ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 35



large red bar graphic

Note: The cases listed are available from the ELR Document Service.


The Third Circuit vacated a district court declaratory judgment stating that a pollution exclusion clause in a landlord's insurance policy precluded coverage against a tenant's lead poisoning claim. The district court issued the judgment during the pendency of a state court action addressing the same issue. However, the case at hand falls outside the area appropriate for district court jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act. Judicial economy was not served by the district court's declaratory judgment. The state court was already familiar with the issues and evidence that the district court reviewed prior to its judgment, and had the district court not interfered, the state court could have promoted an efficient resolution of the action that would have conserved judicial resources as well as those of the party. Further, no federal interests were promoted by deciding this case in district court, and it is irrelevant that the state motion for declaratory judgment was filed after the federal motion. State Auto Insurance Cos. v. Summy, No. 00-1116 (3d Cir. Dec. 1, 2000) (11 pp.).


The Fifth Circuit reversed a district court decision dismissing the United States from a Limitation Act proceeding initiated by a tow boat company and a barge company in order to limit their liability for damages caused to a U.S. government lock on the Ouachita River in Louisiana. The tow boat company caused the barge company's barge to allide with a lock, which resulted in $1,247,200 in damages. The two companies sought to limit their liability under the Limitation Act, and the United States filed RHA claims against both companies. The district court held that RHA §§408 and 412 granted the United States an in personam remedy against the companies and, thus, dismissed the United States from the limitation proceeding so that it could recover its full damages under the RHA. However, the plain language of RHA §§408 and 412 give the United States an in rem remedy, not an in personam remedy. Further, U.S. Supreme Court precedent, in which the Court found an implied in personam remedy under RHA §409, does not apply to this case. In implying the §409 in personam remedy, the Court relied on language peculiar to §409 that triggered the United States' right to a declaratory judgment directing a ship owner to remove a wreck. RHA §408 does not give the United States similar declaratory relief. Therefore, because the United States did not have in personam jurisdiction under RHA §408, it should not have been removed from the companies' Limitation Act proceeding. Barnacle Marine Management, Inc. v. Vulcan Materials Co.,  No. 98-30545 (5th Cir. Dec. 1, 2000) (10 pp.).


The Third Circuit denied individuals' petition for writ of mandamus directing a judicial panel on multidistrict litigation to remand the individuals' punitive damages claims for asbestos exposure for trial together with their personal injury claims. When the panel remanded the individuals' claims to transferor courts, it withheld the individuals' requests for punitive damages but allowed the compensatory personal injury claims to proceed to trial. The panel has the authority to separate claims before remand, and requests for punitive damages fall under the definition of "claims." Requests for punitive damages are not merely issues of a cause of action. Although requests for punitive damages do not stand alone, they are not inseperable components of a claim, but are separate, dependant claims for relief that must be supported by independent allegations of proof. In addition, public policy dictates severing punitive damages claims because compensatory damages claims should be given priority of access to asbestos damages funds over punitive damages claims. In re Collins, No. 00-1009 (3d Cir. Dec. 1, 2000) (6 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit held that for purposes of an ARPA conviction of knowingly removing an archeological resource from government land, the government must prove that a hunter indicted for removing an ancient skull from a federal island in Alaska knew or had reason to know that he was removing an archeological resource. When charged with violation of the ARPA, the hunter entered a conditional guilty plea after the district court advised him that the government would not have to prove that he knew his act was against the law or that he knew the skull was an archeological resource. However, prosecution for knowingly violating the ARPA criminal provisions for removal of archeological resources must follow at least minimal traditional mens rea principles in order to give meaning to the term "knowingly." In this case, knowledge of the ARPA itself is not necessary, but knowledge of the facts that render the charged conduct a felony--in this case removal of an archeological resource--is necessary. Such specific intent is consistent with the legislative history of the ARPA and U.S. Supreme Court precedent regarding mens rea. Thus, the district court judgment is vacated to allow the hunter to withdraw his guilty plea, and the case is remanded for further proceedings. United States v. Lynch, No. 99-30325 (9th Cir. Dec. 7, 2000) (11 pp.).


The U.S. Court of Federal Claims denied the federal government's motion for summary judgment in a case where a farmer alleged that the government took his property without just compensation by ordering the farmer to cease operation of a drainage system and restore portions of his property to its prior state as wetlands. Under the CWA, the government has a legitimate public welfare obligation to preserve wetlands, and the government's actions in this case served that purpose. Further, the farmer failed to demonstrate that he had reasonable investment-backed expectations in the development of his land. When the farmer acquired the property at issue, he was aware of the CWA's existence and application, and he knew of wetlands on the property. Therefore, by failing to promptly apply for a CWA §404 permit, the farmer knowingly took a risk that the CWA's regulations would become more stringent and, thus, apply to his property. However, any remaining substantial economic value in the farmer's property as a whole cannot be determined because the nature of the farmer's ownership of the property is in dispute. Likewise, neither the government nor the farmer offered evidence of the value of the land. Because the amount and value of property affected by the government's actions constitute material fact, the economic impact of the government's actions cannot be determined, and the government's summary judgment motion cannot be granted. Brace v. United States, No. 98-897 L (Fed. Cl. Dec. 1, 2000) (Tidwell, J.) (28 pp.).


A district court ordered a Michigan confined disposal facility (CDF) run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to accept dredged materials that were accumulated to determine the environmental impacts the construction of a combined sewer overflow (CSO) retention basin will have on a creek. In 1974, the United States, the state, and the Detroit Water and Sewerage Department (DWSD) entered a consent decree to address several CWA violations. In 1997, to address certain NPDES violations by the DWSD, the original consent decree was amended to require construction of the CSO basin. The amended decree required the dredging at issue. In order to receive CWA state revolving fund funding (SRF) for the CSO basin, the DWSD is required to identify where the dredged material will be disposed, but the Corps would not agree to accept the materials at its CDF. However, the Corps must accept the material. The disposal of the dredged material at the CDF is not a new use of the CDF. The Rivers and Harbors Act, which authorizes the CDF, does not limit the CDF to materials dredged for navigational purposes, as opposed to the environmental dredging contemplated here. The agreement that created the CDF did not limit it to materials from navigational dredging, and the Corps itself acknowledged that it was not legally precluded from accepting materials from environmental dredging. Moreover, a new indemnification agreement demanded by the Corps is not necessary because under the agreement that authorized the CDF, the state holds the federal government harmless for any damages from the CDF. Further, although the dredging is not scheduled to begin until 2002, the need to qualify for SRF funding demands immediate action and, thus, supports injunctive relief. In addition, the court has jurisdiction to order the Corps to accept the dredged materials because the Corps is sufficiently related to the disposal of the materials and the underlying issue presents a federal question grounded in the CWA. United States v. Michigan, No. Civ.A. 77-71100 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 22, 2000) (Feikens, J.) (9 pp.) .


The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a trial court decree allowing a developer to partially foreclose on nine parcels of land while not foreclosing on a tenth contaminated parcel. A tannery owned the land at issue and contaminated the land surrounding its mill. The mill parcel was listed as a Superfund site and underwent a cleanup action. The tannery then obtained a loan, secured with mortgages on 10 parcels of land, including the mill. After the tannery defaulted on the loan, the developer bought the mortgage on the 10 lots and foreclosed on all but the mill parcel. The state, as a judgment lien holder on the mill parcel, argued that the developer must foreclose on all or none of the 10 parcels. However, nothing in the common law bars the developer's foreclosure of some, but not all, of the property. Partial foreclosure is allowed, and in this case may be required because the state holds a subordinate interest in the mill parcel and parcels with such encumbrances must be foreclosed on last. Moreover, the public policy of free alienability of land dictates allowing partial foreclosure. Otherwise, all of the parcels would go unused due to the potential future liability attached to the mill parcel. Further, partial foreclosure under the circumstances is not inequitable. In addition, although the developer qualifies as a secured lender exempt from liability under the Vermont Waste Management Act, it did foreclose on a lot contiguous to and potentially part of the same facility as the mill lot, and, thus, it may be liable under the Act for the entire facility. However, the state has not made a current claim against the developer under the Act and it would be premature to speculate on future claims. Pownal Development Corp. v. Pownal Tanning Co., No. 98-577 (Vt. Nov. 17, 2000) (7 pp.). 

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

large red bar graphic

Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.

red bar graphic  HAZARDOUS WASTE:

  • EPA proposed to use the Delisting Risk Assessment Software in the evaluation of a delisting petition to exclude certain solid wastes generated by the Eastman Chemical Company's Longview, Tex., facility from the lists of hazardous wastes, and proposed to grant the petition. 65 FR 75637 (12/4/00). 
  • EPA proposed to grant a site-specific treatment variance from the land disposal restriction standards for wastewater treatment sludge generated at the Dupont Environmental Treatment--Chamber Works Wastewater Treatment Plant in Deepwater, N.J. 65 FR 75651 (12/4/00). 
  • EPA proposed to grant a petition submitted by Heritage Environmental Services, LLC, to exclude treated electric arc furnace dust produced at Nucor Steel in Crawfordsville, Ind., from the lists of hazardous wastes under RCRA. 65 FR 75897 (12/5/00).

red bar graphic  STRATOSPHERIC OZONE:

  • EPA announced the revocation of 15 refrigerant reclaimers previously approved to reclaim used refrigerant for sale to a new owner and announced the voluntary withdrawal of 6 previously certified reclaimers. 65 FR 75932 (12/5/00). 

red bar graphic  SMCRA PROGRAM APPROVAL:

red bar graphic  WATER QUALITY:

  • EPA announced the availability of a draft technical guidance for managing sources of nonpoint pollution at marinas and recreational boating facilities. 65 FR 75698 (12/4/00). 
  • EPA announced that it is seeking comments on state resources required for the development and implementation of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs), estimated annual costs to the regulated community, and estimated costs to small businesses resulting from regulatory changes to the TMDL program. 65 FR 75699 (12/4/00). 
  • DOE announced that the Bonneville Power Administration will prepare a floodplain and wetlands assessment in connection with its proposal to construct new facilities and to modify existing facilities in Wallowa County, Oregon, for a conservation integrated recovery production program for Imnaha, Lostine, and Upper Grande Ronde Rivers and Catherine Creek spring chinook salmon. 65 FR 75929 (12/5/00).  

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

large red bar graphic

red bar graphic PUBLIC LAWS

  • S. 700 (national trails), which amends the National Trails System Act to designate the Ala Kahakai Trail in Hawaii as a National Historic Trail, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 13, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-509, 114 Stat. 2361.
  • S. 938 (Hawaii Volcanoes National Park), which eliminates restrictions on the acquisition of certain land contiguous to Hawaii Volcanoes National Park, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 13, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-510, 114 Stat. 2362.
  • S. 1474 (land conveyance; water resources), which provides for the conveyance of the Palmetto Bend project to Texas, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 13, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-512, 114 Stat. 2378.
  • S. 1482 (National Marine Sanctuaries Act), which amends various minor provisions of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 13, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-513, 114 Stat. 2381. 
  • S. 1670 (Fort Matanzas National Monument), which revises the boundary of Fort Matanzas National Monument in Florida, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 22, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-524, 114 Stat. 2493.
  • S. 1752 (Coastal Barrier Resources Act), which would reauthorize and amend the Coastal Barrier Resources Act, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 13, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-514, 114 Stat. 2394. 
  • S. 1936 (land conveyance), which authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to sell or exchange all or part of certain administrative sites and other National Forest System land in Oregon and use the proceeds derived from the sale or exchange for National Forest System purposes, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 22, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-526, 114 Stat. 2512.
  • S. 2020 (Natchez Trace Parkway), which adjusts the boundary of the Natchez Trace Parkway in Mississippi, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 22, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-527, 114 Stat. 2515.
  • S. 2485 (Saint Croix Island Heritage Center), which directs the Secretary of the Interior to provide assistance in planning and constructing a regional heritage center in Calais, Maine, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 22, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-529, 114 Stat. 2524.
  • S. 2547 (Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve), which provides for the establishment of the Great Sand Dunes National Park and the Great Sand Dunes National Preserve in Colorado, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 22, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-530, 114 Stat. 2527.
  • H.R. 1444 (fisheries), which authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to establish a program to plan, design, and construct fish screens, fish passage devices, and related features to mitigate impacts on fisheries associated with irrigation system water diversions by local governmental entities in the Pacific Ocean drainage of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 13, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-502, 114 Stat. 2294. 
  • H.R. 3388 (Lake Tahoe), which promotes environmental restoration around the Lake Tahoe basin, was signed into law by President Clinton on November 13, 2000. Pub. L. No. 106-506, 114 Stat. 2351.

red bar graphic CHAMBER ACTION

  • S. 1761 (water resources), which would direct the Secretary of the Interior, through the Bureau of Reclamation, to conserve and enhance the water supplies of the Lower Rio Grande Valley, was passed by the House. 146 CONG. REC. H11934 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 2000).
  • S. 1972 (land conveyance), which would direct the Secretary of Agriculture to convey to the town of Dolores, Colorado, the current site of the Joe Rowell Park, was passed by the House, clearing the measure for the President. 146 CONG. REC. H11936 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 2000).
  • S. 2594 (water resources), which would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to contract with the Mancos Water Conservancy District to use the Mancos Project facilities for impounding, storage, diverting, and carriage of nonproject water for the purpose of irrigation, domestic, municipal, industrial, and any other beneficial purposes, was passed by the House, clearing the measure for the President. 146 CONG. REC. H11936 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 2000).
  • H.R. 5637 (appropriations; U.S. Coast Guard cleanups), which would provide that an amount available for fiscal year 2001 for the Department of Transportation shall be available to reimburse certain costs incurred for cleanup of former Coast Guard facilities at Cape May, New Jersey, and to authorize the Coast Guard to transfer funds and authority for demolition and removal of a structure at former Coast Guard property in Traverse City, Michigan, was passed by the House. 146 CONG. REC. H11936 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 2000).

red bar graphic  BILLS INTRODUCED

  • S. 3272 (Reid, D-Nev.) (Great Basin National Heritage Area) would establish the Great Basin National Heritage Area in Nevada and Utah. 146 CONG. REC. S11575 (daily ed. Dec. 5, 2000). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 
  • H.R. 5638 (Smith, R-Mich.) (CWA) would amend CWA §402 to provide that states have the final authority to establish guidelines to determine which animal feeding operations are classified as concentrated animal feeding operations for purposes of the national pollutant discharge elimination system. 146 CONG. REC. H11954 (daily ed. Dec. 4, 2000). The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.


red bar graphic ALABAMA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

Approved UST Fund Contractors

Public Notices–Permit Applications 

Daily Ozone Forecast

Jefferson County Dept. of Health

Daily Air Quality Index

red bar graphic  ALASKA

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Proposed Regulations-Air

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Voluntary Remediation

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Water Quality-CWA §305(b) Report

Superfund Program-Proposed Registry Inclusions, Prospective Purchaser Agreements

Arizona Emissions Bank

red bar graphic ARKANSAS

Dept. of Environmental Quality

10-Year Strategic Plan

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA

Air Resources Board

Final Carl Moyer Guideline Standards

Workshop-Vapor Recovery Equipment Defects

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

Proposed Regulations

  • Dec. 13-15 workshops regarding proposed regulations for treatment of aqueous waste containing cyanide. 
  • Dec. 18 comment deadline, hearing date for proposed permit modification, classification, and appeal procedure regulations. 

See http://www.dtsc.ca/gov/whats_new.html

Management Memo Review

  • 54 "Management Memos" issued by DTSC that pertain to the Hazardous Waste Management Program. See http://www.dtsc.ca.gov

Water Resources Control Board

Sanitary Sewer and Treatment Facility Survey

California Energy Commission

Emergency Regulations-Licensing Procedures, Thermal Power Plants

  • Promulgated licensing procedures as required by Assembly Bill 970 (California Energy Security and Reliability Act). See http://www.energy.ca.gov

Carcinogen Identification Committee

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Proposed Regulations-New Source Review/RECLAIM

Proposed Regulations-New Source Review

Deferred Proposal-Vehicle Fleet Emissions

  • The District's board chose to postpone review of a methodology for estimating toxic risk from diesel emissions pending work with the state Air Resources Board on a standard approach. See http://www.aqmd.gov

Final Regulations-Boiler Emissions

  • The District promulgated revisions to Rule 1146 governing industrial boilers. See http://www.aqmd.gov

red bar graphic COLORADO

Air Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic DELAWARE

Dept. of Nat. Resources and Envtl. Control

Notices of Violation

Regulatory Update

red bar graphic FLORIDA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Reuse Reports

red bar graphic GEORGIA

Dept. of Natural Resources, Envtl. Protection Division

Air Permit Applications

NPDES Permit Applications

red bar graphic HAWAII

Office of Envtl. Quality Control

Environmental Impact Notices

back to top

red bar graphic IDAHO

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Air Quality

  • A preliminary agreement was developed regarding particulate matter emission controls in the Boise area; implementation rulemaking could occur in early 2001. Boise has been the only area lacking a federal standard for PM-10. 

Outstanding Resource Waters-Petitions

red bar graphic ILLINOIS

Pollution Control Board

Open Regulatory Dockets

Envtl. Protection Agency

Permit Applications

Strategic Planning Process

red bar graphic INDIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Final Regulations-Air Quality

  • Amends 326 IAC 2-2-1 concerning definitions for the prevention of significant deterioration rules. Amends 326 IAC 2-7-10.5 concerning modification procedures for Part 70 operating permits.
  • Amends 326 IAC 1-1-3 concerning references to the Code of Federal Regulations.

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

  • Amends 329 IAC 3.1-1-7, 329 IAC 3.1-6-2, 329 IAC 3.1-9-2, 329 IAC 3.1-10-2, and 329 IAC 3.1-13-2 pertaining to the hazardous waste management program to achieve consistency with federal hazardous waste management regulations by incorporating by reference changes to 40 CFR 260 through 40 CFR 270 that were issued by the U.S. EPA between May 11, 1999, through June 8, 2000. Amends 329 IAC 3.1-7 to be consistent with Public Law 143-2000, Section 3, effective January 1, 2001, that will repeal the provisions of IC 13-22-4 relating to the Indiana Hazardous Waste Manifest and will require hazardous waste generators to use the Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Form adopted by the U.S. EPA rather than the version of those forms currently provided by IDEM to generators for a fee. Amends 329 IAC 3.1-12-2 to clarify a provision regarding one time notification for wastes that exhibited a characteristic of hazardous waste and are no longer hazardous to be consistent with the federal requirement. Amends 329 IAC 3.1-14-6, 329 IAC 3.1-14-16, 329 IAC 3.1-15-4, and 329 IAC 3.1-15-6 to correct a provision in the financial assurance requirements that made Indiana's rules less stringent than the federal hazardous waste program, as required by 42 U.S.C. 6926. Amends 329 IAC 3.1-16-2 to incorporate by reference the federal universal waste requirements for mercury-containing lamps and to prohibit intentional crushing of lamps in conjunction with recycling.
  • Draft rule language for new rules for exclusion of a hazardous waste from regulation under 329 IAC 3.1-5-2 (delisting).

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • IDEM is seeking public comment on new rules that would control emissions of NOx from Indiana sources.
  • Proposed amendments to 326 IAC 2 as required by P.L.112-2000 (HEA 1343). The IDEM will also consider comments regarding any amendments necessary to obtain U.S. EPA's approval of these rules under 40 CFR 70 (Title V operating permit program).

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

  • Proposed amendments to rules concerning public notification. 

The above notices may be viewed at http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/November-1-2000.html

Indiana Environment Online

red bar graphic IOWA

Dept. of Natural Resources

Final Regulations-Water Quality

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

  • Proposed regulations would implement the Onsite Wastewater State Revolving Fund to provide low-interest loans to private individuals needing to update or replace their existing onsite septic systems. Comments were due Oct. 24. See http://www.state.ia.us/epd/wtrsuply/septic.htm

back to top

red bar graphic KENTUCKY

Dept. for Envtl. Protection, Division of Water

Public Hearing Notices

Permit Applications

red bar graphic LOUISIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Proposed revisions to fugitive emission requirements. Comments due Dec. 15. 

  • Proposed revisions to contingency standards for VOC emission reductions. Comments due Jan. 8. 

  • Proposed revisions to major source definition for ozone control. Comments due Jan. 8. 

See http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/addition/2000, http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/addition/2000/0011pot1.pdf, http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/addition/2000/0011pot2.pdf, and http://www.deq.state.la.us/planning/regs/addition/2000/0011pot3.pdf

Final Regulations-Stormwater

Permit Applications

Semiannual Regulatory Agenda

red bar graphic MAINE

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Final Regulations-Oil Terminals/Pipelines

red bar graphic MARYLAND

Dept. of the Environment

Public Meetings/Hearings

Water Quality Standard-Triennial Review

red bar graphic MASSACHUSETTS

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Municipal Waste Combustor Material Separation Plans

Enforcement Actions

red bar graphic  MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Permitting Calendar

Final Regulations-Air Quality

Permit Applications-Air Quality

 Air Quality Division Newsletter

Surface Water Quality Division Bulletin

Surface Water Quality Division-Draft Regulations

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Permit Applications, Other Notices

Penalty Assessments

red bar graphic  MISSOURI

Dept. of Natural Resources

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Proposed revision will add U.S. EPA reference method for sulfuric acid mist. Comments due Feb. 13, 2001; public hearing Feb. 6. 

  • Proposed revisions to definitions in medical/hospital/infectious waste combustor emission standards. Comments due Feb. 13, 2001; public hearing Feb. 6. 

See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2000/v25n22/v25n22.htm

Water Pollution Control-Permit Applications

red bar graphic MONTANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Public Comment Notices

red bar graphic NEBRASKA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

Settlement Agreement

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic NEVADA

Division of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic NEW JERSEY

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Draft Surface Water Quality Standards

Draft Watershed Management Rules

Current DEP Bulletin (Permit Applications; Proposed Regulations)

red bar graphic NEW MEXICO

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations-Liquid Waste Disposal

back to top

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Final Regulations-Air Quality

  • California low emission vehicle standards were promulgated. The revisions to Parts 218 and 200.9, NYCRR 6, are available at http://www.dec.state.ny.us

ALJ Rulings

Environmental Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications)

Permit Applications

red bar graphic  NORTH CAROLINA

Environmental Management Commission

Hog Waste Treatment Report

  • Hog waste treatment is the subject of a report issued by Environmental Defense, which calls upon the Commission to phase out hog lagoons and sprayfields at larger farms by 2005. See http://www.hogwatch.org

Final Regulations-Coastal Management

Proposed Regulations-Groundwater Quality

Dept. of Envt. and Natural Resources

Division of Air Quality Penalty Assessments

Division of Air Quality Draft Regulations

DENR Enforcement Data

Water Quality-Basinwide Assessment Reports

red bar graphic OHIO

Envtl. Protection Agency

OPEA Actions, Notices by County

Public Meetings

Pending Air Permits

red bar graphic OKLAHOMA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

red bar graphic OREGON

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Water Quality Permit Applications

Proposed Regulations-General 

Public Notices-Cleanup Remedies

Public Notices-Remedial Actions

red bar graphic PENNSYLVANIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed SIP Revision-Pittsburgh Ozone Nonattainment

Final General NPDES Permit-CAFO Operations

Final Regulations-Air

NPDES Permit Applications

General Permit Extension-Stormwater

Draft Technical Guidance Documents

red bar graphic SOUTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

Permit Application Notices

red bar graphic  TENNESSEE

Dept. of Environment and Conservation

Permit Applications

red bar graphic  TEXAS

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Final Regulations-Air Quality/Houston/Galveston Area

Permit Hearings

Draft Report to Legislature-Grandfathered Air Sources

Public Hearings Proposed Rules

Sunset Advisory Commission

red bar graphic  UTAH

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Permit Applications

red bar graphic VERMONT

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Permit Applications

red bar graphic VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Solid Waste Management

Proposed Regulations-VPDES General Permits

RCRA Program Authorization

Public Meeting Notices

red bar graphic  WASHINGTON

Dept. of Ecology

Adopted Regulations

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic WEST VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Public Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications, Proposed Regulations)

red bar graphic WISCONSIN

Dept. of Natural Resources

Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule