Notes of Decisions
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 605 F. Supp. 2d 224 (D.D.C. 2009).
· cites it 7× “Pursuant to UMTRCA § 102, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7912 , DOE was required to designate uranium mill “processing sites” for DOE remediation at or near twenty-two specifically identified locations within one year of November 8,1978.”
Dunn v. United States, 842 F.2d 1420 (3d Cir. 1988).
· cites it 4× “42 U.S.C. § 7912 (a)(1). 10 Within the one-year time limit UMTRCA also required the Secretary of Energy to (1) “assess the potential health hazard to the public from the residual radioactive materials at designated processing sites,” and (2) “rely[ing] primarily on the advice of…”
Am. Mining Cong. v. Thomas, 772 F.2d 617 (10th Cir. 1985).
· cites it 2× “16 See 42 U.S.C. § 7912 . There are, however, piles located near cities with sizeable local populations, such as Salt Lake City, Utah, and Grand Junction, Colorado.”
Hecla Mining Co. v. United States, 909 F.2d 1371 (10th Cir. 1990).
· cites it 2× “42 U.S.C. § 7912 (a)(1) (1982). The statute also provides that: Notwithstanding the one year limitation contained in this section, the Secretary may, after such one year period, include any area described in Section 7911(6)(B) of this title [describing sites in the vicinity of…”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, 774 F. Supp. 2d 40 (D.D.C. 2011).
“¶¶ 96-97 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7912 (a)(1)). Again, the Tribe alleges that DOE failed to comply with these requirements.”
Mill v. State, Dep't of Health, 868 P.2d 1099 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994).
“Therefore, in summary, based on UMTRCA’s express statutory scheme for remedial action, interpreted in light of the Act’s legislative history, we conclude that in valuing properties designated under 42 U.S.C. § 7912 , for the purpose of determining just compensation in a…”
Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. v. United States Env't Prot. Agency, 759 F.2d 922 (D.C. Cir. 1985).
“None of the releases in issue in this case are subject to the financial protection requirements of the NRC, nor have any of the sites in issue been designated under 42 U.S.C. § 7912 (a)(1) or 42 U.S.C. § 7942 (a).”
Forelaws on Bd. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 734 P.2d 370 (Or. Ct. App. 1987).
“Congress has mandated that Lakeview shall be addressed through this process ( 42 USC § 7912 (a)(1)). “The process applicable to the Lakeview remedial action authorized in ORS 469.”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, No. 2007-0905 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2009).
· cites it 4× “Pursuant to UMTRCA § 102, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7912 , DOE was required to designate uranium mill "processing sites" for DOE remediation at or near twenty-two specifically identified locations within one year of November 8, 1978.”
Forelaws On Bd. v. Energy Facility Siting Council, 767 P.2d 899 (Or. 1989).
“Congress has mandated that Lakeview shall be addressed through this process ( 42 USC § 7912 (a)(1)). *331 “The process applicable to the Lakeview remedial action authorized in ORS 469.”
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, No. 2007-0905 (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2011).
“~~ 96-97 (citing 42 U.S.C. § 7912 (a)(1)). Again, the Tribe alleges that DOE failed to comply with these requirements.”
42 U.S.C. § 7912(e)(2): 1 case
El Paso Nat. Gas Co. v. United States, No. 2007-0905 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2009).
“Pursuant to UMTRCA § 102, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 7912 , DOE was required to designate uranium mill "processing sites" for DOE remediation at or near twenty-two specifically identified locations within one year of November 8, 1978.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.