Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The U.S. environmental regulatory system is based on multiple environmental laws, with somewhat varying scope and definitions. The separate regulatory system established under each law contributes its separate set of permit information to a central data system, which has to match the facility records based on the business rules outlined above.
On this page, environmental lawsuit means "a lawsuit where the well-being of an environmental asset or the well-being of a set of environmental assets is in dispute". Also on this page, lawsuit with environmental relevance means "a lawsuit where a non-environmental entity or a set of non-environmental entities is in dispute, but whose outcome has relevance for an environmental asset or for a ...
Violations were observed during EPA inspections in Overland Park and Kansas City, the federal agency said. Kansas City marijuana company fined more than $120,000 by EPA. Here’s the rule it violated
Aug. 19—SEATTLE — The Environmental Protection Agency announced Thursday that Multistar Industries Inc. of Othello will pay $850,000 for violations of environmental laws. The violations relate ...
The EPA also required disclosures of leakages and new hazards during interim periods of facilities' operations. [1] [2] [3] Chemical Waste Management, Inc had an on-site well-check system designed to test for any hazardous material leakage. It had a two part system check, although the EPA at the time had raised this requirement to three checks.
In 2019, the EPA fined the company $31,000 for hazardous waste violations and required it to pay $55,000 to the Fremont Fire Department for emergency response equipment. At least four fires have ...
Sep. 9—The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency today announced a settlement resulting in a fine of $82, 613 with Hawaiian Ice Company over violations of the Clean Air Act. Specifically, EPA ...
Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy Corporation, 549 U.S. 561 (2007), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that while a term may be used more than once in a statute, an agency has the discretion to interpret each use of the term in a different way based on the context.