Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

Weekly Update Volume 38, Issue 25

09/08/2008

LITIGATION

CAA, OPERATING PERMITS, DUTY TO OBJECT:

The Eleventh Circuit held that a violation notice and civil complaint do not, by themselves, inevitably trigger EPA's duty to object to a Title V operating permit under CAA §505(b)(2). The court therefore denied a petition to review EPA's decision not to object to a Title V operating permit issued for two coal-fired power plants in Georgia. Title V operating permits are required to contain all applicable clean air requirements. Under §505(b)(2), a petitioner must demonstrate to the EPA Administrator that a permit does not contain a requirement that is applicable to that permit's source. Here, the petitioners only offered evidence that EPA had initiated proceedings to resolve the applicability of PSD requirements to the plants at issue. The permits, however, did not contain PSD-related limits or compliance schedules. Therefore, this evidence, without more, was insufficient to trigger the Administrator's duty to object to the permits because EPA had discretion to reasonably conclude that the applicability of PSD limits to the plants was still very much unresolved.Sierra Club v. Johnson, No. 0711537, 38 ELR 20224 (11th Cir. Sept. 2, 2008).

CAA, MODIFICATIONS, PSD:

A district court denied motions for summary judgment on states' claims that an electric utility modified one of its coal-fired power plants in violation of the PSD permitting requirements set forth in CAA §165(a). The court held that the routine maintenance, repair, and replacement (RMRR) exclusion should be applied to projects that are deemed "routine in the industry" as a whole. This interpretation of RMRR under the PSD program is consistent with EPA regulations under the complementary new source performance standard program, which provide that maintenance, repair, and replacement shall not be considered a modification if "routine for a source category". Nevertheless, in analyzing the project's nature and extent, its purpose, the frequency of the repair or replacement, and its cost, the utility has not shown that the project was RMRR. Hence, the RMRR exclusion does not apply. But the project does not necessarily constitute a "major modification" so as to trigger PSD requirements because a material issue of fact exists as to whether the utility should have projected a significant increase in annual emissions to result from its project. Accordingly, summary judgment is not appropriate. The court also denied the utility's motion to dismiss the case on grounds that the states' claims were time barred.Pennsylvania v. Allegheny Energy, Inc., No. 05-885, 38 ELR 20228 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 2, 2008) (Mitchell, J.).

SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ACT, CERCLA, JURISDICTION:

The Tenth Circuit upheld the dismissal of landowners' Solid Waste Disposal Act and APA claims filed against the U.S. government for failing to clean up land it leased from the owners' grandfather in the 1940s for military training purposes. Although the court is sympathetic to the owners' frustration with the long delays in cleaning up their property, the suit falls within the broad ambit of CERCLA §113(h), which deprives federal courts of jurisdiction to consider "any challenges to removal or remedial action selected" under the Act. The statutory definition of a removal action dictates that a removal action is ongoing and, thus, that §113(h)'s jurisdiction strip applies, even if the government has only begun to "monitor, assess, and evaluate the release or threat of release of hazardous substances." Here, the government has already undertaken several steps toward determining how it will address the contamination present on the property. These removal actions are sufficient to trigger §113(h).Cannon v. Gates, No. 07-4107, 38 ELR 20223 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2008).

NEPA, GENETICALLY MODIFIED ORGANISMS:

The Ninth Circuit upheld a lower court order enjoining the future planting of disputed genetically engineered alfalfa seed pending the U.S. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's completion of an EIS. The district court applied the traditional balancing test, and not a categorical rule, in fashioning the injunction here. And the court did not err in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing before entering the injunction. The injunction involved only interim measures pending the agency's compliance with NEPA, and the district court considered extensive remedies-phase evidence.Geerston Seed Farms v. Johanns, Nos. 07-16458 et al., 38 ELR 20225 (9th Cir. Sept. 2, 2008).

CWA, ANTIDEGREDATION REVIEW:

The Sixth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part a lower court decision upholding EPA's approval of Kentucky's regulatory implementation of its Tier II water quality antidegradation rules. EPA's approval of Kentucky's classification of certain waters as eligible for Tier I protection rather than Tier II protection was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. However, EPA erred in approving Kentucky's categorical exemption of six types of pollution discharges from the Tier II review procedure. Five of the categorical exemptions were designated as causing "de minimis" water-quality loss, but EPA failed to determine whether the exemptions together permit significant degradation. And while the Agency's decision document detailed the tests conducted to measure each exemption's impact, it often failed to include the resulting measurements. The sixth exemption concerned coal-mining discharges. In approving the exemption, EPA erroneously credited Kentucky's existing regulations as requiring coal-mining dischargers to demonstrate economic or social necessity when, in fact, the regulations do not. Kentucky's "socioeconomic review" is found not in its water quality regulations, but in an informal commitment to EPA. Relying on this commitment, EPA approved the coal-mining exemption. Securing an informal commitment from a state agency rather than requiring the state to amend its regulations violates the federal approval procedure established by CWA §303(c)(3). These exemptions were therefore remanded for reconsideration.Kentucky Waterways Alliance v. Johnson, No. 06-5614, 38 ELR 20227 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 2008).

CWA, WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES:

A district court partially denied an environmental group's motion for summary judgment on claims against a city for CWA violations stemming from sewage spills at its collection system and wastewater treatment plants. As there are no isolated wetlands at issue in this case, Justice Kennedy's "significant nexus" test set forth inRapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715, 36 ELR 20116 (2006), is irrelevant. Rather, at issue is whether many of the alleged spills went to navigable waters of the United States. The court denied the group's claim with respect to violations based upon storm drain spills because there is no evidence that the storm drains had at least a seasonally intermittent flow of water during some portion of the year. Likewise, there was insufficient evidence to establish that the stream beds at issue had any continuous flow of water. Moreover, the evidence is insufficient to determine that 16 of the spills entered into a water of the United States. The court therefore granted summary judgment on the group's claims as to uncontested spills only. In addition, the court granted summary judgment on the group's claims that the city violated the terms of its NPDES permit for certain ground-only spills. In so doing, the court found violations of the CWA that are not based on adding pollutants to waters of the United States. Although it is clear that ground-only spills are not in themselves violative of the CWA, a permit was issued and each spill in fact violates the permit.Sierra Club v. Honolulu, No. 04-00463, 38 ELR 20229 (D. Haw. Aug. 18, 2008) (Ezra, J.).

OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF LAND ACT, LEASE AGREEMENTS:

The Federal Circuit affirmed a lower court decision holding that the U.S. government breached lease agreements it entered into with oil companies to explore for and develop oil and gas resources in the outer continental shelf off the California coast and ordering it to pay over $1.1 billion in restitution. Congress amended the CZMA in 1990 after the leases were in place. Those amendments constituted an anticipatory repudiation of the lease agreements. The 1990 amendments established new statutory requirements that deviated significantly from the procedures and standards that were in effect when the leases were executed, thereby violating portions of the lease agreements. Because the 1990 CZMA amendments constituted a repudiation of the contracts, the oil companies are entitled to restitution "for any benefit...conferred on the repudiating party." Here, the trial court properly ordered the government to pay restitution in the amount of more than $1.1 billion dollars. The judgment represents the return of the funds the companies or their predecessors-in-interest had paid in the form of upfront bonus payments as consideration for the rights associated with the offshore leases.Amber Resources Co. v. United States, Nos. 2007-5047, -5082, 38 ELR 20233 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 25, 2008).

TSCA, INSPECTIONS:

The Fourth Circuit upheld a district court's issuance of a warrant authorizing EPA to inspect a former U.S. Navy ship for PCBs. The owner of the ship argued that in enacting TSCA, Congress granted EPA subpoena power "[i]n lieu of warrant authority." Yet EPA's authority to seek a warrant stems from its inspection authority. TSCA explicitly authorizes EPA to inspect a premises or conveyance where there are substances regulated by the Act. Nothing in Congress' grant of subpoena power indicates that it intended to preclude EPA from obtaining warrants to implement its inspection authority. The inspection authority and the subpoena power are separate grants of authority governing separate subjects of investigation. EPA's inspection authority extends to the physical inspection of premises or conveyances, while its subpoena power extends to persons (or entities) who may be compelled to testify or to produce reports, documents, or other information. In addition, there was probable cause to believe that PCBs were present on the ship, rendering it proper for EPA to conduct an inspection to determine whether TSCA's requirements were being met. Last, the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting a preliminary injunction that prevented the ship from being moved while EPA executed its inspection warrant and considered what, if any, regulatory or enforcement action was warranted.United States v. M/V Sanctuary, No. 07-2123, 38 ELR 20222 (4th Cir. Aug. 25, 2008).

CERCLA, RESPONSE COSTS, EQUITABLE SHARE:

A district court held a PRP liable for 80% of past and future response costs incurred at the Boarhead Farms Superfund site in Pennsylvania. Although the PRP's volumetric share of waste disposed at the site was 62%, the court added 8.7% for dealing with a known polluter plus an additional 8.7% for failing to cooperate with EPA. The PRP was therefore ordered to pay plaintiffs $10,942,702.84 in response costs incurred through 2007, plus 80% in future response costs.Agere Systems Inc. v. Advanced Environmental Technology Corp., No. 02-3830, 38 ELR 20230 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 18, 2008) (Davis, J.).

CERCLA, CONTRIBUTION:

A district court dismissed companies' CERCLA §107 claims against other PRPs for the costs of cleaning up PCB contamination in the Lower Fox River, holding that they must instead seek contribution under CERCLA §113. The companies alleged that they paid more than their proportionate share of liability and thus are entitled to recover the excess they paid from those PRPs who have failed to pay their proportionate share. This is a claim for contribution specifically authorized under CERCLA §113(f). Since any excess payments made by the companies are recoverable, if at all, under that section, they have no need to resort to §107(a). The court also dismissed the companies' claims for natural resource damages under CERCLA §107(a). The companies failed to cite any authority suggesting that private parties can use §107(a) to recover for natural resources damages, regardless of whether a §113(f) contribution claim is available.Appleton Papers Inc. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co., No. 08-C-16, 38 ELR 20231 (E.D. Wis. Aug. 20, 2008) (Griesbach, J.).

DRINKING WATER, NEGLIGENCE, PUNITIVE DAMAGES:

A district court held that a local water agency may seek punitive damages in its negligence claim against a chemical manufacturer for drinking water contamination. California law permits punitive damages to be awarded in tort actions where the plaintiff shows by clear and convincing evidence that defendant has been guilty of "oppression, fraud, or malice." Here, the complaint alleges that the manufacturer knew about the potential for harm in 1986 but allowed operations to continue at the site for another 12 years, allegedly taking no steps to abate the threat of pollution, warn anyone, or conduct testing to measure the extent of the damage. If true, these allegations could support a finding of malice. The agency, however, failed to allege sufficient facts to justify an award of punitive damages on its restitution claim. Santa Clara Valley Water District v. Olin Corp., No. C-07-03756, 38 ELR 20232 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 18, 2008) (Whyte, J.).

CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT, SALAMANDERS:

A California appellate court affirmed a lower court decision that the California Fish & Game Commission erred in rejecting a petition to add the California tiger salamander to the list of endangered species under the California Endangered Species Act. The administrative record shows the salamander species does not breed prolifically, is vulnerable to several significant threats, has lost most of its original habitat, and has been displaced by a hybrid from a significant portion of its range. This information indicates that some listing action may be warranted. The Commission therefore acted outside the range of its discretion in denying the petition.Center for Biological Diversity v. California Fish & Game Commission, No. C055059, 38 ELR 20226 (Cal. Ct. App. 3d Dist. Sept. 2, 2008).

Copyright© 2008, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

THE FEDERAL AGENCIES

Note: Citations below are to theFederal Register(FR).

AIR:

  • EPA updated outer continental shelf air regulations in the state of Florida.73 FR 51610(9/4/08).
  • EPA announced the availability of a draft document titledRisk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the NO2 Primary National Ambient Air Quality Standard: Second Draftfor review and comment.73 FR 51297(9/2/08).
  • EPA announced the availability of a draft document titledRisk and Exposure Assessment to Support the Review of the Secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Oxides of Nitrogen and Oxides of Sulfur: First Draftfor review and comment.73 FR 50965(8/29/08).
  • SIP Approvals:California (revisions to the Antelope Valley air quality management district)73 FR 51226(9/2/08). Delaware (limits on nitrogen oxide (NOx) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from large electric-generating units)73 FR 50723(8/28/08). Iowa (best management practices, fugitive dust standard, and emission controls for certain grain elevators)73 FR 49950(8/25/08). Maryland (NOxand SO2emissions from 15 coal-fired electric-generating units (EGUs))73 FR 51599(9/4/08). Pennsylvania (attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for the Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle nonattainment area)73 FR 49949(8/25/08). Utah (transportation conformity consultation requirements and related revisions)73 FR 51222(9/2/08).
  • SIP Proposals:California (revisions to the Antelope Valley air quality management district; see above for direct final rule)73 FR 51258(9/2/08). Georgia (PSD and nonattainment new source review permitting rules)73 FR 51606(9/4/08). Iowa (best management practices, fugitive dust standard, and emission controls for certain grain elevators; see above for direct final rule)73 FR 49981(8/25/08). Maryland (NOxand SO2emissions from 15 coal-fired EGUs; see above for direct final rule)73 FR 51606(9/4/08). Pennsylvania (reasonably available control technology (RACT) under the eight-hour ozone NAAQS for Philadelphia County)73 FR 50270(8/26/08); (RACT requirements for volatile organic compounds and NOx)73 FR 50267(8/26/08). Utah (transportation conformity consultation requirements and related revisions; see above for direct final rule)73 FR 51257(9/2/08).

HAZARDOUS & SOLID WASTE:

  • EPA entered into a proposed administrative settlement under CERCLA requiring the settling party to pay $1,400,000 in U.S. response costs incurred at the Bodie State Historic Park site in Bodie, California.73 FR 51299(9/2/08).

MINING:

  • OSM proposed to approve an amendment to Virginia's regulatory program under SMCRA concerning ownership and control, valid existing rights, self-bonding, and the availability of records.73 FR 50915(8/29/08).
  • OSM proposed to approve an amendment to Utah's regulatory program pertaining to small operator assistance and permit applications.73 FR 50539(8/27/08).
  • OSM proposed to approve revisions to Montana's regulatory program under SMCRA.73 FR 50265(8/26/08).

PESTICIDES:

  • EPA announced the availability of a pesticide registration notice entitledAntimicrobial Pesticide Products With Anthrax-Related Claims.73 FR 51467(9/3/08).

WATER:

  • EPA Region 6 announced the availability of 30 modified TMDLs for the Lower, Middle, and Upper Terrebonne basins in Louisiana.73 FR 50610(8/27/08).

WILDLIFE:

  • FWS removed the Virginia northern flying squirrel from the list of threatened and endangered wildlife under the ESA due to its recovery.73 FR 50226(8/26/08).
  • NOAA-Fisheries and FWS proposed to designate 45 specific areas as critical habitat for Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment.73 FR 51747(9/5/08).
  • NOAA-Fisheries announced a 90-day finding on a petition to list three ice seal species as threatened or endangered under the ESA; the agency found that listing may be warranted and initiated status reviews.73 FR 51615(9/4/08).
  • NOAA-Fisheries and FWS determined that naturally spawned and conservation hatchery populations of Atlantic salmon in the Gulf of Maine distinct population segment constitute a species for listing as endangered or threatened under the ESA.73 FR 51415(9/3/08).

DOJ NOTICES OF SETTLEMENT:

  • United States v. Air Products & Chemicals, Inc., No. 2:08-cv-04216 (D.N.J. Aug. 21, 2008). A settling CERCLA defendant and PRPs from a 2000 consent decree must financially contribute to and perform work valued at approximately $3.1 million at the Chemsol, Inc. Superfund site in Piscataway Township, New Jersey, must pay $380.170.83 in U.S. response costs, and must pay $95,747.14 in natural resource damages to the state of New Jersey.73 FR 51849(9/5/08).
  • United States v. Henkemeyer, No. 0:08-cv-05030-PJS-RLE (D. Minn. Aug. 27, 2008). Settling CWA defendants that discharged pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States must restore the impacted areas, must perform mitigation, and must pay civil penalties.73 FR 51516(9/3/08).
  • United States v. Bayard Mining Corp., No. 95-0285 MV/LFG (D.N.M. Aug. 21, 2008). A 1995 CERCLA and RCRA consent decree was modified to incorporate additional removal action by settling defendants at the Cleveland Mill Superfund site near Silver City, New Mexico.73 FR 50840(8/28/08).
  • United States v. Koch Petroleum Group, L.P., No. 00-CV-2756 (D. Minn. Aug. 22, 2008). A proposed amendment to a 2001 CAA consent decree would allow settling parties to install alternative control technology for the reduction of NOxemissions from the Corpus Christi East Refinery in Texas.73 FR 50840(8/28/08).
  • United States v. City of Newburgh, No. 08 Civ. 7378 (SCR) (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 21, 2008). Settling CERCLA defendants must pay a total of $12 million over a two-year period, and four PRPs must pay an additional $62,000 for hazardous waste contamination at the Consolidated Iron and Metal Company Superfund site in Newburgh, New York.73 FR 50642(8/27/08).
  • United States v. Crane Composites, Inc., No. 08cv4735 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 21, 2008). A settling CAA defendant must install a permanent total enclosure to capture 100% of off-gases from its production lines, must pay an $800,000 civil penalty to the United States and a $200,000 civil penalty to the state of Illinois, and must pay up to an additional $150,000 to the state of Illinois for the emission of volatile organic material at its fiberglass reinforced plastics manufacturing facility in Channahon, Illinois.73 FR 50643(8/27/08).
  • Sierra Club v. MasTec North America, Inc., No. 03-1697-HO (D. Or. Aug. 19, 2008). Settling CWA defendants must provide for environmental mitigation and must pay a civil penalty for discharging pollutants without a permit into waters of the United States.73 FR 50643(8/27/08).
  • United States v. Calcasieu Refining Co., Inc., No. 2:08-cv-01215-PM-KK (W.D. La. Aug. 19, 2008). A settling CAA defendant must implement air pollution control technologies to reduce emissions of NOx from refinery process units, must adopt facilitywide enhanced benzene waste monitoring and fugitive emission control programs, and must pay a $612,500 civil penalty for violations at its facility in Lake Charles, Louisiana.73 FR 50345(8/26/08).
  • United States v. Burlington Resins, Inc., No. 08-01432 (RBK) (D.N.J. Aug. 19, 2008). A settling CAA, CWA, EPCRA, RCRA, and TSCA defendant must implement injunctive relief to bring its facility into compliance, must pay a $1.3 million civil penalty to the United States and the state of New Jersey, and must perform supplemental environmental projects worth $1.1 million at its polyvinyl chloride manufacturing facility in Burlington, New Jersey.73 FR 50346(8/26/08).

Copyright© 2008, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

THE CONGRESS

There are no new items to report since the last issue.

Copyright© 2008, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

IN THE STATES

Note: The entries below cover state developments since the last issue of Update. The entries are arranged by state, and within each section, entries are further subdivided by subject matter area. For a cumulative listing of materials reported in 2008, visit our list ofCumulative State Developments Arranged by State, or our list ofCumulative State Developments Arranged by Subject Matter. For state material reported prior to 2008, visit theELR Archives.

The states below have updates this week:

Alabama Idaho Nevada
Alaska Indiana New Hampshire
Arizona Kentucky New Mexico
California Louisiana North Carolina
Colorado Maine North Dakota
Connecticut Massachusetts Ohio
Delaware Michigan Oklahoma
Florida Montana South Carolina

ALABAMA

Air:

  • The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) scheduled a public hearing on proposed revisions to Division 3 of the ADEM Administrative Code (Air Quality) including 335-3-10-.01, General; 335-3-10-.02, Designated Standards of Performance; 335-3-10-.03 Appendices to 40 CFR 60; 335-3-11-.01, General; 335-3-11-.06, NESHAPs for Source Categories; 335-3-17-.01, Transportation Conformity; and Appendix C, EPA Regulations Reference Documents for New Source Performance Standards and NESHAPs. The revisions are being proposed to incorporate changes to EPA’s New Source Performance Standards and NESHAPs. Revisions are also being proposed to incorporate revisions made by EPA to the Transportation Conformity Rule. The hearing will be held October 8, 2008. See announcement,http://www.adem.state.al.us//PubHearings/Div3/AirDivisionLEGALNOTICE.pdf, and summary of reasons and revisions,http://www.adem.state.al.us/PubHearings/Div3/PropsedDiv3.pdf

Land Use:

ALASKA

Water:

ARIZONA

Air:

  • The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality proposed to repeal Title 18, Chapter 2, Appendix 10, Evaluation of Air Quality Data; Appendix 11, Allowable Particulate Emissions Computations; and references to these two appendices in Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards; Area Designations; Classification (R18-2-216) and Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 7, Existing Stationary Source Performance Standards (various rule sections). The agency has determined the information in the appendices is out of date and does not comply with current monitoring protocols as designated by EPA. Comments are due September 30, 2008. Seehttp://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Register/2008/34/proposed.pdf(pp. 3267-3285)
  • The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality proposed an amendment to R18-2-408, Mineral Tailings. The Amendment will add the phrase “or own or otherwise operate” to clarify that pollution control measures should continue after the construction of mineral tailings piles and for times when tailings piles are inactive. Comments are due October 2, 2008. Seehttp://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Register/2008/34/proposed.pdf(pp. 3285-3289)

Water:

  • The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality proposed amendments to R18-5-105 through 109, Classification of Treatment Plants and Certification of Operators. The proposed change would give the department the authority to permanently revoke the certification for an operator of a public water system or wastewater system. Due to the potential public health and environmental risks of recertifying an operator whose prior behavior justified revocation of the operator’s certification, the department plans to remove the provision currently in rule that would allow an operator whose license was revoked to be readmitted simply by passing the exam. The proposed rulemaking would clarify that a revocation is intended to be permanent, unless otherwise provided. Comments are due September 28, 2008. Seehttp://www.azsos.gov/public_services/Register/2008/34/proposed.pdf(pp. 3291-3292)

CALIFORNIA

Air:

  • The California Air Resources Board will hold a public hearing to consider adoption of a regulation that delineates air quality guidelines to ensure that the newly-established Air Quality Improvement Program and the Alternative and Renewable Fuel and Vehicle Technology Program complement California’s existing air quality programs. The hearing will be held September 25, 2008. Comments are due September 24, 2008. Seehttp://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2008/aqipfuels08/aqipnotice.pdf

General:

  • The California Energy Commission scheduled a public hearing on proposed amendments to CCR-20 §§1601-1608, Appliance Efficiency Regulations. The proposal would adopt efficiency standards for metal halide lighting fixtures (luminaires), a comprehensive voluntary test procedure for battery charger systems, and clarification of the current regulations for residential pool pumps. The hearing will be held October 22, 2008. Comments are also due October 22, 2008. Seehttp://www.oal.ca.gov/pdfs/notice/35z-2008.pdf(pp. 1525-1538)

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

  • The California Integrated Waste Management Board proposed revision to CCR-27 § 20921, CIWMB-Gas Monitoring and Control. The proposed revisions would adjust compliance deadlines and specify submittal and implementation time frames related to landfill gas monitoring and control programs at disposal sites. Comments are due October 3, 2008. Seehttp://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Rulemaking/GasDeadlines/default.htm

COLORADO

Air:

CONNECTICUT

Air:

  • The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection will hold a public hearing on proposed revision to 22a-174-1(a)(5), definition of "air pollutant;" 22a-174-3a(a)(1), concerning the obligation of the owners of certain small incinerators to apply for and obtain a new source review (NSR) permit; 22a-174-3a(a)(2)(B), concerning the lack of obligation for gasoline station owners to apply for and obtain a NSR permit; 22a-174-33(c)(2), concerning an exemption for the owners of certain small sources from the requirement to apply for and obtain a Title V operating permit; 22a-174-33(o)(1) and 22a-174-33(q)(1) and (2), shifting the submission deadline for certain periodic reports by Title V source owners without changing the frequency of reporting; and 22a-174-40(d)(5), clarifying the prohibition on the sale and manufacture of consumer products that contain certain toxic pollutants. The hearing will be held September 23, 2008. Comments are due September 26, 2008. Seehttp://www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?A=2586&Q=421868

DELAWARE

Air:

Climate:

  • The Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control proposes adoption of Regulation 1147, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Budget Trading ProgramThis new regulation would create Delaware's portion of a multi-state CO2 Budget Trading Program. The program is a cooperative effort amongst a number of Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic states that include Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The purpose is to reduce the emissions of CO2 from the power sector's electric generating units. Seehttp://regulations.delaware.gov/register/september2008/proposed/12%20DE%20Reg%20290%2009-01-08.htm#P32_2334

FLORIDA

Air:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality proposed amendments to 62-204.800, Federal Regulations Adopted by Reference. The proposed rule amendments update the department’s adoption-by-reference of air pollution regulations promulgated by EPA. Seehttps://www.flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2008/3435/3435doc.pdf(p. 4465)
  • The Department of Environmental Quality scheduled a public hearing on proposed adoption of rule 62-285.400, Adoption of California Motor Vehicle Emissions Standards. The purpose and effect of the proposed new rule section is to implement emission standards for new passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles. The hearing will be held September 25, 2008. Seehttps://www.flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2008/3435/3435doc.pdf(pp. 4467-4469)

Water:

  • The Suwannee River Water Management District proposed amendments to rules 40B-4.2020, Content of Environmental Resource Permit Application; and 40B-400.215, General Conditions for All Noticed General Permits. The amendments would revise the required content of environmental resource permit applications and change the authorized permit duration for a noticed general environmental resource permit from five years to three years. Seehttps://www.flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2008/3434/3434doc.pdf(p. 4317)
  • The Southwest Florida Water Management District proposed amendments to rules 40D-26.011, Policy and Purpose; 40D-26.021, Definitions; 40D-26.091, Publications Incorporated by Reference; 40D-26.101, Conditions of Eligibility; 40D-26.201, Program Application; 40D-26.301, Eligibility Determination; and 40D-26.401, Cost-Share Rates. The rulemaking would adopt the Facilitating Agricultural Resource Management Systems Program, a cost-share reimbursement program intended to implement agricultural best management practices that will result in reduced groundwater withdrawals and improvements to water quality, water resources, and ecology. Seehttps://www.flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2008/3434/3434doc.pdf(p. 4318)
  • The Department of Environmental Protection proposed amendments to rule 62-304.405, Lower Suwannee River Basin TMDLs; and 62-304.410 Santa Fe Basin TMDLs. The amendments would adopt TMDLs and establish allocations for nutrients in impaired waters located in the Suwannee River and Santa Fe Basins. Seehttps://www.flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2008/3434/3434doc.pdf(p. 4346-4349)
  • The Department of Environmental Quality will hold a rulemaking workshop on proposed rules 62-306.100, Scope and Intent; 62-306.200, Definitions; 62-306.300, General Requirements; 62-306.310, Prohibitions and Restrictions; 62-306.320, Eligibility for Registration of Credits; 62-306.400, Waters and Pollutants Subject to Trading; 62-306.500, Credit Generation and Validation; 62-306.600, Use of Credits and Credit Tracking; 62-306.700, Compliance with Trade Provisions; 62-306.800, Program Evaluation; and 62-306.900, Forms. These rules would establish the procedures for water quality credit trading, including the process to determine how credits are generated, quantified, and validated; the process for tracking credits, trades, and prices paid; limitations on the use of credits, including eligible pollutants, minimum water quality requirements, and any adjustments for uncertainty or location; the timing, duration, and transfer of credits; and the mechanisms for determining compliance with trade provisions. The workshop will be held November 21, 2008. Seehttps://www.flrules.org/Faw/FAWDocuments/FAWVOLUMEFOLDERS2008/3435/3435doc.pdf(p. 4457)

IDAHO

Air:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality proposed amendments to 58.01.01, Rules for the Control of Air Pollution in Idaho. The purpose of this rulemaking is to revise Sections 760 through 764, Rules for the Control of Ammonia from Dairy Farms, by adding best management practices using Zeolite, an ammonia-reducing product. Comments are due October 1, 2008. Seehttp://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/bulletin/bul/08sept.pdf(pp. 282-285)

Water:

  • The Department of Water Resources will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to 37.03.09, Well Construction Standards Rules. Portions of the rules undergoing the greatest revision include better and more comprehensive definitions; clarification on the minimum requirements for all wells; increased minimum standards on steel casing wall thicknesses; specific provisions and allowance for the use of thermoplastic pipe (PVC) as casing and/or liner with out having to obtain a waiver for each instance; requirements for more effective annular seals to prevent contamination, aquifer commingling, and loss of ground water; increasing the minimum surface seal depth from 18 to 38 feet, and improved standards and methodology concerning well disinfection, to protect public health and safety. The hearing will be September 22, 2008. Seehttp://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/bulletin/bul/08sept.pdf(pp. 204-245)
  • The Department of Environmental Quality has proposed amendments to 58.01.08, Idaho Rules for Public Drinking Water Systems. This rulemaking would incorporate by reference the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short Term Regulatory Revisions and Clarifications; Final Rule, promulgated by EPA. Incorporation by reference ensures that Idaho’s rules will be neither more nor less stringent than the federal rule. Seehttp://adm.idaho.gov/adminrules/bulletin/bul/08sept.pdf(pp. 286-288)

INDIANA

Air:

  • The Air Pollution Control Board adopted a final rule that adds 326 IAC 6-7, Particulate Matter Emission Limitations, and 326 IAC 10-6, Nitrogen Oxides Emission Limitations, and amends 326 IAC 7-4-10, Sulfur Dioxide Emission Limitations, for the F.B. Culley Generating Station in Newburgh, Indiana. Seehttp://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20080827-IR-326070309FRA.xml.pdf

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

  • The Solid Waste Management Board readopted rules in Article 10 regarding Solid Waste Land Disposal Facilities, including 329 IAC 10-11-7, Demonstration and Determination of Need Requirements; 329 IAC 10-15-9, Baled Waste Management Plan; 329 IAC 10-16-11, Setbacks; 329 IAC 10-16-12, Reduction of Setback Distances; 329 IAC 10-18-1, Vertical Expansions for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills; 329 IAC 10-20-30, Manifest Requirements for Waste Received From Transfer Stations; 329 IAC 10-20-31, Requirements for Receipt of Baled Waste; and 329 IAC 10-20-32, Incidental Disposal of Small Amounts of Whole Waste Tires. Seehttp://www.in.gov/legislative/iac/20080827-IR-329080332BFA.xml.pdf

Water:

KENTUCKY

Air:

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

  • The Department for Environmental Protection adopted amendments to Chapter 32, Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste; Chapter 34, Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Storage, Treatment and Disposal Facilities; Chapter 35, Interim Status Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities; Chapter 36, Standards for the Management of Specific Hazardous Wastes and Specific Types of Hazardous Waste Management Facilities; Chapter 37, Land Disposal Restrictions; Chapter 38, Hazardous Waste Permitting Process; and Chapter 43, Standards for Special Collection System Wastes. Seehttp://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/title401.htm##chp010

Water:

  • The Department for Environmental Protection adopted amendments to 401 KAR 9:010E, Individual Water Quality Certification Public Notice; and KAR 10:001E, Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 10. Seehttp://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/title401.htm##chp009
  • The Department for Environmental Protection proposed amendments to Chapter 5, Water Quality, including 401 KAR 5:010, Operation of Wastewater Systems by Certified Operators; 401 KAR 5:012, Repeal of 401 KAR 5:040; 401 KAR 5:052, Requirements Applicable to Cooling Water Intake Structures for Facilities Regulated by Section 316(b); and 401 KAR 5:057, Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System Pretreatment Requirements. Seehttp://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/title401.htm##chp009
  • The Department for Environmental Protection proposed amendments to Chapter 6, Water Wells, including 401 KAR 6:001, Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 6; 401 KAR 6:310, Water Supply Well Construction Practices and Standards; 401 KAR 6:320, Certification of Water Well Drillers; and 401 KAR 6:350, Monitoring Well Construction Practices and Standards. Seehttp://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/title401.htm##chp009
  • The Department for Environmental Protections proposed amendments to Chapter 9, Water Quality Certification, and Chapter 10, Water Quality Standards, including 401 KAR 9:010, Section 401 Individual Water Quality Certification; 401 KAR 9:020, Section 401 Water Quality Certification Fees; 401 KAR 10:001, Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 10; 401 KAR 10:026, Designation of Uses of Surface Waters; 401 KAR 10:029, General Provisions; 401 KAR 10:030, Antidegradation Policy Implementation Methodology; and 401 KAR 10:031, Surface Water Standards. Seehttp://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/title401.htm##chp010
  • The Department for Environmental Protection proposed amendments to Chapter 11, Certified Operators of Wastewater Treatment Facilities, including 401 KAR 11:001, Definitions for 401 KAR Chapter 11; 401 KAR 11:010, Board of Certification; 401 KAR 11:020, Standards of Professional Conduct for Certified Operators; 401 KAR 11:030, Wastewater Treatment and Collection Operators-Classification and Qualification; 401 KAR 11:050, Operator Certification; and 401 KAR 11:060reg, Certification Fees. Seehttp://www.lrc.state.ky.us/kar/title401.htm##chp010

LOUISIANA

Air:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing on proposed adoption of air regulations LAC 33:III.535 and 537, General Conditions for Air Permits. The hearing will be September 25, 2008. Seehttp://www.doa.la.gov/osr/reg/0808/0808.doc(pp. 1653-1657)
  • The Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to LAC 33:III.2132, Stage II Vapor Recovery. The proposed rule would provide an exemption from Stage II vapor recovery requirements for dispensers used exclusively for the initial fueling and/or refueling of vehicles equipped with onboard refueling vapor recovery equipment. The hearing will be held September 25, 2008. Seehttp://www.doa.la.gov/osr/reg/0808/0808.doc(p.1677)

Toxic Materials:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to LAC 33:XV.455, 1501, 1502, 1503, 1504, 1505, 1506, 1507, 1508, 1509, 1510, 1511, 1512, 1513, 1514, 1515, 1516, 1517, 1518, 1519, 1520, and 1599, Radiation Protection Regulations. These changes will bring Louisiana regulations in line with IAEA Transportation Safety Standards. The hearing will be held September 25, 2008. Seehttp://www.doa.la.gov/osr/reg/0808/0808.doc(pp. 1657-1670)
  • The Department of Environmental Quality will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to LAC 33:I.2701, 2703, 2705, 2707, 2709, 2711, 2713, 2715, 2717, 2719, and 2721, Mercury Risk Reduction. These rule create a comprehensive system for control of mercury-containing products. The hearing will be held September 25, 2008. Seehttp://www.doa.la.gov/osr/reg/0808/0808.doc(pp. 1670-1676)

MAINE

Land Use:

  • The Maine Department of Environmental Protection proposed an amendment to Chapter 310, Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection, Section 5(A), rule 2008-P221. The proposed amendment is an “avoidance” standard that would provide in part that “No activity shall be permitted if there is a practicable alternative to the project that would be less damaging to the environment” and require an analysis of alternatives to show that no practicable alternative exists. Additional language in subsection 5(A) addresses wetlands of special significance. Activities that may be considered for approval in wetlands of special significance are limited to those within specified categories, such as health and safety, and water-dependent uses. Comments are due October 3, 2008. Seehttp://www.maine.gov/dep/blwq/rule.htm

MASSACHUSSETS

Air:

  • The Department of Environmental Protection will hold public hearings on proposed amendments to 310 CMR 7.02, Plan Approval and Emission Limitations; and 310 CMR 7.03, Plan Approval Exemption: Construction Requirements. The amendments would include a simplified procedure whereby owners/operators of facilities with existing air plan approvals can make administrative amendments, increase the threshold for a Non Major Comprehensive Plan Application, allow owner/operators with multiple existing plan approvals to consolidate approvals, elaborate on the emission control requirements for plan approval (specifically best available control technology), and include new performance standard for rock crushing and materials handling equipment. Hearings will be held October 7 and 8, 2008. Seehttp://www.mass.gov/dep/service/regulations/newregs.htm#airps

MICHIGAN

Air:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, will hold a public hearing on various additions and amendments to rules governing mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants. The hearing will be held October 2, 2008. Comments are due October 17, 2008. Seehttp://www.michigan.gov/documents/dleg/MR15_090108_246793_7.pdf(pp. 15-48)

MONTANA

Air:

  • The Board of Environmental Review will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to ARM 17.8.102, 17.8.301, 17.8.901, 17.8.1007, 17.8.1201, 17.8.1206, and 17.8.1212 pertaining to incorporation by reference of current federal regulations and other materials into air quality rules and ARM 17.8.505 and 17.8.514 pertaining to air quality operation fees and open burning fees. The hearing will be held September 17, 2008. Comments are due September 25, 2008. Seehttp://sos.mt.gov/arm/Register/archives/MAR2008/MAR16-08.pdf(pp. 1743- 1746)

Water:

  • The Board of Environmental Review will hold a public hearing on proposed amendments to ARM 17.38.101, 17.38.201A, 17.38.202, 17.38.203, 17.38.204, 17.38.208, 17.38.209, 17.38.216, 17.38.225, 17.38.234, and 17.38.239 pertaining to incorporation by reference of current federal regulations and other materials in the public water supply rules, and the adoption of new rule I pertaining to consecutive system coverage. The hearing will be held September 17, 2008. Seehttp://sos.mt.gov/arm/Register/archives/MAR2008/MAR16-08.pdf(pp. 1731-1742)

NEVADA

Air:

  • The State Environmental Commission proposed amendments to NAC 445B.038 that would revise the definition of a Class III source and provisions governing the adoption by reference of certain federal regulations. Seehttp://www.leg.state.nv.us/register/2008Register/R076-08A.pdf 
  • The State Environmental Commission proposed amendments to NAC 445B.232 that would require each owner or operator of a stationary source to notify the Director of the State Department of Conservation and Natural Resources before conducting certain scheduled maintenance, testing, or repairs and revising provisions governing the renewal of a Class I, II, or III operating permit. Seehttp://www.leg.state.nv.us/register/2008Register/R191-08P.pdf

Water:

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Air:

  • The Department of Environmental Services proposed to adopt a new rule Env-A 4600, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Budget Trading Program. The rules would affect any individual or entity that owns or operates a source with one or more fossil fuel-fired electricity generating units having a nameplate rated capacity equal to or greater than 25 megawatts. Seehttp://www.des.state.nh.us/RuleMaking/proposed/env-a4600interim_ip.pdf
  • The Department of Environmental Services proposed to adopt a new rule Env-A 4800, Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Allowance Auctions Program. The rules would affect any individual or entity that wishes to participate in an auction of CO2 allowances, including owners of CO2 budget units located in New Hampshire; owners of CO2 budget units located outside of New Hampshire but within those participating states that have final CO2 budget trading regulatory provisions in place at the time of the CO2 allowance auction; owners of fossil fuel-fired generation units located outside of the participating states; brokers; environmental groups; financial and investment institutions; and other market participants. Seehttp://www.des.state.nh.us/RuleMaking/proposed/env-a4800interim_ip.pdf

NEW MEXICO

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

  • The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board will hold a public hearing to consider proposed revisions to 20.4.1 NMAC, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations. The amendments would update the Hazardous Waste Management Regulations to bring them into conformity with federal regulations. The proposed amendments would also include language for major permit modifications consistent with the New Mexico Hazardous Waste Act; management of universal waste including labeling, breaking, and crushing of waste lamps; management of aerosol cans; and used oil alternative labeling and storage. The proposed amendments would also omit language relating to standardized permitting and certain provisions of a burden reduction initiative. The hearing will be held October 6, 2008. Seehttp://www.nmcpr.state.nm.us/nmregister/xix/xix16/EIBnotice.htm

NORTH CAROLINA

Fisheries:

  • The North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission will hold a series of public hearings on proposed adoption of rules cited as 15A NCAC 03J .0306, .0501 - .0505; 03L .0105, amendment of rules cited as 15A NCAC 03H .0102 - .0103; 03I .0101, .0104; 03J .0103 - .0104; 03L .0103, .0301; 03M .0501; 03O .0302, .0501 - .0503; 03Q .0202; 03R .0112 - .0113, and repeal of rules cited as 15A NCAC 03J .0107; .03L 0104. These rule changes would affect both commercial and private fishing in North Carolina waters including restrictions on various types of nets, prohibited areas, and permit conditions. The hearings will be held on October 13, 14, and 15, 2008. Seehttp://www.ncoah.com/rules/register/Volume23Issue05September22008.pdf(pp. 391-456)

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

  • The Commission for Public Health adopted amendments to 15A NCAC 13A .0113 and 15A NCAC 13B .0101, .0201, .0203, and .0502 concerning solid waste management. These rule changes are intended to clarify and renumber definitions, provide increased clarity of regulatory guidance in the areas of open dumps and permit denial, provide better clarification of existing groundwater rules, and correct misstatements. Seehttp://www.ncoah.com/rules/register/Volume23Issue05September22008.pdf(pp. 467-473)

NORTH DAKOTA

Air:

  • The Department of Health and the Air Pollution Control Advisory Council will hold a public hearing to address proposed new rules and amendments to North Dakota Administrative Code Article 33-15. The purpose of the proposed rules and amendments is to implement requirements under the CAA. Proposed rules would adopt changes to the New Source Performance Standards, NESHAPs for source categories, PSD, and startup/shutdown rules. The hearing will be held October 7, 2008. Seehttp://www.health.state.nd.us/AQ/Notices.htm

OHIO

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

OKLOHOMA

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality proposed to combine two subchapters in Title 252, Chapter 606, concerning biosolids into one subchapter. The modifications would create rules to govern facilities that wish to create Class A Biosolids pursuant to federal requirements. Additionally, the department proposed to update its rules concerning the date of the incorporation by reference of certain federal regulations from July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008. Comments are due October 7, 2008. Seehttp://www.oar.state.ok.us/register/Volume-25_Issue-24.htm#a17444

Toxic Substances:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality proposed to amend OAC 252:410-1-7 to change the date for the incorporation of federal regulations by reference to January 1, 2008. Federal rule changes that become a part of the Oklahoma radiation management program through this incorporation by reference are a newly expanded definition of byproduct material that adds radium sealed sources, accelerator-produced radioactive materials, and discrete sources of naturally occurring radioactive material to the byproduct materials program; amendment of several regulations governing the distribution of byproduct material; requirements for implementation of a National Source Tracking System whereby licensees must report transactions involving certain sealed sources; and minor corrections to regulation on medical use of byproduct material. Additional amendments to Subchapters 1, 10, and 20 are required to conform the Oklahoma rules to the updated federal regulations. Comments are due November 18, 2008. Seehttp://www.oar.state.ok.us/register/Volume-25_Issue-24.htm#a16427

Water:

  • The Department of Environmental Quality proposed to update its rules in Title 252, Chapter 611, concerning entities required to receive a water quality certification from the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, pursuant to CWA §401, when the entity is required to obtain a federal permit. Additionally, the changes would modify the date of the incorporation by reference of certain federal regulations from July 1, 2007, to July 1, 2008. Comments are due October 7, 2008. Seehttp://www.oar.state.ok.us/register/Volume-25_Issue-24.htm#a18472
  • The Department of Environmental Quality proposed to modify it rules in Title 252, Chapter 616, to require secondary containment for above-ground tank systems that are constructed pursuant to the requirements of this chapter. Additionally, the rules propose to tighten the closure requirements for industrial wastewater systems, propose to revoke the appendices that contain the permit forms and propose to revoke and replace Appendix D concerning Class III Surface Impoundments to make clean up changes. Comments are due October 7, 2008.http://www.oar.state.ok.us/register/Volume-25_Issue-24.htm#a19231

SOUTH CAROLINA

Air:

  • The Department of Health and Environmental Control proposed an amendment to R.61-62, Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards. The proposed amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with federal rules and make typographical corrections and clarifications. Seehttp://www.scdhec.gov/administration/regs/docs/regupdate.doc#a

General:

Hazardous & Solid Waste:

  • The Department of Health and Environmental Control proposed an amendment to R.61-79, Hazardous Waste Management Regulations, adopting amendments promulgated by EPA. Seehttp://www.scdhec.gov/administration/regs/docs/regupdate.doc#land
  • The Department of Health and Environmental Control proposed an amendment to R.61-105, Infectious Waste Management Regulations. Changes would add or clarify definitions used in the regulation. Amendments may include the embalming process as a potential source of regulated infectious waste and would set a treatment standard for this waste. Allowances for alternate recordkeeping and communication may be developed for generators and transporters in regard to weight, biohazard placarding, and manifesting. Additionally, clarifications may be made to the regulation to address the handling and treatment of sharps containers by small quantity generators. Seehttp://www.scdhec.gov/administration/regs/docs/regupdate.doc#land
  • The Department of Health and Environmental Control proposed an amendment to 61-107. 17, Solid Waste Management: Demonstration of Need. Changes the department are considering include revision of the size of the planning areas around solid waste facilities, the maximum annual disposal limit, definitions, and expansion of the scope of the regulation by defining needs determination criteria for other types of solid waste facilities. Seehttp://www.scdhec.gov/administration/regs/docs/regupdate.doc#land

Water:

  • The Department of Health and Environmental Control proposed an amendment to R.61-68, Water Classifications and Standards. The department proposed to review, and where appropriate, clarify implementation details on NPDES permitting in source water protection areas. Seehttp://www.scdhec.gov/administration/regs/docs/regupdate.doc#water

Copyright© 2008, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

INTERNATIONALGERMANY LEADS "CLEAN COAL" PILOT

The Schwarze Pumpe power station in Northern Germany will be the first coal-fired plant in the world ready to capture and store its own carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. But big questions hang over this technology overall, particularly over where the CO2 will be stored and who will pay the high costs of building and running the CCS plants. The European Union wants to see 10-12 full-scale power plants demonstrating CO2 capture within the next few years. But although a number of other firms will soon join the race with pilot projects, no full-scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) coal plant has yet been commissioned. The British government has promised a decision in October on how it will fund a full-scale CCS in the United Kingdom. It hopes to avoid landing the taxpayer with the bill, but questions over CCS funding in Europe are as yet unresolved by the European Commission and the European Parliament. For the full story, seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7584151.stm

EU LAWMAKERS APPROVE RULES FOR HYDROGEN CARS

The European Parliament voted in favor of new rules for hydrogen-powered cars, buses, and trucks, seeking rigid standards for approving the controversial new technology when it is rolled out. Cars contribute about 14 percent of the European Union's CO2 emissions and hydrogen is seen helping the EU meet its ambitious goals of curbing emissions by a fifth by 2020, compared to 1990 levels. But environmentalists warn that the technology is still many years from being launched, is less helpful than simple fuel efficiency measures, and can only cut emissions if the hydrogen is created using renewable power. For the full story, seehttp://www.reuters.com/article/GCA-GreenBusiness/idUSL348227220080903

CHINA APPROVES LAW TO PROMOTE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMY

China's legislature passed a law calling for fiscal spending, tax breaks, and other measures to promote sustainable economic growth via resource conservation and pollution control, official media said recently. The law, passed at the closing of the fourth session of the National People's Congress standing committee, has been signed by President Hu Jintao and will come into effect on January 1, 2009, the Xinhua news agency said. The law calls for closer monitoring of resource-intensive and heavily polluting industries such as steelmaking, non-ferrous metal production, power generation, oil refining, construction, and printing, Xinhua said. For the full story, seehttp://www.enn.com/business/article/38064

Copyright© 2008, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

Note: To request additional information, please call (800) 433-5120 or (202) 939-3844. Documents may also be available free or at a nominal charge from the applicable court or agency. Copyright© 2008, Environmental Law Institute, Washington, D.C. All rights reserved.

ELR STAFF

Leslie Carothers, Publisher
Scott Schang, Editor-in-Chief
Linda L. Johnson, Managing Editor
Rachel Jean-Baptiste, Senior Editor
Erin Webreck, Associate Editor
Carolyn Fischer, Books Editor
William J. Straub, Desktop Publisher
Garrett VanPelt, Editorial Associate