acy Act 10 USC 1561a Civilian orders of protection: force and effect on military installations 119AR 190–45 • 30 March 2007 Case 1:15-cv-00031-CKK Document 20-4 Filed 06/19/17 Page 128 of 149 10 USC 2671 Military reservations and facilities: hunting, fishing, and trapping 15 USC 2605 Toxic Substance Control Act 16 USC 668 The Bald Eagle Protection Act 16 USC 703 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act 16 USC 718 The Migratory Bird Hunting Stamp Act 16 USC 3372 The Lacey Act 18 USC 13 Laws of states adopted for areas within Federal jurisdiction 18 USC 922 The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act 18 USC 1382 Entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property 18 USC 5032 Deliquency proceedings in district courts; transfer for criminal proceedings 28 USC 534 The Uniform Federal Crime Reporting Act 29 USC 655 Occupational Health and Safety Administration Asbestos Act 33 USC 1251 Water Pollution Control Act 42 USC 300f et seq Safe Drinking Water Act 42 USC 4321 National Environmental Policy Act 42 USC 6901 Hazardous Waste Control Act 42 USC 7401 Clean Air Act 42 USC 9601 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 42 USC 10601 The Victim Rights and Restitution Act Section III Prescribed Forms Except where otherwise indicated below, the following forms are available as follows: DA Forms are available on the 120 AR 190–45 • 30 March 2007 Case 1:15-cv-00031-CKK Document 20-4 Filed 06/19/17 Page 129 of 149 APD Web site (http://www.apd.army.mil); DD Forms are available from the OSD Web site (http://www.dtic.mil/whs/ directives/infomgt/forms/formsprogram.htm). DA Form 2823 Sworn Statement (Prescribed in paras 7–10, 7–11.)

RCRA included no specific provisions concerning PCBs. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq. In contrast, Congress enacted TSCA to regulate the manufacture, distribution, use and disposal of “chemical substance[s] or mixture[s],” 15 U.S.C. § 2605(a), and included statutory provisions directing EPA to specifically regulate the use and disposal of PCBs, PCB-containing equipment, and PCB waste.

re Not Subject to the Limitation Act As a courtesy to the Court, as well as to the various States and private parties which have sustained damages as a result of the Deepwater Horizon spill, we also point out that OPA expressly permits states to impose additional liability and requirements for oil spills above the liability limits established by OPA 90 and the Limitation Act. OPA states: (a) Preservation of State authorities; ... Nothing in this Act or the Act of March 3, 1851 [the Limitation Act] shall– (1) affect, or be construed or interpreted as preempting, the authority of any State or political subdivision thereof from imposing any additional liability or requirements with respect to-- (A) the discharge of oil or other pollution by oil within such State; or (B) any removal activities in connection with such a discharge; or (2) affect, or be construed or interpreted to affect or modify in any way the obligations or liabilities of any person under the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) or State law, including common law. ... OPA, 33 U.S.C. § 2718(a).

In Dep’t of Energy, the Supreme Court held that the federal government was not subject to punitive liability in the form of civil fines imposed by a State for past violations of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. In the Clean Water Act, Congress had waived the government's immunity from suit and authorized monetary “sanction[s]” against the federal government as “civil penalties” for violating the Act’s federal-facilities provisions.

DOE therefore has the obligation under UMTRCA to remediate them. A ruling in EPNG’s favor on this UMTRCA Claim would entirely resolve this matter and would obviate the need for any ruling on EPNG’s secondary and alternative claims under the Resource Conversation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), 42 U.S. C. § 6901 et seq. (the “RCRA Claims”). The critical point requiring rejection of Defendants’ motion is that the statutory venue provision applicable to EPNG’s primary UMTRCA Claim allows venue for such claims in the District of Columbia.

Dickinson v. Land Developers Construction Company, Inc., 882 So.2d 291 (Ala. 2003). In a case remarkably similar to the instant case, the Eleventh Circuit ruled that where evidence supports causation and resulting injury, a violation of the RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901, et seq. (“RCRA”) constitutes negligence per se. Parker v. Scrap Metal Processors, Inc., 386 F.3d 993 (11 Cir. 2004). To prevail on a claim under 42 U.S.C.th § 6972(a)(1)(B), the plaintiff must prove: (1) that the defendant is a person, including, but not limited to, one who was or is a generator or transporter of solid or hazardous waste or one who was or is an owner or operator of a solid or hazardous waste treatment, storage, or disposal facility; (2) that the defendant has contributed to or is contributing to the handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of solid or hazardous waste; and (3) that the solid or hazardous waste may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment.

(Litigation in reference to CV-13- 03016-TOR will be referred to as the “CARE suit” or the “underlying action.”) The Complaint alleged violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. (“RCRA”), the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. § 11001 et seq. (“EPCRA”), and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et seq. (“CERCLA”). The Complaint sought injunctive relief and Case 1:16-cv-03141-TOR Document 38 Filed 06/29/17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY DEFENDANTS BEDIVERE INSURANCE COMPANY AND ARMOUR RISK MANAGEMENT, INC.

E. The term "Environmental Laws" as used he in shall mean all present and future laws, statutes, ordinances, rules, regulations orders, and determinations of any governmental authority, pertaining to health protection of the environment, natural resources, conservation, wildlife, waste management, Hazardous Materials Activities, and pollution, applicable to Opel tor's operations at the Facility, including, without limitation, the Comprehe sive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, as ended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 19 6, 42 U.S.C. 6901, et seq., the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, 33 U.S.C. 125 , et seq., the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq., the Toxic Substances Control et, 15 U.S.C. 26014-et-seq., the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 as amended,29 U.S.C. 651, et seq., and the Emergency Planning and Communit Right-to-Know Act, 42 U.S.C. 11001, et seq., as all of the same may have een and hereafter be amended, and all rules and regulations, promulgated thereund r. F. The term "Hazardous Substances" as used • this Agreement shall mean any chemical, waste, byproduct, pollutant, con rant, compound product, substance or other material 9i0 that is hazardous or tox c or (ii) the exposure to, or manufacture, possession, presence, use, yen ration, storage, transportation, 01C17/4,010 eN1.1AINC.M kl-letitt 6ra"..7/1 OP I I 11CO.1 DEDICATED 001527 Case 2:16-cv-03621-SM-JCW Document 87-2 Filed 05/08/17 Page 4 of 7 treatment, release, emission, dischargei.disposal, abatement, cleanup, r

(“RCRA”). 42 U.S.C. §6901 et seq. Therefore, the Liebharts brought this action under both TSCA and RCRA, seeking injunctive relief for the cleanup of their property.

42 U.S.C.A. § 6902(b). To forward this policy, Congress passed the RCRA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 6901 et seq. The RCRA is a comprehensive environmental statute that establishes a “cradle-to-grave” regulatory scheme whereby solid waste is governed from initial treatment through storage and disposal.