ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 6


large red bar graphic

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


The U.S. Supreme Court held that a property owner who sought to have her property connected to a village’s municipal water supply sufficiently stated a claim under the Equal Protection Clause against the village for conditioning its approval of the connection on her granting a 33-foot easement to the village. The owner’s complaint can fairly be construed as alleging that the village intentionally demanded a 33-foot easement as a condition of connecting her property to the municipal water supply where the village required only a 15-foot easement from other similarly situated property owners. The complaint also alleged that the village’s demand was "irrational and wholly arbitrary" and that the village ultimately connected her property after receiving a clearly adequate 15-foot easement. These allegations are sufficient to state a claim for relief under traditional equal protection analysis. Thus, a plaintiff acting as a class of one can bring an Equal Protection Clause claim without the plaintiff alleging membership in a class or group. The Court, therefore, did not reach the alternative theory of "subjective ill will" that was relied on by the lower court. Nevertheless, Justice Breyer noted in a concurring opinion that the added factor of ill will found by the lower court minimizes any concerns about transforming run-of-the-mill zoning cases into constitutional disputes. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, No. 98-1288 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2000) (Per Curiam) (4 pp.).

red bar graphic CWA, WETLANDS, PERMITS:

The Seventh Circuit upheld a $4,000 civil penalty assessed against a landowner and a $3,000 civil penalty assessed against a friend of the owner for filling wetlands without a permit. The two men claimed that they did not knowingly violate the law and, thus, they should not be held liable. However, good faith and a lack of knowledge are not defenses under the CWA. In addition, the two men had a previous run-in with the federal government for filling wetlands without a permit, thus, they were aware that putting material into the wetlands required a permit. Moreover, their claim that the fill caused no environmental harm is irrelevant because even if no harm was caused, filling a wetland without a permit violates the CWA. Further, the civil penalties assessed against the two men were reasonable and well within the statute’s monetary range. Kelly v. EPA, No. 99-2496 (7th Cir. Feb. 10, 2000) (5 pp.).

red bar graphic CWA, PENALTY ASSESSMENT:

A district court upheld a $10,000 penalty imposed by the U.S. Coast Guard against a ship company for discharging garbage and plastic into navigable waters of the United States in violation of the CWA. The Coast Guard’s determination that the company was liable for the discharge was based on substantial evidence on the record. Similarly, an eyewitness’ account of the incident provided the Coast Guard with a sound basis to determine that the ship was liable for the discharge. In addition, the company did not present any mitigating factors in the proceedings below, the Coast Guard determined that a $10,000 penalty was reasonable in light of the seriousness of the violation, and the penalty falls within the statutory range for such violations. Thus, the Coast Guard did not abuse its discretion in assessing the penalty. Colbro Ship Management Co. v. United States, No. Civ 98-1052(SEC) (D.P.R. Feb. 3, 2000) (Casellas, J.) (11 pp.).

red bar graphic CWA, THERMAL POLLUTION:

A district court held a county-run sewage treatment plant liable under the CWA for discharging effluent into a stream in violation of state water quality standards for heat. Members of the citizens’ group that sought to enforce the state’s standards provided testimony that demonstrated clear instances of particularized injury traceable to the CWA violations involved in this case. The group, therefore, had standing. Moreover, although testimony provided by the groups’ expert witness on damage to trout was not conclusive, it was supported by the facts and, thus, admissible. In addition, undisputed temperature data indicated that the plant’s effluent violated the heat standard 107 times. Added to the 183 violations previously identified at summary judgment, the court held the county liable for 290 CWA violations. Although the economic benefit the county gained by delaying the plant’s compliance with the Act totaled $1.2 million, the court adjusted this penalty downward to $400,000, taking into account the county’s municipality status, its removal of a concrete channel on the stream, and its prior understanding of the permit shield doctrine. The court also enjoined the plant from future violations of the heat standard. Piney Run Preservation Association v. County Commissioners of Carroll County, No. CIV. Y-98-3124 (D. Md. Feb. 10, 2000) (Young, J.) (11 pp.).


The First Circuit denied an environmental group’s petition challenging EPA’s decision to grant a PSD permit authorizing the construction of a steam-electric cogeneration power plant in Guayama, Puerto Rico. EPA properly acted within its discretion when it decided to exempt the plant from conducting a full impact analysis of sulfur dioxide emissions. Although the combination of controls to be used at the plant is new, each of the three components has been tested and used, and the group failed to show how EPA’s determination that the controls will achieve "best available control technology" is arbitrary and capricious. Moreover, there is no evidence that EPA relied on outdated air quality data in evaluating current air quality conditions at the site. The court also rejected the group’s claim that the plant’s fine particulate matter analysis was flawed. In addition, because the President’s Executive Order on Environmental Justice does not create any right to judicial review, the court could not review the group’s claim that the permit violated the order. Sur Contra La Contaminacion v. EPA, No. 99-1855 (1st Cir. Feb. 4, 2000) (6 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit upheld a district court decision that a U.S. Forest Service regulation governing special use permits for gatherings of 75 people or more does not violate the U.S. Constitution. The court has previously held that in light of an interpretive rule that enforces a self-imposed limit on the Forest Service’s discretion in attaching terms and conditions to permits, the regulation does not constitute a facially invalid prior restraint nor a facially invalid time, place, or manner restriction. Likewise, the regulation’s requirement that a special use permit be signed by a member of the group does not render it unconstitutional. The regulation does not give the Forest Service a vague and undefined power to impose "unexplained blanket liability" on the group. To the contrary, the group liability imposed for permit violations is strictly confined to the permit’s revocation or suspension. Moreover, the individual who signs the permit will not be subject to individual liability. Black v. Arthur, Nos. 98-36044, -36046 (9th Cir. Feb. 9, 2000) (7 pp.).


The D.C. Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. §205, which prohibits federal employees from acting as an agent or attorney for a private party in any "particular matter" in which the United States has an interest, is inapplicable to an EPA employee’s uncompensated communications on behalf of public interest groups in response to the BLM’s request for public comments on a proposed EIS related to public land in southern Nevada. Congress did not intend §205 to bar a federal employee from representing outside interests in all matters in which the United States has an interest. Rather, §205 only applies to situations where there is a real conflict of interest or that potentially present a conflict of interest, such as an opportunity for abuse of office or the misuse of confidential information. Here, the land use proceedings lack the particularity required by §205, will not result in a direct material benefit to the public interest groups, and do not create a real conflict of interest or entail an abuse of position by the employee. Moreover, neither the text nor the legislative history demonstrates a congressional intent to prevent federal employees from representing nongovernmental interests without compensation in proceedings where broad policy issues are at stake because the causal link giving rise to a conflict of interest would be too insubstantial. The court, therefore, remands the case for an entry of a declaratory judgment in the employee’s favor. Van Ee v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-5147 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 8, 2000) (13 pp.).


The Tenth Circuit held that a district court incorrectly applied the doctrine of offensive collateral estoppel, which precluded the owner of a uranium mill from litigating the issue of negligence, in a case brought by a group of nearby residents who claimed that the owner’s negligent operation of the mill caused damage to their health and property. Several residents wanted to bring a class action against the owner, but because their class certification was denied, each group was forced to bring separate actions. In the first suit, a jury found the owner negligent. In the second case, the district court ruled on summary judgment that the first jury decided the pure issue of negligence, therefore, the issue would not be relitigated. The first jury’s verdict, however, does not assure an unassailable finding that the plaintiffs in the first case met their burden of proof that the owner breached a specific duty. The jury was not instructed on the specific duty allegedly breached, and the verdict form did not specify what negligent act formed the basis of the general finding of negligence. The issue decided by the first jury, therefore, cannot, as a matter of law, be considered identical to the issue of negligence in the second case. Moreover, there is no indication that the parties understood that the first trial would decide specific issues to bind subsequent trials. The district court’s grant of summary judgment, therefore, was reversed, and the entire case was remanded for retrial. The district court, however, properly dismissed the residents’ claims of emotional distress. Dodge v. Cotter Corp., Nos. 99-1178, -1199 (10th Cir. Feb. 11, 2000) (13 pp.).


A district court held that FIFRA does not preempt a store employee’s state-law defective packaging claim against the manufacturer of a pesticide, the fumes of which allegedly injured the employee. FIFRA §136v’s plain text indicates that FIFRA preempts state-imposed requirements that are in addition to or different from EPA requirements. EPA has not enacted any regulations regarding pesticide packaging other than child-resistant packaging regulations. Further, FIFRA’s legislative history, structure, and purpose all support the conclusion that FIFRA does not preempt the employee’s packaging claims. Moreover, relevant U.S. Supreme Court and federal precedent indicate that FIFRA does not impose blanket preemption on packaging claims. However, as the employee concedes, FIFRA expressly preempt the employee’s state-law negligence, warranty, and strict liability claims based on the pesticide’s labeling. Jeffers v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. Civ.A. 3:99-0274 (S.D. W. Va. Feb. 8, 2000) (Chambers, J.) (10 pp.).

red bar graphic RCRA, HSWA, USTs:

A district court held that a landowner whose property was previously owned by a gasoline company may go forward with its RCRA claims against the company for groundwater pollution allegedly caused by leaking USTs, but may not proceed with a state law negligence claim. In its complaint, the landowner sought an injunction requiring the company to remediate the contamination and sought damages for alleged groundwater pollution. Although the company removed the USTs a month before HSWA was enacted and four years before the corresponding regulations took effect, the company is still an "owner" of the UST system under 40 CFR §280.12. The company, therefore, may be currently in violation of RCRA by failing to remediate contamination caused by the USTs. In addition, evidence of contamination in excess of state standards and evidence of that contamination’s migration is sufficient to establish a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the contamination presents an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the environment. There also exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the company contributed to the contamination. The landowner’s state law claim against the defendants for negligently polluting groundwater, however, was dismissed. The landowner only produced evidence of alleged UST leaks that occurred before 1980, and the statute, enacted in 1980, may not be applied retroactively. Raymond K. Hoxsie Real Estate Trust v. Exxon Education Foundation, No. 97-557-L (D.R.I. Feb. 4, 2000) (Lagueux, J.) (13 pp.).


A district court held that an environmental group’s suit against a state environmental agency that sought to invalidate an FWS permit issued to the agency for the depredation of double-crested cormorants is barred by sovereign immunity. The agency is a department of the state created to implement the state’s environmental policies. Therefore, a suit against the agency is a suit against the state, and no exceptions to sovereign immunity apply. As a treaty, the MBTA, which protects the cormorant, does not override the agency’s sovereign immunity. Similarly, the state’s concession of control to the federal government of regulated species under the MBTA in its state conservation law is of no import because it could not do otherwise. If the state enacted a conservation law that usurped the federal government’s MBTA power, the federal government could file suit to gain redress. Further, the sovereign immunity bar applies to monetary and equitable claims alike. The group, however, may amend its complaint to name the agency commissioner as an individual because sovereign immunity does not bar certain actions against a state officer in their individual capacity for unconstitutional or wrongful conduct attributable to that officer. Atlantic Legal States Foundation v. Babbitt, No. 99-CV-1292 (N.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 2000) (Munson, J.) (5 pp.).


A district court held moot an environmental group’s claim that the U.S. Forest Service violated ESA §7(a) when it granted several livestock grazing permits within the Tonto National Forest without first consulting with the FWS. The Forest Service initiated the consultation process after the group filed the lawsuit. In addition, the court refused to issue an injunction prohibiting grazing activities until either the court or the FWS independently determines that the Forest Service is in compliance with ESA §7(d). Neither the statute nor any other court decision suggests that federal agencies must obtain the concurrence of the FWS before relying on §7(d). The court also upheld a lower court decision that a cattle farmer association may only intervene during the remedial phase of this action. Only the Forest Service can comply with the duty to consult with the FWS, thus, only the Forest Service can and should be a defendant for the liability phase of the litigation. However, because no live issues remain during the Forest Service’s attempt to comply with §7(a), the court ordered the case administratively closed during such time as the Forest Service is consulting with the FWS. Southwest Center for Biological Diversity v. United States Forest Service, No. Civ.A.99-0795-PHXWGY (D. Ariz. Feb. 2, 2000) (Young, J.) (11 pp.).


The Alaska Supreme Court held that a gasoline distributor is not liable for groundwater contamination caused by a service station’s leaking USTs. The owner of property adjacent to the service station filed suit against the distributor after settling with the service station for groundwater contamination caused by the leaking USTs. The distributor’s relationship to the contamination, however, is too remote to impose statutory or common law liability. The distributor could not be held statutorily liable as an owner or operator because it did not own or have control of the fuel at the time of release. Moreover, the distributor could not be held liable as a transporter because the state statute does not extend liability to fuel suppliers for contamination occurring after the sale and delivery of their product. Similarly, because its ownership and control of the fuel terminated upon the product’s transfer into the station’s USTs, the distributor bore no trespass or private nuisance liability for the fuel’s subsequent migration. Nor could the distributor be held strictly liable under the common law doctrine of ultrahazardous activity because transporting fuel is deemed ultrahazardous solely due to its inherent volatility. In addition, the distributor owed no duty to investigate the soundness of the USTs under the circumstances of this case and, thus, was not negligent. Parks Hiway Enterprises, LLC, v. CEM Leasing, Inc., No. S-8593 (Alaska Feb. 4, 2000) (18 pp.).


The Alaska Supreme Court vacated the decision of a zoning board that granted a conditional use permit to a bank to dig a quarry for granite mining. The board’s finding that no cultural resources would be adversely affected by the mining was unsupported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record. The evidence unquestionably established that some cultural resources would be adversely affected by the quarry. Therefore, on remand, the board must determine the extent to which cultural resources will be affected. Because of its remand, the court declined to decide whether the lower court, on appeal, should have considered additional evidence offered by the Native American village in which the quarry would be located. Additionally, the court found that noncompliance with a condition of the permit was not currently before the court. Finally, the court found that substantial evidence supported the board’s decision regarding the compatibility of mining with residential neighborhoods, the sufficiency of the habitat and wetlands studies, and the traffic impact analysis. Native Village of Eklutna v. Board of Adjustment for the Municipality of Anchorage, No. S-8695 (Alaska, Feb. 4, 2000) (10 pp.).


A Colorado appellate court held that under Colorado law, a mine company cannot argue that a partial taking occurred when a county adopted a land use plan that designated a tract of the company’s land as a river corridor where no mining could be conducted. State law does not recognize partial taking claims when a regulation significantly diminishes the value of property. There is no constitutional violation when zoning does not deny a landowner of all economically viable and reasonable use of the property. In addition, the trial court failed to conclude if the county’s plan prohibited all reasonable use of the property. Such a finding must be made on remand before it can be determined if a complete taking occurred. Animas Valley Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners of La Plata, Colorado, No. 98CA1474 (Colo. Ct. App. Feb. 3, 2000) (6 pp.).

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

large red bar graphic

Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.

red bar graphic AIR:

  • EPA issued two guidance memoranda for public review concerning requirements for one-hour ozone attainment demonstration SIPs: "Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstrations" and "Guidance on the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) Requirements and Attainment Demonstration Submissions for Ozone Nonattainment Areas." 65 FR 8703 (2/22/00). http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=2000_register&docid=fr22fe00_51


red bar graphic ENDANGERED SPECIES:

red bar graphic MINING:


red bar graphic PROJECT XL:

red bar graphic WATER QUALITY:


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


red bar graphic ALABAMA:

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Public Notices–Permit Applications:

  • City of Arab, Marshall County, for modification of its solid waste disposal permit to increase the daily volume cap from 50 to 500 cubic yards per day, and to expand the authorized service area to Blount, Cullman, Madison, and Morgan counties. Details may be found at http://www.adem.state.al.us/2arabcdl.html
  • Trans American Waste Industries, for permit to continue to operate a municipal solid waste landfill in Chilton County. The service area consists of 18 counties; the maximum daily volume is 1,500 tons per day. Details at http://www.adem.state.al.us/2transam.html

Clean Water State Revolving Loan Fund

Nonpoint Source Management Program

  • A draft update/revision of the 1989 Nonpoint Source Management Program document is available for review. Outreach and comment meetings will be held March 2-9 at various locations. Details, including a copy of the draft, may be obtained at http://www.adem.state.al.us/npsmpdft.html

Penalty Assessment

red bar graphic ALASKA:

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation:

Proposed Regulations

  • March 20, 1999 is the deadline for comment on proposed changes to oil and other hazardous substances pollution control regulations, 18 AAC 75, and adoption of a guidance document under 18 AAC 78 (underground storage tanks). Changes to the regulations are being made to correct technical errors, update references to regulations and guidance documents, and clarify the text. Details at http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dec_cal.htm

Dept. of Nat. Resources:

Proposed Land Use Plan and Classification

Five Year Schedule of Timber Sales

Agricultural Preference Right Notice

Proposed Easement Regulations

red bar graphic ARKANSAS:

Dept. of Envtl. Quality:

Emergency Rulemaking and Public Hearing

  • The APCEC will hold a hearing on March 14 to receive comments on proposed changes to Regs. Nos. 8 and 9. On Feb. 4, the Commission issued an emergency rule regarding Reg. No. 9 to correct an error pertaining to the fees for water, air, and solid waste permits (in Section 9.605(B), the word "major" was incorrectly substituted for "minor", meaning that DEQ could not charge a fee for minor modifications of certain solid waste permits). The proposed revision to Reg. 8 concerns the "bad actor" regulations. The hearing will address the second draft of proposed changes. The written comment period ends March 28. Details at http://www.adeq.state.ar.us

Permit Application-Hearing

  • Public hearing regarding draft permit for the land application by Paragould City Light, Water and Cable of biosolids by spray irrigation. Written comments due by March 6.

Notice of Enforcement Actions

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA:

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control:

Draft Closure Plan

Air Resources Board:

Carl Moyer Incentive Program

  • Public meetings to explain the Carl Moyer incentive grant program, which is administered by air pollution control districts and air quality management districts, will be held on Feb. 29, March 15, and March 27. Details at http://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/moyer/moyer.htm

Proposed Amendments-Vapor Recovery Systems

  • Proposed revisions to the regulations for certification and testing of vapor recovery systems installed at gasoline stations and similar facilities, which will increase the stringency of the emission standards, will be the subject of a public hearing on March 23. Written comments are also due by March 23. For details, see http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/march2000evr/45daynot.htm

Water Resources Control Board:

Proposed Policy-Toxics Standard for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries

  • A hearing will be held on March 2 (originally scheduled for Feb. 3) to consider adoption of the proposed state policy for water control control entitled "Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standard for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California." Written comments were due Feb. 16.

red bar graphic FLORIDA:

Dept. of Envtl. Protection:

Proposed Regulations

  • Air-Rule 62-204.800, F.A.C.-Incorporation by reference of regulations promulgated by the U.S. EPA through Dec. 31, 1999. Written comments due by March 10.
  • Environmental Resource Permitting-Rule 62-330.200-Proposed revision of Figure 12.2.8-1. Hearing on March 8 at St. Johns River Water Mgmt. District, Palatka.
  • Mitigation Banking-Rule 62-342.600-Proposed revision of figure 3, entitled "Regional Watersheds of the SJRWMD for Mitigation Banks." Hearing scheduled for March 16.

Governor’s Commission for the Everglades:

  • The meeting previously scheduled for Feb. 18 has been moved to Feb. 28 at a location to be announced. Further information can be obtained from Elizabeth Elliott at (305) 669-6973.

Tech. Advisory Committee For Petroleum Storage Tanks:

  • Teleconference meeting open to the public, March 8, 10:00 a.m. EST. Call (850) 410-0960.

Office of Coastal and Aquatic Managed Areas:

  • Public meeting March 9 in St. Augustine regarding the Guana Tolomato Matanzas Natural Estuarine Research Reserve.

red bar graphic GEORGIA:

Dept. of Natural Resources:

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

NPDES Permit Applications

  • Comments due March 8 for applications regarding dischargers in Bartow, Liberty, Rabun, Richmond/Jefferson counties and for land application permits for Coweta, Chatham, Cherokee, Butts County; industrial pretreatment permit for facility in Griffin. Details at http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pubn_0211.html

Air Permit Applications

red bar graphic IDAHO:

Division of Envtl. Quality:

Permit Applications

  • Sinclair Oil Corp., Burley Products Terminal, for Tier I operating permit. Comments may be submitted through March 17.
  • Bennett Lumber Products, Inc., for Tier I operating permit. Comments accepted through March 10.
  • Western World Inc., for Tier I operating permit. Comments received through March 10.

red bar graphic ILLINOIS:

Envtl. Protection Agency:

Performance Partnership Agreement with U.S. EPA

Invitations for Bids and Proposals

  • For consulting firms to perform studies, designs, corrective actions, and remedial action oversight work at NPL sites, federal facilities including DOD and DOE sites, Response Action sites, and other hazardous or special waste sites, including LUST sites. The mandatory bidder meeting was Feb. 10; bids are due by March 9 at 2:00 p.m. For details, see http://www.epa.state.il.us/procurements/index.html

Permit Applications

  • Holland Energy, Shelby County, for PSD permit for electrical generation facility. Written comments due by March 28; hearing scheduled for March 13.

red bar graphic KENTUCKY:

Natural Res. & Envtl. Protection Cabinet:

Emergency Regulation; Notice of Intent to Promulgate Permanent Rule–Confined Animal Feeding Operations

  • Gov. Patton signed, on Feb. 14, an emergency regulation (401 KAR 5:072E) creating siting and other requirements for confined animal feeding operations (as defined in 401 KAR 5:002) involving 1,000 or more animal units. The Cabinet issued a Notice of Intent, with hearings scheduled for March 28 (Frankfort) and 30 (Madisonville). The draft regulations and NOI will be published in the March 1 issue of the Administrative Register. For details, see http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/regs.htm

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • The Division of Air Quality has proposed the repeal of 401 KAR 50:030, 30:031, 50:032, 50:033, 50:034, 50:035, and 50:072 in order to promuglate the regulations as new Chapter 52. Comments are due by Feb. 29.

red bar graphic LOUISIANA:

Dept. of Envtl. Quality:

Final Regulations-Air

Final Regulations-Hazardous Waste

Revisions to Redesignation Plans

Extension of Comment Period-RECAP Revisions

Proposed Regulations-Radioactive Material

Updated Release From Reporting Policy

Updated Flash Gas Calculation Policy

Updated Registration Requirements for Stationary Sources, LAC 33:III.Chapter 59

Permit Applications

  • March 1 comment deadline for proposed LPDES permits for American Aero Cranes, Houma; Barriere Construction Co., Belle Chasse; Cheneyville Wastewater Treatment Facility; Entergy Sterlington Generation Plant; Hunting Oilfield Services, Marrero; L&L Oil and Gas Services, Amelia; Magnum Mud Equipment Co., Inc., Houma; Marathon Oil Company, Lafayette; Pride Offshore, Houma; Production Equipment Services, Lafayette; Southeastern La. Pipeline, Metairie; Garyville Wastewater Treatment Facility; Valero Refining, Krotz Springs. See http://www.deq.state.la.us/misc/events/index.stm

red bar graphic MAINE:

Dept. of Envtl. Protection:

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic MARYLAND:

Dept. of the Environment:

Proposed Penalty Assessment

  • $360,000 against the Upper Potomac River Commission and $90,000 against Westvaco Corp. for violations of fecal coliform effluent limitations at the Commission’s wastewater treatment plant. The complaint and proposed consent judgment follows a 60-day notice by the American Canoe Association. For details, see http://www.mde.state.md.us/press/nr_mde05-00218.html

Public Meeting-Triennial Review of Water Quality Standards

Proposed Regulations-Antidegradation

  • MDE has proposed a change to the antidegradation policy to explicitly protect "existing uses" and to revise Public Health Indicators for Permitted Recreational Beaches. The proposed revisions were published in the Jan. 28 issue of the Maryland Register. A hearing is scheduled for Feb. 29 in Baltimore. For details, see http://www.mde.state.md.us/wqstandards/pubmeetings2b.htm

red bar graphic MASSACHUSETTS:

Dept. of Envtl. Protection:

Proposed Regulations-Penalties

red bar graphic MICHIGAN:

Dept. of Envtl. Quality:

Management Team Public Meeting

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality Trading

Childrens’ Health Impact Report Released

Permit Applications-Air

  • Consumers Energy, Bay County, for renewable operating permit. Comments due March 1.
  • General Motors, Flint Metal Fabrication Plant, for renewable operating permit. Comments due March 1.
  • Holnam Inc., for air permits for existing cement kilns in Dundee. Comments due March 21.
  • Ravenna Casting Center, for extension of maximum hours of operation and for control of fugitive emissions. Comments due March 3.
  • Rouge Steel Company, for modification and operation of two blast furnaces in Dearborn. Comments due March 6.
  • Marquette Board of Light and Power, for renewable operating permit. Public hearing tentatively scheduled for March 7, assuming request in writing received by Feb. 29.

Exemptions from Permit to Install Requirement

Proposed Consent Orders

  • Holt Public Schools, Ingham County, for air pollution violations. Comments due March 1.
  • A.G. Simpon, Inc., Sterling Heights, Macomb County, for air pollution violations. Comments due March 1.

red bar graphic MINNESOTA:

Pollution Control Agency:

Permit Applications

  • For NDPES permit to St. George Community Wastewater Treatment Facility; comments due March 27.
  • For NPDES permits to City of Cokato, City of Howard, and to Southdale Shopping Center (Edina). Comments due March 20.
  • For NDPES permit to Kwong Tung Foods, Inc., Minneapolis. Comments due March 10.
  • For NDPES permit to City of Bethel. Comments due March 15.
  • For NDPES permit to City of Ruthton. Comments due March 13.
  • Air permit for Boise Cascade, International Falls. Comments due March 9.
  • For indirect source permit for Minn. Dept. of Transportation. Comments due March 14.
  • For indirect source permit for Dayton Hudson Corp. for construction in Brooklyn Park. Comments due March 10.
  • Air permit for Co-Operative Plating Company, St. Paul. Comments due March 10.
  • For NDPES permit City of Marine on St. Croix. Comments due March 8.
  • For wastewater permit to Engineered Wall Corp., Minneapolis. Comments due March 6.
  • For water discharge permit for GAF Materials, Minneapolis. Comments due March 6.
  • For NPDES permits to City of Palisade and City of Tamarack. Comments due March 2.
  • For wastewater permit to City of Braham. Comments due Feb. 29.

red bar graphic MISSOURI:

Dept. of Natural Resources:

Draft Report on Chip Mills

red bar graphic NEW JERSEY:

Dept. of Envtl. Protection:

Water Quality-FFY2001 Priority System Document

  • A public hearing on the proposed FFY2001 Priority System Document will be held on March 21 in Lawrenceville.

Proposed Readoption

  • Of sunsetting rule N.J.A.C. 7:22, dealing with Financial Assurance Programs for Environmental Infrastructure Facilities. Public hearing on March 1; written comment deadline is March 8. See http://www.state.nj.us/dep/dwq

red bar graphic NEW YORK:

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation:

  • Link to Feb. 23 Environmental Notice Bulletin

red bar graphic NORTH CAROLINA:

Dept. of Env’t and Natural Resources:

Report Assessing Enforcement Activity Issued

  • An internal report criticizing aspects of the Department’s enforcement program was issued on Feb. 22. For details, contact the Department’s Office of Public Affairs (919/715-4112).

red bar graphic OHIO:

Envtl. Protection Agency:

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Proposed amendments to Ohio Admin. Code Rules 3745-78-01 (Air Pollution Control Fees: Definitions) and 3745-78-02 (Air Pollution Control Fees: Fee Emission Reports) to revise fees required of Title V synthetic minor facilities. Hearing scheduled for Feb. 28; written comments due March 3.
  • Proposed revisions to transportation conformity regulations to conform to U.S. EPA regulations and to correct syntax errors; hearing scheduled for March 3, with written comment period closing that date.
  • Proposed State Implementation Plan revision to allow an alternative control strategy for the limitation of volatile organic compound emissions from Morgan Adhesives Company, Stow. Hearing on April 3; written comments due April 7.

Permit Applications

Penalty Assessments

red bar graphic PENNSYLVANIA:

Dept. of Envtl. Protection:

Proposal-Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction

  • DEP has reopened the comment period for draft regulatory revisions to the Interstate Ozone Transport Reduction Program. DEP seeks to add Section 145.100, Applicability to Upwind States. This section would make the nitrogen oxides trading program applicable to facilities in other states that significantly contribute to ozone nonattainment in the Commonwealth. Specifically, sources in Ohio, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, and Washington D.C. would be included in the regulatory program. Three public hearings, on March 22 (Pittsburgh), 23 (Conshohocken), and 24 (Harrisburg), have been scheduled. A background paper, which addresses anticipated Commerce Clause concerns, is available from Wick Havens (Havens.Wick@dep.state.pa.us). Written comments are due by March 27.

Proposed Regulations-Universal Waste

Draft Technical Guidance Documents

  • On implementation of the Environmental Good Samaritan Act. Comments due March 4.

red bar graphic TENNESSEE:

Dept. of Env’t & Conservation:

Air Pollution Control Division-Permit Applications

red bar graphic TEXAS:

Natural Resource Conservation Commission:

Proposed Regulations

  • Proposed 30 TAC Chapter 230, Groundwater Availability Certification for Platting. Proposal is intended to implement the provisions of Senate Bill 1323. A public hearing will be held on March 7; written comments due March 13. Details at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99028230.html
  • Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 113, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Source Categories, to incorporate by reference 38 new and amended MACT standards. Public hearing scheduled for March 20; written comments due March 27. Details at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/99082113.html
  • Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 113, Subchapters A and D, and to the State SIP, regarding control of emissions from hospital/medical/infectious waste incinerators. Public hearing on March 21; written comments due March 27. Details at http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/98012113.html
  • Proposed revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 114 and the State SIP, requiring volatility controls on gasoline in the 95-county East Texas Regional Control Zone, removal of sulfur requirements, registration of gasoline producers and importers, and to revise enforcement provisions. Public hearings on March 22 (Longview) and 23 (Austin); written comments due March 27. For details, see http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/00002114.html

red bar graphic VIRGINIA:

Dept. of Envt’l Quality:

Proposed Consent Order

Proposed General Permits

red bar graphic WISCONSIN:

Dept. of Natural Resources:

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

  • Proposed revisions to nonpoint pollution rules. Existing rules that would be revised are NR 120, NR 151, NR 152, NR 153, NR 154, NR 216, and NR 243. A series of public meetings have been scheduled for March 13-28. For further information, see http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/on/index.htm