ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 11





The First Circuit held that Massachusetts' ZEV regulations for automobile manufacturers are not identical to California standards as required by CAA §177 and, thus, are preempted by CAA §209(a). In 1993, EPA granted California's ZEV program a CAA §209(b) waiver. Massachusetts then copied the program. In 1996, however, California repealed its ZEV requirements for the model years 1998-2002. Instead, it entered into memoranda of agreements (MOAs) with seven major automakers under which the manufacturers agreed to develop ZEV technology and introduce a limited number of ZEVs into the California market. In return, California would provide infrastructural support. Massachusetts then amended its ZEV program to reflect the automakers' obligations under the California MOAs, but not California's reciprocal obligations. Massachusetts' ZEV mandates are "standards" within the meaning of CAA §§209 and 177 rather than "enforcement mechanisms." The California MOAs, however, are not standards within the meaning of CAA §177 because they are voluntary contractual agreements rather than legislation or formal administrative regulations. Consequently, Massachusetts' regulations purporting to copy them cannot be "identical to California standards for which a waiver has been granted" as required by §177 and are preempted by the CAA. In addition, the court dismissed the manufacturers' petition to review EPA's September 15, 1999, opinion letter on the matter. Although the court previously stayed the appeal pending its primary jurisdiction referral to EPA, which resulted in the letter and subsequent petition, the letter is not reviewable final agency action. Association of International Automobile Manufacturers, Inc. v. Commissioner, Nos. 98-1036, 99-2245 (1st Cir. Mar. 27, 2000) (8 pp.).


A district court partially granted EPA's motion to amend a consent decree it entered into with various environmental organizations that requires the Agency to promulgate regulations for cooling water intake structures under CWA §316(b). EPA sought to bifurcate the rulemaking process into two separate phases for new and existing structures. EPA also sought to extend the deadlines for the rulemakings. The Agency demonstrated a significant change of circumstances warranting a modification of the decree. Although EPA's alleged factual changes--deficiencies in data, new approval procedures, expansion of public outreach, the need for watershed case studies, and the deregulation of the electric utility industry--do not justify a modification on their own, the enforcement of the consent decree in its present form would harm the public interest. The public has a significant interest in ensuring that the government does not promulgate rules via a process that emphasizes expediency over quality and accuracy. In addition, bifurcation of the process is a sensible strategy because it offers a mechanism for the promulgation of a sound, albeit partial, regulation in the shortest time. Nevertheless, EPA's suggested modification deadlines--October 5, 2000, for the phase one proposal regulating new structures, and May 16, 2002, for the phase two proposal regulating existing structures--are not suitably tailored to the changed circumstances when due consideration is given to the interest of the public in the prompt issuance of the regulation. Consequently, the court ordered EPA to promulgate the phase one proposal by July 20, 2000, and the phase two proposal by July 20, 2001. Cronin v. Browner, No. 93 CIV. 0314(AGS) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 27, 2000) (Schwartz, J.) (15 pp.).


A Michigan appellate court held that the Michigan Department of Natural Resources exceeded its authority when it denied a power company's request for a CWA §401 water quality certificate because the company failed to conduct a fish entrainment and mortality study. The department argued that because Michigan water quality standards indicate that rivers shall be protected for the use of fish and fish migration, it had the authority to order the study. It relied on a U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the Court held that a state agency could condition the issuance of a §401 certificate on the maintenance of a particular stream flow level because the condition related to a designated use of the river in question--use a a fish habitat. In that case, however, the agency had determined that a particular stream flow level was necessary to maintain the fish species contained in the river in question. In the instant case, when the department ordered the fish studies, it was not imposing a requirement that it knew would be necessary to protect fish in the river. Instead, the department simply wanted the company to conduct an exploratory study regarding the number of fish killed. The lower court, therefore, did not err in determining that the department exceeded the bounds of its authority in ordering the company to conduct the fish studies. Commonwealth Power Co. v. Department of Natural Resources, Nos. 204399, 210844 (Mich. Ct. App. Mar. 21, 2000) (5 pp.).


A district court held that the CWA authorizes EPA to set TMDLs for rivers polluted only by logging and agricultural runoff and/or other non-point sources. CWA §303(d)(1)(A) requires states to list every river for which effluent limitations would not be strong enough to implement any water quality standard applicable to the river. Once listed, CWA §303(d)(1) requires states to set TMDLs for such substandard rivers. If EPA disagrees with a state TMDL, CWA §303(e) requires EPA to revise or set the TMDL. Likewise, although the CWA §303(d) procedures for setting TMDLs specifically reference point sources but not non-point sources, §303(d) still applies to non-point sources. It would be impossible to set TMDLs to meet the necessary water quality standards without taking non-point sources into account. Similarly, CWA §303(d) requires identification of those rivers that require water quality standards, and it does not draw any distinction between point sources and non-point sources. Since all rivers were included in the universe for which water-quality standards are required, all rivers, regardless of source pollution, are included in the universe for which TMDLs are required. Moreover, Ninth Circuit caselaw and the legislative history of CWA §303(d)'s enactment indicate that the TMDL process covers non-point as well as point sources. In addition, non-point source sediment is a pollutant under CWA §502. Further, although the 1987 enactment of the CWA §319 non-point source management program addressed some of the same issues as §303(d), §319 did not render §303(d) superfluous in regard to TMDLs for non-point sources because §319 did not conflict with or duplicate the §303(d) listing/TMDL provisions at issue. Pronsolino v. Marcus, No. C 99-01828 WHA (N.D. Cal. Mar. 30, 2000) (28 pp.) (Alsup, J.).

red bar graphic  CWA, NEPA, MOOTNESS:

The Ninth Circuit dismissed as moot an individual's CWA and NEPA claims against the U.S. Department of Defense. Since the individual filed his complaint, the government remedied most of his concerns. In fact, no further CWA violations have occurred since the government ended the violations that the individual alleged. Further, in terms of his NEPA claims, the individual's objectives have been met. The U.S. Army no longer relies on categorical exclusions to exempt the treatment service agreement from NEPA and has conducted an EA for the agreement. The case, however, is remanded without prejudice so that the individual can argue that the EA is inadequate and an EIS is required. In addition, on remand, the district court must determine if the individual is a prevailing party entitled to costs. West v. Secretary of the U.S. Department of Defense, No. 98-35681 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2000) (4 pp.).


The Eighth Circuit held that Nebraska does not have a unilateral right under the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact to veto low-level radioactive waste export permits issued by the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission. The Compact grants host states veto power over agreements that grant the right of access to facilities outside the Compact region. Export permits, however, do not confer the right of access to facilities outside the region. An export permit is a right to remove, not a right of access to anything. In addition, the Commission can only confer export permits to persons inside the Compact region, not outside the region. Consequently, although Nebraska is a host state, it may not veto the export permits the Commission issued to facilities outside the Compact region. Nebraska v. Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission, No. 99-1275 (8th Cir. Apr. 4, 2000) (10 pp.).


The Federal Circuit held that summary judgment was improvidently granted in favor of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in a suit brought by property owners who claim that the Corps' refusal to grant the owners a permit to dredge and fill 50 acres of submerged land constitutes a taking. The lower court included in its takings analysis 261 acres of beachfront property previously owned by the owners. However, combining the two tracts for purposes of regulatory takings analysis simply because at one time they were under common ownership or because the larger tract sold for a substantial price cannot be justified. The Corps' denial of the permit, therefore, constitutes a categorical taking because without the dredge and fill permit, the entire 50 acres have no or minimal value. Nevertheless, the navigational servitude defense may be available to the Corps because the parcel lies below the high water mark of Lake Worth, a navigable water of the United States. Moreover, the navigational servitude is a pre-existing limitation on the landowner's title and, thus, may provide the Corps with a defense to a takings claim. In order to avoid paying compensation, however, the Corps must demonstrate that the permit denial was related to navigation. Because this is a disputed issue of material fact, the lower court's judgment was vacated and the case was remanded. Palm Beach Isles Associates v. United States, No. 99-5030 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 31, 2000) (12 pp.).


The U.S. Court of Federal Claims granted a limestone quarry owner's motion to amend its takings complaint against the United States in order to reflect additional damages incurred as a result of the taking. The United States, which deposited hazardous waste at the quarry pursuant to a Superfund removal action, conceded liability for the physical taking of the owner's property. EPA subsequently informed the owner that it was a PRP with regard to the Agency's cleanup costs at the quarry. The owner then filed a motion to amend to include the additional CERCLA damages. Rather than constituting a separate claim under CERCLA, as the United States argued, the owner's motion to amend described newly alleged damage from the physical taking already conceded by the government. If the removal action that resulted in the physical taking of the owner's property caused the pollution necessitating a Superfund cleanup for which the owner is now considered a PRP, then it is arguably a legitimate area of damage suffered by the owner as a result of the taking. Bassett v. United States, No. 98-568L (Fed. Cl. Mar. 23, 2000) (Smith, J.) (2 pp.).


A district court granted a construction company's motion to intervene in an annulment action brought by a group of residents against a local zoning board that issued the company a special use permit to construct a congregate care facility. The motion is timely, and the company has a real and substantial interest in the residents' lawsuit against the zoning board. Moreover, the company's property interest may be impaired by the outcome of the action because if the residents are successful, the permit will be annulled. In addition, in light of the adversarial litigation posture taken by the zoning board in prior legal proceedings between the company and the zoning board, the company made a sufficiently strong showing that its interests are not adequately protected by the zoning board even though the company does not assert a separate or different legal defense. Schwartz v. Town of Huntington Zoning Board of Appeals, No. 00-CV-912 ADS VVP (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 24, 2000) (Spatt, J.) (3 pp.).


The First Circuit vacated and remanded a district court decision dismissing a development corporation's claims against a tribal housing authority concerning a tribal housing project located outside the tribal reservation. The district court concluded that the corporation's claims were barred because it failed to adhere to the contract's forum-selection clause, which required disputes to be heard by the tribal council and allowed for binding arbitration. Because the forum-selection clause explicitly and broadly relegated dispute resolution to arbitration and further provided that the agreement to arbitrate shall be enforceable under prevailing law, the authority surrendered its tribal sovereign immunity with respect to the corporation's claims arising out of the village project. Contrary to the district court's finding, however, the tribal exhaustion doctrine applies to the corporation's claims. To trigger exhaustion in cases such as this one where the dispute arose out of activities conducted outside the reservation, the claim must impact directly upon tribal affairs. Here, the corporation's dealings with the authority bore directly on the use and disposition of tribal land and money. In addition, where the tribal exhaustion doctrine applies generally to a controversy, an argument that a contractual forum-selection clause either dictates or precludes a tribal forum should be directed to the tribal court. The existence and extent of tribal court jurisdiction must be made with reference to federal law, not with reference to provisions that may be contained within the four corners of a contract. Thus, the district court erroneously looked at the contract and passed on the forum-selection clause's enforceability in holding that the tribal exhaustion doctrine does not apply. Further, the corporation failed to prove that any of the exceptions to the tribal exhaustion doctrine applied in this case. Consequently, the remaining issues, including the validity of the contract's forum selection clause, must be aired before the tribal court. Ninigret Development Corp. v. Narragansett Indian Wetuomuck Housing Authority, No. 99-1828 (1st Cir. Mar. 22, 2000) (16 pp.).


A Virginia appellate court vacated a lower court's award of attorneys fees to a group of residents who challenged a state environmental agency's issuance of a solid waste facility permit to a solid waste company to construct and operate a landfill facility. In the underlying case, the lower court originally issued an order affirming the permit. After the residents appealed, however, the lower court set aside the permit and remanded the matter to the agency to make an explicit determination as to whether the landfill facility poses a substantial present or potential danger to human health or the environment. The residents then sought and were awarded attorneys fees by the lower court. The lower court, however, only had control over the matter up until the 21st day after it issued its initial order affirming the permit. That initial order did not reserve jurisdiction to the lower court to award attorneys fees at a later time, nor did the court enter a subsequent order modifying, vacating, or suspending its original order within those 21 days.  In addition, the appellate courts in the underlying case did not instruct the lower court to award attorneys fees. The lower court, therefore, lacked jurisdiction to award attorneys fees expended in the lower court and appellate proceedings. Commonwealth v. Residents Involved in Saving the Environment, No. 0769-99-2 (Va. Ct. App. Mar. 28, 2000) (4 pp.).


The EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) affirmed in part and reversed in part an administrative law judge (ALJ) decision finding a pesticide company liable for 379 sales or distributions of misbranded pesticides and assessing the company a $1,895,000 penalty for those violations. Because the WPS regulations constitute a misbranding standard under FIFRA §2, proof that a product's label does not comply with the language required by the WPS rule is sufficient to establish that the product is misbranded. Here, the company labeled its product as having a toxicity level of III under the WPS regulations rather than a toxicity level of II, which requires the use of protective eyewear. Contrary to the ALJ's findings, EPA approved the company's labels in November 1993. Although this approval is not a defense to the misbranding charge, it serves as prima facie evidence that the pesticide, its labeling, and its packaging comply with FIFRA's registration provisions. EPA, however, submitted sufficient evidence to rebut this prima facie evidence by showing that the Agency mistakenly approved the company's labeling. Nevertheless, once EPA rebutted the company's prima facie evidence, the company should have been allowed to submit additional evidence on the pesticide's toxicity. The EAB, therefore, remanded the case to allow the company to submit its toxicity evidence. In re E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co., FIFRA Appeal No. 98-2 (EPA EAB Apr. 3, 2000) (44 pp.).

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


Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.

red bar graphic  AIR:

  • EPA approved the Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, CAA §§111(d)/129 plan for hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. 65 FR 18249 (4/7/00).
  • EPA approved Mississippi's CAA §111(d) plan to implement and enforce the emissions guidelines for existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators units. 65 FR 18252 (4/7/00).

red bar graphic HAZARDOUS WASTE:

  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(h) in connection with the C&J Disposal Superfund site in Eaton, N.Y. 65 FR 18096 (4/6/00). 
  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative agreement under CERCLA §122(i) and RCRA §7003(d) concerning the Solvent Recovery Corporation in Kansas City, Kan. 65 FR 18332 (4/7/00).

red bar graphic ENDANGERED SPECIES:

  • FWS determined that the northern Idaho ground squirrel is a threatened species under the ESA. 65 FR 17779 (4/5/00). 
  • The National Marine Fisheries Service issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to announce that it is considering technical changes to the requirements for turtle excluder devices. 65 FR 17852 (4/5/00). 

red bar graphic  SMCRA PROGRAM APPROVAL:

red bar graphic  SOLID WASTE:

  • EPA requested comments and information on two issues related to the criteria for municipal solid waste landfills: the performance of alternative liner designs compared to the performance of composite liners when leachate is recirculated, and the design and performance of bioreactor landfills. 65 FR 18014 (4/6/00).

red bar graphic  WATER QUALITY:

  • EPA made a tentative affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Shrewsbury River in the county of Monmouth, N.J. 65 FR 17500 (4/3/00). 
  • EPA made a tentative affirmative determination that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Greater Huntington-Northport Bay Complex in the county of Suffolk, N.Y. 65 FR 17501 (4/3/00).


  • U.S. v. Brownwood Furniture, Inc., No. EDCV00-182 RT(BQR) (C.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2000) (a CAA defendant that violated emissions and record keeping conditions of its new source review permit for its original spray booth at its Rancho Cucamonga facility in San Bernardino County, Cal., failed to obtain valid operating and construction permits for two additional booths, failed to apply best available control technology, and failed to provide emissions offsets, must  pay a $115,000 civil penalty and must follow a compliance plan to reduce volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions at the additional spray booths by using ultra-low VOC coatings and/or adding control equipment), 65 FR 17533 (4/3/00); 
  • U.S. v. Migell, No. 99-255-M (D.N.H. Mar. 22, 2000) (CERCLA defendants must pay $40,000 in past and future U.S. response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Surrette America Battery Removal site in Northfield, N.H.), 65 FR 17533 (4/3/00); 
  • U.S. v. Safe Tire Disposal Corp., No. 398CV2865-T (N.D. Tex. Mar. 20, 2000) (CERCLA defendants must pay $100,000 in past U.S. response costs incurred in connection with a tire fire that occurred on land owned by Safe Tire Disposal Corp. in Midlothian, Tex.), 65 FR 17534 (4/3/00); 
  • U.S. v. Texas City Refining, Inc., Nos. G-00-145, -96-262 (S.D. Tex. Mar. 13, 2000) (a CERCLA defendant must pay $50,000 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Tex Tin Superfund site in Texas City and La Marque, Tex., and must also pay $12,500 to a private corporation in reimbursement of their response costs at the site), 65 FR 17534 (4/3/00);
  • U.S. v. Arnet Realty Co., No. 00-1294 (AJL) (D.N.J. Mar. 17, 2000) (settling CERCLA defendants must pay $500,000 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the CPS/Madison site in Middlesex County, N.J.), 65 FR 18351 (4/7/00); 
  • U.S. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc., No. CV-97-BU-2755-M (N.D. Ala. Mar. 28, 2000) (in connection with the Gulf States Steel Superfund site in Gadsen, Ala., a CWA and CERCLA defendant must pay a $100,000 civil penalty, must comply with its NPDES permit, must undertake certain supplemental environmental projects in the amount of at least $206 million, and must pay $6.54 million for cleanup of Lake Gadsen and Black Creek), 65 FR 18351 (4/7/00); 
  • U.S. v. Young, No. 95-4202-JPG (S.D. Ill. Mar. 15, 2000) (a CWA defendant that discharged dredged and fill materials onto approximately 100 acres of wetlands in Hamilton County, Ill., is permanently enjoined from taking any actions or causing others to take any actions that result in the discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters, must pay $5,000 to be used to conduct wetland restoration, and must covey the site to appropriate entity for conservation after the wetland restoration is completed), 65 FR 18351 (4/7/00).

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


red bar graphic ALABAMA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Penalty Assessments

Public Notices–Permit Applications 

red bar graphic ALASKA

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Proposed Contingency Plan

  • Proposed Interior Alaska Subarea Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. The Plan will include information on emergency response notification and procedures, available resources, and environmentally sensitive areas. Comments due April 30. Details at http://www.akrtt.org/plans.html

Request for Grant Proposals

red bar graphic ARKANSAS

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

NPDES Permit Application

Proposed Revisions-Water Quality Plan

  • Proposed revisions to Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) by adding four facilities with wastewater discharges to the plan, changing the discharge flow rate for one facility, and changing the discharge flow rate and effluent limits for a second facility. Public comments are accepted through April 12. Details at http://www.adeq.state.ar.us

back to top

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Program Delegations

Status of Water Quality Report

Penalty Assessment

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA

Air Resources Board

Final Regulations

Proposed Regulations

  • April 27 hearing date for a proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair (AMR) Activities. The proposal is intended to reduce emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from AMR activities by regulating automotive consumer product (specifically, break cleaners, air intake cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers manufactured after Dec. 31, 2002) content and usage. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regup00.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/amr/amr.htm

Integrated Waste Management Board

Landfill Diversion

Water Resources Control Board

Phase 8, Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearings

Water Transfers Public Workshop

Subterranean Streams

  • Subject of an April 24 workshop in Sacramento. Written comments should be submitted by April 18. See http://www.swrcb.ca.gov

Undergound Storage Tanks--Proposed Cleanup Fund Regulations

South Coast Air Quality Management District

New Appointment

Final Regulation

Draft Air Toxics Control Plan

Proposed Rule, Amendments--Public Fleet Vehicles; Gasoline Transfer/Dispensing

red bar graphic COLORADO

Air Quality Control Commission

Pikes Peak Area–Transportation Improvement Plan

North Front Range–Transportation Improvement Plan

RVP Waiver Request

  • Conoco, Inc., seeks support for their request to U.S. EPA regarding waiver of the 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi) vapor pressure requirement for gasoline in favor of a 9.0 psi standard. Will be discussed at April 20 meeting of the Commission. Details at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/notrvp.html

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic  CONNECTICUT

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Aquifer Protection Land Use Regulations

red bar graphic  FLORIDA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Coastal Construction/Excavation

  • Proposed amendments to Rule No. 62B-33 to implement Ch. 161.053, Fla. Stat., regarding rules and procedures for coastal construction and excavation. A hearing, if requested in a timely manner, will be held on April 26. 

Citizens Advisory Panel Meeting

  • April 11 in Pensacola regarding restoration efforts at Bayou Chico. 

NDPES Stormwater Delegation Tech. Advisory Comm. Mtg.

  • April 17 in Orlando. Meeting will discuss draft revisions to Ch.62-4 (fees) and Chapters 62-620, 62-621, and 62-624, Fla. Admin. Code, in anticipation of the state receiving delegation of the federal NPDES stormwater program. The draft amendments may be viewed at http://www/dep.state.fl.us/water/slerp/pds/draft.htm

Contaminated Soils Forum Methodology Focus Group (MFG)

Technical Advisory Committee, Petroleum Storage Tanks

  • Meeting April 27 to discuss guidance memoranda issued by the Bureau of Petroleum Storage Systems. 

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 Regulations

  • 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

Air Permit Applications

red bar graphic ILLINOIS

Envtl. Protection Agency

Strategic Planning Process

Permit Applications

  • Calumet Energy Team, LLC, Chicago, for air permit for a natural gas power plant. Comments due May 11; hearing scheduled for April 26.
  • Indeck-Libertyville, LLC, for construction of a natural gas fired power plant in Libertyville. Comments due May 10; public hearing on April 25.
  • Silvercreek Constr. Co., Knox County, for NPDES permit. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-04-06-silvercreek.html
  • Reliant Energy Aurora, L.P., for construction of a natural gas-fired electrical generating facility in Aurora. Comments due April 17.
  • Fox River Water Reclamation District NDPES applications. Comments due June 15; public hearing May 16. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-06-15-fox-river.html

red bar graphic INDIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Final Regulations-Water

Final Regulations-Hazardous Waste

Final Regulations-Air

  • Final rule adds 326 IAC 17.1 to incorporate recent statutory changes to IC 5-14-3, provide for consistent treatment of confidential materials among IDEM program areas, and allow IDEM to simplify and streamline the procedures associated with the submission and handling of confidential information. Details at http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/March-1-2000.html  

Proposed Regulations-Air

Proposed Regulations-Water

Proposed Regulations-Solid & Hazardous Waste

Proposed Regulations-Underground Storage Tanks

red bar graphic LOUISIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations

  • Revisions to LAC 33:V.625, 630, 635, 660, and 717, Remedial Action Plans; proposed repeal of certain regulations dealing with control of emissions from motor vehicles and related fees; proposed amendments to LAC 33:XV.2508, dealing with fee determination. For further information, including copies of the proposed regulations and comment information, see http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/addition/2000

Permit Applications

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerator Compliance Deadline

  • Compliance with 40 C.F.R. 60 subparts Ec and Ce is required by Aug. 16, 2000. Facilities that cannot meet the deadline and qualify for an extension of compliance deadlines must request an extension on or before May 22. 

red bar graphic MASSACHUSETTS

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Final Regulations-Cathode Ray Tube Management 

  • Cathode ray tubes, which are found in televisions, computer monitors, and certain other electrical equipment, are banned from landfill disposal or incineration pursuant to regulations that became effective April 1. See http://www.state.ma.us/dep under "New Additions" for information regarding the ban, the rationale behind it, and the Commonwealth's recycling program, as well as http://www.state.ma.us/dep/pao/files/crt2.htm

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste Transport

  • Public hearings scheduled for April 24-27 in various locations. Comment period closes May 8. The proposed amendments are designed to reduce the number of hazardous waste transporter categories from nine to one, consolidate the number of permit modification categories from three to one, and modify the public notice process for license applications. See http://www.state.ma.us/dep under "New Additions." 

back to top

red bar graphic MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Clean Corporate Citizen Designation

Management Team Public Meetings

Proposed Regulations-Wetlands

Permit Applications-Air

  • Alchem Aluminum, Inc., for a permit to install for a facility to be located in Buena Vista, Michigan. 
  • Stone Container Corp., for permit to install for installation and operation of air pollution control systems at facility in Ontonagon.
  • KM Power Company, for installation of a 550 megawatt natural gas-fired power plant in Jackson. 
  • Viking Energy, Lincoln, for increase in allowed tire-derived fuel usage rate.
  • Tuscarora Incorporated, for increased emissions from an existing polystyrene foam manufacturing facility in Chesaning.
  • Lafarge Corporation, for a change in raw material mix and increases in HCl emissions from cement kilns in Alpena.
  • Midland Township, for operation of a municipal solid waste landfill.
  • Central Michigan University, for operation of a power plant.
  • Detroit Edison, Monroe Power Plant.
  • Thompson Marine Products, for boat manufacturing facility in Saginaw County.
  • Paulstra CRC Cadillac Division, Wexford County, for manufacturing of automotive parts.
  • Wisconsin Electric Power Company, for Preque Isle Power Plant, Marquette County. 

For details, see http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd

Proposed Consent Orders

Exemptions from Permit to Install Requirement

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Proposed Regulations–Animal Feedlots

Permit Applications, Other Notices

  • For air permit to Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc., Minneapolis. Comments due April 10.
  • For permit modification to 3M Cottage Grove. Comments due April 17.
  • Environmental Impact Worksheet available for Marathon Ashland Petroleum's proposed replacement of a petroleum storage tank at St. Paul facility. Comments due May 3; see http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/nr040300.html
  • For remedial action plan for cleanup of Pig's Eye Dump, an unpermitted landfill. Comment period ends May 3; public meeting April 25 in St. Paul. See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/nr0331a00.html
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permits for General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis. Comment period ends May 4. 
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permits for City of Delano, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends May 8. 
  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permits for Okabena municipal wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends May 1. 
  • For a permit for construction and operation of a solid waste disposal facility to Waste Management, LeSueur. Comment period ends May 1. 
  • For air permit to City of Chaska and Minnesota Municipal Power Agency-Mn. River Station. Comment period ends May 3. 
  • Environmental Impact Worksheet available for Farwell/Kensington Collection System and Wastewater Treatment Facility.
  • Revised Guidance Documents for UST and AST release cleanup available.

For details, see http://data.pca.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/whatsnew.pl

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Permit Applications

  • New York City Dept. of Santiation, for permit to construct and operate a landfill gas collection and enclosed flare system at the Fresh Kills Landfill, Richmond County. Public hearing on April 27; comments due May 1. Details at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ohms/notices/fresh.htm

Environmental Notice Bulletin

red bar graphic NORTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Envt. and Natural Resources

Permitting-Environmental Impact Assessment

  • In settlement of the allegations made by several environmental groups in N.C. Environmental Defense Fund v. Coastal Resources Commission, the Department on April 6 agreed to interpret the North Carolina Environmental Protection Act to require agency preparation of environmental impact statements prior to the issuance of permits. The settlement agreement must be approved by an administrative law judge. The Department also agreed to several other modifications or steps related to the permitting of a mini steel mill proposed by Nucor Corp. Temporary, followed by proposed permanent, implementing regulations to address the changes in the permitting process will be issued.   

Governor's Clean Air Plan

Hog Farming-Odor Management Plans

red bar graphic  OHIO

Envtl. Protection Agency

Proposed Denial-Wetlands Fill

Permit Applications

red bar graphic OKLAHOMA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

red bar graphic OREGON

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

NESHAP Annual Rule Updates-Hearing

Enhanced Auto Emission Test Low Income Waiver Proposal

red bar graphic PENNSYLVANIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

New Organization Chart

Proposed General NPDES Permit Revision

Proposed Envtl. Quality Board Policy for Processing Petitions

  • Regarding petitions for redesignation of streams under Chapter 93 (water quality standards) and the Clean Streams Law (35 P.S. §§691.1-691.1001). 

Proposed Regulations-Universal Waste

Safe Fill Policy

  • Draft available for comment through May 10. Public hearings will be held on April 27, May 2, and May 4. See http://www.dep.state.pa.us direct link "Safe Fill Policy." 

Draft Technical Guidance Documents

Final Technical Guidance

red bar graphic SOUTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

Permit Application Notices

red bar graphic TENNESSEE

Dept. of Environment and Conservation

Proposed Regulations-Copy Fees

Permit Applications

red bar graphic TEXAS

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

State of the Texas Environment Report

Final Regulations

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Permit Hearings

Proposed TMDL

red bar graphic WASHINGTON

Adopted Regulations