In re M.A. Bruder and Sons, Inc.
Environmental Appeals Board
10 E.A.D. 599 (2002)
- Written by Oni Harton, JD
Facts
An administrative-law judge (ALJ) assessed a civil penalty against M.A. Bruder & Sons, Inc. (Bruder) (defendant) under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA). Bruder received an $8,950 penalty assessment for illegally operating a treatment, storage, or disposal facility without interim status or an RCRA permit. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (plaintiff) appealed the civil penalty assessed by the ALJ. The ALJ disagreed with the EPA’s proposed $64,900 penalty. The ALJ disregarded the RCRA’s penalty policy and used statutory factors to assess the civil penalty against Bruder. The ALJ agreed that the EPA applied the penalty correctly but that the EPA’s proposed penalty was myopic. Thus, the ALJ departed from the penalty policy and applied the statutory factors of seriousness and good faith to assess the penalty. Finding the seriousness minimal and that Bruder acted in good faith, the ALJ reduced the penalty to $8,950.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Reich, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
