Abstract
This article provides background information regarding the emerging controversies involving methyltert -butyl ether (MTBE) and litigation involving leaking underground storage tanks (USTs) in general. It examines (1) the administrative, legislative and litigation history of MTBE in the context of the Clear Air Act and state environmental statues; (2) the importance of applicable RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) deadlines regarding UST compliance in these cases; (3) the question of MTBE toxicity for personal injury claims; and (4) the scope of damages available in cases filed by plaintiffs who are not physically impacted by contamination. The authors conclude that the MTBE controversy does not appear to be a legitimate public health or environmental crisis, but rather is yet another speculative product of the American legal industry.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
