Q U E S T I O N S
1. Atlantic Cement operated a large cement plant. Neighboring landowners sued for damages and an injunction, claiming that their properties were injured by the dirt, smoke, and vibrations coming from the plant. The lower court found that the plant constituted a nuisance and granted temporary damages but refused to grant an injunction because the benefits of operating the plant outweighed the harm to the plaintiffs’ properties. The landowners appealed. Does the plant constitute a nuisance? Should it be shut down? Explain.
2. Seindenberg and Hutchinson (the site owners) leased a four-acre tract of land (the Bluff Road site) to a chemical manufacturing corporation (COCC). While the lease initially was for the sole purpose of allowing COCC to store raw materials and finished products in a warehouse on the land, COCC later expanded its business to include the brokering and recycling of chemical waste generated by third parties. COCC’s owners subsequently formed a new corporation, South Carolina Recycling and Disposal, Inc. (SCRDI), for the purpose of taking over COCC’s waste handling business. The site owners accepted rent from SCRDI. The waste stored at Bluff Road contained many chemical substances that Federal law defines as hazardous. Subsequently, the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the site was a major fire hazard. The Federal government contracted with a third party to perform a partial cleanup of the site. South Carolina completed the cleanup. The Federal government and South Carolina sued SCRDI, COCC, the site owners, and three third-party generators as responsible parties under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. Explain whether the United States and South Carolina will prevail.
3. The State of Y submits a plan under the Clean Air Act to attain national ambient air quality standards. Can the Environmental Protection Agency administrator deny approval of the State plan because it is (a) less stringent or (b) more stringent than the agency believes is feasible? Explain.
4. Kennecott Copper Corp. brings a challenge to an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order that rejected a portion of the State of Nevada’s implementation plan dealing with the control of stationary sources of sulfur dioxide (SO 2). All of the SO 2 emissions come from a single source—the Kennecott copper smelter at McGill. The EPA bases its decision on the belief that the Clean Air Act National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) must be met by continuous emission limitations to the maximum extent possible and that the Act permits the intermittent use of emission controls only when continuous controls are not economically feasible. Kennecott contends that the EPA must approve any State implementation plan that will attain and maintain an NAAQS within the statutory time period. Who will prevail? Why?
5. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) administrator issued an order suspending the registration of the pesticides heptachlor and chlordane under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Velsicol Chemical Corp., the sole manufacturer of these pesticides, brings an action contending that the evidence does not support the administrator’s contention that the continued use of these chemicals poses an imminent the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) contend (a) that the EPA’s laboratory tests on mice and rats do not “conclusively” show that either chemical is carcinogenic, (b) that mice are too prone to tumors to be reliable test subjects, and (c) that human exposure to these chemicals is insuffi- cient to create a risk. Nonetheless, human epidemiology studies on both chemicals provide no basis for conclud-
ing that either pesticide is safe. The administrator based part of his claim on residues of thesechemicals found in soil, air, and the aquatic ecosystem over long periods of time and on the presence of these chemicals in the human diet and human tissue. Does FIFRA apply in this situation? Explain
