Jump to Content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 7

03/06/2000

LITIGATION
large red bar graphic

Note: The cases listed are available from the ELR Document Service.

red bar graphic CAA §110, INTERSTATE TRANSPORT OF AIR POLLUTION, NITROGEN OXIDE (NOx):

The D.C. Circuit largely upheld EPA’s order that 22 states and the District of Columbia revise their SIPs to compel large sources within those states to sharply reduce NOx emissions, which contribute to the formation of ozone in states downwind. The CAA did not require EPA to establish a transport commission prior to issuing the challenged SIP call. Further, EPA sufficiently analyzed each particular state in determining which states contributed unduly to ozone downwind. Moreover, EPA did not unlawfully override past precedent regarding "significant" contribution to nonattainment in downwind states, and CAA §110 does not bar EPA from considering the cost of NOx reduction. In addition, the Agency’s scheme of uniform controls is not arbitrary and capricious, and EPA did not violate the nondelegation doctrine in its interpretation of CAA §110. Similarly, EPA’s NOx budget program does not impermissably intrude on the statutory right of the states to fashion their SIPs, and the Agency did not violate the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Nevertheless, the court vacated and remanded the SIP call with respect to Wisconsin, Missouri, and Georgia. EPA failed to explain how Wisconsin contributes to nonattainment in any other state, and the record does not support creating NOx budgets based on the entire emissions of Missouri and Georgia. In addition, EPA failed to provide adequate notice of a change in the definition of an electric generating unit and of a change in the control level assumed for large, stationary internal combustion engines. Michigan v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 98-1497 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 3, 2000) (36 pp.).

red bar graphic CWA, NPDES, STANDING:

The Fourth Circuit reversed a district court holding that environmental groups failed to demonstrate a sufficient injury in fact and therefore lacked standing to sue a recycling facility for discharging pollutants into a South Carolina lake in violation of the CWA in light of Friends of the Earth v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc., No. 98-822 (U.S. Jan. 12, 2000). The district court erroneously concluded that no evidence supported the groups’ allegation that its members were adversely affected by the facility’s permit violations. The facility’s conduct threatened the waters within its discharge range, including a lake owned by a group member. By producing evidence that the facility polluted the member’s nearby water source, the group has shown an increased risk to its member’s downstream uses, and this threatened injury is sufficient to provide injury in fact. Further, much of the evidence proves traceability to the facility, and there is no suggestion that any other entity is responsible for the established injury. Moreover, a favorable decision by the district court will redress the member’s injuries. The court, therefore, remanded the case for a determination of whether the facility discharged pollutants in excess of its permit limitations. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Gaston Copper Recycling Corp., No. 98-1938 (4th Cir. Feb. 23, 2000) (17 pp.).

red bar graphic COMMERCE CLAUSE, INTRASTATE FLOW CONTROL:

The Eighth Circuit held that a city ordinance that required all garbage collected within city limits, except garbage destined for out-of-state disposal, to be processed at the city-owned transfer station violated the dormant Commerce Clause. The city passed the ordinance to ensure that revenues from tipping fees at the transfer station would reduce the city’s financial obligation for a related landfill. Although the ordinance does not overtly discriminate against interstate commerce, the burden imposed on interstate commerce is clearly excessive in relation to the local benefits. If all cities enacted similar flow control ordinances, the interstate market in recyclable materials extracted from solid waste could be substantially diminished or impaired because the ordinance does not require separation of recyclable material. Moreover, although the ordinance’s revenue-generating goal may reflect a legitimate local purpose, it is not a persuasive or overriding basis for its validity. Further, the enactment of the ordinance was not intended to limit potential tort liability from the leakage of hazardous waste, and any such benefit achieved by the ordinance is illusory. Last, other less burdensome alternatives are available to the city to accomplish the ordinance’s stated purposes. U & I Sanitation v. City of Columbus, No. 98-1893 (8th Cir. Feb. 22, 2000) (15 pp.).

red bar graphicESA, PYGMY-OWL:

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court’s order lifting a temporary restraining order and denying environmental groups’ motion to permanently enjoin the construction of a new school on property that allegedly contains potential habitat for the endangered cactus ferruginous pygmy-owl. The school district was not required to apply for an incidental take permit (ITP) because pursuing an ITP is not mandatory. Additionally, the district court did not commit clear error by excluding the testimony of a wildlife biologist and an FWS pygmy-owl expert. Most of the wildlife biologist’s testimony was general background information, and the environmental groups failed to show that the exclusion of the testimony had any prejudicial effect. The expert’s testimony was properly excluded because the utility of her testimony would have been outweighed by the government’s interests in avoiding undue burden on its personnel. Finally, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the environmental groups’ motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence because the groups failed to show why the offered evidence could not have been obtained, with the exercise of due diligence, at the time of trial. Defenders of Wildlife v. Bernal, No. 98-16099 (9th Cir. Feb. 28, 2000) (11 pp.).

red bar graphic NEPA, NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT (NHPA), SUPPLEMENTAL EIS (SEIS), DEER MANAGEMENT:

The D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment to the National Park Service on the grounds that the Park Service’s deer management program for Gettysburg National Military Park did not violate NEPA or the NHPA. The deer management program required a marksman to shoot deer in order to reduce the park’s deer density. The district court’s failure to recognize an animal rights group’s request that the Park Service conduct an SEIS of a newly proposed management plan for deer population was harmless error. The group’s alleged failure to request an SEIS was at most an alternative ground for the conclusion that an SEIS was not required. Further, because the Park Service’s management program is intended to reduce deer density, the newly proposed plan addressing deer population was irrelevant. In addition, the Park Service properly addressed the impact of the management program on the contemplative atmosphere of the park as required as required by the NHPA. Davis v. Latschar, No. 99-5037 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 22, 2000) (14 pp.).

red bar graphic NEPA, RADIO FREQUENCY RADIATION STANDARDS:

The Second Circuit affirmed two Federal Communications Commission (FCC) orders in which the FCC promulgated guidelines for health and safety standards of radio frequency radiation, established streamlined procedures for meeting requirements under NEPA for FCC licensees that are in compliance with the guidelines, and retained the exclusive ability to regulate the relevant radio facility operations. The FCC did not violate the APA in adopting the radio frequency radiation guidelines. It properly considered the evidence of harmful effects from non-thermal levels of radiation, expert recommendations that would restrict the regulatory regime, and critical factors bearing on maximum permitted exposure levels. The FCC also accounted for the cumulative effects of radiation in creating categorical exemptions for certain facilities from routine environmental assessment. Moreover, the FCC’s actions functionally complied with NEPA, therefore, the FCC was not required to prepare an EIS in conjunction with its rulemaking. Additionally, the FCC did not violate the Tenth Amendment by preempting state or local regulation of personal wireless service facilities that conform to FCC guidelines. Finally, although claims that the guidelines violated the Americans with Disabilities Act were raised before a staff member, they were not presented to the FCC and, therefore, were not the subject of a final order and are not properly before the court. Cellular Phone Taskforce v. Federal Communications Commission, Nos. 97-4328(L) et al. (2d Cir. Feb. 18, 2000) (11 pp.).

red bar graphic NEPA, NATIONAL FOREST MANAGEMENT ACT (NFMA), FINAL AGENCY ACTION:

A district court held that a U.S. Forest Service decision to enforce a ban on all motorized use in two areas of the Lolo National Forest after 12 years of no enforcement did not constitute a final agency action subject to review under NEPA and the NFMA. The forest plan clearly prohibited motorized use in the two areas. The NEPA process that led to the record of decision that adopted the forest plan is the relevant final agency action, and this process put interested parties on notice that motorized use was not allowed in the two areas. Likewise, the forest supervisor letter that triggered overdue enforcement of the motorized ban was neither an amendment to the forest plan nor a new decision that required NEPA analysis. In addition, a snowmobile group’s claims challenging the ban were barred as untimely. The group filed its action nearly 13 years after the record of decision that banned motorized use and nearly seven years after the expiration of the statute of limitations. Snowmobile Ass’n v. Wildes, No. CV 99-4-M-DWM (D. Mont. Feb. 9, 2000) (Molloy, J.) (10 pp.).

red bar graphic SMCRA, CONSENT DECREE, SURFACE COAL MINING:

A district court accepted and entered a consent decree between a citizen group and a state environmental agency that commits the agency to strengthen the application and oversight of a state’s SMCRA-authorized surface coal mining program. The consent decree is in the public interest because it commits the state to a surface mining program that upholds the state’s surface mining law. Contrary to a mining association’s claim, the proposed policies and rules in the decree will not bypass statutorily-required rulemaking and the legislative process and become law. The consent decree’s agreements to change rules and regulations are only proposed modifications. In addition, the court is not barred from entering a consent decree that provides broader relief than the court would have awarded after a trial because the court does not mandate the agency’s agreement, but rather stands ready to enforce the agreement at the parties’ request. Finally, all operable provisions of the consent decree will apply to any revised or new application of a state surface mining permit approved by the agency. Bragg v. Robertson, No. CIV.A. 2:98-0636 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 17, 2000) (Haden, J.) (9 pp.).

red bar graphic SMCRA, CONSENT DECREE, SURFACE COAL MINING:

A district court accepted and entered a consent decree between a citizen group and a state environmental agency that commits the agency to strengthen the application and oversight of a state’s SMCRA-authorized surface coal mining program. The consent decree is in the public interest because it commits the state to a surface mining program that upholds the state’s surface mining law. Contrary to a mining association’s claim, the proposed policies and rules in the decree will not bypass statutorily-required rulemaking and the legislative process and become law. The consent decree’s agreements to change rules and regulations are only proposed modifications. In addition, the court is not barred from entering a consent decree that provides broader relief than the court would have awarded after a trial because the court does not mandate the agency’s agreement, but rather stands ready to enforce the agreement at the parties’ request. Finally, all operable provisions of the consent decree will apply to any revised or new application of a state surface mining permit approved by the agency. Bragg v. Robertson, No. CIV.A. 2:98-0636 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 17, 2000) (Haden, J.) (9 pp.).

red bar graphic CONSENT DECREE, ATTORNEYS FEES:

The First Circuit affirmed the entry of a consent decree between EPA and the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) that addressed the PREPA’s violation of several federal environmental statutes at its electric power plants. A citizen group that was unsatisfied with the negotiation process between EPA and PREPA intervened and sought an evidentiary hearing on the adequacy of the decree. The district court, however, did not abuse its discretion in denying the hearing because the group had fair opportunity to meet and confer with the negotiating parties and to present its views at several stages to the court. In addition, the record supports the district court’s judgment that the decree was fair, adequate, reasonable, and consistent with Congress’ public environmental and health objectives. The district court, however, provided no explanation for denying the group’s request for attorneys fees, and, therefore, the case is remanded for the limited purpose of revisiting this issue. United States v. Comunidades Unidas Contra la Contaminacion, No. 99-1752 (1st Cir. Feb. 25, 2000) (8 pp.).

red bar graphic GROUNDWATER, WELL WITHDRAWAL, AUTHORITY TO REGULATE:

The Colorado Supreme Court held that a ground water management district, rather than the state ground water commission, has the authority to issue or refuse to issue well withdrawal curtailment orders within management district boundaries. An individual well owner requested that either the management district or the commission issue an order curtailing a metropolitan district from withdrawing groundwater from its junior well, which allegedly caused injury to the individual well owner’s senior well. Under state statute and case law, the commission is charged with establishing priority dates for wells and, in the absence of a management district, is empowered to supervise and control the exercise and administration of all rights acquired for the use of designated groundwater. However, the management district, not the commission, has authority to administer designated groundwater priorities within its own boundaries. This grant of authority necessarily includes the authority for making quasi-judicial decisions regarding well permits and disputes between well owners within management district boundaries. Additionally, while the management district has the authority to issue well withdrawal curtailment orders in the administration of priorities, it does not have a non-discretionary duty to do so. Upper Black Squirrel Ground Water Management District v. Goss, No. 99SA96 (Colo. Feb. 22, 2000) (13 pp.).

red bar graphic TORTS, NEGLIGENCE, "PUBLIC SWIMMING AREA":

A court held that the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) was negligent in failing to remove underwater debris along a beach and for failing to take the necessary precautions to prevent the injury of a swimmer who dove into the Atlantic Ocean and struck his head on debris left on the ocean floor after the demolition of a beach pier. The fact that the state never formally designated the beach as a public swimming area is not dispositive of whether the government owes an operational-level duty to safely operate a public swimming area if sufficient facts demonstrate that the area was held out to the public as a public swimming area. The mere common use of a swimming area by the public may not be relied on as the sole basis for imposing a common law duty of care. In this case, however, the FDNR owed a duty of care because the beach was a well-known swimming area and the FDNR made a conscious decision to allow the beach to be operated as a public swimming area when it signed a management agreement with the city. Moreover, the decision to impose liability would not create financial hardships for the FDNR because the management agreement contained a clause requiring the city to indemnify the FDNR for the city’s own negligence. Florida Department of Natural Resources v. Garcia, No. SC93065 (Fla. Feb. 10, 2000) (8 pp.).

red bar graphic FIFTH AMENDMENT, REGULATORY TAKINGS, PROPERTY RIGHTS:

A Washington appellate court held that property owners, who built unpermitted structures on a county’s right-of-way so that they could access their adjacent tidelands, did not hold property rights in the structures. The structures were demolished when the county reconstructed the right-of-way pursuant to a state environmental agency’s designation of the tidelands as a saltwater habitat of special concern. Although the property owners lost the convenience of walking directly from their homes to their tidelands, they retained unfettered access from their residences to the county right-of-way. Therefore, the owners did not lose a property right that entitled them to compensation under the state constitution. Further, the owners are not entitled to compensation under the state’s limited access facilities law because the county’s reconstruction of its right-of-way did not limit their access to the roadway. Last, the department’s designation of the tidelands as saltwater habitats of special concern did not constitute a Fifth Amendment regulatory taking because the owners were not required to sacrifice all beneficial economic use of their property as a whole. Banning v. State Department of Fish & Wildlife, No. 43085-8-I (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 7, 2000) (12 pp.).

red bar graphic ZONING, NUISANCE:

A Washington state appellate court held that property owners operated two illegal junkyards in violation of a city’s zoning laws and that such operation constituted a nuisance. The city planning commission determined that the properties were nuisances, and the commission’s decision to uphold the city’s cease and desist orders became final rulings. Therefore, the lower courts correctly applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to preclude relitigation on the issues of whether the properties were junkyards and therefore nuisances. Similarly, the trial courts did not abuse their discretion in ordering unconditional abatement of the nuisances. In addition, the owners failed to show any conflicts or inconsistencies between the city’s zoning code and its shoreline program that would prevent the city’s enforcement of the zoning code. City of Bremerton v. Sesko, No. 23150-6-II (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2000) (5 pp.).

Copyright© 2000, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

THE FEDERAL AGENCIES
large red bar graphic

Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.

red bar graphic AIR:

red bar graphic HAZARDOUS WASTES AND SUBSTANCES:

red bar graphic DRINKING WATER:

red bar graphic ENDANGERED SPECIES:

red bar graphic NATIONAL FORESTS:

red bar graphic DOJ NOTICES OF SETTLEMENTS:

  • U.S. v. Pan American Grain Manufacturing Co., No. 98-1197 (JP) (D.P.R. Feb. 17, 2000) (a CAA defendant whose grain handling and processing facilities in the Guaynabo, P.R., area violated the Puerto Rico SIP must pay a $410,000 civil penalty, must complete performance testing to demonstrate full compliance with the SIP regulations, must comply with the operation standards prescribed by the proposed consent decree, must file quarterly reports regarding its compliance efforts, and must maintain compliance with the CAA and the SIP), 65 FR 10546 (2/28/00);
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1999_register&docid=fr28fe00-97
  • U.S. v. Ashland, Inc., No. 3:00 CV 252 (AVC) (D. Conn. Feb. 7, 2000) (30 PRPs under CERCLA must fund and perform the EPA-selected remedy at the Gallup’s Quarry Superfund site in Plainfield, Conn., and must pay certain of the United States’ future costs at the site), 65 FR 11341 (3/2/00);
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1999_register&docid=fr02mr00-106
  • U.S. v. California Office of State Printing, No. CS-00-294-DFL/PAN (E.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2000) (a defendant that violated the CAA, CWA, and RCRA at its printing facility in Sacramento, Cal., must pay a $320,500 civil penalty and must operate under interim emission limits until its application for permits from the Sacramento metropolitan air quality management district has been resolved), 65 FR 11342 (3/2/00).
    http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=1999_register&docid=fr02mr00-107

Copyright© 2000, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE

  • Implementation of the Water Quality-Based Provisions in the Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy: Outline of Draft EPA Guidance (EPA 12/99) (15 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4265)
  • Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study: Volume II, Technical Background Document (EPA 11/99) (250 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4266)
  • Revised Risk Assessment for the Air Characteristic Study: Volume I, Overview (EPA 11/99) (141 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4267)
  • Waste Not, Want Not: Feeding the Hungry and Reducing Solid Waste Through Food Recovery (EPA undated) (59 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4268)
  • Progress Report on the EPA Acid Rain Program (EPA 11/99) (24 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4269)
  • Consumer Labeling Initiative: Phase II Report (EPA 10/99) (207 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4270)
  • Safe Drinking Water Act §1429: Ground Water Report to Congress (EPA 10/99) (56 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4271)
  • Reuse of CERCLA Landfill and Containment Sites (OSWER No. 9375.3-05P) (EPA 9/99) (17 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4272)
  • Enforcement Response Policy for §§304, 311, and 312 of EPCRA and §103 of CERCLA (EPA 9/30/99) (33 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4273)
  • Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act: Public Meetings and Other Notifications (EPA/FBI 10/99) (4 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4274)
  • Presumptive Remedy for Metals-in-Soil Sites (OSWER No. 9355.0-72FS) (EPA 9/99) (48 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4275)
  • WasteWise Fifth-Year Progress Report (EPA 8/99) (24 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4276)
  • WasteWise Update: Recovering Organic Wastes--Giving Back to Mother Nature (EPA 9/99) (14 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4277)
  • Getting in Step: A Guide to Effective Outreach in Your Watershed (Council of State Governments undated) (78 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4278)

Copyright© 2000, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

IN THE STATES

red bar graphic ALABAMA:

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Public Notices-Permit Applications

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Air Quality Division-Proposed General Permit

Water Quality Division-Training Session

red bar graphic COLORADO

Air Quality Control Commission

Proposed Revisions-Reg. No. 17

  • Proposed revisions to the regulations concerning the Clean Fuel Fleet Program, which would allow the Department of Public Health and Environment to grant credits under the Environmental Leadership Program for use in complying with the vehicle purchase requirements, and to the SIP for Carbon Monoxide for the Denver area, which would remove the Clean Fuel Fleet Program from the federally-enforceable SIP, are scheduled for a public hearing on March 16. Details at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/notreg17.html

Proposed Revisions-Reg. No. 12

  • Proposed revisions to the diesel inspection program standards regarding areas outside the Denver non-attainment area will be discussed at a public hearing on March 16. Details at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/notreg12.html

Pagosa Springs PM-10 Nonattainment Area-Redesignation

Telluride PM-10 Nonattainment Area-Redesignation

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic CONNECTICUT

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Open Space Grant Awards

red bar graphic DELAWARE

Dept. of Natural Resources & Envtl. Control-Div. Fish & Wildlife

Proposed Horseshoe Crab Harvest Reduction Regulations

red bar graphic FLORIDA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations

  • Air-Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C.-Incorporation by reference of regulations promulgated by the U.S. EPA through Dec. 31, 1999. Written comments due by March 10.
  • Environmental Resource Permitting-Rule 62-330.200-Proposed revision of Figure 12.2.8-1. Hearing on March 8 at St. Johns River Water Mgmt. District, Palatka.
  • Mitigation Banking-Rule 62-342.600-Prcoposed revision of figure 3, entitled "Regional Watersheds of the SJRWMD for Mitigation Banks." Hearing scheduled for March 16.

Tech. Advisory Committee For Petroleum Storage Tanks

  • Teleconference meeting open to the public, March 8, 10:00 a.m. EST. Call (850) 410-0960.

Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas

  • Public meeting March 9 in St. Augustine regarding the Guana Tolomato Matanzas Natural Estuarine Research Reserve.

St. Johns River Water Management District

Proposed Regulations-Flows and Levels

  • Proposal would establish minimum flows and levels on water bodies, courses, and aquifers. Public hearing, if requested, will be held on April 12.

South Florida Water Management District

  • Proposed amendments to indicate that a permit may be issued to an eminent domain authority, a contractual buyer of property, or a recorded easement holder, and to clarify the duration of permits. Public hearing, if requested, will be held on April 13.
  • Proposed amendments to clarify existing homeowners association documentation requirements. Public hearing, if requested, will be held on April 13.

red bar graphic GEORGIA

Dept. of Natural Resources

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

NPDES Permit Applications

  • Comments due March 8 for applications regarding dischargers in Bartow, Liberty, Rabun, Richmond/Jefferson counties and for land application permits for Coweta, Chatham, Cherokee, Butts County; industrial pretreatment permit for facility in Griffin. Details at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pubn_0211.html

Air Permit Applications

red bar graphic IDAHO

Division of Envtl. Quality

Permit Applications

  • Sinclair Oil Corp., Burley Products Terminal, for Tier I operating permit. Comments may be submitted through March 17.
  • Bennett Lumber Products, Inc., for Tier I operating permit. Comments accepted through March 10.
  • Western World Inc., for Tier I operating permit. Comments received through March 10.

red bar graphic ILLINOIS

Envtl. Protection Agency

Performance Partnership Agreement with U.S. EPA

Annual Landfill Capacity Report

Invitations for Bids and Proposals

  • For consulting firms to perform studies, designs, corrective actions, and remedial action oversight work at NPL sites, federal facilities including DOD and DOE sites, Response Action sites, and other hazardous or special waste sites, including LUST sites. The mandatory bidder meeting was Feb. 10; bids are due by March 9 at 2:00 p.m. For details, see http://www.epa.state.il.us/procurements/index.html

Permit Applications

red bar graphic INDIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Management, Office of Air Management

Ambient Air Quality Monitoring Networks

red bar graphic KENTUCKY

Natural Res. & Envtl. Protection Cabinet

Emergency Regulation; Notice of Intent to Promulgate Permanent Rule-Confined Animal Feeding Operations

  • Gov. Patton signed, on Feb. 14, an emergency regulation (401 KAR 5:072E) creating siting and other requirements for confined animal feeding operations (as defined in 401 KAR 5:002) involving 1,000 or more animal units. The Cabinet issued a Notice of Intent, with hearings scheduled for March 28 (Frankfort) and 30 (Madisonville). The draft regulations and notice of intent were published in the March 1 issue of the Administrative Register. For details, see http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/regs.htm

red bar graphic MARYLAND

Dept. of the Environment

Public Hearings

red bar graphic MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Corporate Clean Citizen Designation

Solid Waste Importation Task Force

Management Team Public Meeting

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality Trading

Proposed Regulations-Wetlands

Childrens' Health Impact Report Released

Permit Applications-Air

  • Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, for operation of a natural gas storage and transfer facility. Comments due March 28.
  • Mercury Exploration Company, Gaylord, for renewable operating permit for operation of a sour gas flare. Comments due March 29.
  • Material Control, Inc., Sanilac County, for renewable operating permit for operation of equipment used to manufacture fluid control devices. Comments due March 29.
  • Holnam Inc., for air permits for existing cement kilns in Dundee. Comments due March 21.
  • Michigan Paperboard Company, Battle Creek, for renewable operating permit. Comments due March 17.
  • Muskegon Development Company, Clare County, for renewable operating permit for crude oil production. Comments due March 29.
  • For details, see http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd

Exemptions from Permit to Install Requirement

Proposed Consent Orders-Air

Proposed Remedial Action Plan

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Permit Applications

  • For NDPES permit to St. George Community Wastewater Treatment Facility; comments due March 27.
  • For NPDES permits to City of Cokato, City of Howard, and to Southdale Shopping Center (Edina). Comments due March 20.
  • For NDPES permit to Kwong Tung Foods, Inc., Minneapolis. Comments due March 10.
  • For NDPES permit to City of Bethel. Comments due March 15.
  • For NDPES permit to City of Ruthton. Comments due March 13.
  • Air permit for Boise Cascade, International Falls. Comments due March 9.
  • For indirect source permit for Minn. Dept. of Transportation. Comments due March 14.
  • For indirect source permit for Dayton Hudson Corp. for construction in Brooklyn Park. Comments due March 10.
  • Air permit for Co-Operative Plating Company, St. Paul. Comments due March 10.
  • For NDPES permit City of Marine on St. Croix. Comments due March 8.
  • For details regarding the permit applications, see http://data.pca.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/whatsnew.pl

red bar graphic OKLAHOMA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

red bar graphic OREGON

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Title V Permit Fees-Increase Hearing

NESHAP Annual Rule Updates-Hearing

red bar graphic PENNSYLVANIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposal-Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction

  • DEP has reopened the comment period for draft regulatory revisions to the Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction Program. DEP seeks to add Section 145.100, Applicability to Upwind States. This section would make the nitrogen oxides trading program applicable to facilities in other states that significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in the Commonwealth. Specifically, sources in Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina and Washington D.C. would be included in the regulatory program. Three public hearings, on March 22 (Pittsburgh), 23 (Conshohocken), and 24 (Harrisburg), have been scheduled. A background paper, which addresses anticipated Commerce Clause concerns, is available from Wick Havens (Havens.Wick@dep.state.pa.us). Written comments are due by March 27.

Proposed Regulations-Universal Waste

Draft Technical Guidance Documents

red bar graphic SOUTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Updated NESHAP standards to conform to U.S. EPA revisions, through incorporation by reference. Comments due by March 27.

red bar graphic TENNESSEE

Dept. of Env't & Conservation

Permit Applications

Permit Issuance

red bar graphic TEXAS

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Proposed Regulations

  • Proposed 30 TAC Chapter 230, Groundwater Availability Certification for Platting. Proposal is intended to implement the provisions of Senate Bill 1323. A public hearing will be held on March 7; written comments due March 13. Details at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99028230.html
  • Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 113, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories, to incorporate by reference 38 new and amended MACT standards. Public hearing scheduled for March 20; written comments due March 27. Details at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99082113.html
  • Public hearing on March 21 regarding possible revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 307, Surface Water Quality Standards; written comments due March 31. Details at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/98055307.html
  • Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 113, Subchapters A and D, and to the State SIP, regarding control of emissions from hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. Public hearing on March 21; written comments due March 27. Details at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/98012113.html
  • Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 114 and the State SIP, requiring volatility controls on gasoline in the 95-county East Texas Regional Control Zone, removal of sulfur requirements, registration of gasoline producers and importers, and to revise enforcement provisions. Public hearings on March 22 (Longview) and 23 (Austin); written comments due March 27. For details, see http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/00002114.html

red bar graphic WASHINGTON

Dept. of Ecology

EIS Availability

red bar graphic WISCONSIN

 Dept. of Natural Resources

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

  • Proposed revisions to nonpoint pollution rules. Existing rules that would be revised are NR 120, NR 151, NR 152, NR 153, NR 154, NR 216, and NR 243. A series of public meetings have been scheduled for March 13-28. For further information, see http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/on/index.htm