Friends of the Willamette has filed a lawsuit against WhyChang? alleging violations of its NPDES permit and various environmental laws. The memo analyzes WC's NPDES permit status, the scope of permit protections, and potential enforcement consequences. It finds that WC's permit remains valid, but some discharges may fall outside protections. Significant civil penalties are possible for violations, though some defenses like lack of notice may apply.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver Jr. that a zoning ordinance passed by three liberal Democrat commissioners in Fayette County, WV that blocks oil & gas wastewater injection wells in the county is illegal and unenforceable.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding the death of an inmate in Tihar Jail, Delhi. The Court directed the Jail Superintendent to file an affidavit by April 5th providing details about CCTV camera coverage, contraband entering the jail, and the incident. The Court also directed statements from medical officers regarding medical treatment of the inmate. The Court noted the father of the deceased has not received compensation and the government lawyer assured this would be addressed. The case will be heard again on April 8th.
Un juge fédéral Texan a interdit lundi au département américain de la Défense de punir un groupe de Navy Seals et d'autres membres des forces spéciales qui ont refusé les vaccins pour des motifs religieux.
Par JULIEN G. - Vendredi 12 novembre, dans une décision nationale, la Cour d’Appel fédérale du 5e circuit de la Nouvelle Orléans, a ordonné l’interruption de l’obligation vaccinale, imposée par l’administration Biden, dans le secteur privé. C’est un nouveau revers de taille pour Joe Biden, dont le seul recours possible est maintenant la Cour Suprême des États-Unis (SCOTUS)
The Board of Land and Natural Resources discharged the hearing officer in a contested case regarding a permit for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope project. The Board found that communications from non-parties to the hearing officer regarding the status of his decision created an appearance of impropriety and lack of impartiality. The Board struck the hearing officer's filings from the record and authorized the chairperson to appoint a new hearing officer to issue a new report and decision within 60 days. The new hearing officer will accept additional evidence and hold site visits or hearings if necessary.
Environmental Permitting for Maintenance WorkRenee Forque
The document summarizes various environmental permits and authorizations required for maintenance work by different government agencies. It discusses permits needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for activities that may impact wetlands, navigable waters, threatened species, pollution discharges, and more. Violations of these permit requirements carry penalties such as fines and imprisonment.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of Hawaii case regarding an organization called Kilakila O Haleakala (KOH) appealing the Board of Land and Natural Resources' (BLNR) granting of a conservation district use permit to the University of Hawaii (UH) to build a solar telescope near Haleakala summit. KOH had requested a contested case hearing before BLNR voted, but BLNR voted to grant the permit without holding a hearing. The circuit court dismissed KOH's appeal for lack of jurisdiction since no contested case hearing was held. The Supreme Court is considering whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over the appeal and if BLNR should have held a hearing before voting.
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...Marcellus Drilling News
This document summarizes a court case involving petitions challenging permits issued by New Jersey and Pennsylvania environmental agencies for a pipeline expansion project. The court consolidated two petitions - one challenging NJ permits and one challenging a PA permit. The court determined it had jurisdiction to review the permits and that the state environmental agencies did not act arbitrarily in issuing the permits, so it denied the petitions. The project is now mostly completed in New Jersey.
The decision by U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver Jr. that a zoning ordinance passed by three liberal Democrat commissioners in Fayette County, WV that blocks oil & gas wastewater injection wells in the county is illegal and unenforceable.
The Supreme Court of India heard a case regarding the death of an inmate in Tihar Jail, Delhi. The Court directed the Jail Superintendent to file an affidavit by April 5th providing details about CCTV camera coverage, contraband entering the jail, and the incident. The Court also directed statements from medical officers regarding medical treatment of the inmate. The Court noted the father of the deceased has not received compensation and the government lawyer assured this would be addressed. The case will be heard again on April 8th.
Un juge fédéral Texan a interdit lundi au département américain de la Défense de punir un groupe de Navy Seals et d'autres membres des forces spéciales qui ont refusé les vaccins pour des motifs religieux.
Par JULIEN G. - Vendredi 12 novembre, dans une décision nationale, la Cour d’Appel fédérale du 5e circuit de la Nouvelle Orléans, a ordonné l’interruption de l’obligation vaccinale, imposée par l’administration Biden, dans le secteur privé. C’est un nouveau revers de taille pour Joe Biden, dont le seul recours possible est maintenant la Cour Suprême des États-Unis (SCOTUS)
The Board of Land and Natural Resources discharged the hearing officer in a contested case regarding a permit for the Advanced Technology Solar Telescope project. The Board found that communications from non-parties to the hearing officer regarding the status of his decision created an appearance of impropriety and lack of impartiality. The Board struck the hearing officer's filings from the record and authorized the chairperson to appoint a new hearing officer to issue a new report and decision within 60 days. The new hearing officer will accept additional evidence and hold site visits or hearings if necessary.
Environmental Permitting for Maintenance WorkRenee Forque
The document summarizes various environmental permits and authorizations required for maintenance work by different government agencies. It discusses permits needed from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, NOAA, Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, and Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation for activities that may impact wetlands, navigable waters, threatened species, pollution discharges, and more. Violations of these permit requirements carry penalties such as fines and imprisonment.
This document summarizes a Supreme Court of Hawaii case regarding an organization called Kilakila O Haleakala (KOH) appealing the Board of Land and Natural Resources' (BLNR) granting of a conservation district use permit to the University of Hawaii (UH) to build a solar telescope near Haleakala summit. KOH had requested a contested case hearing before BLNR voted, but BLNR voted to grant the permit without holding a hearing. The circuit court dismissed KOH's appeal for lack of jurisdiction since no contested case hearing was held. The Supreme Court is considering whether the circuit court had jurisdiction over the appeal and if BLNR should have held a hearing before voting.
Delaware Riverkeeper v Pennsylvania Dept. of Environmental Protection - Leidy...Marcellus Drilling News
This document summarizes a court case involving petitions challenging permits issued by New Jersey and Pennsylvania environmental agencies for a pipeline expansion project. The court consolidated two petitions - one challenging NJ permits and one challenging a PA permit. The court determined it had jurisdiction to review the permits and that the state environmental agencies did not act arbitrarily in issuing the permits, so it denied the petitions. The project is now mostly completed in New Jersey.
Motion before the Federal Court;
Bill of Costs as award of the Federal Court of Canada to the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi who won a case against three Crown lawyer
File T-1020-07
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case for failure to appear at depositions. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to provide any medical evidence that his medical conditions prevented him from attending the depositions. They note that he was able to attend a mediation shortly before one scheduled deposition and file court documents, contradicting his medical inability claims. As a result, the defendants believe the plaintiff's case should be dismissed due to his willful failure to comply with discovery obligations.
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case for failure to appear at depositions. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to provide any medical evidence that his medical conditions prevented him from attending the depositions. They note that he was able to attend a mediation shortly before one scheduled deposition and file court documents, contradicting his medical inability claims. As a result, the defendants believe the plaintiff's case should be dismissed due to his willful failure to comply with discovery obligations.
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendants’ reply brief i...Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response brief to their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment for the following reasons:
1) The local court rules do not permit a response to a reply brief without court approval, which was not obtained.
2) Even if permitted, the plaintiff's response brief exceeds the 20-page limit for response briefs and the 10-page limit for reply briefs.
3) The defendants argue the plaintiff's response brief should be stricken from the record.
Appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of wisc...Loki Stormbringer
This is a case about how a court may dispose of a copyright infringement action based on the fair use affirmative defense while avoiding the burdens of discovery and trial. This case also poses the interesting question of whether the incorporation-byreference doctrine applies to audio-visual works.
"We noted during oral argument that such a broad discovery request, surely entailing expensive e-discovery of emails or other internal communications, gives Brownmark the appearance of a “copyright troll.” We are confident that the district court would have refused to grant such expansive demands."
1) The defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's motions to compel discovery responses because the court's order required that all discovery motions be requested by the magistrate judge, which did not occur.
2) The defendants argue the plaintiff's discovery motions should be stricken from the record and sanctions imposed due to violating the court's order.
3) The defendants also request the court stay further discovery from the plaintiff until ruling on the pending motion to dismiss the complaint.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's motions to compel discovery responses because the court's order required that all discovery motions be requested by the magistrate judge, which did not occur.
2) The defendants argue the plaintiff's discovery motions should be stricken from the record and sanctions imposed due to violating the court's order.
3) The defendants also request the court stay further discovery from the plaintiff until ruling on the pending motion to dismiss the complaint.
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallonihatehassard
This order approves the settlement of a personal injury claim brought on behalf of a minor, Joseph Michael Hernandez. It approves attorney fees of $10,096, reimbursement of medical expenses of $11,279, and a total settlement of $41,667. The remaining $30,291 will be deposited in a blocked account for the minor until he turns 18. The guardian is authorized to sign settlement documents and a full release of claims.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
This tentative decision involves a construction defect lawsuit filed by homeowners (P1) against developers (D1 and D2) over a home purchased in 2000. The developers cross-complained against subcontractors (CD1). The court must decide if the homeowner and developer claims are barred by the 10-year statute of limitations for construction defect claims. The court finds that the homeowner complaint is barred because it was filed more than 10 years after completion of construction. Exceptions for fraud/misconduct and developer possession do not apply. The developer cross-complaint is also barred as it was filed after the 10-year period lapsed and no exception applies. Judgment will be entered for the defendants.
Este documento contiene recetas de diferentes platillos agrupados en carnes, sopas y postres. En la sección de carnes se incluyen recetas de picadillo, caldo de pollo, caldo de res y birria. Las sopas incluyen sopa de coditos, sopa de verduras, sopa de lentejas y sopa de letras. Los postres son pastel de zanahoria, yogurt con frutas, flan napolitano, pay de limón y pay de queso. Cada receta proporciona los ingredientes y los pasos para
This resume is for Michael E. Andryshak, an accounting professional with over 11 years of experience in roles such as financial analyst, program business services, billing specialist, and accounts payable specialist. He is seeking a new opportunity that allows for professional growth and utilizes his skills in areas such as contract management, financial reporting, budgeting, and invoice processing.
John Kenny has over 20 years of experience in information security and IT. He has held senior roles implementing security solutions and continuous monitoring programs for government agencies. He has extensive experience with security frameworks like NIST, FISMA, and DOD standards. Kenny holds multiple security certifications and has a Bachelor's in Information Systems Security.
1) O documento apresenta as instruções para a realização de uma prova de concurso público para engenheiro civil júnior, contendo detalhes sobre o preenchimento do cartão-resposta e transcrição da questão discursiva.
2) A prova é composta por 40 questões objetivas e 1 questão discursiva, com duração total de 4 horas.
3) É vedado o uso de equipamentos eletrônicos, comunicação entre candidatos e consultas durante a realização da prova.
El documento presenta un catálogo de menús que incluye 15 opciones de comida como hot dogs, enfrijoladas, pay de queso, crepas, pizza, lasagna, pay de limón, tamales, sandwich de pollo, crema de brocoli, entomatadas, espaguetti, galletas, caldo de pollo y arroz. Cada opción incluye la lista de ingredientes y el modo de preparación detallado.
El documento presenta una serie de fotografías de eventos realizados en la Academia de Guerra Aérea durante el mes de junio de 2015, incluyendo la presentación de planes de campaña, la graduación de un curso de inglés intensivo, la inauguración de un campeonato deportivo y juegos de guerra, y una demostración del simulador de juegos de guerra Fénix.
El documento proporciona instrucciones sobre cómo usar el sistema hospitalario, incluyendo cómo iniciar sesión, navegar entre módulos, llenar hojas de evolución clínica, solicitar exámenes, internaciones y procedimientos, y generar consolidados e informes. Explica los pasos para completar tareas comunes como atender pacientes, pedir estudios y agendar cirugías.
I am mechanical Engineer having 21 years’ experience in commissioning and start up large power plants.
I have 14 years’ Experience as lead Engineer.
I have B.Sc. of Mechanical Engineering In Thermal Power Engineering on 1993 also I have Post graduate Diploma of Mechanical Engineering in Thermal Power Engineering on 2001.
I work before to KDP, Toshiba, Nem, ABB, Ansaldo Caldaia, Samsung C&T and Metka companies.
Last job I was working as commissioning team leader with Samsung C&T in Qurayyah IPP power plant 4100 MW in KSA.
Herewith my CV attached please find it.
Kindly I am looking for a new opportunity
Best Regards,
Magdy Hussine
Mechanical Commissioning and Start up Leader Engineer
Motion before the Federal Court;
Bill of Costs as award of the Federal Court of Canada to the Right Honorable Major Keyvan Nourhaghighi who won a case against three Crown lawyer
File T-1020-07
Defendants reply brief in support of defendants’ motion to dismiss action for...Cocoselul Inaripat
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case for failure to appear at depositions. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to provide any medical evidence that his medical conditions prevented him from attending the depositions. They note that he was able to attend a mediation shortly before one scheduled deposition and file court documents, contradicting his medical inability claims. As a result, the defendants believe the plaintiff's case should be dismissed due to his willful failure to comply with discovery obligations.
This document is a reply brief filed by the defendants in support of their motion to dismiss the plaintiff's case for failure to appear at depositions. The defendants argue that the plaintiff has failed to provide any medical evidence that his medical conditions prevented him from attending the depositions. They note that he was able to attend a mediation shortly before one scheduled deposition and file court documents, contradicting his medical inability claims. As a result, the defendants believe the plaintiff's case should be dismissed due to his willful failure to comply with discovery obligations.
Can my employer fire me for no reason?
an “at-will” employment state. This means that in most cases, your employer can fire you at any time for any reason, for a bad reason, or for no reason at all. So your employer can fire you for complaining about your boss’s lack of
Can my employer retaliate against me?
Generally, yes. Most retaliation is not illegal. You should contact Heins & Minko Employment Attorneys to find out if you case has merit.
Are there exceptions to employment at-will?
employment contract, it may contain language that says your employer can only fire you “for cause” (i.e., a good reason). Additionally, if your employer made an oral or written statement (including pre-employment statements) that tends to limit its ...
Am I eligible for unemployment if my employer fired me for a bad reason or no reason?
Yes. Even if your situation does not fall into one of the exceptions of employment at will listed here, you may still be eligible for unemployment benefits if your employer did not terminate you for misconduct.
What is illegal discrimination?
Discrimination is treating someone differently based on his/her membership in a “protected class.” Protected classes include race, color, creed, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, marital status, physical or mental disability, receipt of public assistance, and age. ...
What is illegal harassment?
(see the preceding paragraph for a list of protected classes) that creates a hostile environment or adversely affects the individual’s employment. Most harassment claims are for sexual harassment. While morally wrong, harassment is not legally wrong unless the reason you are ...
Can I take medical or parental leave?
State and federal laws require some employers to provide eligible employees with leave for the birth, adoption, or foster care of a child, and to care for a serious health condition of the employee or his/her close relative. Eligible employees may sue for damages if their employer denies or ...
Is my employer required to accommodate my disability?
Employers must reasonably accommodate a qualified employee’s disability, unless the accommodation imposes an undue hardship on the employer.
Act 10 continues to cause controversy in Wisconsin
the law unconstitutional in Sept. 2012 and a stay was put on enforcing
Prison guard union vote allowed by state
On behalf of Heins Law Office LLC posted in Employment Disputes on Thursday, May 30, 2013.
President Obama praises Gap for raising wages
behalf of Heins & Minko posted in Employment Disputes on Friday, February 28, 2014. Wisconsin residents may be interested in recent comments by President Obama on a newly announced plan by Gap Inc. to raise its minimum wage. On Feb. 19, President Obama praised the ...
Wisconsin equal rights claim results in settlement
attorney who has
Defendants’ motion to strike plaintiffs response to defendants’ reply brief i...Cocoselul Inaripat
Defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's response brief to their reply brief in support of their motion for summary judgment for the following reasons:
1) The local court rules do not permit a response to a reply brief without court approval, which was not obtained.
2) Even if permitted, the plaintiff's response brief exceeds the 20-page limit for response briefs and the 10-page limit for reply briefs.
3) The defendants argue the plaintiff's response brief should be stricken from the record.
Appeal from the united states district court for the eastern district of wisc...Loki Stormbringer
This is a case about how a court may dispose of a copyright infringement action based on the fair use affirmative defense while avoiding the burdens of discovery and trial. This case also poses the interesting question of whether the incorporation-byreference doctrine applies to audio-visual works.
"We noted during oral argument that such a broad discovery request, surely entailing expensive e-discovery of emails or other internal communications, gives Brownmark the appearance of a “copyright troll.” We are confident that the district court would have refused to grant such expansive demands."
1) The defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's motions to compel discovery responses because the court's order required that all discovery motions be requested by the magistrate judge, which did not occur.
2) The defendants argue the plaintiff's discovery motions should be stricken from the record and sanctions imposed due to violating the court's order.
3) The defendants also request the court stay further discovery from the plaintiff until ruling on the pending motion to dismiss the complaint.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and adams leshota...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a motion to strike the plaintiff's motions to compel discovery responses because the court's order required that all discovery motions be requested by the magistrate judge, which did not occur.
2) The defendants argue the plaintiff's discovery motions should be stricken from the record and sanctions imposed due to violating the court's order.
3) The defendants also request the court stay further discovery from the plaintiff until ruling on the pending motion to dismiss the complaint.
Mark swhwartz gets_40k_for_client_vs_peter_mallonihatehassard
This order approves the settlement of a personal injury claim brought on behalf of a minor, Joseph Michael Hernandez. It approves attorney fees of $10,096, reimbursement of medical expenses of $11,279, and a total settlement of $41,667. The remaining $30,291 will be deposited in a blocked account for the minor until he turns 18. The guardian is authorized to sign settlement documents and a full release of claims.
Defendants dismas charties, inc., ana gispert, derek thomas and lashanda adam...Cocoselul Inaripat
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's confinement at a community corrections facility.
2) The defendants disputed several of the plaintiff's factual claims, citing evidence from the affidavit of the facility director and documents related to the conditions of the plaintiff's release and confinement.
3) Specifically, the defendants argued that the plaintiff violated the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone, leading to his transfer back to prison by the Bureau of Prisons.
1) The defendants filed a statement of disputed facts in response to the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment in a case involving the plaintiff's release from a community corrections center.
2) The defendants disputed many of the plaintiff's facts, citing an affidavit from the director of the community corrections center in support.
3) The plaintiff was ultimately sent back to a correctional facility by the Bureau of Prisons for violating the terms of his release by driving without permission and possessing a cell phone.
This tentative decision involves a construction defect lawsuit filed by homeowners (P1) against developers (D1 and D2) over a home purchased in 2000. The developers cross-complained against subcontractors (CD1). The court must decide if the homeowner and developer claims are barred by the 10-year statute of limitations for construction defect claims. The court finds that the homeowner complaint is barred because it was filed more than 10 years after completion of construction. Exceptions for fraud/misconduct and developer possession do not apply. The developer cross-complaint is also barred as it was filed after the 10-year period lapsed and no exception applies. Judgment will be entered for the defendants.
Este documento contiene recetas de diferentes platillos agrupados en carnes, sopas y postres. En la sección de carnes se incluyen recetas de picadillo, caldo de pollo, caldo de res y birria. Las sopas incluyen sopa de coditos, sopa de verduras, sopa de lentejas y sopa de letras. Los postres son pastel de zanahoria, yogurt con frutas, flan napolitano, pay de limón y pay de queso. Cada receta proporciona los ingredientes y los pasos para
This resume is for Michael E. Andryshak, an accounting professional with over 11 years of experience in roles such as financial analyst, program business services, billing specialist, and accounts payable specialist. He is seeking a new opportunity that allows for professional growth and utilizes his skills in areas such as contract management, financial reporting, budgeting, and invoice processing.
John Kenny has over 20 years of experience in information security and IT. He has held senior roles implementing security solutions and continuous monitoring programs for government agencies. He has extensive experience with security frameworks like NIST, FISMA, and DOD standards. Kenny holds multiple security certifications and has a Bachelor's in Information Systems Security.
1) O documento apresenta as instruções para a realização de uma prova de concurso público para engenheiro civil júnior, contendo detalhes sobre o preenchimento do cartão-resposta e transcrição da questão discursiva.
2) A prova é composta por 40 questões objetivas e 1 questão discursiva, com duração total de 4 horas.
3) É vedado o uso de equipamentos eletrônicos, comunicação entre candidatos e consultas durante a realização da prova.
El documento presenta un catálogo de menús que incluye 15 opciones de comida como hot dogs, enfrijoladas, pay de queso, crepas, pizza, lasagna, pay de limón, tamales, sandwich de pollo, crema de brocoli, entomatadas, espaguetti, galletas, caldo de pollo y arroz. Cada opción incluye la lista de ingredientes y el modo de preparación detallado.
El documento presenta una serie de fotografías de eventos realizados en la Academia de Guerra Aérea durante el mes de junio de 2015, incluyendo la presentación de planes de campaña, la graduación de un curso de inglés intensivo, la inauguración de un campeonato deportivo y juegos de guerra, y una demostración del simulador de juegos de guerra Fénix.
El documento proporciona instrucciones sobre cómo usar el sistema hospitalario, incluyendo cómo iniciar sesión, navegar entre módulos, llenar hojas de evolución clínica, solicitar exámenes, internaciones y procedimientos, y generar consolidados e informes. Explica los pasos para completar tareas comunes como atender pacientes, pedir estudios y agendar cirugías.
I am mechanical Engineer having 21 years’ experience in commissioning and start up large power plants.
I have 14 years’ Experience as lead Engineer.
I have B.Sc. of Mechanical Engineering In Thermal Power Engineering on 1993 also I have Post graduate Diploma of Mechanical Engineering in Thermal Power Engineering on 2001.
I work before to KDP, Toshiba, Nem, ABB, Ansaldo Caldaia, Samsung C&T and Metka companies.
Last job I was working as commissioning team leader with Samsung C&T in Qurayyah IPP power plant 4100 MW in KSA.
Herewith my CV attached please find it.
Kindly I am looking for a new opportunity
Best Regards,
Magdy Hussine
Mechanical Commissioning and Start up Leader Engineer
Emergence and self-organization are natural processes seen throughout the universe. Research shows the greatest creativity occurs at the "edge of chaos" where random forces converge into a higher order. Effective methods for building organizations encourage self-organization through open environments, lateral designs, feedback loops, and fun/creativity. Examples of self-organization include a slime mold experiment, Manchester, England, and JetBlue Flight 292.
This summarizes a document reviewing environmental law cases from 2009-2010. It discusses three cases:
1) Fresh Meadow Food Serv., LLC v. RB 175Corp. upheld a RICO claim against a defendant who concealed underground storage tanks and contaminated soil when selling a property.
2) Wickens v. Shell Oil Co. addressed recoverable attorney fees under Indiana's Underground Storage Tank Act.
3) Evansville Greenway & Remediation Trust v. S. Ind. Gas & Elec. Co. concerned the common interest privilege and apportionment of liability under CERCLA. The court applied the privilege to communications between parties working to remediate contaminated sites. It also found CERCLA
This document is a motion filed in United States Bankruptcy Court requesting an expedited hearing for a separate motion to file certain documents under seal. The motion provides background on involuntary bankruptcy petitions recently filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. It argues that expedited relief is necessary due to exigent circumstances, including the risk of harm to creditors from ongoing conflicts of interest if relief is not granted quickly. The motion requests that the court schedule a hearing on the separate motion to seal within two days and set the objection deadline on the same expedited schedule.
Atlantic States Legal Foundation brought a citizen suit under the Clean Water Act against Eastman Kodak, claiming it was discharging pollutants not listed in its state-issued discharge permit. The district court granted summary judgment for Kodak. The appellate court affirmed, holding that under Section 402(k) of the CWA, a permit holder is shielded from citizen suits for discharging unlisted pollutants if it is in compliance with its discharge permit. The EPA's interpretation that not all pollutants need to be limited in a permit is reasonable and entitled to deference. Therefore, Atlantic States could not bring its citizen suit against Kodak.
This document summarizes discussions from the 2012 Texas Groundwater Summit.
1) A groundwater conservation district cannot waive a city's governmental immunity for past due fees, penalties, and costs. However, suits to require prospective compliance with rules are allowed.
2) Landowners have a constitutionally protected interest in groundwater that can be subject to regulatory takings claims if permitting denies economic value.
3) Recent court cases have addressed issues such as whether implementation of groundwater regulations constituted a taking, determining adequate compensation, and challenges to groundwater management plans and permits.
Mediacom executives almost arrested for signal theft?Kraig Beahn
This document is EchoStar Satellite LLC's response to Mediacom Communications Corporation's motion to dismiss or transfer a case regarding the retransmission of local television channels. EchoStar argues that the court has specific personal jurisdiction over Mediacom because Mediacom purposefully directed tortious actions at Colorado by illegally obtaining and redistributing a television channel that EchoStar had purchased the rights to distribute. EchoStar asserts that Mediacom's actions caused harm in Colorado and that requiring Mediacom to appear in court would be consistent with due process.
OH Supreme Court Decision: State ex rel. Morrison v. Beck Energy Corp.Marcellus Drilling News
Decision by the Ohio Supreme Court in a case striking down so-called "home rule" laws in which local municipalities try to prevent shale drilling by enacting local zoning regulations. The court found that according to OH law, the state and only the state may regulate where and when drilling is done. A huge victory for both landowners and the shale industry in the Buckeye State.
The Second Circuit recently issued a decision holding that claims against diesel engine manufacturers relating to emissions exposures were preempted by the Clean Air Act. This broad interpretation of preemption under the Act could significantly limit further litigation over diesel exhaust health claims. However, the decision may allow other types of claims against different defendants to proceed. Additionally, the failure-to-warn portion of the ruling is open to challenge. Given the complexity of preemption under the Clean Air Act and the different standards that apply to various emission sources, the ongoing preemption issues surrounding diesel exhaust litigation are likely to be actively debated.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals rejected arguments from critics of the AWA Goodhue wind project Monday morning to affirm a fall 2011 Minnesota Public Utilities Commission decision to issue a site permit for the wind power development.
SKGF_Advisory_Real World Impacts of Reexamination Practice and Procedure_2008SterneKessler
This document discusses issues related to patent reexamination procedures and their impact on patent owners. It provides background on ex parte and inter partes reexamination procedures. It then discusses concerns about the low standard for instituting reexaminations, the impact of reexaminations on capital markets, and identifying the real party in interest in inter partes reexaminations. It proposes solutions such as increasing the standard for reexaminations involving previously litigated patents or previous reexams and keeping reexamination proceedings confidential until a final office action.
ACI’s National Forum on Admiralty & Maritime Claims and Litigation has been tailored to provide corporate counsel, claims counsel, and private practice defense attorneys with the expert knowledge and key strategies that they need to successfully defend against maritime litigation.
The Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the Office of the President to dismiss Calixto R. Cataquiz from his position as General Manager of the Laguna Lake Development Authority and impose accessory penalties. However, the Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals did not properly review the facts and evidence in making its decision. Specifically, the Court of Appeals did not cite evidence to support absolving Cataquiz of wrongdoing, contrary to the findings of the investigating bodies. As a result, the Supreme Court ruled that the factual findings of the Court of Appeals were reviewable and remanded the case for proper consideration of the evidence.
This document is a motion filed in United States Bankruptcy Court requesting an order to shorten the notice period for a hearing on the appointment of a trustee. The motion was filed by petitioning creditors against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.), who were recently subject to involuntary bankruptcy petitions. The motion argues that exigent circumstances exist due to conflicts of interest and mismanagement by the company's controlling shareholder, Yucaipa, that threaten creditor interests. As such, an expedited hearing is requested to consider appointing a trustee to assume control of the debtors.
The petitioning creditors filed a motion requesting permission to file redacted versions of confidential pleadings and exhibits under seal in bankruptcy proceedings against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. The pleadings and exhibits contain confidential commercial information from credit agreements. The motion argues that public disclosure of this confidential information would violate the credit agreements.
NY Court of Appeals Decision in Walter R Beardslee v Inflection EnergyMarcellus Drilling News
The decision in a case before New York's highest court, the Court of Appeals, that finds the concept of force majeure does not grant energy companies the right to extend oil and gas leases beyond the initial term even if a state government moratorium or ban is placed on shale drilling. In essence, it guts the force majeure clause in state contracts, rendering such a clause useless and screwing contract law in New York State. A very poor decision.
This document is an amicus brief in support of Mingo Logan Coal Company's motion for summary judgment against the EPA. It argues that EPA's use of its Clean Water Act Section 404(c) authority to modify a Section 404 permit already issued by the Army Corps of Engineers sets an unprecedented and disruptive precedent. It asserts that this action by EPA introduces tremendous uncertainty for all current and future Section 404 permit holders, increasing costs and risks and deterring important economic investment and development that requires Section 404 permits. The amicus brief represents a broad coalition of industry groups dependent on Section 404 permitting, and contends EPA's action threatens substantial negative economic impacts.
This document summarizes the key compliance challenges with California's Construction General Permit. It discusses the background and requirements of the permit, including filing permit documents, developing stormwater pollution prevention plans, and electronic reporting. It outlines the state and federal regulatory frameworks for water quality permits. It also describes enforcement procedures such as inspections, notices of violation, and penalties. Overall, the document provides an overview of the construction stormwater permit requirements and compliance processes in California.
Stem OPT Extension Judge Decision - Jan 23, 2016happyschools
This document is a memorandum opinion from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia regarding a motion from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) seeking to extend a stay of vacatur for an interim final rule. The court had previously vacated the rule for lack of notice and comment procedures but stayed the vacatur for 6 months to allow DHS time to issue a new rule. DHS now seeks a 90 day extension of the stay, arguing it needs more time to avoid a regulatory gap. The plaintiff opposes, arguing the court lacks jurisdiction during the pending appeal and DHS fails to show extraordinary circumstances for relief. The court grants DHS's motion, finding it has jurisdiction and DHS has shown circumstances warrant
Us department of labor (cases addressing waiver)VogelDenise
This document is an amicus brief in support of reconsidering a court order denying a motion for judgment. It argues that a Department of Labor regulation barring waiver of FMLA rights prohibits only prospective waivers and does not bar settlement of past FMLA claims. It asserts the regulation aims to prevent bargaining away future rights, not releasing claims based on past conduct. Allowing settlements without court or Department approval enables employees to promptly obtain compensation due and avoids litigation delays.
This document is a consent decree between the United States of America, Hawaii Department of Health, and Hawaii Department of Transportation regarding alleged violations of the Clean Water Act by Hawaii Department of Transportation for failing to comply with stormwater discharge permits and an EPA administrative order. The consent decree establishes requirements for Hawaii Department of Transportation to comply with the Clean Water Act and its stormwater discharge permits for Honolulu and Kalaeloa Barbers Point Harbors, including developing stormwater management plans and implementing best management practices. It outlines general provisions, definitions, requirements for compliance, approval processes, certifications, injunctive relief, penalties, dispute resolution, and other terms of the agreement.
1. To: WhyChang? Management
From: Michael Mickelson, Assistant General Counsel
RE: Friends of Willamette Complaint
Date: November 10, 2014
Introduction
On October 22, WhyChang? (“WC”) was served with a law suit initiated by Friends of the
Willamette (“Friends”). The complaint alleges that WC has violated its NPDES permit, the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and several Oregon Administrative Rules and
requests civil penalties, revocation of WC’s NPDES permit, imposition of updated treatment
facilities, and attorney’s fees. This could result in severe and crippling money damages, loss of
profits, and negative publicity.
The purpose of this brief is to analyze, and, more importantly, offer solutions to the following
problems: first, what is WC’s current NPDES permit status; second, if the permit is valid, what, if
any, alleged discharges fall outside of the permit shield; third, what are the enforcement
consequences of any illegal discharges that may have occurred; fourth, what implications does the
Talking Garden Wetlands project have on the lawsuit; and finally, how should WC respond to the
citizen suit and the plant’s wastewater discharges?
Analysis
What is the Current Validity of WC’s NPDES Permit?
The first question is the validity of WC’s NPDES permit. Under the Oregon Administrative
Rules, if a timely application for renewal of a permit is filed with DEQ pursuant to OAR 340-045-
0030, the permit will not expire until final action has been taken on the renewal application. OAR
340-045-0040. As plaintiff itself points out, WC made timely application for renewal of its NPDES
permit on May 19, 1993. Plaintiff’s Brief paragraph 63. Therefore, WC’s permit is still valid under
the OAR until final action is taken by DEQ, even though WC did not actually complete the permit
until 2006. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this principle in ONRC Action v. Columbia, where Columbia
had been operating its plant for thirteen years while waiting for DEQ to accept its permit renewal
application. ONRC Action v. Columbia, 286 F.3rd 1137, 1140 (9th Cir 2002). The Ninth Circuit
affirmed the district court’s ruling in favor of Columbia, adding that the original permit would be
valid until DEQ took final action. Id. The Court did not address whether this shield could continue
for an “indefinite” amount of time. It did, however, approve of the Oregon Supreme Court’s holding
that DEQ may, in essence, turn an untimely permit renewal application into a timely one by merely
accepting it and processing it. Id, ONRC Action v. Columbia Plywoods, Inc., 332 Or. 216, 225, 26
P.3d 142, 147 (2001). In Columbia, the delay was of defendant’s own making (failure to sign the
permit renewal application). In this case, WC made a timely and complete application for permit
renewal. Even if originally made in an untimely fashion, the fact that DEQ accepted and processed
the application effectively makes it a timely request.
What is the Scope of the Resulting Permit Shield Protections?
2. It goes without saying that compliance with a permit is necessary in order to qualify, but,
assuming compliance, then a permittee is protected by the Permit Shield provisions of the CWA and
OAR and will be deemed to be in compliance with the relevant sections of the CWA and with OAR.
OAR 340-045-0080(4). Furthermore, even if the permittee has difficulty in meeting water quality
standards, then DEQ, in compliance with 40 C.F.R. § 127.47, may establish compliance schedules
which give a permittee time to meet the water quality standards. Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality, DEQ10-WQ-0040-IMD.
There are exceptions, however, and CWA section 307(a) is a notable exception to the Permit
Shield provisions of section 402(k) and OAR 340-045-0080(4). All of the compounds listed in the
introduction of plaintiff’s brief (nickel, chromium, copper, cyanide, lead, nickel, and zinc) are among
the toxic substances listed by the EPA as exempt from the Permit Shield. 40 C.F.R. § 401.15.
These toxic substances are subject to BAT limitations and effluent requirements promulgated by the
EPA and updated from time to time as needed. FWPCA § 307(a)(2).
Mixing zones are permitted by the CWA, and have been adopted and widely used in Oregon.
40 C.F.R. § 131.13 and OAR 340-041-0053, respectively. Mixing zones are designated portions of a
receiving water (stream, river, etc.) that serve as a zone in which waste waters and receiving waters
mix and the effluent is diluted. OAR 340-041-0053(2)(c). However, there are conditions placed
upon DEQ in establishing such mixing zones, such as they shall be “as small as feasible” and “shall
be less than the total stream width as necessary to allow passage of fish and other aquatic
organisms.”(Emphasis added). OAR 340-041-0053 (2)(c)(A)(B).
An NPDES permit need not contain every pollutant produced by the permittee. Once
someone has a permit, he can discharge pollutants not covered in the permit as long as he complies
with reporting requirements and abides by new pollutant limitations. Atlantic States Legal
Foundation v. Eastman Kodak Co., 12 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1994).
Friends may be precluded from bringing suit against WC for its on-site sludge and
contaminated soils and groundwater due to WC’s negotiations with EPA and subsequent
classification as a Superfund Site. FWPCA § 505(b)(1)(B). (In 2012, EPA issued its fourth five-year
review of the Teledyne Wah Chang Superfund Site, in which it addressed, among other things, WC’s
sludge ponds, groundwater and sediment conditions, and surface and subsurface soil conditions).
U.S. EPA Contract No. 68-57-03-04, Task Order No. (011) (December 28, 2012).
Although the purpose of the preclusion provision is to prevent citizens from encroaching on
government enforcement authority and the statutory language “diligently prosecuting” is quite clear,
there is a split of authority among the circuit courts as to what government action will actually
preclude a section 505 citizen suit. The Second Circuit stated that “as long as the settlement
reasonably assures that the violations alleged in the citizen suit have ceased and will not recur, then
the citizen suit cannot proceed even though the state did not initiate enforcement proceedings during
the 60-day notice period.” Atlantic States Legal Foundation v. Eastman Kodak Co., 933 F.2d 124
(2d Cir. 1991).
The facts of this case are a little different, however, as this was not a one-time settlement.
EPA continues to work with and give support to WC. A citizen suit might be held to significantly
interfere with EPA’s efforts to bring WC into compliance with some of these issues. WC may have
an additional defense as well. Any condition that would be covered by a section 404 permit may not
be enforced through a section 505 citizen suit. Atchafalaya Basinkeeper v. Chustz, 682 F3d 356 (5th
3. Cir 2012); Nw. Envtl. Def. Ctr. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 118 F Supp2d 1115, 1118 (Dist.
Or. 2000).
What are the Enforcement Consequences of any Illegal Discharges that may have Occurred?
The two primary remedies for a 505 citizen suit are injunctive relief (both to enforce effluent
limitations and to prevent a discharger from violating those limits) and civil penalties. FWPCA §
505(a). Attorney’s fees and expert witness fees are also recoverable. FWPCA § 505(a)(d). Under
the CWA’s enforcement section, civil penalties may be severe and can rise to the amount of more
than $37,000 per day for each violation. FWPCA § 309(d). Illegal discharges are discharges which
violate an NPDES permit and/or of pollutants which fall outside the Permit Shield (a civil penalty for
an NPDES violation cannot be more than $10,000). In WC’s case, the civil penalties alone could
amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. Even assuming Friends can only recover those
damages for the last five years, such a penalty would most likely be fatal to WC’s business
operations.
Friends is also seeking injunctive relief pursuant to section 505. It is asking the court to
enforce the conditions contained in WC’s permit and to enjoin WC from further operation until it can
comply with those conditions. Not only would this be costly in terms of bringing WC’s operations
into permit compliance, but it would also result in potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost
profits and lost jobs while the factory is undergoing renovation.
Although Constitutional standing is generally not an enormous obstacle for environmental
groups to establish (and we have assumed standing for present purposes), there are some important
limitations of which to be aware. For example, in Gwaltney v. Chesapeake Bay, the Supreme Court
held that there is no standing to seek civil penalties for violations which are “wholly past” which
have been abated by the time of the suit. Gwaltney of Smithfield, Ltd. V. Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, 484 U.S. 49 (1987).
While the CWA does not explicitly mention a statute of limitations for bringing citizen suits,
courts have typically give a five-year window within which to initiate a section 505 suit. Sierra Club
v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 834 F.2d 1517 (9th Cir. 1987), 28 U.S.C. 2462 (1982). Coupled with
Gwaltney, this would prevent Friends from suing at least for violations more than five years in the
past.
Two potentially significant defenses are provided in section 505(b)(1)(A)’s notice
requirement. This provision requires that anyone initiating a section 505 citizen suit file notice with
the alleged violator, EPA, and the enforcement agency of the state in which the alleged violator
resides or does business. There is no indication that Friends gave timely notice to EPA or DEQ. In
fact, in its complaint, Friends makes no mention of giving notice to either agency nor did it join
either as parties to the suit. The U.S. Supreme Court has held that such a failure to follow the notice
requirements of section 505 is sufficient to warrant dismissal of the suit. Hallstrom v. Tillamook
County, 47, 493 U.S. 20 (1989). WC’s second defense was outlined in ONRC Action v. Columbia.
In that case, the Ninth Circuit held that although ONRC Action might have a valid claim as to the
validity of Columbia’s NPDES permit renewal application, it was barred from raising that claim
because it was not mentioned in ONRC’s 60-day notice to Columbia because of due process
concerns. ONRC Action v. Columbia, 286 F.3rd 1137, 1140 (9th Cir 2002). This holding seems to
bar a plaintiff from asserting in court any claim not included in its 60-day notice as required under
4. section 505(b)(1)(a). We do not know what was specifically mentioned in Friends’ notice of intent to
sue, but its failure to bring up claims which it now asserts could provide WC a substantial defense.
What Implications does the Talking Garden Wetlands Project have on the Lawsuit?
The Talking Garden Wetlands Project (“Wetlands”) has significant implications on Friends’
lawsuit against WC. The CWA’s effluent limitations apply to discharges from point sources and to
POTWs. No effluent limitations are placed, however, on industrial sources which discharge into
POTWs. The implication, therefore, is that indirect dischargers are exempt from the NPDES
permitting system. 40 C.F.R. § 122.3(c). The Wetlands is not wholly publicly-owned, WC owns
some of it. Whether or not discharges to a privately-owned POTW require an NPDES permit is left
up to EPA or DEQ, whoever is the permitting agency. 40 C.F.R. §§ 122.3(g), 122.44(m). This
would bring back into consideration the concepts of standing, mootness, and the Gwaltney problem
of “wholly past” violations. If a discharger is no longer subject to the NPDES system, than surely its
violations of that system would be “wholly past.” The injunctive relief sought by Friends would be
particularly suspect. A court would not enjoin WC from operation of its plant until it can assure
compliance with an NPDES permit when it is no longer subject to the NPDES permitting system!
However, WC is still subject to certain limitations imposed by EPA. Under section 307(b),
EPA periodically publishes regulations detailing pretreatment standards for any pollutant not
susceptible to POTW treatment or that would interfere with the operation of the POTW. EPA has
held that indirect dischargers can only be penalized when their discharges actually cause the POTW
to violate its permit. The Eight Circuit validated this definition of “interference” and “pass through”
in Arkansas Poultry Fed’n v. EPA, 852 F.2d 324 (8th
Cir. 1988), see also 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1).
EPA has set up national pretreatment standards that provide certain affirmative defenses to an
indirect discharger and apply general as well as specific prohibitions. 40 C.F.R. § 403.5(a)(1), (a)(2),
and (b). For example, a discharger can assert an affirmative defense against alleged violations of
general or specific prohibitions if it can show that it did not know that its discharge constituted a
violation. § 403.5(a)(2)(i). Examples of specific prohibitions include pollutants which cause a fire or
explosion hazard in the POTW, pollutants which cause corrosive structural damage, solid or viscous
pollutants which cause obstruction to the flow in the POTW resulting in interference, and pollutants
which result in the presence of toxic gases, vapors, or fumes within the POTW in a quantity that may
cause acute worker health and safety problems. § 403.5(b)(1-3)(7).
Section 307(b) also states that if a POTW can effectively treat any toxic pollutant to the point
where it would not violate effluent limitations if discharged directly by the non-point source, and still
be in compliance with section 405’s requirements, then the pretreatment requirements may be held
fulfilled. This essentially allows local POTWs to set up their own pretreatment programs and
requirements. This is especially important in the context of constructed wetland projects, which are
fundamentally different form typical sewage treatment plants and often are custom-fitted to the local
environmental needs.
How should WC respond to the Citizen Suit and to the Plant’s Wastewater Discharges?
There is more than one solution, but WC must make an increased effort to be proactive and
not reactive in regards to environmental concerns. Following is a list of possible actions. There are,
of course, other concerns besides strict legality or illegality. Factors such as community image,
5. incident history, practicality/feasibility of treatment facility upgrades, environment-friendly
positions, etc. also weigh towards reaching a speedy and effective solution. In an environment-
friendly state such as Oregon, it would be well for WC to take the “bull by the horns” in cleaning up
its act.
As a practical matter, WC must implement more effective and consistent reporting and
monitoring procedures. Whether to comply with the NPDES program’s requirement to regularly file
discharge monitoring reports and summaries of water quality sampling results or with the POTW
pretreatment reporting requirements found in 40 C.F.R. §§ 403.6 and 403.12, WC should be
proactive and “ahead of the curve” in regards to its reporting procedures in order to fully establish
regulatory compliance and public confidence. Also, if an NPDES permit is required, WC must be
willing and able to install BAT technology as currently required by the CWA.
Given its long history of cooperation with government enforcement agencies (it has been
working with EPA for years in regards to sludge contamination and soil conditions), WC could self-
report and initiate a DEQ investigation of its practices. If culminated in a consent order signed by a
judge, this would trigger section 505(b)(1)(B)’s “diligently prosecuting” bar to a citizen suit, which
states that diligent prosecution a civil or criminal action by EPA or DEQ acts as an effective bar to a
citizen suit. In order to overcome this bar, Friends would have the burden of showing that DEQ was
not “diligently” pursuing the action, or that it is merely an administrative action. While perhaps not
the most preferable solution, this course of action would be at least preferable to a citizen suit in that
it would minimize publicity for WC and DEQ and would provide each with a less adversarial
negotiating environment and ultimately more favorable settlement options. For example, DEQ
would be willing to waive all civil penalties because of WC’s efforts to construct the Wetlands. WC,
on the other hand, would be willing to work directly with DEQ in enforcing monitoring and reporting
schedules, compliance schedules, etc. instead of taking the matter to EPA, which could result in
unfavorable consequences for DEQ. Additionally, self-reporting would persuade DEQ to be more
lenient in its enforcement action against WC and would act as a semi-shield against negative
publicity should the press or public get wind of the violations.
Another solution is to negotiate a settlement with Friends. Friends will have a strong
incentive to settle because any civil penalties assessed against WC will be paid to the U.S. Treasury,
whereas Friends could claim any amount reached through settlement negotiations (as long as there
hasn’t been a judicial determination that the alleged violations did occur). Sierra Club, Inc. v. Elec.
Controls Design, Inc., 909 F2d 1350, 1355-56 (9th
Cir 1990). Given the potential penalties of
$37,500 per day per violation, factory shut-down, and attorney’s fees, it would be advantageous to
reach a settlement with Friends that would include the following: (1) specific actions and a schedule
for addressing the violations; (2) a contribution to a third party engaged in stream restoration work;
(3) payment of the attorney fees and costs of the person giving notice; and (4) an agreement by the
person giving notice not to bring an action for violations occurring before the date of the agreement.
OSB Legal Publications 3.2-12(a)(4).
However, in light of the Wetlands’ implications for Friends’ case against WC, Friends’
bargaining power is diminished significantly and WC must tailor its negotiation strategy accordingly.
Indeed, WC’s incentives to settle might be diminished to the point of making a settlement less
preferable to the other courses of action recommended here. As one last note on settlement, the
Supreme Court has held that a final settlement precludes the plaintiff from seeking legal recourse.
“We know of no precedent for the proposition that when a plaintiff has sued to challenge the
6. lawfulness of certain action or threatened action but has settled that suit, he retains standing to
challenge the basis for that action…” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009).
Of course, there is the ever-present option of proceeding to trial, an option that looks more
favorable in light of the Wetlands impact on the lawsuit. If WC is now acting as an indirect
discharger, all of Friends’ claims regarding effluent limitations, violations of the NPDES permit,
mixing zones, etc. are moot and Friends’ suit would be dismissed for failure to make a claim of
action under section 505. Friends could allege that WC is violating the national or local pretreatment
standards for discharges into a POTW, but it has not made any of those claims. Its claim for relief
under the ESA is also dismissible because that is not a claim for relief under section 505. Any claim
regarding violations of the ESA must be brought under the provisions of that statute.
Apart from solutions to legal problems, WC must show an increased sensitivity to issues of
environmental significance. The Wetlands is a great start to showing the community, advocacy
groups, and regulatory agencies that WC is serious about working toward a healthier environment.
The project will restore wildlife and wetland habitat along the Willamette River, promote water
cooling (which is crucial for optimal salmon habitat) and improved water quality, recycle effluent to
be used for irrigation, create a public attraction which will in turn increase public awareness of
current environmental issues, and save money and energy by using only natural processes (no energy
or chemicals). http://www.cityofalbany.net/publicworks/twg/.
WC could also initiate more events to increase public awareness, such as volunteer clean-up
efforts along the Willamette River, and events to raise money for environmental groups and
restoration projects (such as a 5 or 10K).
Conclusion
Due to the potential negative and severe consequences, legal and otherwise, the Friends
lawsuit is an extremely serious matter that requires immediate attention. The first step to take is that
of hiring an expert environmental attorney to guide WC through the legal processes of settlement
negotiation and assuring compliance with pretreatment standards and monitoring and reporting
guidelines. The Talking Garden Wetlands Project was an important first step in creating a new
image for WC, but it is imperative that it be a first step and not a final one.
7. lawfulness of certain action or threatened action but has settled that suit, he retains standing to
challenge the basis for that action…” Summers v. Earth Island Institute, 555 U.S. 488 (2009).
Of course, there is the ever-present option of proceeding to trial, an option that looks more
favorable in light of the Wetlands impact on the lawsuit. If WC is now acting as an indirect
discharger, all of Friends’ claims regarding effluent limitations, violations of the NPDES permit,
mixing zones, etc. are moot and Friends’ suit would be dismissed for failure to make a claim of
action under section 505. Friends could allege that WC is violating the national or local pretreatment
standards for discharges into a POTW, but it has not made any of those claims. Its claim for relief
under the ESA is also dismissible because that is not a claim for relief under section 505. Any claim
regarding violations of the ESA must be brought under the provisions of that statute.
Apart from solutions to legal problems, WC must show an increased sensitivity to issues of
environmental significance. The Wetlands is a great start to showing the community, advocacy
groups, and regulatory agencies that WC is serious about working toward a healthier environment.
The project will restore wildlife and wetland habitat along the Willamette River, promote water
cooling (which is crucial for optimal salmon habitat) and improved water quality, recycle effluent to
be used for irrigation, create a public attraction which will in turn increase public awareness of
current environmental issues, and save money and energy by using only natural processes (no energy
or chemicals). http://www.cityofalbany.net/publicworks/twg/.
WC could also initiate more events to increase public awareness, such as volunteer clean-up
efforts along the Willamette River, and events to raise money for environmental groups and
restoration projects (such as a 5 or 10K).
Conclusion
Due to the potential negative and severe consequences, legal and otherwise, the Friends
lawsuit is an extremely serious matter that requires immediate attention. The first step to take is that
of hiring an expert environmental attorney to guide WC through the legal processes of settlement
negotiation and assuring compliance with pretreatment standards and monitoring and reporting
guidelines. The Talking Garden Wetlands Project was an important first step in creating a new
image for WC, but it is imperative that it be a first step and not a final one.