Law Commons^™

Opening The Gates Of Cow Palace: Regulating Runoff Manure As A Hazardous Waste Under Rcra, Reed J. Mccalib

Michigan Law Review

In 2015, a federal court held for the first time that the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) may regulate runoff manure as a “solid waste” under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”). The holding of Community Ass’n for Restoration of the Environment, Inc. v. Cow Palace, LLC opened the gates to regulation of farms under the nation’s primary toxic waste statute. This Comment argues that, once classified as a “solid waste,” runoff manure fits RCRA’s definition of “hazardous waste” as well. This reclassification would expand EPA’s authority to monitor and respond to the nation’s tragically common groundwater-contamination emergencies.

Inside Agency Preemption, Catherine M. Sharkey

Michigan Law Review

A subtle shift has taken place in the mechanics of preemption, the doctrine that determines when federal law displaces state law. In the past, Congress was the leading actor, and courts and commentators focused almost exclusively on the precise wording of its statutory directives as a clue to its intent to displace state law. Federal agencies were, if not ignored, certainly no more than supporting players. But the twenty-first century has witnessed a role reversal. Federal agencies now play the dominant role in statutory interpretation. The U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the ascendancy of federal agencies in preemption disputes-an ascendancy …

Is The Clean Air Act Unconstitutional?, Cass R. Sunstein

Michigan Law Review

This Article deals with two linked questions. The first involves the future of the Clean Air Act. The particular concern is how the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") might be encouraged, with help from reviewing courts, to issue better ambient air quality standards, and in the process to shift from some of the anachronisms of 1970s environmentalism to a more fruitful approach to environmental protection. The second question involves the role of the nondelegation doctrine in American public law, a doctrine that shows unmistakable signs of revival. I will suggest that improved performance by EPA and agencies in general, operating in …

Enforcement Of Tsca And The Federal Five-Year Statute Of Limitations For Penalty Actions, Teresa A. Holderer

Michigan Law Review

Many years prior to TSCA, Congress enacted a general five-year statute of limitations for actions for the enforcement of civil penalties, fines, and forfeitures, which, if applicable, would alleviate these problems. Although the Agency claims that no statute of limitations applies, this Note argues that the general five-year statute of limitations, found in section 2462 of title 28, should apply to EPA's administrative proceedings to assess penalties as well as to later collection actions in federal courts. Part I details TSCA's enforcement procedures, which create special difficulties when applying section 2462's statute of limitations. Part I also examines how EPA, …

Notice By Citizen Plaintiffs In Environmental Litigation, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

This Note evaluates judicial handling of citizen suits tainted by defective notice. After reviewing the legislative history of the citizen suit provisions, the Note presents an array of judicial responses to defective notice and classifies decisions by their stringency in applying the notice provision. In the final section, the Note argues that Congress's purpose in requiring notice should determine the limits of judicial tolerance of defective notice. It concludes that courts should dismiss citizen suits unless actual notice of intent to sue, whether or not in the form specified by EPA regulations, was given sixty days before the filing of …

Relaxation Of Implementation Plans Under The 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments, David P. Currie

Michigan Law Review

This Article probes the convoluted ameliorative provisions of the 1977 Amendments in three parts. Section I deals with delayed compliance orders - orders granted to stationary sources unable to meet the statutory deadlines for compliance. Section 113( d) is the fountainhead provision, and besides a general provision for delayed compliance, it also contains specific provisions for sources unable to comply due to retirement of present facilities, due to investment in innovative facilities with the promise of greater pollution reduction in the future or due to government orders to convert from cleaner fuels to coal.

Section II analyzes two specific relief …