Business Law Chapter 45 Homework Eis Not Necessary Must Explain Its Decision

ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS

CHAPTER 45

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

45-1A. Superfund

The court held that although Congress failed to address the specific issue of corporate succes-

sor liability under CERCLA, it did intend such liability. The court further held that L-Bar was not

a corporate successor to IMP and therefore was not liable under CERCLA for clean-up costs.

45-2A. Hazardous waste

The court ruled in favor of the EPA. The term endangerment does not require actual, demon-

45-3A. Strict liability

The court ruled for the state of Florida. The court found that the activity involved a high degree

45-4A. Nuisance

B-2 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 45

45-5A. Toxic chemicals

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) does not require the adminis-

45-6A. Water pollution

Common law nuisance can be caused by negligent acts. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

held that the local water districts’ operation of the flood control project did proximately cause

45-7A. Clean Water Act

Ahmad was convicted in the federal district court in which he was tried, and he appealed to the

45–8A. Clean Water Act

The FoE argued, among other things, that the CWA requires “total maximum daily loads,” not

seasonal or annual loads. The EPA responded in part that “the many ways in which pollutants

damage the environment call for a more flexible understanding of ‘daily.’ ” The court held that

the CWA does not require the EPA to determine only daily TMDLs and approved their approval

45–9A. Environmental impact statement

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an environmental impact statement

(EIS) be prepared for every major federal action that significantly affects the quality of the envi-

ronment. An action is “major” if it involves a substantial commitment of resources. An action is

45–10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS

1. The secretary’s regulation defining the term harm to include habitat modification that

“kills or injures wildlife” can be viewed as consistent with the use of the term take to refer to the

capture or killing of wildlife. Both definitions include “kill” as synonyms for their terms, and cap-

2. Take, as defined in the ESA, includes “harm.” Harm, as defined in the regulation, in-

cludes “habitat modification * * * where it actually kills or injures wildlife.” In other words, the

regulation is limited to habitat modification that causes actual, as opposed to hypothetical, death

B-4 APPENDIX B: ALTERNATE CASE PROBLEM ANSWERS—CHAPTER 45

3. The majority pointed out in its opinion that “the broad purpose of the ESA supports the

Secretary’s decision to extend protection against activities that cause the precise harms Con-

4. Answers to this question, like responses to the previous question, can depend on fun-

damental beliefs about the importance of the environment, people’s use of resources, and other