ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 30, Issue 9




The Seventh Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that an oil company that operated a service station on leased property was liable to the lessor for all damages caused by a leaking UST, including the lessor’s inability to sell or lease the property immediately surrounding the leased parcel. The district court did not err in finding the company liable for damages beyond the leased parcel. The lease agreement held the oil company liable for any damages arising out of the operation of the service station and did not limit liability to the leased premises. Moreover, the lessor suffered damages not only for his lost opportunities to sell or lease the contaminated property, but also the immediately contiguous land. Additionally, the district court properly awarded the lessor damages incurred during remediation because the market would demand indemnity during that period to make the property marketable. Further, the district court did not undervalue the parcel in determining damages for the lessor, and the lessor was not entitled to punitive damages or attorneys fees. NRC Corp. v. Amoco Oil Co., Nos. 98-2162, -2314 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2000) (13 pp.).


The Fifth Circuit, applying Texas state law, held that an insurer has a duty to indemnify an asbestos tile manufacturer for asbestos-related personal injury claims that were triggered during the one-year CGL policy period. The district court determined that coverage is triggered when the condition manifests. Using the dates of diagnosis as a proxy for the date the harms became manifest, the district court concluded that none of the personal injury complaints became manifest during the one-year policy period and, therefore, the insurer had no duty to defend the claims. The district court, however, should have applied the exposure theory, which triggers coverage at the time of initial exposure to the injury-causing agent. On remand, therefore, the district court must determine which of the underlying complaints allege exposure to asbestos during the policy period. With respect to the one property damage claim, however, the district court correctly applied the manifestation theory to determine coverage. Guaranty National Insurance Co. v. Azrock Industries, Inc., No. 98-21031 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2000) (12 pp.).


The First Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision awarding attorneys fees in excess of the EAJA statutory cap to a group of spotter plane owners and pilots who successfully challenged a U.S. Department of Commerce regulation prohibiting the use of spotter planes by people holding general Atlantic bluefin tuna catch permits. The district court awarded the group’s lead counsel $175 per hour, which is $50 above the statutory cap, based on his expertise in fisheries law. However, although fisheries law represents an expertise or specialized area of practice and the lead counsel possessed such expertise, such expertise was not required in this case. Moreover, even if a fisheries expert was necessary to litigate the case competently, there was neither a finding nor any evidence showing that competent lawyers were unavailable at the presumptive statutory rate of $125 per hour. Atlantic Fish Spotters Ass’n v. Daley, No. 99-1767 (1st Cir. Mar. 6, 2000) (5 pp.).


The Tenth Circuit dismissed states’ claims against DOE and an oil company because the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising from a final settlement agreement (FSA) entered into by the states, DOE, and the oil company concerning the proper disbursement of over one billion dollars in overcharge funds collected by DOE pursuant to crude oil price controls under the ESA and the EPAA. After the FSA was entered, DOE decided not to seek $500 million from the oil company that would have been distributed to the states, and the states challenged that decision. The states' claims and appeal, however, arise under the ESA and the EPAA. Therefore, the Federal Curcuit has exclusive jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1295(a). Finally, the court declined to transfer the case to the Federal Circuit in light of unequivocal declarations by the Federal Circuit in related proceedings that it intended to finally dispose of the states’ appeals and the states’ ample opportunities to pursue these cases in the proper forum. In re Department of Energy Stripper Well Litigation, Nos. 99-3065 et al. (10th Cir. Mar. 6, 2000) (12 pp.).


The D.C. Circuit denied a gas pipeline operator’s petition to review FERC’s decision not to hold a comparative hearing before permitting a competitor of the operator to build and operate a natural gas pipeline, and further held that the operator did not have standing to bring a NEPA action. FERC is only required to have a comparative hearing if the projects are mutually exclusive. Here, the pipelines run roughly parallel, but FERC found that they were not dependent on the same reserves or the same customers. Any short-term economic difficulties the operator may suffer due to the existence of two competing pipelines is insufficient to render them exclusive. Moreover, while FERC’s decision not to hold a hearing departs from prior policy, technological changes in the industry justify its decision. Finally, because the operator did not allege that it will suffer any environmental injury, it did not have standing to bring a NEPA claim. ANR Pipeline Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, No. 99-1010 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 10, 2000) (5 pp.).

red bar graphic STANDING, INJURY IN FACT:

The Fifth Circuit held that a hog producer did not have standing to challenge a Monroe County, Mississippi, ordinance regulating new and expanding swine farming. The hog producer purchases hogs from smaller independent hog farmers. Because the ordinance prevents the farmers from expanding their operations, the hog producer claimed that the ordinance prevents it from purchasing hogs the farmers would have otherwise provided. However, the hog producer failed to show that if the ordinance is stricken and the farmers obtain the necessary permits, they will sell to the hog producer. While the risk of injury may be founded on a likely and credible chain of events, the injury must be certainly impending. Here, the hog farmer’s injury from the ordinance depends on the occurrence of a number of uncertain events and is too conjectural and hypothetical to provide standing. Prestage Farms, Inc. v. Board of Supervisors of Noxubee County, No. 98-60747 (5th Cir. Mar. 10, 2000) (4 pp.).


A district court held that an association of waste haulers has standing to assert a Commerce Clause claim against a district waste authority for enacting a system of flow control ordinances that captured the district's generated waste in order to finance a trash-to-steam facility. Under the system, haulers paid nothing to use the facility. However, real property owners in the district were charged fees for disposal, and additional fees were charged if property owners hired haulers that did not use the facility. The association's individual members would have standing to sue in their own right. Further, because resolution of this case in the association's favor would benefit its members, the interests the association seeks to protect are germane to its purpose of promoting the interests of the solid waste collection, transportation, and hauling industries. Moreover, even though the association seeks damages on behalf of its individual members, which might require participation in the suit by those members, associational standing is not precluded. The requirement that individual association members do not participate in the case at bar is not a constitutionally mandated requirement for associational standing. Where, as here, the first two prongs of associational standing are met, a court can find associational standing. In addition, the association can bring a Contracts Clause claim because by alleging that the authority interfered with contractual obligations, the association's complaint stated a facially valid claim. Pennsylvania Independent Waste Haulers Ass'n v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County, No. 99-1782 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2000) (Buckwalter, J.) (6 pp.).


A district court held that a waste hauler had standing to bring a Commerce Clause claim against a waste district authority for instructing homeowners and commercial entities in the district to subtract a district waste generation fee from the contractually agreed to price paid to their waste haulers. The hauler has suffered an injury-in-fact because it lost the amount of the fees subtracted from its contract prices. Further, as a plaintiff asserting his own interest under the Commerce Clause, the hauler satisfies the zone-of-interest requirement. The hauler, however, must submit a reply brief addressing the issue of whether he sold his business and, therefore, lost standing as a real party in interest. In addition, the county and authority, as municipal entities, are immune from the hauler’s claim that they violated the Sherman and Clayton Antitrust Acts. Harrison v. Waste System Authority of Eastern Montgomery County, No. 99-1418 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 7, 2000) (Buckwalter, J.) (8 pp.).


A district court held that two insurance companies must submit to arbitration to resolve numerous disputes regarding coverage of blanket contracts and calculation of payments related to numerous environmental pollution claims. However, the arbitrator is not authorized to make a global determination regarding calculation of the payments. The parties’ arbitration agreement limits arbitration to existing, concrete claims and disputes relating to such claims, not to abstract disputes. Additionally, the court does not have power to order the consolidation of the separate arbitration proceedings, but because the non-moving insurance company consented, the arbitration panel has discretion to consolidate the pending claims. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Swiss Reinsurance America Corp., No. 99 Civ. 9453(JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 6, 2000) (Rakoff, J.) (4 pp.).


Maine’s highest court affirmed a lower court decision that the denial of a variance under the state’s sand dune laws did not constitute a taking of a landowner’s property in violation of the U.S. and Maine constitutions. The landowner failed to meet his burden of proof that the denial of the variance rendered the property substantially useless and stripped it of all practical value. Despite the restrictive regulation, the landowner could use the property for parking, picnics, barbecues, and other recreational uses. Additionally, evidence supported the lower court's findings that the property had a value of $100,000 before the denial of the variance and $50,000 after the denial. Wyer v. Board of Environmental Protection, No. CUM-99-362 (Me. Mar. 10, 2000) (1 p.).


A state court held that a limited partnership did not have standing to bring a temporary inverse condemnation claim against a state environmental agency for requiring a freshwater wetlands permit application to be filed in connection with a four-phase construction project. A development corporation that owned the land filed suit against the agency and sought equitable relief to prevent the agency from requiring the application. In the meantime, the principals of the development corporation formed a limited partnership and transferred the subject property to the partnership by warranty deed along with the right to continue to prosecute the litigation. The trial court then granted the requested relief and estopped the agency from requiring a wetlands permit application, but the partnership subsequently learned that its plan for the final phase of development was impossible. It then filed an inverse condemnation action against the agency and sought monetary damages. The law of the case doctrine does not confer standing to the limited partnership because the question of the partnership’s standing to maintain a temporary inverse condemnation claim was neither raised nor decided during the original trial. Additionally, the limited partnership does not have standing to assert a takings claim because it did not own the property at the time of the alleged taking; it belonged to the development corporation. Moreover, when the development corporation assigned the right to prosecute the then-pending litigation, it did not assign the right to bring new causes of action that were available to the development corporation. Woodland Manor III Associates v. McCleod, No. 89-2477 (R.I. Super. Ct. Mar. 2, 2000) (19 pp.).


The Ohio Supreme Court denied a county board of commissioners’ petition to compel the Ohio environmental agency to disclose records designated as trade secrets that the agency received from a hazardous waste facility. The board may challenge the merits of the agency’s trade secrets decision in a mandamus action rather than in an administrative appeal. However, the materials sought by the board in this case were properly designated as trade secrets and, therefore, are protected from disclosure. The information contains more than just a simple list of customer names, it is not available in as comprehensive a manner through other public sources, and it gives the facility a business advantage over its competitors. State ex rel. Lucas County Board of Commissioners v. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, No. 98-2549 (Ohio Mar. 8, 2000) (4 pp.).

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


Note: Citations below are to the Federal Register.


  • EPA amended its regulatory provisions in order to conform with an order issued by the D.C. Circuit in which it vacated Agency regulations listing certain organobromine wastes as hazardous wastes under RCRA.  65 FR 14472 (3/17/00). 
  • EPA entered into a proposed settlement under CERCLA §112(h)(1) in connection with the Carolina Creosoting Corporation site in Leland, N.C. 65 FR 13384 (3/13/00).
  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the Danmark site in Tampa, Fla.  65 FR 13749 (3/14/00). 
  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative de minimis settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the Casmalia Disposal site in Santa Barbara County, Cal. 65 FR 13967 (3/15/00). 
  • EPA proposed to enter into a settlement under CERCLA §122(h)(1) in connection with the Rutledge Property/Rock Hill Chemical Company site in Rock Hill, S.C. 65 FR 13969 (3/15/00). 

red bar graphic TOXIC SUBSTANCES:

  • EPA modified its chemical accident prevention regulations to conform to the fuels provision of the recently enacted Chemical Safety Information, Site Security, and Fuels Regulatory Relief Act.  65 FR 13243 (3/13/00). 
  • EPA announced the availability of the acute exposure guideline level values and executive summaries for 10 chemicals.  65 FR 14185 (3/15/00).


  • U.S. v. Excel Corp., No. 3:93CV119RM (N.D. Ind. Mar. 2, 2000) (a settling CERCLA defendant must pay $2.7 million in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Main Street Well Field site in Elkhart, Ind.), 65 FR 14318 (3/16/00);
  • U.S. v. Nichols, No. IP97-2007 C (S.D. Ind. Mar. 1, 2000) (settling CERCLA defendants must pay $160,000, plus interest, in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Custom Finishing site in Indiana), 65 FR 14319 (3/16/00);
  • U.S. v. Shenango, No. 80-1172 (W.D. Pa. Mar. 3, 2000) (a CAA defendant that allegedly violated the terms of a 1993 consent decree in connection with its coke oven battery on Neville Island near Pittsburgh, Pa., must pay a $2.1 million civil penalty and accept a mandatory injunction that requires the defendant to continue with major renovations to its desulfurization system and to formalize and improve a program designed to reduce or eliminate violations of Allegheny County's visible emissions standard for coke oven combustion stacks), 65 FR 14319 (3/16/00).

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


  • Air Toxic Emissions in the City: EPA's Strategy for Reducing Health Risks in Urban Areas (EPA 9/98) (4 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4450)
  • Additional Guidance on PM2.5 Cassette Handling and Transportation (EPA 1/19/00) (5 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4451)
  • EPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for Organic Data Review (OSWER No. 9240.1-05A-P) (EPA 10/99) (123 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4452)
  • Instructions for Performing the Annual Allocation of Non-Site-Specific Costs (EPA 12/21/99) (35 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4453)
  • Monitoring Waivers Under the Lead and Copper Rule: Minor Revisions for Systems Serving 3,300 or Fewer People - Final Draft (EPA 1/00) (32 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4454)
  • Lead and Copper Rule: Compliance Dates - Final Draft (EPA 1/00) (104 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4455)
  • How to Determine Compliance With Optimal Water Quality Parameters as Revised by the Lead and Copper Rule Minor Revisions - Final Draft (EPA 1/00) (43 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4456)
  • Introduction to the Chemical Import Requirements of TSCA (EPA 6/99) (11 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4457)
  • Ambient Water Quality Criteria for 2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin (EPA 2/84) (290 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4458)
  • Additional Supplemental Guidance for the Implementation of the Circuit Court Decision Affecting Transportation Conformity (DOT 6/18/99) (6 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4459)
  • Guidance on Motor Vehicle Emissions Budgets in One-Hour Ozone Attainment Demonstration (EPA 11/3/99) (8 pp.) (ELR Order No. AD-4460)

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


red bar graphic ALABAMA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Public Notices–Permit Applications

red bar graphic ALASKA

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Proposed Contingency Plan

  • Proposed Interior Alaska Subarea Oil and Hazardous Substances Contingency Plan. The Plan will include information on emergency response notification and procedures, available resources, and environmentally sensitive areas. Public meetings scheduled for March 29 (Fairbanks) and 30 (Anchorage). Comments due April 30. Details at http://www.akrtt.org/plans.html

Request for Grant Proposals

Valdez Marine Terminal Oil Discharge Prevention/Contingency Plan

Proposed Regulations-Underground Storage Tanks

  • March 20 is the deadline for comment. The proposed revisions concern initial response actions, site cleanup rules, site characterization, soil/groundwater/surface water cleanup levels, treatment facilities, and soil storage and disposal. A guidance document is also being proposed. Details at http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dec_cal.htm

red bar graphic ARKANSAS

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

NPDES Permit Application

Proposed Revisions-Water Quality Plan

  • Proposed revisions to Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) by adding four facilities with wastewater discharges to the plan, changing the discharge flow rate for one facility, and changing the discharge flow rate and effluent limits for a second facility. Public comments are accepted through April 12. Details at http://www.adeq.state.ar.us

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Air Quality Division-Proposed General Permit

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA

Air Resources Board

Proposed Regulations

  • April 27 hearing date for a proposed Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Emissions of Chlorinated Toxic Air Contaminants from Automotive Maintenance and Repair Activities. The proposal is intended to reduce emissions of Perc, MeCl, and TCE from AMR activities by regulating automotive consumer product (specifically, break cleaners, air intake cleaners, engine degreasers, and general purpose degreasers manufactured after Dec. 31, 2002) content and usage. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regup00.htm
  • March 23 hearing on proposed Amendments to the Vapor Recovery Certification and Test Procedure Regulations for Enhanced Vapor Recovery. The proposed revisions will require service station gasoline vapor recovery systems to be compatible with vehicular on-board refuling vapor recovery systems and to alter service station operators of malfunctions. The proposal also would require the use of spill-proof nozzles and systems that reduce emissions during bulk drops. For details, see http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regup00.htm
  • March 23 hearing on proposed Amendments to the Agricultural Burning Guidelines. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/regup00.htm

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

Draft Negative Declaration

Draft Closure Plan

  • For hazardous waste storage unit located at former Fort Ord. Comment period ends March 30. Details at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov

Water Resources Control Board

Phase 8, Bay-Delta Water Rights Hearings

red bar graphic COLORADO

Air Quality Control Commission

Pikes Peak Area–Transportation Improvement Plan

North Front Range–Transportation Improvement Plan

RVP Waiver Request

  • Conoco, Inc. seeks support for their request to U.S. EPA regarding waiver of the 7.8 psi vapor pressure requirement for gasoline in favor of a 9.0 psi standard. Will be discussed at April 20 meeting of the Commission. Details at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/notrvp.html

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

red bar graphic FLORIDA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

TMDL Program Policy Advisory Committee

  • Meeting March 24 in Tallahassee.

St. Johns River Water Management District

Proposed Regulations-Flows and Levels

  • Proposal would establish minimum flows and levels on water bodies, courses, and aquifers. Public hearing, if requested, will be held on April 12.

South Florida Water Management District

  • Proposed amendments to indicate that a permit may be issued to an eminent domain authority, a contractual buyer of property, or a recorded easement holder, and to clarify the duration of permits. Public hearing, if requested, will be held on April 13.
  • Proposed amendments to clarify existing homeowners association documentation requirements. Public hearing, if requested, will be held on April 13.

red bar graphic GEORGIA

Dept. of Natural Resources

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

  • Proposed stormwater general permits for discharges from construction activity; proposed area-wide stormwater discharge permits for 12 area-wide municipal separate storm sewer systems. Public hearing March 30; written comments due April 5. See http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/pubnote/pnot2_25.html

Air Permit Applications

red bar graphic ILLINOIS

Envtl. Protection Agency

Permit Applications

  • Calumet Energy Team, LLC, Chicago, for air permit for a natural gas power plant. Comments due May 11; hearing scheduled for April 26.
  • Indeck-Libertyville, LLC, for construction of a natural gas fired power plant in Libertyville. Comments due May 10; public hearing on April 25.
  • Silvercreek Constr. Co., Knox County, for NPDES permit. Details at http://www.epa.state.il.us/public-notices/2000/2000-04-06-silvercreek.html
  • Reliant Energy Aurora, L.P., for construction of a natural gas-fired electrical generating facility in Aurora. Comments due April 17; hearing scheduled for April 3.

red bar graphic INDIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Final Regulations-Air

  • Final rule adds 326 IAC 17.1 to incorporate recent statutory changes to IC 5-14-3, provide for consistent treatment of confidential materials among IDEM program areas, and allow IDEM to simplify and streamline the procedures associated with the submission and handling of confidential information. Details at http://www.state.in.us/legislative/register/March-1-2000.html  

Proposed Regulations-Air

Proposed Regulations-Water

Proposed Regulations-Solid Waste

Proposed Regulations-Underground Storage Tanks

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 were published in the March 1 issue of the Administrative Register. For details, see http://water.nr.state.ky.us/dow/regs.htm

red bar graphic MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Corporate Clean Citizen Designation

Management Team Public Meeting

Proposed Regulations-Wetlands

Permit Applications-Air

  • Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, for operation of a natural gas storage and transfer facility. Comments due March 28.
  • Mercury Exploration Company, Gaylord, for renewable operating permit for operation of a sour gas flare. Comments due March 29.
  • Material Control, Inc., Sanilac County, for renewable operating permit for operation of equipment used to manufacture fluid control devices. Comments due March 29.
  • Holnam Inc., for air permits for existing cement kilns in Dundee. Comments due March 21.
  • Muskegon Development Company, Clare County, for renewable operating permit for crude oil production. Comments due March 29.
  • For details, see http://www.deq.state.mi.us/aqd

Exemptions from Permit to Install Requirement

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Proposed Regulations–Animal Feedlots

Permit Applications

  • For air permit to U.S. Steel Taconite Facility, Mountain Iron; comments due April 7.
  • For air permit to Pechiney Plastic Packaging, Inc., Minneapolis. Comments due April 10.
  • For air permit to Sunrise Fiberglass Corp., Wyoming. Comments due April 5.
  • For air permit to Great River Energy, Pleasant Valley Township. Comments due April 5.
  • For reissued NPDES permit to NSP Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant. Comments due April 3.
  • For permit modification to 3M Cottage Grove. Comments due April 17.
  • 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 details regarding the permit applications, see http://data.pca.state.mn.us/cgi-bin/whatsnew.pl

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Environmental Notice Bulletin

Notice of Complete Application/Draft Permit

red bar graphic  OHIO

Envtl. Protection Agency

Permit Application-Air

red bar graphic OKLAHOMA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

red bar graphic OREGON

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Title V Permit Fees-Increase Hearing

NESHAP Annual Rule Updates-Hearing

Enhanced Auto Emission Test Low Income Waiver Proposal

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 Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, Washington D.C., and West Virginia 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

Safe Fill Policy

  • Draft available for comment through May 10. Public hearings will be held on April 27, May 2, and May 4. See http://www.dep.state.pa.us direct link "Safe Fill Policy". 

Draft Technical Guidance Document

red bar graphic SOUTH CAROLINA

Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

Proposed Regulations-Air

  • Updated NESHAP standards to conform to U.S. EPA revisions, through incorporation by reference. Comments due by March 27.

red bar graphic TENNESSEE

Dept. of Environment and Conservation

Permit Application

red bar graphic TEXAS

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Proposed Regulations

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