Enforcement responsible parties

The USEPA has estimated that the market value for remediation of non-federal facilities is 6.7 billion (1996 dollars). This estimated cost does not include costs for site assessment and studies, design, operation and maintenance, long-term responses, site management, administrative cost, other agency support, oversight of potentially responsible parties (PRPs), and enforcement activities. The estimate was based on the assumption that PRPs will be responsible for at least 70% of the cost. 

Provide the enforcement agency the authority to impose cost and liabilities for principal responsible parties (PRPs) of the past and the future release of hazardous chemicals. 

Make a decision, based on the action level, with regard to treatment, disposal, site remediation and/or removal of pollutants, health risk or environmental impact, responsible party identification, enforcement actions, cleanup verification. 

A written communication from FDA notifying an individual or firm that the agency considers one or more products, practices, processes, or other activities to be in violation of the Federal FD C Act [Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act], or other acts, and that failure of the responsible party to take appropriate and prompt action to correct and prevent any fiiture repeat of the violation may result in administrative and/or regulatory enforcement action without further notice. 

A supervisory regime based on government-enforced self-regulation embraces all tbe activities conducted by the PSA to take steps to ensure that the responsible parties in the petroleum industry perform prudent and safe operations in compliance with the regulations. ... 

Enforcement action will be taken directly against the driver for serious rule violations. If the motor carrier is also determined to be a responsible party, it may also receive enforcement action. 

A different approach emerged some time ago from legislative action in the United Kingdom and this has spread to other Commonwealth and European countries. Chapters 5 and 34 provide more details. The concept requires employers, manufacturers and others to identify and evaluate the risks of their workplaces, products, and processes. They must then act to eliminate, reduce, and control the risks. Governments do not have to prescribe in detail how to achieve safety through standards and regulations. This is a performance approach. Enforcement focuses on how well responsible parties can identify and mitigate risks. 

CERCLA, or Superfund, was enacted in 1980, and amended in 1986, for the basic purpose of providing funding and enforcement authority to clean up any site where there is a past unremedied release of a hazardous substance or hazardous substance spill. Such sites are typically characterized as areas where hazardous waste or materials have been disposed of improperly, with litde if any responsible action being taken to mitigate the situation. Standards for financial responsibility were promulgated by the SARA of 1986 which further amended Section 9003 of RCRA and mandated that the EPA establish financial responsibility requirements for UST owners and operators to guarantee cost recovery for corrective action and third-party liability caused by accidental releases of USTs containing petroleum products. 

The guarantee of conformity to the essential requirements of the MDD is provided by the interaction between the manufacturer and a third party, the notified body. The notified bodies are organizations that are recognized by the member states to conduct device evaluations and inspections of the quality systems of the various manufacturers. The manufacturers are held responsible for the quality, safety, and effectiveness of their medical devices. This is enforced through the manufacturer s written declaration of conformity and commitment to keep all technical information available for inspection by the notified bodies and national authorities. 

The JADE-S (i.e., Secure-JADE) add-on to JADE is a third party enhancement to the framework that implements numbers of security services, including user/agent authentication, authorization and secure intra-platform communication. It makes the platform a multi-user environment where all components (i.e., agents and containers) are owned by users who are responsible for their actions. Additionally, a security policy can be enforced in order to allow or deny actions only on chosen subset of agents or users. 

The response actions would be coordinated jointly by the federal and state governments. Under the specific state management plans, the state would take the necessary action to prevent further contamination when unacceptable levels of contamination in groundwater are reported. Under this strategy the states and the EPA would coordinate closely on the enforcement of FIFRA, SDWA, and CERCLA to identify parties responsible for groundwater contamination as a result of the misuse, spills, leaks, and/or illegal disposal of pesticides. 

Third parties can be extremely helpful in vetting site assessments and implementation plans. Currently, as site assessments have been set up within the Responsible Care Code, local law enforcement and fire chiefs can look at facility plans. They may be very familiar with the emergency response aspects of a site security plan, but they may not always be the best choice when determining other security strategies or assessing investments. 

In addition to the permit requirements of the 1977 amendments, the 1987 amendments permitted citizen suits that allowed any individual to bring a legal suit against any party believed to be in conflict with the provisions of the CWA. Citizen suits were also permitted against any party responsible for the enforcement and administration of the CWA that was believed derelict in its responsibilities. This expanded the responsibdity of clean water enforcement to include the public as well as government bodies. 

Outside the realm of armed conflict, the International Law Commission has more recently argued in its study on the Protection of persons in the event of disasters that such a determination must be made on a case-by-case basis , without elaborating as to whom should be the determinant in such circumstances. Yet, whilst the arbitrariness of the refusal of an offer may eventually be determined by an authoritative legal body such as the ICJ, in practice such an initial argument in time of a NIAC shall always be made by the sovereign of an affected territory, or the controlling non-state actor. Indeed, in response hereto, third-party action may be warranted upon determination by the Security Council as authoritative body with more ad hoc possibilities of enforcement than the ICJ. 

The Trustee will create security over the assets of the issuer (including, without limitation, the Collateral Debt Securities, Eligible Investments and cash accounts). Such security will be by way of first fixed charge and will be for the benefit of all the secured parties including the Noteholders. If there is an event of default under the Notes, the security will become enforceable and the Trustee will be involved in liquidating the assets in order to meet the claims of the various creditors in accordance with a predetermined order of priority of payments. The Trustee is also responsible for acting on behalf of the Noteholders in order to make sure any amendments to any documents and the like are not prejudicial to the Noteholders. 

Since different stakeholder groups have different expectations and different information requirements about the corporate sustainability , it is essential to investigate the practical ways that corporations can best implement its initiatives to promote the corporate sustainability with respect to their many target stakeholders. For example, Kujala (2010) in the Finnish study concluded that in order to enforce corporate responsibility, it should be possible to assure managers that there is a business case for stakeholder inclusion, and that stakeholder collaboration can create business models that are beneficial for all parties the corporation and its owners, other stakeholders and society as a whole. 

Responsibility for issuing permits, maintenance, enforcement and supervision Government is also responsible for issuing permits, for maintenance, for enforcement and for supervision. In that capacity, it too weighs up opportunities and threats and, as the party bearing operational responsibility, it must consider how to deal with uncertain dangers and damage (see Uncertain Safety for a more detailed discussion). 

---