ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 12



red bar graphic CWA §404, WETLANDS, SIDECASTING:

The Fourth Circuit held that developers' sidecasting of dredged spoil in a jurisdictional wetland constituted the discharge of a pollutant under the CWA. The CWA defines "discharge of a pollutant" to mean any addition of any pollutant to navigable waters from a point source. The definition of "pollutant" specifically includes dredged spoil that has been discharged into water. The piles of dirt dredged up by the developer were pollutants within the CWA's meaning. Further, the practice of sidecasting--placing dredged spoil next to the ditch from which it was dug--constitutes discharge of a pollutant to waters. The developer argued that sidecasting did not constitute the addition of material to a wetland. However, the CWA does not prohibit the addition of material; it prohibits the addition of any pollutant. There can be an addition of pollutant without the addition of material, at least when an activity transforms some material from a nonpollutant into a pollutant, as occurred here. In the course of digging a ditch, the developer removed earth from the wetland. Once removed, the material became dredged spoil, a statutory pollutant and a type of material that up until then was present in the developers' property. It is of no consequence that what is now dredged spoil was previously present on the same property in the less threatening form of dirt in an undisturbed state. Once the material was excavated from the wetland, its redeposit in that same wetland added a pollutant where none had been before. United States v. Deaton, Nos. 98-2256, -2370 (4th Cir. Apr. 7, 2000) (7 pp.).


The Fifth Circuit held that a state environmental agency's administrative action against a Texas oil refinery did not statutorily preclude an environmental group's CAA citizen suit against the refinery for violations of emission standards for hydrogen sulfide and sulfur dioxide. CAA §304 precludes citizen suits where EPA or a state has commenced and is diligently prosecuting a civil action in a court of the United States or a state. The plain meaning of "court of the United states or a state" excludes administrative actions, such as the state agency's action against the refinery. In addition, the group has standing to pursue its CAA citizen suit. The breathing and smelling of polluted air by members of the group is sufficient to demonstrate injury-in-fact. Evidence offered by the group sufficiently demonstrates that the alleged injuries are fairly traceable to the refinery's emissions. Further, an injunction against the refinery's emissions may be an appropriate remedy even if it will not prevent all discharges of pollutants affecting the group. Moreover, the civil penalties requested by the group will redress the members' alleged injuries. Texans United for a Safe Economy Education Fund v. Crown Central Petroleum Corp., No. 98-21043 (5th Cir. Apr. 6, 2000) (7 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit held that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the United States' third-party claim against the state of Alaska for equitable apportionment of damages alleged in an FTCA claim that a Native American tribe brought against the United States for damages caused by leaking diesel fuel. The United States donated diesel fuel to Alaska, and Alaska sold it to a town. During the town's use of the fuel, 110,000 gallons spilled and contaminated a Native American tribe's land. The tribe sued the United States, which sued the state as a third-party plaintiff. Generally, the Eleventh Amendment does not bar actions by the United States against a state in federal court. Moreover, the Alaska statute addressing third-party claims for equitable apportionment does not alter such a bar. The state argued that under Alaska law a third party plaintiff's right of recovery in an equitable apportionment action vests with the original plaintiff, and, therefore, the United States' claim was asserted on behalf of a private-citizen plaintiff who would normally be barred by the Eleventh Amendment from asserting the claim directly. However, in substance, the claim by the United States is not a private action and is not intended primarily to benefit a private party. The main purpose of the United States' third-party claim was not to prosecute the tribe's claim, but rather to reduce any damages the tribe would recover from the United States. Further, even if the tribe may benefit by having the United States bring the state into the tribe's action, the Eleventh Amendment does not prevent the United States from bringing a claim against a state. Moreover, a money allocation of fault to the state in federal court will not result in the tribe obtaining an unenforceable state-court money judgment against it. Although state principles of collateral estoppel preclude relitigation in state court of an issue originally addressed in federal court, the United States can sue a state even when its claim ultimately results in payment from the state's treasury to a private party. Further, the sole efficacy of equitable apportionment in this case is not to preclude a later state court action. Bethel Native Corp. v. Department of the Interior, No. 98-35316 (9th Cir. Apr. 6, 2000) (8 pp.)


The Eighth Circuit upheld a district court decision to preliminarily enjoin Nebraska from continuing with an administrative proceeding related to the denial of a license for a disposal facility for low-level nuclear waste generated within the member states of the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Compact. The district court had jurisdiction to issue its injunction because by entering into the Compact, Nebraska waived a portion of its sovereign immunity. Moreover, the relief was solely prospective, and the Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission demonstrated that Nebraska's violation of federal law was ongoing. In addition, the Commission demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, including evidence of the state executive branch's interference in the licensing process, delay and excessive expenditures fostered by the state, and the state's denial of a second license application on an apparent pretext. Similarly, the Commission made a sufficient showing of Nebraska's abuse of the administrative process to demonstrate irreparable harm. Last, the district court did not violate the Anti-Injunction Act because the Act only applies to state court proceedings, not to state administrative proceedings. Entergy, Arkansas, Inc. v. Nebraska, No. 99-2376 (8th Cir. Apr. 12, 2000) (23 pp.).


The Eighth Circuit held that the FAA's decision approving the proposed expansion of the Lambert-St. Louis International Airport was not arbitrary or capricious. Under NEPA and its regulations, the FAA took the necessary hard look at four alternatives for airport expansion and properly excluded them from the final EIS (FEIS). The FAA reasonably excluded two alternatives because of high costs and constructibility concerns. The third alternative would not satisfy the airport expansion purpose of constructing runways with simultaneous arrival capacity in bad weather. The fourth alternative was lacking in specificity and was not better than a substantially similar alternative discussed in the FEIS. Moreover, the FAA's FEIS properly discussed the adverse environmental consequences of noise impacts and mitigation measures to combat them. Similarly, the FAA properly decided that the expansion's noise impacts will not be a use of an adjacent neighborhood's natural and historic resources as defined by Transportation Act §4(f). Likewise, the FAA's §4(f) analysis properly concluded that there was no feasible and prudent alternative to destroying or constructively using public parks and historic properties in an adjacent neighborhood. In addition, although the airport expansion conflicts with a neighboring town's development plans, the FAA did not violate the Airport and Airway Improvement Act provision that forbids FAA funding for airport expansions that conflict with the plans of state agencies that have authority to plan for the development of communities surrounding airports. The FAA consulted a regional planning commission, and the legislative history of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act reveals that Congress did not intend to allow one lone local community to hold the national airspace system hostage. City of Bridgeton v. FAA, Nos. 98-3506 et al. (8th Cir. Apr. 7, 2000) (15 pp.).


The Eighth Circuit held that the National Park Service boundary selection for the Niobrara Scenic River in Nebraska violated the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act's requirement to select land with outstandingly remarkable values. The Park Service was not free to select land for the river area as it saw fit. Although 16 U.S.C. §1274(b) allows the Park Service complete discretion in choosing land, 16 U.S.C. §1281(a) requires the Wild and Scenic River system to be administered to enhance the outstandingly remarkable values of a scenic river and the land adjacent to it. Selecting detailed boundaries for a river area is an administrative act, and the outstandingly remarkable values standard should have been applied by the Park Service but was not. The Park Service consistently analyzed resources according to their significance and importance, which is the legal standard for selecting park land, but such terms are not synonymous with outstandingly remarkable. Moreover, the Park Service's post hoc redefinitions of "significance" and "importance" to mean "outstandingly remarkable" were not sufficient to correct past errors on which the Park Service's boundary selection record of decision were based. These redefinitions did not affect earlier land evaluations, and the Park Service made no attempts to reexamine its prior work according to the outstandingly remarkable standard. Therefore, on remand, the Park Service should select boundaries that seek to protect and enhance the outstandingly remarkable values of the Niobrara Scenic River. Sokol v. Kennedy, No. 99-1804NE (8th Cir. Apr. 10, 2000) (10 pp).


The Tenth Circuit, applying Colorado law, reversed a district court holding that the pollution exclusion clause in one of two insurance policies held by a Colorado sanitation district precluded an insurer's duty to defend the district against a CWA citizen suit arising from the district's discharges to a creek. One policy effective from 1983 to 1986 excludes coverage for pollution discharges, but restores coverage for sudden accidents involving pollutants. Colorado views the phrase "sudden and accidental" in pollution exclusions to be ambiguous. Although the "sudden accident" phrase in the district's policy is not identical to "sudden and accidental," the two clauses are legally indistinguishable. Thus, under Colorado law, the phrase "sudden accident" would be ambiguous and should be construed in favor of the district. Further, according to Colorado courts, the discharges alleged in the citizen suit complaint could have been unexpected and unintended from the district's point of view. Therefore, the insurer is not excused form its duty to defend because the claims in the citizen suit arguably fall within policy coverage. However, the second policy, effective from 1986 to 1987, does not trigger a duty to defend because an absolute pollution exclusion clause in the body of the text replaces the policy's general exclusion, and the additional exclusion does not contain the ambiguous term "sudden accidents."  Blackhawk-Central City Sanitation District v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., No. 98-1075 (10th Cir. Apr. 11, 2000) (11 pp.).


The Ohio Supreme Court affirmed a state appellate court's dismissal, due to the corporation's late notice, of an aluminum corporation's suit seeking liability coverage from insurers for the costs of the corporation's remediation of cyanide contamination of groundwater at its Ohio plant. The insurance policies at issue required the corporations to inform the insurers as soon as practicable of any accidents, occurrences, or claims that would trigger coverage under the policy. The corporation knew in 1976 that it was liable for the groundwater contamination, but it did not send its first notice of potential claims to its insurers until 1992. Such notice was unreasonable as a matter of law. Moreover, reasonable minds could only conclude that the insurers suffered actual prejudice from the delay in notice. As an example of prejudice caused to the insurers, at least nine potential witnesses relevant to the litigation are dead. Ormet Primary Aluminum Corp. v. Employers Insurance of Wausau, No. 98-2456 (Ohio Apr. 5, 2000) (8 pp.). (Amicus curiae counsel for Insurance Environmental Litigation Association included Laura A. Foggan, Daniel E. Troy, and Raymond Shepard III of Wiley, Rein & Fielding in Washington DC). 


A district court held that the FAAAA preempts an Oregon county's and city's solid waste collection, storage, transport, and disposal ordinances. The ordinances require anyone transporting solid waste in the city or county to obtain a certificate of authorization, but an applicant for a certificate must show that the intended service area is not served by another transporter or is not adequately served. The city does allow nonexclusive licenses but has never awarded one. A mixed solid waste (MSW) hauling company that dumped its waste at a material recycling facility challenged the ordinances after it was cited for operating without a certificate. The FAAAA preempts state or local laws related to a motor carrier or a motor private carrier's transportation of property. The company is a motor carrier in that it provides motor vehicle transportation of mixed solid waste. Further, when MSW is collected from commercial and industrial customers, it is property under the FAAAA. Waste materials purchased for use in recycling programs have an economic value and come within the ordinary meaning of property which includes the concept of ownership and its related obligations. The ordinances, however, do not violate the Commerce Clause. They protect the local interest of safe, affordable, and efficient waste disposal for residents and businesses, and any burden imposed on interstate commerce by the ordinances is not clearly excessive in relation to these putative local benefits. A.G.G. Enterprises, Inc. v. Washington County, No. Civ. 99-1097-KI (D. Or. Apr. 6, 2000) (King, J.) (12 pp.).


A district court granted in part and denied in part a Superfund site owner's motion for summary judgment as to the CERCLA and Spill Act contribution claims brought against him by other PRPs at the site. Summary judgment as to the PRPs' CERCLA §113 and Spill Act contribution claims was not proper because each party's liability has yet to be established, and it would be difficult to determine each party's equitable share of the response costs before such a finding. Genuine issues of material fact also exist as to the owner's alleged failure to prevent further dumping at the site after he purchased it. Further, summary judgment was not proper as to the PRPs' Spill Act claim against the owner for treble damages for failure to comply with a state directive ordering site remediation or an administrative consent order requiring a soil cap at the site. The record revealed that the owner did not abide by the directive or sign the order because he felt that it was unfair for him to pay for the cleanup, but the owner failed to offer sufficient evidence proving that such a belief was objectively reasonable. Summary judgment as to the PRPs' claims for past EPA oversight costs under CERCLA was granted. Under CERCLA, EPA cannot recover from private parties the costs of government oversight of the remedial activity performed by a private party and, ipso facto, the PRPs cannot seek contribution for these costs from the owner. However, oversight costs expended by the state environmental agency can be recovered under the Spill Act. In addition, CERCLA preempted the PRPs' state-law unjust enrichment claim against the owner. Lenox, Inc. v. Reuben Smith Rubbish Removal, No. 97-5065 (JEI) (D.N.J. Apr. 4, 2000) (Irenas, J.) (10 pp.).


The EPA Environmental Appeals Board affirmed in part and reversed in part an administrative law judge's (ALJ's) holding that a nuclear fuel components company violated RCRA by improperly storing hazardous waste in a holding pond without a permit. In denying the company 's motion to dismiss the EPA's enforcement action, the ALJ erroneously based its decision on the grounds that the company failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the waste stored in the pond was mixed radioactive waste not subject to RCRA. Nevertheless, the company's motion is dismissed because the company based the motion on the mistaken legal premise that EPA had the burden of proving that the pond was not contaminated with uranium during the relevant period. In actuality, the uranium contamination issue was raised by the company as an affirmative defense, and as such, the company bore the burden of proving that the pond was contaminated with uranium. Further, the ALJ's grant of EPA's motion for an accelerated decision is reversed because the lack of articulated analysis in the ALJ's decision renders it unclear as to whether the ALJ adhered to fundamental summary judgment principles, factored circumstantial evidence into the decision, and had a reasoned basis for certain legal conclusions. In addition, the company cannot bring an equitable estoppel claim because it cannot proffer any specific facts showing that EPA engaged in affirmative misconduct by withdrawing an agreement not to apply RCRA to the company's operations. On remand, the ALJ can issue a new detailed decision granting EPA's motion for an accelerated decision, or it can hold evidentiary hearings to resolve any factual disputes. In re BWX Technologies, Inc., RCRA Appeal No. 97-5 (EPA EAB Apr. 5, 2000) (32 pp.).

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

large red bar graphic

Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.

red bar graphic AIR:

  • EPA approved Alabama's CAA §111(d) plan to implement and enforce the emissions guidelines for existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerator units. 65 FR 18909 (4/10/00). 
  • EPA deleted the 1995 transportation conformity amendment that allowed new nonattainment areas a one-year grade period before transportation conformity began applying. 65 FR 18911 (4/10/00). 
  • EPA proposed amendments to the pharmaceuticals production NESHAP to address technical issues and other concerns raised during the rule's review before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and to correct any other inconsistencies that were discovered during the review process. 65 FR 19151 (4/10/00). 
  • EPA expanded the list of acceptable substitutes for ozone-depleting substances under EPA's Significant New Alternatives Policy program. 65 FR 19327 (4/11/00). 
  • EPA announced the opportunity for the regulated community to participate in the Storage Tank Emission Reduction Partnership Program. 65 FR 19891 (4/13/00). 
  • EPA approved Delaware's CAA §§111(d)/129 plan for existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. 65 FR 20086 (4/14/00). 


  • EPA granted a petition submitted by Rhodia, Inc., to delist filter cake sludge generated at its Houston, Tex., facility on a generator specific basis from the lists of hazardous waste. 65 FR 18918 (4/10/00). 
  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the National Zinc Superfund site in Bartlesville, Okla. 65 FR 18995 (4/10/00).
  • EPA proposed to enter into a settlement under CERLCA §122(h)(1) for the partial reimbursement of past response costs incurred at the Lyman Dyeing and Finishing Superfund site in Lyman, S.C. 65 FR 19897 (4/13/00). 
  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative order on consent under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the East Multnomah County Groundwater Contamination site in Portland, Or. 65 FR 20158 (4/14/00).

red bar graphic DRINKING WATER:

  • EPA proposed to promulgate the Long Term 1 Enhances Surface Water Treatment and Filter Backwash Rule. 65 FR 19045 (4/10/00). 
  • EPA made minor revisions to the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Stage 1 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, which were published December 16, 1998, and to the Revisions to State Primacy Requirements to Implement SDWA Amendments, which was published April 28, 1998. 65 FR 20303 (4/14/00). 

red bar graphic POLICY:

  • EPA issued its revised final policy on Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction, and Prevention of Violations, commonly referred to as the Audit Policy.  65 FR 19617 (4/11/00). 
  • EPA issued its revised final Small Business Compliance Policy. 65 FR 19629 (4/11/00). 

red bar graphic RADIOACTIVE WASTE:

  • EPA announced the availability of DOE documents on waste characterization programs applicable to certain transuranic radioactive waste at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory proposed for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 65 FR 20109 (4/14/00). 


red bar graphic WATER QUALITY:

  • EPA proposed to amend the current regulations for the coal mining point source category by adding two new subcategories to the existing regulation. 65 FR 19439 (4/11/00). 
  • EPA amended the federal water quality criteria regulations for toxic pollutants to withdraw certain human health and aquatic life criteria applicable to the District of Columbia, Idaho, Kansas, Rhode Island, and Vermont. 65 FR 19659 (4/12/00). 
  • EPA announced the availability of the administrative record file for 19 total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) and the calculations for these TMDLs prepared by EPA for waters listed in the Mermentau and Vermilion/Teche river basins under CWA §303(d). 65 FR 19762 (4/12/00). 

red bar graphic WETLANDS:

  • The Federal Highway Administration and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers announced that a proposed wetland banking memorandum of agreement was entered into by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and various state and federal agencies. 65 FR 20240 (4/14/00). 


  • U.S. v. Alcoa, Inc., No. EV0049C-Y/H (S.D. Ind. Mar. 13, 2000) (a CAA and CWA defendant that violated the Acts at its primary reduction and secondary aluminum production plant in Newburgh, Ind., must  pay a $2.4 million civil penalty, implement specified CAA and CWA compliance measures, and must perform a supplemental environmental project estimated to cost $5.4 million), 65 FR 19924 (4/13/00);
  • U.S. v. Azrael, No. WN-89-2898 (D. Md. Mar. 24, 2000) (a CERCLA defendant must pay the United States $82,200 must pay Maryland $54,800 in connection with past and future response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Kane and Lombard Superfund site in Baltimore, Md.), 65 FR 19925 (4/13/00);
  • U.S. v. Boomsnub, No. 97-5719-FDB (W.D. Wash. Mar. 31, 2000) (CERCLA defendants must pay $2,064,874.88 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Boomsnub Superfund site in Vancouver, Wash., and must liquidate certain properties and pay the proceeds to the Superfund), 65 FR 19925 (4/13/00); 
  • U.S. v. Greenwood Chemical Co., No. 97-0147 (W.D. Va. Apr. 5, 2000) (one CERCLA defendant must pay $90,000 to the United States and $10,000 to the Commonwealth of Virginia for past and future response costs incurred and to be incurred at the Greenwood Chemical Company Superfund site in Albemarle County, Va., and a second CERCLA defendant must pay $1,000 to the United States and must agree that the United States' lien on the site will remain in effect after the settlement), 65 FR 19925 (4/13/00);
  • U.S. v. Libra Industries, Inc., No. 99-73771 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 3, 2000) (a settling defendant that violated the CAA at its institutional dry cleaning facility in Jackson, Mich., must pay a $4,000 civil penalty), 65 FR 19926 (4/13/00); 
  • U.S. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., No. 00-S-562 (D. Colo. Mar. 14, 2000) (a CERCLA defendant must pay $3.5 million over 10 years to the U.S. Air Force for costs incurred and to be incurred at the PJKS NPL site in Jefferson County, Colo., and must provide clean up services that could ultimately reduce total clean up costs to the Air Force by as much as $32.25 million), 65 FR 19926 (4/13/00);
  • U.S. v. Odabashian, No. 95-2361 G/Bre (W.D. Tenn. Mar. 31, 2000) (3 CERCLA defendants and 12  third-party defendants must pay $1,932,500 in past EPA response costs incurred at the Pulvair Corporation Superfund site in Millington, Tenn.), 65 FR 19926 (4/13/00);
  • U.S. v. S.B. Foot Tanning Co., No. 2-99CV-325-J (N.D. Tex. Mar. 22, 2000) (a CWA defendant that violated discharge prohibitions and applicable pretreatment standards at its Cactus, Tex., facility must pay a $510,439.60 civil penalty, must comply with the CWA, and must implement and complete two supplemental environmental projects costing in the aggregate $864,000 in capital costs and $12,500 in annual operations and maintenance costs), 65 FR 19927 (4/13/00);
  • U.S. v. Sun Co., No. 94-CV-3246 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 30, 2000) (settling defendants that violated the terms of a consent decree resolving alleged CAA violations at their South Philadelphia refinery must pay a  $460,000 penalty and comply with the terms of the modified consent decree), 65 FR 19927 (4/13/00);
  • U.S. v. TH Agriculture & Nutrition, L.L.C., No. 00-T-363-N (M.D. Ala. Mar. 24, 2000) (CERCLA defendants must perform the EPA-selected remedy at the TH Agriculture & Nutrition Superfund site in Montgomery, Ala., and must pay the government's future response costs), 65 FR 19927 (4/13/00).

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 were accepted through April 12. Details at http://www.adeq.state.ar.us

Proposed Revisions-Air Regulations

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
  • Proposed amendments to the consumer products regulation relating to aerosol adhesives. May 25 public hearing. Details at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/conspro/aeroadh/aeroadh.htm

Integrated Waste Management Board

Landfill Diversion

AB 939 Local Government Compliance Orders

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

Permit Hearing

  • Regarding issuance of PSD/BACT air permit to IPS Avon Park Corp. for construction of three turbine-electrical generators in DeSoto County. Hearing April 19 in Arcadia. 

Environmental Regulation Commission Meeting

  • April 20 in Tallahassee. 

Public Hearing-Drinking Water Fund Priority List

  • May 8 hearing in Tallahassee on proposed adoption of FY 2000 Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loan priority list. Approximately $20 million is expected to be available.

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. 

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

Technical Advisory Committee, Petroleum Storage Tanks

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

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Proposed Regulation-Water Use Form

  • Proposal would establish water use form, the Modification Short Form. Public hearing, if requested, will be held after subsequent notice.

Proposed Regulation-Wetlands, Surface Waters

  • Amendments would establish time frame within which the District must act in evaluating a Petition for a Formal Determination of Wetlands and Other Surface Waters. Public hearing, if requested, will be held after subsequent notice. 
  • 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-Air Quality

  • Proposed amendments to Chapter 391-3-1, Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants, and amendments to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for attaining the ozone standard in the Atlanta Ozone Nonattainment Area. Public hearing on May 18 in Atlanta; written comments due that date. Will be taken up at July 26 meeting of Board of Natural Resources. For details, see http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/

Air Permit Applications

red bar graphic ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

Proposed Procedural Rules

Envtl. Protection Agency

Strategic Planning Process

Permit Applications

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 KANSAS

KDHE Division of Environment

TMDL Development

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." 

red bar graphic MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Clean Corporate Citizen Designations

Draft CWA Section 303(a) Report

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.
  • Cadillac Renewable Energy, for operation of a utility plant in Wexford County.
  • Viking Energy of McBain, for operation of an electric utility.
  • Midland Township, for operation of a municipal solid waste landfill.
  • Central Michigan University, for operation of a power plant.
  • Detroit Edison, Monroe Power Plant.
  • Technisand, Inc., Berrien County, for sand mining operation.
  • MD Enterprises, Grand Rapids, for surface coating operation.
  • 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

  • For Demmer Properties, LLC; Environmental Maintenance Engineers; Parish Corp.; GAC Plastics, LLC; BFI Waste Systems of N. America, Inc.; General Motors Corp. Comments due April 26. For details, see www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd/ce/consent.html

Exemptions from Permit to Install Requirement

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Proposed Regulations-Above/Underground Storage Tanks

  • Proposed amendments to Chapters 7001, 7151, and 7150 regarding performance standards for above- and underground storage tanks, to clarify existing language and ensure consistency with federal standards. Comments must be submitted by May 10. No public hearing currently scheduled. For details, see http://www.pca.state.mn.us/publicnotice/pn041000.html

Permit Applications, Other Notices

  • 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 an air permit for Boise Cascade Corp. Comment period ends May 19. 
  • For an air permit modification for Georgia-Pacific, Duluth. Comment period ends May 3.
  • For an air permit for Marathon Ashland Petroleum, LLC, St., Paul. Comment period ends April 27.
  • 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 JERSEY

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Current DEP Bulletin

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Permit Applications

  • New York City Dept. of Sanitation, 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

Final Regulations

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

River Quality Task Force

New Environmental Excellence Program

Proposed General VPDES Permit

Proposed TMDL

red bar graphic WASHINGTON

Adopted Regulations