Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Volume 11U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2003 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 19
... Amended Complaint , the Region sought a non - specific penalty of “ up to $ 25,000 per day of violation . " See , e.g. , Motion for Leave to Amend Penalty Proposal and Explanation at 2. On August 10 , 2000 , the Region proposed a civil ...
... Amended Complaint , the Region sought a non - specific penalty of “ up to $ 25,000 per day of violation . " See , e.g. , Motion for Leave to Amend Penalty Proposal and Explanation at 2. On August 10 , 2000 , the Region proposed a civil ...
Page 22
... Amended Complaint did not simi- larly limit the periods of violation to that 119 - day period . See Brief of Complainant Cross - Appellee at 17-22 . Rather , the Region asserts that , at least for Counts III and IV , the actual statute ...
... Amended Complaint did not simi- larly limit the periods of violation to that 119 - day period . See Brief of Complainant Cross - Appellee at 17-22 . Rather , the Region asserts that , at least for Counts III and IV , the actual statute ...
Page 24
... amended his estimate to 1.6 gallons per month . See C Ex 15 . Finally , after the Region initiated its enforcement action , Mr. Capozzi further amended his estimate to 0.4 gallons per month . See Post - Hearing Brief at 2-3 . Capozzi's ...
... amended his estimate to 1.6 gallons per month . See C Ex 15 . Finally , after the Region initiated its enforcement action , Mr. Capozzi further amended his estimate to 0.4 gallons per month . See Post - Hearing Brief at 2-3 . Capozzi's ...
Page 34
... Amended Complaint at 5 ( " Count 1 : Operation of Hazardous Waste Management Unit Without a Permit " ) . Given this framing in the Complaint , we do not regard as clearly erroneous the ALJ's decision to confine his analysis under Count ...
... Amended Complaint at 5 ( " Count 1 : Operation of Hazardous Waste Management Unit Without a Permit " ) . Given this framing in the Complaint , we do not regard as clearly erroneous the ALJ's decision to confine his analysis under Count ...
Page 36
... Amended Penalty Proposal and Explanation ( Nov. 21 , 2000 ) . Taking into account such factors as the non - compliance date of October 29 , 1995 , and the compliance date of September 1 , 2000 , the Region arrived at an economic benefit ...
... Amended Penalty Proposal and Explanation ( Nov. 21 , 2000 ) . Taking into account such factors as the non - compliance date of October 29 , 1995 , and the compliance date of September 1 , 2000 , the Region arrived at an economic benefit ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
9th Cir administrative Agency Agency's Alaska Garrison ALJ's alleged amended analysis antidegradation appeal Appellee application arctic grayling argues argument Asbestos authority BACT Board Brief Capozzi Carlota citing civil penalty Clean Water Act Complaint compliance concluded Corp Court CWPI D.C. Cir determination discharges draft permit economic benefit emissions unit enforcement Environmental EPA's EPCRA evidence evidentiary hearing failed FIFRA filed Friedman & Schmitt Gibson Hasbro hazardous waste Init Initial Decision issue limit ment mg/l Microban Motion NEPA NPDES permit penalty assessment penalty factors Penalty Policy permit conditions pesticide Petition Petitioners Phoenix Pinto Creek pollutant Presiding Officer prior proposed public comment period RACM RCRA record Region Region IV Region's SEA regulations regulatory remand request requirements Respondent's Response rule specific statutory Supp Teck Cominco tion TMDL U.S. EPA USGen violations Washington Aqueduct water quality standards WECCO wetlands