文档介绍：1 1 Reserve Mining Co. v EPA ? Facts: asbestos-containing mining by- products discharged into lake ? EPA abatement action ? District court enjoined discharges; would close facility ? Structure of appellate court ’ s opinion 1. Is there a risk to public health? 2. Is the risk legally cognizable? 3. Remedy 2 2 Reserve Mining 1. Is there a risk to public health? ? Evidence —? Tissue study of Duluth residents ? Not conclusive; but indicates no emergency ? Animal studies re ration of gastrointestinal mucosa ? Conflicting; some support for impact ? Increased rate of gastrointestinal cancer from occupational exposure ? Ingestion impact is tenable hypothesis ? Level of exposure hazardous? ? District court: comparable exposure to what caused occupational cancers ? Court of appeal: dubious accuracy 3 3 Reserve Mining Court ’ s Conclusions Regarding Risk ? Frontiers of scientific knowledge ? No proof of actual harm ? Court faced with considering probabilities and consequences ? Probability of harm is not more likely than not ?“ Reasonable medical concern ”?“ Some health risk ”? Such contaminant “ should be removed ” 4 4 Reserve Mining 2. Is the risk legally cognizable? ? The statute ? Authorizes action by us to abate discharge violating clean water act water quality standards and endanger health or welfare ? Held: “ endanger ” used in precautionary or preventative sense; ? Potential as well as actual harm included ? Court ’ s authority: issue orders as public interest & equities require 5 5 Reserve Mining 3. Remedy ? Trial court: ordered immediate closure ? Court of appeal: ? Low probabilities/ serious consequences ? Unpredictable health effects; predictable social & economic consequences ? Effect of reserve ’ s offer to halt pollution ? Conclusion: allow reasonable time to stop discharge 6 6 Notes ? 1. How justify requiring expenditure of millions in Reserve Mining ?? Preponderance of evidence test not met ?3. Ethyl Corp (DC Cir 1976): ? Upholding l