July 28, 2010
On June 28, 2010, a coalition of environmental groups[1] (“Petitioners”) filed an Article 78 Petition (“Petition”) in court challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s (“NYSDEC”) April 2010 issuance of a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) General Permit that sets forth requirements applicable to municipal separate storm sewer systems (“MS4s”).[2] The General Permit authorizes discharges of stormwater from “small MS4s,” those municipal storm water systems serving communities with a population between 10,000 to 100,000 people.[3] New York regulates MS4s via its SPDES program, which implements the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) pursuant to delegated authority.[4]
In New York a permit is required for stormwater discharges (i.e., runoff over land or impervious surfaces into water bodies) from MS4s and the permit must include “controls to reduce the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.” 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(3)(B). For small MS4s, one such control is the development and implementation of a Storm Water Management Plan (“SWMP”).
Petitioners challenged the 2010 MS4 General Permit, alleging it fails to achieve state water quality standards because it would allow stormwater pollution to continue at existing levels instead of reducing pollution. Petitioners alleged four causes of action:
- NYSDEC’s issuance of the General Permit was unlawful because it does not require MS4s to reduce their discharges of pollutants to the “maximum extent practicable.” Petitioners alleged that NYSDEC’s reliance on the State Stormwater Management Design Manual’s technical standards for post-construction stormwater is unlawful because that manual is outdated, and does not sufficiently reduce pollutant discharges to the “maximum extent practicable.” Additionally, Petitioners alleged that the General Permit authorization of an optional “banking and credit system” – allowing off-site stormwater pollution reductions to satisfy on-site requirements – would “violate the CWA’s mandate that post-construction stormwater discharges from new development and redevelopment be reduced to the maximum extent practicable” because the banking and credit system is not limited to instances where on-site compliance is impracticable. (Petition, ¶¶ 65-69.)
- NYSDEC issuance of the General Permit was unlawful because it does not ensure compliance with State total maximum daily loads (“TMDL”) (a kind of pollution loading allocation) for water bodies where MS4 discharges contribute to violations of the water body’s water quality standards. Petitioners alleged that the General Permit does not include limitations necessary to meet water quality standards, does not implement a TMDL wasteload allocation, and does not include a compliance schedule ensuring that permittees will achieve compliance with water quality standards “within the shortest reasonable time” if permittees cannot immediately comply with water quality standards. Additionally, Petitioners alleged that the General Permit does not ensure that sufficient measures will be taken to meet pollution reduction targets set for bodies of water that the State has prioritized for cleanup (e.g., Long Island Sound). (Petition, ¶¶ 71-78.)
- NYSDEC issuance of the General Permit was unlawful because it does not “include requirements to take samples and measurements representative of the quantity and character of the monitored discharge” as required by State and federal law. (Petition, ¶¶ 80-81.)
- Because the General Permit authorizes MS4s to develop their own effluent limitations (including SWMPs and a banking and credit system), which “are not subject to substantive DEC review and approval, public comment to DEC, and/or the opportunity for a hearing before a hearing [sic] before DEC,” Petitioners allege the permit creates a scheme of self regulation prohibited by the Clean Water Act. (Petition, ¶¶ 83-90.)
As a practical matter this challenge to the MS4 General Permit could have State-wide impacts, as the MS4 General Permit applies to MS4 municipalities across New York State—not just those on Long Island Sound. If successful, this litigation could ultimately result in significant new pollution control mandates for already financially strapped municipalities. Enhanced requirements for pollution reduction in TMDL watersheds could mean reduced development opportunities in those MS4 communities, some of which are already struggling with a shrinking tax base.
[1] Natural Resources Defense Council, Riverkeeper, Waterkeeper Alliance, Soundkeeper, Save the Sound, Peconic Baykeeper, Hudson-Raritan Baykeeper, and Hackensack Riverkeeper.
[2] GP-0-10-002, effective May 1, 2010. An MS4 is a conveyance or system of conveyances owned or operated by a State, municipality, association, public body (including special districts under State law), Indian tribe or authorized Indian tribal organization, or designated and approved management agency that discharges into waters of the United States; which is “designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water;” and is not a combined sewer or part of a Publicly Owned Treatment Works. 40 C.F.R. § 122.26(b)(8).
[3] NYSDEC classifies all MS4s as small MS4s except for those in New York City. (Petition, ¶ 46.)
[4] The CWA prohibits the discharge of pollutants to surface waters unless the discharge is pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit. 33 U.S.C. § 1342. In New York, NYSDEC has assumed MS4 permitting authority through the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“SPDES”) General Permit program. See ECL §§ 17-0801 et seq.
On July 6, 2010, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) announced a proposed rule to address air emissions that cross state lines and contribute to ozone and particulate matter pollution in the eastern half of the country. Many areas in the northeast cannot meet National Ambient Air Quality Standards (“NAAQS”) because of pollution from upwind states.[1] The rule would create Federal Implementation Plans (“FIPs”) to reduce sulfur dioxide (SO2) and nitrogen oxide (NOx) emissions from electric power plants in 32 states through a combination of direct abatement standards and a limited voluntary “cap-and-trade” emissions permit trading program.
Once adopted, the proposed rule will replace the 2005 Clean Air Interstate Rule (“CAIR”), which required states to develop State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”) to address interstate transport of SO2 and NOx.[2] CAIR allowed states to opt into a voluntary cap-and-trade program.[3] In a 2008 decision and subsequent decision on rehearing,[4] the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA, holding the rule unlawful but declining to vacate it during the period of the agency’s reconsideration.
The basis of the court’s objections was that CAIR’s permit trading program did not contain absolute emissions limits for individual sources, and so could technically allow individual sources in upwind states to increase emissions by buying enough emissions allowances. The court found that this system violated the CAA, which requires SIPs to contain “adequate measures” prohibiting sources from “contribut[ing] significantly to nonattainment in … any other State …” or “interfere[ing] with the maintenance of” NAAQSs.
The newly proposed EPA rule aims to remedy these flaws. It relies on state-specific data to identify each state’s contribution to nonattainment or interference with NAAQSs maintenance in other states and uses this information to create a state-wide emissions budget and an enforceable FIP designed to reduce emissions in the state below that budget. States will have the option of replacing these FIPs with SIPs that achieve the same emissions reduction goals.[5] Within this framework, the rule allows trading of emissions allowances within each state, as well as limited interstate trading.
In addition to this primary proposal, EPA has also requested comment on two alternative schemes. Under the first alternative, interstate trading of emissions allowances would be prohibited, although trading among power plants within states would continue. Under the third option, emissions trading would be replaced completely with emissions rate limits.
The final rule, if it survives legal challenges, could have substantial impacts on air quality and also impose significant costs on industry. EPA estimates that its preferred approach would have annual health and welfare benefits amounting to $120-290 billion in 2014, including the prevention of 14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, at an annual cost of compliance of $2.8 billion. The rule represents a central element of EPA’s wider effort to reduce ozone and particulate matter pollution in the eastern U.S., as evidenced by EPA’s recent adoption of more stringent SO2 and NOx standards.
EPA will be receiving public comment on each of the three proposed versions of the Air Transport Rule for 60 days following its publication in the Federal Register. Three public hearing will be conducted following the comment period, in locations to be announced in the Federal Register notice.
Dan Mach is a summer associate at Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
[1] Factsheet, EPA, Proposed Transport Rule Would Reduce Interstate Transport of Ozone and Fine Particle Pollution, at 1 (July 6, 2010). See CAA 109(a), 42 U.S.C. § 7409(a).
[2] 70 Fed. Reg. 25,162 (May 12, 2005).
[3] EPA, Clean Air Interstate Rule: Basic Information, http://www.epa.gov/cair/basic.html (last visited July 16, 2010).
[4] North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
[5] EPA, Proposed Air Transport Rule, at 14.
July 9, 2010
In April 2008, EPA issued its Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule, which required the use of lead-safe work practices during renovation, repair or painting activities in pre-1978 homes. The 2008 rule, however, allowed owner-occupants to “opt-out” of that requirement by certifying that there were no children under the age of 6 living in the home. As of July 6, 2010, owner-occupants no longer have that option and all such work in pre-1978 homes must be performed by a certified contractor in accordance with lead-safe practices. A copy of the May 6, 2010 final rule revoking the “opt-out” provision is available here.
EPA has also announced that it has reopened the comment period on its May 6, 2010 proposed rule to require dust wipe sampling after many types of renovations. Comments will be accepted until August 6, 2010.
Finally, in recognition of the difficulty contractors have experienced in locating available training classes, EPA issued a guidance document on the enforcement of the new lead rules. EPA will not initiate enforcement actions for violations of the firm certification requirement until October 1, 2010, and will not enforce certification requirements against individual workers provided that they apply to enroll in certification classes by September 30, 2010 and complete the required training by December 31, 2010. However, EPA will continue to enforce against firms and individuals who do not comply with the required lead-safe work practices and associated recordkeeping requirements. A copy of EPA’s Frequent Questions on EPA’s June 18, 2010 Implementation Guidance for the Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule is available here.
EPA proposed regulations under the Clean Air Act (“CAA”) for maximum achievable control technologies (“MACT”) for boilers, process heaters and solid waste incinerators on April 29. The regulations have been published in the Federal Register[1] and are available for hearing and public comment through August 3, 2010.
Boilers burn fuels including natural gas, coal, wood, and oil to produce steam for electricity or heat. Process heaters are used in industrial processes to heat raw or intermediate materials. Both are used at facilities such as refineries, chemical and manufacturing plants, and paper mills, and may also be used to provide heat for large complexes such as shopping malls or universities. Incinerators are used to burn waste for disposal, and some recover energy in the process.
EPA has proposed this regulatory action for boilers and commercial/industrial solid waste incinerators (“CISWI”) together since similar units may be considered boilers or CISWI depending on what material they burn. As part of this regulatory proposal, EPA included a new rule under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) defining which non-hazardous secondary materials are considered fuel and which are considered solid waste. The regulatory action is the result of a 2007 court order following NRDC’s petition for review of EPA’s old standards for boiler and incinerator emissions, as well as the CISWI definitions rule.[2]
MACT standards for major source boilers and process heaters affect sources emitting greater than 10 tons per year of any one hazardous air pollutant[3] (“HAP”) or more than 25 tons per year of combined HAPs.[4] The standard for existing sources is based on the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources, and new sources must match the best-controlled similar source.[5]
Area sources are any stationary source of HAPs that are not major sources, and are subject to a different set of MACTs.[6] For all coal-fired boilers and process heaters, new or existing, EPA is proposing emissions limits for mercury, particulate matter (“PM”) and carbon monoxide. Biomass and oil-fired area sources would also have to meet emissions standards for PM and carbon monoxide. Both area sources and major sources would be required to conduct a one-time energy-saving assessment to analyze cost-effective energy saving practices. Additionally, the standards for both major and area sources would apply at all times, including times of malfunction, start-up and shut-down.
Small boilers and process heaters (those with a capacity of less than 10mm BTU/hr) and boilers and process heaters using natural gas or refinery gas will be subject to a less stringent work practice standards including periodic tune-ups rather than emissions limitations. EPA has proposed that these sources would have to come into compliance within three years of the final rule’s publication in the Federal Register.
CISWI are subject to more stringent emissions limits under the Proposed Rule for mercury, lead, cadmium, hydrogen chloride, PM, carbon monoxide, dioxins/furans, nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide. In addition, the proposed rules require that CISWI units have stacks tested and monitored along with annual inspections of emissions control devices.
States would have to submit revised State Implementation Plans (“SIPs”) within one year of the promulgation of the revised standards. Following the submission of the new SIPs, CISWI units would have a three year period to demonstrate compliance with the SIP. Alternatively, CISWI will have five years to demonstrate compliance after the final regulations are promulgated if a SIP is not submitted.
Overall, these proposed rules if adopted would constitute much more stringent regulation of boilers and incinerators because the emissions limitations apply at all times. The energy-saving assessment required for all boilers and incinerators is a facility-wide assessment, which could serve as a predecessor to energy-saving requirements for greenhouse gases as well.
As noted above, comments are being received on the proposed regulations until August 3.
Maggie Macdonald is a summer associate at Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
[1] National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Major Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters, 75 Fed. Reg. 32,006 (June 4, 2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 63); National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Industrial, Commercial and Institutional Boilers, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,896 (June 4, 2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 63); Standards of Performance for New Stationary Sources and Emission Guidelines for Existing Sources: Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration Units, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,938 (June 4, 2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 60); Identification of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials that Are Solid Waste, 75 Fed. Reg. 31,844 (June 4, 2010) (to be codified at 40 C.F.R. pt. 241).
[2] NRDC v. EPA, 489 F.3d 1250 (D.C. Cir. 2007).
[3] Hazardous air pollutants are listed in the CAA § 112(b).
[4] CAA § 112(a)(1).
[5] Id. § 112(d)(3).
[6] Id. §§ 112(a)(2), (d)(5).
June 17, 2010
On June 1, Mayor Bloomberg announced the launch of four measures relating to the City Environmental Quality Review (“CEQR”) process, which requires an assessment of the potential environmental impacts of projects undertaken by the city or subject to its permitting authorities. The new reforms are intended to make CEQR more transparent and user-friendly while improving the quality of review. The four initiatives are:
- Revised Technical Manual: A revised CEQR Technical Manual, the City’s guidance for conducting CEQR analyses, has been prepared. It was released on May 17, 2010.
- New Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) Short Form: CEQR requires the preparation of an EAS as the first step in an agency’s environmental review of a project. A new short EAS form, featuring a “check-list” format, is intended to simplify reporting for smaller projects.
- Revised EAS Full Form: In a revised full EAS form, the City has aimed to guide the applicant to focus on impacts requiring technical analysis and has clarified the form’s instructions by eliminating unnecessary text.
- CEQR Informational Services: The Mayor’s Office of Environmental Coordination has improved its website, adding among other things a centralized city-wide CEQR calendar and a one-stop CEQR forms page. The site also features a help-line for CEQR-related questions.
The new Technical Manual, which should be used for every environmental review commenced after May 17, 2010, is of critical interest to anyone undertaking a project subject to CEQR. Aside from changes to the organization of the Manual itself, the revisions expand CEQR review to cover some of the city’s most prominent environmental concerns – climate change and the water quality impacts of combined sewer overflow (CSO) events – as well as to promote the goals of Mayor Bloomberg’s citywide environmental sustainability plan, PlaNYC. These additions are coupled with efforts to simplify and focus review in a more streamlined process. These goals are reflected in two sets of changes to the CEQR process.
First, the revised Manual establishes or adjusts certain criteria for “screening analyses” for certain impact categories, by virtue of which projects that fall below certain thresholds may be determined to have no significant adverse impact on the environment without an in-depth technical analysis. These new criteria include numeric screening thresholds for direct residential and business displacement (as relates to socioeconomic impacts), a two-level screening process for transportation impacts, and step-by-step screening methods for public health and shadows impacts. The revisions also increase the threshold number of vehicle miles traveled needed to trigger a mobile air quality analysis. Overall, the new screening analyses are intended to encourage “targeted” reviews and expedite analysis of non-significant impacts.
The second set of revisions seeks to clarify, expand, and improve technical analysis of impacts requiring detailed review. Data on new legal standards have been updated, and factual background has been improved with additions such as open space maps and updated background traffic growth rates. For larger projects, the Manual now includes guidance for greenhouse gas emissions analysis and assessments of wind effects. Large city-sponsored projects will also need to be assessed for consistency with sustainability goals set forth in PlaNYC. The infrastructure analysis was expanded to include sewer system capacity between the project site and discharge point, taking into account possible CSO events. Other changes include updates that reflect minor changes in laws and codify current agency practice.
Dan Mach is a summer associate at Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C.
June 2, 2010
In Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v. EPA, 2010 WL 1929879 (May 14, 2010), the D.C. Circuit recently upheld an EPA rule revising the primary and secondary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air-borne lead (Pb) pollution against challenges by industry representatives. The case arose from consolidated petitions for review under the Administrative Procedure Act filed by two industry representatives alleging that the revised standards were overprotective. The circuit panel, Judge Rogers writing, rejected the petitions, holding that the new standards were supported by substantial record evidence and were not arbitrary and capricious.
Sections 108 and 109 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) require the EPA administrator to establish NAAQSs for air pollutants that are found to “endanger public health or welfare.”[1] Health impacts associated with airborne lead exposure include anemia, slowed physiological development, and IQ loss.[2] EPA began regulating lead under the CAA since 1978, but did not revise its NAAQSs for the pollutant for three decades.[3]
On November 12, 2008, EPA issued a final rule that tightened primary and secondary NAAQS for lead to .15 µg/m3.[4] The revisions were responsive to scientific evidence that the previous standards were inadequate to protect against certain health risks, particularly neurological effects in children.[5] While the previous NAAQS for lead were calculated by focusing on a “target population mean blood lead level,” the 2008 aims at reducing mean health effects on children from lead below an “allowable air-related IQ loss” target of 2 IQ points.[6] EPA calculated that this goal demands a .15 µg/m3 standard. The rule also revised the averaging time to a 3-month period with a maximum and established revised data handling procedures.[7]
Petitioners’ first set of arguments focused on the adequacy of the studies EPA cited in the record to support its selection of a .15 µg/m3 standard. They contended that “(A) EPA did not provide sufficient record support for basing the standard on preventing a decrease of more than two IQ points, (B) reliance on particular studies relating blood lead levels and IQ was arbitrary and capricious, and (C) selection of a lead standard of 0.15 μg/m3 was arbitrary and capricious when measured as an average over a rolling three-month period.”[8] The court found that the record did support EPA’s conclusions, notwithstanding admitted imprecision in its methodology, given that “by its nature the finding of risk is uncertain and the Administrator must use his [or her] discretion to meet the statutory mandate.”[9]
Petitioners also alleged that EPA failed to respond to comments or to disclose information relevant to its reliance on one study (the Lanphear study) for evidence of the effects of lead on IQ at blood lead levels below 10 μg/dL and for the nonlinearity of these effects.[10] The court found that EPA had adequately responded to comments and complied with necessary disclosure requirements.
Finally, petitioner Doe Run Resources, Inc. separately challenged EPA’s legal conclusion that it lacked statutory authority under the CAA to consider the natural presence of lead sulfides in determining compliance with the lead NAAQS.[11] Applying the two-step Chevron analysis, the court concluded at step one that EPA’s statutory mandate to designate “any area that does not meet [NAAQS]” for a given pollutant to be in “nonattainment” clearly prohibited EPA from considering local bioavailability of lead sulfides in its analysis.[12] The court added that even if the CAA is ambiguous, EPA’s interpretation that it lacks authority effectively “to waive NAAQS attainment requirements in the manner requested by Doe Run” was reasonable, and therefore permissible under Chevron step two.[13]
The Battery Recyclers decision has several implications. Aside from ensuring the continued existence of EPA’s new lead standards, it confirms EPA’s ability, under the CAA, to select NAAQSs designed specially to protect “sensitive populations” (here, young children) as well as its ability, in rulemaking, to rely on reasonable methods of approximation (such as IQ measures and extrapolations of data plots) to fulfill its statutory mandate even when absolute scientific precision is impracticable.
Dan Mach is a summer associate at Sive, Paget & Riesel, PC.
[1] 42 U.S.C. 7408(a)(1) and 7409(b).
[2] 73 Fed. Reg. 66964, 66983.
[3] Id. at 66983.
[4] Id. at 66965.
[5] Id. at 66983-84.
[6] Coalition of Battery Recyclers Association v. EPA, No. 09-1011, slip op. at 4-5 (D.C. Cir. May 14, 2010) (“Battery Recyclers”).
[7] 73 Fed. Reg. at 67012-20.
[8] Battery Recyclers, slip op. at 6.
[9] Id. at 13 (citing Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 824 F.2d 1146, 1165 (1987)).
[10] Battery Recyclers, slip op. at 16-17.
[11] Id. at 18-19.
[12] Id. at 19-20.
[13] Id. at 20.
May 28, 2010
On May 3, 2010, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) released the long awaited revised DER-10: Technical Guidance for Site Investigation & Remediation. The document becomes effective June 18. DER-10 is DEC’s authoritative guidance on how to characterize the nature and extent of contamination at a site and how to design an appropriate work plan to investigate and remediate a contaminated site.
There have been significant changes to the laws governing contaminated site cleanup since DER-10 was first published in draft form in December 2002. The New York Brownfields Cleanup Program (“BCP”) has come into being, and significant changes have been made to the State Superfund statute and its implementing regulations, 6 NYCRR Part 375. DEC has revised DER-10 to reflect these changes, conform its guidance to the newer regulatory regime, and address concerns from the regulated community that elements of the 2002 draft version of DER-10 were unmanageable or confusing.
The revised DER-10 makes significant changes to chapters addressing remedy selection, site management, periodic review and closeout. The first chapter, containing general provisions including definitions, was also significantly revised. In Section 1.3, DEC added definitions and modified others to conform them to the BCP and the modified State Superfund and Part 375 language. For example, “engineering control” and “environmental easement” were added and cite to their regulatory definitions. See 6 N.Y.C.R.R. §§ 375-1.2(q), (p). Other definitions were deleted because they were never used in practice or were poorly defined. The revised DER-10 also better defines certain elements that are not included in the regulations. For example, day care facilities, which are not classified in the regulations, are classified as a restricted residential use in the guidance.
One of the major changes to DER-10 is in Section 1.5, which relaxes certain work plan and report certification requirements. Under the 2002 draft version, DER-10 provided that only a professional engineer licensed or authorized to practice in New York could certify work plans and reports. The revised 2010 version disposes with this restrictive language, and now creates a spectrum of persons who may prepare and certify work plans and reports, which includes: New York State licensed professional engineers; qualified environmental professionals; remedial parties; and site owners at the time of certification. While most plans and reports must still be certified by either a qualified environmental professional or NY licensed engineer, remedial parties and site owners may certify periodic review reports if they relate to land or groundwater use restrictions. The revised DER-10 also includes specific certification language, consistent with the BCP and Superfund Program that must be included on the title page of all submissions and must be fully executed when a document is submitted to DEC’s Division of Environmental Remediation for approval.
Chapter 4 provides the framework for remedy selection and the means and methods to identify, evaluate and select a remedy or alternative remedies to address the contamination at a site. The section provides detailed reporting and documentation requirements based on whether the site is in the Superfund program (state or federal), BCP, Environmental Restoration Program, Voluntary Cleanup Program, or petroleum spills program. It also provides DEC’s Remedial Action Objectives (“RAOs”) and preference hierarchy for removing and containing identifiable sources of contamination – removal and/or treatment at the top; treatment of source at point of exposure at the bottom. See 4.1(d).
Chapter 6 has been significantly revised; sections 6.1 (Site Management), 6.2 (Site Management Plan), and 6.3 (Periodic Review) were added. Site management, the last phase of the remedial program, commences once a Certificate of Completion (“COC”) or closure letter is issued. DER-10 describes necessary activities for proper and effective site management, including inspections by the person responsible for site management and reporting of all results in a periodic review report. The guidance requires that design, implementation, periodic review, and closeout of site management are described in a Site Management Plan (“SMP”); DEC’s website will provide a template for the SMP.
DEC also decided to rescind some TAGMs (Technical and Administrative Guidance Memoranda) developed in the 1980s and 1990s and incorporate the substance of those TAGMs into DER-10. For example, fugitive dust will no longer be monitored pursuant to a TAGM; instead, a fugitive dust and particulate monitoring program has been included as Appendix 1B in the revised DER-10. Consolidating these TAGMs into DER-10 will facilitate access to these materials for the regulated community.
DEC is planning to host a training session in Fall 2010 to answer questions and help the public understand the changes in DER-10. Notice of the meeting will be posted on DEC’s website, and DEC will solicit questions and comments prior to the meeting.
Older Posts »
|
| |
