Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Volume 4U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1992 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 12
... raised now because it was not raised either at the public hearing or during the comment period , even though it was reasonably ascertainable at that time . See 40 CFR §§ 124.19 ( a ) & 124.13 . The Region also points out that the MU is ...
... raised now because it was not raised either at the public hearing or during the comment period , even though it was reasonably ascertainable at that time . See 40 CFR §§ 124.19 ( a ) & 124.13 . The Region also points out that the MU is ...
Page 18
... raised by Chevron and PTC respectively . First , the Region must clarify its rationale for selecting a cancer risk level of 10-6 rather than the 10-5 level recommended by an EPA guidance document cited by Chevron and a proposed EPA ...
... raised by Chevron and PTC respectively . First , the Region must clarify its rationale for selecting a cancer risk level of 10-6 rather than the 10-5 level recommended by an EPA guidance document cited by Chevron and a proposed EPA ...
Page 19
... raise a total of twelve issues for consideration on appeal.3 Chevron argues that the permit improperly requires it to ... raised several additional issues regarding various incon- sistencies and errors in the final permit . Chevron and ...
... raise a total of twelve issues for consideration on appeal.3 Chevron argues that the permit improperly requires it to ... raised several additional issues regarding various incon- sistencies and errors in the final permit . Chevron and ...
Page 26
... raised in the Phillips petition . The peti- tion is in the form of a letter addressed to this Agency's Adminis- trator at the Headquarters address and dated March 20 , 1992. Other than the copy forwarded by VDAPC , however , there is no ...
... raised in the Phillips petition . The peti- tion is in the form of a letter addressed to this Agency's Adminis- trator at the Headquarters address and dated March 20 , 1992. Other than the copy forwarded by VDAPC , however , there is no ...
Page 45
... raised , or only legal issues may be raised . In the latter case , because no factual issues were raised , the Regional Administrator would be required to deny the request . However , on review of the denial the Environmental Appeals ...
... raised , or only legal issues may be raised . In the latter case , because no factual issues were raised , the Regional Administrator would be required to deny the request . However , on review of the denial the Environmental Appeals ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
Adcom Agency Agency's alleged amended argues argument asserts authority BACT Biddle Sawyer biomonitoring certification Clean Water Act complaint compliance conclude corrective action Crumb Rubber demonstration determination discharge disposal draft permit dredged effluent effluent limitations emissions EPA Region EPA's EPCRA evidentiary hearing request facility failed federal filed final permit GE's Genicom Hadson hazardous waste HSWA impact implementing incinerator Initial Decision interim submission issuance ment motion NPDES Appeal NPDES permit OCPSF Odessa operation outfall penalty permit application permit conditions permit decision permit modification permittee petition for review Petitioner PG&E pollutants Presiding Officer Presiding Officer's procedures proposed provides pursuant raised RCRA Appeal reasons Region II Region's Response Regional Administrator regulations remand requirements revised Ronald L rule Section SELC specific submitted Subpart SWMU tion treatment TSCA U.S. EPA VDAPC violation Waste Management water quality standards Wego