ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 20




The Ninth Circuit upheld EPA's decision to approve a revision to Nevada's SIP requiring all gasoline sold in the wintertime in Clark County--a serious non-attainment area for carbon monoxide--to contain at least 3.3 percent oxygen content by weight. Petitioners claimed that the CAA's 1990 amendments adopted a nationwide minimum oxygenated fuel content of 2.7 percent for non-attainment areas and that the Act does not give states the authority to adopt a higher minimum. Although the statute is ambiguous on this point, the legislative history, as well as the CAA's text, demonstrate that EPA's construction of the statute was reasonable. Moreover, CAA §211(c)(4) does not preempt the Clark County oxygen standard. Because regulating air pollution falls under the historic police powers of the state, state authority is assumed not to have been preempted unless it was the clear and manifest purpose of Congress to do so. Here, the statutory provisions at issue focus on the regulation and prohibition of fuel additives rather than oxygenate standards and, therefore, do not demonstrate a clear and manifest purpose to preempt state regulation of oxygenate levels. Exxon Mobil Corp. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-70945 (9th Cir. July 7, 2000) (13 pp.).

back to top


The D.C. Circuit affirmed a district court decision dismissing labor unions' claims that DOE violated NEPA and the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) in connection with the decontamination and decommissioning of three buildings at its nuclear weapons facility in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. The district court properly granted DOE's motion for summary judgment on the labor unions' NEPA claims because CERCLA §113(h) withholds federal court jurisdiction over any challenges to removal or remedial action under CERCLA §104. The labor unions argued that DOE could not recycle and sell recovered metals from the project without first preparing an EIS under NEPA. The "disposal of removed material," however, is properly understood to encompass disposals that take the form of recycling. Therefore, because the recycling and sale of recovered metals is part of the removal action, the court lacked jurisdiction over this claim. In addition, the district court properly dismissed the labor unions' claim that DOE failed to provide its members continued employment and benefits after closing the facility in violation of the NDAA. Nothing in the statute provides a meaningful standard against which to judge any such agency nonenforcement, thus, the claim is barred under the APA, 5 U.S.C. §701(a)(2). Oil, Chemical, & Atomic Works International Union v. Richardson, No. 99-5295 (D.C. Cir. July 7, 2000) (4 pp.).


The Second Circuit held that Connecticut's suit for declaratory and injunctive relief against New York officers for enforcing a law that allows resident New York commercial permit-holders to trap lobsters near Fishers Island, New York, but forbids nonresident commercial permit-holders from lobstering in the area falls within the jurisdiction of a federal district court rather than within the U.S. Supreme Court's original and exclusive jurisdiction. When a suit does not implicate a core area of another state's sovereignty, a plaintiff-state may opt to name that state's enforcement officers alone, or to name the state itself. Only when a plaintiff-state's suit concerns another state's core sovereignty interests is the other state a real defendant-party in interest, and, therefore, does the suit fall within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. Here, New York is not a named party in the suit, and although the alleged injury was caused by actions of New York officers specifically authorized by New York law, the suit does not implicate core sovereign interests. Rather, it is a traditional equal protection claim against state officers of the sort regularly litigated in district courts. A district court's decision to the contrary, therefore, was vacated and remanded. Connecticut v. Cahill, No. 99-7793 (2d Cir. July 7, 2000) (18 pp.).


The Second Circuit upheld a magistrate judge decision that later settling insurance carriers are not obligated to contribute to defense costs paid by insurance carriers that settled earlier with an insured company involved in asbestos litigation. The magistrate judge was incorrect in holding that later settlements extinguish the right to reimbursement as a matter of law. Nevertheless, the earlier settling insurance carriers' contribution claims fail based on equitable principles underlying the law of contribution. The later settling insurance carriers paid more than their pro rata shares of defense costs and were not were unjustly enriched. In fact, the earlier settlers may have benefited from settling first given the facts of the case. It is impossible to determine whether the earlier settlers paid more in combined indemnity and defense payments as a result of the non-contribution of the later settlers, or whether the earlier settlers paid less. Maryland Casualty Co. v. W.R. Grace & Co., Nos. 98-7492 et al. (2d Cir. July 5, 2000) (9 pp.).

back to top


A district court denied motions to dismiss an environmental engineering company's third-party RCRA, CERCLA, and contractual indemnification claims against the former managing general partner of an industrial corporation that was suing the engineering company for negligent misrepresentation in connection with an environmental assessment it performed causing the industrial corporation to purchase contaminated property. The industrial corporation filed suit against the engineering company to recover cleanup costs at the site, and the engineering company then filed a third-party action against the former managing partner. The engineering company's RCRA and CERCLA claims were properly impleaded. The former managing partner's alleged liability arises from the same nucleus of operative facts as the underlying suit, and based on facts set forth in the engineering company's complaint, the former managing partner may be secondarily liable in the event the engineering company is found liable to the site owner. In addition, the court has subject matter jurisdiction over the RCRA and CERCLA claims, and the engineering company has standing. Finally, the engineering company's contractual indemnification claim survives a motion to dismiss because indemnity language set forth in a contract between the the engineering company and the former managing partner may protect the engineering company from liability. Kemper Prime Industrial Partners v. Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc., No. 97 CIV 4278 (N.D. Ill. June 26, 2000) (Guzman, J.) (8 pp.).


A Missouri appellate court held that a county may regulate the location of solid waste facilities. A development company challenged a county regulation that prohibits building a sanitary landfill within one-quarter mile of an occupied residence. The trial court denied the company's motion for summary judgment and granted the county's motion to dismiss. Because the trial court's denial of the company's motion for summary judgment was not a final judgment, it was not reviewable. Moreover, because the trial court considered facts and information outside the face of the pleadings in ruling on the county's motion to dismiss, the trial court's dismissal of the action must be reversed. Nevertheless, for the sake of judicial economy, the court held that because a county is permitted to regulate every aspect of the solid waste management process, including the spaces or places for storing solid waste, a county can regulate the location of these spaces or places, namely the solid waste landfills. L.C. Development Co. v. Lincoln County, No. ED77468 (Mo. Ct. App. July 5, 2000) (5 pp.).


A Wisconsin appellate court affirmed a trial court decision that a development company whose request for a dredging permit to develop boat slips at a marina was denied did not suffer a regulatory taking. The company already received permits for 201 boat slips, but needed a permit to build 71 additional boat slips. Despite its inability to develop the remaining boat slips, the company maintains reasonable use of the whole of its riparian property, including the existing 201 boat slips, marina, and appurtenant structures. Moreover, although the state agency knew that the company ultimately intended to build 272 boat slips, the company knew that it did not have all permits necessary to complete the project and knew that the state had the authority to deny the necessary permits. As such, the company's reasonable investment-backed expectations were not thwarted by the denial because it assumed the risk of loss inherent in commencing a project without all necessary permits. R.W. Docks & Slips, v. State, No. 99-2904 (Wis. Ct. App. July 11, 2000) (4 pp.).

back to top


The Alabama Supreme Court denied intervenors' petitions for a writ of mandamus directing a trial court to allow them to appear at a fairness hearing and object to a proposed class action settlement agreement between class members and a company that allegedly contaminated the class members' riparian property. The intervenors originally were class members in the case. After a settlement was proposed, however, the intervenors moved to intervene so that they could appear at the fairness hearing in order to raise their objections to the settlement agreement. Given that they were the only 9 objectors in a class of approximately 4,600, the trial court severed their claims from the class action in addition to granting their motion to intervene. The intervenors were then prevented from appearing at the fairness hearing. The intervenors did not object to being excluded from the class, instead, they complained that after they were excluded they were not allowed to object to the proposed settlement agreement. The trial court, however, properly precluded the intervenors from raising objections to the settlement. Because they were excluded from the class, they are non-class members, and non-class members cannot object to a proposed settlement into which class members are attempting to enter. Ex parte Anderson, No. 1981846 (Ala. June 16, 2000) (5 pp.).


The EPA Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) denied petitions to review a UIC area permit authorizing the construction and operation of solution mining wells in Rio Blanco County, Colorado. The petitions were filed in a timely manner because the time period within which appeals are due begins to run with the date of notice, not with the date of the permit decision. Nevertheless, challenges regarding alleged deficiencies with the BLM's NEPA process are beyond the scope of EAB review. Neither the SDWA nor its UIC regulations authorize the EAB to review another agency's authorization of solution-mining activities. In addition, EPA was not required to prepare an EIS in support of the permit because the UIC permitting process is the functional equivalent to the NEPA process. Moreover, EPA's consideration of the applicants' groundwater data in issuing the permit did not amount to clear error. The permit protects all aquifers, not just underground sources of drinking water, the permit provides for additional groundwater sampling and analysis prior to the initiation of mining activities, and EPA adequately explained its rationale and addressed comments. Likewise, EPA did not err in including in the administrative record a hydrology report submitted after the public comment period. Further, the petitioners failed to point to any regulation that would require EPA to fully characterize the hazardous nature of all sources of injection fluid prior to permit issuance. In re American Soda, LLP, UIC Appeal Nos. 00-1, -2 (EPA EAB June 30, 2000).

back to top

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

large red bar graphic

Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.


  • EPA proposed an adjustment to the volatile organic compound performance standard under Phase II of the reformulated federal gasoline program (RFG) for ethanol RFG blends that contain 3.5 weight percent oxygen in order to increase the flexibility available to refiners to formulate RFG without methyl tertiary butyl ether while still realizing ozone benefits that are similar to those of the current Phase II program.  65 FR 42920 (7/12/00).
  • EPA entered into a proposed consent decree under CAA §113(g) that addresses a lawsuit filed against the Agency for its alleged failure to meet mandatory deadlines under CAA §110(c) to promulgate federal implementation plans for certain areas establishing attainment demonstrations, inspection and maintenance programs, and 15 percent rate-of-progress requirements. 65 FR 43002 (7/12/00).
  • EPA proposed NESHAPs for new and existing boat manufacturing facilities. 65 FR 43841 (7/14/00). 
  • EPA proposed to restrict or prohibit substitutes for certain foam blowing agents under the Agency's significant new alternatives policy program. 65 FR 42653 (7/11/00).
  • EPA announced the availability of a preliminary draft guidance on the use of emissions reductions from motor vehicles operated on low-sulfur gasoline as new source review offsets for Tier 2/Gasoline Sulfur Refinery Projects in nonattainment areas. 65 FR 43009 (7/12/00).
  • EPA approved Kansas' CAA §111(d) plan for controlling emissions from existing hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. 65 FR 43702 (7/14/00). 


  • FWS proposed to change the classification of the gray wolf under the ESA. 65 FR 43449 (7/13/00).
  • FWS proposed to add national wildlife refuges to the list of areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing along with refuge-specific regulations for such activities, and proposed to amend certain regulations on other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for the 2000-2001 season. 65 FR 42318 (7/10/00).
  • The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) issued a final rule to modify the ESA §9 take prohibitions applied to threatened salmon and steelhead. 65 FR 42481 (7/10/00).
  • NMFS issued a final ESA §4(d) rule adopting regulations necessary and advisable to conserve 14 listed threatened salmonid environmentally significant units.  65 FR 42421 (7/10/00).


  • EPA proposed to revise certain treatment standards for spent potliners from primary aluminum reduction (hazardous waste K088) under the land disposal restrictions program. 65 FR 42937 (7/12/00).
  • EPA proposed to enter into a settlement under CERCLA §112(h)(1) in connection with the BMI Textron Superfund site in Lake Park, Fla. 65 FR 42360 (7/10/00).
  • EPA proposed to enter into a settlement under CERCLA §122(h)(1) in connection with the Chemfax Resin Superfund site in Gulfport, Miss. 65 FR 42361 (7/10/00).
  • EPA entered into a proposed prospective purchaser agreement under CERCLA in connection with the Green Industries Corporation site in Sharonville, Ohio. 65 FR 42360 (7/10/00).
  • EPA entered into a proposed purchaser agreement under CERCLA in connection with the Middlefield-Ellis-Whisman Superfund site in Mountain View, California. 65 FR 43751 (7/14/00).
  • EPA granted final authorization for revisions to Delaware's hazardous waste program under RCRA. 65 FR 42871 (7/12/00). 
  • EPA granted final authorization of revisions to Texas' hazardous waste program under RCRA. 65 FR 43246 (7/13/00). 


  • EPA announced the availability of a revised version of the pesticide science policy document entitled Available EPA Information on Assessing Exposure to Pesticides in Food--A User's Guide. 65 FR 43009 (7/12/00).


back to top

red bar graphic  TOXIC SUBSTANCES:

  • EPA announced the availability of three final test guidelines for three health effects end points: Repeated Dose 28-Day Oral Toxicity Study in Rodents; Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test; and Combined Repeated Dose Toxicity Study With the Reproduction/Developmental Toxicity Screening Test. 65 FR 43329 (7/13/00).


  • EPA revised and clarified its current regulatory requirements for establishing TMDLs under the CWA. 65 FR 43585 (7/13/00).


  • U.S. v. ASARCO Inc., No. C91-5528B (W.D. Wash. June 26, 2000) (under a modification agreement, a CERCLA defendant that already agreed to reimburse U.S. response costs and to implement remedial action at the Asarco Tacoma Smelter, an operable unit of the Commencement Bay Nearshore/Tideflats Superfund site in Ruston and Tacoma, Wash., must pay stipulated penalties if it fails to meet certain revised deadlines for performing remedial actions at the smelter and with respect to sediments in Commencement Bay adjacent to the site), 65 FR 42723 (7/11/00);
  • U.S. v. H.K. Porter Co., No. 96-579 (W.D. Pa. June 26, 2000) (five CERCLA defendants must pay $450,000 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Bollinger Superfund site in Ambridge, Pa.), 65 FR 42724 (7/11/00);
  • U.S. v. Eason, No. 98-2859 G V (W.D. Tenn. June 28, 2000) (a CERCLA defendant must pay $55,000 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Memphis Container site in Memphis, Tenn., and must pay an additional $20,000 within the next two years from the proceeds of the sale of the site property), 65 FR 43038 (7/12/00).

back to top

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



Dept. of Envtl. Management

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Proposed SIP revisions regarding implementation of the one-hour ozone standard in the Birmingham nonattainment area. Gasoline sulfur content and Reid Vapor Pressure controls, as well as NOx emission controls on electric utility plants, are among the proposed control strategies. Public hearing on Aug. 16; comments due Aug. 18. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/phdiv3.html

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Public Notices–Permit Applications 

back to top


Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Water/Wastewater Operator Certification

Cruise Ship Regulation

Clean, Drinking Water Loan Fund


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Vehicle Emission Test Fees

Proposed General Permit-Air Quality

Draft Regulations-UST State Assurance Fund

Superfund Program-Proposed Registry Inclusions, Prospective Purchaser Agreements


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft Remedial Action Decisions

back to top


Integrated Waste Management Board

Proposed Enforcement/Compliance Procedures Regulations

Air Resources Board

Public Meeting

  • Regarding "Draft Report: Planned Air Pollution Research Fiscal Year 2000-2001." This item will be
    considered at a 2-day meeting of the board which will commence at 9:30 a.m. on July 20, 2000. The notice and the draft report are available at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/apr/plan/plan.htm 

July Board Meeting Agenda

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

Draft Pollution Prevention Report and SB 1916 2-Year Workplan

Water Resources Control Board

July Meeting Agenda

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Proposed Regulations-Sulfur Content of Fuels

Emissions Reporting Workshops

Final Regulation-Air Toxics

Draft Air Toxics Control Plan

back to top


Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations


Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Request for Proposals

Proposed Aquifer Protection Land Use Regulations


Dept. of Envtl. Protection

New Legislation-Air Quality

General Permit-Temporary Agricultural Activities

  • Proposed rule will develop permitting criteria for horticultural, seasonal crops that are harvested in one growing season. No additional rule development workshops are currently scheduled. 

Proposed Regulations-NPDES Program; Stormwater

  • Proposed regulations would allow completion of NPDES delegation by incorporating standards governing stormwater and federal facilities. The proposed rule includes fees for implementing the NPDES stormwater program. 

Proposed Regulations-Surface Water Classification

  • Proposed rule amendment would reclassify Prospect Lake in Broward County. 

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water

  • Proposed amendments will incorporate revisions to federal standards. 

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Correction of technical errors in standards governing sulfur storage and handling facilities.

State Revolving Fund-Drinking Water

  • Proposed rule amendments would enable funding of additional wastewater management systems.
  • July 27 workshop regarding proposed revisions to the Department's Standard Operating Procedures for Field and Laboratory Operations. The Department proposes to delete all laboratory procedures from the document. 

Southwest Florida Water Management District

Proposed Regulations

  • Revisions to Application for Water Well Contractor's License form. 
  • 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 was July 12; 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

back to top


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Risk Based Corrective Action


Pollution Control Board

Proposed Revisions-Corrective Action Regulations

  • Proposed revisions to Part 742 rules (the "TACO" regulations) accepted for hearing May 18. At least two substantive amendments, concerning the addition of MTBE as a contaminant to be tested for, and the replacement of existing Subpart J provisions dealing with deed restrictions as institutional controls. The new instrument will be entitled "Environmental Land Use Controls", in response to H.B. 3457 (2000) and the Illinois EPA's determination that it could not employ "No Further Remediation" letters as institutional controls for RCRA sites or those with off-site contamination at underground storage tank sites. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/news/news.htm

Envtl. Protection Agency

Permit Applications

  • NPDES renewal applications submitted by Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago. Comments due Sept. 22. Hearing Aug. 23. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us
  • Clean Harbors Services, Inc. application to modify a RCRA/HSWA permit. Comments due Aug. 7. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us

Strategic Planning Process

back to top


Dept. of Envtl. Management

Final Regulations-Air

Proposed Regulations-Air

Proposed Regulations-Water 

Proposed Regulations-Underground Storage Tank Financial Assurance Board


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Final Regulations-Fugitive Air Emissions

Final Regulations-RECAP 

Permit Applications

Proposed Settlement


Dept. of the Environment

Public Meetings/Hearings

Water Quality Standard-Triennial Review

back to top


Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Final Regulations-Waterways

Proposed Regulations-Air

Draft Plan-"Beyond 2000 Solid Waste Master Plan"

Enforcement Actions


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Clean Corporate Citizen Designations

Draft CWA §303(a) Report

Management Team Public Meeting

Final Regulations-Wetlands Permitting

Proposed Regulations-Wetlands

Permit Applications-Air

  • For pending applications, see http://www.deq.state.mi.us/cal/dq070300.htm and http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd/misc/whnew.html
  • Northern Oaks RDF, for a Renewable Operating Permit. 
  • Venture Industries, for an air permit.
  • Michigan Sugar Co., for a Renewable Operating Permit. 
  • City Environmental Services, for a Renewable Operating Permit.
  • Georgia-Pacific Corp., for a Renewable Operating Permit.  
  • Alchem Aluminum, Inc., for a permit to install a facility to be located in Buena Vista. 
  • Stone Container Corp., for permit 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. 

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

Air Quality Division Newsletter

Surface Water Quality Division Bulletin

Surface Water Quality Division-Draft Regulations


Pollution Control Agency

Malformed Frogs Update

Permit Applications, Other Notices

back to top


Dept. of Natural Resources

Hazardous Materials Spill Legislation

  • New legislation requires increased fees, which will be placed in the Hazardous Waste Fund. The Fund is used for purposes other than hazardous waste transportation-related costs, such as site cleanup. Opponents of the legislation contend that it is preempted by the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, as amended. See http://www.house.state.mo.us/bills00/bills00/sb577.htm

Water Pollution Control-Permit Applications


Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Freshwater Wetlands

Draft Watershed Management Rules

Current DEP Bulletin (Permit Applications; Proposed Regulations)

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

back to top


Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Comparative Risk Project

Proposed Regulations-Landfill Air Emissions 

Environmental Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications)

Permit Applications


Dept. of Envt. and Natural Resources

Clean Water Management Trust Fund

  • Funding will be increased to $100 million per year by fiscal year 2003-2004 under a budget bill signed into law June 30. See http://www.ncga.state.nc.us (Go to "Bill Look-Up"). 

Division of Air Quality Penalty Assessments

DENR Enforcement Data


Envtl. Protection Agency

OPEA Actions, Notices by County

Permit Applications


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

back to top


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed General Permit-Water Quality

Proposed Test Method-Vehicle Emissions

Proposed Regulations-Open Burning

Water Quality Permit Applications

Public Notices-Cleanup Remedies


Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Coal Refuse Disposal

Proposed Area Designations-Air Quality

Final General NPDES Permit-CAFO Operations

Final Regulations-Air

Proposed General NPDES Permit Revision

NPDES Permit Applications

Corrective Amendment to 25 Pa. Code §89.67(b)

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). 

Technical Guidance Document


Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

Permit Application Notices

back to top


Dept. of Environment and Conservation

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality-Fees

Proposed Regulations-Dam Inspection/Construction

Grant Availability-Recycling Marketing

Permit Applications


Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Proposed Regulations

  • Proposed amendments to above and underground storage tank regulations to implement House Bills 2109, 2815, and 2816, 1999 Legislature. Public hearing July 25; comments due Aug. 1. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99038334.html
  • Preproposal draft of revisions to Surface Water Quality Standards available at http://ww.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/index.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.

Permit Hearings

Sunset Advisory Commission

Penalty Assessment

Strategic Plan

back to top


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Permit Applications


Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Proposed Consent Orders

Public Meeting Notices


Dept. of Ecology

Adopted Regulations

Proposed Regulations



Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Public Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications, Proposed Regulations)


Dept. of Natural Resources

Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule