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... | 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 Institut... | 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,... | 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 un... | 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 pro... | 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... | 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] p... | 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 rel... | 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 p... | 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., Gerbe... | 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 a... | 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 tak... | 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 conser... | 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 ... | 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 p... | 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 spi... | 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 plaintif... | 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 Ext... | 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 Adv... | 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... | 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
- 4