News
[03/10]
China tells US to do more on climate change
[03/09]
US-born panda freed from quarantine in China
[03/09]
Britain could force owners to microchip their dogs
More...
Articles
Occupational Safety and Health
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) is a well-known federal law setting forth safety standards for the workplace. OSHA cannot be used to punish an employer for an unforeseeable accident, but requires an employer to keep its workplace free of "recognized hazards" that could harm employees. Such hazards include faulty equipment and environmental hazards like spilled toxins and pollutants. An employer may be fined $7,000 for each initial violation of OSHA and up to $70,000 for each willful or repeated violation of the law.
More...
Spill and Contamination Liability
Both state and federal environmental laws impose liability for cleanup on owners, buyers, and operators of property that has been contaminated by hazardous material, as well as on parties who generate and ship hazardous waste to someone else's property for disposal. Two of the most notable of these laws are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA). Both of these laws are discussed in more detail below.
More...
|
|
Case Summaries
[03/09]
Native Ecosystems Council v. Tidwell
In an action challenging the Forest Service's approval of a project to update grazing allotments in the Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, summary judgment for defendant is reversed where: 1) because the Forest Service's environmental assessment was based on a nonexistent management indicator species, its habitat proxy analysis was not reliable; and 2) the Forest Service failed to take the requisite "hard look" at the project as required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
[03/08]
Kane Cty. v. US
In an appeal from the denial of plaintiffs' motion to intervene in an action brought by Kane County, Utah, to quiet title to several purported rights-of-way across federal public lands, the order is affirmed where: 1) even assuming plaintiffs had an interest in the quiet title proceedings at issue, plaintiffs failed to establish that the U.S. could not adequately represent plaintiffs' interest; and 2) the denial of permissive intervention was not arbitrary and capricious.
[03/08]
Morris v. US Nuclear Reg. Comm'n.
In a petition for review of a license granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to conduct in situ leach mining for uranium on four sites in northwest New Mexico, the petition is denied where: 1) the clear language of 10 C.F.R. section 20.1301(a)(1) supported the NRC's decision to focus only on the licensed operation; 2) the National Environmental Policy Act did not prohibit approval of projects with negative cumulative effects; it only required that the agency consider and disclose such effects; and 3) there was no evidence in the administrative record to support petitioners' assertion that the NRC based its adoption of the nine-pore-volume restoration effort on economic reasons.
More...
|
