ELI Primary Menu

Skip to main content

Weekly Update Volume 31, Issue 20


large red bar graphic

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


The D.C. Circuit denied an engine manufacturer's petition to review EPA's CAA Phase 2 emissions standards for new nonroad spark-ignition handheld engines. The record shows that EPA complied with CAA §213(a)(3) and reasonably arrived at the best regulatory standard by ascertaining the greatest degree of emission reduction technologically achievable while giving appropriate consideration to cost, noise, energy, and safety factors. Moreover, substantial evidence supports EPA's cost determinations, EPA's consideration of safety issues, the EPA-selected phase-in period, and EPA's determination that the Phase 2 standards can be achieved through application of several identified technologies. In addition, EPA complied with CAA §307(d)(3)'s procedural requirements. The manufacturer and others had ample time to comment on the technologies proposed by the rule, EPA gave the manufacturer fair notice of the subjects and issues involved in the rule, and even if EPA did commit procedural error, the manufacturer failed to show that it was so serious and of such relevance to that rule that the rule would have been significantly changed if such error had not been made. Husqvarna AB v. Environmental Protection Agency, No. 00-1270 (D.C. Cir. June 29, 2001) (10 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit held that FIFRA does not preempt a plastic company's state-law damage claim against a pesticide manufacturer for intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage. The company produces a nylon polymer bag intended to be used as protection for food and medicine when the pesticide Vikane is sprayed. The manufacturer produces Vikane and a bag to be used with it. After the manufacturer learned of the company's production of a bag, it applied to EPA to change the Vikane label to require the use of only the manufacturer's bags during Vikane fumigation. The manufacturer predicated the change on the alleged conclusion that its bag was the most reliable. EPA allowed the amendment and, subsequently, a state began citing and fining any fumigator using bags other than the manufacturer's. The company sued claiming that because the manufacturer's own test revealed that its bag was not the most reliable, the manufacturer submitted false and misleading statements to EPA in order to exclude the company from the polymer bag market. The district court held that FIFRA preempted the company's claims. However, FIFRA §136v(b) only preempts state damages actions that impose requirements "in addition to or different from" FIFRA's requirements. The company's claim for intentional interference with prospective economic advantage imposes no such requirements. The claim is based on the manufacturer's alleged purposeful submission of false information to EPA in an attempt to interfere with the company's business relationships. The duty that the company would impose through its state-law action is a duty to refrain from knowingly submitting falsehoods in pesticide labeling applications, and FIFRA §§136j(a)(2)(M) and 136(a)(2)(Q) deem it unlawful to knowingly submit false information to EPA during a pesticide's registration. Therefore, the duty forming the basis of the company's claim is not in addition to or different from FIFRA's federal requirements. Instead the company-imposed duty duplicates FIFRA's preexisting requirements and, thus, is not preempted. Kimmel, Inc. v. Dowelanco, No. 99-56746 (9th Cir. July 10, 2001) (17 pp.). 


The Tenth Circuit reversed a district court decision and held that environmental groups could intervene in a suit brought by a counties' association to have the presidential proclamation establishing the Grand Staircase Escalante National Monument in Utah declared illegal. The environmental groups' application to intervene was timely, even though it was filed more than two years after the suit commenced. The case is not ready for final disposition, and the additional work for the other parties that intervention would cause is a function of intervention itself rather than the timing of the motion to intervene. Additionally, the environmental groups have an interest in the continued existence of the monument and its reservation from public entry, both on the basis of their financial stake in the tourism the monument has created and on the basis of their desire to further their environmental conservationist goals by preserving the undeveloped nature of the lands encompassed by the monument. Further, the environmental groups' environmental and conservationist interests would be impaired were the monument to lose its protected status. Finally, the environmental groups' interests are not adequately represented by another party to the litigation. The government's representation of the public interest generally cannot be assumed to be identical to the groups' interest merely because they both occupy the same posture in the litigation. Utah Ass'n of Counties v. Clinton, No. 00-4143 (10th Cir. July 10, 2001) (9 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court dismissal of an environmental group's suit against the FWS for failing to reinitiate consultation regarding an incidental take permit issued to a timber company under the ESA. The incidental take permit allowed the company to take a limited number of northern spotted owls over a 30-year period. After the FWS issued the incidental take permit, the coho salmon and the marbled murrelet were added to the threatened species list. The group argued that such listing triggered the FWS' duty under ESA §7 to reinitiate consultation to determine if the company's timber harvesting under the incidental take permit would impact the salmon or murrelet. However, the FWS did not retain sufficient discretionary control over the company's incidental take permit to implement measures that inure to the benefit of the murrelet or the salmon. Nowhere in the permit and its documents did the FWS retain discretionary control to make new requirements to protect species that subsequently might be listed as endangered or threatened. Moreover, a provision in the FWS' biological opinion letter for the owl permit requiring reinitiation of consultation is not a statement of continuing discretionary power retained by FWS over the permit. It simply restated the regulatory requirement of 50 C.F.R. §402.16, which only becomes applicable when sufficient discretionary control has been retained by the agency. Likewise, provisions in the permit's habitat conservation plan and implementation agreement that allow revision of the permit do not apply because none of the provisions address the scope of FWS' authority to implement measures to benefit species other than the spotted owl. Environmental Protection Information Center v. Simpson Timber Co., No. 99-15896 (9th Cir. July 9, 2001) (25 pp.).

red bar graphic  CWA, TMDL, SPECIAL MASTER:

The Fifth Circuit vacated a district court's references for summary judgment and other liability issues under the CWA to a special master. Two environmental groups sued EPA and the state of Louisiana for failure to comply with CWA §303(d)'s TMDL requirements. The district court referred the case to a special master and subsequently adopted the findings of the special master. However, that the case was pending for two years and had voluminous filings containing highly technical documents were not exceptional conditions justifying references to a special master. Similarly, the court's crowded docket and unfamiliarity with the subject matter hardly excused the court's obligation to carry out its judicial function. Further, there were no findings or conclusions by the district court revealing a de novo review of the reports, and, thus, the circuit court was unable to perform a meaningful review of the district court's judgment. Therefore, the orders of reference, the orders adopting the special master's reports, and the final judgment were vacated and remanded to the district court. Sierra Club v. Browner, No. 99-31299 (5th Cir. July 9, 2001) (5 pp.).


The Ninth Circuit reversed and remanded a district court decision that a town had neither forfeited nor abandoned water rights to 280 acre-feet of water from a federal water reclamation project on a Nevada lake. After acquiring surrounding water rights that had been historically used for irrigation, the town sought to change the manner and place of use for the water rights in order to meet its growing water needs. The federal government and a Native American tribe whose lands surrounded the lake opposed the change and argued that the water rights at issue has been forfeited or abandoned. The state engineer ruled that the rights had not been forfeited or abandoned, and the district court affirmed the engineer's decision. The engineer determined that the water rights had not been forfeited under state law despite five years of non-use because they fell within the exception for water rights that vested or for which appropriations were initiated before the state law took effect in 1913. The engineer assigned the day the U.S. Congress initiated the project in 1902 as a vesting date for all of the water rights from the reclamation project. However, in order for a given water right to receive the protection of the exception, the water right must have vested, or an individual landowner must have initiated appropriations of that right, before 1913. In practice, this means that an individual must have contracted with the federal government prior to 1913 for the delivery of reclamation project water. Therefore, a parcel-by-parcel determination of the initiation date of the water rights at issue must be conducted on remand. Likewise, on remand the district court must determine on a parcel-by-parcel basis if the prolonged non-use of water and permanent improvements on the land covered by the water rights indicates the abandonment of those rights. United States v. Orr Water Ditch Co., Nos. 99-16812, -16817 (9th Cir. July 5, 2001) (27 pp.).


The Eighth Circuit affirmed a district court grant of summary judgment to the government in an action brought to enforce a wetlands easement the government held on an individual's property. The government purchased the perpetual easement in 1967 for waterfowl management, and the individual acquired title to the tract covered by the easement in 1990. Subsequently, the individual's USDA benefits were revoked when its was determined that he had violated the Swampbusters Act by converting protected wetlands by adding fill. The individual entered a Wetlands Restoration Agreement to obtain reinstatement of his benefits, but he failed to restore the wetlands as promised in the agreement. The government brought suit to enforce the easement, the district court granted summary judgment to the government, and the individual appealed. The individual's claim that the district court granted summary judgment on a basis not argued by the parties need not be addressed because summary judgment was proper regardless. Uncontroverted evidence showed that the property was a naturally occurring wetland, and the individual offered no evidence that the easement prevented only complete filling or that the area still functions as a waterfowl production area. Moreover, the easement did not permit the individual to deposit fill in the wetland before cutting hay. The easement permitted farming practices such as cutting hay but only when the wetlands were dry from natural causes. United States v. Ripplinger, No. 00-2532 (8th Cir. July 11, 2001) (3 pp.). 


The Seventh Circuit vacated a Black Lung Benefits Review Board decision that upheld an administrative law judge's (ALJ's) determination that a Black Lung Benefits Act claimant established that a deceased relative suffered from black lung disease. The ALJ based its decision on the opinion of the pathologist that performed the autopsy even though five other expert doctors examined the autopsy report and testified that the deceased did not have black lung disease. However, the performing pathologist based his opinion on visual scrutiny of gross attributes, while the other doctors followed the more reliable method of examining tissue samples under a microscope and testing for silica. Thus, the ALJ's and the Board's reliance on the performing pathologist's analysis because he was the performing pathologist is not a rational ground of decision. The ALJ and the Board avoided the medical dispute by adopting a non-medical rule that expressed a preference for the performing pathologist versus the laboratory expert. As that preference has no apparent medical basis and as it contradicts many decisions requiring agencies to resolve scientific controversies on the merits rather than through legal argument, the result cannot stand. The ALJ cannot automatically credit the conclusions of a performing pathologist without supplying valid rationale for adopting them. Moreover, the performing pathologist's beliefs must be supported by medical reasons if they are to be given legal effect. Therefore, the medical dispute is remanded to the ALJ for reconsideration. In addition, the ALJ awarded the claimant's attorney an unreasonably high hourly rate by which to calculate his fee. Peabody Coal Co. v. McCandless, Nos. 95-3291 et al. (7th Cir. June 29, 2001) (7 pp.). 

red bar graphic  NEPA, MOOTNESS, FONSI:

The Eighth Circuit held that a challenge to a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers shoreline management plan is for the most part moot, and where there is a live controversy concerning the legality of boat docks constructed under the management plan, the Corps acted arbitrarily and capriciously in issuing a FONSI determination for the shoreline management plan. After a district court preliminarily enjoined implementation of the management plan, the Corps withdrew the plan until it complied with applicable laws and regulations. Therefore, dock owners' challenge of the district court injunction is moot except as it applies to the live controversy of boat docks constructed prior to the withdraw of the management plan. Because the Corps violated NEPA by adopting the management plan without a requisite EIS, the boat dock construction permits issued under the management plan may not be recognized or enforced as a matter of law. The docks may be maintained, but they cannot be used for recreational purposes until the Corps implements a new management plan. Save Greers Ferry Lake, Inc. v. Department of Defense, Nos. 00-3320, -3321 (8th Cir. July 3, 2001) (7 pp.).


A district court denied environmental groups' motion for a preliminary injunction requiring the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' management of a Florida water project to comply with certain provisions of an FWS-issued reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) that would allegedly minimize harm to a sparrow listed as endangered under the ESA. In managing the project, the Corps did not follow the FWS' advice in the RPA, but failure to follow the RPA is not a de facto violation of the ESA. The legislative history for ESA §7 regulations indicates that the FWS never intended to force another agency to follow its RPAs. Moreover, instead of complying with the RPA, the Corps developed its own management plan, which the Corps argued is equivalent to the RPA. Although factual experts from the Corps and the FWS disagreed as to the efficacy of the Corps' plan, the court must defer to the informed discretion of the Corps as the action agency, and a factual conflict among agencies does not lessen this deference. Moreover, the Corps' reliance on its own hydrological expert was not arbitrary and capricious. The Corps' expert is a Ph.D. hydrologist using a widely accepted and used regional hydrological model for Florida that has been peer reviewed and calibrated. In addition, the group failed to demonstrate that the Corps' plan was inadequate and that the Corps failed to consider the relevant factors. Thus, the Corps' position that its management plan is equivalent to and meets the RPA is based on substantial technical analysis and is not arbitrary and capricious. Therefore, because the groups failed to prove substantial likelihood of success on the merits, they failed to meet the required elements necessary for a preliminary injunction. Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Nos. 99-2899-CIV-MOORE/O'SULLIVAN, 00-0033-CIV-MOORE/O'SULLIVAN (S.D. Fla. June 28, 2001) (O'Sullivan, J.) (20 pp.) (Defense counsel included Mark A. Brown and Neal McAliley of the U.S. Department of Justice in Washington DC).


An Ohio appellate court affirmed a trial court dismissal of a company's claim under R.C. Chapter 3746--the state voluntary action cleanup law--against the state department of transportation for costs allegedly incurred cleaning up contaminated company property. The company failed to undertake any voluntary action necessary to recover cleanup costs under R.C. Chapter 3746. The company did not investigate the property's conditions for purposes of performing a voluntary action. Likewise, the state pointed to record evidence revealing that the company tore down a building on the property not as  part of a voluntary cleanup action, but rather to make the property more attractive for resale. The company also incurred no costs relative to environmental assessments conducted at the site. In addition, because the company failed to prove it conducted a voluntary action, it cannot claim damages under R.C. Chapter 3746. Moreover, the company cannot recover for future cleanup and monitoring costs because the company is in no way, at this time, liable for such costs. Burrell Industries Inc. v. State of Ohio Department of Transportation, No. 2000AP090064 (Ohio Ct. App. June 4, 2001) (5 pp.).


The Connecticut Supreme Court held two officers of a corporation personally liable under the Connecticut Water Pollution Control Act for water contamination caused by leaks from oil tanks on the corporation's property. Under §22a-432 of the Act, the mere fact that a person who is polluting is a corporate officer does not automatically shield that officer from liability for his own actions or omissions. Further, under the Act, a corporate officer may be liable for pollution resulting from omissions as well as from affirmative acts. If the corporate officer's actions or inactions create conditions that reasonably can be expected to create a source of water pollution, then that officer may be held personally liable under §22a-432. Here, the record shows that the officers had day-to-day decisionmaking authority over the fuel oil facility, were responsible for its on-site management, and their decisions caused water pollution at the site. Both of the officers were directly responsible for directing the actions of the corporation with respect to the environment and environmental compliance, and they had the power and the responsibility to initiate preventative and remedial efforts. Therefore, the officers were held personally liable for the water pollution resulting from oil spills from their facility. BEC Corp. v. Department of Environmental Protection, No. SC 16174 (Conn. July 10, 2001) (18 pp.).


The New York Court of Appeals held that a trailer park owner was liable under New York Navigation Law Article 12 (known as the Oil Spill Act) for the cost of cleaning up a kerosene spill from a 275-gallon tank owned and maintained by a tenant of the trailer park. After the tank fell on the ground in 1992, it spilled kerosene on the ground, and no attempt was made to clean up the spill until the state intervened. Under Article 12, a discharge includes any intentional or unintentional action or omission resulting in the spilling of petroleum. Nothing in the statute requires proof of fault or knowledge. In fact, the language is sufficiently broad to include landowners who have both control over activities occurring on their property and reason to believe that their tenants will be using petroleum products. As the owner and lessor of the trailer park, the owner had the ability to control potential sources of contamination on its property, including maintenance of the 275-gallon kerosene tank. Thus, the owner's failure, unintentional or otherwise, to take any action in controlling the vents that led up to the spill or to effect an immediate cleanup renders it liable as a discharger. Such liability will only attach when, as here, the property owner is in the position to control the site and the source of the discharge. Moreover, interpreting the term "discharger" to include landowners like the park owner is consistent with the Navigation Law's intent to enable the state to respond swiftly to oil spills and ensure that adequate funds are available to effect the cleanup. The park owner, however, is not without redress and can seek contribution under the Navigation Law. State v. Green, No. 108 (N.Y. July 5, 2001) (8 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 amended the NESHAPs for hazardous waste burning cement kilns, lightweight aggregate kilns, and incinerators promulgated on September 30, 1999, by adopting revisions that improve implementation of the emission standards, primarily in the areas of compliance, testing, and monitoring. 66 FR 35087 (7/3/01).

  • EPA proposed NESHAPs for integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. 66 FR 36835 (7/13/01). 

  • EPA proposed NESHAPs for new and existing coke oven batteries that address emissions from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks (emission standards previously promulgated address emissions from charging, topside leaks, and door leaks). 66 FR 35325 (7/3/01).

  • EPA granted New Jersey the authority to implement and enforce portions of the state's Toxic Catastrophe Prevention Act Program, in lieu of the federal chemical accident prevention regulations promulgated by EPA under CAA §112(r), for all stationary sources with covered processes under New Jersey's jurisdiction. 66 FR 35083 (7/3/01). 

  • EPA found that the Anchorage, Alaska, carbon monoxide nonattainment area has attained the NAAQS for carbon monoxide by the CAA's December 31, 2000, deadline. 66 FR 36476 (7/12/01). 

  • EPA approved Ohio's request for delegation of the federal air toxics program. 66 FR 36173 (7/11/01).

  • EPA proposed to approve revisions to Florida's operating permit program. 66 FR 34901 (7/2/01). 

  • EPA proposed to delegate authority to the Washington Department of Ecology and to four local air pollution control agencies in the state to implement and enforce specific federal NESHAP regulations that have been adopted into state law. 66 FR 35115 (7/3/01). 

  • EPA withdrew its approval of South Carolina's CAA §§111(d)/129 plan due to adverse comments. 66 FR 35546 (7/6/01). 

red bar graphic  DRINKING WATER:

  • EPA announced that it intends to approve revisions to Texas' public water system supervision program. 66 FR 35241 (7/3/01). 

  • EPA announced that it intends to approve revisions to Mississippi's public water system supervision program. 66 FR 36282 (7/11/01).

red bar graphic  ELECTRICITY:

  • The Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) announced the availability of a record of decision to establish a Temporary Small Resource Policy as an incentive to utility customers to use small resources to serve a portion of their electricity needs, reducing firm load on the BPA. 66 FR 35779 (7/9/01). 

red bar graphic  ENDANGERED SPECIES:

  • The National Marine Fisheries Service determined that implementing and enforcing the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission's Tribal Resource Management Plan, which was presented on behalf of the Northwest Indian Tribes for tribal research and assessment activities under the protective regulations for Puget Sound chinook salmon under the ESA, will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of the Puget Sound chinook salmon evolutionary significant unit.  66 FR 35407 (7/5/01).


  • EPA amended the standards of performance for large municipal waste combustors by expanding the definition of mass burn rotary waterwall municipal waste combustors to include mass burn tumbling-tile grate waterwall municipal waste combustors.  66 FR 36473 (7/12/01).

  • EPA is providing the public the opportunity to comment on Agency memoranda that explain how current RCRA regulations apply to spent catalyst wastes removed from dual purpose hydroprocessing reactors and generated at petroleum refining facilities. 66 FR 35379 (7/5/01).

  • EPA executed a proposed prospective purchaser agreement in connection with the North Penn Area 7 Superfund site in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania. 66 FR 35976 (7/10/01).

  • EPA rescinded its June 25, 2001, notice (66 Fed. Reg. 33684) regarding the settlement of response costs incurred at the Divex Superfund site in Columbia, South Carolina. 66 FR 36282 (7/11/01).

  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA §122(h)(1) in connection with the ABB/Westinghouse Electric Corporation Plant site in Bloomington, Indiana. 66 FR 36778 (7/13/01). 

  • EPA proposed to grant a petition submitted by Texas Arai Manufacturing Facility to exclude certain solid wastes generated at its Houston, Texas, facility from the list of hazardous wastes. 66 FR 36725 (7/13/01). 

red bar graphic  NATIONAL FORESTS:

  • USDA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking to give the public the opportunity to comment on key issues that have been raised regarding the protection of roadless areas. 66 FR 35918 (7/10/01). 


  • OSHA proposed to reconsider and delay the effective date of certain provisions included in final rule issued on January 19, 2001 (66 Fed. Reg. 5916), that pertain to recording occupational hearing loss based on the occurrence of a standard threshold shift in hearing acuity, the definition for "musculoskeletal disorder" (MSD), and the checking the column on OSHA's log for identifying a recordable MSD. 66 FR 35113 (7/3/01).

red bar graphic  RADIOACTIVE WASTE:

  • EPA announced the availability of DOE documents on waste characterization programs applicable to certain transuranic radioactive waste at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory proposed for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. 66 FR 36723 (7/13/01).

red bar graphic  TRANSPORTATION:

  • DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration proposed revisions to the current incident reporting requirements of the hazardous materials regulations and the hazardous materials incident report form, DOT Form F 5800.1. 66 FR 35155 (7/3/01).

red bar graphic  WATER QUALITY:

  • EPA determined that adequate facilities for the safe and sanitary removal and treatment of sewage from all vessels are reasonably available for the Three Bay/Centerville Harbor Area in the Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts. 66 FR 35628 (7/6/01). 

red bar graphic  WILDLIFE:

  • FWS proposed to add seven national wildlife refuges to the list of areas open for hunting and/or sport fishing, along with pertinent refuge-specific regulations for such activities, and proposed to amend certain regulations on other refuges that pertain to migratory game bird hunting, upland game hunting, big game hunting, and sport fishing for 2001-2002. 66 FR 35193 (7/3/01). 

  • FWS announced that the Secretary of the Navy transferred, without reimbursement, approximately 3,100 acres on the Island of Vieques, Puerto Rico, to the Secretary of the Interior. The land was a portion of the facility known as the Naval Ammunition Support Detachment property and is now administered as a national wildlife refuge by the FWS. 66 FR 35807 (7/9/01). 


  • U.S. v. Holmes & Co., No. 1:01-CV-198 (N.D. Ind. May 23, 2001). A settling CERCLA defendant must provide access to portions of the Wayne Reclamation and Recycling site near Columbia City, Indiana, must place certain environmental easements and institutional controls on certain property that is part of the site, and must pay $70,000 to potentially responsible parties who settled previously with the United States and the state of Indiana and who have helped undertake remedial action at the site. 66 FR 34958 (7/2/01).

  • U.S. v. Air Liquide America Corp., No. 01-S-0113 (S.D. Tex. June 21, 2001). A settling CAA defendant that violated industrial refrigerant repair, testing, recordkeeping, and reporting regulations at 22 industrial process refrigeration systems in 18 states must pay a $4.5 million civil penalty, must perform a supplemental environmental project in Calcasieu Parish, Louisiana, and must replace, convert, or take out of service 50 of its industrial refrigeration systems now using regulated "class II" refrigerants with non-ozone depleting refrigerants. 66 FR 35455 (7/5/01).

  • U.S. v. Cannada, No. 5:99-cv-270Br S (S.D. Miss. June 20, 2001). A settling CWA defendant must pay $50,000 in civil penalties for the unauthorized discharge of dredged or fill material into U.S. waters located in wetlands on property known as Cypress Lake in Warren County, Mississippi. 66 FR 35455 (7/5/01).

  • U.S. v. Cenex Harvest States Cooperatives, No. 01-1096 (PAM/SRN) (D. Minn. June 15, 2001). A settling CWA defendant that failed to file a revised facility response plan, failed to prepare and maintain a spill prevention, control, and countermeasures plan, failed to file a response to an information request, and allowed an unathorized discharge from its facility in Mankata, Minnesota, must pay a $56,250 civil penalty and must implement two supplemental environmental projects. 66 FR 35455 (7/5/01). 

  • U.S. v. Drum Service Co. of Florida, No. 98-697-Civ-Orl-28C (M.D. Fla. June 28, 2001). Settling CERCLA defendants entered into three proposed consent decrees in connection with the Zellwood Groundwater Contamination Superfund site in Zellwood, Florida. The first consent decree requires a settling party to perform the remedy selected in the record of decision for operable unit 2, to pay $3 million in past U.S. response costs, and to pay for certain future response costs. The second decree requires the second settling party to be held jointly and severally liable for the $3 million payment to be made by the first settling party. The third consent decree requires 5 additional settling parties to pay $381,000 to the Hazardous Substances Superfund. 66 FR 35456 (7/5/01).

  • U.S. v. Guide Corp., No. IP00-0702-C-D/F (S.D. Ind. June 18, 2001). A settling CWA, RCRA, CERCLA, EPCRA, and state common law defendant that allegedly discharged industrial wastewater from its automotive lighting parts production facility in Anderson, Indiana, that caused a massive fish kill in the White River, must pay $2 million in civil penalties, $2 million in CERCLA response costs and state natural resource assessment costs, $25,000 in U.S. natural resource damage assessment costs, and $6 million to fund state fish restocking and river restoration projects. 66 FR 35457 (7/5/01). 

  • U.S. v. Minter, No. 7:01CV00449 (W.D. Va. June 19, 2001). Settling CERCLA defendants must pay $100,000 in past EPA response costs incurred at the Old Salem Tannery site located near Salem, Virginia, and must pay $10,000 in connection with its failure to comply with a November 24, 1992, administrative order. 66 FR 35458 (7/5/01).

  • U.S. v. Gulf Coast Recycling, Inc., No. 8:01-cv-1191-T-24TBM (M.D. Fla. June 22, 2001). A settling CERCLA defendant must perform the remedy at the Normandy Park Superfund site in Hillsborough County, Florida, must pay $257,181 in past U.S. response costs, and must pay 100% of all future U.S. response costs. 66 FR 36592 (7/12/01). 

  • U.S. v. Macalloy Corp., No. 2:99-4234-18 (D.S.C. June 26, 2001). A settling CWA and RCRA defendant must control surface waster discharges and must pay $300,000 from existing funds, with interest over time, and $900,000 from money currently held as a RCRA financial assurance. 66 FR 36593 (7/12/01).

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

large red bar graphic

red bar graphic  CHAMBER ACTION

  • H.R. 2217 (appropriations; DOI), which would make appropriations for the DOI and related agencies for the 2002 fiscal year, was passed by the Senate. 147 Cong. Rec. S7554 (daily ed. July 12, 2001).

  • H.R. 2330 (appropriations; USDA), which would make appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies programs for the 2002 fiscal year, was passed by the House. 147 Cong. Rec. H3874 (daily ed. July 11, 2001). 

red bar graphic  COMMITTEE ACTION

  • S. 1021 (Tropical Forest Conservation Act) was reported by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. 147 Cong. Rec. S7588 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill would reauthorize the Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 through fiscal year 2004.

  • S. 1171 (appropriations; energy and water development) was reported by the Senate Committee on Appropriations. 147 Cong. Rec. S7588 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill would make appropriations for energy and water development for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2002.

  • H.R. 271 (land conveyance) was reported by the House Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-122, 147 Cong. Rec. H3860 (daily ed. July 10, 2001). The bill would direct the Secretary of the Interior to convey a former BLM administrative site to the city of Carson City, Nevada, for use as a senior center. 

  • H.R. 695 (Oil Region National Heritage Area) was reported by the House Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-123, 147 Cong. Rec. H3860 (daily ed. July 10, 2001). The bill would establish the Oil Region National Heritage Area.

  • H.R. 1628 (national trails) was reported by the House Committee on Resources. H. Rep. No. 107-124, 147 Cong. Rec. H3860 (daily ed. July 10, 2001). The bill would amend the National Trails System Act to designate El Camino Real de los Tejas as a National Historic Trail.

red bar graphic  BILLS INTRODUCED

  • S. 1166 (Bingaman, D-N.M.) (energy) would establish the Next Generation Lighting Initiative at DOE. 147 Cong. Rec. S7495 (daily ed. July 11, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. 

  • S. 1168 (Chafee, R-R.I.) (foreign assistance for clean water) would amend the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 to provide for the establishment of a Clean Water for the Americas Partnership within the U.S. Agency for International Development. 147 Cong. Rec. S7589 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. 

  • S. 1176 (Voinovich, R-Ohio) (EPA) would strengthen research conducted by EPA. 147 Cong. Rec. S7589 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Environment and Public Works. 

  • H.R. 2404 (Miller, D-Cal.) (water resources) would authorize federal agency participation and financial assistance for programs and for infrastructure improvements for the purposes of increasing deliverable water supplies, conserving water and energy, restoring ecosystems, and enhancing environmental quality in California. 147 Cong. Rec. H3861 (daily ed. July 10, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources. 

  • H.R. 2436 (Hansen, R-Utah) (energy) would provide secure energy supplies for the people of the United States. 147 Cong. Rec. H3861 (daily ed. July 10, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Resources, and Energy and Commerce.

  • H.R. 2438 (Boehlert, R-N.Y.) (EPA) would elevate EPA to Cabinet-level status and redesignate the agency as the Department of Environmental Protection. 147 Cong. Rec. H3861 (daily ed. July 10, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Government Reform. 

  • H.R. 2452 (Simmons, R-Conn.) (Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor) would amend the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor Act of 1994 to provide for implementation of the management plan for the corridor to protect resources critical to maintaining and interpreting the distinctive character of the Quinebaug and Shetucket Rivers Valley National Heritage Corridor. 147 Cong. Rec. H3861 (daily ed. July 10, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources.

  • H.R. 2460 (Boehlert, R-N.Y.) (appropriations; environmental research) would authorize appropriations for environmental research and development, scientific and energy research, development, and demonstration, and commercial application of energy technology programs, projects, and activities of the DOE and of the EPA Office of Air and Radiation. 147 Cong. Rec. H3959 (daily ed. July 11, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Science.

  • H.R. 2475 (Rohrabacher, R-Cal.) (outer continental shelf; royalties) would provide for the distribution to coastal states and counties of revenues collected under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act. 147 Cong. Rec. S3960 (daily ed. July 11, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources. 

  • H.R. 2479 (Young, R-Alaska) (land conveyance) would ratify an agreement between The Aleut Corporation and the United States to exchange land rights received under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act for certain land interests on Adak Island. 147 Cong. Rec. H3960 (daily ed. July 11, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Resources, and Armed Services.

  • H.R. 2480 (Lucas, R-Okla.) (agricultural conservation) would reauthorize, improve, and expand conservation programs administered by the USDA. 147 Cong. Rec. H4008 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture. 

  • H.R. 2488 (Hansen, R-Utah) (Pilot Range wilderness) would designate certain lands in the Pilot Range in Utah as wilderness. 147 Cong. Rec. H4008 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources. 

  • H.R. 2495 (Stupak, D-Mich.) (Native American lands) would provide for and approve the settlement of certain land claims of the Bay Mills Indian Community and the Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians. 147 Cong. Rec. H4009 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Resources.

  • H.R. 2496 (Udall, D-Colo.) (energy) would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, demonstration, and commercial application of distributed power hybrid energy systems. 147 Cong. Rec. H4009 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committee on Science. 

  • H.R. 2499 (Wu, D-Ore.) (Hanford Nuclear Reservation) would terminate funding for the Fast Flux Test Facility at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Washington. 147 Cong. Rec. H4009 (daily ed. July 12, 2001). The bill was referred to the Committees on Science, Energy and Commerce, and Armed Services.

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

large red bar graphic

red bar graphic ALABAMA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Annual Drinking Water Report Results

Public Notices–Permit Applications 

Daily Ozone Forecast

Jefferson County Dept. of Health

Daily Air Quality Index

red bar graphic ALASKA

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Cruise Ship Legislation Implementation

Proposed Regulations-Administrative Procedures Regulations,18 AAC 15

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Proposed changes to regulations for standard permit conditions and visible emission limits for stationary sources. 18 AAC 50. Hearings Aug. 21-22; comments due Aug. 24. DEC is proposing to amend Chapter 50 to comply with AS 46.14.010(e). The Department is proposing to adopt into regulation requirements to be incorporated into more than one permit and that it foresees to be generally applicable, or generally applicable to individual source or facility types. DEC is also proposing to change state visible emission standards for stationary sources to six minute average standards so that the emissions standards and monitoring method will be consistent. Any facility needing an air quality permit and any source subject to a numerical visible emission (opacity) limit will be affected. DEC is also proposing to amend the regulations to clarify what contaminants are subject to emission fees and how to calculate emission fees, adopt additional standard methods by reference, including methods for fuel qualities, soils, and opacity monitoring, clarify recordkeeping and reporting, and correct inconsistencies or errors. DEC will also be making other changes necessary to improve the regulations, including those changes that appear necessary after reviewing public comments. See http://www.state.ak.us/local/akpages/ENV.CONSERV/dawq/aqm/stdreg.htm 

red bar graphic ARIZONA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Emission Banking


Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy

  • In April 1999, the Air Quality Division finalized an Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy based on U.S. EPA guidance, "Areas Affected by PM10 Natural Events," and stakeholder input. The policy is applicable in areas that violate a particulate matter (PM) NAAQS and the violation is shown to be the result of an exceptional or natural event such as unusually high winds or wildfires. The applicable air pollution control agency may utilize ADEQ's policy to develop a natural events action plan (NEAP) in lieu of becoming designated as a nonattainment area by EPA. The NEAP must contain documentation and analysis showing a causal relationship of the ambient air quality monitored exceedance(s) and the natural event, details of public notification and education programs, descriptions of best available control measures (BACM), and area of applicability for the BACM. 

  • ADEQ Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy, see http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/plan/download/adeqpolicy.pdf 

  • Comments related to ADEQ's Draft Best Available Control Measures List, see http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/plan/download/bacmcom.pdf 

  • Responsiveness Summary for ADEQ Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy PM10 Best Available Control Measures List, see http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/plan/download/bacsum.pdf 

  • ADEQ Air Quality Exceptional and Natural Events Policy PM10 Best Available Control Measures List, see http://www.adeq.state.az.us/environ/air/plan/download/bacmlist.pdf 

Safe Drinking Water Workshops Announced

Drinking Water-Monitoring Assistance Program Current, Proposed Fees

Development of an Aquifer Water Quality Standard for Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (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

Enforcement Notices


Amerimax Coated Products, Helena Air Division, $1,125 penalty; Arkansas State Police, Troop F., Warren Regulated Storage Tank Division, $500 penalty; Arkansas State Police, Troop L., Springdale Regulated Storage Tank Division, $500 penalty; Ash Grove Cement Company, Foreman Solid Waste Division, $10,000 penalty; BICC General Cable Company, (Amendment No. 4 to CAO), Malvern; NPDES/Water Division, No penalty; CBI, McCrory, Asbestos/Air Division, $300 penalty; City of Sunset, (Amendment No. 1 to CAO), Sunset NPDES/Water Division, No penalty; City of Star City, Star City NPDES/Water Division, No penalty; Georgia Pacific Corp., Crossett Air Division, No penalty; Harris Concrete Pumps, Little Rock Water Division, $1,000 penalty; Doyle P. Meyer/Hong's Hog Farm, Ola Water Division, $400 penalty. 


FDR Services, Austin Regulated Storage Tank Division, $1,500 penalty; Jacksonville Wastewater Utility, Jacksonville Regulated Storage Tank Division, $500 penalty.


Phillip Matthews Trust Property, Trumann Hazardous Waste Division, No penalty.


WM Tontitown Landfill, LLC., North Little Rock Air Division, No penalty.

Comments due Aug. 10. 

red bar graphic CALIFORNIA

Air Resources Board

July 26-27 Board Meeting Agenda

Voluntary Accelerated Vehicle Retirement Proposed Regulation Update-Draft Regulations

Notice of Public Meeting to Consider The Approval of California's 2001 Emission Inventory

Notice of Public Hearing to Consider Approval of a Revision to the Ozone SIP for the San Francisco Bay Area

2001 Version of the California Air Pollution Control Laws ("Bluebook")

45-Day Notice of Public Hearing--Adoption of Emission Standards and Test Procedures for New 2003 and Later Spark-Ignition Inboard and Sterndrive Marine Engines

45-Day Notice of Public Hearing--Adoption of Proposed Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ACTM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations

Public Consultation Meetings Regarding Distributed Generation

Dept. of Toxic Substances Control

CLEAN and ISCP Loan Programs--45-Day Public Notice and Comment Period

Guidance Document Availability

Draft Public Participation Policy Manual

Integrated Waste Management Board

July 25-26 Board Meeting Agenda

August 14-15 Board Meeting Agenda

Permit Enforcement Policy

  • Establishment of a process for facilities to request a temporary waiver of terms and conditions of a solid waste facilities permit in the event of an unforeseeable situation. The Board will consider adoption of emergency regulations at its August 14-15, 2001, meeting. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/PermitEnfPol/ 

Proposed Regulations-Playground Safety and Recycling Act Grants

  • Published in the California Regulatory Notice Register for 45-day public comment period on June 29, 2001. These regulations would implement the provisions of the Playground Safety and Recycling Act Grant Program relating to the award of grants to local public agencies and local public educational agencies to upgrade, repair, refurbish, install, or replace public playground facilities to prevent childhood injuries on public playgrounds while developing a market for recycled materials suitable for use in public playgrounds. The regulations will provide guidance to Board staff and to grant applicants in the administration of the grant program. Emergency Regulations for the Playground Safety and Recycling Act Grant Program, adopted by the Board at its Apr. 18-19, 2000, meeting have been extended and are currently in effect. Comments due Aug. 13. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/Playground/  

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. The Board will consider adopting the regulations at its July 25-26, 2001, meeting. 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 Apr. 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, 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, 2001, 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 Aug. 14-15, 2001, meeting. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/Organics/  

Proposed Regulations-LEA Grants

  • New regulations for the local enforcement agency (LEA) grants program. The Permitting and Enforcement
    Committee approved these draft regulations for public notice in September 1997, however, LEA outreach staff workload forestalled the public notice period. The Board approved the regulations for a 45-day public comment period at its June 19-20, 2001 meeting. Staff is currently preparing the regulation package for noticing. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/leagrant/ 

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/

Draft Regulations-Construction & Demolition Materials

  • Placement of facilities and operations handling inert and construction and demolition (C & D) debris into regulatory tiers, and setting minimum standards. In December 2000, the Board approved a two-phase approach to this rulemaking. Phase I will cover the transfer and processing of construction and demolition debris. Informal workshops for this Phase I are expected in summer 2001. Phase II will follow and will cover the disposal of construction, demolition, and inert debris. See http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/cdmater/ 

Water Resources Control Board

July 19 Board Meeting Agenda

Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Development Public Notices, Drafts

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment

Proposed Regulations

  • Amendment to §12705, Specific Regulatory Levels Posing No Significant Risk.

  • Amendment to §12805, Specific Regulatory Levels, Reproductive Toxicants.

See http://www.oehha.ca.gov/prop65/law/Notrev53101.html

Health Risk Information for Public Health Goal Exceedance Reports

South Coast Air Quality Management District

Informational workshops for the 2000-2001 Annual Emissions Reporting Program

Proposed Regulations-Amended Rule (PAR) 1162- Polyester Resin Operations

  • The objective of PAR 1162 is to achieve further reduction of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emissions from composite manufacturing operations by employing Pollution Prevention (P2) technologies. P2 technologies involve modifying the chemistry of the polyester resin material and utilizing nonatomizing and less polluting application technologies. PAR 1162 would implement portions of control measure CTS-09, of the proposed 1999 Amendment to the 1997 Ozone State Implementation Plan Revision. Draft regulations would require nonatomizing and less polluting application technologies for composite spraying operations and reduce the monomer content of the polyester resin materials such as clear gel coats, pigmented gel coats, general purpose resins, corrosion resistant resins, and fire retardant resins. The reduction of the monomer content will take place in two phases, in 2002 and 2003. The proposal would also require that all applied resin material to be vapor suppressed, require that the monthly average of the filler content of the applied resin material be at least 10 % by weight, and improve clarity and enforceability of the rule. Workshop Aug. 1; comments due Aug. 8. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/notice_r1162.html 

Proposed Regulations-Amended Rule 2202--On-Road Motor Vehicle Mitigation Options

  • Aug. 1 workshop to discuss and comment on proposed amendments to Rule 2202. The proposed rule amendments would include a change in the definition of employee. A new category of exempted Police/Sheriff employees will be added to the Rule. Those employers electing to exempt such employees must provide core element ridesharing incentives, at a minimum, but not limited to ridematching, on-site transit information, preferential parking for ridesharers, and guaranteed return trip. In addition, the proposed amendments would include the removal of "remote sensing" and "alternative fuel vehicle credits (except electric vehicles)" as a compliance strategy. Other minor amendments include the elimination of an automatic change in
    due date upon switching compliance program type. See http://www.aqmd.gov/pub_edu/notice_r2202_2.html 

red bar graphic COLORADO

Air Quality Control Commission

Proposed Regulations-Regulation No.1, Particulates, Smokes, Carbon Monoxide, and Sulfur Oxides

  • Proposal would delete provisions concerning coal fired utility boilers and remove uncertainties and confusion in the regulation; make revisions throughout the regulation to conform it with the credible evidence provisions adopted by the Commission into the Common Provisions Regulation in Apr. 2001; make revisions to clarify that the agricultural exemption does not include the open burning of animal parts and carcasses; add language to provide for the burning of animal parts and carcasses in a public health emergency proclaimed by the state (the Commission will consider what state agencies may proclaim such an emergency); delete provisions concerning livestock confinement operations; clarify that allowable emissions are summed using pounds per hour (because it is not possible to sum the pounds per million British thermal units); delete provisions concerning Alfalfa Dehydrating Plant Drums and provisions pertaining to Wigwam Burners; delete provisions addressing Static Firing of Pershing Missiles at Pueblo Army Depot; delete some provisions pertaining to Emission Standards for Existing Iron and Steel Plant Operations; and delete special regulations for refinery fluid bed catalytic cracking units in carbon monoxide nonattainment areas. The Commission will also consider making revisions to the regulation to address concerns of U.S. EPA regarding the opacity exemption at the Fort Carson Army Station and the deletion of provisions regarding the regulation of activities pertaining to oil shale. Hearing Aug. 16. See http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/op/reg1_08_01.htm

Public Hearing-Requested Reopening of Operating Permit 

red bar graphic CONNECTICUT

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste Management

  • Proposal would add two sections-the U.S. EPA universal waste rule and EPA standards for the management of used oil. The universal waste rule establishes management requirements for batteries, thermostats, pesticides, and lamps. This rule will facilitate the recycling of these wastes and help in removing them from the solid waste stream. The used oil management standards establish modified requirements for used oil generators, transporters, processors, re-refiners, burners, and marketers. Public hearing July 19, comments due July 24. See http://dep.state.ct.us/wst/hw/hwregs.htm

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

Coastal Impact Assistance Program (CIAP) Plan

South Florida Water Management District

Lake Okeechobee Sediment Management  Feasibility Study

  • July 19 meeting, the second in a series of four public/interagency meetings being held to solicit input on the Development of Alternatives–the second task of the Lake Okeechobee Sediment Management Feasibility Study. The District has developed a draft document that presents an array of technologies and sediment management alternatives that could be used to address the internal phosphorus loading in Lake Okeechobee. The meeting will focus on the District’s selection of alternatives. 

red bar graphic GEORGIA

Dept. of Natural Resources, Envtl. Protection Division

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

Pollution Control Board (PCB)

Proposed Regulations

  • The 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 SRP. The first is establishment of "soil management zones" 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 SRP 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: Proposed Regulated Recharge Area for Pleasant Valley Public Water District, Proposed Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 617–The Board June 7 adopted a second notice opinion and order in this rulemaking to amend the Board’s public water supply regulations to establish the first regulated recharge area under section 17.3 of the Act (415 ILCS 5/17.3 (2000)). See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Meeting/minutes.htm

  • In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives: 35 Ill. Adm. Code 742–The Board June 7 adopted a second notice opinion and order in this matter to amend the standards for tiered approach to corrective action objectives (35 Ill. Adm. Code 742). (See also order creating R00-19(C)). See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Meeting/minutes.htm 

  • In the Matter of: Proposed Amendments to Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives (TACO) (35 Ill. Adm. Code 742)–The Board on its own motion on June 7 created a third sub-docket. In sub-docket R00-19(C), the Board will address the Illinois EPA proposal add clean up standards for methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MTBE). See http://www.ipcb.state.il.us/Meeting/minutes.htm 

  • 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 May 17, 2001; Illinois Register publication June 1, 2001.   

Open Regulatory Dockets

Envtl. Protection Agency

Permit Applications/Public Hearings


red bar graphic  INDIANA

Dept. of Envtl. Management

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Amends 326 IAC 4-2 and 326 IAC 9-1. Readopts 326 IAC 1-6, 326 IAC 8-7, 326 IAC 8-9, 326 IAC 8-11, and 326 IAC 18-2. Repeals 326 IAC 19-1. Hearing Aug. 1. 

  • Readopts, without changes, 326 IAC 6-4 concerning fugitive dust emissions. Hearing Aug. 1. 

  • Amends 326 IAC 6-3 concerning process weight rates. Hearing Aug. 1. 

  • Adds 326 IAC 1-2-82.5 to define "Title I conditions." Amends 326 IAC 2 concerning amendments necessary to obtain U.S. EPA approval of the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) rules as part of the state implementation plan and federal approval of the Title V permit program. Amends 326 IAC 3-5-1, 326 IAC 4-2-1, 326 IAC 5-1-1, 326 IAC 6-2-1, 326 IAC 6-5-1, 326 IAC 6-6-1, 326 IAC 7-1.1-1, 326 IAC 7-1.1-2, 326 IAC 7-3-1, 326 IAC 8-1-1, 326 IAC 9-1-2, 326 IAC 10-1-1, 326 IAC 11-1-1, 326 IAC 11-2-1, 326 IAC 11-3-1, 326 IAC 11-4-1, 326 IAC 11-5-1, 326 IAC 12-1-1, 326 IAC 14-1-3, and 326 IAC 15-1-1 to maintain consistency. Repeals 326 IAC 2-7-25. Comments due July 23. 

  • IDEM has developed draft rule language for amendments to 326 IAC 1-1-3, concerning references to the Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.), to update any references to the C.F.R. in Title 326 to mean the July 1, 2000, edition. IDEM has also developed draft rule language for amendments to Title 326 to change any incorporation by reference of the Federal Register to its C.F.R. citation published in the July 1, 2000, edition of the C.F.R. IDEM has developed draft language for new rules 326 IAC 1-1-3.5 and 326 IAC 1-2-20.5, establishing references to and definition of the Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors AP-42 and Supplements. Hearing Aug. 1.  

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.

  • Amends and considers for readoption pursuant to comments received under IC 13-14-9.5, 329 IAC 11-9, 329 IAC 11-11, and 329 IAC 11-14. 329 IAC 11-9 addresses solid waste processing facilities permit requirements; 329 IAC 11-11 addresses solid waste processing permit issuance; and 329 IAC 11-14 addresses quarterly reporting of solid waste processing facilities. The amendments correct language and references. This rulemaking is required pursuant to IC 13-14-9.5, which provides for the expiration and readoption of administrative rules. A rule that was adopted under a provision of IC 13 and was in effect on Dec. 31, 1995, expires not later than Jan. 1, 2002. All rules adopted after that date under IC 13-14-9, with some exceptions listed in IC 13-14-9.5-1 and IC 13-14-9.5-1.1, expire on January 1 of the seventh year after the year in which each rule takes effect. The First Notice of Comment Period and Continuation of First Notice of Comment Period opened all rules required to be opened in Title 329 for readoption, regardless of their initial effective date. Other comments received are being included and considered within other currently existing rulemakings. Hearing Aug. 21. 

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. To reflect the new rules, IDEM will be repealing 327 IAC 7. See http://www.in.gov/legislative/register/Vol24/09Jun/11ID327970007.pdf

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

Pending Permit Applications

red bar graphic  IOWA

General Assembly-Administrative Rules Review Committee

Nuclear Waste Transport Rule Postponed

Dept. of Natural Resources-Envtl. Protection Commission

Final Regulations-Solid Waste Management

  • Rescinds Chapter 111, “Financial Assurance Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills,” Iowa Admin. Code, and adopts new Chapter 111 with the same title. New Chapter 111 is a reorganization and amendment of the former chapter. The new chapter adopts procedures for review of financial assurance instruments by the Department. The new chapter also updates the allowable financial assurance mechanisms to more closely conform to current U.S. EPA requirements. The amendment is intended to satisfy the concerns raised in the Petition for Rulemaking filed by the City of Henderson on May 31, 2000. Effective Aug. 15. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB010711.html 

Final Regulations-Air Quality

  • Amendments to Chapter 22, Iowa Admin. Code. The purpose of this rulemaking was to incorporate the Department’s existing Periodic Monitoring Guidance into the rules. Also, this rulemaking adopts by reference Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) that is required to be included in 40 C.F.R. pts. 70 or 71 operating permits. Periodic monitoring and CAM are needed to provide reasonable assurance of compliance with applicable requirements under the CAA. Item 1 incorporates the Department’s existing Title V Periodic Monitoring Guidance into the rule. Periodic monitoring is required by 40 C.F.R. pts. 70.6 and 71.6 where the applicable requirement does not require periodic testing or instrumental or noninstrumental monitoring. Item 2 adopts by reference 40 C.F.R. pt. 64 CAM for major stationary sources of air pollution that are required to obtain operating permits under Title V of the CAA. The fundamental requirements of CAM are to: (a) monitor compliance in a manner that is sufficient to yield data that provide a reasonable assurance of compliance and allow an owner or operator to make an informed certification of compliance; (b) take necessary corrective actions in response to the monitoring data; (c) report on the results of such monitoring; and (d) maintain records of such monitoring. Effective Aug. 15. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB010711.html 

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-General Permits

  • Proposed general permits or permits by rule for hot mix asphalt facilities, concrete batch plants, and aggregate processing plants. These amendments, which are proposed in response to a petition for rulemaking, incorporate three new permits by rule into Chapter 22, Iowa Admin. Code, and allow an eligible facility to seek permit–by–rule coverage in lieu of obtaining an individual construction permit. Permits by rule are proposed for hot mix asphalt facilities, concrete batch plants, and aggregate processing plants. Item 1 adds definitions for the following: aggregate processing plant; concrete batch plant; construction aggregate; hot mix asphalt; hot mix asphalt facility; and Portland concrete. Item 2 identifies the new forms to be used for each permit by rule contained in the notice. These include three separate forms to be used to notify the Department that a hot mix asphalt facility, concrete batch plant, or aggregate processing plant is covered by a respective permit by rule and a fourth form to be used to notify the Department of the relocation of portable facilities, which is a condition of construction permit or permit–by–rule coverage. Item 3 clarifies that coverage under a permit by rule would satisfy the requirement for a permit. The current language implies that a permit must be obtained and does not address permit coverage under a permit by rule. Item 4 modifies the introductory language for the existing permit by rule for spray booths to make it consistent with the other permits by rule. The existing language is misleading with regard to the need for an operating permit and major source status. The revised language clarifies that the permit by rule may be used to satisfy construction permitting requirements. Item 5 proposes new subrules that contain the permits by rule for hot mix asphalt facilities, concrete batch plants, and aggregate processing plants. The subrules identify who is eligible for coverage under the permit by rule and describe the notification process to the Department. The subrules also include eligibility requirements pertaining to coverage under a permit by rule. These eligibility requirements include operating permit conditions, emission limits, recordkeeping requirements, and material limits. Public hearing July 19, comments due July 27. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/acb010613.html

Proposed Regulations-Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations

  • Notice of Intended Action to amend Chapter 65, “Animal Feeding Operations,” Iowa Admin. Code.
    This amendment would incorporate by reference the Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation Registration Program as set forth in EPD Policy Procedure No. 5–b–15. Comments due July 31. See http://www.legis.state.ia.us/Rules/2001/Bulletin/ACB010711.html 

red bar graphic KANSAS

Department of Health & Environment, Division of Environment

KDHE "Kansas Environmental News"

red bar graphic KENTUCKY

Office of the Governor

Executive Order Imposing Six-Month Moratorium on Processing of Applications for New Electric-Generating Facilities

  • The Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Cabinet (NREPC) and the state Public Service Commission (PSC) have been ordered to suspend acceptance of these applications, study a variety of environmental and energy issues, and report their findings to the Governor by Dec. 7, 2001. “It is important that we ensure a continued, reliable source of energy for our citizens but it is also necessary that we study the potential effects that additional air emissions from new plants could bring to the state as well as their effect upon the electric supply grid,” Governor Patton said. “We must strive to strike a balance between our energy needs, our ability to generate energy for others and our commitment for a clean, safe environment.” Patton ordered the NREPC to study the cumulative environmental effects of new power plants as well as the impact new plants could have on existing environmental programs. The Executive Order directs the PSC, and other agencies, to study the need for new electric generating capacity, the impact on the electric supply grid, facility siting, and economic development issues. Patton’s order does not affect any applications that have already been filed with NREPC or the PSC and the suspension on accepting new permits will not exceed 180 days. See http://gov.state.ky.us/powermoratorium.htm

Dept. for Envtl. Protection, Division of Air Quality

Permit Applications/Hearing Notices 

Dept. for Envtl. Protection, Division of Water

Proposed Regulations-401 KAR 5:074 concerning concentrated animal feeding operations

Permit Applications  

Proposed, Draft TMDLs

red bar graphic LOUISIANA

Dept. of Environmental Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Revision to Emission Reduction Credits Banking Regulations (LAC 33:III.Chapter 6) 

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Control of Emission of Organic Compounds-Calcasieu Parish Area (LAC 33:III.2103, 2104, 2109, 2115, 2122, 2143, 2147, 2149, 2151, & 2153) 

Draft Five-Year Strategic Plan

Permit Applications

red bar graphic MAINE

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Proposed Regulations-Siting and Operation of Road Salt and Sand-Salt Storage Areas

  • This rule describes the registration, siting, and operational requirements that new sand/salt storage areas and
    some existing state and private sand/salt storage areas must meet in order to be exempt from having to obtain a waste discharge license. The rule also exempts sand/salt piles less than 30 cubic yards in size, establishes a compliance date for existing sites, and describes guidelines for granting a variance from the siting and/or operational requirements of the rule. Comments due July 31; public hearing July 19. See http://www.state.me.us/sos/cec/rcn/apa/notices/062701.htm 

red bar graphic MARYLAND

Dept. of the Environment

Final Regulation-Underground Storage Tanks

Review of Draft Methodologies for Listing Pollution Impaired Waterbodies on the 2002 §303(d) List

Public Meetings/Hearings     

Water Quality Standard-Triennial Review

red bar graphic MASSACHUSETTS

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

Enforcement Actions

red bar graphic  MICHIGAN

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft TMDL

  • Huron River (Geddes Pond) Pathogen TMDL available for comment. This water body was included in Michigan’s Year 2000 Section 303(d) list due to elevated E. coli levels. The TMDL is being developed to identify the necessary pathogen reductions to meet Water Quality Standards. Comments on the TMDL may be submitted to Christine Thelen, Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, Surface Water Quality Division, P.O. Box 30273, Lansing, Michigan 48909-7773, by July 18. Copies of the draft report and list are available through Laura Smith at 517-335-4184 or smithla3@state.mi.us, or on the web at www.deq.state.mi.us/swq/gleas/gleas.htm

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

Proposed Regulations-Water Quality-Intent to Reissue NPDES and SDS General Permit for Metal Finishing Pretreatment

Proposed Regulations-Procedural Rules

  • Request for Comments: Planned Amendments to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s Procedural Rules, Minnesota Rules, Parts 7000.0050 to 7000.9100. The procedural rules contain the procedures and standards of conduct the Agency and Citizens' Board must follow in making decisions. These rules were revised in 1994 and since that time a limited number of circumstances have arisen which have called for a second look at the procedural rules. The role of the MPCA Citizens' Board, for example, has become defined, necessitating the procedures the Board must follow to be more clear and explicit. The MPCA will review the ex parte communication prohibition rule part and possibly add some new language for clarification. In addition, newly enacted legislation relating to the MPCA has made a number of the rules provisions, such as delegations, redundant. The MPCA will propose to delete parts of the rule currently ineffective and clarify existing procedures. Comments due Aug. 1. See http://www.pca.state.mn.us/news/publicnotice/pn070201.html 

Permit Applications, Other Notices

red bar graphic  MISSOURI

Dept. of Natural Resources

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Emergency Regulation-Drinking Water-Grants

  • 10 CSR 60-13.010 Grants for Public Water Supply Districts and Small Municipal Water Supply Systems. DNR has added criteria for providing grants for source water protection under the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Applicants for this funding must have a Department-approved source water protection program. It adopts criteria for making grant money available for rental enhancement grant payments under the CREP. These grants will help local political subdivisions provide better protection of source water used for public drinking water. The grants will be used to compensate farmers for taking agricultural land out of production in critical source water protection areas. This will protect public health, safety, and welfare by decreasing sediment, nutrient, and pesticide run-off into water sources used for public drinking water purposes. Money is available for CREP grants in state fiscal year 2001. This emergency amendment is necessary to use the money available for this purpose this fiscal year. See http://mosl.sos.state.mo.us/moreg/2001/v26n12/v26n12a.pdf 

Proposed TMDLs

Water Pollution Control-Permit Applications

red bar graphic MONTANA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Permit Application 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-Water Quality-Chapter Env-Ws 1900 Rules for the Protection of Instream Flow on Designated Rivers

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Proposed amendments to Env-A 1406.04 (clarifies the existing rule on in-stack concentration method) and
    1450.01 (updates the list of all regulated toxic air pollutants). The proposed amendments to Env-A 1406.04 clarify the existing rule by specifying that the in-stack concentration method is based on uncontrolled emissions. The proposed amendments to Env-A 1450.01 updates the list of all regulated toxic air pollutants, classifications and ambient air limits in accordance with RSA 125-I:4. Hearing Aug. 23; comments due Sept. 4. See http://www.des.state.nh.us/ard/prpsdrul.htm and 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.  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) 

red bar graphic NEW YORK

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality-Oxygenated Gasoline

  • July 30-31 hearings. The U.S. EPA has promulgated rulemakings removing the requirement that oxygenated gasoline be used in both the New York City Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Syracuse Metropolitan Statistical Area during winter months. Being revised is 6 NYCRR, Subpart 225-3, Fuel Composition and Use-Gasoline. Part 200, General Provisions, will also be revised to reflect the changes to Subpart 225-3. The amendments to Subpart 225-3 remove the requirement that oxygenated gasoline be used in the New York City and Syracuse Metropolitan areas during winter months. The use of oxygenated gasoline is currently required in the State Implementation Plan for carbon monoxide for Onondaga County (CO SIP) as a contingency measure. The CO SIP will be revised to substitute the automobile inspection and maintenance program for the oxygenated fuel requirement. In addition, the ozone SIP is being revised to include a document entitled, "RACM Analysis for the New York Portion of the New York Metropolitan Area Severe Ozone Nonattainment Area." The results of this analysis show that there are no reasonably available control measures to advance the ozone attainment date. 

Draft Regulations-Air Quality-Acid Rain Control

  • DEC released draft acid rain standards. The new draft regulations have been forwarded to the Governor's Office of Regulatory Reform, which will review them with stakeholder groups prior to their formal proposal. Once formally proposed, the public will have at least 45 days to review and comment on the draft regulations. After evaluating all public comments, a final regulation will be sent to the State Environmental Board, which will submit its recommendation on whether to adopt the regulation to the DEC Commissioner. The draft regulations are in response to Governor Pataki's direction to DEC to issue regulations requiring electric generators in the state to further reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 50% beyond federal CAA requirements by 2007, and to expand summertime NOx controls to year-round in 2003. Under the new regulations, SO2 emissions would be reduced by an additional 130,000 tons annually, and NOx emissions would be reduced by 20,000 tons annually. The rules would require that NOx controls, already in place for most facilities in the summertime ozone season, be used year-round beginning in 2004, and that sulfur dioxide controls be in place by 2008. The compliance dates were extended by one year in order to accommodate the additional investment and construction of control equipment. The draft regulations contain a provision that allows an individual facility a temporary exemption from emission requirements if the State Department of Public Service determines that compliance would imperil the reliability of the New York State electric power system. See http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/press/pressrel/2001-100.html

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

Division of Water-Draft Consolidated Assessment and Listing Methodology

  • Section 303(d) list development. The Methodology consists of three separate parts. The Monitoring Strategy provides an overview of the NYSDEC water quality monitoring program. The Assessment Methodology details the evaluation of monitoring data and information to determine levels of water quality and use support. And, lastly, the Listing Methodology outlines the identification and prioritization of waters that do not meet water quality standards or support designated uses. Comments due Aug. 17. See http://www.dec.state.ny.us/website/dow/calm303d.html  

Proposed List of Recommended Water Quality Improvement Projects Under The Clean Water/Clean Air Bond Act of 1996

ALJ Rulings

Environmental Notice Bulletin (Permit Applications) 

Permit Applications

Coastal Management Program Notices

red bar graphic  NORTH CAROLINA


Hog Farm Moratorium

  • H.B. 1312, which extends the moratorium on the construction or expansion of hog farms from July 1 to Sept. 1, 2003, was signed into law on June 29. See http://www.ncga.state.nc.us

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 and will be formally proposed this summer. 

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 notices, see http://oahnt.oah.state.nc.us/intranet/register/Volume15Issue23.pdf

Proposed TMDL-Neuse River

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

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • OEPA has reviewed Chapter 3745-77-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code, Title V Permits-Definitions to satisfy the requirements of R.C. 119.032 (five-year review). The review date for this rule is June 30, 2001. OEPA’s Division of Air Pollution Control (DAPC) found this rule to be necessary with need for revisions. The rule was submitted for interested party review on January 19, 200l. Pursuant to Chapter 119.03 of the Ohio Revised Code, a public hearing on this rule review will be conducted Monday, July 16, 2001, at 10:00 a.m. in the DAPC/SIP Conference Room, 6th Floor, Ohio EPA, 122 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio. Written comments due same date. See http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/general/pub_hm.html 

Proposed General Permit

  • OEPA is proposing to issue a general permit to regulate discharges to waters of the state from select household sewage treatment systems. The permit would cover systems serving one-, two- or three-family residential dwellings in two circumstances: if a discharging system is necessary for new construction, or to replace an existing failing system. If a disposal system can be installed that does not require a discharge, coverage by this Ohio EPA permit is not necessary. OEPA has developed this general permit to complement the Ohio Department of Health's current rulemaking that updates the minimum requirements for household sewage treatment. Although this permit is being developed and will be issued by O EPA, individual homeowners will continue to work directly with local health departments to obtain all necessary permits to install and operate their household sewage treatment systems. The local health departments will continue to perform site inspections, recommend the type of system that can be installed, and determine if coverage by this general permit is necessary. Informational hearings in July and August. See http://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsw/docindex.html and http://www.epa.state.oh.us/pic/nr/2001/july/hhsewage.html  

Anco Properties to Pay $23,000 Penalty for Past Air Pollution Control Laws Violations

OEPA Actions, Notices by County

Public Meetings

Pending Air Permits

red bar graphic OKLAHOMA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Draft Regulations-Solid Waste

  • Solid Waste Rules Development Committee Meeting, July 19, sponsored by DEQ. Draft rules for explosive gas control, and continued discussions on proposed rules for leachate collection and management, and run-on/run-off control. 9:00 a.m., Tulsa Health Department, Room 300, 5051 S. 129th East Ave., Tulsa.  Contact: Jon Roberts (405) 702-5100

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

  • Air Quality Council Meeting Aug. 15, sponsored By DEQ. 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 252:100-8, Permits for Part 70 Sources, [AMENDED]. The proposed revisions will change the rule to be consistent with the federal Part 70 operating permit program. 9:00 a.m., OSU at Tulsa, 700 N. Greenwood, Room 150, Tulsa, OK. Contact: Scott Thomas (405) 702-4100. See http://www.deq.state.ok.us/air1/current.html (forthcoming). 

red bar graphic OREGON


Pollution Control Tax Credit Extended

  • Through Dec. 31, 2007, but the scope of the credit was narrowed. (S.B. 764b). Extends time to use unexpired pollution control tax credits for additional three tax years under specified circumstances. Permits taxpayer engaged in agricultural plastics recycling to sell pollution control facilities tax credit under specified circumstances. Modifies percentage of certified cost of facility that may be claimed as credit based upon specified dates for commencement and completion of construction or installation of facility and specified characteristics of facility. Provides that person convicted of environmental crime that is felony and is related to facility loses credit for five years. Creates Pollution Control Tax Credit Improvement and Review Task Force. Requires task force to report to committees of 72nd Legislative Assembly that have jurisdiction over revenue and environmental matters. See http://www.leg.state.or.us/01reg/measures/sb0700.dir/sb0764.b.html 

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Final Regulations-Underground Injection Controls

  • The rules prohibit the use of large capacity cesspools and systems that dispose of motor vehicle waste or hazardous materials such as petroleum products, anti-freeze, and solvents. They also require that injection system owners contact the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality prior to constructing new injection systems. The revised rules give more direction on the kinds of stormwater injection systems that are allowed. After September 2001, owners of some kinds of injection systems will be required to have stormwater management plans to keep pollution out of stormwater before it is injected. See http://waterquality.deq.state.or.us/wq/groundwa/uichome.htm and http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/releases/255.htm 

Air Permit Applications 

Water Quality Permit Applications

Proposed Regulations-General 

Public Notices-Cleanup Remedies

Public Notices-Remedial Actions

red bar graphic PENNSYLVANIA

Dept. of Envtl. Protection

NPDES Permit Applications

Notice of Additional Public Meeting/Hearing and Extension of Public Comment Period on Draft Antidegradation Guidance

Draft Guidance Documents

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-Hazardous Waste

  • Proposed Amendment of R.61-79, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations: U.S. EPA promulgates amendments to 40 C.F.R. pts.124, 260 through 266, 268, 270, and 273 throughout each calendar year. Recent amendments include revised standards for hazardous air pollutants for hazardous waste combustors (MACT standards); technical amendments to Land Disposal Restrictions Phase IV; a new rule which allows certain generators of F006 sludges up to 180 days to accumulate without a permit, under specific conditions; the vacating of previous listings for organobromine production wastes; and other minor amendments. In addition, minor typographical errors may be corrected to achieve conformity with federal regulations. These rules and other amendments have been published in the Federal Register between Sept. 30, 1999, and June 30, 2000. DHEC intends to amend R.61-79 to adopt federal amendments through June 30, 2000, to maintain conformity with federal requirements and ensure compliance with federal standards. No preliminary assessment report, preliminary fiscal impact statement, nor legislative review of this proposed amendment is required. A Notice of Drafting was published in the State Register on Sept. 22, 2000; the drafting comment period closed Oct. 27, 2000. Staff was granted Board initial approval on June 14, 2001, to publish a Notice of Proposed Regulation in the State Register on July 27, 2001, to provide opportunity for public comment and to conduct an Informational Forum. For additional information, contact Ms. Suzanne Rhodes, DHEC, Bureau of Land and Waste Management, 2600 Bull St., Columbia, S.C. 29201; Phone: 803/896-4000; E-mail address: rhodessh@columb34.dhec.state.sc.us.

  • DHEC is proposing amendments to R.61-79 to remove state provisions that are not required for federal compliance and that provide financial assurance for restoration of environmental impairment. Removal of these provisions is proposed as a result of an Apr. 4, 2000, decision of the South Carolina Court of Appeals. This amendment will remove the environmental impairment regulations which were published as proposed in the State Register on June 24, 1994, and published as final regulations in the State Register on June 23, 1995, as Document No. 1823. Affected sections are R.61-79.264, subsections .152, and .153 and cross-references at 264.140 and 265.140. Legislative review will be required. A Notice of Drafting was published in the State Register on Oct. 27, 2000. The drafting comment period closed Nov. 27, 2000. Staff was granted Board initial approval on June 14, 2001, to publish a Notice of Proposed Regulation in the State Register on July 27, 2001, to provide opportunity for public comment and to conduct an Informational Forum. For additional information, contact Ms. Suzanne Rhodes, DHEC, Bureau of Land and Waste Management, 2600 Bull St., Columbia, S.C. 29201; Phone: 803/896-4000; E-mail address: rhodessh@columb34.dhec.state.sc.us.

  • Certain waste residues from the production of butyl tins have been demonstrated to be hazardous to marine flora and fauna. Both state and federal laws allow for the promulgation of such regulations, procedures or standards, as may be necessary to protect the health and safety of the public, the health of living organisms, and the environment. DHEC intends to add state listings for solid wastes containing certain organo-tin compounds to R.61-79.261. The intention of this amendment will be to bring certain organo-tin compounds under hazardous waste regulation, since mismanagement of these compounds poses a threat to human health and the environment. Legislative review will be required. A Notice of Drafting was published in the State Register on Dec. 22, 2000. The drafting comment period closed Jan. 22, 2001. Staff was granted Board initial approval on June 14, 2001, to publish a Notice of Proposed Regulation in the State Register on July 27, 2001, to provide opportunity for public comment and to conduct an Informational Forum. Staff was granted Board initial approval on June 14, 2001, to publish a Notice of Proposed Regulation in the State Register on July 27, 2001, to provide opportunity for public comment and to conduct an Informational Forum. For additional information, contact Ms. Suzanne Rhodes, DHEC, Bureau of Land and Waste Management, 2600 Bull St., Columbia, S.C. 29201; Phone: 803/896-4000; E-mail address: rhodessh@columb34.dhec.state.sc.us.

Proposed Regulations-Regulation 61-67, Standards for Wastewater Facility Construction

  • The Department will consider revisions including, but not limited to, the use of vacuum sewer systems and criteria for alternative collection system use. The Department will also consider the consistency of administrative and technical review issues in comparison with the drinking water standards (R.61-58). The Department will evaluate changes in pump and haul criteria, service connection and water supply intake definitions, criteria for sewer design related to infiltration and inflow, rules for application submittal requirements, and available capacity at treatment plant determinations. The Department will consider other minor changes and issues needed to clarify the existing regulation. Comments due July 23. 

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water Quality

  • Proposed Amendment of R.61-58, State Primary Drinking Water Regulations. DHEC proposes to revise the regulations to include requirements promulgated under the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations: Public Notification Rule, and the Radionuclide Rule. The Public Notification Rule revises current public notification procedures requiring public water systems to notify the public any time a water system violates a primary drinking water regulation or has other situations posing a risk to public health. This rule applies to all public water systems. The Radionuclide Rule revises the monitoring requirements for radionuclides. Monitoring and reporting of radionuclides applies to Community public water systems. This action is mandated by the 1996 amendments to the federal SDWA. Proposed regulations will comply with 40 C.F.R. pts. 141 and 142. The final Public Notification Rule was published in the May 4, 2000, Federal Register, with an effective date of June 5, 2000. Primacy States must adopt this rule by May 6, 2002. The Radionuclide Rule was published in the Dec. 7, 2000, Federal Register, with an effective date of Dec. 8, 2003. Other minor revisions will include, but not be limited to, deletion of the Maximum Contaminant Level for Nickel and the aldicarbs, deletion of the Phase I VOC monitoring for surface water systems and the review of the analytical methodology for coliform. These revisions are to align the State Primary Drinking Water Regulations with federal regulations. The proposed regulations will comply with federal law and are exempt from legislative review; neither a preliminary assessment report nor a fiscal impact statement is required.

Final Regulations-R.61-55. Septic Tank Site Evaluation Fees

  • R.61-55, Septic Tank Site Evaluation Fees, establishes fees for inspection and support activities associated with the septic tank systems and onsite wastewater management. This regulation incorporates a fee increase of the fees previously provided for in annual provisos to the state budget.

Final Regulations-R.61-68. Water Classifications and Standards

  • Amendment of R.61-68 to clarify, strengthen and improve the existing regulation, and make appropriate revisions of the state's water quality standards in accordance with §303(c)(2)(B) of the federal CWA. Section 303(c)(2)(B) requires that South Carolina's water quality standards be reviewed and revised, where necessary, at least every three years for the purposes of considering U.S. EPA's most recent numeric and narrative criteria and to comply with recent federal regulatory revisions and recommendations. The Department has also included several revisions that will clarify and improve the regulation. Former R.61-68 was replaced in its entirety because of recodification and stylistic changes made throughout the regulation. The new regulations exceed federal standards in scope and stringency in several respects. See http://www.lpitr.state.sc.us/regs/2572.doc. For example, DHEC noted that:

    [w]hile the EPA clearly recognizes the importance of physical criteria, they have not recommended a specific criterion for turbidity. Presently the water quality standards include a turbidity standard for the protection of trout waters of the State. It was determined that habitat loss was especially crucial to these species for propagation and well-being. While the turbidity standard included in the regulation for trout waters is appropriate, the Department was concerned that the criterion may be overly conservative for all waters of the State. Trout waters are often clear. Many of the waters of the State are often more turbid due to natural, not anthropogenic, effects. Therefore a single value for turbidity seems inappropriate and hence why the Department is proposing different values for different types of waters of the State. In order to protect our valuable water resources from habitat loss and impairment, the Department affirms that the proposed numeric values for turbidity are necessary and reasonable.

On the clarification of "mixing zone" policy and allowances, DHEC said, in the notice of the proposal, that :

Some concerns have been expressed by both the regulated community and environmental groups over the lack of specificity in the State’s mixing zone policy. These groups have stated that they believe this lack of specificity may result in subjective and inconsistent implementation of water quality standards from site-to-site. Still a certain amount of flexibility is essential when dealing with complex water quality problems on a waterbody, watershed, or basin scale. Explicit requirements for mixing zones need to be addressed in the water quality standards regulation while still providing flexibility so that the Department may be able to use the mixing zone allowance to address all of the multiple, differing, and complex situations that arise in permit development and issuance for the waters of the State.

The present mixing zone language in R.61-68 goes a long way to providing a basis for mixing zone allowances and at the same time, establishing requirements for the protection of the waters of the State. All of the statements expressed in the existing language are essential to this goal. Therefore, the Department does not intend to remove any of the requirements presently stated in the regulation. Rather, we intend to clarify the statements and to add specific requirements dealing with the dynamics of individual mixing zones. This is not an easy task due to the fact that it would be impossible to enumerate every instance and situation where mixing occurs in the waters of the State. Therefore, the Department [notes] that it is appropriate to deal with the issue through statements about the broader categories of both water quality and pollutants and specifically noting when a prohibition or limitation occurs. We believe that leaving the language as general statements will allow enough flexibility to include case-by-case considerations for specific size delineations and mixing zone limitations. The Department is also proposing additional restrictions for the use of mixing zones in an effort to protect aquatic life and human health. The Department affirms that the additional language is both necessary and reasonable in order to resolve concerns related to the allowance and application of mixing zones.

Permit Application Notices

red bar graphic  TENNESSEE

Dept. of Environment and Conservation

Permit Applications

red bar graphic  TEXAS

Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Draft Innocent Owner/Operator Guidance

TNRCC Proposes Repeal of Rules Restricting Use of Construction Equipment

  • The TNRCC proposed to repeal of rules that were adopted last year as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) to help the Dallas/Forth Worth and Houston/Galveston nonattainment areas meet the U.S. EPA NAAQS for ozone. The rules would have restricted the hours of operation for construction and industrial equipment in order to delay the emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a key ozone precursor, until later in the day, thus limiting ozone formation. The mixing of NOx and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the presence of sunlight early in the day optimizes the formation of ozone. Restricting the operation of construction equipment during morning hours can reduce these ozone forming compounds to minimize the critical mixing time. The rules also would have required owners or operators of diesel-powered equipment to replace their equipment with those that emit less NOx and VOCs. Senate Bill 5, passed by the 77th Legislature, requires the TNRCC to submit an SIP revision to the EPA deleting the requirements of these rules from the SIP no later than Oct. 1, 2001. The diesel emission reduction incentive program contained in the bill will replace the repealed rules and result in an equivalent level of emission reductions. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/media/press/07-01siprep.html 

Proposed Regulations-Hazardous Waste

  • RCRA Updates for Clusters VII, VIII, and IX. The proposed rules would revise the commission's rules to conform to certain federal regulations promulgated by U.S. EPA, in order for Texas to increase its level of authorization to operate aspects of the federal hazardous waste program in lieu of EPA. In addition, the proposal addresses the findings of the Commission's previous rules review of Chapter 335, which revealed a number of inconsistencies and incorrect references and citations. Comments due July 23; no public hearing. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/pc00044305.pdf and http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/pc00044335.pdf 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)--Cross-Border Natural Gas Pipelines

  • This rule will adopt an MOU among the Office of the Secretary of State, the Railroad Commission of Texas, the Texas Historical Commission, the Texas General Land Office, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, and the Texas Public Utility Commission to establish a single point of contact for assisting prospective permit applicants in the permitting of natural gas pipelines that cross the border between Texas and Mexico. Comments due July 30. See http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/oprd/rule_lib/proposals/pc01020.pdf  

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Permit Hearings

Public Hearings/Proposed Rules

red bar graphic  UTAH

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Proposed Regulations-Air Quality

Proposed Regulations-Drinking Water

Permit Applications

red bar graphic VERMONT

Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

Permit Applications

red bar graphic VIRGINIA

Dept. of Envtl. Quality

Public Meeting, Hearing Notices

red bar graphic  WASHINGTON

Dept. of Ecology

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

Green Tier Program

  • DNR forwarded to the Legislature a proposed program designed to better focus environmental protection work with communities and industries and to provide legal standing for that work comparable to that of the current regulatory system. Under Green Tier, all organizations and sectors could enter into legally binding contracts that address multiple environmental goals. These entities would be able to set a series of commitments that go beyond the regulatory requirements set by local, state, and federal government agencies, and to put in place agreements that will make it easier for these entities to meet specified commitments while improving their operations. Green Tier would use three major tools:


  • Environmental Charters: Environmental charters are granted to persons and define the scope of responsibility, activities, authorities, and services to achieve superior environmental performance. They may be organized around land areas, watersheds, air-sheds, forests, political subdivisions, activities, trade or business sectors, products, occupations, supply chains, emission categories, species, biological concepts or on any other basis to achieve superior performance. Under Green Tier, the Charter is the empowering legal instrument that gives standing to a party to get things done.

  • Environmental Contracts: Environmental contracts are enforceable contracts entered into by the state that specify the commitments to superior environmental performance on the part of the contracting parties. In some cases, the state or others might commit incentives or support that is proportional to the goals and accomplishments. Under Green Tier, the contract is the enabling and committing legal instrument used to trigger rewards for achievements or sanctions for shortfalls.

  • Environmental Management Systems: The third tool, environmental management systems are business systems focused on achieving environmental results. They are organized sets of procedures that identify goals, commit resources to those goals, monitor progress and continuously improve performance. These systems will produce helpful performance data used to report progress toward Green Tier.

The existing regulatory system would remain for those who want it or do not qualify for Green Tier. A credible compliance system is essential to "push" entities toward Green Tier.

Green Tier would be a two-level system. Level One would be an entry level. Regulated entities must meet "fact-based" criteria that bar participants with certain criminal judgments in the last five years and civil judgments in the last three years. Requirements exist for public involvement, audits, environmental management systems and reporting. Level Two, the Green Star level, uses contracts and requires superior environmental performance. Removal for cause would be possible at both levels.

Superior environmental performance means measurable or notable improvements in air, water, land or natural resources quality, or ecosystem protection. The proposed Green Tier legislation would provide a menu of options to meet the needs of multiple parties and communities. All goals should go beyond minimum legal standards. They may include but are not limited to biodiversity, reduced environmental risk, damage mitigation, biosphere protection, energy and water management, comprehensive resource management, resource conservation, technology transfer, mentoring, sustainable community development, and promoting civil discourse.

The Green Tier Committee's proposal was transmitted to the Legislature on June 12, 2001, for consideration as a separate bill to be introduced in the current session of the Legislature. Details about the Green Tier proposal, its legislative progress, and the Committee's work can be found on the DNR Web site at http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/cea/green_tier/index.htm 

Questions may be directed to the Bureau of Cooperative Environmental Assistance, (608) 267-3125

Air Rules Development

Public Hearing and Meeting Schedule

red bar graphic WYOMING

Dept. of Environmental Quality

Coalbed Methane

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

large red bar graphic

red bar graphic GENERAL

red bar graphic CLIMATE CHANGE

  • Earth is heating up faster than at any time in the last 1,000 years, while the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has reached at least a 420,000-year and possibly a 20 million-year high, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in a 2,600-page report, "Climate Change 2001." See http://uk.cambridge.org/earthsciences/climatechange/, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1435000/1435009.stm, and  http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=83043 

  • European Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom, under lobbying from Airbus, wrote a letter to Boeing Co. criticizing the company's planned "Sonic Cruiser" aircraft, claiming it would add to climate change problems.  

  • After denying press reports that Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi told President Bush that Japan agrees that Kyoto should not be implemented in its present form, the Japanese leader joined with U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair to say that they believe the U.S. can and should be persuaded to approve a modified agreement. Japan will work with the U.K. on an alternative proposal. How it will differ from the one advanced by the Danish minister, which gives Japan, Russia, and Canada broad support of the use of "carbon sinks," remains to be seen. The two leaders issued a "guarded" press statement after talks in London. See http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=11412, http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1419000/1419390.stm and http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,516067,00.html Subsequently, according to Japanese press reports, Koizumi has ordered ministers and other officials "to find common ground" with the U.S. on the issue.

  • Belgian Environment Minister Magda Aelvoet said changes in the Kyoto Protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions are not out of the question, particularly if Japan's efforts to return the U.S. are unsuccessful. 

  • In a significant development, intended to foster Japanese support, Dutch Environment Minister and chair of U.N. climate talks Jan Pronk said he would be amenable to delaying the treaty's target date for beginning to cut greenhouse gas emissions. Presently, 38 developed countries must reduce average emissions between 2008 and 2012 to 5% below 1990 levels. But in a speech before the Dutch Parliament, Pronk said the date could be moved back, noting that "I can imagine that it would be possible to postpone the date of 2008 by two years, to 2010." Pronk later said that "the United States' decision and the unclear position of Japan have put climate policy in jeopardy. This is the time for politicians to hold firm and agree to start reducing greenhouse gas emissions." 

  • Japan is said to have recommended to the U.S. that the the baseline date be moved back from 1990 to 2000. But it appeared that no E.U.-Japan "deal" was forthcoming. It is attempting to get the U.S. back in the fold but apparently not willing to commit in the absence of U.S. participation. Meanwhile, Australia, another major player, stuck by the U.S. position. Australian Environment Minister Robert Hill maintained its view that the Protocol is dead without the U.S. involved. He called the treaty "dead" and said Australia will not ratify without the United States. "When I say it is dead," Hill said, "what I mean is without the United States it's an ineffective global response and it won't serve the purpose for which it was constructed."

  • Belgian Energy Minister Olivier Deleuze said reaching consensus in Bonn will be difficult. EU Environment Commissioner Margot Wallstrom said "[w]e've not been able to convince the Australian government to turn around and to change their opinions about ratification. They want to have the United States on board before they are willing to ratify. But I think still it's very important that they continue to negotiate in Bonn and we will have to, of course, look for other allies in this process, because Kyoto is important and Bonn could be an important step forward."

  • The U.S. said it will send a delegation to Bonn, with Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Paula Dobriansky leading the delegation, according to State Department spokesperson Richard Boucher. Boucher added that Washington "takes climate change very seriously" and is "working with our allies to develop an effective and science-based approach to addressing global climate change." Margot Wallstrom, while also signaling potential flexibility about target deadlines, accused the U.S. of trying to sabotage upcoming Bonn talks, saying that "[i]t is quite obvious that the United States has put pressure on countries such as Japan and Australia to follow them in rejecting the Kyoto Protocol. This has put Japan in a difficult position because of its close economic and political links with the United States." 

  • The World Energy Council said that global emissions of greenhouse gases are dropping, particularly in the U.S. and China. See http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/global/open.plx?file=lists/whatsnew.htm  

  • Chinese State Council Premier Zhu Rongji, after meeting with U.K. Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott, said that developing countries (such as China, which is also a significant emitter of greehouse gases) are most at risk from climate change and that developed countries should reduce emissions. He did not address reductions by developing countries. The Chinese Foreign Ministry called for implementation of Kyoto. 

  • Japan's Environment Ministry said that greenhouse gas emissions rose 2.1%, to 1.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent, in fiscal 1999 compared with 1998, making satisfaction of Kyoto targets less likely. See http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20010711a1.htm .

  • A South Korean industry group that the the country cannot meet present Kyoto targets. See http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2001/07/11/200107110020.asp 

  • The U.K. Royal Society issued a report saying that too much is being made of carbon sinks. It noted that sinks cannot be a long-term substitute for emissions reductions. See http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news/index.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sci/tech/newsid_1426000/1426453.stm. Professor David Read, chair of the working group that produced the report, said: "We do not fully understand the processes that control how much carbon dioxide is absorbed by vegetation and soils acting as land carbon sinks. Furthermore, we need more reliable methods of quantifying and verifying the contribution of sinks toward targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. Carbon sinks remain a point of dispute between countries, even though the United States is no longer leading the calls for sinks to play a big role in meeting Kyoto targets." He added that "[t]hese carbon sinks may help to reduce greenhouse gases in the atmosphere during the short term, but the amounts of carbon dioxide that can be stored are small compared to emissions from the burning of fossil fuels. Some climate calculations predict that sinks could even start to become net sources of carbon dioxide as global average temperatures increase during this century. Therefore, it is vital that countries should not attempt to use carbon sinks as a justification for diverting financial and political resources away from long-term solutions that involve reducing the use of fossil fuels." The report indicates that the maximum amount of carbon dioxide that might be removed from the atmosphere by changes in agricultural and forestry practices, as well as by slowing deforestation, would only be equivalent to a quarter of the cuts in emissions required by 2050 to avoid large increases in global average temperatures.  

  • The Washington Post reported that the melting of Peruvian glaciers, likely due to global warming, could have significant adverse effects upon the country's hydroelectric-heavy power supply and increase the risks of  avalanches and mudslides. See http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33705-2001Jul8.html 

  • The New Economics Foundation issued a booklet, "An Environmental War Economy," which claims that countries such as Bangladesh that are adversely affected by climate change have a good case in international law for suing countries that have failed to meet emission reduction targets. See http://www.neweconomics.org/uploadstore/pubs/War%20Economy(1).pdf and http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4218784,00.html  

  • The Center for a Sustainable Economy released a report, "Environmental Tax Reform: The European Experience," see http://www.sustainableeconomy.org/eurosurvey.htm, which argues that several European countries have taken significant steps toward addressing climate change without harming their economies. 


  • U.S. and Vietnamese officials met in Hanoi to discuss joint programs to evaluating damage caused by the defoliant Agent Orange. Vietnam asserts that 1 million people are currently suffering adverse health effects from exposure, while the U.S. has contended that there is no scientific proof linking the defoliant to alleged  health problems. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1418000/1418253.stm