Use of the Pesticide Intermediate Benzene Hexachloride as a Tracer to Determine Liability

Abstract

Solvent alleged that chlorinated benzene contamination detected in Solvent's offsite groundwater recovery wells was 98% due to releases from the neighboring Olin chlorobenzene production facility and only 2% due to Solvent's nearby chlorinated benzene production facility. However, Solvent's position was complicated by the fact that it had acknowledged that its operations had impacted site contamination levels. Solvent's position was that the onsite contamination was partially due to Olin, but it faced an uphill struggle because the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) had assigned Solvent responsibility for the Hot Spot cleanup at the Olin site. However, Solvent was able to recover virtually the entire amount of its Hot Spot costs attributable to chlorinated benzenes from Olin, as well as the full percentage of allocation they requested from Olin for the Solvent site through the useof chemical tracers such as benzene hexachloride (BHC).     

Use of Perchlorate as a Tracer to Allocate Liability

There are few published reports of allocation methodologies for contamination at complex sites not associated with the traditional Superfund landfill scenario (i.e., based on waste in records). Allocation can be especially difficult when the contamination is derived from neighboring facilities. Such was the situation in a lawsuit brought by Solvent Chemical (Solvent) in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York (New York v. Solvent Chem. Co., Inc., 685 F. Supp. 2d 357 (W.D.N.Y)). Solvent had filed a cost-recovery and contribution claim against Olin and DuPont, neighboring industrial facilities, to recover costs associated with groundwater and soil remediation. Solvent alleged that the contamination found in groundwater recovery wells on the Solvent site was predominately due to releases from the former adjacent Dupont chlorinated solvent production facility and from Olin's neighboring former chlorinated benzene production facility. However, complicating matters for Solvent was the former production of chlorinated benzenes at their site. Solvent needed a method of determining the source sites for chlorinated benzenes detected in remediation wells other than concentration since multiple facilities could have been the source. Among the methods employed by Solvent to differentiate the source-site allocation was the fact that perchlorate was indirectly generated at Olin's hypochlorite plant but not at the Solvent site. Therefore, the presence of perchlorate could be used as a tracer of contaminant transport from the Olin operations. The judge's ruling found that Solvent's use of perchlorate as a tracer was compelling evidence regarding the source of chlorinated benzenes and agreed to Solvent's suggested allocation.     

基于纤维二次转移确定纤维屑作为示踪物质的探讨

目的 考察纤维屑在涉及二次转移案件中作为示踪物质的适用性.方法 根据一个实际案例展开,在该案中,犯罪嫌疑人涉嫌多起入室盗窃案.纤维开始分散于嫌疑人所用车辆,后被嫌疑人“携带”并分散到犯罪现场,最终这些纤维在勘查过程中被收集.设计完善了一个可用于散布纤维的便携式装置,并完成了一系列二次转移的相关实验.结果 设计的装置可在短时间均相的散布纤维,单次接触不能全部转移第一表面的纤维碎屑.只有1-15％的纤维会转移到代表犯罪现场的第三表面.实际转移的纤维数与包括比如表面的材质在内的各种因素都有关系.结论 在所选参数范围内,相对大量的纤维有可能转移到犯罪现场并在现场勘查过程中被提取.     

Use of 2D:4D Digit Ratios to Determine Sex

Second to fourth digit ratios (2D:4D) are sexually dimorphic in human hands and established by the 13th gestational week. Application of 2D:4D for determining sex in living individuals by Kanchan et al. (Forensic Sci Int, 181, 2008, 53.e1) produced classification rates of 80% for males and 74–78% for females. Few studies have explored the use of 2D:4D for sexing skeletal remains. We test estimated finger lengths, phalanx lengths, and 2D:4D derived from hand bones for determining sex. Maximum phalanx length was collected using a mini‐osteometric board from 451 individuals of known age, sex, and ancestry in four skeletal collections. Logistic regression of 2nd and 4th digit finger and phalanx lengths produced classification rates greater than 80%. Digit ratios, however, failed to reach classification rates greater than 59%. Our results support those of Voracek (Forensic Sci Int, 185, 2009, e29) and suggest that 2D:4D may be population‐specific and thus inappropriate for universal application as a means of determining sex.     

Art as a Means to Disrupt Routine Use of Space

This paper examines the publicly visible aspects of counter-terrorism activity in pedestrian spaces as mechanisms of disruption. We discuss the objectives of counter-terrorism in terms of disruption of routine for both hostile actors and general users of public spaces, categorising the desired effects as 1) triangulation of attention; 2) creation of unexpected performance; and 3) choreographing of crowd flow. We review the potential effects of these existing forms of disruption used in counter-terrorism. We then present a palette of art, advertising, architecture, and entertainment projects that offer examples of the same disruption effects of triangulation, performance and flow. We conclude by reviewing the existing support for public art in counter-terrorism policy, and build on the argument for art as an important alternative to authority. We suggest that while advocates of authority-based disruption might regard the playfulness of some art as a weakness, the unexpectedness it offers is perhaps a key strength.     

Use of Autopsy to Determine Live or Stillbirth: New Approaches in Decision‐support Systems

Fetal deaths are important cases for forensic medicine, as well as for criminal and civil law. From a legal perspective, the determination of whether a deceased infant was stillborn is a difficult process. Such a determination is generally made during autopsy; however, no standardized procedures for this determination exist. Therefore, new facilitative approaches are needed. In this study, three new support systems based on 10 autopsy parameters were tested for their ability to correctly determine whether deceased infants were alive or stillborn. Performances were analyzed and compared with one another. The artificial neural networks and radial basis function network models had 90% accuracy (the highest among the models tested), 100% sensitivity, and 83.3% specificity. Thus, the models presented here provide additional insights for future studies concerning infant autopsies.     

对我国犯罪构成体系的完善性分析

经过多年的实践检验及理论改进,可以认为我国刑法学界长期通行的犯罪构成体系在逻辑性和实用性两方面均无大碍,它基本能够胜任我国现阶段刑事司法"依法断案"的要求;但同时,社会的进步与知识的更新亦显露出它在诸多方面存有不足,因此,有必要根据司法的实际需要并借鉴域外刑法学的相关知识,对我国通说性的犯罪构成四要件体系,进行一些局部的调适和修正。     

多车连环致伤责任分析1例

在交通事故中,两车、甚至多车连环致伤的事故常有发生,而在处理此类案件时,车辆司机时有互相推诿或拒不承认责任,给事故处理造成很大困难。分析及认定肇事责任是我们医学司法鉴定工作者的应尽职责。本例泸昆高速公路湖南段一起连环致伤的交通事故中，因不能明确责任，对该事故进行了鉴定，现报道如下。     

使用专利权用尽纾解平行进口难题

就专利权用尽的立场而言,TRTPs协定将其交由各缔约国自己处理.在国际分工和国际贸易的快速发展过程中,中国正逐渐成为技术贸易大国.正确理解专利权用尽的真正含意,有助于证明专利权国际用尽的合理性.专利权国际用尽立场,是破解国际贸易中的专利壁垒的利刃,对于推动建立和谐公正的国际新秩序具有特别重要的意义,也有助于带动世界经济的复苏.     

Legal Title to Property May Not Always Result in Liability as an Owner under CERCLA

The meaning of “ownership” under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is not as straightforward as most people believe. Although liability under section 107(a)(1) is imposed upon a current “owner” or operator of a facility, CERCLA provides little guidance because it defines “owner” as “any person owning” a facility. In most cases, the issue of who owns the property or a facility is readily apparent and not controversial; however, this article discusses cases in which courts have been compelled to critically examine the specific facts of the case and state law to determine whether a particular party is an “owner” for purposes of establishing liability under CERCLA.     

公司设立民事责任归责模式研究——兼评最高法院的司法解释意见稿

设立中公司在其不同的发展阶段,分别具有形式主体资格和实质主体资格,不宜将其拟制为任何其他法律主体。设立中公司的性质更接近于公司,因此其民事责任规则的建立应尽可能依据公司法理。具体而言,应首先以设立中公司自身的财产承担债务,不足清偿的部分,应由全体发起人基于其法定身份以各自的出资额为限承担连带清偿责任;同时,肩负特殊身份的发起人如法定代表人等行为人应承担无限连带责任。这种无限连带责任类似于公司人格否认制度下控制股东的过错行为责任。     

试论缔约过失责任理论在劳动合同制度中的引入与适用

在作为特殊合同的劳动合同制度中引入、适用缔约过失责任理论具有必要性和可行性.但劳动合同缔约过失责任制度与民商事合同的缔约过失责任制度相比,在适用主体、归责原则、行为的类型、赔偿范围和责任承担方式等方面有其特殊性.     

本案被告人郭某的年龄应当如何认定——刑事诉讼证明理论在实践中的运用

刑事证明标准理论首先要求根据所要证明罪行轻重的不同,适用不同的证明标准。在死刑案件中,当控方证明无法达到“排除一切可能性”标准时,需要通过降低对被告人权益的剥夺程度,来获得证明标准的降低。其次,控辩双方在诉讼中所适用的证明标准也不同,控方证明需要达到排除合理怀疑的程度,而辩方证明只需要达到证据占优势即可。此外,证明责任的内涵包括“提供证据责任”与“说服责任”两个层次,被告人所承担的仅仅是“提供证据责任”,其只要针对其抗辩主张提出证据使控方主张形成争点即可。