The court also rejects a claim that intervention should be allowed, because the facts pleaded by the government would support an effluent limit enforcement action. ![]() This was to preclude reopening in an enforcement action the complex technical and economic issues concerning the allowable levels of pollution discharges that were supposed to be resolved once and for all in the standard-setting process. The court analyzes the language and legislative history of the FWPCA citizen suit section and concludes that they demonstrate that citizen actions were to be limited to enforcement of administratively promulgated effluent limitations and similar standards. Initially the court rules that the citizen suit provision of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) do not create a statutory right of intervention pursuant to FRCP 24(a)(1) in imminent hazard actions brought under those statutes. The court rules that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant citizens groups' claim of a right of intervention under Rule 24(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) in a government hazardous waste cleanup action brought under the imminent hazard provisions of three federal statutes. Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp.ĥ | Environmental Law Reporter | copyright © 1984 | All rights reserved
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |