ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 14



red bar graphic  RCRA, SOLVENT WASTES:

The D.C. Circuit denied a petition for review of EPA's final determination not to add 14 solvent wastes to its list of hazardous wastes under RCRA Subtitle C. EPA did not err in interpreting its listing regulation to require only that it analyze the toxicity of the solvents rather than other constituents with which the solvents might be combined. The listing regulation provision relied on by the petitioners simply allows EPA either to evaluate toxic characteristics of the waste as a whole or of the specific constituents within the waste. Moreover, EPA made clear that its rulemaking concerns only the toxicity of the solvents. In addition, EPA's evaluation of plausible mismanagement scenarios for the solvent isophorone was not flawed because the Agency reasonably concluded that no wastes from the solvent use of isophorone were, or were likely to be, disposed of in landfills. Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-1048 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 2000) (8 pp.).

back to top


A district court reinstated two convictions against a RCRA defendant even though he should have been charged under Idaho's EPA-approved hazardous waste program. The substantive provisions of RCRA that make it a crime to dispose of hazardous waste without a permit were supplanted by EPA's approval of Idaho's program, but the penalty provisions of RCRA were not supplanted. Thus, the federal sanctions of RCRA §3008(d) will apply even when EPA is prosecuting based on state substantive law. Moreover, because the state's law is identical to the federal law, the government's miscitation in the indictment does not warrant a reversal of the defendant's convictions. The defendant failed to demonstrate how he would be prejudiced by the miscitation, and there is no evidence that the Idaho substantive law is any different from the federal statutes. At the sentencing proceeding, the district court ordered the defendant to pay $6,300.836 in restitution and to be taken into custody immediately. United States v. Elias, No. 98-0070-E-BLW (D. Idaho Apr. 26, 2000) (Winmill, J.) (9 pp.); (D. Idaho May 2, 2000) (Winmill, J.) (9 pp.).


The Tenth Circuit held that a district court correctly found the former owner of an abandoned refinery responsible for 15 percent of all past and future response costs and damages a subsequent owner incurred and will incur while investigating and remediating the site. The former owner disposed of hazardous waste at the refinery during its ownership of the facility. Contrary to the former owner's belief, the CERCLA petroleum exclusion did not apply because the hazardous wastes commingled with petroleum products in the soil and groundwater beneath the refinery. Moreover, the district court acted well within its discretion by allocating the former owner's proportionate share of liability based on its relative duration of refinery ownership and control. Similarly, the district court was not obligated to conduct a "fairness hearing" on the terms of a settlement entered into by the subsequent owner and a third party prior to determining the former owner's liability. The former owner cited no persuasive authority for this proposition and offered no evidence that the subsequent owner would enjoy a windfall. In addition, the subsequent owner's nuisance claim against the former owner was not time-barred, and the subsequent owner proved it suffered a "special injury" sufficient to maintain a cause of action under Oklahoma nuisance law. Tosco Corp. v. Koch Industries, No. 98-6209 (10th Cir. May 2, 2000) (10 pp.).


A district court affirmed EPA's approval of several Montana WQS. EPA's approval of Montana's WQS exempting nonpoint source pollution from the state's antidegredation policy was not arbitrary or capricious. EPA lacks authority under the CWA to require states to establish regulatory programs for nonpoint sources, and because there is no permit procedure for nonpoint source pollution, it would be unrealistic to regulate nonpoint source pollution through its antidegredation policy. In addition, the record supported EPA's decision to approve Montana's WQS exempting mixing zones from compliance with narrative water quality criteria and the state's antidegredation rules. Narrative and numeric criteria are recommended, rather than required, methods of measuring water quality in mixing zones. Moreover, because the mixing zone guidance is more specific than the antidegredation policy, it prevails in authority. Further, EPA did not violate its duty to promulgate replacements for Montana's disapproved standards because the record does not reflect whether Montana revised those disapproved standards. American Wildlands v. Browner, No. CIV.A. 98-K-1621 (D. Colo. Apr. 28, 2000) (17 pp.).

back to top


The D.C. Circuit held that EPA's CAA tribal authority rule reasonably delegated to Native American nations authority to regulate all land within reservations, including fee land owned by nonmembers. In promulgating the 1990 CAA Amendments, Congress moved from authorizing tribal regulation over areas within the tribal government's jurisdiction to a bifurcated classification of all areas within the exterior boundaries of the reservation and other areas within the tribe's jurisdiction. This change strongly suggests that Congress viewed all areas within the exterior boundaries of the reservation to be within the area of tribal government's jurisdiction. EPA also reasonably interpreted "reservation" to include formal reservations, Native American villages, and tribal trust land.  Similarly, EPA reasonably interpreted the CAA to authorize tribal redesignation and implementation of tribal implementation plans not just within the limits of reservations, but also within allotted lands and dependant Native American communities, so long as a tribe demonstrates inherent jurisdiction over the non-reservation areas. The CAA does not bar tribes from acting on a case-by-case basis pursuant to demonstrated inherent sovereign power. Moreover, the CAA authorizes EPA to exempt tribes from the judicial review requirements in certain cases. The court, therefore, denied challengers' petitions for review on these points. However, their claim that the rule abrogates preexising agreements not to regulate certain individual parties was dismissed as unripe. Arizona Public Service Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-1196 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 2000) (23 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court decision quieting title to submerged lands within the Coeur d'Alene Native American Tribe's reservation in favor of the United States as trustee for the tribe. The state of Idaho claimed that title to the submerged lands lay with it. Congress's actions prior to Idaho's admission to the Union clearly indicate Congress' acknowledgment, express recognition, and acceptance of an 1873 executive agreement creating the reservation, thereby establishing congressional intent to defeat the state's title. Further, in both 1873 and 1889, the boundaries of the reservation were drawn so as necessarily to include submerged lands. Moreover, when the reservation was created, the tribe was dependent on fishing. Therefore, if the reservation did not include submerged lands, the purpose of the reservation would have been defeated. Also, a series of congressional actions in the late 1880's shows that Congress acknowledged that beneficial ownership of the lands had already passed to the tribe. Likewise, Congress's post statehood actions reflect recognition and confirmation of the passage of submerged lands to the tribe. In addition, the district court properly declined, over the tribe's objections, to adjudicate the ownership of submerged lands within a park neighboring the reservation. The United States disavowed any claim to submerged lands within the park, and the complaint filed by the United States does not seek to quiet title to those lands. United States v. Idaho, Nos. 98-35831, -35847 (9th Cir. May 2, 2000) (25 pp.).


The Federal Circuit held that the 1988 Hoopa-Yurok Settlement Act did not constitute a taking of Native Americans' vested property interests in the land and resources of the Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation in California. Neither the 1864 Act nor two executive orders issued under the Act created a vested property interest in the Native Americans who would later reside on the reservation. Similarly, subsequent legislative and judicial actions vested no such rights. Moreover, the Native Americans' continuous occupation and use of the reservation and its resources did not vest them with property rights. Consequently, because the Native Americans failed to show that they possess compensable property rights in the land, there was no need to determine whether the 1988 Settlement Act took or extinguished any rights. Karuk Tribe of California v. Ammon, Nos. 99-5002 et al. (Fed. Cir. Apr. 18, 2000) (21 pp.).

back to top

red bar graphic  TAKINGS, WETLANDS, DAMAGES:

The Court of Federal Claims held that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' denial of landowners' CWA §404 permit application effected a permanent taking of their property in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Corps claimed that the claim was unripe because the landowners could have received a permit if they simply provided more information. The Corps' denial, however, clearly was a final decision on the merits. Moreover, although the Corps later changed its mind and offered the landowners a permit one day before trial was to begin, the regulations mandate that a decision on the merits is a final decision. The Corps, therefore, may not by ipse dixit declare that the permanent taking is now temporary. Further, the permit offered to the landowners was an invalid provisional permit, and, thus, the permit did not rescind the taking. Consequently, the landowners are entitled to just compensation for the permanent taking of their property, which the court found to have a fair market value of $2,065,200.42. Cooley v. United States, No. 93-413L (Fed. Cl. Apr. 28, 2000) (Smith, J.) (20 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit vacated a district court decision dismissing a trailer park association's claim that a local rent control ordinance regulating trailer parks effected an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Because the association brought suits in federal and state court, the federal district court held that the abstention doctrine required dismissal of the federal claim. However, the association's lawsuit under state law is no longer ongoing. Consequently, because the essential factual predicate of the district court's decision to abstain is absent, there are no longer any state court proceedings with which the district court's exercise of jurisdiction interferes. Thus, the district court's decision was vacated and remanded. Montclair Parkowners Ass'n v. City of Montclair, No. 99-55083 (9th Cir. May 8, 2000) (5 pp.).


The Supreme Court of Washington state held that an insurance pollution exclusion clause does not apply to a fuel delivery man's negligence claim against a farm. The case arose after the farm's faulty UST intake valve caused the delivery man to suffer significant injuries. The farm's insurer claimed that the policy's absolute pollution exclusion clause barred coverage. The clause, however, only relates to environmental damage. Although diesel fuel is a pollutant, the delivery man was not polluted by the fuel. Rather, it engulfed and choked him. Moreover, the fuel was not acting as a pollutant when it struck the delivery man. Consequently, the acute bodily injury caused by the negligently maintained equipment is beyond the scope of the pollution exclusion clause in this case. Kent Farms, Inc. v. Zurich Insurance Co., No. 67635-6 (Wash. Apr. 27, 2000) (5 pp.).


The Supreme Court of Washington state, applying Pennsylvania law, affirmed a trial court's holdings regarding insurance coverage for an aluminum producing company for environmental damage under CGL and property damage under DIC policies but reverses the court's treatment of the issues of fortuity, the contractual limitations period, and the allocation of damages. In order to streamline pretrial and trial procedure, the trial court designated 3 of the 35 sites at issue as test sites for the trial. The DIC policies are not void due to the aluminum company's failure to report existing pollution on its property at the time it obtained the policies because pollution damage was not considered to be covered by the policies and was, therefore, not material to the decision to issue insurance. Additionally, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the insurance companies a new trial based on the alleged misconduct of the aluminum company's counsel in closing statements to the jury or in determining that the jury's finding of no misrepresentation in the insurance policy negotiations for the three sites applies to all the sites. Further, the trial court correctly dismissed the aluminum company's claims against the CGL insurers on the basis of the pollution exclusion clauses for 33 of the 35 sites at issue. The state insurance agency did not rely on alleged misrepresentations of the insurance industry in allowing the pollution exclusion clauses to be used. However, the trial court improperly determined when the suit limitation clauses contained in the DIC policies commenced. The trial court also incorrectly placed the burden of showing lack of fortuity on the aluminum company rather than on the insurers. Finally, the trial court incorrectly calculated the amount of money payable to the aluminum company under the DIC policies by allocating coverage on a pro rata basis. The policies' language clearly stated that any physical loss or damage was covered and contained no limitation for physical loss or damage that may have begun spreading before the policy inception. Aluminum Co. of America v. Accident & Casualty Insurance Co., No. 67340-3 (Wash. May 4, 2000) (33 pp.).


An Arizona appellate court upheld the Arizona State Land Department's decision to deny grazing leases sought by an organization wishing to rest the lands from grazing for conservation and recreation purposes. The lands at issue were subject to the Arizona-New Mexico Enabling Act, which requires the affected land to be held in trust for the common schools of the state. State laws require lessees of state land to use the land for the purpose for which the land is leased, and if an applicant wishes to use the land for another purpose, it must request a reclassification. These reclassification provisions further the goals of the Enabling Act, thus, applicants for leases must adhere to those provisions. Here, because the land is classified for grazing but conservation and recreation uses are classified as commercial, the department was justified in rejecting the organization's applications to lease grazing land for nongrazing purposes. The organization could have sought to have the land reclassified as commercial, but it never did. In addition, the Enabling Act requires trust lands to be sold or leased to the highest and best bidder. Although the organization offered more money than other applicants, it is speculative whether the organization provided the state with the greatest potential revenue from the use of these lands. Further, the organization failed to show that nongrazing constitutes the best use of the land. Forest Guardians v. Wells, No. 1 CA-CV 99-0258 (Ariz. Ct. App. Apr. 25, 2000) (37 pp.).


A Missouri appellate court held that a trial court incorrectly concluded that a city ordinance regulating junkyards was a zoning ordinance and, therefore, needed to comply with notice-and-hearing requirements. A zoning ordinance generally regulates the use of land and the physical structure of buildings according to district, area, or location. The ordinance in this case, however, is directed at making all junkyards throughout the city sanitary and fire-safe; limiting odor, pests, and vermin; keeping nearby public areas clear; and enclosing junkyards.  While one purpose of a zoning ordinance may be to regulate for public health and safety, it does not follow that any ordinance regulating health and safety is a zoning ordinance. The purpose of the ordinance at issue is to uniformly regulate potential nuisances for public health and safety, not to zone or otherwise provide for the uniform development of real estate. Therefore, the ordinance at issue does not fall within the definition of a zoning ordinance. Additionally, nothing in the ordinance precluded the operation of junkyards or made a prior permitted land use improper. City of Green Ridge v. Kreisel, No. WD56936 (Mo. Ct. App. May 2, 2000) (8 pp.).


A New Jersey appellate court upheld a trial court decision that a regional sewerage authority may not charge a user already in the system an additional connection fee when its wastewater flow increases, thereby requiring it to pay an increased service charge based on the additional daily gallonage. An additional connection fee may not be charged based only on increased water usage where there is in fact no actual additional physical connection. Case law interpreting the authority's ability to assess fees has limited the charging of a connection fee to those users not already in the system. Nestlé USA Beverage Division, Inc. v. Manasquan River Regional Sewerage Authority, No. A-3810-98T5 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 5, 2000) (4 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 amended the NESHAPs for polyether polyols production; synthetic organic chemical manufacturing industry; epoxy resins production and non-nylon polyamides production; and petroleum refineries by adding the term "connectors" to the list of equipment that is subject to the equipment leak provisions in those NESHAPs.  65 FR 26491 (5/8/00).

  • EPA proposed to amend its regulations as they apply to operations at any facility owned or operated by the DOE that emits any radionuclide other than radon-222 and radon-220 into the air and as they apply to non-DOE federal facilities in the radionuclide NESHAPs.  65 FR 29933 (5/9/00).

  • EPA designated two new methods for measuring concentrations of particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter equal to or less than 2.5 micrometers and four new equivalent methods for measuring concentrations of ozone, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, and lead in ambient air. 65 FR 26603 (5/8/00).

  • EPA approved a request to redesignate Marion County to attainment of the NAAQS for lead. 65 FR 29959 (5/10/00).


  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the Union Pacific Railroad Wallace-Mullan Branch in northern Idaho. 65 FR 26831 (5/9/00). 

  • EPA authorized revisions to Montana's hazardous waste program under RCRA.  65 FR 26750 (5/9/00).

  • EPA authorized revisions to Oklahoma's hazardous waste program under RCRA. 65 FR 29981 (5/10/00).

  • EPA authorized revisions to South Dakota's hazardous waste program.  65 FR 26755 (5/9/00).

  • EPA approved revisions to West Virginia's hazardous waste program under RCRA. 65 FR 29973 (5/10/00).

red bar graphic  DRINKING WATER:

  • EPA proposed to require a targeted risk-based regulatory strategy for all groundwater systems that will provide a meaningful opportunity to reduce public health risk associated with the consumption of waterborne pathogens from fecal contamination for a substantial number of people served by groundwater sources. 65 FR 30193 (5/10/00).

  • EPA approved revisions to South Dakota's public water system supervision primacy program that pertain to lead and copper in drinking water. 65 FR 26831 (5/9/00).

red bar graphic  ENDANGERED SPECIES:

  • FWS proposed to revise the regulations that implement the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora. 65 FR 26663 (5/8/00).

  • FWS determined threatened status for the Australian koala under the ESA. 65 FR 26762 (5/9/00).

red bar graphic  SMCRA PROGRAM APPROVAL:

red bar graphic  SOLID WASTE:

  • EPA promulgated its tentative determination, pursuant to RCRA §4005(c)(1)(C), that the Virgin Islands municipal landfill permit program is inadequate to assure compliance with the federal landfill criteria. 65 FR 26546 (5/8/00).

red bar graphic  PESTICIDES:

  • EPA announced that it seeks comments on a draft pesticide registration notice regarding insect repellents labeling restrictions for use on infants and children as well as restrictions on food fragrances and food colors. 65 FR 30113 (5/10/00).

  • EPA announced the availability of a draft guidance for pesticide registrants on voluntary pesticide resistance management labeling based on mode/target site of action for pesticide products that are intended for general agricultural use. 65 FR 30115 (5/10/00).

  • EPA announced the availability of the preliminary human health risk assessments and related documents for the organophosphate pesticides malathion.  65 FR 30407 (5/11/00).

red bar graphic  WATER QUALITY:

  • EPA announced that Wisconsin's application for approval of its sludge management program, which addresses the land application of sludge, surface disposal of sludge, and the landfilling of sludge, is complete and available for comment.
    65 FR 26607 (5/8/00).


  • U.S. v. Harvey, No. 00 C 2505 (N.D. Ill. Apr. 26, 2000) (settling CERCLA defendants must pay $700,000 in past U.S. costs incurred in connection with the Harvey GRQ site in the villages of Harvey and Dixmoor, Ill.), 65 FR 26634 (5/8/00); 

  • U.S. v. TPI Petroleum, Inc., No. 00-CV-19151-BD (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21, 2000) (a settling defendant that violated the CAA, CWA, RCRA, and SDWA at its refinery in Alma, Mich., must submit quarterly reports regarding the status of its shutdown and decommissioning of the refinery, must close certain hazardous waste management units pursuant to RCRA, must work with EPA and the state environmental agency to negotiate a corrective action consent order, must perform a $9 million sediment remediation supplemental environmental project (SEP) on the Horse Creek and Pine River in Gratiot County, Mich., must perform a $900,000 brownfield SEP in the downtown waterfront area of Alma, and must pay a cash penalty of $4 million; the defendant, in addition to a group of CAA defendants that violated new source performance standards, must also install controls on tanks that are equipped with guidepoles that have slots on them), 65 FR 26635 (5/8/00);

  • U.S. v. Atkemix Thirty-Seven, Inc., No. 99-2673-Civ-T-24B (M.D. Fla. Apr. 28, 2000) (two CERCLA defendants must perform the EPA-selected remedy for the Stauffer Chemical Superfund site in Tarpon Springs, Fla., must pay the government's remaining past response costs, and must pay future U.S. response costs), 65 FR 30609 (5/12/00).

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


red bar graphic ALABAMA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Proposed revisions to Division 3 of the Administrative Code will incorporate NSPS and NESHAP revisions from Sept. 1999 through March 2000. Other provisions affected include Chapter 335-3-1 (clarification of definition of "New Source") and Chapter 335-3-16, which is being revised to seek final approval of the state's Title V Major Source Operating Permit Program. Public hearing scheduled for June 7; written comments due June 19. For details,  see http://www.adem.state.al.us/propdiv3.html

Public Notices–Permit Applications 

red bar graphic  ARKANSAS

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Revisions-Air Regulations

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Program Delegations

Draft Regulations-UST State Assurance Fund

Superfund Program-Proposed Registry Inclusions, Prospective Purchaser Agreements

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA

Air Resources Board

Final Regulations

Proposed Regulations

Revised On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory

Innovative Clean Air Technologies Program

Water Resources Control Board

Final Policy-Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries

Underground Storage Tanks--Proposed Cleanup Fund Regulations

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Final Regulation-Air Toxics

Final Regulation-Gasoline Transfer/Dispensing

  • Governing Board adopted revisions to Rule 461 on April 21. The revisions require more frequent testing of USTs, gas pumps, and associated hardware. Increased inspection frequency and new requirements for training for equipment testers are also included. See http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Governing_Board/Bs4_21_00.htm

Draft Air Toxics Control Plan

Proposed Rule, Amendments--Public Fleet Vehicles

Proposed Rule-Alternative Fueled Street Sweepers

Proposed Amendments-Fees

  • Proposed amendments to Regulation III-Fees will be considered at public hearing on May 19. The revisions would raise fees by 2.9 percent and emission fees by an additional 8.1 percent. The per nozzle compliance fee for gasoline stations would be increased to $25.11. In addition, a $50 per person fee for employee transportation training would be instituted. Details at http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Governing_Board/Bs4_21_00.htm

red bar graphic COLORADO

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 Rule-Groundwater Permitting

  • Proposed revisions to Chapter 62-522 intended to ensure consistency with recently promulgated provisions in Chapter 62-610 (Reuse of Reclaimed Water and Land Application). Rule development workshop not currently scheduled. 

Proposed Rule-Onsite Sewage Treatment and Disposal Systems

  • Recent revisions to Chapter 64E-6 include procedures for the voluntary inspection of existing onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. The proposed rule amendments will allow persons performing such inspections to provide only those specific assessments deemed necessary by the person requesting the assessment. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Proposed Regulation

  • Concerns adoption by reference of Fla. Rule 40E-4.091, regarding side slope requirements for water retention/detention and stormwater attenuation areas.

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. 

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 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

NPDES Permit Applications

red bar graphic IDAHO

Division of Envtl. Quality

Airshed Management Plan

Permit Applications

red bar graphic ILLINOIS

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

Land Application Permit

Guidance Documents

red bar graphic KANSAS

KDHE Division of Environment

Water Quality-305(b) Report

TMDL Development

red bar graphic  LOUISIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Fees

  • 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

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Revisions to LAC 33:III.2121, to remove the word "pipeline" and make other changes regarding regulations for monitoring requirements for petroleum refineries. Public hearing on May 25; comments due June 1. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm

  • Revisions to LAC 33:III.5107 and 5112, to reclassify zinc and zinc compounds from Class II (suspected carcinogen or known toxin) to Class III (acute and chronic, non-carcinogenic). Public hearing May 25; comments due June 1. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm

  • Revisions to LAC 33:III.2107, regarding adding U.S. EPA test methods 18, 25A, and 25B as appropriate test methods for determining compliance with control requirements for loading facilities for volatile organic compounds. Public hearing May 25; comments due June 1. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm

Proposed Regulations-Laboratories

  • Proposed rule would replace Emergency Rule 0S035E and establish requirements to ensure the quality of data generated by accredited commercial laboratories. Public hearing May 25; comments due June 1. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm

Proposed Regulations-Beneficial Environmental Projects

Semiannual Regulatory Agenda

Listing of 8-Hour Ozone Attainment/Nonattainment Areas

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 MARYLAND

Dept. of the Environment

Public Meetings/Hearings

red bar graphic MASSACHUSETTS

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-NOx Trading

Bordering Vegetated Wetlands Manual

  • Includes procedures for delineating Bordering Vegetated Wetland boundaries and recommendations for reviewing boundary delineations presented to conversation commissions. Available at http://www.state.ma.us/dep/new.htm

Enforcement Actions

red bar graphic  MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Clean Corporate Citizen Designations

Draft CWA §303(a) Report

Management Team Public Meetings

Final Regulations-Air

Final Regulations-Wetlands Permitting

Proposed Regulations-Wetlands

Permit Applications-Air

  • Alchem Aluminum, Inc., for a permit to install for a facility to be located in Buena Vista. 

  • 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 Inc., 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. 

  • LTV Steel Co., Ferndale, for Renewable Operating Permit. 

  • Genesee Power Station Limited Partnership, for Renewable Operating Permit. 

  • General Motors Powertrain Group, Bay City, for Renewable Operating Permit.

  • Stone Container Corp., Ontonagon, for Permit to Install. 

  • Miller Products, Grand Rapids, for Renewable Operating Permit.

  • Spectrum Industries, Grand Rapids, for Renewable Operating Permit.

  • Valley Asphalt Co., Burnside Township, for Permit to Install.

  • Industrial Steel Treating Co., Jackson, for Renewable Operating Permit.

  • White Tower Industrial Laundry & Cleaner, Detroit, for Renewable Operating Permit.

  • CMS Consumers Energy Co., Gaylord, for Renewable Operating Permit.

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

Exemptions from Permit to Install Requirement

Penalty Assessment

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Permit Applications, Other Notices

  • For an air permit for Boise Cascade Corp. Comment period ends May 19. 

  • For an air permit for Hill Wood Products, Mountain Iron. Comment period ends May 31.

  • For construction and operation of a solid waste disposal facility. Comment period ends June 1.

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit to City of St. Peter, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends June 2.

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit to City of Albany, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends June 2.

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit to City of Grove City, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends June 8.

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit to City of Gilbert, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends May 15.

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for City of Delano, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends May 8. 

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for City of Vernon, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends June 6.

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for City of Wyoming, wastewater treatment facility. Comment period ends June 6. 

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis. Comment period ends June 5. 

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for 3M Environmental Technologies and Services, Schumacher Drum Storage Site, West Point. Comment period ends June 6.

  • For reissued NPDES and SDS permit for THS Northstar Associates, Minneapolis. Comment period ends June 6.

  • For an air permit for Blandin Paper Co. and Minnesota Power, LLP, Grand Rapids. Comment period ends June 2. 

  • For air permit for Central Minnesota Ethanol Co-op, Little Falls. Comment period ends May 16.

  • Revised Guidance Documents for UST and above ground storage tank release cleanup available.

  • Updated Air Toxics Emission Inventory. 

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

red bar graphic  MISSOURI

Air Conservation Commission

Adopted Regulations

  • Amendments to 10 CSR 10-5.390, Control of Emissions from Manufacture of Paints, Varnishes, Lacquers, Enamels and Other Allied Surface Coating Products, were approved by the Commission at its April 27 meeting.

  • New rule 10 CSR 10-6.400, Restriction of Emission of Particulate Matter From Industrial Processes, which consolidates previous rules, was approved by the Commission at its April 27 meeting.

Proposed Regulations

  • Proposed 10 CSR 10-6.350 will use an emission trading program to seek to reduce NOx emissions in the St. Louis ozone nonattainment area. The public hearing was April 27.

  • Proposed 10 CSR 10-5.451, regarding Control of Emissions from Aluminum Foil Roiling, will relax material specification requirements and update test procedures. The public hearing was April 27. 

Dept. of Natural Resources

Water Pollution Control-Permit Applications

red bar graphic MONTANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

TMDLs-§303(d) Impaired Waterbodies List

  • A total of 17 meetings have been scheduled through May 18 to receive public comment on the draft §303(d) report. Comments are due June 19. The data report and waterbody data listings are available at http://nris.state.mt.us/wis/environet

red bar graphic NEBRASKA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Waste Reduction/Recycling Incentive Grants Program

red bar graphic NEW JERSEY

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Current DEP Bulletin (Permit Applications; Proposed Regulations)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Environmental Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications)

Environmental Justice Advisory Group

Proposed Forest Mangement Unit

  • "Treaty Line" unit plan, addressing state forests located in Broome, Chenango, and Delaware counties, available for comment through June 2. 

Office of Attorney General

New Report on Waste Recycling

red bar graphic  NORTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Envt. and Natural Resources

Division of Air Quality Penalty Assessments

DENR Enforcement Data

Million Acres Open Space Initiative

Division of Air Quality-Permit Applications

Wetlands-401(f)(1) Exemptions; Ditch-Digging

  • Subject of proposed rule to deem certain activities compliant with wetland standards. Proposal is intended to create a two-week advance notice requirement for ditch digging activity in wetlands. Hearings scheduled for May 25 (Raleigh), May 30 (Wilmington), and June 1 (New Bern). Written comments due June 8.

Wood Chip Mills-Advisory Report

red bar graphic OKLAHOMA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Air Quality Council will consider amendments to OAC 252:100-7, Permits for Minor Facilities; OAC 252:100-8, Permits for Part 70 Sources; and OAC 252:100-29, Control of Fugitive Dust, at their June 14 meeting. See http://www.deq.state.ok.us/calendar/index.html

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

red bar graphic OREGON

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations

  • Proposed revisions to On-Site Program Rules subject of May 15 hearing. 

  • Proposed changes to Hazardous Waste Program rules subject of May 15 hearing.

For further information, see http://www.deq.state.or.us/od/pp/calndar.htm

Dept. of Agriculture

Pesticide Use Reporting System; Report

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). 

Draft Technical Guidance Documents

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

Permit Hearings

red bar graphic  VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

River Quality Task Force

New Environmental Excellence Program

Proposed General Permit

  • The State Water Control Board has proposed a general permit for poultry waste management, in accordance with Section 62.1-44.17:1.1, as amended in 1999. Public hearings are scheduled for May 30; June 1; June 5, and June 8 in various locations. Written comments are due by June 23. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/notice/pn/956759081.html

Proposed TMDLs

Permit Applications

red bar graphic  WASHINGTON

Dept. of Ecology

Adopted Regulations


Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permits

  • Ecology and U.S. EPA Region 10 have issued a joint notice proposing conditions to include with Corps of Engineers new and revised Nationwide Permits. Public comments are due May 26; public hearing on May 17. See http://www.wa.gov/ecology/sea/pac/pac-1.html

TMDLs-Impaired Waterbody List

red bar graphic WEST VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Public Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications, Proposed Regulations)

red bar graphic WISCONSIN

Dept. of Natural Resources

Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule