...
首页> 外文期刊>Pennsylvania journal of environmental litigation >In reply, NL Industries says Baykeeper supports remedy first because of inability to prove contamination source
【24h】

In reply, NL Industries says Baykeeper supports remedy first because of inability to prove contamination source

机译:作为回应,NL Industries说,Baykeeper由于无法证明污染源而首先支持补救措施

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In a reply brief, defendants NL Industries Inc. and NL Environmental Management Services Inc. contended on Aug. 4 that Raritan Baykeeper and Edison Wetlands Association Inc. oppose bifurcation of Baykeeper's RCRA action because they cannot meet their burden of proof. NL Industries wants the federal court for the District of New Jersey to address the issue of liability before the issue of remedy. (See related article on P. 12 of this issue.) "Plaintiffs' assertion that NL and EMS's bifurcation proposal is 'backwards' is ironic," NL Industries says. " Plaintiffs want the court to order NL and EMS to implement a remedial investigation - at a cost of hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars - without the court first having found that circumstances qualifying as an 'imminent and substantial endangermenf exist that would entitle plaintiffs to any relief. It is that approach that is 'backwards.'"
机译:在被告人NL Industries Inc.和NL Environmental Management Services Inc.的回覆中,他们在8月4日争辩说,Raritan Baykeeper和Edison Wetlands Association Inc.反对将Baykeeper的RCRA行为分叉,因为他们无法承担举证责任。 NL Industries希望新泽西州联邦法院在提出赔偿之前解决赔偿责任问题。 (请参阅本期第12页的相关文章。)“原告关于NL和EMS的分叉提议是'向后'的断言是具有讽刺意味的,” NL Industries说。 “原告希望法院下令NL和EMS进行补救调查-花费数十万乃至数百万美元-而不是在法院首先没有发现有资格构成'迫在眉睫的实质性危害'的情况下,使原告有权不惜一切代价。正是这种方法“落后”。”

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
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