ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 31, Issue 17


large red bar graphic

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


The D.C. Circuit remanded three portions of technical amendments EPA made to its NOx SIP Call that revised the database used to establish state budgets for NOx emissions. First, the growth factors EPA used to project future utilization rates for electric generating units (EGUs) in 2007 were arbitrary and capricious. EPA's methodology to estimate EGU utilization rates generated seemingly implausible results, such as a negative growth forecast for some states in the coming decade, yet the Agency adopted the methodology without offering any reasoned explanation for its choice. On remand, EPA must engage in reasoned decisionmaking and explain why results that appear arbitrary on their face are, in fact, reasonable. Second, insofar as the Agency's emission budgets for non-EGUs rely on the source definitions remanded in Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 30 ELR 20407 (D.C. Cir. 2000), they are contrary to law and must be remanded here as well. Third, in Michigan, the NOx SIP Call was vacated and remanded insofar as it applied to Missouri, but EPA included Missouri's budget in the technical amendments. Thus, the technical amendments were vacated and remanded insofar as they include a budget for Missouri under any ozone standard. All other challenges to the technical amendments, however, were denied. Appalachian Power Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 99-1268 (D.C. Cir. June 8, 2001) (15 pp.).


The Fourth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a district court decision that five Virginia statutory provisions regulating municipal solid waste (MSW) violated either the Commerce or Supremacy Clauses. After private landfills in the state contracted for the disposal of MSW from New York, the state passed the five provisions, which capped the amount of waste any landfill could accept; required regulations governing MSW transport by ship or barge, including a ban on the stacking of containerized waste on a barge more than two containers high; prohibited the commercial transport of solid waste on three state rivers; prohibited landfills from accepting MSW from uncertified vehicles with four or more axles; and required the regulation of the commercial transport of MSW by trucks with four or more axles. Several landfill owners and MSW transporters challenged the provisions and sued several state employees, including the governor. The district court held that the provisions violated the Commerce Clause and that the three rivers ban and the stacking provision violated the Supremacy Clause and, thus, granted summary judgment to the landfill owners and MSW transporters. The solid waste cap on landfills, the trucking certification provision, and the four or more axle provision do violate the dormant Commerce Clause. The Virginia General Assembly enacted the provisions for the discriminatory purpose of excluding out-of-state MSW from Virginia landfills. Although the state made a reasonable showing that out-of-state MSW posed health and safety risks not posed by in-state MSW, the state could not prove that the statutory provisions at issue are the least discriminatory. Rather than discriminating against all out-of-state MSW, Virginia's cap should only target the MSW from states that have lesser MSW health and safety standards. Likewise, the state produced no evidence that the trucking certification program and the four axle provision were the least burdensome on interstate commerce. Moreover, the state does not qualify for the market participant doctrine exception to Commerce Clause regulation, and Congress did not authorize state discrimination of out-of-state MSW when it enacted a RCRA provision encouraging states to consider local conditions in addressing solid waste disposal. However, the state defendants did produce sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the stacking provision and the three rivers ban are the least discriminatory alternatives available for protecting Virginia citizens against toxic contamination of its rivers from unintended spills. Genuine issues of material fact also exist regarding the health and environmental risks associated with stacking sealed shipping containers containing MSW more than two containers high on barges, and, therefore, the district court erred in concluding that the stacking provision violated the Supremacy Clause. But the state's three-rivers ban violates the Supremacy Clause because it completely excludes federally licensed barges from transporting any MSW on those rivers. In addition, because the governor of Virginia lacks a specific duty to enforce the challenged statutes, the Ex parte Young exception to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity does not apply, and the governor cannot be sued. Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Gilmore, No. 00-1185 (4th Cir. June 4, 2001) (28 pp.).

red bar graphic   RCRA, FIFRA, CITIZEN SUITS:

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected citizen suit claims in a lawsuit challenging an insecticide spraying program instituted by New York City to control the West Nile Virus, a mosquito-borne disease. In upholding a district court's refusal to issue injunctive relief pursuant to RCRA, the court held that pesticides are not "discarded" when sprayed into the air with the design of effecting their intended purpose of reaching and killing mosquitoes and their larvae. Moreover, while the city's use of the pesticide--spraying along city streets--was contrary to the labeling instructions, such use was not tantamount to disposal of a hazardous solid waste without a permit. Although such use would arguably violate FIFRA, that statute does not contain a citizen suit provision, and FIFRA violations may not be stretched into RCRA violations in order to fall within the scope of the RCRA citizen suit provision. No-Spray Coalition v. The City of New York, No. 00-9368 (2d Cir. June 5, 2001) (4 pp.).


The Sixth Circuit affirmed a district court decision holding that the AEA preempted a state environmental agency's solid waste disposal permit conditions that prohibited disposal of radioactive materials in a landfill at a DOE uranium enrichment facility in Kentucky. The AEA governs the disposal of radioactive materials, and it preempts any state attempt to regulate materials covered by the Act for safety purposes. The challenged permit conditions specifically limit the amount of radioactivity and radionuclides that DOE may place in its landfill. The sources of such radioactivity and radionuclides are materials covered by the AEA, and the state agency seeks to impose the conditions to protect the human health and the environment. Therefore, the permit conditions are preempted. Further, the fact that the state agency is authorized under state law to regulate solid waste disposal is irrelevant to the preemption analysis. Although federal law does not preempt state regulation of solid waste, states may not regulate the radioactive component of solid waste. Moreover, the permit conditions are invalid because the United States has not waived its federal sovereign immunity to state regulation of radioactive materials at federal facilities. Although RCRA waives federal immunity to state regulation of federal facilities with respect to solid waste, RCRA's definition of "solid waste" expressly excludes materials covered by the AEA. In addition, because DOE presented a facial preemption claim, the district court properly found that it should not abstain in deference to an ongoing state court proceeding, and none of the abstention doctrines cited by the state refute this conclusion. United States v. Kentucky, No. 00-5247 (6th Cir. June 5, 2001) (10 pp.).


The U.S. Supreme Court held that a party to a suit involving the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Fair Housing Amendments Act (FHAA) cannot recover attorneys fees as the prevailing party under the catalyst theory, which posits that a plaintiff is a prevailing party if it achieves the desired result through a voluntary change in the defendant's conduct. After a fire marshal declared that a West Virginia assisted living home failed inspection because the home failed a state law requiring residents to be capable of "self-preservation," the home sued the state claiming that the self preservation requirement violated the ADA and the FHAA. Subsequently, the state legislature enacted two bills eliminating the self preservation requirement, and a court then granted the state's motion to dismiss the home's case against it. The home then argued under the catalyst theory that it was entitled to attorneys fees as the prevailing party under the FHAA and the ADA. However, the catalyst theory is not a permissible basis for the award of attorneys fees under the FHAA and the ADA. Parties are ordinarily required to bear their own attorneys fees, but Congress has authorized the award of attorneys fees to the prevailing party in numerous statutes, such as the FHAA and the ADA. A prevailing party is one who has been awarded some relief by the court. Moreover, Supreme Court precedent establishes that enforceable judgments on the merits and court ordered consent decrees create the material alteration of the legal relationship of the parties necessary to permit an award of attorneys fees. In contrast, the catalyst theory allows an award where there is no judicially sanctioned change in the legal relationship of the parties. A defendant's voluntary change in conduct, although perhaps accomplishing what the plaintiff sought to achieve by the lawsuit, lacks the necessary judicial imprimatur on the change. Moreover, the term "prevailing party" does not authorize federal courts to award attorneys fees to a plaintiff who, by simply filing a nonfrivolous but nonetheless potentially meritless lawsuit, has reached the sought after destination without obtaining any judicial relief. In addition, although the legislative history of the Civil Rights Attorneys Fees Award Act may support a broad reading of the term "prevailing party" that includes the catalyst theory, this legislative history cannot overcome the clear meaning of "prevailing party" as it is used in the statute. Chief Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion of the Court in which Justices O'Connor, Scalia,  Kennedy, and Thomas joined. Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion in which Justices Stevens, Souter, and Breyer joined. Buckhannon Board & Care Home Inc. v. West Virginia Department of Health & Human Resources, No. 99-1848 (U.S. May 29, 2001) (49 pp.).

red bar graphic  CAA, SIP, RATE-OF-PROGRESS (ROP) PLAN:

The Eighth Circuit denied a petition to review EPA's approval of a revision to Missouri's SIP that included an ROP plan for reducing volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions in the St. Louis moderate ozone nonattainment area. Environmental groups argued that EPA acted contrary to law by approving a plan that purports to achieve a 15% reduction in baseline VOC emissions but does not account for growth in emissions after 1996. According to the groups, CAA §182 demands a 15% reduction in VOC emissions, accounting for any growth after 1990. The statute, however, requires that the ROP plan provide the necessary VOC emission reductions through November 15, 1996. Thus, EPA could have reasonably found that the growth for which the 15% ROP plan must account is tied to 1996. Although the state didn't submit its ROP plan until 1999 and, therefore, missed the CAA's 1993 deadline, there is no clear indication that Congress intended to alter the amount of reductions that a state must achieve if the state missed the statutory deadline. Consequently, EPA's approval of a plan that failed to consider post-1996 emissions cannot be deemed arbitrary and capricious. The groups also argued that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously in approving the state's ROP plan because it relies on projected emissions for certain years to determine the required level of reduction instead of relying on actual emissions data. The CAA clearly provides for the use of projected data since the statute requires state plans to be submitted in 1993, even though the calculations will include emissions levels through 1996. Thus, it was reasonable for EPA to determine that a late-filing state should use projected data as well. Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 00-2744 (8th Cir. June 6, 2001) (11 pp.).


The Seventh Circuit held that the FRSA preempted a municipal ordinance requiring a railroad to cut weeds along its right-of-way within the municipality. The FSRA regulates every area of railroad safety, and the Act preempts all railroad safety legislation except for a specific state participation exemption. The municipality, however, claims that because an FRSA regulation governing vegetation on railroad property applies only to the area immediately adjacent to the tracks, which the parties stipulated to be 15 feet from the center of the tracks, the municipality can regulate the rest of the railroad right-of-way. Nevertheless, the municipal ordinance could affect safety, and the existence of a federal vegetation control regulation is solid evidence that the Secretary of Transportation thinks vegetation control is a safety issue. Moreover, while the FSRA state participation exemption allows states some leeway to impose certain safety requirements on railroads, that leeway is limited and municipalities do not have greater rights than the states. In fact, the municipal ordinance affirmatively violates a requirement set out in the FSRA state participation exemption that requires state laws, regulations, or orders not to place an unreasonable burden on interstate commerce. Moreover, aside from the FSRA exemption, the municipal ordinance completely undermines the goal of national uniform railroad regulation. Michigan Southern Railroad Co. v. City of Kendallville, Indiana, No. 00-4213 (7th Cir. June 6, 2001) (6 pp.).


The Eleventh Circuit reversed a district court decision holding that although a Florida city's re-zoning of property to prohibit the operation of a wood-chipping business constituted an unconstitutional taking, damages should not be awarded to the business. The city approved the business' operation on a proposed property subject to certain conditions. After receiving city approval, the business purchased the property and began to bring it into conformance with the city's conditions. Before the conditions were met, the business sought and received city permission to begin operation. Area residents objected to the business' operation because they thought the property was used as a dump. Succumbing to public pressure, the city zoning commission suspended the business' operation and later rezoned the property as to prohibit wood chipping. After the business lost the property to foreclosure, it filed suit alleging a taking. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit held that the city's actions effected a taking and remanded for further proceedings. The business settled with individual defendants, but the district court held a new trial as to the city's liability. The district court concluded that the issue of liability was foreclosed by the Eleventh Circuit's previous opinion, but after using a temporary takings formula to determine damages, the district court held that the business had failed to establish a compensable loss. However, the previous Eleventh Circuit decision that a taking had occurred was law of the case, and the necessary implication of that holding was that the business suffered harm and that the district court was obligated to determine the extent of the harm caused by the taking and compensate the business accordingly. Therefore, the district court erred in concluding that the business was not entitled to damages. In addition, the district court erred in applying a temporary takings damages formula because such a formula would not provide just compensation in this case. A temporary takings formula is appropriate only when the property owner's losses are limited to the temporary use of its property and the concomitant income. Here, the business' losses were permanent and the diminution in market value test should have been used to measure compensation. Because the appraisals of the property submitted by the business are not part of the appellate record, the diminution of value cannot be determined, and the issue was remanded to the district court. A.A. Profiles, Inc. v. City of Fort Lauderdale, No. 99-14762 (11th Cir. June 5, 2001) (22 pp.).


A California appellate court affirmed a trial court decision that a California city inclusionary zoning ordinance requiring the development of affordable housing does not violate the federal and state Takings Clauses and does not violate the federal Due Process Clause. The ordinance requires that 10% of all newly constructed residential units in the city must be affordable. To meet this requirement, developers may dedicate land for affordable housing, construct affordable units on an alternate site, or pay an in-lieu fee to a trust for affordable housing. The city may also waive the affordable housing requirement. A builder's association claimed that the ordinance was facially invalid. However, since the city can waive the ordinance's requirements, the ordinance does not, on its face, result in a taking. Also, by creating affordable housing, the ordinance advances a legitimate state interest. Moreover, the ordinance need not meet the essential nexus heightened standard of review under U.S. Supreme Court takings precedent. The essential nexus test determines the validity of a particular land use bargain between a governmental agency and a person who wants to develop their land. Here, the association offers a facial challenge to economic legislation that is generally applicable to all development in the city. Likewise, state takings precedent offered by the association does not apply to facial challenges. Further, the ordinance is not facially invalid under the federal Due Process Clause. The association argued that the ordinance's requirements provide no mechanism for property owners to make a fair return on units that they must sell or rent at below-market rates. However, the fair return standard is usually applied to historically regulated industries and not to residential developers. Additionally, the city has the authority to completely waive a developer's obligations under the ordinance, and, thus, a facial challenge under the Due Process Clause must fail because a regulation is facially invalid only if it will not permit those who administer it to avoid an unconstitutional application to complaining parties. In addition, the ordinance's in-lieu of provision does not violate California Proposition 218's regulation of property fees. Proposition 218 regulates fees that burden landowners as landowners. Here the in-lieu of fee only applies if a landowner elects to develop its land and is not imposed solely by virtue of property ownership. Home Builders Ass'n of Northern California v. City of Napa, No. A090437 (Cal. Ct. App. June 6, 2001) (14 pp.).


The EPA Environmental Appeals Board adjusted the penalty that an administrative law judge (ALJ) imposed on a dairy for violating CWA §301(a) by discharging a pollutant from a CAFO into a navigable water without an NPDES permit. After concluding that the dairy was a CAFO subject to an NPDES permit and that the dairy had violated the CWA, the ALJ reduced EPA's proposed penalty of $11,000 to $3,000. EPA appealed claiming that the ALJ had erred in reducing the penalty due to the gravity of the harm associated with the violation, any economic benefit gained by the dairy through noncompliance, and the dairy's inability to pay the penalty. However, EPA's economic benefit calculation was based on an extended period of noncompliance even though the record indicates that the dairy was out of compliance with the CWA for only one day. Further, the ALJ clearly erred when it reduced EPA's proposed gravity based penalty based on the ALJ's conclusion that it was highly improbable that the discharges of wastewater from the dairy reached the navigable water on the date of the violation. Despite this error, EPA adduced insufficient evidence to support its claim that on the date of the alleged violation, the discharge posed a significant threat to the navigable water. Therefore, the penalty will not be increased based on EPA's economic benefit and gravity of the harm arguments. Nevertheless, in holding that the dairy lacked financial resources to pay a penalty greater than $3,000, the ALJ misapplied EPA's and the dairy's respective burdens of proof regarding the violator's ability to pay a penalty. The dairy failed to satisfy its burden to contradict the EPA showing that it had the financial ability to pay the penalty. Likewise, the ALJ erred in relying on the dairy's pro se status as the principal reason for reducing the dairy's penalty. Therefore, the ALJ's reduction of the dairy's penalty due to inability to pay was reversed, and without this downward adjustment, the dairy is subject to a gravity-based penalty of $5,500. In re Robert Wallin, CWA Appeal No. 00-3 (EPA EAB May 30, 2001) (28 pp.).


The EPA Environmental Appeals Board denied a port authority and an environmental consultant's petition for reimbursement of cleanup costs incurred in complying with a U.S. Coast Guard unilateral administrative order (UAO) requiring the dredging of materials that a barge inadvertently spilled into a harbor. A New York port received a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit to conduct dredging, which the consultant would conduct. The permit allowed the dredged materials to be transported to Texas and then Utah, but during shipment a barge ran aground in South Carolina and spilled material containing dioxin into the harbor. The Coast Guard issued a UAO requiring the port and consultant to remove the spilled material and to monitor and sample the spill area. The port and the consultant subsequently sought reimbursement of their response costs arguing that they are not liable as arrangers under CERCLA §107 because a vessel is not included in CERCLA's definition of a "facility" from which an arranger can be liable for a hazardous substance release. Nevertheless, a party that contracts for a hazardous substance to be shipped by barge to a disposal site is liable as a CERCLA arranger when that barge runs aground and spills its cargo. Although CERCLA §101(9)'s definition of "facility" excludes vessels such as a barge, the facility at issue is not the barge but rather the ocean bottom. When a hazardous substance is released from a vessel and comes to rest on the ocean bottom, a CERCLA facility is created on the ocean bottom. Moreover, the potential hazard of 2,500 tons of uncontained dredge material presented an imminent and substantial endangerment that authorized the clean up order. Further, the Coast Guard did not act arbitrarily and capriciously when it issued the order solely to the port; required mechanical dredging rather than diver directed removal; required dredging of a four-acre parcel; and denied the port's request to stop dredging. However, two amendments to the order requiring sampling of the spill area were arbitrary and capricious because the Coast Guard failed to provide a contemporaneous reasoned explanation for its determination that dioxin levels in the spill area were elevated. Therefore, the port and the consultant are entitled to reimbursement of reasonable costs incurred in responding to the two amendments of the order. In re Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, CERCLA §106(b) No. 96-5 (EPA EAB May 30, 2001) (52 pp.).


The EPA Environmental Appeals Board denied a group's petition to review a CAA PSD permit issued to a power company authorizing the construction of a gas fired electrical generating power plant in California. The group essentially argued that the PSD permit issued by the county air quality management district did not select that best available control technology (BACT) for emissions for the plant and did not review the proper factors in setting the BACT. However, the groups failed to show that the district erred in selecting as BACT a nitrogen oxide (NOx) emission limit of 2.5 parts per million (ppm) measured at 15% oxygen over one hour. The group relied on irrelevant BACT in use at other facilities around the country, the EPA region with jurisdiction consistently applies a 2.5 ppm BACT for NOx, and the technology that the group supported had a stringency equivalent to the chosen BACT. Further, the selection of a carbon monoxide (CO) emission limit of 4 ppm over 3 hours took into account a reasonable safety factor and is the current practice within the EPA region. Moreover, the allegedly improper elimination of a certain control technology was irrelevant because the PSD permit included the same BACT limits for NOx and CO that would be achievable through the eliminated technology. Also, the district's selection of a 5 ppm ammonia slip is the most stringent limit for ammonia in any PSD permit issued in the region to date, and the group's argument that emitted ammonia will form particulate matter is purely speculative in nature. In addition, because the PSD permit's emission offsets for particulate matter and sulfur dioxide are not federal PSD requirements, they are not subject to review under the PSD program. In re Three Mountain Power, LLC, PSD Appeal No. 01-05 (EPA EAB May 30, 2001) (31).


The EPA Administrative Appeals Board affirmed an administrative law judge penalty assessment of $29,700 against a landlord for failing to comply with regulatory requirements requiring the disclosure of the presence of lead-based paint hazards upon the sale or lease of residential property in violation of TSCA and the RLBPHRA. The landlord leased a house subject to the RLBPHRA to a family without complying with the lead disclosure requirements of the regulations, and the family subsequently suffered lead poisoning. EPA filed a complaint against the landlord alleging violations of the lead disclosure regulations. The landlord eventually admitted to the violations, but claimed that the lead disclosure regulations were not in effect at the time of the alleged violations. However, by failing to raise this defense in response to an EPA motion for accelerated decision, the landlord waived the defense both below and for purposes of appeal. Nevertheless, even if the landlord had not waived the defense, the defense fails. According to the landlord, when EPA filed the final lead disclosure rule in the Federal Register in 1996, an editorial note to the rule in the Code of Federal Regulations stated that the rule would not become effective until it was approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and notice of such approval would be published in the Federal Register. Editorial notes of this kind are not rules and do not have the force of law and, thus, cannot override otherwise enforceable regulatory provisions. In addition, OMB had already approved the information requests in the rule, and EPA had displayed the OMB control numbers as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. Thus, at the time of the landlord's alleged violations the lead disclosure rule was in force, and EPA was authorized to enforce it. In re Billy Yee, TSCA Appeal No. 00-2 (EPA EAB May 29, 2001) (23 pp.).

  Copyright© 2001, 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 proposed to modify the Agency's Service Information regulations for light-duty vehicles and trucks, including requiring vehicle manufacturers to make full text emissions-related service information and training information available on the Internet, provide equipment and tool companies with information that allows them to develop equipment with pass-through reprogramming capabilities, make available enhanced diagnostic information to aftermarket scan tool manufacturers, make available manufacturer-specific diagnostic tools for sale to interested parties, and make available additional on-board diagnostic technical information that manufacturers must provide. 66 FR 30830 (6/8/01). 

  • EPA announced the availability of applicability determinations, alternative monitoring decisions, and regulatory interpretations that the Agency has made under the new source performance standards and the NESHAPs. 66 FR 30905 (6/8/01). 

  • EPA approved Delaware's request to implement and enforce its accidental release prevention program in place of similar federal requirements. 66 FR 30818 (6/8/01). 

red bar graphic  DRINKING WATER:

  • EPA finalized the Filter Backwash Recycling Rule, which is intended to further protect public health by requiring public water systems, where needed, to institute changes to the return of recycle flows to a plant's treatment process that may otherwise compromise microbial control. 66 FR 31085 (6/8/01). 


  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(i) in connection with the Rocky Flats Industrial Park site in Jefferson County, Colo. 66 FR 29945 (6/4/01). 

  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(h)(1) in connection with the Whalehead Beach Superfund site in Corolla, N.C. 66 FR 29948 (6/4/01).

  • EPA proposed a rule that would provide site-specific regulatory flexibility under RCRA to implement a pilot project under the Project XL program for the International Business Machines Corporation's East Fishkill semiconductor manufacturing facility in Hopewell Junction, N.Y. 66 FR 30349 (6/6/01).

red bar graphic  NATIONAL FORESTS:

  • The Forest Service listed those newspapers in the Rocky Mountain Region that will be used to publish notice of all decisions that are subject to appeal under 36 C.F.R. part 217, notice of the opportunity on certain proposed actions pursuant to 36 C.F.R. §215.5, and notice of decisions subject to appeal under the general provisions of 36 C.F.R. part 215. 66 FR 30877 (6/8/01). 

red bar graphic  SMCRA PROGRAM APPROVAL:

red bar graphic  WATER QUALITY:

  • EPA proposed a Class II civil penalty under CWA §311(b) of $81,306 against WorldCom, Inc., for failing to prepare spill prevention control and countermeasure plans for 75 facilities where it stored diesel in above ground tanks. 66 FR 30923 (6/8/01). 

  • EPA Region 6 proposed to modify the NPDES general permit for the western portion of the outer continental shelf of the Gulf of Mexico for discharges from existing and new dischargers and new sources in the offshore subcategory of the oil and gas extraction point source category as authorized under CWA §402. 66 FR 29948 (6/4/01).

  • EPA issued a list of state and tribal submissions of new or revised water quality standards that the Agency approved during the period April 1, 1998, through May 30, 2000, as well as a list of Native American tribes that obtained EPA approval to administer a water quality standards program and a list of EPA actions to promulgate or remove federal water quality standards during the same period. 66 FR 29951 (6/4/01). 

  • EPA announced the availability of a draft Great Lakes Strategy, which was drafted pursuant to the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972. 66 FR 30187 (6/5/01).


  •  U.S. v. Avanti Development, Inc., No. IP01-402-C-B/S (S.D. Ind. May 21, 2001) (a settling CERCLA defendant must pay $30,000 in past U.S. response costs associated with the Avanti Superfund site in Indianapolis, Ind.), 66 FR 29991 (6/4/01);
  • U.S. v. Marathon Oil Co., No. 99-4023-JPG (S.D. Ill. May 11, 2001) (settling CAA, CERCLA, and EPCRA defendants must install at a Robinson, Ill., refinery all controls necessary for full compliance with the benzene waste NESHAP, must pay a $1,675,000 civil penalty, and must purchase and donate to the Robinson Fire Department a new emergency transportation vehicle and support equipment worth $125,000), 66 FR 29991 (6/4/01);

  • U.S. v. J.B. Stringfellow, No. 83-2501(R) (C.D. Cal. Apr. 30, 2001) (a settling CERCLA defendant must pay $99,440,000 in past U.S. response costs incurred at the Stringfellow Superfund site in Riverside, Cal., must construct and complete the final remedy at the site, and must pay any future oversight costs that the United States may incur), 66 FR 29992 (6/4/01).

Copyright© 2001, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. 

large red bar graphic

red bar graphic  CHAMBER ACTION

  • H.R. 1661 (fisheries), which would extend indefinitely the authority of California, Oregon, and Washington to manage a Dungeness crab fishery until the effective date of a fishery management plan for the fishery under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; was passed by the House. 147 Cong. Rec. H2900 (daily ed. June 6, 2001).

red bar graphic  COMMITTEE ACTION

  • S. 230 (land conveyance) was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. Rep. No. 107-21, 147 Cong. Rec. S5830 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a former Bureau of Land Management administrative site to the City of Carson City, Nevada, for use as a senior center.

  • S. 238 (water resources) was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. Rep. No. 107-22, 147 Cong. Rec. S5830 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct feasibility studies on water optimization in the Burnt River, Malheur River, Owyhee River, and Powder River basins in Oregon.

  • S. 254 (water resources) was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. Rep. No. 107-23. 147 Cong. Rec. S5830 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill would provide further protections for the watershed of the Little Sandy River as part of the Bull Run Watershed Management Unit in Oregon.

  • S. 491 (water resources) was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. Rep. No. 107-25, 147 Cong. Rec. S5830 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of the Denver Water Reuse project.

  • S. 498 (national trails) was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. Rep. No. 107-26, 147 Cong. Rec. S5830 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill would enact the National Discovery Trails Act of 2001.

  • S. 506 (land exchange) was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. Rep. No. 107-27, 147 Cong. Rec. S5830 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill would amend the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act to provide for a land exchange between the Secretary of Agriculture and the Huna Totem Corporation.

  • S. 509 (Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area) was reported by the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. S. Rep. No. 107-27, 147 Cong. Rec. S5830 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill would establish the Kenai Mountains-Turnagain Arm National Heritage Area in Alaska.

  • H.R. 37 (national trails) was reported by the House Committee on Resources. H.  Rep. No. 107-89, 147 Cong. Rec. H2954 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill would amend the National Trails System Act to update the feasibility and suitability studies of four national historic trails and provide for possible additions to such trails.

  • H.R. 640 (Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area) was reported by the House Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-90, 147 Cong. Rec. H2954 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill would adjust the boundaries of Santa Monica Mountains National Recreation Area.

  • H.R. 1000 (William Howard Taft National Historic Site) was reported by the House Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-88, 147 Cong. Rec. H2954 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill would adjust the boundary of the William Howard Taft National Historic Site in the State of Ohio and would authorize an exchange of land in connection with the historic site.

red bar graphic  BILLS INTRODUCED

  • S. 990 (Smith, R-N.H.) (Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act) would amend the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act to improve the provisions relating to wildlife conservation and restoration programs. 147 Cong. Rec. S5889 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works.

  • S. 1002 (Snowe, R-Me.) (forestry) would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify certain provisions relating to the treatment of forestry activities. 147 Cong. Rec. S5967 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Finance. 

  • H.R. 2062 (Olver, D-Mass.) (salmon restoration) would extend the effective period of the consent of Congress to the interstate compact relating to the restoration of Atlantic salmon to the Connecticut River Basin and would create the Connecticut River Atlantic Salmon Commission. 147 Cong. Rec. H2888 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Resources, and Judiciary.

  • H.R. 2064 (Quinn, R-N.Y.) (brownfields) would provide for comprehensive brownfield site assessment, cleanup, and redevelopment. 147 Cong. Rec. H2888 (daily ed. June 5, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Financial Services, Small Business, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Ways and Means.

  • H.R. 2072 (Berkley, D-Nev.) (nuclear waste storage) would redirect the Nuclear Waste Fund established under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 into research, development, and utilization of risk-decreasing technologies for the onsite storage and eventual reduction of radiation levels of nuclear waste. 147 Cong. Rec. H2955 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, Science, and Ways and Means.

  • H.R. 2076 (Hayworth, R-Ariz.) (solar energy) would amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a credit for residential solar energy property. 147 Cong. Rec. H2955 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

  • H.R. 2084 (Pombo, R-Cal.) (methyl bromide) would prohibit the use of federal funds to implement certain additional reductions in the production or consumption of methyl bromide, unless the Secretary of Agriculture and the Administrator of the EPA have submitted a report on the effects of methyl bromide on the ozone layer. 147 Cong. Rec. H2955 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Agriculture. 

  • H.R. 2085 (Rahall, D-W. Va.) (Native American lands) would protect Native American sacred sites located within the Valley of Chiefs, Montana. 147 Cong. Rec. H2955 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources. 

  • H.R. 2088 (Evans, D-Ill.) (congestion mitigation and air quality) would amend title 23, United States Code, to require consideration under the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program of the extent to which a proposed project or program reduces sulfur or atmospheric carbon emissions and would make renewable fuel projects eligible under that program. 147 Cong. Rec. H2956 (daily ed. June 6, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

  • H.R. 2101 (Calvert, R-Cal.) (public lands; public utilities) would establish that it is the policy of the United States that public lands be used for public utility infrastructure before private lands are condemned for such purpose. 147 Cong. Rec. H2997 (daily ed. June 7, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Resources, and Energy and Commerce.

  • H.R. 2112 (Rogers, R-Mich.) (drinking water; arsenic) would authorize the use of certain federal funding programs to remove arsenic from drinking water when EPA promulgates a new national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic. 147 Cong. Rec. H2997 (daily ed. June 7, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Energy and Commerce, and Agriculture

  • H.R. 2114 (Simpson, R-Idaho) (Antiquities Act) would amend the Antiquities Act regarding the establishment by the President of certain national monuments and to provide for public participation in the proclamation of national monuments. 147 Cong. Rec. H2997 (daily ed. June 7, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources. 

  • H.R. 2115 (Smith, D-Wash.) (water resources) would amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the design, planning, and construction of a project to reclaim and reuse wastewater within and outside of the service area of the Lakehaven Utility District, Washington. 147 Cong. Rec. H2997 (daily ed. June 7, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources. 

  • H.R. 2116 (Taylor, R-N.C.) (electric powerplant emissions) would reduce emissions from Tennessee Valley Authority electric powerplants. 147 Cong. Rec. H2997 (daily ed. June 7, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Copyright© 2001, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. 

large red bar graphic

red bar graphic ALABAMA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

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-Administrative Procedures Regulations,18 AAC 15

Proposed Regulations-Alaska Clean Water and Drinking Water Revolving Loan Fund
Regulations, 18 AAC 76

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Safe Drinking Water Workshops Announced

Development of an Aquifer Water Quality Standard for MTBE

Opening of Rulemaking Docket-Drinking Water

  • Purpose of rulemaking is to address statutory changes that will continue the monitoring assistance program until Jan. 1, 2005, and make several changes related to uses of program funds. See http://www.sosaz.com/aar/2001/11/docket.pdf

Superfund Program-Proposed Registry Inclusions, Prospective Purchaser Agreements

Current Air Quality Readings/Forecasts

red bar graphic ARKANSAS

Dept. of Environmental Quality

Permit Application

  • DEQ proposes to issue a hazardous waste management permit modification to Weyerhaeuser Company; De Queen Treating Plant, De Queen. The proposed permit modification pertains to the final RCRA post-closure Permit 25H (effective on Feb. 23, 1995). Comments due June 11. 

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA

Air Resources Board

Public Consultation Meeting to Discuss Ozone Transport Mitigation Requirements

Public Workshop Regarding New Emission Standards for In-Use Heavy-Duty Diesel-Fueled Refuse Removal Vehicles

Vapor Recovery Certification and Compliance Test Procedures Workshop

Aboveground Storage Tanks Vapor Recovery Workshop

Rice Straw Burning--2001 Report to the Legislature

Proposed Regulations-Zero Emission Vehicles

  • June 28 public hearing to consider proposed amendments to the California zero-emission vehicle regulations regarding the treatment of small or intermediate volume manufacturers that are majority-owned by other manufacturers and infrastructure standardization. See http://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/charger/notice.htm 

Clean Air Plan Workshop

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

Guidance Document Availability

Draft Public Participation Policy Manual

Integrated Waste Management Board

Proposed Regulations-Insurance as a Financial Assurance Demonstration

  • Proposed regulatory amendments of two related financial assurance demonstration requirements under the general term of "insurance." The Board held a public hearing at their regularly scheduled meeting on May 22.  Following the hearing, the Board directed staff to initiate an extended 15-day comment period to allow for review of minor revisions to the regulations and additional stakeholder input. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/Insuranc/

Emergency Regulations-Putrescible Waste Transfer/Processing

  • Board adopted emergency regulations for the transfer/processing of putrescible waste. Previous regulations provided that if an activity only receives material that has been separated for reuse prior to receipt, and the residual amount of solid waste in this material is less than 10% of the amount separated for reuse material received by weight, it is not subject to the Board’s transfer/processing operation and facility regulations. The emergency regulations clarify that all "putrescible waste" received as separated for reuse material counts toward the "residual" amount. Activities that receive materials with a residual amount equal to or greater than 10% will be subject to the Board’s transfer/processing operation and facility regulations. Following this action, the Board received feedback from parties concerned about the potential impacts of the emergency regulations. In response to the feedback, staff brought the regulations back to the Board for re-evaluation and discussion of the issues at its April 24-25 meeting. The Board directed staff to make changes to the regulations and then submit to the Office of Administrative Law (OAL) with a request for a delayed effective date (length to be determined) as an emergency rulemaking. Staff is currently preparing the file for submittal to the OAL.

Final Regulations-Enforcement and Compliance Procedures

Proposed Regulations-Waste Tires

  • The Board initiated a 45-day comment period to address revisions to the waste tire regulations. Assembly Bill (AB) 1843 established the waste tire program and required the Board to adopt emergency and final regulations for permitting of waste tire storage facilities. The Board adopted emergency regulations on June 26, 1991, and final regulations on Aug. 25, 1993. On May 9, 1996, the Board’s Waste Tire Hauler Regulations became effective pursuant to Senate Bill (SB) 744. On Jan. 29, 1998, the Board adopted emergency regulations to remove certain exclusions from the regulations regarding who needs to acquire a waste tire facility permit. These emergency regulations became final this past year. AB 117 was signed into law in 1998 requiring the Board to prepare a report to the legislature on the current waste tire program and to make recommendations by June 30, 1999, for needed changes. The Board adopted the final version of the report "California Waste Tire Program Evaluation and Recommendations" (Tire Report) at its June 22, 1999, meeting. Since the passage of AB 1843 and SB 744 (1993 statutes), the Board has been regulating the storage, disposal, and hauling of waste tires. This last year SB 876 was passed by the Legislature to make changes to the tire management statutes in order to better serve the regulated community and to protect public health and safety and the environment. The Board staff has proposed changes in the existing regulations to implement, interpret, and make specific the provisions of SB 876, as well as implementing certain recommendations from the AB 117 Tire Report. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/RuleArchive/2000/Exclusions/

Proposed Regulations-Withdrawal of Local Enforcement Agency (LEA) Designation

  • These regulations establish a procedure for local governing body withdrawal of LEA designation, Board withdrawal of LEA designation approval, partial or full decertification, or temporary suspension of certification. The Permitting and Enforcement Committee approved these draft regulations in July 1998 for public notice. As a result of comments received after the Permitting and Enforcement Committee action the Board did not initiate a public comment period. Revised text is currently under development. The Board discussed the revised text at its Mar. 20-21, 2001, meeting. The Board approved the regulations for a 45-day comment period at its Apr. 24-25, 2001, meeting. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/leadsign/

Proposed Regulations-Nonhazardous, Nonputrescible, Industrial Waste

  • These regulations set permitting and operational standards for hazardous waste disposal facilities that accept for disposal certain nonhazardous, nonputrescible, industrial solid wastes within a hazardous waste management unit. OAL approved emergency regulations July 31, 2000. The emergency regulations became effective on Oct. 1, 2000. OAL approved an extension through May 30, 2001. Board staff has initiated the process to adopt permanent regulations. The Board conducted a public workshop on Jan. 17, 2001, to discuss the proposed permanent regulations. At its Mar. 20-21 meeting, the Board approved the proposed permanent regulations to be noticed for 45-day public comment period. Staff is currently preparing the regulation package for noticing. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/nonhaz/

Proposed Regulations-Compostable Materials

  • Placement of solid waste facilities and operations that handle compostable materials (green material--not composted, woody material--not composted) into regulatory tiers, development of minimum standards, and adjustment of existing regulations to accommodate the above placement. Public workshops in Sept. 1999 were focused on odor monitoring and enforcement at compostable materials handling sites, as well as on regulatory concepts for the revision of the composting regulations. From early July through early Aug. 2000, in eight venues throughout the state, the Board held workshops to discuss proposed changes to the regulations. Staff analyzed the information gathered at the workshops and revised the draft regulations accordingly. In Dec. 2000, Board staff solicited feedback from an external working group and in Jan. 2001, revised the regulations based on this feedback. The Board discussed issues related this package at its Feb. 20-22, 2001, meeting. The Board will consider approval of the regulations for a 45-day public comment period at its June 19-20 meeting. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/organics/default.htm

Proposed Regulations-Tire Monofills

  • Staff is currently working on the permitting of tire monofills under the solid waste regulations. Staff distributed draft regulations for comment on Mar. 7. The Board held a public workshop on Mar. 12 to discuss the draft regulations. The Board approved the regulations for a 45-day public comment period at its May 22-23 meeting. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/Monofill/

Water Resources Control Board

TMDL Development Public Notices, Drafts

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Proposed Regulation-New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants

  • June 15 public hearing. Rule 1401--New Source Review of Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC), to update the list of TACs and to request comments on potential impacts for facilities subject to Rule 1402–Control of Toxic Air Contaminant Emissions from Existing Sources. Rule 1401 applies to new, modified, or relocated permit units and establishes risk-based thresholds for cancer and noncancer (acute and chronic) TACs. Rule 1402 applies to facility-wide TAC emissions and likewise sets risk-based thresholds for cancer and noncancer impacts. The workshop was held to solicit comments regarding the proposed Rule 1401 amendments and potential Rule 1402 impacts. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/notice_r1401_1402_2.html

red bar graphic COLORADO

Air Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

  • Revisions to the Common Provisions Regulation regarding the adoption of provisions that would provide an affirmative defense argument in enforcement actions for excess emissions during startup and shutdown. Hearing June 21. See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/Com_Prov_06_01.htm

  • Possible revisions of Regulation Number 11; proposal pending to modify the vehicle repair waiver limit under the program. Vehicles failing the enhanced vehicle emissions inspection are eligible for a waiver of repair costs if the vehicle repairs necessary to bring the emissions into compliance exceed $450. The Commission may consider increasing the repair waiver limit, decreasing the repair waiver limit, eliminating the repair waiver altogether, or taking no action at all. Hearing June 21. See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/Reg11_06_01.htm

  • Proposed revisions to Regulation No. 8, Part A and Part E to adopt U.S. EPA revisions and updates to the NESHAPs and maximum achievable control technology standards. The Commission will consider the adoption of minor amendments to stationary source testing and monitoring rules, the adoption of Performance Specification 15, and reformatting the requirements with technical/editorial revisions. The Commission will also consider clarification and redefinition of terms, adoption of new emission limitations for exterior primers on large commercial aircraft, modifications to certain standards in Part E.III.M,P,Q,R,S, and X, and regulations implementing provisions for stationary source combustion turbines. Hearing June 21. See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/Reg8A&E_06_01.htm

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

  • Hearing July 9: Supplemental Hearing Notice. For consideration of the adoption of revised water quality classifications, standards, and designations for multiple segments in the San Juan and Dolores River Basins, Regulation #34 (5 CCR 1002-34), the Gunnison and Lower Dolores River Basins, Regulation #35 (5 CCR 1002-35), and the Lower Colorado River Basin, Regulation #37 (5 CCR 1002-37). The original notice for this rulemaking, dated November 22, 2000, called for a Mar. 12, 2001, rulemaking hearing. Since that time, the Commission has decided to bifurcate and reschedule the hearing on the issues to be considered. See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/wqcc/0107lowercolo2.pdf 

Hazardous Waste Commission

Proposed Regulations-Universal Waste

Proposed Regulations--Amendment of §6.04-Hazardous Waste Commission fees for fiscal year 2001-2002 

Proposed Regulations--Definition for "Chemical Munitions," and Listing of Sarin and Mustard Chemical Warfare Agents; Waste Chemical Weapons; and Soil, Water, Debris, Residues, and Containers Contaminated through Contact with Waste Chemical Weapons

Proposed Regulations-Proposed Approval of Petition for Use of ASTM D 6450-99 for Flash Point Testing per 6 CCR 1007-3, Section 261.21(a)(1)

red bar graphic CONNECTICUT

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Permit Hearings-Calendar

red bar graphic DELAWARE

Dept. of Nat. Resources and Envtl. Control

Notices of Violation

Regulatory Update/Public Notices

red bar graphic FLORIDA

Dept. of Environmental Protection

Proposed Regulations-Coastal Protection

  • Will update Chapter 62E-41, F.A.C., accounting for the departmental reorganization, to amend definitions and clarify policy regarding sand specifications. The regulations provide the standards and procedures for application for coastal construction permits. Hearing, if timely requested, will be June 12.

South Florida Water Management District

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)

  • Series of public workshops early June with U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to solicit final comments for the (1) draft Public Outreach Management Plan and (2) draft Socio-Economic and Environmental Justice Management Plan–both of which are part of the CERP. A copy of the agenda may be obtained by contacting: South Florida Water Management District, Attention: Ellen Underwood, MS #6390, P. O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, Fla. 33416-4680.

red bar graphic GEORGIA

Dept. of Natural Resources, Envtl. Protection Division

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Amendments to Rules for Air Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-1; Amendments to Georgia's Rules for Enhanced Inspection and Maintenance, Chapter 391-3-20; Amendments to the Procedures for Testing and Monitoring Sources of Air Pollutants; Procedures for Calculating Air Permit Fees for Calendar Year 2000 ("Permit Fee Manual"). Public hearing was June 6. Proposed changes to the plan include an extension in the attainment deadline of the ozone air quality standard and the inclusion of updated motor vehicle data. Will be presented to Board June 27 for approval. See http://www.ganet.org/dnr/environ/

  • Revised plan to control air pollution sources in metro Atlanta. The plan includes all of the air pollution controls that were in the previous version (annual vehicle emission testing, low sulfur gasoline, open burning ban, controls on power plants and industrial sources, etc.). Proposed changes to the plan include an extension in the attainment deadline of the ozone air quality standard and the inclusion of updated motor vehicle data. Hearing June 28; comments due same date. 

Air Permit Applications

red bar graphic HAWAII

Office of Envtl. Quality Control

Air Quality-Permit Applications

Environmental Impact Notices

red bar graphic IDAHO

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Outstanding Resource Waters-Petitions

Pending Permit Applications

red bar graphic ILLINOIS


Power Generation/Renewable Energy Legislation Passed

  • H.B. 1599, Illinois Resource Development and Energy Security Act, sent to Governor May 31. Provides various financial incentives for entities to (i) construct new or expand existing electric generating facilities in Illinois, (ii) construct new or upgrade existing electricity transmission lines in Illinois, and (iii) open new coal mines, reopen closed coal mines, or expand production at existing coal mines in Illinois. Amends the Department of Commerce and Community Affairs (DCCA) Law of the Civil Administrative Code of Illinois to authorize DCCA to provide financial assistance to eligible businesses for new electric generating facilities. Amends the Illinois Enterprise Zone Act to designate these business a High Impact Businesses eligible for certain tax exemptions. Amends the Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency, and Coal Resources Development Law of 1997 to create a special fund in the state treasury to support the development of technologies for wind, biomass, and solar power in Illinois. Amends the State Finance Act to create the Energy Infrastructure Fund to be used pay for bonded indebtedness incurred for bonds issued, if any, for DCCA to provide financial assistance to eligible businesses for new electric generating facilities. Amends the Use Tax Act, the Service Use Tax Act, the Service Occupation Tax Act, and the Retailers' Occupation Tax Act to provides for the distribution for a 25-year period into the Energy Infrastructure Fund of 80% of net revenue realized from the 6.25% general rate on the selling price of Illinois-mined coal sold to an eligible business for use in a new electric generating facility. Amends the Illinois Income Tax Act, the Property Tax Code, and the Public Utilities Act to provide various financial incentives and make other changes. Amends the Environmental Protection Act concerning emissions issues. Amends the Illinois Development Finance Authority Act to authorize the issuance of bonds for clean coal and energy projects. Effective July 1, 2001. See http://www.legis.state.il.us/scripts/imstran.exe?LIBSINCWHB1599 and http://www.state.il.us/gov/press/01/may/0530coal.htm (Governor Ryan's press release),

Pollution Control Board

Proposed Regulations

  • PCB is considering a proposal by IEPA to update and clarify rules and to make some substantive changes to the Site Remediation Program (SRP). Hearings have been held concerning In the Matter of: Site Remediation Program: Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 740 (R01-27). The Board is also considering a proposal submitted by Citizens for a Better Environment (R01-29), which has been consolidated with R01-027. In R01-27 there are two proposed substantive changes to the Site Remediation Program. The first is establishment of "soil management zones" (SMZs) that would be used for on-site placement of contaminated soils for structural fill or land reclamation, consolidation of contaminated soils within the remediation site, and removal and re-deposit of contaminated soils following on-site treatment. The second change would require that chemical analyses of soil and groundwater samples be performed by accredited laboratories. In R01-29 the Citizens for a Better Environment are calling for additional public hearing, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements on all Site Remediation Program sites intended to be used as schools. The original proposal would have applied to all SRP sites intended to be used as a school, playground, or public park, however, it was amended following questions at the first public hearing. The Board tentatively plans to move these rulemakings to first notice in the coming months. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/RULES/R01-027/HearingRecords.htm and http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/RULES/R01-029/HearingRecords.htm.  

  • In the Matter of: Provisional Variances from Water Temperature Standards: Proposed New 35 Ill. Adm. Code 301.109. Rulemaking proposal filed by IEPA 4/13/01; Accepted for hearing 4/19/01. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/rules/R01-31/r01-31.pdf Hearing June 20 in Chicago. Deadlines for the Clerk of the Board (Clerk) to receive prefiled testimony is June 13. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Archive/dscgi/ds.py/GetRepr/File-13884/html

  • Proposed revisions to the nondegradation rules (In the Matter of: Revisions to Antidegradation Rules: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 302.105, 303.205, 303.206 and 106.990-106.995). The proposed revisions are part of the triennial water quality standards review. Included in the proposal is changing the rules’ name to Antidegradation to conform with federal rules. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/RULES/R01-013/HearingRecords.htm and   http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/RULES/106prop.pdf 

  • In the Matter of: Wastewater Pretreatment Update, USEPA Amendments (July 1, 2000 through Dec. 31, 2000). Proposal for Public Comments adopted 05/17/01; Illinois Register publication anticipated 06/01/01.   

  • Proposed amendments to UST regulations. The amendments that the agency is proposing are intended primarily to clarify and refine certain provisions, taking into account the experience the agency has gained in administering the UST Program and changes in the law since its adoption. Included in the proposed amendments is the addition of MTBE as an indicator contaminant in gasoline in response to increased national health concerns. The Agency is proposing to recognize the role of licensed professional geologists in UST site evaluations. It is also proposing to let only accredited laboratories perform quantitative analyses of samples for use in UST remediation projects. Second hearing was Apr. 3. In the Matter of: Amendments to Regulation of Petroleum Leaking Underground Storage Tanks: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 732. See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/RULES/R01-026/Agency_Proposal.pdf 

Open Regulatory Dockets

Envtl. Protection Agency

Permit Application/Public Hearings


red bar graphic  INDIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Proposed Regulations-Indiana Scoring Model

  • Amends 329 IAC 7-2-6, 329 IAC 7-11-1, 329 IAC 7-11-2, 329 IAC 7-11-3 with a new maximum score of 10 to be eligible for deletion from the Commissioner's Bulletin and adds designations that can be attained for consideration for deletion. Senate Enrolled Act 360-1997 required rules be adopted by the solid waste management board to amend 329 IAC 7 concerning the Indiana Scoring Model and assessment of hazardous substance response sites and determine a maximum score to allow sites that either have been the subject of a successful remediation or score at or below the maximum score to be removed from the priority ranking if appropriate. A procedure for deleting a listed site from the priority ranking and a maximum score was established by LSA #98-110(F), which was effective Nov. 27, 1998. A maximum score of 5 was established. The procedures allowed for either a site to petition for deletion or for IDEM to initiate deletion of a site. After consideration of all sites on the list, it was determined by IDEM that this maximum score is inadequate to appropriately delete all the sites that have been the subject of a successful remediation. There are sites that pose no risk to human health or the environment but still accrue a score greater than 5. IDEM would like to again examine the maximum score for a site to be removed from the priority ranking and, in addition, the Department would also like to consider criteria or other approvals (designations) to be applied to a remediated site to determine appropriateness for that site to be deleted from the list. Public hearing Aug. 21.

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water

  • IDEM is soliciting public comment on a new rule concerning the operation of water treatment plants and water distribution systems for public drinking water systems. Comments due June 30. 

Proposed Regulations-Wastewater Management

  • IDEM has developed draft rule language for new rules concerning management of wastewater. Cleaning of sewage disposal systems, wastewater transportation, wastewater disposal, and related business activities are included in the scope of the draft rules. The new article, 327 IAC 7.1, will replace 327 IAC 7. The new rule language will allow the agency to meet the requirements of 40 C.F.R. pt. 503 and 40 C.F.R. pt. 257 subpt. A regarding the land application of wastewater. By this notice, IDEM is soliciting public comment on the draft rule language. IDEM seeks comment on the affected citations listed and any other provisions of Title 327 that may be affected by this rulemaking. To reflect the new rules, IDEM will be repealing 327 IAC 7. See http://www.in.gov/legislative/register/Vol24/09Jun/11ID327970007.pdf

Proposed Regulations-Underground Storage Tanks

  • IDEM is soliciting public comment on amendments to rules at 329 IAC 9 concerning underground storage tanks. This rule will clarify language in the existing rule without adding new requirements. Several new definitions may be added such as "underground storage tank," "piping run," and "temporary closure.". This rule will also consider appropriate changes to make the rule consistent with IC 13-12-3-2 that allows cleanup programs and remediation programs to use either standard default options or a risk assessment (risk-based) approach for determining cleanup levels and methods for cleanups. IDEM seeks comments on the affected citations listed and any other provisions of Title 329 that may be affected by this rulemaking. 

See http://www.in.gov/legislative/register/June-1-2001.html

Pending Permit Applications

red bar graphic  IOWA

Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Fund Board

  • New Chapter 16, “Waivers and Variances,” Iowa Admin. Code. Chapter 16 is intended to provide guidelines under which the Board will consider waivers and variances to its rules, as allowed in the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act and mandated by Exec. Order No. 11. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/acb010530.html

Dept. of Natural Resources-Envtl. Protection Commission

Final Regulations-Onsite Wastewater Treatment

  • Chapter 93, “Onsite Wastewater Treatment System Assistance Program,” Iowa Admin. Code. This new chapter establishes a revolving loan program for onsite wastewater treatment systems (e.g., septic systems). Under the program, qualifying rural homeowners can obtain low–interest loans for the improvement or rehabilitation of onsite systems. The onsite wastewater systems assistance fund created by 2001 Iowa Acts, Senate File 479, will be used as the source of loan funds. Effective June 20. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/acb010516.html

Emergency Regulation-Household Hazardous Waste Regional Collection Centers

  • Amends Chapter 211, “Grants for Regional Collection Centers of Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators and Household Hazardous Wastes,” Iowa Admin. Code. The purpose of this amendment is to reflect OSHA training requirements for the duties of a regional collection center operator more accurately and require training for mobile unit operators to ensure safety in hazardous waste transportation. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/acb010418.html

red bar graphic KANSAS

Department of Health & Environment, Division of Environment

KDHE "Kansas Environmental News"

red bar graphic KENTUCKY

Dept. for Envtl. Protection, Division of Air Quality

Permit Applications/Hearing Notices 

Dept. for Envtl. Protection, Division of Water

Permit Applications  

red bar graphic LOUISIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Permit Applications

red bar graphic MAINE

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • The Department is proposing to amend Chapters 100, 115, and 140 of the Department's regulations to address remaining requirements for federal approval of Maine's Title V Operating Permit Program. These changes include enhancing the EPA and public participation review process for minor license revisions, incorporating provisions in Chapter 140 whereby a facility may make changes with a simple 7-day advance notice if the changes do not result in an increase in emissions, removing certain activities from the list of insignificant (exempt) activities contained in Appendix B to Chapter 115 and Chapter 140, incorporating the latest federal air quality modeling requirements, and amending the Chapter 100 definitions to include definitions consistent with federal requirements for the construction or reconstruction of hazardous air pollutant sources and maximum available control technology determinations. The proposed amendments will also establish provisions in Chapter 115 and Chapter 140 requiring an applicant to notify any affected federal land manager and Native American governing body of all major modifications or new major source license applications and provide at least 30 days for comment. Public hearing was June 7; comments due June 18. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/051601.htm 

  • Another proposal would require affected sources to install selective non-catalytic reduction or a control technology determined by the Board to achieve essentially equivalent NOx reductions on each unit by May 1, 2003. In addition to a control technology requirement, the proposal establishes interim emission limitations for the period from June 15, 2003, through Dec. 30, 2004, and final emission limitations thereafter. The final emission limitations, which become effective on Jan. 1, 2005, and target electric generating units with a maximum heat input capacity of less than 750 million Btu per hour, require these units to meet a 0.22 lb/rnm Btu emission limit. Electric generating units with a maximum heat input capacity of 750 million Btu per hour or greater must meet a 0.15 lb/mm Btu emission limit. Finally, indirect heat exchangers, primary boilers, and resource recovery units with a maximum heat input capacity greater than 250 million Btu per hour must continue to meet the 0.20 lb Btu emission limit. The Department is also proposing that an alternative emission limitation be established in the event a source cannot achieve the final emission limitations after installing and optimizing an approved control technology. Any source seeking an alternative emission limitation would need to apply to the Board before the Jan. 1, 2005, final emission limitation deadline, and would have the burden of proof in demonstrating that achieving the final limits was technically infeasible. Comments due June 11. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/050901.htm

Proposed Regulations-No Adverse Environmental Effect Standard of the Site Location Law

  • To ensure consistency between regulatory programs, the proposed rule eliminates the discrepancies between gravel pit performance standards. Specifically, the rule repeals the gravel pit buffer standards required under the Site Location Law and replaces them with the buffer standards contained in the Performance Standards for Excavations, 38 MRSA §490-D. Public hearing was June 7; comments due June 28. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/051601.htm

red bar graphic MARYLAND

Office of the Governor

Executive Order-Water Conservation

Executive Order-"Green" Power/Energy Conservation

  • Order creates a commission to make recommendations and set criteria for constructing and maintaining energy efficient and environmentally responsible state facilities, setting goals for the purchase of "green power," and outlining a comprehensive energy conservation strategy. See http://www.gov.state.md.us/gov/press/2001/mar/html/green.html

Dept. of the Environment

2002 List of Impaired Waters-Draft

Public Meetings/Hearings     

Water Quality Standard-Triennial Review

red bar graphic MASSACHUSETTS

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality 

Enforcement Actions

red bar graphic  MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Department intends to develop a proposed revision to the Air Pollution Control Rules (ORR 2001-040EQ). The proposed amendment will provide new rules regarding monitoring, reporting, recordkeeping, and written programs relating to emissions from malfunction, start-up, and shutdown of source processes and/or process equipment. The new rules will be incorporated into Part 9, Emission Limitations and Prohibitions-Miscellaneous, of the Air Pollution Control Rules. Contact: Kendra Spielberg, DEQ Air Quality Division, 517-373-7084.

  • Pursuant to Act 451, the Air Quality Division is operating a work group to assist in the revision of rules regulating the New Source Review (NSR) program for rules packages 2000-077EQ and 2000-078EQ (formerly part of rules package 98-036EQ). The proposed NSR rule revisions will address program approval issues raised by U.S. EPA, findings of the Office of the Auditor General, and possible new exemptions from the requirement to obtain a Permit to Install. The fifteenth work group meeting will be held in the AQD Conference Room, Hollister Building, 4th Floor, 106 West Allegan Street, Lansing Michigan. Information Contact: Jerry Trautman, Air Quality Division, 517-335-4855, or e-mail at trautmaj@state.mi.us

Jurisdictional Change-Certain Wetlands

  • The U.S. Census Bureau has released the official 2000 census figures. The population for Allegan and Eaton Counties each now exceeds 100,000, which will significantly change the regulatory status of certain wetlands within these counties. Part 303, Wetlands Protection, of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended, requires permits for certain activities in regulated wetlands. Specifically, a permit is required from the DEQ to dredge or remove soil or minerals from a wetland; to deposit or place fill material in a wetland; to construct, operate, or maintain a use or development in a wetland; or to drain surface water from a wetland. Section 30301 of pt. 303 defines regulated wetlands as those contiguous to the Great Lakes; Lake St. Clair; or any inland lake, pond, river, or stream; and as those noncontiguous wetlands larger than five acres in counties with a population of 100,000 or more. The term "contiguous" is defined in the administrative rules promulgated under pt. 303. Allegan and Eaton counties have not met the 100,000 population criterion in the past, and noncontiguous wetlands more than five acres in size have not been subject to pt. 303 jurisdiction in these counties. Now that the 2000 census has officially established the population in these two counties at 100,000 or more, noncontiguous wetlands more than five acres in size will come under pt. 303 jurisdiction. Permits will be required as of July 1, 2001, for all activities described above in noncontiguous wetlands more than five acres in size, in Allegan and Eaton counties, regardless of when the activity began. Information Contact: Wetlands Assessment Program, Land and Water Management Division, 517-373-8000, or at http://www.deq.state.mi.us/lwm

Permitting Calendar  

Permit Applications-Air Quality

Proposed Enforcement Consent Orders

Air Quality Division Newsletter

Surface Water Quality Division Bulletin

red bar graphic MINNESOTA

Pollution Control Agency

Permit Applications, Other Notices

Animal Feedlot/Storage Area Registration Update

red bar graphic  MISSOURI

Dept. of Natural Resources

Final Regulations-Drinking Water/Operator Certification

  • Revisions to 10 CSR 60-14.010. Amendment adopts federal operator certification requirements and provides additional safeguards for the protection of public health. The rule applies to all community water systems, regardless of size or compliance history, and all nontransient noncommunity water systems. All transient systems that use surface water or groundwater under the direct influence of surface water will be required to comply. A descriptive system is set forth for classifying water systems, and separate classifications are established for treatment and distribution. A chief operator must be in responsible charge of the system. Process control/system integrity decisions must be made by a certified operator. A certified operator must be available or able to be contacted as needed to initiate appropriate action. Public water systems employing a contract operator will be required to have a written agreement with the operator. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n11/v26n11c.pdf

Proposed TMDLs

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-General

red bar graphic NEW HAMPSHIRE

Dept. of Envtl. Services

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • June 27 hearing regarding Env-A 607.01, 704.06, 903.06, 907.03, and 3700: NOx Emissions Reduction Fund. Env-A 3700 is a proposed new chapter titled “NOx Emissions Reduction Fund for NOx-Emitting Generation Sources.” Proposed rule Env-A 704.06 is also a new rule, while the remaining proposed rules are amendments of existing rules. All of the proposals are designed to implement HB 649, codified at RSA 125-J:13 and 14. This law requires those who go off the power grid and install high polluting diesel engine generation sources to submit NOx emission data to the Department and to either reduce NOx emissions or pay a fee. Comments due July 9. See http://www.des.state.nh.us/hearings.htm

red bar graphic NEW JERSEY

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

2002 Water Quality Limited Segments List 

  • DEP is requesting submission of water quality related data to support the development of the 2002 Water Quality Limited Segments List under Section 303(d) of the federal CWA and Subchapter 6 of the New Jersey Watershed Management Planning Rules (N.J.A.C. 7:15-6). The Water Quality Limited Segments List is used to establish priorities for implementation of water quality improvement measures including, as appropriate, development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs). Data received through this solicitation may be used to: (1) confirm impairment of a waterbody and/or presence of a pollutant that is currently on the 1998 Water Quality Limited Segments List; (2) delist a waterbody and/or a pollutant that is currently on the 1998 Water Quality Limited Segments List; or (3) list a waterbody and/or a pollutant that is not included on the 1998 Water Quality Limited Segments List. Submit material to DEP, Division of Science, Research and Technology, Water Assessment Team, 1st Floor, 401 East State Street, P.O. Box 409, Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0409.  

Current DEP Bulletin (Permit Applications; Proposed Regulations) 

New Ozone Information Available

red bar graphic NEW MEXICO

Water Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations

  • Hearing June 11 regarding Proposed Amendments to 20.6.2 NMAC–Ground Water Discharge Permit Public Notice Requirements. Written notices/comments due June 1. See http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/

  • Hearing June 11 regarding Proposed Amendments to 20.6.4 NMAC–Standards for Interstate and Intrastate Surface Waters. The Environment Department is proposing to change the current definition of "surface waters of the State" and "waters," make changes to the antidegradation policy and implementation plan, and to change the description of designated uses for the Canadian River Basin. Written notices for the hearing were due June 1. See http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Office of the Governor/Office of the Attorney General

Statement Regarding Federal Court Ruling Upholding MTBE Utilization Ban

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

  • Proposal to amend regulations contained in pts. 370, 371, 372, 373, 374, and 376 (pt. 370 series) and associated changes to pt. 621 of Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations (6 NYCRR) of the State of New York. The proposed amendments incorporate federal hazardous waste management regulations promulgated during the period Dec. 5, 1997, through July 6, 1999, into the New York state regulations. In addition, typographical errors and inconsistencies discovered in the regulations compared to federal regulations are corrected. Adoption of many of these federal amendments is necessary for the state to maintain final authorization from the U.S. EPA to administer and enforce NYSDEC's hazardous waste management program in lieu of the federal hazardous waste management program. Adoption of the proposed amendments will also eliminate duplicative state and federal regulations of several hazardous waste management activities. Hearing July 19; comments due July 24. See http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/enb/20010516/not0.html

Emergency Regulations-Radioactive Waste

  • Effective May 7; to amend 6 NYCRR Part 380 to regulate the disposal of the radioactive wastes generated by the extraction or concentration of uranium or thorium where such waste is not regulated by the U.S. NRC. This emergency rule was proposed for permanent adoption in the State Register on Nov. 15, 2000. It allows for this rule to be in effect while it goes through the rulemaking process for permanent adoption. The purpose of the rule is to control the disposal of wastes contaminated with the radioactive wastes from the extraction of uranium and thorium from ores. The rule requires that these radioactive wastes be disposed of at facilities authorized to accept radioactive waste, and will effectively exclude them from pt. 360 and pt. 373 landfills, unless a variance to pt. 380 is requested and granted. Variances may be granted for slightly contaminated wastes, if the proposed disposal will have no significant adverse impact on the public health and safety or the environment. This emergency rule will be effective for 60 days from date of filing with Department of State (until July 6, 2001).

ALJ Rulings

Environmental Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications) 

Permit Applications

Coastal Management Program Notices

red bar graphic  NORTH CAROLINA

Office of the Governor

Statement Concerning Ga.-N.C.-Tenn. Agreement On Mountain Air Quality

Dept. of Env't and Natural Resources

Proposed Regulations-Laboratories 


  • Proposed amended rules will set forth certification criteria for laboratory facilities performing any tests, analyses, measurements, or monitoring required under G.S. 143, Article 21 or any rules adopted thereunder, and to update the fees for certification. The rules apply to laboratory facilities that perform analyses for persons subject to G.S. 143-215.1, 143-215.63, et seq.; the Environmental Management Commission Rules for Surface Water Monitoring and Reporting (15A NCAC 02B .0500); Groundwater rules (15A NCAC 02L .0100, .0200, and .0300); Waste Not Discharged to Surface waters rules (15A NCAC 02H.0200); Point Source Discharges to the Surface Waters rules (15A NCAC 02H .0100), Local Pretreatment Programs (15A NCAC 02H .0900), and the Underground Storage Tank Program of the Division of Waste Management. Will be formally proposed this summer. 

Temporary Regulations-Water Quality-Point Source Discharges


  • Effective May 11. These temporary amendments are intended to prevent the Division of Water Quality's permitting rules from being an obstacle to the implementation of emergency measures and procedures that could possibly produce wastewater discharges from emergency decontamination operations. Temporary rulemaking is necessary in order to expedite North Carolina's Foreign Animal Disease Strategic Plan in the event of an emergency as described by G.S. 106-399.4.

Proposed Regulations-Coastal Management; Land Use Planning Guidelines


  • In November 1998, the Coastal Resources Commission (CRC) authorized the appointment of the Land Use Plan Review Team to evaluate the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) land use planning program and make recommendations for improvement. Based on the recommendations submitted in September 2000, the CRC is revising its land use planning guidelines (Subchapter 07B). The revised guidelines aim to improve the quality of local plans by better supporting the purposes and goals of CAMA. The rules include simple, clear requirements for land use plans, improved land suitability analysis, and management topics to tie land use plans to CAMA goals. Will be formally proposed this summer. 

For information on the preceding three notices, see http://oahnt.oah.state.nc.us/intranet/register/Volume15Issue23.pdf

Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan

Division of Air Quality Permit Applications, Hearings

Division of Air Quality Penalty Assessments

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

  • OAC 252:100-5-2.2(b), Registration, Emission Inventory and Annual Operating Fees [AMENDED]. The proposed revision will provide for an increase in annual operating fees. OAC 252:100-7-15(b), Permits for Minor Facilities [AMENDED]. The proposed change will provide coverage under a general permit through the filing of a notice of intent when allowed by the specific general permit. OAC 252:100-31, Control of Emission of Sulfur Compounds [AMENDED]. The proposed changes will simplify and clarify the subchapter as part to the agency-wide re-right/de-wrong initiative. Substantive changes are proposed to the hydrogen sulfide standards in subsection 26(a) for new petroleum and natural gas processes. Hearing June 20 in Tulsa. See http://www.deq.state.ok.us/MayJune2001New.htm

Draft Source Water Assessment and Protection Program Document

red bar graphic OREGON

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Air Permit Applications 

Water Quality Permit Applications

Proposed Regulations/General Permits-Air Quality

  • Hearings June 18, comments due June 19, regarding proposed General Air Contaminant Discharge Permits (ACDP) for 18 source categories. Each permit will include the relevant requirements for the source category, including Plant Site Emission Limits and other emission standards, as well as associated testing, monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. The permits will have a duration of 10 years. See http://www.deq.state.or.us/aq/notices/PN_GPermits.htm

Proposed Regulations-General 

Public Notices-Cleanup Remedies

Public Notices-Remedial Actions

red bar graphic PENNSYLVANIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Revisions--State Implementation Plan for the Philadelphia Ozone Nonattainment Area

  • The first SIP revision seeks to demonstrate to U.S. EPA that the Department considered additional control measures by clarifying relevant documentation previously submitted to EPA. The second SIP revision establishes a new 2005 motor vehicle emission budget for 2005 for the purposes of transportation conformity. Areas must include in their SIPs all control measures which will be in place by the attainment year and which are assumed in the air quality attainment demonstration. This proposed SIP includes emission reductions attributable to the Federal new car program (Tier 2/Low Sulfur) that begins with the 2004 model year. Hearings June 28; comments due June 29. See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol31/31-21/909.html

Public Meetings/Hearings on Draft Antidegradation Guidance

  • Series of three meetings. This implementation guidance provides a general description of the program and its legislative history, an explanation of existing and designated uses and presents discussion on the following topics: (1) Processing of petitions, evaluations and assessments to change a designated use; (2) Qualifying as HQ or EV waters; (3) Protection of HQ and EV waters including nondischarge alternatives, nondegrading discharge alternatives and minimum technology-based standards (antidegradation best available combination of technologies); (4) Social or economic justification needed to lower water quality; (5) Nonpoint source controls; and (6) Public participation during implementation of antidegradation requirements. See http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol31/31-21/910.html

NPDES Permit Applications

Stream Redesignation Evaluations; Water Quality Standards Review

Final Guidance Document

  • Policy for Implementing the General Operating Permit Strategy for Aboveground Storage Tanks. The purpose of this guidance is to provide continuity and direction to DEP staff concerning the compliance with the October 11, 2000, inspection and upgrade deadline and for the implementation of the General Operating Permit Program for Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs). DEP will apply this guidance in its General Operating Permit process for large ASTs (tanks with capacities greater than 21,000 gallons) and for storage tanks with capacities greater than 1,100 gallons containing highly hazardous substance(s). This only applies to tanks that were installed (constructed) and registered with the Division of Storage Tanks prior to Oct. 11, 1997, under Chapter 245, Subchapter C (relating to Permitting of underground and AST systems and facilities). 

General NPDES Permit for Wet Weather Discharges from Combined Sewer Systems (PAG-6)

Draft Guidance Documents

Pennsylvania Infrastructure Investment Authority (PENNVEST)-DEP Meeting

Diesel School Bus Retrofit Demonstration Project Grant

red bar graphic RHODE ISLAND

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Upcoming Events

red bar graphic SOUTH CAROLINA

Office of the Governor

Hog Farm Executive Order-Moratorium

Dept. of Health and Envtl. Control

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Permit Application Notices

red bar graphic  TENNESSEE

Dept. of Environment and Conservation

Permit Applications

red bar graphic  TEXAS

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Proposed Regulations-Solid Waste

  • MSW Permit Modifications; the rule amendments will implement the permit modification process for municipal solid waste facilities regulated by TNRCC, to include registered facilities. TNRCC contends that adoption of the proposed rule amendments would allow for a more expeditious processing of municipal solid waste permit and registration modifications, update the program to current municipal solid waste industry practices, and provide for more public input into the process. Previously delayed until after the 2001 legislative session. [§§305.70, 39.105, 39.403, 39.106]. Comments due July 9; no public hearing. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/pc97186305.pdf and http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/pc97186039.pdf

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Control of Air Pollution from Volatile Organic Compounds. This rulemaking would amend sections of 30 TAC, Chapter 115, Control of Air Pollution for VOCs to clarify and add flexibility to existing requirements by accomplishing the following changes: (1) correct the typographical and technical errors, (2) update references to a variety of terms, (3) incorporate clarifications based on rule interpretation, (4) delete redundant or obsolete language, and (5) add a recordkeeping requirement so that compliance with exemptions can be determined. Public hearing July 3; comments due July 9. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/hearings/ph01005.pdf and http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/pc01005.pdf

  • Quadrennial Review of Chapter 111 (Control of Air Pollution From Visible Emissions and Particulate Matter). Comments due June 25. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/pc99063r.pdf

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Permit Hearings

Public Hearings/Proposed Rules

red bar graphic  UTAH

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Major Source Permitting

  • The current major source permitting rules may require sources of air pollution that make a major modification to install more stringent pollution control equipment. This amendment aligns the Utah rule with a 1992 federal rule revision that adds a new definition for "major modification" and other terms used in the definition of "major modification." The new definition excludes, so long as there is no emissions increase, pollution control projects at existing electric utility steam generating units. Also excluded are the installation, operation, cessation, or removal of a temporary clean coal demonstration projects. Finally, the new definition requires that determining whether a modification at an electric utility steam generating unit is major or not is done by comparing present actual emissions to future actual emissions. Comments due July 2; public hearing June 21. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23759.htm and http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23760.htm

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance

  • Proposal changes the date of incorporation by reference from Oct. 7, 1998, to Aug. 1, 2001. The rule
    incorporates by reference the SIP for the general requirements of the Vehicle Emissions Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) Programs. The I/M programs are in place to reduce vehicle emissions so that federal health standards for ozone and carbon monoxide are not exceeded. On Apr. 5, 2001, U.S. EPA published a final rule postponing implementation of On-Board Diagnostics inspections until Jan. 1, 2002; the only substantive change in the SIP text is to amend the date from 2001 to 2002. Other changes in the SIP remove appendices that are out of date, and move others to the Technical Support Documentation that is submitted to EPA with the change in the SIP text. Comments due July 2; public hearing June 21. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23756.htm

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance, Salt Lake County

  • Changes the date of adoption from Feb. 5, 1997, to Aug. 1, 2001. The rule incorporates by reference the I/M Program for Salt Lake County. The I/M program is in place to reduce vehicle emissions so that federal health standards for carbon monoxide and ozone are not exceeded. Changes in the SIP text update the county's program improvements, including an updated analyzer and daily downloading of data from each analyzer. Other changes in the SIP include replacing out of date county ordinances in the appendices, and moving other appendices to the Technical Support Documentation that is submitted to U.S. EPA. The Technical Support Documentation also includes the demonstration that Salt Lake County's test and repair network is as effective as a test-only network would be. This will enable the county to claim full credit instead of 50% credit in emissions reduction. Comments due July 2; public hearing June 21. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23757.htm

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Vehicle Inspection and Maintenance-Utah County

  • Changes the date of adoption from Feb. 5, 1997, to Aug. 1, 2001. The rule incorporates by reference the SIP for the I/M Program for Utah County. The I/M program is in place to reduce vehicle emissions so that federal health standards for carbon monoxide are not exceeded. Utah County has demonstrated that its program qualifies for full credit in reducing emissions, under provisions of the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995. Before U.S. EPA can give full approval to the program, however, the SIP must be amended to include the latest improvements Utah County has made in the program. Utah County has moved to the UTAH 2000 analyzer for emissions, requires that emissions inspectors check the On-Board Diagnostic systems in 1996 and newer vehicles, and now downloads data daily from the emissions analyzers. Other changes in the SIP include replacing appendices that are out of date with the new county ordinances and moving other appendices to the Technical Support Documentation that is submitted to EPA with the SIP. Comments due July 2; public hearing June 21. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23758.htm

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

  • This proposed rule change eliminates the waste code K160 as an excluded waste due to a federally-required administrative stay. The waste code is no longer listed as hazardous by U.S. EPA. This rule change also adopts a federal rule that will allow Autoliv, ASP Inc. of Promontory, Utah, to implement a project under the federal Project XL program. The principal objective of Autoliv's XL Project is to explore the benefits of more streamlined and flexible regulation of pyrotechnic hazardous wastes from the automobile airbag industry that are treated in industrial furnaces. The proposed rule change provides regulatory flexibility to Autoliv in the form of a conditional exemption from the definition of hazardous waste for the pyrotechnic wastes. Comments due July 2. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23763.htm

  • Proposed rule change corrects incorrect references regarding the state's authority to issue enforceable documents under certain circumstances for post closure activities at hazardous waste treatment, storage, and disposal facilities. Comments due July 2. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23764.htm

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

  • The Utah Water Quality Act was amended by H.B. 14 during the 2001 legislative session. The proposed amendment updates definitions so that the rule is consistent with the new statutory language. Comments due July 2; public hearing June 19. One of the proposed amendments implements the requirement that, after Jan. 1, 2002, persons who design, inspect, or maintain underground wastewater disposal systems, and who conduct percolation tests or soil evaluations for these systems, must be certified by the State. The proposed rule outlines procedures for obtaining certification, who is required to obtain certification, training, appeals, qualifications and definitions. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23766.htm, http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23768.htm, http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23769.htm, and http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23767.htm

  • Proposed amendment updates procedural notice requirements for treatment plant bypasses. A recent bypass event at a municipal wastewater treatment plant has brought into question the adequacy of the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) rule, Subsection R317-8-4(4.1)(13), governing bypasses. Utah was required to adopt the equivalent of federal rules in order to gain primacy of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharge permit program. As a result, the bypass rule is identical to the federal EPA rule. The proposed rule has more stringent requirements than the counterpart federal rules. However, the Utah Water Quality Board and the Division of Water Quality have determined that the more stringent rules are necessary in this case in order to protect public health and the environment. The proposed amendment provide specific notice requirements for permittees needing treatment plant bypasses. Prior notice of a bypass is changed from 10 days to 90 days for anticipated bypasses. Notice provisions are added for emergency bypasses and unanticipated bypasses. Comments due July 2. See http://www.rules.state.ut.us/publicat/bulletin/2001/20010601/23780.htm

Permit Applications

red bar graphic VERMONT

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Permit Applications

red bar graphic VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

Draft Interim Nutrient Cap Strategy for the Shenandoah and Potomac River Basins

Draft TMDLs

Public Meeting, Hearing Notices

Sustainable Future II Conference

red bar graphic  WASHINGTON

Dept. of Ecology

Emergency Regulation-Drought Preparedness

Draft Regulation-Water Quality

State Environmental Policy Act Register

red bar graphic WEST VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Public Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications, Proposed Regulations)

red bar graphic WISCONSIN

Dept. of Natural Resources

Air Rules Development

Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule

  • Public hearings June 12 on the repeal and recreation of ch. NR 166, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the safe drinking water loan program. U.S. EPA recently interpreted federal laws to allow safe drinking water loan program funding of new public water systems. The proposed revisions to ch. NR 166 will enable safe drinking water loan program funding of new public water systems projects, revise the safe drinking water loan program priority scoring and ranking system to include scoring of new public water system projects and make general improvements to better reflect current policies and procedures.

  • Public hearing June 26 on an amendment to s. NR 410.03(3), Wis. Adm. Code, relating to asbestos inspection fees. The proposed rule will increase the asbestos inspection fee from $200 to $210 on large asbestos abatement projects. A large asbestos abatement project is one where at least 1,000 square or linear feet of regulated asbestos containing material is to be abated, or a combination of square and linear feet where the summed total is at least 1,000. 

  • Available at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/hearmeet.html

red bar graphic WYOMING

Dept. of Environmental Quality

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality

  • Proposed revisions of Chapter 1 of the Wyoming Water Quality Rules and Regulations-Surface Water Quality Standards (Triennial Review). Wyoming DEQ/WQD has proposed significant revisions of the state surface water quality standards to the Wyoming Environmental Quality Council for adoption as state rules and regulations. The final proposed rule package that has been submitted to the Council for consideration consists of two separate options. The essential difference between the two options is contained in Section 34 and Appendix A of the proposed rules relating to the process by which surface water classifications may be revised. A separate Statement of Reasons is also provided for each option. Will be considered by Environmental Quality Council at its June 21-22 meeting. See http://deq.state.wy.us/wqd/events/chap1explanation.htm and http://deq.state.wy.us/eqc/600agen.htm

Copyright© 2001, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved. 

large red bar graphic

red bar graphic GENERAL

  • The U.S. voiced its disagreement with proposed European Commission restrictions on genetically modified crops and products. It said the regulations would violate World Trade Organization measures, including the Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures. 

  • According to a report issued by World Wide Fund for Nature, North Atlantic wild salmon could be made extinct by 2021 by larger salmon escaping from fish farms. See http://www.panda.org/news/press/news.cfm?id=2356 and http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1362000/1362144.stm

  • U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization Director-General Jacques Diouf said developing countries are moving too slowly to eliminate stocks of old pesticides. 

  • Rwandan soldiers entered the Virunga National Park, a World Heritage site, to protect endangered mountain gorillas after two of the animals were allegedly captured, killed, and eaten by Hutu militants.

  • The Aarhus Convention will enter into force this fall, having been ratified by 16 countries. Hungary ratified the Convention on May 29, Estonia on June 6.

  • The issue of whale sanctuaries is shaping up to be a significant discussion item at the upcoming meeting of the International Whaling Commission. 

  • Extensive views of worldwide air pollution were obtained by an orbiting NASA spacecraft. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1359000/1359917.stm

red bar graphic CLIMATE CHANGE

  • The U.S. National Academy of Sciences, in a report requested by President Bush, noted that while there are still some uncertainties about the science of global warming, the conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that greenhouse gas concentrations are increasing and global temperature is rising are correct. No policy positions were requested or recommended, but the analysis may significantly affect the administration's attitude and presentation at this week's meetings in Gothenburg, Sweden, with European leaders  See http://www4.nationalacademies.org/onpi/webextra.nsf/web/climate?OpenDocument

  • The new Italian government called on the EU to be more tolerant of the U.S.'s position on Kyoto. It opposed a draft declaration that would commit the EU to implement Kyoto even in the absence of U.S. participation. The action was consistent with campaign statements made by Prime Minister-elect Silvio Berlusconi. Outgoing Italian Environment Minister Willer Bordon said the current government confirms its full adherence to the EU line on Kyoto and intends to approve a draft EU declaration in support of Kyoto. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

  • The United Nations launched its Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, a four-year review of global ecosystems. See http://www.unep.org and http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1371000/1371251.stm

  • Denmark became, by an overwhelming legislative vote, the first European Union country, and the second industrialized Annex I party to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (after Romania), to ratify the protocol.

  • They [the U.S., re Kyoto] are wrong, they are clearly wrong. The Americans have made a mistake," said Canadian Environment Minister David Anderson.

red bar graphic ASIA/MIDDLE EAST

  • South Korea intends to begin an ecosystem inspection project in the demilitarized zone between North and South Korea. 

  • Japan's annual environment "White Paper," issued by the Ministry of Environment, emphasized global warming control measures and discussed a planned tax on automobiles.

  • Zhou Shengxian, director of China's State Forestry Administration, said extensive measures were being developed to combat desertification, the goal being to halt desertification by 2010. See http://www1.chinadaily.com.cn/cndy/2001-06-07/12172.html

  • U.N. Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific Executive Secretary Kim Hak-Su warned that rapid urbanization in eastern Asia could lead to environmental "disaster." "Environmental challenges that were identified in the 1990s continue to haunt the region and are in fact exacerbated by the emergence of new challenges linked to enhanced poverty and rapid globalization," said Mr Kim. See http://unescap.org/unis/press/g_20_01.htm

  • The group Birdlife International issued a report contending that 323 of Asia's 2,700 bird species are
    threatened with extinction. "All 323 threatened species are at risk of extinction from human activities,
    particularly habitat loss or degradation resulting from unsustainable and often illegal logging, and land and wetland clearance for agriculture or exotic timber plantations," noted the report. See  http://www.wing-wbsj.or.jp/birdlife/Default.htm

red bar graphic  EUROPE

  • The European Parliament issued the first draft of a Sixth Environmental Action Program, after considering more than 200 proposed amendments. 

  • A leak of radioactive water at the Temelin nuclear power plant in the Czech Republic was not serious, according to officials.

  • A review commission in the Netherlands recommended new environmental standards applicable to the livestock industry, citing water pollution and food safety concerns. See http://www.minlnv.nl/international

  • Concerns were raised in the U.K. over the levels of drugs remaining in poultry intended for human consumption. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1368000/1368272.stm


  • A seminar held in Santiago by the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean and Chile's National Forestry Service discussed ways to promote ecotourism while preserving Latin America's environment.

  • Brazil cooled off some of its energy conservation requirements in the face of public opposition. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/americas/newsid_1370000/1370510.stm

  • The World Wildlife Fund issued a report endorsing government actions in Argentina, Brazil, and Paraguay to conserve forest lands.