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... | 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 co... |
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 conside... | 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 co... |
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 app... | 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 co... |
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 feasibl... | 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 co... |
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 st... | 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 co... |
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 indust... | 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 co... |
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.” Chrysle... | 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 co... |
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, t... | 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 co... |
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... | 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 co... |
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 d... | 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 co... |
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 amende... | 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 co... |
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 fl... | 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 co... |
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,... | 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 co... |
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 effe... | 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 co... |
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 pollutan... | 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 co... |
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 te... | 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 co... |
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 t... | 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 co... |
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... | 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 co... |
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 ... | 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 co... |
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 surprisi... | 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 co... |
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 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 co... |
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 ju... | 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 co... |
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... | 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 co... |
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... | 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 co... |
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 ca... | 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 co... |
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 7