Trouble with EPA's radwaste rules.Trouble with EPA's radwaste rules The federal government's program to dispose of To determine the fate of; to exercise the power of control over; to fix the condition, application, employment, etc. of; to direct or assign for a use. See also: Dispose highlyradioactive nuclear waste continues to suffer setbacks. Last week, a federal appeals court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), independent agency of the U.S. government, with headquarters in Washington, D.C. It was established in 1970 to reduce and control air and water pollution, noise pollution, and radiation and to ensure the safe handling and (EPA EPA eicosapentaenoic acid. EPA abbr. eicosapentaenoic acid EPA, n.pr See acid, eicosapentaenoic. EPA, n. ) must alter its standards regulating the amount of radioactivity emitted from a radioactive-waste repository (SN: 8/24/85, p.119). The ruling responds to a suit filed by four states and three environmental groups. The court's three-judge panel agreed with the plaintiffs thatEPA did not take the Safe Drinking Water Act The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) is a United States federal law passed by the U.S. Congress on December 16, 1974. It is the main federal law that ensures safe drinking water for Americans. sufficiently into consideration when setting its standards. The rules would allow drinking water near a repository to be contaminated with radioactivity at levels higher than the agency allows under the act. EPA must rewrite the rules or explain the apparent inconsistency. EPA officials have not yet decided whether to ask for a rehearing rehearing n. conducting a hearing again based on the motion of one of the parties to a lawsuit, petition or criminal prosecution, usually by the court or agency which originally heard the matter. by the full court. Meanwhile, Congress is considering more than 30 billsproposing to delay, abandon or change the repository program established under the 1982 Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The Department of Energy has also backed down on postponing its quest for a second repository site (SN: 6/7/86. p.359). |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion