Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Volume 13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 102
... claim that IEPA al- legedly used an incorrect emission rate for Murray in the 2003 modeling . Petition- ers claim that the emissions rate used for Murray in turn resulted in inaccurate results from the SO2 modeling , and that IEPA thus ...
... claim that IEPA al- legedly used an incorrect emission rate for Murray in the 2003 modeling . Petition- ers claim that the emissions rate used for Murray in turn resulted in inaccurate results from the SO2 modeling , and that IEPA thus ...
Page 150
... claims that , while Indeck did not perform an inventory of the soils and vegetation in the impact area as the NSR Manual suggests , it did rely on the procedures set forth in the 1980 Screening Procedure , an approach IEPA believes to ...
... claims that , while Indeck did not perform an inventory of the soils and vegetation in the impact area as the NSR Manual suggests , it did rely on the procedures set forth in the 1980 Screening Procedure , an approach IEPA believes to ...
Page 193
... claims . We then describe the development of the ESA issues in this case , which have evolved during the pendency of this appeal because of the unusual procedural history of these claims . Finally , we ana- lyze the substantive ...
... claims . We then describe the development of the ESA issues in this case , which have evolved during the pendency of this appeal because of the unusual procedural history of these claims . Finally , we ana- lyze the substantive ...
Page 201
... claims cannot be dismissed on mootness grounds because there remain unresolved allegations of of procedural and substantive ESA violations . " Pet'rs Post - Consultation Reply Br . at 1 , 5 & n.2 . Petitioners describe these allegedly ...
... claims cannot be dismissed on mootness grounds because there remain unresolved allegations of of procedural and substantive ESA violations . " Pet'rs Post - Consultation Reply Br . at 1 , 5 & n.2 . Petitioners describe these allegedly ...
Page 237
... claims derive from an administrative complaint filed by Region 10 of the Environmental Protection Agency ( the ... claims to be entitled to EAJA recovery because he is a " prevailing party " within the meaning of EAJA section 504 ( a ) ...
... claims derive from an administrative complaint filed by Region 10 of the Environmental Protection Agency ( the ... claims to be entitled to EAJA recovery because he is a " prevailing party " within the meaning of EAJA section 504 ( a ) ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
administrative Agency Agency's air quality ALJ's alleged appeal application argument asbestos BACT analysis BACT limits Board Brief capacitors Christian County citing clear error coal compliance schedule concluded ConocoPhillips considered count D.C. Cir determination draft permit effluent limits emissions limits enforcement Environmental EPA's EPS's Euclid explained failed federal FIFRA filed Final Permit hazardous waste Howmet IEPA IEPA's IEPA's response impacts Indeck Init Initial Decision issue LTCP major stationary source Martex ment monitoring NAAQS NPDES NPDES permit NSR Manual OCS source PCB waste Penalty Policy permit decision permit issuer pesticide Petition Petitioners argue pollutant Prairie State's proposed Facility protection PSD permit public comment period RCRA record Region regulatory remand requirements Response to Comments Sierra Club SMRO specifically spent material tion U.S. EPA violations WASA water quality standards