From our private database of 35,400+ case briefs...
Ohio v. Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
997 F.2d 1520 (1993)
Facts
Ohio (plaintiff), along with other states and private parties, petitioned for review of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) (defendant) changes to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) as inconsistent with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Ohio argued that (1) the EPA should require remediation plans to meet the Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) for all relevant contaminants and should not allow plans to substitute the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) standard for contaminants with a MCLG of zero; (2) the EPA must consider cost when setting the level of protectiveness that a remedial action must achieve; (3) the EPA should give greater weight to the permanency of a solution than to its cost; and (4) the EPA must set remedial standards at the level most protective of human health. Specifically, Ohio argued that the EPA improperly set carcinogen exposure levels at 0.0001 instead of 0.000001, which allowed for a greater increase in lifetime cancer risk.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Per curiam)
What to do next…
Here's why 617,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,400 briefs, keyed to 984 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.