- Who We Are
- Explore Our Programs
- Access Our Resources
- ELI Press Books
- Vibrant Environment Blog
- Research Reports
- Guidance & Policy Documents
- Events Archive
- Celebrating Pioneers in Environmental Law
- ELI Alerts
- Just for Professors
- Advertise With Us
- Copyright Clearance Center
- Attend An Event
- All Events
- Events Archive
- ELI Award Dinner
- National Wetlands Awards
- ELI Boot Camps
- About ELI Boot Camps
- Eastern Boot Camp on Environmental Law®
- Western Bootcamp on Environmental Law®
- Contact Us
- ELI Summer School
- Conference Exhibit Calendar
- Get Involved
- Donate to ELI
- Become A Member
- For Members
- Contact Our Experts
- Employment Opportunities
- Contribute Your EcoPatents
- Join ELI Mailing List
Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 15
TAYLOR GRAZING ACT, GRAZING PRIVILEGES, "ENGAGED IN THE LIVESTOCK BUSINESS," PERMANENT RANGE IMPROVEMENTS:
The U.S. Supreme Court held that three 1995 DOI amendments to the federal grazing regulations neither violated the Taylor Grazing Act nor exceeded the Secretary of the Interior's authority under that Act. The new definition of "grazing preference" under 43 C.F.R. §4100.0-5 does not fail to safeguard the grazing privileges that the DOI regulations previously recognized and acknowledged. The new definition of "grazing preference" omits reference to a specified quantity of forage--specifically animal unit months (AUMs)--and further requires that permitted forage must be allocated by or under an applicable land use plan. Although the Taylor Grazing Act, 43 U.S.C. §315b, requires grazing privileges to be adequately safeguarded, 43 U.S.C. §315b also states that such safeguarding will occur "so far as consistent with the purposes and provisions of this subchapter." Further, 43 U.S.C. §315b also states that the issuance of a grazing permit creates no right, title, interest, or estate in or to the lands." Thus, the DOI is free to determine how and to what extent grazing privileges shall be safeguarded. Moreover, the Secretary has always had the authority under the Taylor Grazing Act and later the Federal Land Management Planning Act to reduce a permit's AUMs or to reclassify and withdraw range land from grazing use. Also, although the new definition of grazing preference seems to tie grazing privileges to land use plans more explicitly than the old regulations, the Secretary has had the authority to use land use plans to determine the amount of permissible grazing since 1976 . In addition, the deletion of the phrase "engaged in the livestock business" from 40 C.F.R. §4110.1(a)'s limitations on who may receive a grazing permit does not violate the Taylor Grazing Act requirement that permits can only be issued to stock owners. It is both the Taylor Grazing Act and the regulations that constrain the Secretary's discretion in issuing permits, and the Act still limits permits to stock owners and still expresses a preference for landowners engaged in the livestock business. Further, the new regulations will not lead to the issuance of grazing permits for conservation uses because grazing permits for conservation uses are unlawful. Last, 40 C.F.R. §4120.3-2's specification that title to permanent range improvements shall be to the United States instead of in shared proportion between the United States and the permit holder does not violate the Taylor Grazing Act. Nothing in the Act denies the Secretary the authority to reasonably decide when or whether to grant title to those who make improvements on public range lands. Public Lands Council v. Babbitt, No. 98-1991 (U.S. May 15, 2000) (23 pp.).
COMMERCE CLAUSE, AGGREGATE EFFECTS OF NONECONOMIC ACTIVITY:
The U.S. Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, held that 42 U.S.C. §13981, which created a federal civil remedy for victims of gender-motivated violence, exceeds Congress' authority under the Commerce Clause and is therefore unconstitutional. Petitioner alleged that two members of a university football team assaulted and raped her, and brought a lawsuit against the university and the students. Congress enacted the legislation after four years of hearings and the review of reports submitted by 21 states and congressional committees. It concluded that crimes of violence motivated by gender have a substantial adverse effect on interstate commerce by deterring victims from traveling and engaging in employment and by increasing medical costs. Such reasoning, however, would allow Congress to regulate murder or any other type of violence, despite the traditional role of states in suppressing violent crime. Moreover, while a categorical rule against aggregating the effects of noneconomic activity is not necessary, gender-motivated crimes are clearly not commercial transactions and the regulation of intrastate activity under the Commerce Clause has previously been held to extend only to economic matters. Justice Souter, joined by three other justices, dissented, arguing that the Court should defer to jurisdictional findings by Congress if they are rational. Justice Breyer also authored a dissenting opinion, arguing that Congress, rather than the courts, should strike the appropriate federal/state balance. United States v. Morrison, Nos. 99-5, -29 (U.S. May 15, 2000) (71 pp.).
INSURANCE, SUBROGATION, DUTY TO INDEMNIFY:
The Tenth Circuit, applying Wyoming law, affirmed a district court decision holding that a state, as a subrogee to an insured oil company, is not entitled to coverage from the company's insurer for remediation of a petroleum discharge on the company's property. The no action clause of the company's policy plainly and unambiguously states that no action lies against the insurer until the insured's obligation to pay has been determined by judgment or settlement. The amount that the company is obligated to pay as a result of the oil leak has not been determined, and the existence and extent of liability remain open questions. Therefore, the no action clause prohibits an action from being brought against the insurer by the company or its subrogee until the amount of the company's legal obligation is know. Further, the doctrine of judicial estoppel does not bar application of the no action clause because the position taken by the insurer in a New Mexico case, in which it argued that a no action clause applies only to third party claims, is not contrary to the insurer's argument that further remediation and a legal determination of liability are necessary in the present case. Moreover, public policy considerations do not militate against requiring the state to bring a separate action to establish the extent of the company's liability. Wyoming v. Federated Service Insurance Co., No. 98-8096 (10th Cir. May 2, 2000) (7 pp.).
TOXIC TORTS, BANKRUPTCY, ADEQUATE NOTICE, EXCUSABLE NEGLECT, UNBORN CLAIMANTS:
The Third Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a bankruptcy court decision holding that the claims neighborhood plaintiffs filed against a bankrupt manufacturing facility had accrued prior to the bankruptcy bar and that the plaintiffs had failed to demonstrate excusable neglect. The manufacturer's contamination that allegedly caused the plaintiffs' injuries was known in the community in the early 1980's. Further, many neighborhood residents publicly expressed concern about the health effects of the toxins from the contamination in the press and at public meetings. Moreover, the plaintiffs introduced no evidence to show the measures they took to specifically investigate the cause of their medical problems. These factors and the prejudice to the manufacturer's right to a fresh start combine to defeat the plaintiffs' request to file late claims. Likewise, because 20 of the 21 plaintiffs failed to undertake a reasonable investigation of the cause of their manifest injuries, they did not discover that the contamination was a potential cause, and, therefore, their causes of action did not arise before the manufacturer's bankruptcy. However, one plaintiff was unborn when the manufacturer's bankruptcy was confirmed. This unborn plaintiff cannot be deemed to have received adequate notice of the manufacturer's bankruptcy. Additionally, although the unborn claimant's parents could have represented their child's interests, the law does not impose a duty on a parent to take action to protect a potential claim of a child not yet conceived or born. Similarly, a bankruptcy court does not have a duty to appoint a representative for future interests. Therefore, the potential claim of an unborn child not represented in a bankruptcy reorganization is not discharged by bankruptcy confirmation. Jones v. Chemetron Corp., No. 99-3500 (3d Cir. May 9, 2000) (19 pp.).
CERCLA, CONSENT DECREE, SETTLING DEFENDANTS:
The Fifth Circuit vacates a district court decision that a waste handler is bound by an amended CERCLA consent agreement with the United States and previous trust agreements with other settling defendants to sign a new trust agreement. After finding various parties jointly and severally liable under CERCLA, the district court entered a consent decree regarding remediation costs and cleanup methods and the parties negotiated a trust agreement memorializing the share of costs each party would bear. After beginning cleanup, changed circumstances led to an amended consent decree and trust fund agreement. The waste handler participated in the formation of the amended agreements and signed the new consent decree but refused to sign the new trust agreement arguing that the changed circumstances altered its share of costs. Language in the amended consent decree obligates the waste handler to sign some trust agreement but does not lock it into any particular allocation or make the amended trust agreement part of the amended decree. Additional language in the amended consent decree stipulates that the members of the original trust agreement are among the members to the consent decree, but it does not specify that the members' agreements among themselves will remain the same. Further, the waste handler's course of dealings with the other settling defendants did not bind it to the original allocation of costs. Moreover, none of the settling defendants relied on the waste handler's assent to its original allocation share when they signed the amended consent decree. The waste handler, however, did agree in the amended consent decree to enter into some trust agreement with the other parties and, therefore, must agree to some system of allocation. United States v. Amoco Chemical Co., No. 99-20586 (5th Cir. May 15, 2000) (4 pp.).
CERCLA, REGIONAL RAIL REORGANIZATION ACT (RAIL ACT), JURISDICTION:
A district court denied a railroad's motion to dismiss a power company's CERCLA cost-recovery action against it for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Rail Act Court, the jurisdiction of which was transferred to the District Court for the District of Columbia, has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether CERCLA liability is proper for a railroad's preconveyance activities because such a determination requires interpretation of the Rail Act, the conveyance order, and the conveyance documents. However, decisions regarding strictly issues of CERCLA liability and apportionment of liability are outside the Rail Act Court's province. Here, the power company solely seeks to hold the railroad liable under CERCLA §107(a)(1) as a current owner of a contaminated property within the site. Determination of the railroad's liability as a current owner does not involve examination of preconveyance activities of the railroad's predecessors and does not require interpretation of the Rail Act or conveyance documents to ascertain the respective liabilities of the railroad and its predecessors. Moreover, the power company's allegation that the railroad is a current owner is assumed to be true for purposes of a motion to dismiss. In addition, it is premature to grant summary judgment to a steel company on its claim that it is not liable to the power company under CERCLA. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. v. Consolidated Rail Corp., No. 98-CV-1039 (N.D.N.Y. May 5, 2000) (Hurd, J.) (5 pp.).
CERCLA, COST RECOVERY, CONTRIBUTION:
A district court denied a corporation's motion to reconsider a ruling that disputed issues of material fact exist as to whether the corporation's neighbor can claim an innocent landowner defense so that it can pursue a CERCLA §107(a) cost recovery action against the corporation. In addition, the court denied reconsideration of the ruling that the corporation does not have settlement protection from the neighbor's CERCLA §113(f)(1) contribution claim. The neighbor began demolition of a building on its property, but the demolition released lead, which had come from the corporation's property, into the air. EPA entered an administrative order of consent (AOC) with the neighbor for remediation of the contamination. The neighbor subsequently filed CERCLA §§107(a) and 113(f)(1) claims against the corporation. The corporation argued that the neighbor could not bring a §107(a) claim because it was a PRP that released hazardous materials into the environment and, thus, could not qualify for the innocent landowner defense. The corporation, though, failed to cite a single case wherein a release occurs when a third party unknowingly commits an action that exposes hazardous substances that had been previously released onto the property by a third party. However, there are disputed facts as to whether the neighbor knew or should have known of the contamination. Nevertheless, with regard to the court's order, the neighbor had no reason to believe that its reasonable use of the property would expose hazardous materials that the corporation placed there. Thus, the corporation is not precluded from asserting a cost recovery action via the innocent landowner defense. In addition, an AOC that the corporation signed with EPA does not provide protection from the neighbor's contribution action because the corporation's AOC did not clearly indicate that it provided protection from parties, such as the neighbor, who had already incurred response costs. Advanced Technology Corp. v. Eliskim, Inc., No. 1:96CV755 (N.D. Ohio May 3, 2000) (Aldrich, J.) (5 pp.).
SDWA, SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE (SWTR), WATER TREATMENT PLANT (WTP), FILTRATION, DISINFECTION TREATMENT:
A district court held that the construction of a WTP by the city of New York does not involve alienation of parkland that requires the city to seek the approval of the state legislature. Pursuant to a consent decree with the state and EPA, the city conducted environmental review of potential sites for the WTP and chose a golf course. The plant would be located underground and would require the destruction and reconstruction of the driving range and the temporary disruption of public use of the parkland. However, the golf course, the driving range, and all structures will be restored or rebuilt, and the area available for public use for recreational purposes after the project is completed will remain undiminished. Changes in the existing grade in some areas of the golf course to accommodate the plant are immaterial because no authority requires a municipality to seek state legislative approval to make changes to the gradient of parkland. Additionally, there is nothing that prohibits underground use of parkland for non-recreational purposes related to a municipality's need to deliver essential services to its residents without legislative approval where that use will not interfere with the recreational use of the surface. Further, state legislative approval is not necessary for the temporary disruption of parkland required by the construction of the WTP. Because the land will remain in the city's ownership, possession, and control during and after the construction, there will be no transfer of an interest in land to another entity. Moreover, an amendment of the city zoning resolution is not required for construction and operation of the WTP at the golf course. Finally, the city fully complied with state environmental laws in conducting its environmental review. United States v. City of New York, Nos. 97 CV 2154 NG SMG et al. (E.D.N.Y. May 12, 2000) (Gershon, J.) (15 pp.).
SDWA, SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE (SWTR), FILTRATION:
A district court denied EPA's motion that the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) and the Metropolitan District Commission (MDC) be forced to provide filtration for the water they supply to the metropolitan Boston area based on violations of the SDWA and EPA's SWTR. Pursuant to state enforcement of the SDWA, the state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) ordered the MWRA to provide filtration and disinfection treatment for the water supply. As part of an administrative consent order, the MWRA and the MDC were to implement a watershed protection plan as part of a larger effort to bring the system into compliance with the filtration avoidance criteria in the SWTR. MWRA sought to achieve the avoidance criteria through treating the water with ozone, and a determination was to be made by DEP at a later date as to whether filtration was still necessary in light of the ozone treatment. DEP ultimately decided that the MWRA's water system met the avoidance criteria of the SWTR, but EPA brought this enforcement action for failure to meet the criteria. The MWRA was not in compliance with the fecal avoidance criterion of the SWTR in January 1999, however, public policy does not support requiring filtration for a single instance of noncompliance. The ozone treatment option proposed by the MWRA will adequately address bacterial threats to the water system, inactivate any known emerging pathogens, reduce levels of disinfection by-products and increase levels of biodegradable organic matter in the distribution system, and improve the aesthetic quality of the finished water. Additionally, any risk to public health entailed by the ozone only treatment option is within acceptable levels. Moreover, the design of the facility will permit the prompt installation of filtration should it become necessary. United States v. Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, No. 98CV10267 (D. Mass. May 5, 2000) (Stearns, J.) (41 pp.).
CAA, HEAVY DUTY DIESEL ENGINE (HDDE), PREEMPTION:
A New York appellate court held that the CAA's express preemption provision precludes the state attorney general from suing HDDE manufacturers for including defeat devices in HDDEs that allowed the manufacturers to circumvent federal CAA emissions standards. Therefore, a trial court properly quashed the subpoenas duces tecum that the attorney general served on the manufacturers. As evidenced from the CAA's legislative history, Congress intended CAA §209 to have broad effect and to preempt state laws applicable to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles. Thus, the attorney general's claims are preempted because they concern the manufacturers' manufacture, distribution, and design of HDDE engines that would circumvent federal emissions standards. Further, it is clear the attorney general's claims concerning "in-use emissions" target the manufacturers' practice of producing diesel engines designed to skirt federal emissions standards. Moreover, in light of the CAA's broad preemption provision, states are barred from providing their own regulatory or judicial remedies for conduct prohibited or arguably prohibited by federal law. In addition, the attorney general's common-law claims are preempted because in pursuing the common-law claims the attorney general is improperly attempting to punish the manufacturers for violating federal emissions standards. Detroit Diesel Corp. v. Attorney General of the State of New York, No. 1652N (N.Y. App. Div. May 2, 2000) (15 pp.).
TOXIC TORTS, STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, ASBESTOS EXPOSURE, JURISDICTION:
The California Supreme Court reversed an appellate court decision that held that an individual's action against an asbestos corporation for damages caused by peritoneal cancer was untimely and that the trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the individual's separate claim against the corporation for damages caused by asbestosis. Under the state statute of limitations for asbestos related claims, an action for injury or illness from asbestos exposure must be filed within one year after the date the plaintiff first suffered disability and either knew or should have known that the disability was caused or contributed to by that exposure. Disability means the loss of time from work as a result of exposure that precludes the performances of the employee's regular occupation. In the case at bar, there was no doubt that the individual's illness was caused by exposure to asbestos. However, because the individual retired from his regular occupation for reasons unrelated to his earlier asbestos exposure, there was no loss of time from work as a result of asbestos exposure that precluded his regular occupation. Therefore, the individual never suffered a disability, and according to state case law, the one-year statute of limitations had yet to run when the individual filed his claim for damages. Thus, the individual's claim was timely. In addition, the trial court had personal jurisdiction over the corporation for the asbestosis claim even though the individual had not served the corporation in that action. A general appearance is equivalent to personal service of summons on a party. Here, the individual's two claims were consolidated, and the corporation fully participated in the consolidated action without objection. It thereby made a general appearance. Hamilton v. Asbestos Corp., No. S069596 (Cal. May 15, 2000) (35 pp.).
TOXIC RELEASE INVENTORY (TRI), CALIFORNIA PROPOSITION 65, TOXIC CHEMICALS, REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY:
A California appellate court affirmed a trial court denial of a writ of mandate that would have prohibited the governor of California from publishing Proposition 65, a list of chemicals known to the state to cause reproductive toxicity. Under the regulations implementing the list of chemicals, a committee was designated to identify specific chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity. The state environmental health agency would determine whether an authoritative body formally identified chemicals causing reproductive toxicity. EPA was designated as such an authoritative body. After EPA identified 66 agricultural chemicals that caused reproductive toxicity for its TRI, the environmental health agency announced its intent to list the EPA-identified chemicals in California. An organization representing agricultural businesses sought to prohibit the listing based on the argument that the environmental health agency had usurped the identification committee's functions. The organization argued that EPA lists chemicals known to cause and reasonably anticipated to cause reproductive toxicity, whereas California requires that chemicals be known to cause reproductive toxicity. However, the broad federal standard does not prohibit the environmental agency from listing an EPA-identified chemical on the state list. EPA's "known to cause" standard is the same as the state standard, but EPA's "reasonably anticipated to cause" standard is ambiguous. Nevertheless, the ambiguity of that standard does not render the proposed state list of chemicals improper. Under the regulations, the state environmental health agency has the authority to examine the administrative record of the EPA TRI listing procedure to determine if there is substantial evidence that EPA placed a chemical on the TRI because it meets the state's criteria of causing reproductive toxicity. Moreover, the organization failed to supply evidence compelling a finding that EPA reviewers did not use their own TRI studies in listing the chemicals. Therefore, the organization has failed to meet its burden of showing that the disputed chemical list is inconsistent with state statute because it usurped the identification committee's function. Western Crop Protection Ass'n v. Davis, No. C029727 (Cal. Ct. App. May 9, 2000) (24 pp.).
CALIFORNIA REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, CONTAMINATED LAND ASSESSMENT, CONTRIBUTION:
A California appellate court held that for tax assessment purposes, the value of contaminated land is the land's fair market value minus the cleanup costs, and such a valuation does not include what the landowner may be able to recover from others by way of contribution for cleanup costs imposed by environmental law. A development company purchased a contaminated parcel of land, and two CERCLA PRPs agreed to contribute $12.5 million of the $16.7 million in response costs necessary to treat contaminated groundwater. Subsequently, a tax assessment appeals board determined the taxable value of the land was the fair market value of the land if unpolluted. It then deducted the cost of cleanup from fair market value, but also added back in the expected contributions from the two PRPs. Under California Revenue and Taxation Code §110, "fair market value" means the amount of cash or its equivalent that property would bring if exposed for sale in the open market under conditions in which neither buyer nor seller could take advantage of the exigencies of the other. Further, California Revenue and Taxation Code §51(a)(2) provides that "full cash value" as defined in California Revenue and Taxation Code §110 must take into account reductions in value due to damages. However, after making a deduction for the present value of cleanup costs, estimated contributions should not be added back into the assessed valuation. The circumstances of the seller, including its ability to recoup cleanup costs through contribution, is irrelevant to the hypothetical buyer. Further, according to state case law, property tax assessment is based on a hypothetical market transaction with a hypothetical buyer, and such an assessment does not take into account the landowner's peculiar benefits or predicaments unrelated to the market. Mola Development Corp. v. Orange County Assessment Appeals Board No. 2, No. G022200 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 27, 2000) (23 pp.).
EVIDENCE, ADMISSIBILITY OF EXPERT TESTIMONY:
The Arizona Supreme Court rejected the use of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 23 ELR 20979 (1993), to determine the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the repressed memory of the victim of an alleged sexual assault. Daubert and its progeny, General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 28 ELR 20277 (1997), and Kumho Tire Co., Ltd v. Carmichael, 118 S. Ct. 1167, 29 ELR 20638 (1999), put the judge in the position of passing on the weight or credibility of an expert's testimony, something which crosses the line between the legal task of ruling on the foundation and relevance of evidence and the jury's function of whom to believe and why, whose testimony to accept, and on what basis. Instead, when reviewing expert testimony under the Arizona equivalent of Fed. R. Evid. 702, Arizona will retain and apply the rule in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923), which requires expert testimony to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. However, in this case, Frye does not apply to the expert's testimony about the victim's repressed memory. Frye is inapplicable when a qualified witness offers relevant testimony or conclusions based on experience and observation about human behavior for the purpose of explaining behavior. The expert at issue is an experienced, well-recognized clinician who is being asked to testify to his experience and observation in caring for patients who report repressed memory of sexual abuse. Therefore, he can testify to his own experience, his observations, his own research and that of others with which he his familiar, and the care of his patients. Logerquist v. McVey, No. CV-98-0587-PR (Ariz. Apr. 19, 2000) (67 pp.).
Copyright© 2000, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved
Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.
EPA announced that it will be holding the Seventh Conference on Air Quality Modeling as required by CAA §320. 65 FR 31858 (5/19/00).
EPA proposed to determine that the Phoenix, Ariz., metropolitan serious ozone nonattainment area has attained the one-hour ozone air quality standard deadline. 65 FR 31859 (5/19/00).
HAZARDOUS AND SOLID WASTES:
- EPA granted a petition submitted by the General Motors Corporation Lansing Car Assembly Body Plan in Lansing, Mich., to exclude certain solid wastes generated by its wastewater treatment plant from the lists of hazardous wastes contained in subpart D of 40 C.F.R. part 261. 65 FR 31096 (5/16/00).
- EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the North Penn Area 1 Superfund site in Montgomery County, Penn. 65 FR 31315 (5/17/00).
- EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the Tri-County/Elgin Landfill site in Kane County, Ill. 65 FR 31315 (5/17/00).
- EPA announced that it entered into a proposed prospective purchaser agreement in connection with the South Bay Asbestos Superfund site. 65 FR 31911 (5/19/00).
- The National Marine Fisheries Service is closing an area along eastern North Carolina and Virginia to fishing with large-mesh gillnets with a stretched mesh size of 6 inches or greater for a 30-day period because of its determination that gillnet fishing with large-mesh gillnets is the most likely cause of significant increases in the stranding of sea turtles listed as threatened or endangered in this area. 65 FR 31500 (5/18/00).
- NOAA proposed to expand the boundary of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in the westernmost party of the Sanctuary by 96 square nautical miles and to establish a 151 square nautical miles no-take ecological reserve in this area and in 55 square nautical miles of the existing sanctuary to protect important coral reef resources. 65 FR 31633 (5/18/00).
- EPA announced the availability of a pesticide registration notice entitled Guidance for Mandatory and Advisory Labeling Statements. 65 FR 31313 (5/17/00).
- EPA issued its second round of revisions to streamline the NPDES regulations. 65 FR 30886 (5/15/00).
- EPA proposed to provide site-specific regulatory flexibility under the CWA as part of an XL Project with International Paper's Androscoggin Mill pulp and paper manufacturing facility in Jay, Me. 65 FR 31120 (5/16/00).
- EPA designated an existing dredged material disposal site located in the Gulf of Mexico at the mouth of Atchafalaya Bay for the continued disposal of dredged material removed from the bar channel of the Atchafalaya River and Bayous Chene, Boeuf, and Black, La. 65 FR 31492 (5/18/00).
- EPA established numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. 65 FR 31681 (5/18/00).
DOJ NOTICES OF SETTLEMENT:
- U.S. v. Cytec Industries, Inc., No. 00-CV-2248 (E.D. Pa. May 2, 2000) (CERCLA defendants must perform all operable unit 1 activities as defined in the consent decree for the Boarhead Farms Superfund site in Bridgeton Township, Pa., and must pay all future response costs relating to operable unit 1 activities at the site), 65 FR 31602 (5/18/00);
- U.S. v. Williams, No. 2:00CV296 (E.D. Va. Apr. 21, 2000) (a CWA defendant that unlawfully discharged dredged and fill materials into U.S. waters at a 40-acres site in the city of Chesapeake, Va., must perform a restoration project at the site), 65 FR 31603 (5/18/00).
Copyright© 2000, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved
Dept. of Envtl. Management
- 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
- Etowah Solid Waste Disposal Authority, for modification of a disposal facility permit. Comments due July 5. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5eswdcon.html
- Madison County Commission, for renewal of a disposal facility permit. Comments due July 5. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5madcoun.html
- General Electric Co., Lowndes County, for modification of a Title V permit. Comments due June 23. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5gecgepl.html
- Tenaska Alabama Partners, L.P., Billingsley, for an acid rain permit. Comments due June 23. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5taparts.html
- Mobile Energy Services Co., LLC, Mobile, for an acid rain permit. Comments due June 23. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5mescllc.html
- Alabama Power Co., Theodore, for an acid rain permit. Comments due June 23. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5apctheo.html
- JSC Brewton, Inc., for an air permit. Comments due June 22. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5jscbrew.html
- Worthington Steel Co., Decatur, for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5worthin.html
- Cammco Casting Division, Anniston, for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5cammcoc.html
- Mobile Asphalt Co., LLC, Evergreen, for an air permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5mobasph.html
- Blue Circle Cement, Calera, for modification of an existing portland cement factory. Comments due June 12. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5bluecir.html
- OMNOVA Solutions, Inc., air permit for construction and operation of a polymeric roofing membrane manufacturing facility in Tuscumbia. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4omnovas.html
- Honeywell Aerospace, Airline Services, Oxford, for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4honeywe.html
- Weatherly Water Reclamation Center, Pelham, for Class V Injection Well permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5weather.html
- MWS, LLC, Fairhope, for a Class V Injection Well permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5mwsllcu.html
- Black Warrior Transmission Corp., Brookwood, for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5blackwa.html
- Mobile Energy LLC, Mobile, for construction and operation of an auxiliary boiler at an existing cogeneration facility. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5mobilee.html
- EOTT Energy Pipeline Limited Partnership, Eight Mile, for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5oeottene.html
- Waste Management, Inc., Cherokee County, for modification of a disposal facility permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5wasteth.html
- Alabama Disposal Solution Landfill, LLC, for permit to operate a municipal solid waste landfill in Lowndes County. The service area would consist of the entire state except Mobile and Jefferson counties. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/5adstall.html
- Dorsey Trailers, Inc., Elba, for Title V Major Source Operating Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4dorsey.html
- Shaw Industries, Inc., Andalusia, for Synthetic Minor Operating Permits. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4shawind.html
- Fontaine Specialized, Inc., Springville, for Title V Major Operating Source Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4fontain.html
- Blount Springs Sand & Gravel, Inc., Cullman, for an NPDES permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4blounts.html
- Alabama Gas Corp., Coosada, for a Title V Major Source Operating Permit. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4alagasc.html
- Kimberly-Clark Tissue Co., Mobile, for reissuance of NPDES permits. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4kimberl.html
- Calpine Construction Finance Corp., L.P., Decatur, for an air permit for construction and operation of a new cogeneration facility. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/4calpmor.html
- City of Jacksonville, for modification and renewal of a solid waste disposal permit. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/4jackson.html
- City of Florence, for modification and renewal of a solid waste disposal permit. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/4florenc.html
- Gulf States Paper, Moundville, for a Title V Major Source Operating Permit. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/5gulfsta.html
- Koppers Industries, Inc., Montgomery, for a Synthetic Minor Operating Permit. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/4koppers.html
- Troy Carter, for permit to develop a residential subdivision on property containing coastal wetlands in Mobile County. See http://www.adem.state.al.us/4troycar.html
Dept. of Envtl. Conservation
Cruise Ship Regulation
Draft report regarding air monitoring, pollution prevention, oil pollution response, and wastewater/solid waste management available at http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/press/2000/rel_0510.htm
Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water, Wastewater Treatment
Subject of June 12, 14, and 15 hearings. Comment period closes June 23. Details at http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dec_cal.htm
Prince William Sound Tanker Oil Discharge Prevention/Contingency Plan
Request by oil companies to amend plan to allow replacement of current tug escort vessel. Comment period closes May 30. Details at http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dec_cal.htm
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
Proposed Revisions-Air Regulations
Proposed regulations would incorporate federal requirements regarding Title V operating permit program. Public hearing May 23; written comments due June 7. See http://www.adeq.state.ar.us/regs/draft26.htm
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
Proposed Program Delegations
- Various program functions proposed to be delegated to Cochise County, Coconino County, City of Flagstaff, La Paz County, City of Sierra Vista, Santa Cruz County, Yuma County, and Pima County. Details at http://www.adeq.state.az.us/lead/oac/delegate.html Public hearing and comment deadline dates set forth at http://www.adeq.state.az.us/comm/pr/april00.html
Draft Regulations-UST State Assurance Fund
- Informal stakeholder meetings to discuss draft R18-12-601 through 622. Scheduled through July 24. Details at http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/waste/ust/seminar.html
- Release Reporting and Corrective Action rules for underground storage tanks. Informal public comment meeting June 8. Details at http://www.adeq.state.az.us/lead/oac/stat.html
- Draft General Reclaimed Water Permit. Public hearings June 6, 7, and 13. Details at http://www.adeq.state.az.us/lead/oac/public.html
Superfund Program-Proposed Registry Inclusions, Prospective Purchaser Agreements
- Comment periods open. See http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/waste/sps/notices.html
Air Resources Board
- New airborne toxic control measures for automotive consumer products containing perchloroethylene (Perc), methylene chloride (MeCl), and trichloroethylene (TCE) adopted April 27. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr042700.htm
- New rules requiring modernization of vapor recovery systems at gas stations and other gasoline pumping stations approved by Board March 23. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr0323200.htm
- Amended agricultural burning guidelines approved March 23. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/nr032300.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
- 45-day comment period for proposed amendments regarding VOC emissions from aerosol coating products. June 22 hearing. Details at http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/conspro/aerocoat/aerocoat.htm
Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Asbestos
- Draft revisions to the Asbestos ATCM would prohibit the use of serpentine and asbestos-containing ultramafic aggregate for unpaved surface applications. Public meeting May 23. Details at http://www.arb.ca.gov.toxics.asbestos.htm
Revised On-Road Motor Vehicle Emissions Inventory
- Subject of May 25 Air Resources Board meeting. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/notice.html
Conditional Rice Straw Burning Permit Program
- Public workshops May 30 and June 1 regarding draft regulations affecting the Sacramento Valley Air Basin. Details at http://www.arb.ca.gov/rice/wk053000.htm and http://www.arb.ca.gov/rice/rice/htm
Innovative Clean Air Technologies Program
- Board meeting May 25 to consider recommendations for funding proposals. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/icat/icat_final.htm
Water Resources Control Board
Final Policy-Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries
- Adopted April 26. Details at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/resdec/resltn/2000/rs2000-030.htm
Carmel River Water Supply
- May 30 public workshop to discuss potential impacts of the Carmel River Dam project and other issues. Written comments requested by May 24. Details at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/agendas/2000/may/may302000.htm
Saltwater Intrusion-Salinas & Pajaro Valleys
- Subject of May 31 public workshop. Written comments requested by May 24. Details at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/agendas/2000/may/may312000.htm
Dept. of Toxic Substances Control
Draft Pollution Prevention Report and SB 1916 2-Year Workplan
- Available for review at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/whats_new.html
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Final Regulation-Air Toxics
- Amendments to Rule 1402, Control of Air Toxic Contaminants from Existing Sources. Summary and copy of amendments available at http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Governing_Board/Bs3_17_00.htm
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
- Staff draft presented to the Governing Board, along with final report on the Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Study-II. See http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Governing_Board/Bs3_17_00.htm
Proposed Rule, Amendments--Public Fleet Vehicles
- Proposed amendments to Rule 461 and proposed new Rule 1191 are set for a public hearing on June 16. See http://www.aqmd.gov/news1/Governing_Board/Bs3_17_00.htm
Proposed Rule-Alternative Fueled Street Sweepers
- Proposed Rule 1186.1. Public workshop May 24. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/notice_1186_1.html
Water Quality Control Commission
- Proposed revisions to Regulation #31, 5 CCR 1002-31, Basic Standards and Methodologies for Surface Water, regarding issues raised in the January 2000 triennial review hearing. Hearing on July 10. See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqcc/wqrmnot.html
- Proposed revisions to Regulation #63, Pretreatment Regulations. Written comments due July 11; no hearing scheduled. Details at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/wq/wqcc/wqwcrnot.html
Dept. of Envtl. Protection
Proposed Aquifer Protection Land Use Regulations
Draft regulations released; formal public comment period will follow. Details at http://dep.state.ct.us/whatshap/press/2000/mf330.htm
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
- 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.
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
- Comments due June 16 for applications regarding Coffee and Dougherty counties. Details at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pa_500_3.html
- Comments due June 9 for applications regarding Cherokee, Early, Hall, Quitman, and Troup counties. Details at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pa_500_2.html
- Pittman Construction Company application for Synthetic Minor Operating Permit; hearing May 30. Details at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/hearmeet/
- Comments due June 2 for applications regarding Houston and Richmond counties. Details at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pa_500_1.html
- Comments due May 26 for applications regarding Barrow, Colquitt, Fayette, Jenkins, and Wilkinson counties. Details at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pa_400_4.html
NPDES Permit Applications
- Pending applications open for public comment. See http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pubn_0412.html
Division of Envtl. Quality
Agrium, Inc, Soda Springs, for air quality permit involving expansion and modifications of facility. Comments due May 24. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/may03_00a.html
Fiberglass Systems, Inc., Boise, for increase in allowable emissions. Comments due May 25. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/apr25_00.htm
Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., Fruitland, for a Permit to Construct. Comments due May 26. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/apr26_00a.htm
Doane Pet Care Company, Caldwell, Title V Operating Permit. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/may03_00b.htm
IMCO Recycling, Post Falls, for a Permit to Construct. Comments due June 2. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/may03_00c.htm
Motive Power, Boise, for a Permit to Construct. Comments due June 2. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/may03_00d.htm
Kerr-McGee Chemical, Soda Springs, for a Permit to Construct. Comments due June 2. See http://www2.state.id.us/deq/news/may03_00e.htm
Envtl. Protection Agency
Strategic Planning Process
- Information and comment procedures available at http://www.epa.state.il.us/strategic-planning/
- Ahlstrom Filtration, Inc., for air permit modification regarding coating operation. Comments due May 24; public hearing was May 10. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-05-24-ahlstrom-filtr.html
- ABB Energy Ventures, Inc., for construction of an electrical generating facility in Bartlett. Comments due June 8; public hearing May 24. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-06-08-grande-prarie-energy.html
- Material Service Corp., McCook, for replacement of aggregate crushers and addition of three conveyors, and for an NPDES permit. Comments due June 9; hearing May 25. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-06-09-material-service.html
- Silvercreek Constr. Co., Knox County, for an NPDES permit. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-04-06-silvercreek.html
- Fox River Water Reclamation District NPDES applications. Comments due June 15; public hearing was May 16. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-06-15-fox-river.html
- Grande Prairie Energy LLC, Bartlett, for construction of an electrical generating facility. Comments due June 8; public hearing May 24. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-06-08-grande-prarie-energy.html
Dept. of Envtl. Management
- Final rules amend 327 IAC 8 to revise the definition of "public water systems" to be consistent with the SDWA definition. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/April-1-2000.html
- Final rules amend 327 IAC 12.1 regarding handling of confidential material. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/April-1-2000.html
- Final rules add requirements regarding content of consumer confidence reports submitted by community water systems to their customers. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/May-1-2000.html
- Final rule amends 327 IAC 15-5-10 regarding inspection and enforcement of stormwater permits for construction activity. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/May-1-2000.html
Final Regulations-Hazardous Waste
- Final rule amends 329 IAC 3.1-1-7 to incorporate revisions to U.S. EPA regulations promulgated between June 1997 and Feb. 1999. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/April-1-2000.html
- 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 readoption of rules in Title 326, Indiana Admin. Code, except those that incorporate a federal regulation by reference. May 31 is the comment deadline. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/May-1-2000.html
- Proposed readoption of rules in Title 327, Indiana Admin. Code. May 31 is the comment deadline. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/May-1-2000.html
- Proposed amendments to Title 327 concerning water quality standards and antidegradation standards for water bodies. Comments due May 31. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/May-1-2000.html
- May 31 is the comment deadline for amendments to 327 IAC 8-12 regarding the examination and certification of water treatment plant operators, and for new rule 327 IAC 5-22 regarding the subject. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/May-1-2000.html
Proposed Regulations-Solid & Hazardous Waste
- Proposed readoption of rules in Title 329. Comments due May 30. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/May-1-2000.html
Proposed Regulations-Underground Storage Tanks
- Proposed readoption of sunsetting Title 328 rules. Comments due May 30. See http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/March-1-2000.html
Land Application Permit
- Renewal permit sought by Karle Enviro-Organic Recycling, Inc., Crawfordsville. Public hearing May 31. See http://www.state.in.us/idem/olq/meetings/karle.html
KDHE Division of Environment
Water Quality-305(b) Report
For Arkansas, Upper Arkansas, and Cimarron River basins. For details, including hearing dates, see http://www.kdhe.state.ks.us/opp/ken/april2000/index.html
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
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
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 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 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
Proposed regulations would establish criteria for their use. Public hearing May 25; comments due June 1. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda
April 15 version available at http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm
Listing of 8-Hour Ozone Attainment/Nonattainment Areas
Public meetings through June 10 in various locations. Written comments due June 10. For details, see http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/index.htm
Pennzoil-Quaker State, Shreveport, for a Part 70 Operating Permit. Comments due June 9. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/2000/pn000508.htm
T.T. Barge Services, Inc., Hahnville, modification of minor source air permit. Comments due June 7. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/2000/pn000505.htm
Certainteed Corp., Sulphur, for permit modification to increase annual PVC production. Comments due June 12; public hearing June 8. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/2000/pn000504a.htm
Williams Olefins, LLC, Geismar, for a Part 70 Operating Permit. Comments due June 5. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/2000/pn000504b.htm
Exxon/Mobil Chemical, Baton Rouge, for modification of a Part 70 Operating Permit. Comments due May 25. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/2000/pn000501a.htm
Entergy Gulf States, Inc, Baton Rouge, for a Part 70 Operating Permit. Comments due May 25. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/2000/pn000413a.htm
Cogentrix Energy, Inc., Ouachita Parish, for a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and a Part 70 Operating Permit. Comments due May 31. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/news/2000/pn000413b.htm
Dept. of the Environment
Listing available in "MDEnvironment" publication at http://www.mde.state.md.us/mdenvironment/index.html
Dept. of Envtl. Protection
Proposed Regulations-NOx Trading
Public hearing on proposed SIP revisions and proposed revision to 310 CMR 7.28, "NOx Allowance Trading Program." See http://www.state.ma.us/dep/calendar.htm
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
Recent enforcement actions described at http://www.state.ma.us/dep/enf/enforce.htm
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
Clean Corporate Citizen Designations
- Applications from Ford Motor Company, Livonia Transmission Plant; GM-Powertrain Warren Transmission Plant; Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company; Detroit Edison, for Fermi 2 Power Plant, Monroe County; Mark IV Automotive-Big Rapids. See http://www.deq.state.mi.us/cal/dq032700.htm and http://www.deq.state.mi.us/dq041000.htm#Rules
Draft CWA §303(a) Report
- Available for review and comment. Will be used to establish TMDLs. See http://www.deq.state.mi.us/dq041000.htm#Rules
Management Team Public Meetings
- June 26 in Jackson and Sept. 25 in Marquette. For details, see http://www.deq.state.mi.us/pr/000224.htm
- NOx emissions from stationary sources. Filed with Secretary of State May 1; effective date May 17. See http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd/rules/proposed.html
Final Regulations-Wetlands Permitting
- Part 303 regulations revised effective April 27. Purpose of rulemaking was to ensure consistency with U.S. EPA regulations. See http://www.deq.state.mi.us/pr/000504.htm and http://www.deq.state.mi.us/lwm.
- Proposed new rule R281.922a to clarify permit application review criteria identified in Part 303. DEP also proposes to amend the existing mitigation rule (R281.925) to establish specific mitigation criteria and ratios. The proposal may be viewed at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/lwm/grt_lakes/wetlands/proposedrules.htm
- 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
Pollution Control Agency
Permit Applications, Other Notices
- 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 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.
- 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
Dept. of Natural Resources
Water Pollution Control-Permit Applications
Current list available at http://www.dnr.state.mo.us/deq/wpcp/wpcpermits-pn-042800.htm
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
TMDLs-§303(d) Impaired Waterbodies List
A total of 17 meetings were held 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
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
Proposed Regulations-Water Quality
Proposed amendments will establish Title 117 ammonia criteria in accordance with U.S. EPA criteria guidance and will be brought before the Environmental Quality Council on June 1. For details, see http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Proposed.nsf/Pages/Title117a
Waste Reduction/Recycling Incentive Grants Program
Proposed changes incorporate recent statutory changes and will be brought before the Environmental Quality Council on June 1. For details, see http://www.deq.state.ne.us/Proposed.nsf/Title+199
Dept. of Envtl. Protection
Current DEP Bulletin (Permit Applications; Proposed Regulations)
Latest issue at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/bulletin/index.html
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
New DEP program to address greenhouse gas emissions, including Silver and Gold Track Programs for Environmental Excellence, detailed at http://www.state.nj.us/dep/newsrel/releases/00_0030.htm
Dept. of Envtl. Conservation
Environmental Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications)
- Latest issue available at http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/enb/index.html
Environmental Justice Advisory Group
- Has scheduled public meetings for June 1 (Buffalo), June 27 (New York City), and July 12 (Albany) to seek input on environmental justice issues. See http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/ej/index.html
Proposed Forest Mangement Unit
- "Treaty Line" unit plan, addressing state forests located in Broome, Chenango, and Delaware counties, available for comment through June 2.
Dept. of Envt. and Natural Resources
Division of Air Quality Penalty Assessments
- Listed at http://daq.state.nc.us/Penalty/
DENR Enforcement Data
- Available at http://www.enr.state.nc.us/novs/index.htm
Division of Air Quality-Permit Applications
- Thomasville Furniture Industries, Inc., Thomasville, for Title V Operating Permit. U.S. EPA review period ends May 29. See http://daq.state.nc.us/Offices/Permits/2000notices/thomas_400.html
- Southern Furniture Manuf. Co. of Conover, Inc., Catawba County, for Title V Operating Permit. See http://daq.state.nc.us/Offices/Permits/2000notices/south_furn.html
- Rhodes Brothers Paving, Macon County, for construction and operation of an asphalt plant. Public hearing May 30. See http://daq.state.nc.us/Offices/Permits/2000notices/rhodespav_400.html
- Cumberland County Ann Street Landfill, Fayetteville, for Title V Operating Permit. U.S. EPA review period ends June 17; comments due June 2. See http://daq.state.nc.us/Offices/Permits/2000notices/annstreet_400.html
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
- Advisory report on the environmental impacts of wood chip mills on water quality submitted April 19. DENR is accepting comments on the draft report. The report is available at http://www.cfr.ncsu.edu/for/chipmill/chip.htm
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
- 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
- Available for review and comment. See http://www.deq.state.ok.us/Water1/new/index.html
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
- 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
- Report conducted pursuant to H.B. 3602a (1999) regarding pesticide use reporting program available at http://www.oda.state.or.us/pesticide/info.html
Dept. of Envtl. Protection
Proposed General NPDES Permit Revision
- Regarding wet weather discharges from combined sewer systems. See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol30/30-14/572.html The proposal is available for review at http://www.dep.state.pa.us/dep/deputate/watermgt/Wqp/Forms/Forms_Home.htm
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
- Regarding Surveillance Strategy and Implementation Guidelines. Comment period ended May 1; effective date June 1. For details, see http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol30/30-14/570.html
Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control
Permit Application Notices
Dept. of Environment and Conservation
- Flowers Snacks of Tn., Inc., Crossville, for a major source Title V operating permit. See http://www.state.tn.us/environment/apc/apcppo/flower_snks.htm
- Eastman Chemical Company, for the vertical expansion of an existing special waste landfill. See http://www.state.tn.us/environment/swm/swmppo/pactolus.htm
- RB Finishing, for concentrated animal feeding operation in Gibson County. See http://www.state.tn.us/environment/wpc/wpcppo/74900.htm
- Alan's Industrial Waste Services, Inc., for proposed Class I landfill near Ridgely. Comments due June 16. See http://www.state.tn.us/environmental/swm/swmppo/alanind.htm
- Eastman Chemical Company, for six major source operating permits. See http://www.state.tn.us/environment/apc/apcppo/eastman.htm
- Wilson Sporting Goods, Inc., Humbolt, for a major source Title V operating permit. See http://www.state.tn.us/environment/apc/apcppo/wilsonsport.htm
Natural Resource Conservation Commission
- Rule prohibiting use of MTBE gasoline additive in 95 counties in eastern part of the state adopted April 5.
- Revisions to Chapter 328, dealing with Recycled Products, effective March 19. Rule amendments incorporate SB 1127. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/whatsnew.html
- Revisions to Chapter 12, Interest on Delinquent Taxes, effective March 30. Rule amendments incorporate SB 1321. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/whatsnew.html
- Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 293 regarding administration of water districts. Public hearing May 18; comments due May 22. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99044293.html
- Preproposal draft of revisions to Surface Water Quality Standards available at http://ww.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/index.html
- Proposed new 30 TAC Section 80.128, Specific Admissibility of Evidence for Concrete Batch Plants, which will implement SB 1298, 1999 Legislature. Public hearing May 16; comments due May 22. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/9906016.html
- Proposed new 30 TAC Chapter 11, Subchapter D, Resolution of Certain Contract Claims Against the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission; implements HB 826, 1999 Legislature. Public hearing June 1; comments due June 5. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99081011.html
- Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 290, Public Drinking Water; implements U.S. EPA standards. Public hearing was May 12; comments due May 22. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99015290.html
- Regulations are being drafted that would create a NOx trading program in Houston-Galveston nonattainment area and would reduce the duration of emission reduction credits from ten to five years. A September comment period is expected.
- Upcoming hearings listed at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/comm/opa/opacal/index.html
Dept. of Envtl. Quality
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
- For fecal coliform in Christians Creek, Augusta County. Comment period ends May 24. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/index.html
- For five segments of the "Otters" in Bedford and Campbell counties. Public meeting May 23; comment period ends June 5. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/notice/pn956762391.html
- Kinloch Golf Club, Manassas, for filling of certain wetlands areas and mitigation. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/notice/pn/957205063.html
- Virginia Power Co., Fauquier County, for a Phase II Acid Rain Operating Permit. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/notice/pn/957270753.html
- Johns Manville International, Edinburg, for a Title V Operating Permit. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/notice/pn/957185017.html
- Intermet Corp., Radford, for a state-only operating permit to facilitate replacement of damaged equipment. See http://www.deq.state.va.us/notice/pn/956762008.html
Dept. of Ecology
- Amendments to Chapter 173-425, Outdoor Burning. See http://aww.irs.ecology/leg/activity/wac173425.html
- Adoption of amendments to Chapter 173-303 Dangerous Waste Regulations. See http://www.wa.gov/ecology/leg/activity/wac173303.html
- Revisions and possible consolidation of WAC 317-10 and 173-181, Vessel and Facility Oil Spill Contingency Plan Standards and Primary Response Contractor Standards. See http://www.wa.gov/ecology/leg/SWFAopenhouse.htm
- Possible revisions to Chapter 173-304 WAC, Minimum Functional Standards for Solid Waste Handling. See http://www.wa.gov/ecology/leg/SWFAopenhouse.htm
- Preproposal to amend Chapter 173-95A WAC, Uses and Limitations of the
Centennial Clean Water Fund. See http://www.wa.gov/ecology/leg/activity/wac17395A.html
- Preproposal to amend Chapter 173-98 WAC, Uses and Limitations of the Water
Pollution Control Revolving Fund. See http://www.wa.gov/ecology/leg/activity/wac17398.html
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
Dept. of Envtl. Protection
Public Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications, Proposed Regulations)
- Latest issue available at http://www.dep.state.wv.us/publications.html
Dept. of Natural Resources
Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule