute. Should his conviction be reversed on the grounds there was no discharge from a point source?

Question 5

Mall Properties, Inc., was an organization that for many years sought to develop a shopping mall in the Town of North Haven, Connecticut, a suburb of New Haven. Because the proposed development would require the filling of some wetlands, Mall Properties was required to obtain a permit from the Corps of Engineers pursuant to section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The City of New Haven opposed development of the mall-and the granting of the permit-on the grounds it would jeopardize the fragile economy of New Haven. The Corps of Engineers found the net loss of wetlands would be substantially compensated for by a proposed on-site wetland creation. Relying primarily on the socioeconomic concerns of the City of New Haven, the district engineer rejected the proposed permit. Mall Properties then brought suit against the Corps of Engineers, claiming that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. Should the district engineer have relied on socioeconomic factors unrelated to the project's environmental impacts in making a decision on the permit?

Question 6

The General Metal Fabricators, Inc. (GMF), facility in Erwin, Tennessee, was engaged in metal stamping, plating, and painting. The facility utilized hazardous chemicals and generated hazardous waste. No RCRA permit had been sought for the GMF facility. 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.
Gale Dean, the production manager, had day-to-day supervision of GMF's production process and employees. Among his duties was the instruction of employees on hazardous waste handling and disposal. Numerous practices at GMF violated RCRA. GMF's plating operations utilized rinse baths, contaminated with hazardous chemicals, which were drained through a pipe into an earthen lagoon outside the facility. In addition, Dean instructed employees to shovel various kinds of solid wastes from the tanks into 55-gallon drums. Dean ordered the construction of a pit, concealed behind the facility, into which 38 drums of such hazardous waste were tossed. The contents spilled onto the soil from open or corroded drums. Chemical analyses of soil and solid wastes revealed that the lagoon and the pit were contaminated with chromium. In addition, the pit was contaminated with toluene and xylene solvents. All of these substances are hazardous. Drums of spent chromic acid solution were also illegally stored on the premises.
Dean was familiar with the chemicals used in each of the tanks on the production lines, and described to authorities the manner in which the contents of the rinse tanks were deposited in the lagoon. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided to GMF by the chemical manufacturer clearly stated that various chemicals in use at GMF were hazardous and were subject to state and federal pollution control laws. The MSDS were given to investigators by Dean, who demonstrated his knowledge of their contents. The MSDS delivered with the chromic acid made specific reference to RCRA and to related EPA regulations. Dean informed investigators that he "had read this RCRA waste code but thought it was a bunch of bull****."
RCRA makes it a crime for "Any person to... knowingly treat, store, or dispose of any hazardous waste... without a permit...." Dean, along with the plant manager and the owners of the company, were indicted for conspiracy to violate RCRA, and, individually, for violations of various sections of the statute. Dean was convicted of, among other things, knowingly storing, and of disposing of, hazardous wastes without a permit. He appealed the conviction, contending that (1) RCRA requires that the owner of a facility have a permit and that since he was not the owner, he should not have been convicted of storing and disposing without a permit; and (2) that the materials were not hazardous because of the way he had stored or disposed of them. Has Dean stated sound reasons why his conviction should be reversed?

Question 7

The Royal McBee Corporation manufactured typewriters at a factory in Springfield, Missouri. As a part of the manufacturing process, Royal McBee generated cyanide- based electroplating wastes, sludge from the bottom of electroplating tanks, and spent plating bath solution. As part of their duties, Royal McBee employees dumped the wastes onto the surface of the soil on a vacant lot adjoining the factory. This took place between 1959 and 1962. Over time, the waste materials migrated outward and downward from the original dumping site, contaminating a large area. In 1970, the manufacturing facility and lot were sold to General Electric, which operated the plant but did not engage in the dumping of wastes on the vacant lot. In the mid-1980s, General Electric was required by EPA and the state of Missouri, under the authority of the federal Superfund law, to clean up the contamination at the site. General Electric then brought a lawsuit against the successor corporation of Royal McBee's typewriter business, Litton Business Systems, to recover for the costs incurred in cleaning up the site. Under the Superfund law, "any person who at the time of disposal of any hazardous substance owned or operated any facilities at which such hazardous substances were disposed of, shall be liable for any other necessary costs of response incurred by any other person" consistent with the Superfund law and regulations. Is General Electric entitled to recover its cleanup costs from Litton?