O.C.G.A.

O.C.G.A. § 12-9-1 (2019)

Short title

✓ O.C.G.A. — 2019 edition (Public.Resource.Org Release 73)

Code text and O.C.G.A. statutory annotations on this page reflect the 2019 Official Code of Georgia Annotated (Public.Resource.Org Release 73, 2019-08-21; public domain per Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org, 2020). The Syfert case-law annotations in Notes of Decisions, below, are current.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section GA-LEGlegis.ga.gov (official) JustiaJustia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This article shall be known and may be cited as ‘‘The Georgia Air Quality Act.’’

History

Code 1933, 88-901, enacted by Ga. L. 1967, p. 581, § 1; Ga. L. 1978, p.

275, § 2; Ga. L. 1992, p. 918, § 3; Ga. L. 1992, p. 2886, § 1.

Annotations

JUDICIAL DECISIONS Action for private recovery is not provided by the federal and Georgia clean air acts. Satterfield v. J.M. Huber Corp., 888 F. Supp. 1567 (N.D. Ga. 1995). Judicial review of air quality permit. - Trial court decision invalidating an air quality permit issued by the Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Georgia Department of Natural Resources to a power company to construct a pulverized coal-fired electric power plant in a particular county contained an erroneous ruling that the permit was invalid because the permit failed to include a limit on the power plant’s carbon dioxide gas (CO2) emissions since no provisions of

the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., or the state implementation plan controlled or limited CO2 emissions. Because CO2 was not a pollutant that ‘‘otherwise is subject to regulation under the CAA,’’ CO2 was not a regulated new source review pollutant in the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program and was not required to be controlled by use of best available control technology (BACT), therefore, the trial court erred by ruling that the PSD permit was required to include a BACT emission limit to control the power company’s CO2 emissions. Longleaf Energy Assocs., LLC v. Friends of the Chattahoochee, Inc., 298

Ga. App. 753, 681 S.E.2d 203 (2009), cert. denied, No. S09C1879, 2009 Ga. LEXIS 809 (Ga. 2009). Lawful business as nuisance per accidens. - Lawful business may, by reason of the business’s location in a residential area, cause hurt, inconvenience, and damage to those residing in the vicinity and become a nuisance per accidens (a nuisance by reason of circumstances and surroundings) against which an injunction will be granted. Galaxy Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Massengill, 255 Ga. 360, 338 S.E.2d 428 (1986). Punitive damages. - Punitive damages are, as a general rule, improper when a defendant has complied with environmental and safety regulations. Accord-

ingly, the award of punitive damages against a quarry operator who had adhered to the applicable laws was not supported by the evidence and warranted reversal. Stone Man, Inc. v. Green, 263 Ga. 470, 435 S.E.2d 205 (1993). Federal government not subject to punitive fines. - Since the only clearly expressed waiver of sovereign immunity in the federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7901 et seq., is for coercive fines, punitive fines may not be imposed on the federal government thereunder. United States v. Georgia Dep’t of Natural Resources, 897 F. Supp. 1464 (N.D. Ga. 1995). Cited in Meredith v. Thompson, 312 Ga. App. 697, 719 S.E.2d 592 (2011).

RESEARCH REFERENCES ALR. - Award of costs and attorney’s fees in judicial review of administrative proceedings under § 307(f ) of Clean Air Act (42 USCA § 7607(f )), 146 A.L.R. Fed. 531. Federal requirements for public participation in adoption, submission, and approval of state implementation plans and revisions pursuant to § 110 of Clean Air Act (42 USCA § 7410), 151 A.L.R. Fed. 445.

Decisions of Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) approving or disapproving state implementation plans as interfering with primary role of states to determine how national ambient air quality standards should be met under Clean Air Act (42 USCA § 7401 et seq.), 151 A.L.R. Fed. 495. Conformity requirements of § 176(c) of Clean Air Act, (42 USCA § 7506(c)), 157 A.L.R. Fed. 217.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1986–2023 · leading case: Stone Man, Inc. v. Green, 435 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. 1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Stone Man, Inc. v. Green, 435 S.E.2d 205 (Ga. 1993). · cites it 2× “, the air quality permit required by OCGA § 12-9-1 et seq., and the water quality permit required by OCGA § 12-5-20 et seq.”

Longleaf Energy Assocs., LLC v. Friends of the Chattahoochee, Inc., 681 S.E.2d 203 (Ga. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 2× “and the Sierra Club (the Challengers), and ruled that the permit violated the Georgia Air Quality Act (GAQA) (OCGA § 12-9-1 et seq.) and the federal Clean Air Act (CAA) ( 42 USC § 7401 et seq.”

Bd. of Nat. Resources v. Monroe Cnty., 556 S.E.2d 834 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Under the Georgia Air Quality Act, OCGA § 12-9-1 et seq., and the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 USC § 7504 , Georgia is required to attain ambient air quality standards.”

Georgia-Pac. Consum. Prods., LP v. Ratner, 746 S.E.2d 829 (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “See the Georgia Air Quality Act, OCGA § 12-9-1 et seq., Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-1, and Title V of the Clean Air Act, 42 USCS § 7401 et seq.”

United States v. Georgia Dep't of Nat. Resources, 897 F. Supp. 1464 (N.D. Ga. 1995). · cites it 2× “FACTS On March 21, 1994, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (“GDNR”) filed administrative petitions with the Georgia Board of Natural Resources seeking to impose punitive civil penalties on the United States Army 1 and the Federal Bureau of Prisons 2 for alleged…”

Galaxy Carpet Mills, Inc. v. Massengill, 338 S.E.2d 428 (Ga. 1986). · cites it 2× “First, the appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying its motion for directed verdict, in that the appellant is operating the boilers under a permit issued by the Environmental Protection Division of the Department of Natural Resources under the Georgia Air Quality…”

Meredith v. Thompson, 719 S.E.2d 592 (Ga. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 2× “Notably, their counsel informed the court at the summary judgment hearing that a nuisance per se theory had been abandoned; and the court granted summary judgment on the strict liability theory because the residents had made no argument to oppose the summary judgment motion.”

Price v. State, 553 S.E.2d 194 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “3 See OCGA § 12-9-1 et seq. 4 Id. 5 OCGA § 12-8-20 et seq.”

Reheis v. Drexel Chem. Co., 514 S.E.2d 867 (Ga. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “In its order, the superior court affirmed an administrative order finding that Drexel Chemical Company violated the Georgia Air Quality Act (the Act), OCGA § 12-9-1 et seq., but struck the $42,000 civil penalty imposed under OCGA § 12-9-23.”

Jen Jordan v. Dep't of Nat. Resources Env't Prot. (Ga. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “to prevent the significant deterioration of air quality and to attain and maintain ambient air quality standards so as to safeguard the public health, safety, and welfare consistent with providing for maximum employment and full industrial development of the state.”

Millen v. Georgia Renewable Power LLC (M.D. Ga. 2023). · cites it 2× “In 2015, the GRP Defendants obtained the necessary permits for the Franklin Plant, including an Air Quality Permit as required by the Georgia Air Quality Act, O.C.G.A. § 12-9-1 et seq. Veolia’s Mot. Summ.”

Georgia-Pac. Consum. Prods., Lp v. Kirbi Ratner (Ga. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The named plaintiffs filed suit on December 10, 2010, and they sought certification for a class consisting of certain Georgia citizens owning property within 4 See the Georgia Air Quality Act, OCGA § 12-9-1, et seq., Georgia Rules for Air Quality Control, Chapter 391-3-1, and…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.