<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/rss2full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" version="2.0">

<channel>
	<title>Law and the Environment</title>
	
	<link>http://www.lawandenvironment.com</link>
	<description />
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:32:19 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.5.1</generator>
		<feedburner:info uri="lawandenvironment" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.lawandenvironment.com/index.xml" /><feedburner:emailServiceId>LawAndEnvironment</feedburner:emailServiceId><feedburner:feedburnerHostname>http://feedburner.google.com</feedburner:feedburnerHostname><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://add.my.yahoo.com/rss?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawandenvironment.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/us/my/addtomyyahoo4.gif">Subscribe with My Yahoo!</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.newsgator.com/ngs/subscriber/subext.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawandenvironment.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.newsgator.com/images/ngsub1.gif">Subscribe with NewsGator</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://feeds.my.aol.com/add.jsp?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawandenvironment.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://o.aolcdn.com/favorites.my.aol.com/webmaster/ffclient/webroot/locale/en-US/images/myAOLButtonSmall.gif">Subscribe with My AOL</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.bloglines.com/sub/http://www.lawandenvironment.com/index.xml" src="http://www.bloglines.com/images/sub_modern11.gif">Subscribe with Bloglines</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.netvibes.com/subscribe.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawandenvironment.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.netvibes.com/img/add2netvibes.gif">Subscribe with Netvibes</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://fusion.google.com/add?feedurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawandenvironment.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://buttons.googlesyndication.com/fusion/add.gif">Subscribe with Google</feedburner:feedFlare><feedburner:feedFlare href="http://www.pageflakes.com/subscribe.aspx?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lawandenvironment.com%2Findex.xml" src="http://www.pageflakes.com/ImageFile.ashx?instanceId=Static_4&amp;fileName=ATP_blu_91x17.gif">Subscribe with Pageflakes</feedburner:feedFlare><item>
		<title>Why Trial Courts Are Reluctant To Exclude Scientific Evidence in Toxic Tort Cases</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/M0RWP6U1nEE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/why-trial-courts-are-reluctant-to-exclude-scientific-evidence-in-toxic-tort-cases/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 12:32:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robby Sanoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Toxic Torts]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=2001</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Environmental litigation, particularly toxic tort litigation, inevitably turns on scientific evidence about causation.  Beginning with the Supreme Court&#8217;s Daubert decision in 1993, trial courts have repeatedly been admonished to take seriously their role as gatekeepers who are required to keep from juries and other fact-finders &#8221;junk science&#8221; and other expert evidence that is not sufficiently reliable to be considered. Although no [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/M0RWP6U1nEE" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/why-trial-courts-are-reluctant-to-exclude-scientific-evidence-in-toxic-tort-cases/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/why-trial-courts-are-reluctant-to-exclude-scientific-evidence-in-toxic-tort-cases/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=why-trial-courts-are-reluctant-to-exclude-scientific-evidence-in-toxic-tort-cases</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>A Nice, Straightforward Administrative Law Decision:  HHS’s Decision to List Styrene as Reasonably Anticipated to Cause Cancer is Affirmed</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/-3ZftqXLrt4/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/a-nice-straightforward-administrative-law-decision-hhss-decision-to-list-styrene-as-reasonably-anticipated-to-cause-cancer-is-affirmed/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 20 May 2013 13:38:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Citizen Suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["Styrene Inforamtion and Research Center v. Sebelius"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[arbitrary and capricious]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[carcinogens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deference]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[styrene]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1993</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last week, in Styrene Information and Research Center v. Sebelius, Judge Reggie Walton of the District Court for the District of Columbia rejected challenges to the decision by HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to list styrene as “reasonably anticipated&#8221; to be a carcinogen.  The case does not really break any new ground, but is a solidly [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/-3ZftqXLrt4" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/a-nice-straightforward-administrative-law-decision-hhss-decision-to-list-styrene-as-reasonably-anticipated-to-cause-cancer-is-affirmed/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/a-nice-straightforward-administrative-law-decision-hhss-decision-to-list-styrene-as-reasonably-anticipated-to-cause-cancer-is-affirmed/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=a-nice-straightforward-administrative-law-decision-hhss-decision-to-list-styrene-as-reasonably-anticipated-to-cause-cancer-is-affirmed</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Jarndyce v. Jarndyce Has Nothing On Comer v. Murphy Oil:  The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/M1RkyazQhfY/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/jarndyce-v-jarndyce-has-nothing-on-murphy-v-comer-the-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms-dismissal/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 12:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Citizen Suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GHG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["res judicata"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Comer v. Murphy Oil]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1979</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Readers of this blog will recall the bizarre history of Comer v. Murphy Oil.  In 2005, Plaintiffs brought tort claims against major GHG emitters, claiming that those emissions, by causing global warming, led to plaintiffs’ damages from Hurricane Katrina.  The District Court dismissed, ruling both that plaintiffs had no standing and that the claims were [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/M1RkyazQhfY" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/jarndyce-v-jarndyce-has-nothing-on-murphy-v-comer-the-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms-dismissal/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/jarndyce-v-jarndyce-has-nothing-on-murphy-v-comer-the-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms-dismissal/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=jarndyce-v-jarndyce-has-nothing-on-murphy-v-comer-the-fifth-circuit-court-of-appeals-affirms-dismissal</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Superfund Liability for the Repair of a Useful Product</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/e2-1J0fu1H8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/superfund-liability-for-the-repair-of-a-useful-product/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 14:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robby Sanoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CERCLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superfund]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1971</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[A few months ago, I blogged on the decision in Duke Energy Progress Inc. v. Alcan Aluminum Corporation where a court held that a company would not be held liable for selling used transformers to a recycling facility for refurbishing and eventual resale to a new user.   At the center of that holding was the notion that the [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/e2-1J0fu1H8" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/superfund-liability-for-the-repair-of-a-useful-product/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/superfund-liability-for-the-repair-of-a-useful-product/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=superfund-liability-for-the-repair-of-a-useful-product</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Boston Joins the Building Disclosure Bandwagon:  Ordinance Will Require Reporting in 2014</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/h3rsZMwOq8E/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/boston-joins-the-building-disclosure-bandwagon-ordinance-will-require-reporting-in-2014/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 16:08:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Climate Change]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[GHG]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Green Design]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Legislation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sustainability]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["energy audits"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["energy disclosure"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Boston]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1962</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[On May 8, the Boston City Council approved an ordinance requiring building owners to report annual energy and water use.  The final ordinance is slightly different from the one about which we posted in February.  Highlights include the following: Building owners subject to the ordinance will have to report on May 15 of each year: [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/h3rsZMwOq8E" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/boston-joins-the-building-disclosure-bandwagon-ordinance-will-require-reporting-in-2014/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/boston-joins-the-building-disclosure-bandwagon-ordinance-will-require-reporting-in-2014/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=boston-joins-the-building-disclosure-bandwagon-ordinance-will-require-reporting-in-2014</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Massachusetts Releases Its Revised Solid Waste Master Plan:  Are We Really on a Pathway to Zero Waste?</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/X53F9COr-a8/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/massachusetts-releases-its-revised-solid-waste-master-plan-are-we-really-on-a-pathway-to-zero-waste/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 16:29:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Massachusetts DEP]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Permitting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solid Waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["Solid Waste Master Plan"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[anaerobic digestion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[gasification]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[pyrolysis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[recycling]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1951</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[On Tuesday, MassDEP announced release of its updated Solid Waste Master Plan, subtitled “Pathway to Zero Waste.”  The Plan&#8217;s most significant discussion relates to the state of the solid waste market and the Plan&#8217;s goal for disposal reduction.  The Plan announces a goal of reducing solid waste disposal by 30% from 2008 to 2020, from [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/X53F9COr-a8" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/massachusetts-releases-its-revised-solid-waste-master-plan-are-we-really-on-a-pathway-to-zero-waste/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/05/massachusetts-releases-its-revised-solid-waste-master-plan-are-we-really-on-a-pathway-to-zero-waste/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=massachusetts-releases-its-revised-solid-waste-master-plan-are-we-really-on-a-pathway-to-zero-waste</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Surprise, Surprise, Surprise:  An Agency Cannot Revise Regulations In a Consent Decree</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/xLJGq5u8lYE/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/surprise-surprise-surprise-an-agency-cannot-revise-regulations-in-a-consent-decree/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 19:56:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Citizen Suits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NEPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["consent decrees"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["Conservation Northwest v. Sherman"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["Northwest Forest Plan"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["sue-and-settle"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["Survey and Manage"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BLM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[settlement]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1925</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a decision that should not have come as a surprise to anyone, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday, in Conservation Northwest v. Sherman, that the Bureau of Land Management and other agencies implementing the Northwest Forest Plan could not amend the NFP without complying with the procedural requirements of the Federal [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/xLJGq5u8lYE" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/surprise-surprise-surprise-an-agency-cannot-revise-regulations-in-a-consent-decree/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/surprise-surprise-surprise-an-agency-cannot-revise-regulations-in-a-consent-decree/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=surprise-surprise-surprise-an-agency-cannot-revise-regulations-in-a-consent-decree</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>When is the Meaning of a Statute Sufficiently Plain?  The D.C. Circuit Restores EPA Authority to Withdraw Approval of Section 404 Permits</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/hMlxSNoadDw/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/when-is-the-meaning-of-a-statute-sufficiently-plain-the-d-c-circuit-restores-epa-authority-to-withdraw-approval-of-section-404-permits/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 15:47:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Litigation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPDES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Permitting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Wetlands]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["Mingo Logan Coal Company v. USEPA"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["Section 404"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Chevron]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Coal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mountaintop Mining]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1908</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a decision on Tuesday that must have sent shivers down the spine of every coal company executive, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals restored EPA’s authority to withdraw the specification of streams for the disposal of mountaintop mining wastes – years after the Army Corps had issued the permit containing the specification.  Indeed, Daily [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/hMlxSNoadDw" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/when-is-the-meaning-of-a-statute-sufficiently-plain-the-d-c-circuit-restores-epa-authority-to-withdraw-approval-of-section-404-permits/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/when-is-the-meaning-of-a-statute-sufficiently-plain-the-d-c-circuit-restores-epa-authority-to-withdraw-approval-of-section-404-permits/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=when-is-the-meaning-of-a-statute-sufficiently-plain-the-d-c-circuit-restores-epa-authority-to-withdraw-approval-of-section-404-permits</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>What Response Costs Are Necessary Under CERCLA</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/9b3r0m6Fm3c/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/what-response-costs-are-necessary-under-cercla/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 24 Apr 2013 12:17:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robby Sanoff</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[CERCLA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cost Recovery]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[necessary response costs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Superfund]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uncategorized]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1897</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[In a post last year, I discussed what I I thought was the dubious dismissal of  a CERCLA cost recovery action in Stratford Holding, LLC v. Fog Cap Retail Investors LLC.   That case involved a holding that the costs of  investigating the presence of solvents in the groundwater above regulatory standards were not   &#8220;necessary&#8221; response costs because the the state had declined [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/9b3r0m6Fm3c" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/what-response-costs-are-necessary-under-cercla/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/what-response-costs-are-necessary-under-cercla/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=what-response-costs-are-necessary-under-cercla</feedburner:origLink></item>
		<item>
		<title>Coming to a Steam Electric Generating Plant Near You in May 2014 — New Effluent Limitation Guidelines</title>
		<link>http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~3/6tyKhVDPJBk/</link>
		<comments>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/coming-to-a-steam-electric-generating-plant-near-you-in-may-2014-new-effluent-limitation-guidelines/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Apr 2013 11:05:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Seth Jaffe</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Energy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[EPA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hazardous Waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NPDES]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Permitting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Regulation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Solid Waste]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Water]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA["steam electric generating"]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CCR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[coal combustion residuals]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[effluent guidelines]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.lawandenvironment.com/?p=1866</guid>
		
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[Last Friday, EPA announced release of its draft proposal to revise the effluent guidelines and standards for the steam electric power generating industry, last revised in 1982.  The proposal was in conformance with a litigation settlement with environmental groups, which also calls for a final rule by May 22, 2014. The proposed rule actually sets [...]<br/>
<br/>
[Please click on the blog title to continue reading this post, share your comments and browse other articles.]<img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/LawAndEnvironment/~4/6tyKhVDPJBk" height="1" width="1"/>]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/coming-to-a-steam-electric-generating-plant-near-you-in-may-2014-new-effluent-limitation-guidelines/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		<feedburner:origLink>http://www.lawandenvironment.com/2013/04/coming-to-a-steam-electric-generating-plant-near-you-in-may-2014-new-effluent-limitation-guidelines/?utm_source=rss&amp;utm_medium=rss&amp;utm_campaign=coming-to-a-steam-electric-generating-plant-near-you-in-may-2014-new-effluent-limitation-guidelines</feedburner:origLink></item>
	</channel>
</rss>
