首页> 外文期刊>Boston College environmental affairs law review >STAGED CERCLA REMEDIATION VS. BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLING: HOW THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COMPARTMENTALIZED THE ENVIRONMENT IN FREY v. EPA, AND WHY POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS DON'T CARE
【24h】

STAGED CERCLA REMEDIATION VS. BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLING: HOW THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT COMPARTMENTALIZED THE ENVIRONMENT IN FREY v. EPA, AND WHY POLYCHLORINATED BIPHENYLS DON'T CARE

机译:分段CERCLA修复VS。生物地球化学循环:第七电路如何将FREY诉EPA中的环境分拆,为什么不使用多氯联苯?

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

For decades, toxic chemicals have leaked from disposed electronic equipment into the environment at several sites around Bloomington, Indiana. The contamination has resulted in a series of lawsuits concerning when citizens may bring legal claims in order to have input in the cleanup process. The Seventh Circuit, in Frey v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, held that section 113(h)(4) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, bars review of the EPA's planned or pending stages of an environmental cleanup. The court held, however, that CERCLA allows review of completed stages of a cleanup as long as they are not directly related to the EPA's new remediation plans. This Comment argues that although the decision is a sensible legal compromise, it ignores the established scientific concept of biogeochemical cycling: matter is not static, it moves throughout the many compartments of Earth's surface. The Seventh Circuit's decision ignores this scientific truth and instead creates illusory distinctions between environmental compartments in order to satisfy a legal rule. Although the decision ignores the process of biogeochemical cycling, it nonetheless creates a predictable precedent. Additionally, this Comment argues that the Seventh Circuit's decision will not have a practical impact on the remediation of the Bloomington, Indiana sites, or any other CERCLA cleanup sites in the court's jurisdiction, because the EPA's remediation plans, which account for biogeochemical cycling, will continue unaffected.
机译:数十年来,有毒化学物质已从废弃的电子设备泄漏到印第安纳州布卢明顿附近几个地点的环境中。污染导致了一系列诉讼,涉及公民何时可以提出法律要求以输入清理过程。第七巡回法院在Frey诉美国环境保护署案中裁定,《综合环境响应,赔偿和责任法》或CERCLA的第113(h)(4)条禁止对EPA计划中的或待定的环境阶段进行审查清理。但是,法院认为,CERCLA允许审查清理的完成阶段,只要它们与EPA的新补救计划没有直接关系即可。该意见认为,尽管该决定是明智的法律妥协,但它忽略了已建立的生物地球化学循环的科学概念:物质不是静态的,而是在地球表面的许多部分中移动的。第七巡回法院的裁决无视这一科学真理,而是在环境隔间之间建立了虚幻的区分,以满足法律规则。尽管该决定忽略了生物地球化学循环的过程,但却创造了可预测的先例。此外,此评论认为,第七巡回法院的裁决不会对布卢明顿,印第安纳州的场地或法院管辖范围内的任何其他CERCLA清理场地的修复产生实际影响,因为考虑到生物地球化学循环的EPA修复计划将继续不受影响。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号