FiltersDone

Question type

Essay

Multiple Choice

Short Answer

True False

Matching

Exam 25: Environmental Law

Show Answer

Share

---

All types

Filters

Study FlashcardsPractice ExamLearn

Question 31

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Without a permit, Timberline Plywood Company discharges its untreated wastewater into Urban City's storm drainage pipes, which empty into Valley Creek. Under the Clean Water Act, this discharge is most likely

A) a violation.
B) not a violation because the company does not have a permit.
C) not a violation because water is not a stationary source.
D) not a violation because a storm drainage pipe is not a point source.

E) A) and B)
F) B) and C)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 32

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Review Later

Deep Earth Extraction Inc. operates a facility near Estuary Bay. Discharging waste from the facility into the bay can result in

A) penalties and damages.
B) penalties only.
C) damages only.
D) none of the choices.

E) A) and B)
F) B) and C)

Correct Answer

verified

Show Answer

Question 33

Multiple Choice

Review LaterAdd Note

Fire Retardants Inc. operates without required pollution control technology, causing a discharge of chemical waste into Green River. This can result in

Because the government knows CO₂ pollution causes climate change, plaintiffs might succeed in a suit alleging that by failing to address this cause the government is violating their constitutional rights.

Riverside Glass Company operates a manufacturing plant on Spawn River. Discharging pollutants from the plant into the river can result in

Ski Resorts Inc. wants to add a new run to its facility in a national park on federal land. For this action, an environmental impact statement is

Persons who provide information about violators of the Clean Air Act may be paid up to $10,000.

The National Park Service hires Outdoor Play Inc. to replace outdated playground equipment in a handful of national parks. For this action, an environmental impact statement is most likely

A business that believes a federal agency's action threatens the environment can use an environmental impact statement as a means to challenge it.

One of the main goals of the Clean Water Act is to make water safe for the discharge of pollutants.

Liability under CERCLA does not extend to businesses that merge with or buy corporations that have violated the statute.

Bread Brands LLC operates a dough making and packaging plant-a "major source"-that emits hazardous air pollutants for which the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has set maximum levels of emission. The plant does not use equipment to reduce its emissions. Under the Clean Air Act, this is most likely

Wetlands may be filled or dredged without a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

The Environmental Protection Agency can prohibit altogether a toxic substance that poses an imminent hazard.

Selling a site where hazardous wastes were disposed of relieves the seller-and the buyer-of liability for the clean up, as does merging with or buying a corporation that has not violated Superfund.

Those responsible for operations that create dirt, smoke, noxious odors, noise, or toxic substances can be held liable under the common law theory of

The federal act that provides the basis for issuing regulations to control multistate air pollution covers only mobile sources.

Regional Disposal Center operates a recycling plant. Adjacent property owners file a suit, alleging injuries from hazardous waste discharged into the environment by the plant. To succeed, the plaintiffs must show that the defendant failed to use reasonable care if the suit is based on

BioChem Corporation operates a hazardous waste storage facility. ChemCo Inc. buys BioChem before it is discovered that the firm's disposal practices violated CERCLA. With respect to these violations, Superfund is likely to impose on ChemCo

A business that engages in the transportation of radioactive materials is strictly liable for any injuries the activities cause only if the injured party proves that the business failed to exercise reasonable care.