• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Ecology law quarterly >American Chemistry Council v. Johnson: Community Right to Know, But About What?: D.C. Circuit TakesRestrictive View of EPCRA
【24h】

American Chemistry Council v. Johnson: Community Right to Know, But About What?: D.C. Circuit TakesRestrictive View of EPCRA

机译：美国化学理事会诉约翰逊案：社区知情权，但关于什么？：华盛顿特区对EPCRA持限制性观点

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

The Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) requires that facilities disclose routine emissions of chemicals listed on the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). EPA may add a chemical to the TRI if the chemical meets one of three listing criteria, which all focus on the "adverse effects" the chemical causes. EPA has long maintained that it can list chemicals whose adverse effects are felt indirectly, such as by helping to form another chemical that has adverse effects. In American Chemistry Council v. Johnson, the D.C. Circuit held that EPA had no such authority. Under its holding, a chemical can only be listed if it causes harm through direct exposure. This holding, however, is of questionable validity. The court reached this result by reading a "toxicity" requirement into the listing criteria and by refusing to honor either the statutory definition or EPA's definition of "toxicity." Moreover, the court's singular focus on exposure is too simplistic given the myriad ways manufactured chemicals adversely affect human health and the environment. Indeed, the court's holding in theory would require that EPA remove chemicals from the TRI that fit traditional notions of "toxicity," many of which Congress placed on the list when it wrote the statute.
机译：《紧急计划和社区知情权法案》（EPCRA）要求工厂披露环境保护署（EPA）在《有毒物质排放清单》（TRI）中列出的常规化学品排放。如果该化学品符合以下三个列出标准之一，则EPA可以将其添加到TRI中，这些标准均集中在该化学品引起的“不利影响”上。 EPA长期以来一直坚持可以列出间接感觉到不良影响的化学物质，例如通过帮助形成另一种具有不良影响的化学物质。在美国化学理事会诉Johnson一案中，华盛顿特区法院认为EPA没有这样的授权。在其持有下，只有通过直接暴露造成伤害的化学品才能列出。但是，这种持有方式的有效性值得怀疑。法院通过将“毒性”要求纳入上市标准，并拒绝遵循法定定义或EPA的“毒性”定义来达到这一结果。此外，鉴于制造化学药品以多种方式不利于人类健康和环境的问题，法院对暴露的单一关注过于简单。确实，从理论上讲，法院的判决将要求EPA从TRI中删除符合传统“毒性”概念的化学物质，国会在撰写该法规时将许多化学物质列入了清单。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号