output
stringclasses 2
values | input
stringlengths 425
1.96k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
1
|
This consistent understanding of “system[s] of emission reduction” tracked the seemingly universal view, as stated by EPA in its inaugural Section 111(d) rulemaking, that “Congress intended a technology-based approach” to regulation in that Section. 40 Fed. Reg. 53343 (1975); see id., at 53341 (“degree of control to be reflected in EPA’s emission guidelines” will be based on “application of best adequately demonstrated control technology”). A technology-based standard, recall, is one that focuses on improving the emissions performance of individual sources. EPA “commonly referred to” the “level of control” required as a “best demonstrated technology (BDT)” standard, 73 Fed. Reg. 34073, and consistently applied it as such. E.g., 61 Fed. Reg. 9907 (declaring “BDT” to be “a well-designed and well-operated gas collection system and ... a control device capable of reducing [harmful gases] in the collected gas by 98 weight-percent.”). Indeed, EPA nodded to this history in the Clean Power Plan itself, describing the sort of “systems of emission reduction” it had always before selected—“efficiency improvements, fuel-switching,” and “add-on controls”—as “more traditional air pollution control measures.” 80 Fed. Reg. 64784. The Agency noted that it had “considered” such measures as potential systems of emission reduction for carbon dioxide, ibid., including a measure it ultimately adopted as a “component” of the BSER, namely, heat rate improvements. Id., at 64727.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
We cannot accept petitioners' arguments that the Administrator's determination whether technology was “available,” within the meaning of section 202(b)(5)(D) of the Act, must be based solely on technology in being as of the time of the application, and that the requirement that this be “available” precludes any consideration by the Administrator of what he determines to be the “probable” or likely sequence of the technology already experienced. Congress recognized that approximately two years' time was required before the start of production for a given model year, for the preparation of tooling and manufacturing processes.40 But Congress did not decide–and there is no reason for us to do so–that all development had to be completed before the tooling up period began. The manufacturers' engineers have admitted that technological improvements can continue during the two years prior to production.41 Thus there was a sound basis for the Administrator's conclusion that the manufacturers could “improve, test, and apply” technology during the lead time period
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
What, then, is the function of the s 304(b) guidelines? As we noted earlier, s 304(b) requires EPA to identify the amount of effluent reduction attainable through use of the best practicable or available technology and to “specify factors to be taken into account” in determining the pollution control methods “to be applicable to point sources . . . within such categories or classes.” These guidelines are to be issued “(f)or the purpose of adopting or revising effluent limitations under this Act.”21 As we read it, s 304 requires that the guidelines survey the practicable or available pollution-control technology for an industry and assess its effectiveness. The guidelines are then to describe the methodology EPA intends to use in the s 301 regulations to determine the effluent limitations for particular plants. If the technical complexity of the task had not prevented EPA from issuing the guidelines within the statutory deadline,22 they could have provided valuable guidance to permit issuers, industry, and the public, prior to the issuance of the s 301 regulations.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
More importantly, to allow a variance based on the maximum technology affordable by the point source, even if that technology fails to meet BPT effluent limitations, would undercut the purpose and function of BPT limitations. Rather than the 1987 requirement of the best measures economically and technologically feasible, the statutory provisions for 1977 contemplate regulations prohibiting discharges from any point source in excess of the effluent produced by the best practicable technology currently available in the industry. The Administrator was referred to the industry and to existing practices to determine BPT. He was to categorize point sources, examine control practices in exemplary plants in each category, and, after weighing benefits and costs and considering other factors specified by § 304, determine and define the best practicable technology at a level that would effect the obvious statutory goal for 1977 of substantially reducing the total pollution produced by each category of the industry. Necessarily, if pollution is to be diminished, limitations based on BPT must forbid the level of effluent produced by the most pollution-prone segment of the industry, that segment not measuring up to “the average of the best existing performance.” So understood, the statute contemplated regulations that would require a substantial number of point sources with the poorest performances either to conform to BPT standards or to cease production. To allow a variance based on economic capability and not to require adherence to the prescribed minimum technology would permit the employment of the very practices that the Administrator had rejected in establishing the best practicable technology currently in use in the industry.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Section 111(a)(1), as revised in 1977, requires EPA to weigh cost, energy, and nonair quality health and environmental factors in setting a percentage reduction standard achievable by the best technological system of continuous emission reduction. During its passage through Congress the Conferees issued a clarifying statement that EPA may promulgate a variable percentage reduction standard so long as the agency determines that the standard does not undermine the essential purposes of the Act.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The parties agree that these purposes are as follows: 1. The standards must not give a competitive advantage to one State over another in attracting industry. 2. The standards must maximize the potential for long-term economic growth by reducing emissions as much as practicable. This would increase the amount of industrial growth possible within the limits set by the air quality standards. 3. The standards must to the extent practical force the installation of all the control technology that will ever be necessary on new plants at the time of construction when it is cheaper to install, thereby minimizing the need for retrofit in the future when air quality standards begin to set limits to growth. 4 and 5. The standards to the extent practical must force new sources to burn high-sulfur fuel thus freeing low-sulfur fuel for use in existing sources where it is harder to control emissions and where low-sulfur fuel is needed for compliance. This will (1) allow old sources to operate longer and (2) expand environmentally acceptable energy supplies. 6. The standards should be stringent in order to force the development of improved technology.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
As a general matter, we agree with the EPA that a product ban can lead to great innovation, and it is true that an agency under TSCA, as under other regulatory statutes, “is empowered to issue safety standards which require improvements in existing technology or which require the development of new technology.” Chrysler Corp. v. Department of Transp., 472 F.2d 659, 673 (6th Cir.1972). As even the EPA acknowledges, however, when no adequate substitutes currently exist, the EPA cannot fail to consider this lack when formulating its own guidelines. Under TSCA, therefore, the EPA must present a stronger case to justify the ban, as opposed to regulation, of products with no substitutes.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Despite New Jersey's concerns, the EPA's certification provision does not conflict with the Act and is not arbitrary and capricious. Although the EPA did not revise the guidance documents, the EPA's case-by-case approach adequately ensures that RACT determinations will take into account advances in technology. First, the EPA has directed states to consider available information in addition to the CTG and ACT documents when making RACT determinations. Id. at 71,655/1. If a state is presented with information indicating that a previous RACT determination is inappropriate, the state must consider that information and modify its RACT determinations accordingly. Id. Second, when submitting RACT certifications to the EPA as part of their RACT SIP submissions, states must provide supporting information. Id. at 71,655/2. Third, if additional information is presented during notice-and-comment rulemaking, both the state and the EPA are required to consider that information as part of the rulemaking; this includes information presented during notice-and-comment rulemaking for RACT SIP submissions for previously controlled sources. Id. Because the EPA could reasonably conclude that these mechanisms will ensure the case-by-case determinations will take into account advances in technology, the EPA could also reasonably conclude “that the best way to address the possibility that CTGs or ACTs might not reflect all currently available technologies was by requiring each State to consider any new available information in making its certification, which will then be reviewed by the EPA as part of the SIP submission process,” EPA Br. at 67; see also Phase 2 Rule, 70 Fed.Reg. at 71,655/1. See Nat'l Wildlife Fed'n v. EPA, 286 F.3d 554, 566–67 (D.C.Cir.2002). Likewise, given the assurances **172 *1255 that RACT determinations will reflect advances in technology, the EPA's approach is consistent with the statutory goal of timely attainment of the NAAQS,
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Congress's objective in the Clean Water Act is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters” through the elimination of pollutant discharge into those waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(a). Through the Act, Congress designed a comprehensive regulatory scheme that recognized and preserved a primary role for the states in eliminating pollution from our waterways. 33 U.S.C. § 1251(b). The power of states under the Act is underlined by their ability to force the development of technology by setting stringent water quality standards that the EPA can enforce against upstream polluters. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311(k), 1341, 1342, 1370; Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 106, 112 S.Ct. at 1056–57 (holding that the EPA's requirement that NPDES dischargers must comply with downstream States' water quality standards was a reasonable exercise of the agency's statutory discretion pursuant to §§ 1341, 1342). In the Clean Water Act, Congress provided the EPA “substantial statutory discretion.” Arkansas, 503 U.S. at 107, 112 S.Ct. at 1057. Pursuant to the 1987 amendment of the Clean Water Act, the EPA can treat Indian tribes as states under the Act, provided that the tribes meet certain criteria listed in 33 U.S.C. § 1377(e) and 40 C.F.R. § 131.8(a).8 The 1987 amendment further provides:
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Those who objected to soil flushing were concerned that it was not a well-demonstrated technology, especially in Michigan's cold weather climate; that flushing may take as long as fifteen years to clean up the site as opposed to two years for incineration; that monitoring of soil flushing's effectiveness is extremely difficult, and that flushing may violate Michigan's groundwater anti-degradation laws.9 There were also concerns that the consent decree did not adequately define defendants' obligations in the event soil flushing failed to achieve established cleanup levels within the required time frame.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The second reason EPA originally rejected soil flushing has also been satisfactorily resolved by the amended ROD. The ROD recognized that soil flushing, if used at all, would need to be used in conjunction with other technology to effectively clean up the Site and remove the insoluble chemicals in the soils. The amended ROD complies with that concern, as soil flushing is to complement excavation and incineration and not to wholly substitute for the original remedy. Thus, most of the insoluble chemicals in the surface soils which cannot be flushed out, namely the PCBs and lead, will be excavated before soil flushing of the subsurface soils contaminated with soluble chemicals occurs.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Accordingly, we are satisfied that EPA has adequately explained its change of position. As evidenced by language in the 1987 ROD, in which the state concurred, EPA contemplated reopening the decision if soil flushing was found to be “practical” and “less expensive.”20 The public was therefore put on notice that soil flushing might be re-examined in the near future. In evaluating the potential effectiveness of soil flushing at this particular site, EPA considered the RODs from four other sites at which soil flushing was used as a remedy as well as numerous articles discussing the use of soil flushing. The agency has also published and performed its own studies on the use of soil flushing to cleanup hazardous waste sites some of which had clayey soils,21 and thus is keenly aware of the remedy's limitations. See Exh. 3.2–3.11; Jt.App. at 357–410. Further, the Gradient Corporation, an environmental consulting firm, concluded that soil flushing would remove virtually the same amount of chemicals from the subsurface soil at the Rose Site as would incineration. Exh. 3.21i, Gradient Corporation Memorandum, at 11 (Oct. 26, 1988). Finally, it should be emphasized that while relatively new, soil flushing is nevertheless a “proven” technology.22 Exh. 3.8, ROD for U.S. Aviex Site, at Table 7. In addition to three sites in Michigan, as of March 1988 soil flushing was in use in various foreign countries and at a total of thirteen different Superfund sites.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Deemed “protective of human health and the environment” (See 42 U.S.C. § 9621(b)) at other sites by both EPA and the state, soil flushing as used in conjunction with other technologies over which there is no dispute should be given the same chance at the Rose Site. The First Circuit recently stated: “Congress intended, first, that the judiciary take a broad view of proposed settlements, leaving highly technical issues ... to the discourse between parties; and second, that the district courts treat each case on its own merits, recognizing the wide range of potential problems and possible solutions.” United States v. Cannons Engineering Corp., 899 F.2d 79, 85–86 (1st Cir.1990). When viewed as a whole, the decree is reasonable. See also United States v. Rohm & Haas Co., 721 F.Supp. 666, 685–86 (D.N.J.1989) (“For this settlement to be reasonable, it need not be bottomed on the most convincing analysis of the present factual record, it must merely be reasonable when measured by the range of plausible interpretations of that record.”).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Weighing each of these factors, we find that the covenant not to sue is reasonable and in the public interest. The decree requires the settling defendants to implement an effective remedy which will attain specific target levels designed to ensure public health and restore the soil and water at the site. While the effectiveness of soil flushing has not yet been demonstrated at this site, the decree requires the defendants to test and demonstrate the workability of that proven technology. Alternative methods must be developed and implemented if soil flushing does not prove feasible. The decree makes specific provision for a trust fund to cover anticipated costs during Phase II of the cleanup, relieving the United States of this financial obligation. Finally and most significantly for this appeal, the covenant not to sue does not take effect until the settling defendants have completed their obligations under the agreement, aside from long term monitoring requirements. Thus all the factors in 42 U.S.C. § 9622(f)(4) tilt in favor of enforcement of the covenant not to sue as written.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
In sum, we are faced with a statutory term—“any air pollutant”—that the Supreme Court has determined is “expansive,” and “unambiguous[ly]” includes greenhouse gases. Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. at 529, 127 S.Ct. 1438. Moreover, the PSD program requires covered sources to install control technology for “each pollutant” regulated under the CAA, 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4), and to establish that they “will not cause, or contribute to, air pollution in excess of any ... emission standard ... under [the CAA].” Id. § 7475(a)(3) (emphasis added). These provisions demonstrate that the PSD program was intended to control pollutants regulated under every section of the Act. Finally, Congress's “Declaration of Purpose” expressly states that the PSD program was meant, in part, to protect against adverse effects on “weather” and “climate”—precisely the types of harm caused by greenhouse gases. See id. § 7470(1). Given all this, we have little trouble concluding that “any air pollutant” in the definition of “major emitting facility” unambiguously means “any air pollutant regulated under the CAA.”
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
We can easily dispose of Industry Petitioners' argument that the PSD program's “concerns with local emissions,” Coalition for Responsible Reg. Timing & Tailoring Br. 36, somehow limit the BACT provision. The statutory text provides, without qualification, that covered sources must install the “best available control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under [the CAA].” 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4) (emphasis added). Because greenhouse gases are indisputably a pollutant subject to regulation under the Act, it is crystal clear that PSD permittees must install BACT for greenhouse gases. “When the words of a statute are unambiguous ... judicial inquiry is complete.” Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 254, 112 S.Ct. 1146, 117 L.Ed.2d 391 (1992) (internal quotation marks omitted).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
In particular, we do not find that the adoption of soil flushing as a remedy for the Rose Site subsurface soils is an arbitrary and capricious choice. EPA's reversal of its original opinion on the effectiveness of soil flushing has been adequately explained. We further find that EPA would not have acted otherwise had that agency considered the Hayes affidavit. Allowing defendants to test soil flushing under EPA's supervision and pursuant to an established timetable is both fair and reasonable, especially given the fact that both EPA and the State of Michigan regard soil flushing as a cost-effective, proven technology.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Petitioners argue that SCR is not the “best demonstrated system” under section 111 because the incremental cost of reducing NOx emissions is considerably higher with SCR than with combustion controls. Recent improvements in combustion controls will enable many boilers to attain emissions levels close to EPA's SCR-based standards; accordingly, petitioners assert that EPA should have based its standards on these less expensive technologies. However, in light of EPA's unchallenged findings showing that the new standards will only modestly increase the cost of producing electricity in newly constructed boilers, see 62 Fed.Reg. 36,948, 36,958 (1997) (proposed NOx revisions), we do not think that EPA exceeded its considerable discretion under section 111. Moreover, petitioners' argument stressing the comparable environmental merits of advanced combustion controls is to a certain extent self-defeating, since the new source performance standards set by EPA are not technology-forcing, and continuing advances in combustion control technologies will reduce the amount of NOx reduction that must be captured by the more expensive SCR technology.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
It was also within EPA's discretion to issue uniform standards for all utility boilers, rather than adhering to its past practice of setting a range of standards based on boiler and fuel type. See, e.g., 44 Fed.Reg. 33,580 (1979) (establishing varying NOx emissions standards for utility boilers). Petitioners recognize that EPA is not required by law to subcategorize—section 111 merely states that “the Administrator may distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories of new sources,” 42 U.S.C. § 7411(b)(2) (emphasis added)—but argue that it was arbitrary and capricious for EPA to decline to do so. EPA explains that its change to uniform standards is justified by SCR's performance characteristics: Unlike the technologies on which past new source performance standards were based, flue gas treatment technologies like SCR limit NOx emissions after combustion, and the effectiveness of SCR is thus far less dependent upon boiler design or fuel type. Petitioners respond that there are reasons to expect SCR to perform less adequately on boilers burning high-sulfur coals, but EPA collected continuous emissions monitoring data on two high-sulfur coal-fired utility boilers that showed that the .15 lb/MMBtu standard was achievable, and supplemented this study with similar evidence from foreign utility boilers. EPA also considered petitioners' concerns about the impact of alkaline metals on the performance of the catalyst used in the SCR process, and concluded that such “catalyst poisoning” is not a significant problem in coal-fired boilers. See 63 Fed.Reg. at 49,445. Mindful of the high degree of deference we must show to EPA's scientific judgment, see, e.g., Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791, 801–02 (D.C.Cir.1998), we accept these determinations and sustain EPA's uniform standard for utility boilers.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Petitioners offer a broader challenge to EPA's .20 lb/MMBtu standard for industrial boilers, claiming that SCR is not “adequately demonstrated” for any coal-fired industrial boilers. EPA was unable to collect emissions data for the application of SCR to these boilers, but this absence of *934 **187 data is not surprising for a new technology like SCR, nor does it in and of itself defeat EPA's standard. Because it applies only to new sources, we have recognized that section 111 “looks toward what may fairly be projected for the regulated future, rather than the state of the art at present.” Portland Cement Ass'n v. Ruckelshaus, 486 F.2d 375, 391 (D.C.Cir.1973). Of course, where data are unavailable, EPA may not base its determination that a technology is adequately demonstrated or that a standard is achievable on mere speculation or conjecture, see, e.g., National Asphalt Pavement Ass'n, 539 F.2d at 787, but EPA may compensate for a shortage of data through the use of other qualitative methods, including the reasonable extrapolation of a technology's performance in other industries.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
0
|
The record convincingly demonstrates that the City undertook the responsibilities placed upon it under NEPA and NHPA with great diligence and properly considered the environmental and historic ramifications of Phase II. No contested material fact exists concerning the City’s compliance with NEPA and NHPA. Accordingly, the district court’s granting of summary judgment in favor of the City and Canal Place 2,000 is affirmed.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
0
|
Appellants rely heavily on Roberts to support their argument that Massachusetts zoning procedure is not preempted in the case at bar. Roberts, however, is readily distinguishable, as it merely decided that in cases where a planning board grants a special permit in the first instance, the TCA does not preempt de novo judicial review of the propriety of the permit award under state or local law. 709 N.E.2d at 806-07. That situation is demonstrably different from the case at bar, where the Planning Board’s initial consideration of the special-permit application followed state zoning procedure but the decision reached was nonetheless improper as a matter of federal law.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
0
|
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the district court's entry of summary judgment for Algonquin to the extent that it held that FERC's issuance of a CPCN authorizing construction of the Weymouth Compressor Station conflict preempts Weymouth's application of its ordinance to Algonquin's FERC-approved project.Algonquin does not claim in this action that the statewide, minimum requirements of the Massachusetts WPA are preempted as applied to the compressor station.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
0
|
Finally, the Council faults the FWS for failing to address the rate of loss of critical habitat for the species in question. Neither the ESA nor its implementing regulations, however, require that the FWS calculate a rate of loss. Rather, they require only that the FWS evaluate “the current status of the listed species or critical habitat,” “the effects of the action,” and the “cumulative effects on the listed species or critical habitat.” 50 C.F.R. § 402.14(g)(2)-(3). We are satisfied that the FWS faithfully conducted such analysis here.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
0
|
This passage casts little or no light on the impact of the destruction of the secondary wetlands; for, it describes the effects of the prior destruction of the mangrove forest, a matter that is not in dispute here. At the time of Mr. Pace’s visits, the Corps may not have been aware of the relevant chronology. In any case, there is no conflict between the report and the Corps’ later characterization of the area — in its contemporary condition — as “marginally valuable wetlands.”
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if engineering reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Engineering reasoning is defined as when considerations such as the feasibility or availability of technologies for controlling pollution or remediating contaminated sites influence the opinion.
|
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 2