output
stringclasses 2
values | input
stringlengths 293
1.83k
| instruction
stringclasses 1
value |
|---|---|---|
1
|
Section 109(b)(1) instructs the EPA to set primary ambient air quality standards “the attainment and maintenance of which ... are requisite to protect the public health” with “an adequate margin of safety.” 42 U.S.C. § 7409(b)(1). Were it not for the hundreds of pages of briefing respondents have submitted on the issue, one would have thought it fairly clear that this text does not permit the EPA to consider costs in setting the standards. The language, as one scholar has noted, “is absolute.” D. Currie, Air Pollution: Federal Law and Analysis 4–15 (1981). The EPA, “based on” the information about health effects contained in the technical “criteria” documents compiled under § 108(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. § 7408(a)(2), is to identify the maximum airborne concentration of a pollutant that the public health can tolerate, decrease the concentration to provide an “adequate” margin of safety, and set the standard at that level. Nowhere are the costs of achieving such a standard made part of that initial calculation.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Section 109(b)(1) directs the Administrator to set standards that are 'requisite to protect the public health' with 'an adequate margin of safety.' But these words do not describe a world that is free of all risk-an impossible and undesirable objective. See Industrial Union Dept., AFL-CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 642 (1980) (plurality opinion) (the word 'safe' does not mean 'risk free''). Nor are the words 'requisite' and 'public health' to be understood independent of context. We consider football equipment 'safe' even if its use entails a level of risk that would make drinking water 'unsafe' for consumption. And what counts as 'requisite' to protecting the public health will similarly vary with background circumstances, such as the public's ordinary tolerance of the particular health risk in the particular context at issue. The Administrator can consider such background circumstances when 'decid[ing] what risks are acceptable in the world in which we live.' Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146, 1165 (CADC 1987).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The assessments considered the risk to humans from the substances when used in various cosmetics—lipsticks, face powders and rouges, hair cosmetics, nail products, bathwater products, and wash-off products. The scientific review panel found the lifetime cancer risks of the substances extremely small: for Orange No. 17, it calculated them as one in 19 billion at worst, and for Red No. 19 one in nine million at worst. The FDA explained that the panel had used conservative assumptions in deriving these figures, and it characterized the risks as “so trivial as to be effectively no risk.” It concluded that the two dyes were safe. 51 Fed.Reg. at 28,344, 28,360. The FDA candidly acknowledged that its safety findings represented a departure from past agency practice: “In the past, because the data and information show that D & C Orange No. 17 is a carcinogen when ingested by laboratory animals, FDA in all likelihood would have terminated the provisional listing and denied CTFA's petition for the externally applied uses ... without any further discussion.” Id. at 28,341; accord id. at 28,357 (same for Red No. 19). It also acknowledged that “[a] strictly literal application of the Delaney Clause would prohibit FDA from finding [both dyes] safe, and therefore, prohibit FDA from permanently listing [them]....” Id. at 28,341; id. at 28,356. Because the risks presented by these dyes were so small, however, the agency declared that it had “inherent authority” under the de minimis doctrine to list them for use in spite of this language. Id. at 28,341; id. at 28,358. It indicated that as a general matter any risk lower than a one-in-one-million lifetime risk would meet the requirements for a de minimis exception to the Delaney Clause.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Contrary to the district court holding, we conclude on the peculiar facts of this case that permanent mandatory injunctive relief is an appropriate remedy. The landfill group argues that no emergency exists and that CERCLA provides an adequate remedy at law. The EPA need not prove that an emergency exists to prevail under section 7003, only that the circumstances may present an imminent and substantial endangerment. It has been alleged that an imminent and substantial endangerment exists. We make no finding on whether the EPA will be able to meet its burden at trial. Since this case came to us in the posture of an appeal from the grant of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, we have viewed all the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion, the EPA.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
Our resolution of the issues in these cases turns, to a large extent, on the meaning of and the relationship between § 3(8), which defines a health and safety standard as a standard that is 'reasonably necessary and appropriate to provide safe or healthful employment,' and § 6(b)(5), which directs the Secretary, in promulgating a health and safety standard for toxic materials, to 'set the standard which most adequately assures, to the extent feasible, on the basis of the best available evidence, that no employee will suffer material impairment of health or functional capacity. . . .
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
In sum, based on the plain meaning of the statute, the juxtaposition of Section 211 with Sections 108 and 202, and the Reserve Mining precedent, we conclude that the “will endanger” standard is precautionary in nature and does not require proof of actual harm before regulation is appropriate.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
With that in mind, it is clear that petitioners' submissions as they pertain to Massachusetts have satisfied the most demanding standards of the adversarial process. EPA's steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both “actual” and “imminent.” Lujan, 504 U.S., at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is, moreover, a “substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested” will prompt EPA to take steps to reduce that risk.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
While it may be true that regulating motor-vehicle emissions will not by itself reverse global warming, it by no means follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it. See also Larson v. Valente, 456 U.S. 228, 244, n. 15, 102 S.Ct. 1673, 72 L.Ed.2d 33 (1982) (“[A] plaintiff satisfies the redressability requirement when he shows that a favorable decision will relieve a discrete injury to himself. He need not show that a favorable decision will relieve his every injury”). Because of the enormity of the potential consequences associated with manmade climate change, the fact that the effectiveness of a remedy might be delayed during the (relatively short) time it takes for a new motor-vehicle fleet to replace an older one is essentially irrelevant.23 Nor is it dispositive that developing countries such as China and India are poised to increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the next century: A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
In sum—at least according to petitioners' uncontested affidavits—the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts. The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real. That risk would be reduced to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek. We therefore hold that petitioners have standing to challenge EPA's denial of their rulemaking petitio
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
GBA also accuses FERC of giving too little consideration to the safety risks involved in the construction of the pipeline, and specifically to the fact that in some places, new pipeline will cross, or run alongside, existing pipeline. As GBA's own brief recognizes, though, the EIS recognized and discussed the risk of pipeline crossings, ultimately concluding that some crossings were necessary to minimize impacts on natural resources and homes. GBA's only response is that commenters, including the owner of one of the existing pipelines, submitted letters to FERC expressing safety concerns. But the EIS responded to those comments, and GBA does not explain why the responses were insufficient. Again, NEPA does not require a particular substantive result, like the elimination of all pipeline crossings; it only requires the agency to take a “hard look” at the problem. This FERC has done.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
First, a party may apply to the Service for a permit under Section 10 of the ESA, and the Service may issue a permit directly to that party to take members of listed species “if such taking is incidental to, and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity.” Id. § 1539(a)(1)(B); see, e.g., Gerber v. Norton, 294 F.3d 173, 175 (D.C.Cir.2002) (Service issuing Section 10 permit to a developer to take endangered fox squirrels incidental to constructing a residential housing project). A Section 10 permit application must include a conservation plan that specifies the likely impact of the anticipated take as well as steps for minimizing and mitigating such impact (with identified funding sufficient to implement those steps), and that identifies which potentially less harmful alternatives were considered and why they are not being used. 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(A). Enbridge considered and decided against seeking a Section 10 permit, as detailed below.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
More extensive environmental analysis could lead the agencies to different conclusions, with live remedial implications. If a broader NEPA analysis uncovered additional environmental harms, the removal of the challenged project, at least from certain areas, “could be required.” Schlesinger, 643 F.2d at 591 n. 1. Even assuming claims “relating to the construction of” the pipeline were moot, “we still may consider whether [the agencies] complied with NEPA by adequately addressing the environmental impacts resulting from the enhanced use of” it. Airport Neighbors All., 90 F.3d at 429. The agencies could call for additional mitigation and monitoring, or could decide not to renew their respective authorizations. See, e.g., 33 C.F.R. § 330.5(d). There is no basis for Enbridge's contentions that none of the types of environmental effects that agencies must investigate under NEPA could be avoided, undone, or more robustly mitigated and monitored.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The defendants fail their own test. The “status quo” is not, as their argument assumes, a fully approved and constructed Flanagan South pipeline; rather, the baseline against which the significance of the federal action must be measured is no pipeline approved and no species killed or habitat disturbed. Authorizing take of endangered species in connection with pipeline construction and operation across jurisdictional waters, and doing so only on the conditions that Enbridge take mitigating conservation measures and monitor species impact for the anticipated useful life of the pipeline, was regulatory approval amounting to significant federal action requiring environmental review under NEPA. See 40 C.F.R. § 1508.18(b)(4); see also San Luis, 747 F.3d at 642–45; cf. Tenn. Valley, 437 U.S. at 172–73, 98 S.Ct. 2279 (reflecting that, although “[i]t may seem curious to some that the survival of a relatively small number of three-inch fish ... would require the permanent halting of a virtually completed dam for which Congress has expended more than $100 million,” the plain language of the ESA “require[d] precisely that result”).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
As it was finally passed, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 represented the most comprehensive legislation for the preservation of endangered species ever enacted by any nation. Its stated purposes were “to provide a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved,” and “to provide a program for the conservation of such . . . species . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(b) (1976 ed.). In furtherance of these goals, Congress expressly stated in § 2(c) that “all Federal departments and agencies shall seek to conserve endangered species and threatened species . . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1531(c) (1976 ed.). (Emphasis added.) Lest there be any ambiguity as to the meaning of this statutory directive, the Act specifically defined “conserve” as meaning “to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures provided pursuant to this chapter are no longer necessary.” § 1532(2). (Emphasis added.) Aside from § 7, other provisions indicated the seriousness with which Congress viewed this issue: Virtually all dealings with endangered species, including taking, possession, transportation, and sale, were prohibited, 16 U.S.C. § 1538 (1976 ed.), except in extremely narrow circumstances, see § 1539(b). The Secretary was also given extensive power to develop regulations and programs for the preservation of endangered and threatened species.25 § 1533(d). Citizen *181 involvement was encouraged by the Act, with provisions allowing interested persons to petition the Secretary to list a species as endangered or threatened, § 1533(c)(2), see n. 11, supra, and bring civil suits in United States district courts to force compliance with any provision of the Act, §§ 1540(c) and (g).
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
This subsection requires the Secretary and the heads of all other Federal departments and agencies to use their authorities in order to carry out programs for the protection of endangered species, and it further requires that those agencies take the necessary action that will not jeopardize the continuing existence of endangered species or result in the destruction of critical habitat of those species.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
It is against this legislative background29 that we must measure TVA's **2297 claim that the Act was not intended to stop operation of a project which, like Tellico Dam, was near completion when an endangered species was discovered in its path. While there is no discussion in the legislative history of precisely this problem, the totality of congressional action makes it abundantly clear that the result we reach today is wholly in accord with both the words of the statute and the intent of Congress. The plain intent of Congress in enacting this statute was to halt and reverse the trend toward species extinction, whatever the cost. This is reflected not only in the stated policies of the Act, but in literally every section of the statute. All persons, including federal agencies, are specifically instructed not to “take” endangered species, meaning that no one is “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect” such life forms. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1532(14), 1538(a)(1)(B) (1976 ed.). Agencies in particular are directed by §§ 2(c) and 3(2) of the Act to “use . . . all methods and procedures which are necessary” to preserve endangered species. 16 U.S.C. §§ 1531(c), 1532(2) (emphasis added) (1976 ed.). In addition, the legislative history undergirding § 7 reveals an explicit congressional decision to require agencies to afford first priority to the declared national policy of saving endangered species. The pointed omission of the type of qualifying language previously included in endangered species legislation reveals a conscious decision by Congress to give endangered species priority over the “primary missions” of federal agencies.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
1
|
The plaintiffs raised concerns about “threats to resources and human health from modern oil and gas drilling techniques.” Citizens for a Healthy Community, 377 F. Supp. 3d at 1241. The district court catalogued the thorough analysis undertaken *888 by BLM. Id., at 1241-42. BLM acknowledged that hydraulic fracturing spills degrade water quality. Id. BLM relied on studies about the health impacts of hydraulic fracturing and it “modeled the estimated maximum impacts that could occur from ... emissions” and found that “health and quality of life related to air quality are not likely to be significantly impacted.” Id. at 1242. BLM also “modeled expected cancer risk from suspected carcinogens.” Id. These items formed a small part of BLM's robust analysis in Citizens for a Healthy Community of the potential threats to resources and human health. Id. at 1241-42. BLM provided little or no analysis here about the impacts on groundwater from the leases compared to the thorough and responsive analysis provided in Citizens for a Health Community.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
0
|
We have carefully considered all other arguments made by the Wildlife Association and conclude they are without merit. The judgment of the district court is affirmed. As the Wildlife Association is not a prevailing party, its request for an award of attorney’s fees and costs on appeal is denied. See 28 U.S.C. § 2412.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
0
|
We cited Ash Creek and Mount Evans with approval in Baca v. King, 92 F.3d 1031, 1036-37 (10th Cir.1996), in which we held that the plaintiffs alleged injuries were not redressable because the only two actions that would remedy the alleged wrongs were an order for the government to sell the disputed land to the plaintiff or an order compelling the government to renew the plaintiffs grazing permit, neither of which were within the power of the courts to impose because either action was completely within the discretion of the Secretary of the Interior.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
0
|
Tull argues that he did not violate the Rivers and Harbors Act by placing fill in Fowling Gut Extended, since no credible evidence supported the district court’s finding that the waterway was navigable. We disagree. The district court had before it the testimony of an oyster inspector who testified that Fowling Gut Extended was subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. The Corps’ regulations in effect at the time Tull filled the waterway defined navigable waters to include those “subject to tidal action.” 33 C.F.R. §
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
0
|
Although the Residents clearly disagree with findings pertaining to the line of sight of the proposed project, and the project’s impact on the historical district, those findings are not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we conclude that the district court did not err in holding that no further authorization from the Advisory Council was required.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
0
|
The Wildlife Association’s contention that the district court did not make the findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a) is without merit. Under Rule 52(a), the district court must 'sufficiently inform the [appellate] court of the basis” of its decision. Scoggins v. Board of Educ., 853 F.2d 1472, 1477 (8th Cir.1988). Here, the court ruled that the failure to complete WSRA Plans did not warrant enjoining performance of the timber sale contracts. Rule 52(a) requires no more.
|
The following paragraph is drawn from a judicial opinion. Please determine if risk reduction reasoning is involved by listing 1(if it is present) or 0(if not present). Risk reduction reasoning is defined as when considerations such as reducing environmental harms, risks, or health hazards influence the opinion.
|
README.md exists but content is empty.
- Downloads last month
- 1