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 30
... requirements : Any penalty assessed in the order shall not exceed $ 25,00026 per day of noncompliance for each violation of a requirement of this subchapter . In assessing such a pen- alty the Administrator [ or her delegatee ] shall ...
... requirements : Any penalty assessed in the order shall not exceed $ 25,00026 per day of noncompliance for each violation of a requirement of this subchapter . In assessing such a pen- alty the Administrator [ or her delegatee ] shall ...
Page 35
... requirements . Id . at 27. Avoided costs , on the other hand , are " expenditures nullified by the violator's failure to comply . " Id . Specifically , delayed costs are mea- sured as the accrued interest on deferred expenditures needed ...
... requirements . Id . at 27. Avoided costs , on the other hand , are " expenditures nullified by the violator's failure to comply . " Id . Specifically , delayed costs are mea- sured as the accrued interest on deferred expenditures needed ...
Page 43
... requirements are pollutant - specific , which means that a facility may emit many air pollutants , but only one or a few may be subject to PSD review depending upon a number of factors including the amount of emissions of each pollutant ...
... requirements are pollutant - specific , which means that a facility may emit many air pollutants , but only one or a few may be subject to PSD review depending upon a number of factors including the amount of emissions of each pollutant ...
Page 57
... requirements . Ms. Owen has not demonstrated any error in IEPA's determination that the requirements for issuing a PSD permit have been satisfied . Accordingly , this issue does not warrant granting review of the Permit . III ...
... requirements . Ms. Owen has not demonstrated any error in IEPA's determination that the requirements for issuing a PSD permit have been satisfied . Accordingly , this issue does not warrant granting review of the Permit . III ...
Page 66
... requirements of section 313 of EPCRA and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 372 for the report- ing years 1995 to 1997 . The Complaint set forth six counts against CWPI and proposed a penalty of $ 32,500 . Count I alleged ...
... requirements of section 313 of EPCRA and its implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. part 372 for the report- ing years 1995 to 1997 . The Complaint set forth six counts against CWPI and proposed a penalty of $ 32,500 . Count I alleged ...
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