Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection AgencyU.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 48
... brief ( “ Appeal Brief " ) , on September 26 , 1997 , to which the Region filed a reply ( " Reply Brief " ) . The Region did not appeal the Initial Decision . As noted before , B & R contests the Initial Decision on the following ...
... brief ( “ Appeal Brief " ) , on September 26 , 1997 , to which the Region filed a reply ( " Reply Brief " ) . The Region did not appeal the Initial Decision . As noted before , B & R contests the Initial Decision on the following ...
Page 49
... Brief ( " Appeal Brief " ) at 8-10 . B & R's retroactivity argument was not raised below ; therefore , we will not consider it in our decision . We have held previously that the Board does not ordinarily review arguments raised for the ...
... Brief ( " Appeal Brief " ) at 8-10 . B & R's retroactivity argument was not raised below ; therefore , we will not consider it in our decision . We have held previously that the Board does not ordinarily review arguments raised for the ...
Page 51
... Brief at 10. B & R contends that the Region arbitrarily singled it out for enforcement action while ignoring the violations of competitors . In raising this argument in defense , B & R relies on evidence that Region V limited its ...
... Brief at 10. B & R contends that the Region arbitrarily singled it out for enforcement action while ignoring the violations of competitors . In raising this argument in defense , B & R relies on evidence that Region V limited its ...
Page 53
... Brief at 11 , 17 , 22-23 . But as the facts above reveal , the Agency's actions never amounted to the " singling out " among violators , which according to B & R's own cited cases , would trigger the need to conduct such a review of the ...
... Brief at 11 , 17 , 22-23 . But as the facts above reveal , the Agency's actions never amounted to the " singling out " among violators , which according to B & R's own cited cases , would trigger the need to conduct such a review of the ...
Page 57
... brief , B & R's expenses reflect not good faith , but rather the company's response to a separate regulatory mandate under 40 C.F.R. § 280.21 to upgrade tanks or install new ones to heightened standards of environmental per- formance by ...
... brief , B & R's expenses reflect not good faith , but rather the company's response to a separate regulatory mandate under 40 C.F.R. § 280.21 to upgrade tanks or install new ones to heightened standards of environmental per- formance by ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
AAQ Report action Agency air quality air quality analysis alleged amended Appeal Brief AQMD AQMD's ARCO argues argument asbestos BACT determination Board CERCLA chemical civil penalty Clarksburg clear error Cogeneration combined cycle complaint compliance Corp deny review DOH's response draft permit emission limit enforcement Environmental EPA's EPCRA facility FIFRA filed Final Permit hazardous HELCO impact Initial Decision injection issue Knauf major stationary sources mineral oil monitoring NAAQS naphtha Newell NSR Manual operation penalty assessment Penalty Policy permit application permit condition permit decision Petitioners petitions for review pollutants Presiding Officer Presiding Officer's proposed PSD increment PSD permit PSD program public comment period raised reduction regarding Region's Response regulatory remand requirements Response to Comments Rio Mameyes SchoolCraft Self-Disclosure Policy Steeltech tanks tion U.S. EPA USTS violations Waimana WDNR