(Slip Opinion) NOTICE : This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Environmental Administrative Deci s ions (E.A.D

. )

. Readers are requ e sted to notifY the Environmental Appeals Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington , D.C. 20460, of any typographical or other formal errors , in order that correction s may b e made before publication

.

BEFORE THE ENVIRONME N TAL APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGEN WASHI N GTON , D.C.

In re: Shell Offshore , Inc

. OCS Permit No. RIO OCS030000



# ----------------------------- ) ) ) ) ) OCS Appeal Nos

. 11-05 , ) 11-06 & 11-07 ) ) )

[Decided March 30, 2012] ORDER DENYING PETITIONS FOR REVIEW 

### MA R 3 0 

## 2012

ClERK**ENVIR~ENTAL** APPEALS BOARD I NIT I ALS kED

Befor e Environmental Appeals Judges Charles J. Sheehan , Kathie A

. Stein , and Anna L. Wolgast

.IN RE SHELL OF F SH ORE, INC. OC S A ppeal Nos . 1 1- 05, 11

- 06 & 11- 07 ORDER DENYING PETIT IONS FOR REV

IEW

Decid ed March

30 , 2 012

This decisio n ad dr es se s p et i t i o n s fo r re vi ew t h at ch al l en ge an Ou t erCo n t i nent al Shelf (“ OCS”) P erm it to Co nstru ct and Title V A ir Quality Op erating Perm it (“P erm it”) Re g ion 10 (“ Re g ion” ) of the U .S. Env ironm ent al Prote ct ion A g enc y (“ EPA ” or “A g enc y ”) is su ed to She ll Of f shor e, Inc . ( “S hel l” ). T he Re g ion i ss ued the Permit on October 21 , 20 11 , p u r su an t to Clean A ir A ct (“CA A or “A ct”) s ection 3 28 , 42 U.S.C. § 76 27 , and app licable regulatio ns governing air e mis si o ns f rom OCS sources at 40 C. F.R

. p art 5 5 , and purs uant to T itl e V of

the CA A , 42 U .S.C . § 7661, and im ple m ent ingre g ulations at 40 C .F.R . pa

rt 71, a s w el l a s appl ic abl e A la sk a code and regulatory

provisio ns. The P erm it auth orizes Shell to “c on struct and o perate the Conical Dr ill ingU nit Kul luk

and ass oci at ed a ir e m is si on units and to conduc t other air poll uta nt emitt inga ct ivi tie s” w ithi n She ll’ s le as e bloc k s in t he Be auf ort Se a of f the N orth Slope of A laska . The P erm it also pro vides for t he use o f an ass ociated fle et of

supp ort shi ps, inc ludingic ebr ea

k er s, s u p p ly s hips , a

nd oil s pill re spons e v es se ls in addi tion to t he Kul luk

. The Board rece ived th ree petiti on s for revie w o f the P erm it. One petitio n w as file dby Res is ti n g En vir o n m en ta l Dest ru ct io n o f In d ige n o u s Lan d s (“R ED OI L”), A la ska W ilde rne ss L ea g ue, Ce nte r f or Biol og ic al Div er si ty , Natura l Re sour ce s De f ens e Counc il, Nor the rn A la sk a Env ironm ent al Ce nte r, Oc ea na, Pac if ic Env ironm ent , Sie rr a Cl ub, a nd the Wilderness Society

(collectively , “REDO I L

Pe t i t ion ers”). A

sec on d petit ion w as f

iled by the Iñupi at

Com m unity of the A rc tic Slope (“ IC A S” ). T he thir d pe tit ion w as fi le d by Mr. D ani el Lum .

The th ree pe ti ti o n s co ll ect ive ly rais e seven iss u es for r evi ew: (1 ) Have Petit ione rs de m onst

rate d that t h e Re g ion c le ar ly e rr ed in e st abl is hingli m ita tions to restrict the Kullu k dril lingunit ’s pote ntia l t o e m it? (2) H av e RE DO ILPeti tione rs demonst rate d that t

he Re g ion c le ar ly

e rr ed in dec lini ng to re quire pre v ent ion of signif icant deterioratio n (“P SD”) increm ent consu m ptio n analy ses f

or th e Kul luk ’s propos ed emis si ons as part of the T itl e V p ermit ti ng proc es s? (3) D id RED OI L P etition ers ra ise below

their cont entio n th at Shell’s am bie n t air q uality

analy sis w as f la w ed in th at it

f ai le d to conf

orm to appl ic abl e A g enc y

guida nce ? (4) H av e RE DO IL Petit ione rs de m onst

rate d t h at t h e Re g ion c le ar ly e rr ed in i ts am

bie nt a ir ex em

ption det er m ination? (5) H av e Petit ione rs de m onst rate d that t

he Re g ion fail ed t o s at is f y it s oblig at ion t o cons ide r env ironm ent al jus tic e under Ex ec utiv e Or der 12898 and c om ply w ith appl ic abl e Boa

rd pr ec ede nt? ( 6 ) Ha s IC A S de m onst rate d tha t t he Re g ion c le ar ly er re d or abus ed its disc re tion in prov idingfor ty -s ixday s to c om

m ent on the dra f

t pe rmitS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 2

an di n d e n yi n g I C AS ’ s r eq u es tfo r n o n - o ve r l ap p i n g c o mmen tp er i o d s? (7 ) Ha s I C AS demonst rate d that t

he Regi o n c le arly

e rr ed in i ts publi c hea

ringproc edur es or that a

ny al l eg ed p r o ce du r al d efi ci en ci es o th erwi se warr an tre vi ew? He ld: T h e B o ar dd e n i e s r e v i e w o f th e Pe rm i t

. Pe t i t i o n e r s h av e n o tm e tth ei r burde n of de m onst ratingthat r ev ie w

is w ar ra nte d on a ny of the g rounds pre se nte d. (1) Lim itation s on P oten tial to Emit. T he Board con clud es that Petit ion ers hav e f ailed to de m onst

rate tha t the Re g ion er

re d in es ta blis hing limita

tions to r es tri ct

the pote ntia l t o
2 2 emit nitr og en diox ide (“NO ”) , c ar bon m onox ide (“ CO ”), s u lfur diox ide (“ SO ”) , a

nd gree nh ou se g ases (“GHG s”) for e missio n un its located on the Kul luk and on the A ssociated Fleet w

hen o per at i n g within tw enty -f ive m iles of

the Kullu k w

hile it is an OC S s ourc e. T he Re g ion e x er ci se d i ts dis cr et ion a nd a pplie d it s te chni ca l e xper tis e to e s t a b l i s h p r a c t i c a l l y e n f

o r c e a b l e s o u r c e - w i d e e m i s s i o n l i m i t s th at a c c o m m o d at e the subs ta ntia l a nd unpre dic ta

ble v ar iati o n s in emis si ons bas ed on the aty pic al nature of She ll’ s oper at ions . T he Re g ion e xpla ine d in t h e re cor d it s rationa le , ba se d on the Re g ion’s te chni ca l e xper tis e and appl ie d in cer ta in l im ite d c irc um st anc es , f or suppl em ent ings ourc e- spe ci f ic e m is si on f

ac tors de riv ed f

or m ost of the emis si on units or group s of emission uni ts w ith eith er AP-4 2 em ission factors, o r emission f actors derived f rom s ourc e te st

data She ll submitt ed to t

he Re g ion i n s upport of

tw o s epa rate , pr ev ious ly is sue d O CS P SD permits a uthori zi ng She ll to c onduct e xplora tory a ct iv iti es in the Chu kchi and Beauf

ort Seas using the Discovere r dri lls hip. (2) PSD I ncr em ent

C o n sum ption Anal y se s. T he Boa rd c oncl udes that RED OI L Petit ione rs f

ai le d to demonst

rate c le ar e rr or i n the Re g ion’s de ci si on not to r equi re PSD increm ent consu m

ptio n analy ses f

or th e Kulluk ’s propos ed emis si ons as part of the T it l e V p e rm i t t i n g p r o c e s s . T h e B o ar d h o l d s th at th e R e g i o n p r o v i d e d a re as onabl e inte rpr e t at i o n o f C AA s e c t i o n 5 0 4 ( e ) , w h i c h i m p o s e s p e rm i t t i n g r e qu i r e m e n t s on “t em pora ry ” st at iona

ry s ourc es , i n it s Re spons e to C om m ent s do cu m en t. The Re g ion det er m ine d tha

t “ PSD m aj or s ourc es are s ubje ct to NA A QS and inc re m ent

i n the per m itt ingproc es s, w

her ea s non-PSD s ourc es are s ubje ct only to the N AA QS unle ss the appl ic abl e m inor sour ce progra m a ls o inc lude s the [P SD ] inc re m ent [s].” T he Re g ion conc lude d that t

he State of Alas k a’ s m inor sour ce pre cons truc tion prog ra m doe s not requi re perm anent m ino r sources to dem on strate com plian ce w ith P SD increm ents as a condi tion of

c onst ruc tion, s o ne ithe r w ould i t r equi re s u ch com plia nce of te m pora ry m inor sour ce s. T he Boa

rd f inds REDO IL

P et iti oner s’ ser ie s of

cha lle ng es to this ba si c ana ly si s to be de f

ic ie nt i n a v ar ie ty of w ay s and the re f

ore upholds the Re g ion’s de ci si on. (3) Am bie nt A ir Qua lit

y A nal y si s. RED OI L Peti tione rs c onte nd that She ll’ s am bie nt a ir qu ality analy sis w as f

law ed in th at it f

ailed to con f

orm to a pp licable A gency guidance. Upon ex amination of

the a dm inis tra

tiv e re cor d, the Bo ard c oncl udes that RED OI L P etition ers f

ailed to raise this issue du ring the com m ent perio d. This issue, theref ore, w as n o tp r es er ve dfo r

re vi ew. (4) Am bie nt A ir Ex em

ption De te rmination. T he Boa rd co ncl udes that RED OI L P etition ers hav e not sho w n th at the Reg ion clea

rly erred in its decision t o exe m pt th e a reaS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 3

w ithi n a 500 m eter ra diu s f rom the Kul luk

– the a re a w ithi n the U .S. Coa st

G uar d s af et y zone – from

t he definition o f

“am bien t air.” The Region, in its Res po nse to Comm ents, prov ide d a

re as onabl e inte rpr et at ion of the am bie nt a ir re g ula ti o n a n d the A g enc y ’s long st andi ng int er

pre tation of

that r egulation as a

pplie d in the O CS cont ext. (5 ) E n vir o n m en ta l Ju st ic e Anal y si s. The Bo ard co n cl u d es t h atICAS an dMr . Lu m ha ve not de m onst

rate d tha t t he Re g ion f

ai le d to sa

tis f y it s oblig at ions to com

ply w ith Exec utive Order 128 98 and app licable Board precedent. T he Reg ion cond ucted an env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s that de m onstrate d c om plia nce w ith the N AA QS and endeavored to i n cl u d e an d analy ze data that is ge rm ane to the environ m ental justice is sue s ra is ed duringthe co mm en t pe riod. T he Re g ion a ppropr iate ly

de te rmine d that i t w as not re quire d to ana lyze the m obile sour ce emis si ons f rom v es se ls that oper at e outs ide of tw enty -f

ive m iles f

rom the Kul luk

w hile it is an OCS source w here, as here , the Title V per m it did not addr es s the se m obile sour ce emis si ons, and the re cor d la ck ed suf f ic ie nt dat a f or s uch an ana ly si s. I n a dditi on, i n the re m ai ning ar g um ent s the y put f orth in t hei r pet iti ons, IC A S a

nd Mr . Lum

do not de m onst rate how the Re gio n 's re spons es to com m ents are inad equate, overcom e the particul arly heavy bu rden a petitio ner m ust m eet to d em on strate that review of the Region's tec hn ical decisions is w arranted, or raise issues w ithi n the Boa

rd' s juri sdi ct ion. (6) Public Com

m ent Peri od. T he Boa

rd c oncl udes that I CA S ha s f ai le d to show

that t he Re g ion c le ar ly

e rr ed or abus ed its dis cr et ion in e ithe r s el ec tinga 46-da y c om m ent pe riod o r i n d en yin g I C AS ’ s r eq u es tfo r n o n - co n cu rr en tc o mmen tp er i o d s. Th e l en gt h o f t i me the Region pro vided f

or comm ent on this perm it w as 16 day s more than the 30 -day re g ulatory m inim

um and 1 day m ore tha

n the amount of tim e IC A S had sp eci f ic al ly requested. ICA S’s attem

pt to reca lculate the length of the com m ent perio d based on an unex pla ine d m at

hem at ic al f

orm ula inv olv ingthe num

ber and le ng ths of othe r c om m ent perio ds is unco nvinc i n g. F urth erm ore, ICA S has not poi ntedto any regulatio ns that p r o h i b i tth e Ag e n c y fr o m i s s u i n g c o n c u rr e n tp e rmi t s o r th at r e qu i r e

– o r e v e n s p e c i fy – a dif f erent com

m ent perio d length when the A gency d o es i ssue concurrent perm its. Fin ally , it is clea

r f rom the adm inistrative record t hat the Region app rop riately balanced conf lic tingc onsi der at ions in dec idingon the le ng th of the com m ent peri od for

thi s per m it and in de ny ingthe re ques t f or non- ov er la

ppingpe riods , a

nd IC A S ha s f

ai le d to demonst rate othe rw is e. (7) Public H ear ing. T he Boa rd c oncl udes that I CA S ha s f ai le d to demonst

rate that t he Regio n c l e ar l y

e rr e d i n i t s pu

bl i c he ar i ng

pr oc e dur e s or

thatany a l l e g e d p r oc e dural def ic ie nci es othe rw is e w ar

ra nt r ev ie w . I CA S ha s not show n that t he Re g ion v iola

te d any part 71 or 12 4 pro cedural regul ation . Moreover, the allege d pro blem s ICA S has i d en t i fi ed d o n o t , ev en i f th e B o ar dwer e t o fi n dth em t o co n st i tu t e ad efi ci en cy i n so me way, warr an tBo ar dre vi ew. Befo re E nvir on m ental App eals J udges C harles J. Sh eeha n, K at h ieA . S te in , a n d A n n a L . Wo lgas t.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 4

RE DO ILPeti tioner s inc lude Re si st ingEnv ironm ent al D es truc tion of

1 Ind igenou s La

nd s (“REDOIL ”), A laska Wilderness Le ague, Center f o rBi o logical Di v er si ty , N at

ura l R es ourc es D ef

ens e Counc il, N orthe rn A la sk a Env ironm ent al Ce nte r, O c e an a , P a c i fi c E n v i r o n me n t , S i e rr a C l ub , an dTh e Wi l d e rn e s s S o c i e ty. M r . Lu m ’ s p e t i t i o n w a s d e s i g n at e da s O C S A p p e a l N o . 1 1

- 0 5 , RE D O IL 2 P etition ers’ petition w as desig nated a s OCS A pp eal No. 11-0 6, and ICA S’s petitio n w as des ignat ed as O CS A

ppea l N o. 11- 07.
T he Permit w as is sue d under multi ple CA A a nd A la sk a ai r pol luti on 3 prov is ions be ca

use it is a c onsol idation of

thre e a ir pe rmits

. A cc ordingto the Re g ion, it cons olida te d “ an OC S/T itl e V per m it under 40 C FR Parts 55 a

nd 71 f or ope rations beyond 2 5 mil es of

A la sk a’ s se aw ar d boundary ; a n O CS/ m inor per m it f or a ir qual ity prote ct ion unde r 40 CF R Par t 55 and 18 A la sk a A dm inis tra tiv e Code (A

A C) 50.502 a

nd f or ow ner re ques te d li m ita

tions unde r 40 CFR Part 55 and 18 AA C 50.508 f or ope rations w ithi n 25 mile s of

A la sk a’ s se aw ar d boundary ; a nd an O CS/ T itl e V per

m it under 40 C FR Part 55 and 18 A

A C 50. 326 f

or ope rations wit h in 2 5 m ile s of A la sk a’ s se aw ar d boundar y .” R es ponse to Com

m ent s f or OC S Permit to C onst

ruc t a nd T itl e V A ir Qua lit

y Ope ratingPermit Coni ca l D ril lingU nit Kul luk at 1 (A .R. J -3)

. Opin ion of th e B oard

by Jud ge S tein: I

. STA TEME

NT O F T HE C ASE A g ro up o f co ns erv at io n pet it io ne rs ( “RE D O I L P et it io ne rs ”) , 1 the Iñupiat Com

m unity of the Arctic S lope (“I CA S”), and Mr. Dan iel Lume ac h pe ti ti on ed th e E nv ir onm enta l A pp ea ls B oard

( “B oard ”) to 2 rev iew an O uter C ontinental Sh elf (“O CS ”) P erm it to C onstruc t and Title V Air Q uality

O peratingPerm it (“Pe rm it”) that U. S. Env ironm ental Protectio n A g ency

(“E PA ” or “Ag ency” ) R e g ion 1 0 (“R eg ion”) had issued to S hell O ffshore, Inc. (“She ll”). Se e ge ne rall yO C S P erm itto Con struct an d Title V A ir Q uali t y Op eratingPe rm it, P erm it No . R 10 OC S03 0000 (O ct. 2 1, 2011 ) (A dm inistrativ e Record (“A. R. ”) J- 2). The Reg ion is sued the P erm it pursu ant to C lean A ir Ac t ( “ CA A or “A ct”) se ct io n 3 28 , 42 U. S

. C

. § 7 62 7, and a pp li ca bl e re g ul at io ns g ov er

ni nga ir em is si on s fr om

O C S s ourc es a t 4 0 C

. F

. R

. p art 5 5, and p ur su ant to Title V of the CAA , 42 U.S .C . § 7661, and im plem entingregu lations at 40 C

. F

. R

. p art 7 1, as wel l as ap pl ic ab le A la sk a co de and r egul at or

y prov isions. See P erm ita t 6 ( ci ti nga ll r el ev ant p ro v is io ns ).

3S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 5 The Perm it authoriz es Shell to constru ct and operate the Kullu k drillingun it and

asso ciated a i r em ission drillingun its in certain lease bl oc ks wi t hi n the B eaufort Sea. Id

. a t1

. T h e R e g i o nan d S h e l l e a ch fi le d a re sp on se to th e pe ti ti ons . Th er ea ft er , b oth R E D O I L P et it io ne rs and I CA S filed

m otions requestin gleav e to file replybriefs. These m otions are currently

pendingbefo re the Board an d are add ressed below in Part V

. T h e B o a r d

d i d n o th o l d o r a l ar g u m e n ti nth i s c a s e . F o r the re as on s di sc us se d be lo w , th e B oard d en ie s re v ie wo f th e P erm it

. I I

. ISSU ES The B oard ha s de te rm in ed th at th e thre e pe ti ti on s fi le d inth is cas e, col le ct ively, pre sen t th e fol lowi ng seven i ssu es f or r eview: A

. H av e P et it ion er s de m on stra te d th at th e R eg io n cl earl y e rr e d i n e s t ab l i s h i n g l i m i t a t i o n s t o r e s t r i c tthe Kulluk dr il li nguni t’ s po tential to em it? B. Hav e RED OIL Pe t i t i on e r s de mons t r a t e d t ha tth e Re gion clearly erred in de clining t o require P SD increm ent consum ption analy ses fo r the K u l l u k ’s pro posed em issions as p art of the Title V perm ittingpro cess? C. Did RE DO I L P etitioners raise b elowtheir contention that S he ll ’s am

bi ent a ir q ua li ty ana ly si s w as f

law ed in that it failed to confo rm

to applicab le A g ency

guidanc e? D. Hav e RED OI L P etitioners dem onstrat e d t hat th e R eg ion c l e a r l yerred in its ambient air exe mption determ ination? E

. H av e P et it io ne rs d em on stra te d th at th e R eg io n fa il ed

to satisfy its o blig ation to co nsider e nvironm ental justice un de r E xe cuti v e Ord er 1 28 98 and

c om pl y w ith ap pl ic ab le B oard

p re ce de nt ?S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 6

T he OC S r egulations dir ec t t he A g enc y

to f ollow the a pplic abl e par

t 124 4 per m it re g ulations in proc es si ng OCS per m its

. 40 C.F.R . § 55.6(a )( 3). A cc ording ly , the par t 124 per m it appe al prov is ion, 40 C. F.R . § 124. 19, a pplie s her e. See In re Shel l G ulf of Mex., Inc. , O CS A

ppea l N os. 11-02 through 11-04 and 11-0 8 , sl ip o p . at 7 (EAB J an. 12, 2012) , 15 E .A .D . ___ [he re ina f te r Shel l D is cov erer

2012 ].
T he par t 71 re g ulatory

la n gu age g ov er

ningT itl e V per

m it appe al s is ne ar ly 5 iden tical to the part 12 4 regulatory language governing rev iew of oth er ty

pes of perm its. Compa re40 C .F.R . § 71. 11(l) (1) wi th 40 C .F.R . § 124. 19; se e als o Pe abody , 12 E.A .D. at 33 n.26. F. Has I CA S d em onstrated that the R eg ion c learly

erred or abuse d its discretion

in prov iding46 day s to com m ent on t he d r a ft perm it and

in deny ingI CA S’s re quest for non- ov erlappin gcom

m ent p eriods? G

. H as I C A S d em on stra te d th at th e R eg io n cl earl y er

re d in its p ub l i c h e a r i n gp r o c e dur e s o r th a tan y

a l l e g ed pro cedura l def

ic ie nci es ot her wis e warra nt r eview? I I I

. STA ND

ARDO F REVIE W Undert he par t 124 pro cedura l re gulat ion s, whic h app ly to OCS perm its, the Board will not ordinarily rev iew a perm it unles s it is based

4 on a clearlyerroneous findingof fact or conc lusion of law , o r inv olv es a m at te r of

poli cy or exer c i s e of di scr et ion that warr ant s re view. 40 C.F .R . § 12 4

. 1 9 ( a ) ; Co ns ol i da t e d P e rmitRe gul a t i on s , 4 5 F e d. Re g. 33 , 29 0, 3 3, 41 2 (May 19 , 19 80 ). The B oard al so ap pl ie s th is st an dard in rev iewingTitle V perm its i s s ue d under part 7 1. See 40 C.F.R. 5 § 7 1.1 1( l )( 1) ; In re Peab od y W . C oal C o. , 1 2 E .A .D . 2 2, 32- 33 (EA B 2005 ). When analy z ingperm its, th e B oard is cogniz ant o f the pr eam bl e to s ec ti on 12 4. 19 , in w hi ch th e A g en cy st at es th at th e B oard ’s pow er of rev iew “shou ld be on ly sparing ly

exe rcised” a nd that “m ost perm it con ditions shoul d be finally determ ined at the [perm it issuer’s] le v el

. ” Co ns ol id at ed

Pe rm itRe g ul at io ns , 45 Fe d. Re g . a t 3 3, 41 2; accor d In re Car

dinal FG C o. , 12 E

. A

. D

. 15 3, 16 0 (EAB 200 5) ; see a lso Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 33 (apply ing these sam e prin ciples in the context of a part 7 1 p erm it app eal).S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 7 The p et it io ne r be ar s th e burd en of de m on stra ti ngthat r ev ie wis wa r r a nted. See 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 ; id

. § 7 1

. 1 1 ( l ) ( 1 )

. T o m e e tthi s burd en , the p et it io ne r m us t s at is fy

thre sh ol d pl ea di ngr eq

ui re m ents includin gtim eliness, stand ing , and issue preserv ation. See 40 C.F. R. § 12 4. 19 ; id

. § 7 1. 11 (l )( 1) ; In re Russ ell City En ergy Ctr. , LLC ( “ R us se ll Cit y II ”), PSD Appeal Nos . 1 0- 01 throug h 1 0- 05, slip op. at 1 2 (EA B Nov . 1 8, 2010 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _ __, appe al do cke te d sub no m. Cha bot-La s P osi t as Cmty. C oll. Dist. v. EP

A , N o. 1 0- 73 87 0 (9 thC ir

. D ec . 2 0, 2 01 0) ; In re BP Che rry P oint , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 20 9, 2 16 ( E A B 2 00 5)

. For exam ple, a pe titioner se e kin g rev iew m ust file an a

ppeal of the pe rmitde c i s i on wi t hi n 30 da ys of s e rvic e of th e de c i s i on , a ndm

us tha ve f i l e d c ommen t s on th e d r a f tp e rmito r

p a rt i c i pa t e d i n t he publ i c he a r i ng. 40 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 (a ); ac co rd Ru ss el l Cit

y II , sl ip op. at 12, 15 E.A.D. at __

. In ad dition, a petiti on e r m ust n ot on ly

spe cify ob j ections to the pe rm it , b ut

a ls o expl ai n w hy

th e pe rm itis su er ’s p re vious r es po ns e to those objections is clearly erron eous or o therw ise w arrants rev iew. See 40 C. F.R

. § 1 24. 13 (requiringthat all perso ns who believ e a cond ition o f a dr af t p erm itis in ap pr op ri at e “m us t r ai se a ll r ea so na

bl y a scert aina

bl e issues an d su

bm ita ll r ea so na

bl y av ai la bl e ar g um ents s up po rt in gth ei r po si ti on by th e cl os e of th e pu bl ic co m m ent period ”) ; id. § 124. 19(a) (statingthat a pe t ition fo r rev iew to the B oard “shall include * * * a de m on stra ti on

th at any is su es be in g ra is ed w er e ra is ed duri ng th e pu bl ic co m m ent p er io d” ); see also In re Aven al P owe r C tr., LLC, P SD Appeal N o s . 1 1

- 0 2 th r o u g h1 1

- 0 5 , s l i p o p . a t4

- 5 ( E A B Au g . 1 8 , 2 0 1 1) , 15 E.A .D . _

__, appe als d

ocketed sub no m. Sierra C

lub v . E PA , N o. 11- 7334 2 (9 th C ir. N ov . 3 , 2 011), El P ueblo Para el Aire y A gua Lim pio v

. EPA , No

. 1 1- 73 35 6 (9 thC ir

. N ov . 4 , 2 01 1) ; BP Che rry P oint , 12 E.A.D. at 21 6- 17

. The pet it io ne r’ s burd en is part ic ul ar ly

heavy in ca se s w he re a pe titioner se ek s rev iew of a n i s sue that is fundam entally techn ical or sc ie nt if ic in nature , as th e B oard

w il l ty pi ca ll y d ef er to ap erm itis su er ’s technica l exp ertise an d experience on such m atters if the p erm it issuer adequ ately

exp lains its rationale and supp orts its reasonin gin the adm inistrativ e reco rd. See , e. g. , In re D om in io n E ne rg y B ra yton P oi nt

, LLC, 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 4 90 , 5 10 (E A B 2 00 6) ; Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 33- 34; In re NE Hub Pa rtners, L. P. , 7 E. A. D. 56 1, 567- 68 (EA B 1998 ), review denied sub no m. Pe nn Fuel Gas , In c. v. EPA , 1 85 F .3d 86 2 (3 rd C ir

.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 8 19 99 ); s e e a l s o I n r e A s h G r o v e C e m e n t C o. , 7 E.A.D. 387, 404 ( EAB 1 99 7)

. When ev aluating a perm it appea l, the Board exam ines the adm inistrat i ve r e cord prepared in supp ort of the p erm it to d eterm ine whe ther t he p erm it issuer exercised his or h er “co nsidered

judg m ent.” Ash Gro ve C

emen t , 7 E

. A

. D. a t 4 17

- 18 ; accor d In re Cap e W

ind Asso cs., LL C , O C S App ea l N o. 11

- 01 , sl ip op . a t 5 ( E A B May 2 0, 2 01 1) , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t_

__ ; In r e G

SX Servs. of S.C

., Inc. , 4 E. A. D. 45 1, 454 (E A B 1 99 2)

. Th e pe rm itis su er m us t art ic ul at e w ith re as on ab le c lari ty the rea sons supp ortingits conclu sion and the significance of the cru cial facts it relied u

pon whe n rea chingi t s c onclusion. E.g

. , I n re S he ll Offsho re , Inc. ( “Sh ell 20 07”), 13 E.A .D . 3 57, 38 6 (E AB 20 07) (citing I n r e Carolina Lig

ht & Po wer Co. , 1 E

. A

. D

. 4 48 , 4 51 ( A ct ’g A dm ’r 1 97 8) ); Ash Gro ve C

emen t , 7 E. A. D. at 4 17 (sam e). A s a who le, the rec ord m

ust d em onstrate that the perm it issuer “duly con sidered the issues raised in the com

m ents and [that] the app roach ultim ately ado pted by the [perm it issuer] is rational in lig ht of all inform ation in the reco rd.” In re Gov ’t of

D. C. Mun. Sep arate Storm Sew er S ys. , 1 0 E .A .D . 3 23, 34 2 (E A B 2 00 5) ; accor

d In re City of Mosco w , 1 0 E .A .D . 135, 142 (E A B 2 00 1) ; NE

H ub , 7 E. A. D. at 5 68. Finally , th e B oard endeav ors to con strue lib e r a lly ob j ections ra is ed b y p arti es unr ep re se nt ed

b y couns el (i. e. , tho se pro ce ed in gpro s e) , so a s to fairly identify the substan ce of the argum ents b eingraised

. In re Sutter Pow er P lant , 8 E

. A

. D

. 6 80 , 6 87 & n . 9 (E A B 1 99 9) ; accor d In re She ll Gulf of M e x
. , Inc . (“Shel l Dis cov ere r 2012 ”), O CS Appeal Nos

. 11

- 02 thro ugh 11

- 04 , & 1 1- 08 , s li p op . a t 1 0- 11 (E A B Jan

. 1 2, 2 01 2) , 15 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ; R us se ll

Cit y II , s li p op . a t 1 5, 1 5 E

. A

. D

. at _

__ . W hi le the B oard does not e xpect such petitions to co ntain soph isticated leg al ar g um ents o r to uti li z e pr ec is e te chni ca l o r le g al te rm s, th e B oard none theless expec ts s u c h

p e t i t i o n s “to articulate som e su pportab le reaso n or r ea so ns a s to w hy

th e pe rm itti ngautho rity e rr ed o r w hy r ev ie wis otherw ise w arranted. ” Sutter , 8 E. A. D. a t 68 7-88 (c i t i ng In re Beckm an Prod . S ervs. , 5 E

. A

. D

. 1 0, 1 9 (E A B 1 99 4) ).S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 9

For a de sc ript ion of

the thr ee pe rmits , se e supr a note 3. 6 I V. SUM

MA RY OF DECISION F or a ll o f th e re as on s st at ed be lo w , th e B oard c on cl ud es th at : (a ) P et i t i o n e r s f

a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t t h e R e g i o n c l e a r l y e rr e d in establishin glim its to restrict the Kullu k’s p o t e n t i a l t o e mi t ; ( b ) RE D O IL P et it io ne rs f

ai le d to d em on stra te th at th e Reg io n cl earl y

e rr ed in decliningto require PSD increm ent c on s um ption analy ses fo r the K ul lu k’ s pr op os ed e m issions as p art of the Title V perm ittingpro cess; (c ) R E D O I L P et it io ne rs f

ai le d to r ai se b el owth ei r co nt enti on th at S he ll ’s am bi ent a ir q ua li ty ana ly si s w as f

law ed in that i t f

ai le d to c on fo rm

to ap pl ic ab le A g enc y gui danc e; ( d) RE D O I L P et it io ne rs f ai le d to dem onstrate that the R eg ion c learly erred in its am

bient air exe m

ption de te rm in at io n; ( e) P et it io ne rs h av e no t d em on stra te d th at the R eg io n’ s env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s an d re la te d co nc lu si on s fa il ed t o sati sf y it s ob li g at io n to c om

pl y with Exec ut iv e O rd er

1 28 98 and

a pp li ca bl e B oard p re ce de nt ; ( f) I C A S fa il ed to d em on stra te th at

th e R eg io n cl earl y erred o r abu sed its discre tion in pro v iding46 day s to com m ent on the draft p erm it and

in deny ingI CA S’s re quest for no n- ov erlappin g co m m e n tp e r i o d s ; an d

( g ) I C A S f

a i l e d t o d e m o n s t r a t e th a tth e R eg ion clearly erred in its public hearingpro c edures or that any alleg ed proced ural d e f i ciencies otherw ise w arrant re v iew. A ccordin g ly , th e B oard d en ie s re v ie wo f th e P erm it

. V. RELEVA NT

PR OC ED UR AL AN D FAC TU

AL HIST OR Y On J uly 22 , 2 011, the Reg ion is sued a dra ft perm it con solidating three p erm its that regulated air po l l ut ion fro m Sh ell’s pro posed exploratory

drillingop erations on OC S lea se b lock s in the Beaufo rt Sea off the North Slope of A lask a, as authoriz ed b y the United

State s B ureau of O cean Energy

Manag em ent, Regulation and En f orcem ent (“ B O E MRE ”). T he Re g io n so li ci te d pu bl ic c om m ent o n th e dr af

t 6 perm it from

July22 , 2 011, throu g h S eptem ber 6, 2 011. SeeState m ent of B as is fo r D ra ft O C S P erm it to C on stru ct an d Titl e V Air Qu al ity Ope ratingPe rm it (“State m ent of Basis”) at 10 (A.R . H- 4). I n ad dition, th e R eg io n he ld

an in fo rm at io na l m ee ti ngand publ ic h eari ngo n th e dr af tS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 10 pe rm ito n A ugus t 2 3, 2 01 1, in B ar ro w , A la sk a, and

as ep ar at e publ ic hearingon Au g ust 2 6, 2011 , in A ncho rag e, Alask a. Id

. at 11. A ll of the petitioners subm itted co m m ents o n the d r aft perm it. See E- m ail from Dan iel Lum

to EPAR eg ion 1 0 (Aug . 1 0, 2011 ) (A .R . I

- 31) [hereinafter Lum C om m ents]; E

- m ail from

A lask a Wildern ess L eague, Aud ubon Alask a, Center for Biolo g ical D iv ersity , D efende rs of Wildlife, E arth just ic e, E y ak

P re se rv at io n C ounc il , G re en pe ac e, N at io na l W il dl if

e Fe de r a t i on , Na tur a l Re s ou r c e s De f e ns e Co un c i l , No rt he rn Al a s ka E nv ir on m en ta l C en te r, O c e a n C o n s e rv an cy , O ce an a, P ac if ic E nv ir onm ent, RE D O I L , S ie rr a C l u b , Th e Wil de rn es s S oc ie ty , and Wo rl d Wildlife Fun d to EPA Reg ion 10 (Sept. 6, 2011 ) (A .R . I

- 53) [hereinafter REDO I L Com

m ents]; L etter from

N orth S lope Boro ug h, AE WC, and I CA S to D ougH ardesty , Air Perm its Proj ect Manag er, EPAReg ion 1 0 (S ep t. 6 , 2 01 1) ( A

. R

. I

- 54 ) [h er ei na ft er I C A S C om

m ents ]; see a lso Lum P et it io n at

1 ( no ti ngth at he al so p ro v id ed c om m ents a t the p ub li c he ar in g ). On Octo ber 21, 2011 , the Reg ion issued the Perm it. See P erm it at 1. A t the sam e tim e, the Reg ion issued a respon se to both the written com m ents it had receiv ed on the d raft permit and

the oral co m

m ents th at had been pre s e nted at the public hearing s. See generally R es po ns e to C om m ent s fo r O C S P erm itto C on stru ct and Tit le V A ir

Q ua li ty O pe ra ti ngP erm itC on ic al D ri ll in gUn itKull uk (“R TC ”) (A

. R

. J- 3) ; see id. at 2 (desc ribingcom

m ents to whic h the d ocum ent res pond ed). The Perm it autho riz es Shell to cond uct air pollutant em ittingactiv ities for the purp os e of

o il e xp lo ra ti on w ith th e co ni ca l d ri ll in guni t Kullu k

on lease blo c ks i n t he Beaufo rt Sea

. The Perm it prov ides fo r the use of an ass o c i a t e d f

l e e t o f s up p o rt v e s s e l s ( “ A s s o c i a t e d F l e e t ” ) , s uch as ic eb re ak er s, o il s pi ll r es po ns e v es se ls ( “O S R Vs” ), and a su pp ly s hi p, in addition to the Kullu k

. The Bo ard rec eiv ed three tim ely petitions for rev iew of the Perm it: o ne fro m

Mr. Lum , o ne fro m

RED OI L P etitioners, on e from I CA S. The R eg ion and Shell each filed a sing le resp onse t o those petitions. I CA S and RE DO I L P etitioners each filed m otions requestin g le av e to fi le re pl y br ie fs an d atta ch ed th ei r pr op os ed r ep ly b ri ef s. S he ll fi le d an o pp ositi on to th e m ot io ns f or le av e to f

il e re pl ie s. B ef

or eS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 11

In A pril2011, t

he Boa rd i ss ued a

standingorder

in w hic h it a dopte d c er

ta in 7 proc edur es int ende d to f

ac ili tate e xpedi tious re sol ution of petit ions re ques tingre v ie w of per m its is sued under

the CA A N SR prog ra

m , i ncl udingO CS per

m its

. See Sta

nding Or der a t 1 n.2; se e als o 40 C. F.R . § 124. 19. A m ong othe r thing s, the Board w ill a pply a pre sum ption ag ai nst

the f ili ng of re ply bri ef s and sur -r epl ie s in NS R appea ls

. See Stand ing Order at 3. How eve r, the Board ma int ai n s d iscretion to m od ify these proc edur es a s appr opria

te on a c as e- spe ci f

ic ba si s. Id. at 6. ad dr es si ngth e is su es r ai sed b y the p et it io ns , th e B oard f ir st c on si de rs whe ther it is app ropriate to grant P etitioners’ m otions. A p et it io ne r se ekin g le av e to fi le ar ep ly b ri ef in an ap pe al o f a newsource rev iew (“NS R”) perm it issued pursuant to the C AA , s uch as the O CS Pe rm it at issu e he re, m ust state “w ith particularity the argum ents to w hich the Petitione r seek s to respon d and the rea sons the P et it io ne r be li ev es it is bo thn ec es sary to f il e a re pl y to th os e ar g um ents * * * an d h ow those reasons ov ercom e the presum ption in the Stan ding Orde r.” Shell 2012 , s lip op . at 15, 15 E. A. D. at _ __ (citingO rder 7 Gov erningPe titions fo r R ev iew of C lean A ir A c t N e w Source R ev iew Perm its 3 ( Ap r . 1 9, 2011 ) (“StandingO rder”), availab le at http://www. epa. g ov/eab (c lick on Stan dingO rders)). Upo n co ns id er at ion o f P et it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns to f il e re pl y b ri ef s and propo sed reply

briefs, the Boar d find s that only tw o se lect issu es wi t hi n R ED OIL Pe t i t i on e r s ’ an d ICAS ’ s re pl y br i e f s m e e tth e hi gh thresho ld req

uired to ov ercom e the presum ption ag ainst rep ly briefs th at the B oard a pp l ies in NS R appea ls. See St a n d i n g Or d e r a t3

. In particular, in its reply

brief, I CA S re spo nd s t o arg um ents c oncern ing I CA S’s c halleng e to the p ublic hearingpro cedure s that the R eg ion a dva nc e s fo r

th e fi r s tti me i n t he re s po ns e br i e f . I CA S c o u l d n ot ha ve respon ded to the se p articular argum ents prior to the R eg ion’s respon se becau se a portion of the Reg ion’s rationale in its respon se brief d oes not ap p e a r i nth e a dmi n i s t r a t i ve r e c o r d

. Ina d d i t i o n , b o t hI C A S an d RE D O IL P et it io ne rs a ss ert that the R eg io n re fe re nc ed f or th e fi rs t t ime i n it s re sp on se ad ec is io n by

th e A dm in is tr at or

a s su pp ort f or th e R eg io n’ s rationale that the A g ency

has previo usly

concluded

that rollingem ission li m it s ac co m

pani ed b y p re sc ri be d em is si on fa ct or s an d ap pr op ri at e m on it or in gand

r ec or dk ee pi ngs uf

fi ci entl y r es tr ic t a so ur ce ’s p ot enti al toS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 12

T he Board n otes that M r . L u m a t t em ptedto file by

em ail a re qu est to f

ile a 8 re ply bri ef and a re ques t f or or al argum ent

. See E- m ai l f rom D ani el Lum

to Euri k a Dur

r, Cl er k of the Boa rd, Env ironm ent al A

ppea ls B o ard, U .S. EPA(N ov . 4, 2011 6:18 pm ED T ). T he Boa

rd de nie s Mr. Lum ’s re ques ts

. e mit

. See Re gio n R e s po ns e at 17 (c i t i ng In re Pop e & Ta lbot , Inc. , Petition No. VI I I

- 2006

- 04 (Adm ’r 200 7) (A .R . B

- 24)). I CA S and RE DO I L P etitioners did n ot hav e an op portun ity

to r e vie w the A dm in is tr at or ’s d ec is io n inth e co nt ex t o f th is a pp ea l o r to anal yz e it s relev ance to the R eg ion’s s t a ted ratio nale until the Reg ion c ited it for su pp ort i n it s re sp on se b ri ef

. Acc or di ng ly , th e B oard g rant s, in

p art, I C A S ’s and

RE D O I L P et it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns f or le av e to f il e a re pl y b ri ef

. Thus the Board, in reaching its conclu sions set forth in this or de r , h as consid ered the p ortions of I CA S’s reply brief and RE DO I L P etitioners’ reply brief tha t a dd ress th e pu blic p rocess for the perm it and the Reg i on ’s inclu sion of the Pop e & Ta lbot dec ision as su

pport for the Reg ion’s PTE de cisions. See I CAS Reply at 3 , 6

- 7; RED OI L P etition at 9- 10. The Board d enies RE DO I L P etitioners’ and I CA S’s m otions for leav e to file a reply

brief with respect to all other issues. 8 The B oard

ana lyzes the p arti es ’ ar g um ents and s et s fo rth it s determ inations below

. VI

. A N A L YSI S A. ICA S a nd RED OIL Pe titioners Hav e N ot D emo nstrated

Thatthe Regio n C learly Erred

in Estab lishing Lim itations t o R estrict the Kullu k D rilling U

nit’s P TE I C A S and

RE D O I L P et it io ne rs b oth ch al le ng e th e R eg io n’ s determ ination of the K

ul lu k’ s po tential to em it (“PTE”) and argue that the R eg ion s hould

requ ire Sh ell t o obtain a p reconstru ction prev ention o f s i g n i f i c a n tde t e r i o r a t i o n(“ P S D ” ) pe rm i t

. Th e y co m p l a i nth a tth e P TE re stri ct io ns S he ll r eq

ue st ed and th e R eg io n in cl ude d in the p erm itto ensure that the Kullu k

rem ains a sy

nthetic m inor s ource for nitro g en

x ox id es ( “N O ”) , carb on

m on ox id e (“ C O ”) , g re enho us e g as es ( “G H G s” ),S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 13

W hi l e I C A S c ha l l e ng e s the R e g i on ’ s PT E l i m i t at i on s f or a l l of thes e 9 po llut ants, REDOIL P etition ers only challenge the Region’s P TE lim itation s w ith respect

x to N O and CO

. See IC A S Peti tion at 10-28; RE DO ILPeti tion at 9-14. Section 3 28 def

ines an OCS source as f

ollo w s: 10 The term s “O uter Con t i n en tal Shelf s ou rce” and “OCS source” inc lude any

e quipm ent , a ct iv ity , or

f ac ili ty w hic h -- (i) e m its or has the pote ntia l t o e m it any a ir pollut ant , (ii ) i s re g ulate d or aut

horiz ed under

the O ute r C ontinental She lf (c ontinue d...) 2 and sulfur dioxid e (“SO ”) are practically unen forceable

. The R eg ion 9 co unte rs th at

th e re stri ct io ns it im

po se d inthe p erm itth at

r ed uc e S he ll ’s em is si on s be lo wth e P S D thre sh ol d le v el s fo r al l c ri te ri a po ll ut ants are practically

enfo rceable and constitute fundam entally techn ical de cisions th at are c on si st ent w ith C A A s ta tuto ry an d re g ul at or y autho ri ty a s w el l as Ag enc y

gui danc e an d pa st

p ra ct ic e. Th is P TE qu es ti on is c entr al to th e B oard ’s ana ly si s be caus e th e R eg io n us es th e po te nt ia l t o em itto determ ine which prov isions of the C AA , in cludi ng bo t h the Title V perm it requ irem ents and the PSD preconstructio n p erm it requ irem ents, apply to the Kullu k

. Th e qu estio n th e B oard m us t r es ol v e, th en , is whe ther th e restriction s the Reg ion in cluded in the p erm it to lim it the K ul lu k’ s PTE are b oth p ractically enfo rceable and reasona

ble in lig ht of the ap plicable statutory

and regulatory

author i t i e s as well as A g ency g ui danc e an d pr ac ti ce , and w he th er t he Reg io n pr ov id ed

a de qu at e supp ort for its dec isions in the adm inistrativ e reco rd. Befo re ad dressingthe parties’ arg um ents, a b r i e f r ev iew of the relev ant statutory

and regulatory

auth orities is warranted. 1. Statutor

y an d R egulato ry C

ontext

a. CA A S ection 328 & O CS Air R egulatio ns Section 32 8 o f the CA A, 42 U.S. C. § 7627 , e stablishes air p ollution controls for O CS sources and requ ires O CS sou

rces to “attain and 10S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 14

(.. .c ontinue d)

10 L ands A ct

[43 U. S.C . § 1331 et

s eq. ], and (ii i) is locate d on the Out er Cont ine nta l She lf

or in or on w at er s ab o ve th e Ou te r Co n ti n en ta l S h el f. Suc h ac tiv iti es inc lude , but ar e not limite d to, platf orm and dril l s hip ex plora tion, c onst

ruc tion, de v el opm ent , pr oduct ion, p roc es si ng , a nd tra nspor tation. For

purpos es of

thi s subs ec tion, emis si ons f rom any v es se l s er

v ic ingor as soc iate d w ith an O CS sour ce , i ncl uding e m i s s i on s w

hi l e at the O C S s our c e or e n r ou t e t o or f r om the OCS sour ce w ithi n 25 m iles of the OCS sour ce, shall be consid ered direct em ission s f

rom the OCS source. CA A § 328( a) (4) (C ), 42 U .S.C . § 7627( a) (4) (c ). Se ct ion 55. 13 s tate s, am ong othe r t hing s, that t

he PSD progra

m a pplie s to 11 OCS sources located w ithi n 25 m iles o f a state’s seaw ard bo un dary w henever the OCS sour ce requi res c on structio n of a new m ajor station ary

source or a m od i fi ca t i o n a t an

(c ontinue d...) m ai nt ai n F ed er al and

S ta te am bi ent ai r qu al ity st an dard s” an d to c om pl y with the P SD pro v isions contain ed in C AATitle I , p art C

. EPA pro m ulgat ed th e Oute r Cont ine nta l She lf Air Regula t i o n s, 40 C.F.R. part 5 5, t o im

plem ent C AAsectio n 3 28 and establishe d w ithin p art 55 “the a ir p oll ution control requirem ents fo r O CS sources an d the pro c e dur e s f

o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o nan d

e n f o r c e m e n to f

th e r e qu i r e m e n t s .” 40 C. F.R . § 55 .1. Section 32 8(a)(1), 42 U .S. C. § 7627 (a) ( 1) , a l so req uires th at, fo r OC S s ources located

w ithin 2 5 m iles of a state’s seaw ard b ound ary , th e requirem ents s hall be the sam e as wou ld apply if th e so urce were located in the c or r e spon dingon shore area (“C OA ”), includin g , b ut no t lim ited to, state an d loc al requ irem ents fo r em ission controls, em i s s ion lim itations, offsets, perm itt i n g , m o n i toring , tes ting , and reporting

. As the Board h as explained

before, “OC S sources m

ust obtain a

prec onstruc tion perm it from either E PAor an E PA

- deleg ated a g ency if th e O CS source is lo cate d w ithi n tw enty

- fi v e m il es o f a st at e’ s se aw ar d b ound ar y and is sub j ect to ei the r fe de r al or st at e re qui re m ent s li st ed in 40 C.F.R. §§ 55 .1 3 or 55.14 .” Shell 2007 , 13 E.A.D. at 36 5 (ci ti ng 40 C.F.R. 11S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 15

(.. .c ontinue d) 11 ex is tingm aj or s ourc e and the CO A is cl as si f ie d under the PSD pr og ra m a s in atta inm ent or un classif

iable. 40 C. F

. R

. § 5 5

. 1 3(d )(1) (“40 C.F.R. [ §] 52. 21 shall apply to OCS sour ce s [l]ocate d w ithi n 25 mile s of a s tate ’s s ea

w ar d boundary

if t h e req u ire m ent s of 40 C. F.R . [§] 52.21 are in ef f ec t i n the CO A .” ); see also Shel l 2007 , 13 E .A .D . at 364. Se c t i on55 .1 4 i nc or

po r at e s by

r e f e r e nc e r e g ul at or

y r e qu i r e m e nt s thatstates w hich bord er the OCS in the P acif ic, Atlantic, and A

rctic Oc eans and the Gulf of Mexic o hav e prom

ulgated t o m ee t t

he nat iona l a

m bie nt a ir qual ity

s ta ndar ds (“NA

A QS ”)

. 40 C. F.R . § 55. 14(d) ; C AA § 328( a) (1) , 42 U .S.C

. § 7627(a )( 1) (de f iningthe g eogra

phic sc ope of EPA a uthori ty to re g ulate ai r pollut ion f rom O CS sour ce s) . T hes e st at e re g ulations are k

now n a s st at e im

ple m ent at ion pl ans (“ SIPs” ) a nd are create d purs uant to C AA § 110, 42 U .S.C . § 7410. §§ 55. 6(b)(1), 55. 11 and CA A § 3 28(a)(3), 42 U .S. C. § 7627 (a)(3)). The Ag ency has retained the authority to im plem ent an d en force s ection 328 in t he O CS off the co ast of Alask a as oppo sed to de leg atingthat authority to the state. Acco rding ly , as m entione d ab ov e, Shell subm itted its perm it app lications to the Reg ion, and the p rocedural rules contain ed at 40 C .F. R. part 124 apply

. 40 C. F.R . § 55 .6(a)(3 ). B ec au se r eq

ui re m ents f

or th es e O C S s ourc es are bas ed o n on sh or e requirem ents, whic h m ay chang e, s e c tion 3 28(a)(1) and the cor re spo ndi ng re gulat ion s in part 55 req uir e EPA to upd at e the OCS re qu ir em ents a s ne ces sary to m ai nt ai n co ns is te nc y w ith on sh or e requirem ents. See CAA § 328( a) (1) , 4 2 U.S.C. § 7627 (a )( 1); 40 C.F.R. §§ 5 5. 6( b) (2 ), 5 5. 12 ; see a lso Shell 2007 , 1 3 E. A

. D

. a t3 6 4 & n . 6

. In respon se to Shell’s Dece m ber 1 0, 2010 , notice of inte nt su bm itted to the Ag ency pursuant to 40 C .F. R. § 55. 4, the A g ency first propo sed in the Fede ral R eg ister a consi s t e ncy up date o n F ebruary

10 , 2 011, and

later pu bl is he d th e fi na l co ns is te nc y up date on Jun e 27 , 2 01 1, s ub se qu ent t o a pu blic n otice and com

m ent p e r i od. See O ut er

C onti ne nt al S he lf

A ir Regulations Con sistency Update for A lask a, 76 Fed. R eg . 3 7,2 74 (J une 27, 2011 ) (codified at 40 C. F.R . § 55 .14 (e) & app x. A); Statem ent of B asis at 17. This m ost rec ent co nsistency up date in corpo rated, excep t whe re spe cifically

no ted, Alask a A dm inistrativ e C ode tit l e 18 , articles 1 t hr ou gh 5 an d a rt i c l e 9, in t o p a rt55 . 76 Fe d. Re g. at 37 ,27 9- 80; S t a t e m e n t o f B a s i s a t 1 7

. I n p a rt i c u l a r , a rt i c l e s 3 a n d 5 e s tablish theS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 16

T he NA

A QS are m ax im

um am bie nt air conc ent rations for

spec if ic poll uta nts 12 th at E PA h a s d e t e rm i n e d ar e n e c e s s ary t o p r o t e c t p ub l i c h e a l th an d w e l f ar e. SeeCAA §§ 108(a )( 1)( A ), 109, 42 U .S.C . §§ 7408( a) (1) (A ), 7409; 40 C.F .R. § 50.4- .12.

EPA re g ulations def

ine a m aj or st at iona

ry sour ce as any o f certa in 13 specif ically listed station ary

so urces th at em it or have a pot ential to em it 10 0 to ns per y ear (“ tpy ”) or m ore of

an y r egu la ted N SR pollut ant , see40 C .F.R . § 52. 21(b) (50) , or any o th er st at io n ary sou rce th atem it s, orha s th e p o te n ti al to em it , 2 5 0 tp y orm o re o f a re g ulate d N SR pollut ant . 40 C.F .R. § 52.21( b)( 1)( i)( a) -( b); a c c o rd CAA § 169(1) , 42 U .S.C . § 7479( 1) ( def ininga “ m aj or e m itt ingf

ac ili ty ” in t

he sa m e w ay ). A l a s k a r e g u l a t ions , w hic h inc orpor at e la

rg e par ts of the f ede ra l PSD re g ulations into tit le 18 o f t h e Al as k a A dm inis tra tiv e Code , pr ov ide that a ne w PSD pe rmit is re quire d prior to ac tua l cons truc tion of a new m aj or st at iona ry sour ce . A laska Admin. Code t it. 18, § 50.040 ( adopt ingf ede ra l s ta ndar ds by re f er enc e) ; id. § § 5 0

. 3 02(a )( 1), 50.306. The A la sk a re g ulations a ls o de f ine a m aj or s tationa

ry s ourc e as any

of c er ta in spe ci f ic al ly li st ed st at iona

ry sourc es that emit or hav e a potenti al to emit 100 tpy

or m ore (c ontinue d...) m inor s ource and m aj or source perm ittingrequirem ents with whic h the Kullu k m ust co m ply

. See Shell 2007 , 1 3 E .A .D . at 364 & n. 6. I n ad dition, bec ause the p erm it autho riz es the Kullu k to operate on a gro up of lease block s located both w ithin 2 5 m iles an d b ey ond 25 m iles of the state’s seaw ard b ound ary , th e pe rm it conditions that refer to leas e bl oc k s w ho ll y

o r part ia ll y

lo cate d be y on d 25 m il es o f th e se aw ar d bo un dary are d es ig nate d as “ oute r OC S , ” an d co nd it io ns th at r ef er to le as e bl oc k s w ho ll y

o r part ia ll y

loc at ed wi th in25 m il es of th e se aw ar d boun dary are desig nated as “C OA .” Pe rm it at 9 (no tingthat cond itions id enti fi ed w ith “C O A ” ar e th os e th at a pp ly o n th e “i nn er

O C S , ” w ithi n 25 m iles of the state’s seaward bo undary , a nd that all othe r con ditions no t i de nt if

ie d as “ C O A ” or

“ out er O C S ” ap pl y

to le as e bl oc k s on

b oth th e inne r an d oute r O C S ); see a lso State m ent o f B asis at 7.

b. The PSDProgra m & PT E The P S D p ro g ram

is a pr ec on stru ct io n N S R pro g ram that ap pl ie s to ar ea s designat ed a s ei th er in a tt ai nm ent w ith th e nati on al am bi ent a ir quality stand ards (“ NA AQ S”) or unclass ifiable and req uires n ew m aj or 12 stationarys ources to lim it their im pact o n am

bient air qu ality

by 13S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 17

(.. .c ontinue d) 13 of any re g ulate d N SR pollut ant , or any othe r s tationa

ry s ourc e that e m its , or

ha s the p o te n ti al t o e m it, 250 t

py or m ore of

a re g ulate d N SR pollut ant

. Id. § 5 0

. 9 9 0 ( 52) (inco rpo rating by ref

erence definition of m ajor station ary sour ce f r o m 4 0 C. F.R. § 51.166( b)( 1)) ; acc ord A la sk a Stat. § 46.14.990 (s am e)

.

The OCS re g ulations de f

ine the te rm

“ pote ntia l e m is si ons” a lm ost ide ntic al ly 14 to th e P TE definition in part 52 , w ith th e e xce ptio n of f irst sentence, w

hich instead states that “[ p] oten tial emission s m eans the m axim um e mis si o n s of a

pol lutan t f

rom an OCS sour ce .” 40 C .F.R . § 55. 2. obtainin ga PSD perm it befo re co nstruction beg ins. C AA§§ 16 0-16 9, 42 U. S.C . § § 7 470- 7479 ; 40 C. F.R . § 52 .21 (a)(2). A source’s PTE relates to its inherent ability to em it air p ollutants. Shell 2007 , 1 3 E

. A

. D

. a t 3 65 ; Peab ody , 1 2 E.A .D . at 30. Under the P SD pr ogram , ap erm it ti ngautho ri ty m us t d et erm in e a so ur ce ’s P TE to identify w hich sources are “m aj or so urces” subject to regulation unde r the ap plicable PSD requ irem ents, m ak ingPT E a techn ical de term ination that “is j urisdiction al in nature. ” A la

. Po w er Co

. v. C os tl e , 6 36 F.3 d 3 23, 352 (D. C. C ir. 1 979), quoted in Peab ody , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 3 0; see a lso CAA § 1 65(a), 42 U .S. C. § 7475 (a) (requ iringa PSD perm it for any “m aj or em it ti ngf ac il ity ”) ; Shell 2012 , s lip op . at 62 n.5 8, 15 E.A .D . at ___

. The regulations that im

plem ent th e P SD pro g ram defin e P TE as: [T] he m ax im

um c ap ac ity o f a st atio nary

s ourc e to e m ita pollutant und er its p hy sical an d o peration al desi g n. A ny phy sical o r op erational lim itation o n the cap acity of the so urce to em it a p ollutant , i nc ludingair p ollution control equipm ent and restrictions on hours of operatio n or o n the ty pe o r am ount of m aterial com

busted , stored, or processed , shall be t reated as part o f its d esig n if the lim itation or the effect it wou ld hav e on em issions is fede rally

enfo rceable. 40 C.F. R. § 52. 21(b)(4 ). In sum , P TE reflects a so urce’s m axim um 14 em issions capacity

consideringthe applicatio n of any em ission control equipm ent, or o ther ca

pacity

- lim itingrestriction s, that effectiv ely and enforcea bly lim it em issions capacity

. S h e l l 20 07 , 13 E.A .D . at 366 ;S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 18

EP A

guidance def

ines the term

“sy nth etic mino r” as “a ir po llut ion sources 15 w ho se m axim

um ca pacity to em it air poll utio n un der their ph y sical a ndoper ation al design is l ar ge e no ugh to ex cee d th e m ajor sou rce threshold but [i s] lim ited by an enf orc ea ble e m issi ons re st

ric tion that pr ev ent s this phy si ca l pot ent ia l f rom be ing re a l i z e d .” Memor an du m from Jo h n Sei tz , D ir ., Off ic e o f A irQu al it y

P la n n in g & Sta ndar ds, U .S. EPA , & Er ic Sc hae f f er, Di r. , Of

f ic e of Re g ulatory

Enf orc em ent , U .S. EPA , Poten tial

to Emit Transitio n Policy for Pa rt 71 Imp lementati on in Ind ian Coun try 2 n.2 ( Mar. 7, 1999) , quote d in Shel l D is cov erer 2012 , slip o p. at 6 3 n . 5 9 , 1 5 E.A .D. at ___, and Pe abody , 12 E .A .D . at 31 n.21. (c ontinue d...) Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . a t31 (c i t i ng Pa rt71 R u l e maki ng, 61 Fe d. Re g. 34, 202, 34 ,21 2 (July

1, 19 96)). Alask a regulations require that, unde r certain circum stances, a st at io nary sourc e w ith a P TE o f le ss th an 2 50 to ns p er

y ear (“ tp y ”) o bt ai n a m inor s ource perm it. Al a s ka Ad min . C ode tit. 18 , § 50 .50 2. Spec ifically

in term s of the K

ul lu k’ s op erations, A lask a regula t i ons require a m inor s ource perm it p r i or t o the con struction of a new

x st at ion ary sou rc e wit h the pot ent ia l to emit m ore tha n for ty tpy of NO

. Id. § 50. 502(c )(1)(B). Thus, as the Board noted in Shell 2007 , under the Alask a P SD prog ram , a newstation ary source that has a P TE betw een 40

x an d 250 tp y

o f N O m

us t o bt ai n a m in or

s ourc e pe rm itb ef

or e com m encingcon struc tion, and a station ary source w ith a PTE greater

x tha n 250 tp y of NO m

ust obta in a maj or so u r c e p e r mi t

. 13 E.A.D. at 36 6. A source that w ould otherw ise ex ceed the ap plicable PSD m aj or so ur ce thre sh ol d of

2 50 tp y o f any r eg ul at ed

N S R p ol lutant m ay , a s in this ins tance, seek to av oid regulation as a m aj or so urce unde r the PSD pr ogram b y r eq ue st in gth at

th e pe rm it ti ngautho ri ty

im po se e nf or ce ab le perm it restrictions on the so urce’s PTE. Sh el l 20 07, 13 E. A. D. at 3 66, ci te d in R TC a t 2 0; see a lso Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 26 & n. 11, 31

. A Titl e V p erm itm ay

func ti on a s a v eh ic le f

or ap erm it ti ngautho ri ty

to es ta bl is h en fo rc ea

bl e pe rm itli m it s th at

r es tr ic t th e so ur ce ’s p ot enti al to em ita ir p ol lutant s to al ev el b el owth e P S D m ajor s ourc e thre sh ol d, in this ins tance 250 tpy , a llowin gthe source to qu alify instea d as a “synthetic m inor” source. Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 31 & n.2 1. 15S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 19

(.. .c ontinue d) 15 A la sk a re g ulations re f

er to s uch a limita

tion as an ow

ner re ques te d li m it (“ ORL ”) , w

hic h c an be use d to “a

v oid one or m ore pe rmit cl as si f ic at ions * * * at a st at iona ry s ourc e that w ill s til l be s ubje ct to at lea st one pe rmit cl as si f

ic at ion; a limita

tion appr ov ed under

an O RLis an e nf orc ea ble li m it at ion f

or t he purpos e of det er m ining * * * a st at iona

ry sour ce ’s pote ntia l to emit. ” A la sk a A dm in. Code ti t. 18, § 50.508( 5).

T he perm it states that th e Kul luk w ill b e an O CS s ourc e at any ti m e it is 16 atta che d to the s ea

bed at a dri ll si te by

at l ea st one anchor . Per

m it at 8; State m ent

of Ba si s at 17, 19- 20 (A .R. H -4)

. I f a so ur ce a cc ep ts li m it at io ns th at r es tr ic t i ts p ot enti al to em ita ir pollutan t s t o a l e v e l b e l o w t h e P S D t h r e s h o l d , t h a t s o ur c e w i l l b e a sy nthe ti c m in or

s ourc e fo r purp os es o f th e PSD p rog ram and w il l th er ef or e no t b e su

bjec t to P S D pe rm it ti ng re qu ir em ents “ un le ss f ut ur e facility m odification s incre ase e m is sion capacity eno ug h to exceed

the PSD m aj or so urce thresho ld.” Id. a t 3 1- 32

. As th e B oard n ot ed in Peab ody , i no r d e r

f o r ac ap a c i t y

r e s t r i c t ion t o b e c o g n i z ab l e a s aP TE lim it, it m

ust b e pra ctically

enfo rceable, w hich Ag ency guidanc e ha s in te rp re te d to m ean th at : [T] he p erm it ’s p ro v isio ns m us t s pe ci fy : ( 1) ate chni ca ll y accurate lim itation and the p ortions of the source su bject to the l i mit a t i on ; ( 2) t he t i me p e r i odf ort he l i mit a t i on ( ho ur l y, da i l y, m onthly , and annu al lim its such as rolling annu al lim its); and (3 ) th e m etho d to det erm in e co m pl ianc e in cl ud in ga

pp ro pr ia te moni t or i ng, re c or dke e pi ng, an d r e po rt i ng. 12 E.A .D . at 32 (quotin gMem orand um from John S eitz , Dir. , Office of Ai r Q uality

Planning& Stan dards, U .S. EP A, to EPAR eg ’l A ir D i v. Dirs. , Optio ns fo r L imiting the P otential to E mit ( PTE) of a Sta tionary Source Und

er Section 112 and Title V of the C lean Air A ct

5- 6 (J an. 25, 19 95 ) [h er ei na ft er Optio ns fo r L imiting PTE] (A .R . B

- 9)). I n this instan ce, the p re- perm it PTE fo r units located on the Kullu k , and on the A ssociated

Flee t w hen operatin gw ithin 2 5 m iles of the Kullu k while it is an O CS source, exc eeded app licable P SD thresh olds 16S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 20

T he pri mar y e m ission sources on th e Kul luk and the A ss oci at ed Fle et are 17 inte rna l c om

bust ion e ng ine s that c onsum e diesel fu el. State m ent of Ba si s at 9, 12- 14. Incin erators, heaters, boilers, and seldom used sou rces on the Kul luk an d the A ssociated Fle et a ls o e m it pollut ion but

to a f ar le ss er e x te nt. Id. ICA S asse rts th at the Reg ion shou ld in clud e a 5-10 % buff

er zone betw een 18 the P SD thresho ld em ission s lev el of 250 tpy and th e Kul luk ’s restricted P TE, and th at

x th e N O e mi s si o n li m itof 2 4 0 tp y do es n o t p ro vid e th is . IC AS P et it io n at 1 5 (ci ti n g a com m ent le tte r f rom Re g ion 9 to t

he Ne v ada

D iv is ion of

Env ironm ent al Prote ct ion i n w hic h Re g ion 9 “e ncour ag e[d] a 5-10% buf f er bet w ee n the pe rmitt ed emis si on li m its and the f ede ra l t hre shol d” f

or a pe rmit that e st abl is hed a CO s y nthe tic m inor limit of

249 t py).

x How ev er , the 240 tpy

em is si on lim it f

or NO conta ine d in the curr ent Permit re pre se nts a 4% buf f er be tw ee n the s y

nthe tic m inor limit and the P SD thre shol d em is si on lev el of 250 tpy , w

hic h is te n ti m es la

rg er tha n the 0.4% buf

f er betw ee n a 249 tpy

em is si on li m it and the PSD t

hre shol d of

250 t py conta ine d in the N ev ada

pe rmit. T he Boa

rd a g re es w ith (c ontinue d...) x 2 for N O , C O, SO , and GH Gs. S tatem ent o f B asis at 24- 25 & tbl. 2- 1. 17 To av oid e xceed ingthe PSD m aj or so ur c e thres holds, Sh ell requ ested that the R eg ion in clude in the perm it practicallyenfo rceable restrictions that will redu ce the K

ul lu k’ s PTE belowPS D thresho ld lev els for each of the fo ur p ollutants. See L ette r fr om S us an C hi ld s, A la sk a Venture Sup port Integ rator Manag er, Shell Offsho re I nc., to Dou gH ardesty , E PA Regi on 1 0, attach. 2 (Apr. 29 , 2 011) (describin gSh ell’s pro posed restrictions and howthey

w ould affect em issions) (A. R. E- 17). The final perm it autho riz ingthe Kullu k to operate with in the Be aufort Sea contain s s ou r c e - wi de emi s s i on li mit s , o pe r a t i on a l re s t r i c t i on s , a ndm on i t or i ng, recordk eepingand

reportingrequ irem ents intended to ensure that the Kullu k can op erate as a synthetic m inor source. Perm it Co nditions D .1- D. 4. With th is f

ram ew or k in m ind , th e B oard

n owturn s it s atte nt io n to Petitione rs’ argum ents p resented in these appea ls. 2. The Regio n D id N

ot Cl early Err in E

stablishing S

ource -W ide

x Emis si on Limi ts to Res tr ic t PTE fo r NO and CO The Perm it restricts e m issions from the Kullu k

and the Asso ciated

x Fle etto no m ore than 240 tpy of NO and no m ore tha n 200 tpy of CO. 18S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 21

(.. .c ontinue d) 18 the Region that Co ng r es s es t ablished specif ic threshol ds to d etermine when a source w ould be cons ide re d m aj or f or pur pose s of PSD r ev ie w . See RTC at 30

. T he bu f f er that IC A S r eque st s is ne ithe r a le g al re quire m ent

nor an es ta

blis hed A g enc y polic y , and thus the Re g ion a

ppropr iate ly

de cl ine d IC A S’s re ques t. See infra Part

VI.A .2.b. 19 P erm itC on di ti on s D

. 4. 1, D

. 4. 2. F or bo thpo ll ut ants , the PTE li m it s ar e determ ined on a rolling 365- day bas is by calcu latingem issions for eac h day and addingthe em issions calculated for the p rev ious 364 day s. Id.

x For both NO and CO , daily em issions from each em ission unit o r g roup of e m is si on un it s “s ha ll b e de te rm in ed b y m ul ti pl y in gth e ap pr op ri at e em is si on f ac to r (l b/ un it ) sp ec if

ie d in Tab le s D

. 2. 1 – D

. 2. 2 (unt il a te st

de ri v ed e m is si on

f ac to r ha s be en

d et erm in ed

a cc or di ngto P erm it Con dition E.2 ) bythe recorded daily op eration rate (un its/day ) and d i v i d i n g b y 2 0 0 0 l b / t o n.” I d. The Reg ion further explained that

x “[c]om pliance with the em issions lim its for NO and C O is dete rm ined by apply ing the relev ant em ission factor to the am ount of fuel co m busted b y e ache m i s s i o nun i t( o r

h o ur s o f o p e r a t i o nf

o r i n c i n e r a t o r s )

. ” R TC at 29

. The Perm it also include s c on ditions that req uire so urce- wide recordk eepingand

m onitoringto ensure that S hell co m plies wi t h the source- wide lim its. Perm it at 5 6-61 (includin gop erations and fuel m on it o r i n gi nP e rm i tC o n d i t i o nF

. 2 a s w e l l a s s e l e c t i v e c a t a l yt ic reductio n (“S CR ”) an d o xidation cataly st (“OxyC at”) co ntrol d ev ice m onitoringin Perm it Co nditions F. 3 - F. 4). RE DO I L P etitioners and I CA S m ak e sev eral ch alleng es to the

x Reg ion’s dec i s ion to restrict the K ul lu k’ s PTE for N O and

C O using so ur ce - w id e emis si on

li m it s. B oth pe ti ti on er s as se rtthat th e R eg io n’ s

x de ci si on to li m itC O and

N O em is si on s us in gs ourc e- w id e li m it s in ef fe ct app li es blank et

em is si on lim it s, wh ic h A g en cy

gui danc e expr es sl y prohib its bec ause they

are practically

un enforcea

ble, and that the lim ited ex ce pt io n inth e A g en cy

gui danc e th at

a ll ow s fo r so ur ce - w id e li m it s is inapplica ble to the K

ul lu k’ s op erations. RED OI L P etition at 10- 11; I CA S P etition at 11. B oth p etitioners also object to the R eg ion’s use of ge n e r i c e mi s s i o nf

a c t o r s t o c a l c u l a t e s o ur c e -wi d e e mi s s i o nl i mi t s . In

19 pa rt i c ul a r , b ot h p e t i t i on e r s as s e rtth a t(1 ) t h e R e gi on sh ou l d h a veS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 22

T he Re g ion i ssue d Shell tw o O CS PSD pe rmits to conduc t e xplora tory 20 dril ling ac tiv iti es in the Chuk chi and Be auf ort Se as uti liz ingthe dri lls hip Discovere r that w er e tw ic e appe al ed to t

he Boa rd, f irs t i n 2010, and the n ag ai n in 2011 subse quent to a Boa rd re m and of

the per m its to the Reg ion. See Shel l D is cov erer 2012 , s lip op. at 5- 6, 1 1 -1 4 , 1 5 E. A.D. at _

_ _ (d es c r i b i n g hi st o ry of Discovere r pe rmit proc ee ding s) . I n preparin g the permit appl ication s fo r the Discovere r ’s operation s, Shell con du cted sour ce-spec ific emission tests f or vario u s emiss ion uni ts on th e Discovere r and an as soc iate d f

le et of s upport shi ps, inc ludingic ebr ea k er s, s upply

s hips, an d oil s pill re spons e v es se ls

. See

id. , s lip op. at 5, 15 E. A .D . at ___ (de sc ribi ng a ss oci at ed f le et ). develo ped sou rc e- spe ci fi c emissi on fa ct ors for al l units of th e OCS source ; ( 2 ) th e A P

- 4 2 e m i s s i o nf a c t o r s a p p l i e d t o th e e m e r g e n cy g enerator, the OS RVs, and heaters and bo ilers lead to inaccurate and unde restim ated e m issions for tho se so urces, and ; (3) the R eg ion d id no t re qu ir e S he ll to c on du ct eno ugh st ac k

- te st s to a cc ur at el y c al cu la te s o ur c e -s p e c i f

i c e mi s s i o n f

a c t o r s . I C A S Pe t i t i o na t1 5 -20 ; RE D O IL Petition at 11

- 14. The R eg io n re sp on ds th at A g en cy gui dance d oc um ents g en er al ly “illustrate th at the Clean

A ir Act and

the im plem entingregulations allow for a flexible, case - by

- case ev aluation of ap propriate met hods for ensurin gprac tical enfo rceability of PTE lim its.” R eg ion R espon se at 14- 15 (q uo t i ng In r e Oran ge R ec yc li ng a nd E th an ol Pro d. F ac il it y , P et

. No . II

- 20 01

- 05 , a t5 ( Ad m’rA pr . 8 , 2 00 2) (A .R . B-17 ) ) . Sp e c i f i c a l l y,

x th e R eg io n as se rt s th at so ur ce - w id e em is si on li m it s fo r N O and

C O are indeed p r a c t i c a l l y

e n f o r c e ab l e an d

ar e m o s ta

p p r o p r i a t e g i v e nthe uncertainty of a num

ber of factors that otherw ise preclud e the Re g ion from establishin g PTE restrictions based on operatio nal lim its. Id . at 18; RTC at 26

- 27, 29

- 30. In ad dition, the Reg ion a sserts th at the em ission

x fa ct or s us ed to ca lc ul at e N O an d C O em is si on s pr ov ide reliab le em ission calculations. R eg ion R espon se at 19- 23. In p articular, the R eg io n as se rt s th at

it m ad e an a pp ro pr ia te te chni cal det erm in at io n to apply A P- 42 em ission factors or e mis s ion fa ctors d eriv ed fro m Disco verer d at a ra th er

th an s ourc e- sp ec if

ic e m is si on fa ct or s fo r ce rt ai n 20 em ission units. Id

. The Reg i on adds that the perm it con ditions that ap pl y to s ourc e- sp ec if

ic e m is si on

f ac to rs r eq

ui re s ourc e- te st s th at

are in ad eq uate in f re qu en cy and unr ep re se nt at iv e of

th e v ar ia ti on

in S he ll ’sS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 23

A ppendi x C of

the N SR Manual is ba se d la rg el y on the 1989 G

uida nce on 21 L im iti ng PTE

. NSR M

anual at C. 1 n.1. pro p o s e d o p e r a t i o n s t o a l l o wth e R e g i o nt o d e r i v e a c c ur a t e e m ission factors. Id.

a. B la nk et E m is si on L im it

s & Pra ct ic al

E nf orce ab il it y I CA S and RE DO I L Pe t i t ioners correctly assert that the use of blank et em ission lim its a lone, essentially statem ents th at actu al em is si on s of

ap ol lutant

wi ll no t ex ce ed

a p arti cu lar qu anti ty , is g en er al ly pr oh i bi t e d to restrict P TE becau se su ch lim its are not e nforceab le as a practical m atter. See United States v. La. -Pac. C orp. , 6 82 F. Sup p. 1122 , 1133 (D. Colo. 1987) (“[C]om pliance with blank et restrictions on actua l em issions wo uld be virtu ally im possib le to v erify

or enforce. ”), quoted in RED OI L P etition at 11; see also Of f i c e of Ai r Qua l i t y Pl a nn i ng & Stand ards, U. S. EPA , New So urce Revi e w Workshop Manu al at C .4 (dra ft O ct

. 1 99 0) [ he re in af te r NSR Manu al ] (“ B lank et e m is si on s li m it s alone (e.g ., tons/[y ear], l b/ [hour]) are v irtually im possib le to v erify

or enforce, and

are therefore not e nforceab le as a pra ctical m atter.”), quoted in I CA S P etition at 13; Mem orand um from Terrell Hunt , A ssoc. Enfo rcem ent C ouns el, U .S. EPA, & J ohn Seitz , Dir., Statio nary So urce Com pli anc e Div., U.S. EPA, Gu id an ce on L im it in g P oten ti al to E m it in New So urce Perm itting 7 (June 13 , 1 98 9) ( A

. R

. B

- 4) [ he re in af te r 1989 G u i d ance on Lim iting P TE ]

. How e ver , t he pe t i t i on e r s ’ ch a r a cteriz ation 21

x of the source- wide em ission lim i t s f or N O and

C O contain ed in

the P e rmi ta s b l a n ke t e mi s s i o nl i mi t s mus tf a i l

. I C A S an d

RE D O IL Petitione rs do no t ack

now l e d g e t

h e R e g ion’s explan ation in the R espon se to C omm ent s fo r w hy

it c ho se to a

pp ly s ourc e- w id e em is si on

li m it s in th e P erm it , n or

do the y e st ab li shth at

th e R eg io n’ s fund am enta ll y technica l determ inations contrav ene Ag ency guidanc e. The R eg io n m ad e cl ear inth e R es po ns e to Com m ents th at it s decision to em ploy source- wide em ission lim its calcu lated a s rolling

x 365- day lim its to restrict N O and C O was ba sed in larg e part on the substantial and

un predictab le v ariations in em issions bas e d on the aty pical n ature o f Sh ell’s op eration s. R TC at 2 6- 27; R eg ion R espon seS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 24

T he 19 89 G

uid ance on Limitin g PTE rec omm ends t h at t he tim e lim it over 22 w hic h produc tion or ope rationa l l im its e x te n d s h o u ld be “ as s hort te rm a s poss ible ” in orde r f or s uch l im ita

tions to be enf

orc ea ble a s a pra ct ic al m atte r, and g ene ra lly not ex ce edi ng one m onth, but the G uida nce a ls o re cogniz es that i n ra re c irc um st anc es a

li m it spa nning a long er tim e m ay

be a ppropr iate

. 1989 G uidanc e on Lim iti ng PTE at 9. T he G uida nce s pec if

ie s that a l im it spa

nninga long er ti m e is a ppropr iate if

it is rol ling , a

nd th at it s hould not

e x ce ed an annua l l im it roll ed on a m onthly ba si s. Id. T he G

uid ance al so note s that:

[P ]ermits w

her e long er roll ing limits are us ed to r es tri ct produc tion shoul d be is sue d only to sour ce s w ith subs ta ntia l a nd unpre dic ta

ble annu al v ariation i n p r od uctio n[ ] * * * Rollin g limits could be used as w el l f or sour ce s whic h s hut dow n or cur ta il oper at ion dur ingpart of a y ea r on a re g ula

r s ea sona l c y cl e, but the pe rmitt inga u thority shoul d f irs t e xplore the pos si bili ty of im posi ng a m onth-by -m onth limit. Id. at 9-10 . In this in stance, a l t ho ugh th e G uid ance w as w

ritten p rior to Congress aut horiz ingEPA

to re g ulate a ir emis si ons f rom s ourc es loc at ed on c er

ta in a rea s of the OC S, seeReg ion Response at 17 , inclu din g the Arctic, the circum stances the Guid ance ant ic ipate s that w ould m ak e a long er ti m e lim it appr opria

te a pply in this insta

nce to the Kul luk pe rmit, w her e the ope rations are s ea sona l and thus v ar iation in product ion w ould (c ontinue d...) at 18

. Variability in Shell’s exploratory operatio ns, m ultiple eng ines and g enerators locate d o n b oth th e Kullu k and num er ou s v essels in the Asso ciated Fleet, the state o f the weath er an d the sea, ice thick ness, and th e ch an g in gn at

ur e of th e ac ti v it ie s th at

S he ll m ay

n ee d to cond

uc t a ll influenc ed th e R eg ion’s conclusion that the nee d fo r op erational flexibility m ade it im

pr a ctical to establish unit- specific lim its or

x operatin gparam eters for som e po llutants, suc h as N O and C O, that m ig ht ty pically be applied

to lim it a stationary

source’s P TE. RTC at 27 ; see S ta te m ent o f B as is a t 38

. The Re g io n co nt inue d th at , in it s jud g m ent,

x the ch oice to restrict the Kullu k ’s PTE for N O and C O usingsourcewide em issions lim its “acc ounts for v ariabilit y in operatio ns and em issions, y et still p rov ides a ssuranc e that lim its on potential to em it can be e nforced

as a pra ctical m atter.” R TC at 2 8. Altho ug h the restriction s to lim it the PTE of em ission units located on the Kullu k and the Asso ciated Fleet utiliz e a rolling36 5- day lim it, a long er tim e period than g enerally recomm ended

in Ag ency

guidanc e, 22S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 25

(.. .c ontinue d) 22 be subs ta ntia l. See 1989 G uidanc e on Lim iti ng PTE at 9-10.
A lthough the Board ag re es w ith Petit ione rs tha t t he Re g ion di d not ci te thi s 23 dec is ion unt il it submitt ed its re spons e to t he pet iti ons f

or r ev ie w , a

nd thus a cc ept s the ir re ply brie f s w ith re spe ct

to this point , see supra P art V , the Board n on etheless disag rees that t h is p u b li cl y

av ai la ble de ci si on of

the A dm inis tra

tor is ina pposi te to the c urr ent appeal. The Pope& Talbot de ci si on unde rs cor es the A g ency’s abili ty to ex er ci se it s dis cr et ion a

nd it s te chni ca l e xper

tis e in or der

to cr af t pr act ic al ly

e nf orc ea ble s y nthe tic m inor limits

. as the R eg ion p oints out, the co ntinuo us m onitoringand recordingof fuel usag e and the applicatio n of source- test deriv ed or specified e m ission factors hav e the practical e f f e c t of constrain ingSh ell’s fuel use, thus ensurin gcom

pliance with the P TE lim its. Reg ion R e s po ns e at 15, 17 ( c i t i ng I n r e P o p e & T a l b ot , I nc. , P etition N o. VI I I

- 2006

- 04 (Adm ’r 200 7) (A .R . B

- 24), in whic h rolling em ission lim its in addition to pre scribe d em ission factors and appro priate m onitoringand recordk eepingw ere su fficient to restrict PTE). I n essence, althoug h the 23 Reg ion c ould not incorpo rate m ore traditional operation al lim its into the P erm itb as ed

o n th e aty

pi ca l n at ur e of th e pe rm it te d ac ti v it ie s, th e da il y

x calculation of NO and CO em issions in conjunction with c on t inuou s

x m o n i t o r i n gan d r e c o r d i n g o f f u e l u s a g e e n s ur e t h a t t h e N O an d C O P TE restrictions can be p ractically enfo rced. D es pi te th e R eg io n’ s expl anati on in th e R es po ns e to C om

m ents reg ardingthe need to co nsider the fac ts un ique t o t hi s P erm it, n either I CA S n or RED OI L P etitioners explain w hy , e special l y i n lig ht of the Kullu k ’s atyp ical operations as com pared to other stationary

sources, the Per mit ’ s P TE lim its are not p ractically enfo rceable. See R eg ion R es po ns e at

1 7. R athe r, th e pe ti ti on er s he wc lo se ly to th e langua g e in the 1 989 Guid ance on Lim it i ng PTE pro hibitingblank et em issions, assertinginstea d that becau se the Perm it does not c ontain produ ction or

x op er at io na l l im it s to r es tr ic t PTE, the N O and C O e m is si on

li m it s constitute blank et em ission lim its that contrav ene Ag ency guidanc e. I CA S P etition at 11- 14; RED OI L P etition at 9- 11. The 198 9 Guidanc e on L im it in gP TE se ts f

orthth e ty

pe s of li m it at io ns th at

w il l re st ri ct

a so ur ce ’s P TE an d st at es in r el ev ant p ar

t:S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 26

Th e Gu i d an ce al so ac kn o wl ed ge s t h at th e “ p ar t i cu l ar ci r cu mst an ce s o f so me 24 indiv idua l s ourc es m ak e it dif f ic ult to s tate ope ratingpara m et er s f or c ontrol e quipm ent l i mit s i n a m a n n e rt h at i s e as i l y en fo r ce ab l e a s ap r ac t i ca l mat t er , ” a n dl i st s t wo ex ce ption s. 1989 G uidanc e on Lim iti ng PTE at 7. A ltho ugh th e G

uid ance prece ded EPA ’s a uthori ty to re g ulate a ir emis si ons on parts of the O CS, see Region Response at 17, and th us coul d no t have anticip ated the circum stances of the permit at issue in these appe al s, the Re g ion none the le ss a ss er ts t h at t h e c irc um st anc es s urr oundingthe c urr ent per m it ar e suf

f ic ie ntly ana log ous to t

he se cond ex ce ption f

or v olatil e org ani c com

pound ( “V O C ”) s u r fac e co at i n g o p er at i o n s, wh i ch c o n t emp l at es n o a d d

- o n co n tr o l s b u tal l o ws f or t he re st ric tion of PTE by limiti ng the VOC c onte nts and quantit ie s of c oat ing s use d. Id. at 17-19 (r ef

er ringto 1989 G uidanc e on Lim iti ng PTE at 8). T he VOC ex ce ption f

ocus es on c irc um st anc es w her e oper at ingand produc tion par am et er s coul d not be re adi ly s et due to the w ide v arie ty

of coating s and produc ts and due to the unpre dic ta

ble nat ure of the oper at ions

. 1989 Guidanc e on Lim iti ng PTE at 8. T he Re g ion a ss er

te d that t he rationa le inf

ormingthe VOC s urf

ac e coa tingope ration exc eptio n is suff

iciently sim ilar to the present circum stanc es , a n d analogized that an

x ef f ective way

t o restrict NO an d CO wa s throu gh source-w ide em ission s lim its supp orted by test-derived or specif

ied em ission f

actors, sim ilar to the V O C co nten t of c oatin gs, cont inuous m onitoringan d re cor dingof

ope rationa l pa

ra m et er s, and tr ac k ingthe quantit y of VOC c oat ingus ed. R T C a t 30; Re g ion R es ponse at 18. RE DOI L P et iti oner s and IC A S a ss er

t t hat the V OC excep tion shoul d be c onst rue d quit e nar

row ly , a nd tha t t he V OC s u rface co at in g op era ti o n excep ti o n w it h in th e 1 9 8 9 G u id an ce o n Limiti n g P TE coul d no t appl y to the Kul luk and the A ss oci at ed Fle et

. See IC A S Peti tion at 20; RE DO ILPeti tion at

13-14. Petit ione rs do not s ta te m ore tha

n a dif f er enc e of opini on or al te rnativ e v ie w

on a te chni ca l i ss ue. S

ee NE H ub , 7 E .A .D. at 567 . W itho ut m ore, pet iti oner s ca

nnot s ust ai n the burde n of d emon stratingtha t r ev ie w of the Re g ion’s ex er ci se of

it s te chni ca l j udg m ent

is w ar ra nte d. See Pe abody , 12 E.A .D . at 33; In re Teck Comin co Alaska In c. , 11 E .A .D . 457, 473 (E A B 2004)

. T o ap p ro p riat ely l i m i t p o te nti al t o em i t * * * p erm i t s * * * m ust co nt ain a pro d uct i o n or o p erat i o nal l i m i t at i o n i n ad d i t i o n t o t he emi s s i on l i mi t at i on in ca s es w h er e t h e emi s s i on l i mi t at i on doe s n ot ref l ect t he m axi m um em i ss i o ns o f t he source o p erat i ng at f ul l de si gn ca pac i t y w i t h ou t pol l u t i on c on t r ol e qu i pmen t

. Res t r i ct i on s on pr odu ct i o n o r oper at i on t h at w i l l l i mi t pot en t i al t o e mi t i n cl u de l i mi t at i on s on qu an t i t i es of r aw mat er i al s c on s u med, f u el c ombu s t ed, ho urs o f o p era t i o n, o r co nd i t i o ns w hich sp ec i f y t ha t t he so u rce m ust i ns t al l and mai nt ai n cont r ol s t hat r educe emi s s i ons t o a sp ec i f i ed e m issio n ra te o r to a sp e c ifi e d e ff ic ie n c y lev e l. 1989 Guid

ance on Lim iting P TE

at 5- 6. I n ad dition, neith er I CA S n or

24 R E D O I L P et it io ne rs a dd

re ss th e op er at io na l l im it s in cl ud ed in th e P erm itS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 27 and discuss ed in the Resp onse to C om m ents. See R TC at 2 9 (d iscussing hourly op erational lim its on m

udline cellar drilling and ov erall drilling

x act ivit y andthe i nst al la ti on of SCR and OcyCat cont rol s to limit NO em is si on s)

. F in al ly , I C A S c ha ll en g es th e R eg io n’ s in cl us io n of r eq ui re m ents in

x th e P erm itto c al cu la te d aily e m is si on s fo r N O and

C O o n a w ee k ly ba si s, argui ngth at

it is a“ cr it ic al f

lawto e nforc ea

bi li ty o f th e pe rm it becau se it m eans that S hell w ill only k noww here it stand s v is- a- v ie [sic]

x its N O and CO perm it lim its once a week .” I CA S P etition at 14 (citing P erm itC on di ti on s D

. 1. 1, D. 1. 2)

. Th e B oard f in ds I C A S ’s argum ent h er e unav ailingin lig ht of the R eg ion’s thorou g h explanation in the R espon se to C om m ents. See RTC at 44; Reg ion Resp onse at 19 , 2 3. The R eg ion explain ed th at altho ug h the calcu lations of em ission lim its w ill be co nd uc te d w ee k ly , d at a is conti nu ou sl y col le ct ed and rec or de d an d w il l ev entually

be g enerated

in the same t erm s as the em ission lim its. See RTC at 44 ; Reg ion Resp onse at 23. Moreov er, the Reg ion points out th at Shell is requ ired to pro cess d at a f r om n um erous em ission units across m u l t i p l e v e s s e l s f

o r 1 6 8 i n d i v i du a l h o ur s ( 2 4 h o ur s x 7 d a y s )

. R TC at 4 4. The per

m itr eq ui re m ents to c onti nu ou sl y m on it or and r ec or d data nec ess ary to c o n duc t dai ly em is si ons cal cul at ion s ens ure s, as I CAS raises, the ability to assess and v erify com pliance im

m ediately shou ld an inspecto r, th e Reg ion, or Shell require it. RTC at 44 ; R eg ion R espon se at 2 3. In th is in st an ce , I C A S d oes n ot a ck no w le dg e th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se o r ad dr es s w hy

th at r esp onse is in ad eq

uate and th us w ar rant s rev iew. As this B oard has prev iously stated , “ [p]etitions for rev iew m ay not s im ply repe at ob j ections m ade duringthe c omment perio d; ins tead they m ust d em onstrate why

the perm ittingauth ority ’s response to tho se objections w arrants rev iew. ” Peab ody , 12 E. A

. D

. at 46 n . 58 ; ac co rd I n re Kna uf F

iber G lass GmbH

, ( “K nauf II”) , 9 E

. A

. D

. 1 , 5 ( E A B 2 00 0) ; see a lso stand ard o f rev iew discuss ion supra Part I I I

. I n ad dition, as the B oard noted a bo ve in Part VI .A .1. b, the dete r mination o f a source’s PTE is inh erently an exercise that req

uires technica l exp ertise. N either RED OI L P etitioners nor I CA S h av e m et the part ic ul ar ly

heavy burd en of de m on stra ti ngthat re v ie wof th e R eg io n’ s decision s to em

ploy source- wide em ission lim its to restrict the Kullu k ’sS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 28 P TE i s w a rr a n t e d

. See, e.g

. , Pe abod y , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 3 3; NE H ub , 7 E

. A

. D

. a t 5 67 ( “W he n is su es r ai se d o n ap pe al c ha ll en g e a R eg io n’ s te chni ca l ju dgm ents , c le ar e rr or o r a re v ie w ab le e xe rc is e of dis cr et io n is no t e st ab li sh ed

s im pl y b ec au se p et it io ne rs d oc um ent a di ff er en ce in opinio n o r an alternativ e theo ry reg arding

a technica l m atter.”). b. Em ission Facto rs An e m i s s i o nf

a c t o r i s ar e p r e s e n t a t i v e v a l u e u s e d t o r e l a t e the qu anti ty o f a po ll ut ant r el eased to th e atm os ph er e w ith an a ct iv ity associated

w ith the release of that p ol l utant. U .S. EP A, A P- 42, C o m p i l a t i o n o f A i r P o l l u t a n t

E m is s i o n F a c t o rs , Volum e 1: S ta ti on ar y P oi nt and Are a S ourc es 1 ( Jan

. 1 99 5) ( 5th ed

. ) (“ A P

- 42 G ui danc e” ). Em ission factors essentially repres ent an

av erag e of a rang e of em ission rates of the subject source s. Id. at 2. A s st at ed ab ov e in P art V I

. A

. 2, in

x th is in st an ce com

pl ianc e w ith th e P TE re stri ct io ns f or N O and C O are determ ined by

calcu latingdaily

em issions of each pollutant, which requires m

ultiply ingthe appro priate e m ission factor b y the recorded dail y o p e r a t i o nr a t e an d

d i v i d i n gb y

2 0 0 0 l b / t o n . P e rm i tC o n d i t i ons D. 4.1 , D .4. 2. REDO I L P etitioners and I CA S c halleng e sev eral asp ects o f the R eg io n’ s us e of

e m is si on f ac to rs to a ss is t i n ca lc ul at in gcom pl ianc e w ith

x the res tricted PTE for both NO and C O. B oth p etitioners challeng e the Reg ion’s decision to forg o source- specific em ission testingto establish em ission factors for all em ission units on the Kullu k and the Asso ciated F le et and f urth er a ss ert that thi s w ill caus e th e R eg io n an d S he ll to

x unde restim ate the qu antities o f N O and C O em itted by

the OC S s ource. I C A S P et it io n at

1 5- 19 ; R E D O I L Pe ti ti on

at 11

- 13

. RE D O I L P et it io ne rs and I CA S a ssert that the use of A P- 42 em ission factors and em ission f a c t o r s d e r i ve d

f r o m Disco verer test results for those em ission units that will n ot un derg o so urce- specific testingcon stitutes cle ar erro r bec ause these m ore g ene r i c em ission factors will lik ely lead to an unde restim ation of em issions from the units to which they

are applied

. I CA S P etition at 16- 18; RED OI L P etition at 11- 12 (referringto AP

- 42 e mis s i on fa c t or s as “n ot or i ou s l y in a c c ur a t e de f aul tfa c t or s ” )

. Fi na l l y, I CA S challeng es the frequency and num ber o f stack

tests used to de v elopS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 29

IC A S’s atte m

pt to ana log iz e the si tuation the Boa rd c onf ronte d in Pe abody 25 to t he cur re nt pe rmit appe al f

al ls s hort. A lthough Pe abodydis cus se s the us e of AP-42 em is s i o n f

a c t o r s i n a PT E c a l c u l at i o n w h e r e th e s o u r c e w a s s e e k i n g s y n th e tic m inor st at us, IC A S f

ai ls to a ck now le dg e cr iti ca l f

ac tua l e le m ent s that di st inguis h Pe abodyf rom the c urr ent

a ppea l. InPe abody , the per

m itt ee w as a lar g e c oal -pr oce ss ingplant built pri or t o the ef f ec tiv e dat e of the PSD prog ra m that re ques te d a PTE li m it f or pa rti cul at e m atte r w ith
10 a diam et er of

10 mic rons or le ss (“ PM ”) in the pe rmitt ee ’s T itl e V per m it so that t

he
10 f ac ili ty c ould r em ai n a

s y nthe tic m inor sour ce f

or PM emis si ons shoul d it c onduct any m aj or m odif

ic at ions in the f

uture

. See Pe abody , 12 E.A .D. at 24-3 4. Of critical im porta nce , the f ac ili ty ’s emis si ons w er e prim ar ily f ug iti v e, and thus , e mis si on te st ingto

(c ontinue d...) so ur ce - sp ec if

ic e m is si on

f ac to rs f or e m is si on uni ts and

f urther a ss erts th at b y S he ll ’s o w n ad

m is si on the re is a 1 5% v ar ia

bi li ty in s ta ck te st d at a that resu lts in a less conse rv ativ e em ission factor th an th e R eg ion c laim s. I CA S P etition at 16- 17. The Bo ard n otes at the outset that the d ev elopm ent o f em ission factors for us e in calculatingdaily em iss i on s to determ ine co m pliance with PTE restrictio ns req uires th e so rt of quintes sential te chnical expertise the p erm it issuer posses ses, here the R eg ion, to which the Boar d will d ef

er if “ th e re co rd

d em on stra te s th at

th e R eg io n du ly consid ered the issu es raise d in the comm ents a nd if the appro ach ultim ately

selecte d b y t he R eg ion is ration al in lig ht all of the inform at i on i n t he re cord. ” NE H ub , 7 E. A. D. at 5 67- 68, qu oted in Peab ody , 1 2 E .A.D. at

3 4; see a lso Aven al E

nergyC tr. , s lip op . at 5, 15 E. A. D. at __

_. As e xp l a i ne d mor e fu l l y b e l o w , fo r ea c h c ha l l e nge reg ardingthe deriv ation a nd use of em ission factors set forthin the Perm it, RED OI L P etitioners and I CA S h av e failed t o s ustain the particularly

heavy burden petitioners m

ust o v ercom e to de m onstrate that rev iew of a f un dam entally

techn ical de cision is w arranted. See, e. g. , Peab ody , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. a t 3 3; NE H ub , 7 E. A. D. at 5 67- 68. The R eg io n fu ll y

e xp la in ed

in th e R es po ns e to Com m ents it s rationale for supplem entingsource- specific em ission factors d eriv ed fo r m ost o f the em ission units or groups of em ission units locat e d on the Kullu k or the A ssociated

Fl e e t w i t h eith er A P- 42 em ission factors or 25S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 30

(.. .c ontinue d)

25

10 dire ct ly m ea sur e PM e m is si ons w as not f ea si ble

. Id. at 34. The permitt ee c onse quent ly submitt ed a re ques t f

or a P TE limit bas ed on a

quantit at iv e es tim at e of

the f ac ili ty ’s
10 ca pac ity to emit P M , whic h in turn re lie d on e st im at es of unc ontrol le d e m is si ons f rom ea ch u n it ba se d on the appl ic at ion of AP-42 emis si on f

ac tors that w er e the n us ed to es tim at e net

e m is si ons by

a pply inga ss um ed emis si on c ontrol e f f ic i e n c i e s f or t he emis si on cont rol equi pm ent in us e. Id. at 34-3 5 & n.3 1. P eabod y ’s prop osed com plian ce regim en
10 did not includ e direct m easurem ent of PM em ission s. A s the Board stated, “[ b] eca use Peabody ’s a

pproa ch w ould r el y

e ntir el y on the applica ti on of

e m is si on f

ac tors and as sum ed co n trol e f

f ic ie nci es , f

or pur pose s of both es tim at ingm ax im um e m is si ons ca pac ity and m onitor ingong oingc om p li an ce, the a cc ura cy

and a ppropr iate nes s of

the emis si on f

ac tors and the c ontrol e f

f ic ie ncy a ss um ptions w er e the f

oca l poi nt of

Re g ion IX ’s analy sis of

P eabod y ’s prop osal.” Id. at 35- 36. Contra ry to the f ac ili ty in Pe abody , in this insta

nce the us e of

AP-42 f ac tors to

x ca lc ulate c om

plia nce w ith res tr ic te d PTE f or N O and CO w as e ss ent ia lly a la st re sor t m etho d for ca lculatin g c om plian ce, w

hereas the em ission un its that a ccoun ted f or a t least

x 90% of the N O and CO e m is si ons w er e subj ec t to sour ce -s pec if ic e m is si on te st ing

. See id. at 32-3 3. The Re gion m ade clea rt h at i n the relative ly sm all number of

instances w her e an A P-42 emis si on f ac tor w as e m

ploy ed to cal cu la te c om

plia nce w ith PTE , the Regio n chose c onse rv at iv el y higher e m is si on f

ac tors . I n Pe abody , the Region m ade a technical determ inatio n and “conclud ed that P eabod y had no t suff

iciently dem on strated that i t m et

the ce ntra l cr ite ria

for est abl is hing[ PTE ] – tec hnic al ac cur ac y and a re lia

ble m etho d of determi n i ng com plian ce.” Id. at 39. In th is instance, the Region m ade a t e c hn i c a l de t e rm i nat i on that Sh e l l ha s s uf f i c i e nt l y de m on s tr at e d thatthe Ku lluk c ould

x demonstrat e com

plia nce w ith the N O and CO PTE li m its inc lude d in the pe rmit in a m anne r t hat is te chni ca lly ac cur at e, and that the com plia nce of the emis si on units ca n be verif ied based on so urce-specif ic testin g. The Region’s exe rcise of its technical expertise to c oncl ude that i n li m ite d c irc um st anc es AP-42 emissi o n fac tors w er e appr opria te to demonst rate c om plia nce w ith the re st ri ct ed P TE is ra tiona l i n li g ht of

a ll of the inf orm at ion in the re cor d. T hus, IC A S’s cont ent ion th at Pe abodygove rns the app eal cur re ntly be f ore the Boa

rd i s unper sua si v e. e mi s s i o nf

a c t o r s d e r i ve d

f r o m Disco verer so ur ce te st d at a fo r a m in or ity of uni ts

. R TC a t 3 2- 33 ; see a lso R eg io n R es po ns e at 20

- 21

. I n su pp ort of its decision

to utiliz e a mix o f source- specific testingfor em ission factors in addition to us ingA P- 42 and Disco verer test data e m ission fa c t or s , th e R eg ion s tated th at it “b eliev es the perm it strik es an ap pr op ri at e ba lanc e be tw ee n th e ne ed f or a cc ur at e em is si on

f ac to rs to re l i ab l y c a l c u l a t e e m i s s i o n s f o r c o m p a r i s o n t o p e rm i t l i m i t s and the com plexity of testingnum erous em ission units in a short period of tim e.” R T C a t3 3

. T h e R e g i o na l s o n o t e d th a t , i nr e s p o n s e t o c o m m e n tsS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 31

T he Re g ion e xpla ine d in the State m ent of Ba si s that a n im porta nt e le m ent

of 26 Permit Condi tion E.2, w

hic h ca ta logues the proc edur es f

or c onduct ingte st s to de te rmine equi pm ent -s pec if

ic em is si on fa ct ors , “is the se le ct ion of w ors t[-]ca se e m is si on f

ac tors f or ea ch emis si on unit

or g roup of

e m is si on unit s te st ed. ” State m ent of Ba si s at 43; see also Permit at 52-56. T he re cor d de m onst rate s that the Re g ion thoug htf ully and judi ci ousl y emp l o yede mis si o n fac t o r s d er i ve dfro m Discovere r test data and AP -42 em ission f actors, and cons is te ntly

c hose higher , m ore c onse rv at ive e m is si on f ac tors w hen the re w as any

x ques tion or disc re panc y . For ex am ple , f or t hose N O e m is si on unit s f or w hic h the Permit does not re quire s ourc e te st ingand that re ly on emis si on f

ac tors ba se d on Discovere r test dat a, the Re g ion a djus te d the emis si on f ac tor to re f

le ct the cons er

v at iv e 90 per ce ntil e (or

th hig her) val u es from

the te st data . R T C a

t 32. T he Re g ion f

urthe r e xpla ine d that f

or

x hea te rs and boil er s – the only re m ai ningg roup of

N O emis si on units that re ly on AP-42 forem is si o n facto rs – t h e Regi o n exp ect s th e AP -4 2 e m is si o n fact o r to be a co n servat ive

x re pre se ntation of

a ct u al e m is sions. Id. (not ing that while A P -42 predicted an NO emissi o n facto r f

o r heat ers an dbo il ers of 0 .0 2 lb /ga l, Sh el l t est in g of Discovere r boile rs show s a ra

ng e of v al ues be tw ee n 0 .0 1 1 l b /ga l a nd 0.015 l b/g al ); see also RT C a t 46

x (no ting that th e boiler andheater N O emission f actor used in th e Kul luk

perm it is “low er than the Discovere r

BA CT lim it f

or s im ilar equi pm ent, but is higher than av ailable test

x dat a f or a s im ila r s ourc e” ). IC A S c hal le ng ed the Re g ion’s us e of an NO e m is si on f ac tor in th e Perm it that is lower than t h e o n e in th e Discovere r pe rmits , seeIC A S Peti tion at 18-19, but IC A S f

ai le d in its pe tit ion t o e v en ac k now le dge the Re g ion’s re spons e to

x its c om m ent re g ar dingthe N O e m is si on facto r for he at er s and boile rs , l et a lone “substant ively

confront th e per

m it issuer’s subsequ ent explanation .” Pe abody , 12 E.A .D. at33 (ci ti n g In re Zion E

ner gy, LLC, 9 E .A .D . 701, 705 (E A B 2011) ). With respect to em ission uni ts that w ill no t un dergo source testing to verif y CO emis si on f

ac tors , the Re g ion s im ila rly e xpla ine d that i t be lie v ed emis sio n f ac tors are re as onabl e f

or use in the per

m it g iv en that A P-42 emis si on f ac tors w ill re pre se nt onl y

3% of the total CO e m issi o n s. R TC at 32. In add itio n, th e Re gion n otes that the CO em ission s f

rom tests cond ucted for tw o bo ilers on th e Discovere r were nearly

identi cal to t he AP -4 2 e m is si o n f

ac tor. Id. at 33 (e xpla iningthat t he Re g ion c hose thehighes t, m ost conse rv at iv e e m is si on fa ct or of the thre e)

. Fina lly , the Re g ion notes that one of the (c ontinue d...) receiv ed, it decid ed to req uir e so urce- specific em ission testingfor incinerato rs and that, after that chang e, the perm it will requi r e source

x te st ing of emissi on uni ts that cons ti tut e 91% of N O a n d 9 7% of CO em issions. Id. a t 3 2. O f th e re m ai ni nguni ts th at w er e no t r eq

ui re d to unde rg o so urce testingto dev elop an e m ission fact or , the R eg ion s et forth in detail why

it h ad c hosen

em ission factors derived from Disco verer source te s t data or the A P- 42 em ission factors, in m any in st an ce s ra isin gth e v al ue o f an e m is si on f ac to r to p ro v id e a m or e conse r vat i ve e stim ate of em issions. Id. a t 3 2- 33 ; see a lso Reg ion 26S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 32

(.. .c ontinue d)

26 pote ntia l oi l s pill and re spons e boat s has an a ct ual CO emis si on fa ct or f

or its propul si on eng ine tha

t i s bas ed on the m anuf

ac ture r’ s dat a and is one tenth of w hat the AP-42 f

ac tor pre dic ts

. Id. ; see also Permit T abl e D. 2 .2 ( demonst ratingthat t

he Re g ion c hose to inc lude the m

uch hig her

AP-42 emis si on f

ac tor f or t he OS RV pr opuls ion e ng ine ).
RE DO ILPeti tio n ers c onte nd that t he Re g ion’s re cogniti on that She ll’ s 27 appr oac h inv olv es “ inhe re nt unce rta inty” re g ar ding w hat e quipm ent

w ill be a boar d the Kul luk and the A ss oci at ed Fle et , w hic h in turn re quire s “t h o ro u gh s ourc e te st ing ,” coupl ed w ith the Re g ion’s re f usa l t o re quire s ourc e te st ingf or a ll equi pm ent , i s “i nte rna lly

inc onsi st ent

and thus arbit

ra ry and unla

w f ul.” RED OI L Peti tion at 12. Ho we v er , the Re g ion r es ponded that i t us ed its te chni ca l e xper tis e to de te rmine that i n this ins ta nce , a m ix of both sour ce -s pec if ic te st ing to der iv e emis si on f ac tors , i n a dditi on t o u si n g AP

- 4 2 fa c t o r s a n d emi ss i o n fac t o r s d er i ve d fro m Discovere r te st

data w her e appr opria te , w as re as onabl e and not incons is te nt. Re g ion R es ponse at 20- 21. T he Boa rd agre es w ith the Reg ion that the de ci si on to use s ourc e- spe ci f ic te st ingto der iv e emis si on fac t o r s, i n co n

j u n ct i o n wit h th e e mis si o n fa c t o r s d ev el o p ed fro m Discovere r data and f rom AP-42, is inhe re ntly

te chni ca l. In order to e f f ec tiv el y e x er ci se it s ex

per tis e, the Re g ion s hould not , a s RE DO IL Petit ione rs sug g es t, be ca bine d by a ri g id i nte rpr et at ion of how emission f

actors sh ou ld be determ ined . REDOILP etition ers hav e f ailed to m eet the parti cul ar ly

high thr es hold f

or de m onst

ratingthat B o ard rev ie w of the Re g ion’s f undam ent al ly

te chni ca l de ci si on is w ar ra nte d. Pe abody , 12 E .A .D . at 33- 34. Resp onse at 20; S tatem ent o f B asis at 38 (notingthat testingfor sourcespecific em ission factors (Per mit C ondition E. 2) u ses a protoco l that re su lt s inc on se rv at iv el y

h ig h un it

- sp ec if

ic e m is si on

f ac to rs th at inturn help to ensure com

pliance with PTE). While RE DO I L P etitioners and 27 I CA S m ay

disagree w ith the R e g ion’s appro ach, Pe titioners d o n ot dem onstrate that the R eg ion’s choices in deriv ingem ission factors for em ission units w ill result in an un derestim ation of p ollutants em itted by the Kullu k and the Associated Fleet. The R eg ion h as d em onstrated that

x it bala nce d it s pri m ary t ask of acc ura te ly calc ula ti ng NO and CO em ission factors to ensure that the Kullu k and th e A ss oc ia te d F le et

w il l no t ex ce ed th e re stri ct ed P TE w ith th e pr ac ti ca l ne ed to cal cu la te em ission factors for num erous and v aried em ission units aboard bo th the Kullu k and th e A ss oc ia te d F le et

. Th e B oard h as f re qu entl y s ta te d th at

it will n ot g rant rev iew whe re, as h ere, the rec ord dem onstrates a bo na fid e difference of opinio n o r alternativ e theory reg arding a technical m atter but the ap pr oa ch th e R eg io n ul ti m at el y s el ec te d is r at io na l i n li g ht o f al lS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 33

IC AS al so as se rt s t h at st ac k t es t s a r e “ co n du ct ed o n ce a yea r fo r o n e o r two 28 y ears depen din g on the sou rce,” at three dif f erent loads, an d ev en w

hen th e w orst-case emi ss i o n s a r e u se d , th e s t a c kt e s t s fa i l t o ac co u n tfo r S h el l ’ s v aryin g e mis si o n s. IC AS P etition at 16. The Re gion explained in response that P erm it Con diti on E.2. 1 requ ires ea ch sour ce -te st ed unit to b e te st ed prior to ea ch of

the f irs t t w o dri lli ng s ea sons and subs eque ntly

e v er y tw o or f iv e y ea rs de pendi ng on any

varia bili ty obser v ed in t he re sul ts of the tw o ini tia l t ests. Re g ion R es ponseat 22; se e als o State m ent of Ba si s at 44 (f re quenc y of s ourc e- spe ci f

ic e m is si on facto r te st inga f te r f irs t t w o y ea rs ba se d on varia bili ty of results). Furt her, each test requi res three 1-h ou r runs at eac h of the three te st ed oper at ingloa ds, whic h res ults in nine res ults total for ea ch a g g re g at e sour ce te st

. Re g ion R es ponse at 22. W ithout m ore tha n it s bar e as se rti on that t

he cur re nt s ourc e te st s d o no t ad eq u at el y

ad dres s S h el l’ s varyin g em is s i o n s wh en th e d at a is us edto de ri ve emis si on f

ac tors , I CA S c annot

de m onst rate that t he per m it condi tions that dic tate the f re quenc y and para m et er s of s ourc e te st s w ar

ra nt B oar d re v ie w . the in form ation in the reco rd. Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . a t34 (q uo t i ng NE Hub , 7 E

. A

. D

. a t 5 67 ). Fina l l y , I CA S a sserts th at the Disco verer source test data is no t sufficient to accurately g enerate wors t- case scenario em ission factors for Kullu k em ission units becau se sim ilar sources tested on the Disco verer were subject to BA CT, and further, that in us ingstack test results fro m the Disco verer

to dev elop em ission factors for the K u l l uk perm it, the Reg ion ne ver accounted for “1 5% v ariability in Shell’s stack

tests, ” resultingin inadeq

uate e m ission factor s . IC AS Pe tition at 17- 19. The Reg ion p oints out, how ev er, that the Disco verer stack tests on whic h the Reg ion re lied to calculate the 9 0 perc entile v alue and assess the th appro priateness of AP

- 42 factor s w ere n ot su bject to pos t- com

bustion

x co ntro ls li m it in gN O o r C O and thus provid ed

an ap pr op ri at e com parison for purpo ses o f deriv ingem issi on f actors for the Kullu k

. R e gio n R e s po ns e at 21 (c i t i ng Disco verer s t a c k t e s tr e s u l t s and communications discu ssingthem in the ad

m inistrativ e reco rd, specifically

A .R . B

- 55, B

- 63, C

- 40 6, C- 489). With respect to the 15 % v ar ia bi li ty in s ta ck te st r es ul ts th at

I C A S a ll eg es , th e R eg io n po in ts to 28 the tec hnical literature S hell refere nc e d i n Shell’s co m m ents, whic h ad dr es se s “unc erta in ty

in de te rm in in gfro nt

- ha lf PM [p arti cu la te m atte r] em ission rates” and does not d irectly add ress p roce du r e s for deriv ing

X NO and C O em ission factors. Id

. a t 2 2- 23 ; see a lso Perm it Co nditions E.1 .2, E. 1.7 , E .1. 14 (requiringShell to subm it a testingplan and followS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 34

G HG s ar e def ine d as “t he ag g re g at e g roup of si x g re enhous e g as es : c ar bon 29 diox ide , ni trous ox ide , m et hane , hydr of

louroc ar bons, pe rf

louroc ar bons, and s ulf

ur
2 h ex afl o u r i d e. ” 4 0 C. F

. R

. § 5 2

. 2 1 ( b ) ( 4 9 ) ( i )

. CO e r ep r es en t s t h e a mo u n to f GHGs em itted and is com

pu ted by “[m]u ltip ly ing the m ass am ou nt of em ission s (tpy), f or each of the six

gre enho use ga ses in th e pollu tant G HG s, by t h e ga s’ s as sociated global w arm ing po tential publ ished at Ta ble A -1 s ub part A of [ 40 C.F.R. ] part 98 of this chapt er – G lob al W arm ing P oten tials.” Id. § 52.21( b)( 49)( ii) (a ).

T he regulation s pro vide that a ny source that is consid ered a new m ajor sou rce 30 f or a re g ulate d N SR pollut ant othe r t han G HG s w ill a ls o be s ubje ct to re g ulation f

or
2 G HG s if it emits or has the po tential to emit 75 ,00 0 t p y o rmo r e o f CO e. 40 C.F. R. § 52.21(b)( 49)( iv ). New

stationa ry sourc es that emit or hav e the potenti al to emit m ore
2 tha n 100,000 t

py or m ore of

CO e ar e al so su b

je ct to re g ulation f

or GHG s. Id. § 52.21( b)( 49)( v ). E P A

- app rov ed

te st m etho ds , and

e st ab li sh in gR eg io n’ s auth or ity to re qu ir e ad di ti on al s ta ck

te st s if n ec es sary ). A s th e R eg io n cor re ct ly points out, I CA S h as n ot de m onstrated t ha t the wo rst- case stack test results, whic h em

body the Reg ion’s fundam entally techn ical determ ina t ions, w ill be biased low and unde rreport em issions. R eg ion R es po ns e at

2 2- 23 ; see, e.g. , Teck Com inco , 1 1 E .A .D . at 473 (discu ssing he av y b ur de n as si g ne d to p et it io ne rs s ee k ing r ev ie wo f is su es th at are es se nt ia ll y

te chni ca l i n nature ). 3. ICA S H

as F ailed to Demo nstrate Tha t the Regio n C learly Erred in R estricting the K

ulluk and the A ssociated

Fle et’s P otential to Emi t GHGs I CA S a lso ch alleng es the Pe rm it’s G HGem iss ion lim it, which restricts Shell’s annual GH G em issions to 8 0,0 00 tpy of carbon

diox ide

2 eq ui v alent ( “C O e” ). See I C A S P et it io n at 2 1- 26 ; see a lso P erm it 29 C on di ti on D

. 4. 4; R TC a t 2 8. E P A pro m ul g at ed r egul at io ns , c om

m on ly re fe rr ed to a s th e “Ta il or in gRu le , ” th at set fortha pp li ca bi li ty c ri te ri a to determ ine which GH G em ission sources bec om e su bject to the PS D and Title V prog ram s un der th e Act. P rev ention of S ig nificant 30 De t e r i or a t i on an d T i t l e V Gr e e nh ou s e Ga s T a i l or i ng Ru l e , 75 Fe d. Re g. 31, 514, 31 ,51 6 (June 3 , 2 010). In this instan ce, despite the fac t that the OC S s ource’s pre- perm i t t e d p otential to em it exce eded 100, 000 tpy of

2 CO e, see State m ent of

Ba si s at 24 , the Pe rm itres tr ic ts the p ot enti al toS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 35

T he P erm it im

po ses annu al lim its of 12 0 day s of operatio n as an OCS source 31 duringa dri lli ng s ea son, w

hic h s pans f

rom July 1 through Nov em

ber 30, and 1,632 hour s of tot al dri lli ng a ct iv ity

in a dril lings ea son, of

w hic h only 480 ho u rs mayb e u se d to conduc t m

udline c el la

r dr ill inga ct iv ity , w

hic h is e xpec te d to g ene rate t h e m o st a ir pollut ion. See Permit Condi tions D .3.1- D. 3.5. T he Permit al so limits the tot al a g g re g at e com bust ion of

f uelov er a 12-m onth r olli ngpe riod, the ty pe of f uel c om bust ed, and the tota l ag g re g at e dai ly

w as te -c om

bust ingc apa ci ty

of inc ine rators

. See Permit Condi tions D. 4.6-. 7, .9; see also RT C at 34-35. In a dditi on, the Permit inc lude s v ar ious m onitor ing and re cor dk ee pingre quire m ent s to doc um ent w hen emis si ons shoul d be count ed tow ar d emis si on li m its, te st ingre quire m ent s f or t he der iv at ion of

s ourc e- spe ci f

ic e m is si on f ac tors , tra cking and docum ent at ion re quire m ent s f or the f uel and w as te c om

bust ed, and m ai nte nanc e re quire m ent s to e nsur e that e mis si on unit s are prope rly ope rate d and m ai nta ine d. See Permit Condi tions D .1-. 4, D .8, F .2.1- .7; see also RT C a t 36- 37, 43.
T he Reg ion ex

plain ed m ethane em ission s f rom the DMS as f

ollo w s: 32 Whe n w el ls a re d ri ll edth ro u gh po ro u s, hydr o car b o n [ -] b ear in g ro ck, dril lingf luids (m ud) ci rc ulate d through the dril l bit ca n ca rr y g as eous hy droc ar bons f rom the w el l ba ck to [ the ] Kull uk . T hes e g as es are (c ontinue d...) 2 em it GH Gs to 80 ,00 0 tpy of CO e a nd thus p rev ents S hell from bein g subject to regulation for G HG s un der th e P SD prog ram . See R TC at 2 4. As not ed pr evious ly, the vastmaj ori ty of e m is si ons , inc lud ing GHG em issions, from

bo th the Kullu k

and the Asso ciated Fleet result from in t e rn a l c o m

b u s t i o ns o ur c e s s u c ha s e n g i n e s an d b o i l e r s , a l o n gw i th in c i n e r a t o r s . S t a t e m e n to f B a s i s a t1 2 , 1 4 , 3 9 ; R T C a t3 5

. T h e P e rm it contain s op erational restrictions on the am ount of tim e a source can operate, the am ount of fuel a nd waste com busted , and the ty

pe o f fuel co m bu st ed to e ns u r e c o m p l ianc e w ith th e P erm it ’s G H G e m is si on li m it

. 31 See State m ent of

Ba si s at 3 7- 39 ; R TC a t 3 3- 36 ; id. at 34- 35 (notingthat in resp onse to c omm ents th e R eg ion a djusted the m ethane em ission factor u pward b y a factor of four to rep resent a reaso nable uppe r- boun d estim ate of the num

ber o f w ells that could be d rilled in a sing le seas on, whic h in turn re quired a sm all redu ction to the total am ount of fue l that m ay b e combust ed

in e ng in es and

b oi le rs d ur in gany r ol li ng1 2- m onth period). In a dd i t i on to the com bustion sources an d the incin erators, a re la ti v el y s m al l am ount

o f G H G e m is si on s inthe form o f m ethane r es ul ts fr om th e dr il li ng m

ud sy st em (“ D MS ”)

. See RTC at 35. GHG 32S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 36

(.. .c ontinue d)

32 ty pically relea sed as f

ugitive e m ission s w

hen th e m

ud is processed fo r re u se o n t h e K

u l l u k o r st o r ed an dsh i p p ed away; h o wev er , so me of the e m is si ons pas s through a v ent

. State m ent of Ba si s at 38.
In ca lc ulatingthe unre st

ric te d PTE f

or D MS met

hane e m is si ons, the Re g ion 33 i n cl u d ed s everal conserva tive a ssum

ptio ns to ensu re a w ide m argin of saf ety f or to tal m et hane em is si ons ov er

Shell ’s f iv e- m onth pe riod of

ope ration. See RT C a

t 34; Opt ions for Lim iti ng PTE at 8 (no ting that for so u r ce s with in herent ph y sical limitation s that re st ric t t he pote ntia l e m is si ons of an e m is si ons unit, if

s uch li m ita

tions c an be docum ent ed and conf

irm ed, the pe rmitt inga

uthori ty m ay f ac tor the m

in to e stim at es of a station ary

source’s P TE). For ex am ple, the Re gion assum ed that th e total un restricted PTE f or DMS m et

hane e m is si ons f

or t he ent ire f iv e m onths of

dri lli ng ope rations w ould be emitt ed duringe ac h of the f iv e m onths . R T C a

t 35. In a dditi on, de spi te m

uch of t h e m et

hane e m is si ons bei ng f

ug iti v e em

is si ons that a re not count ed tow ar ds PSD a pplic abi lit

y f or e xplora

tory dri ll rig s, see40 C.F .R. § 52.21( b)( 1)( iii ), She ll agre ed to cons ide r al l of the m et hane emis si ons f

rom the D MS as point sour ce emis si ons that w ould count tow ar ds She ll’ s pote ntia l t o e m it G HG s. See RT C a t 35; see also S ta te m en t of Ba si s at 38-39. I n it s pet iti on, I CA S dis pute s the Region’s claim

that coun t i n g s uch fugitive emission s tow ards P TE represents a cons er v at iv e approa ch that l ends a “ m ea sur e of

s af et y ” and as se rts that t

he par t 71 re g ulations g ov er

ningT itl e V per

m its re quire s uch f

ug iti v e emis si ons to be inc lude d. IC A S Peti tion at

24 ( ci ting40 C .F.R . § 71.3(d) , w hic h st at es that f

ug iti v e emis si ons f

rom a par t 71 sour ce “s hal l be inc lude d in the per m it appl ic at ion and the par t 71 pe rmit in t

he sa m e m anne r a s st ac k

e m is si ons” ). H ow ev er , a s the Re g ion co rr ect ly p o ints out in i ts re spons e, the de f

init ions of majo r so urc e in bot h 40 C .F.R . § 52. 21(b) (1) (ii i) and 40 C. F.R . § 71. 2 m ak e cl ea r t hat f ug iti v e emis si ons ar e not c onsi der ed w hen det er m ining w het her a sour ce is a m aj or sour ce . Re g ion’s Re spons e at 26 n.21 (c iti ng the T ai lori ng Rule and n otin g that it retained this appro ach of determ inin g w heth er a sour ce becom es subj ec t t o re g ulation f

or GHG s)

. 2 em is si on s fr om

th e D MS , c al cul at ed at

8 5 tp y o f C O e, r ep re se nt

o nl y 0.1 1% of the to tal G HGem issions allowe d under the p erm it, 8 0,0 00 tpy

2 of C O e. Id. The Reg ion c alculated a n un r e s t r i cted P TE for m ethane em is si on s of

1 , 59 6 lb s/m onth , th e eq ui v al ent o f 17 to ns p er

m onth

2 (“tpm ”) of CO e. Id. T he P e rm it acco unts in C ondition 4. 4.2 for 33 m ethane em issions encom passing the source’s full unrestricted PTE of

2 17 tpm of CO e, whic h are added to GH G em issions f r om co m bustionS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 37

Simila rly , IC A S’s cont ent ion that the Re g ion cl ea rly er re d by not r equi ring 34 m ore f re quent c al cul at ions of

G HG e m is si ons tha

n the m onthly

c al cul at ions the Permit re quire s, seeCondi tions D .1.3- .4, f al ls s hort. T he Re g ion e xpla ine d that its de ci si on to ca lc ulate e m is si ons on a

m onthly ba si s st emm ed f

rom “ g ood c onf

ide nce in the ov er al l [G HG e m is si on] c om

plia nce te chni que and the re f

ore ‘y ea rly ’ e m is si ons ar e re quire d to be sum m ed only m onthly .” St at em ent

of Ba si s at 38. A lthough G HG

e m issi on (c ontinue d...) sources when calculatingtotal GH G em issions. See S ta te m ent o f B as is at 39 ; Sh ell D iscovere r 20 12 , s lip op . at 64- 65, 15 E. A. D. at _ __. I C A S rai se s se v er al cha ll en g es to th e P erm it ’s GH G e m is si on li m it

.

x Simila r to it s cha ll enges of the Per m it ’s synthe ti c m ino r li m it s forNO ,

2 CO , and SO , I CA S c ontend s that the Perm it contains a blank et em ission lim it for GH Gs that is practically un enforcea

ble, and further asserts th at th e re qu ir em ent that G H G e m is si ons o nly b e ca lc ul at ed

m onth ly to de te rm in e co m

pl ianc e w ith th e es ta

bl is he d ro ll in g1 2- m ont h li m itis inadeq uate to v erify

com pliance “in a g iv en m om ent.” I CA S P etition a t21

- 22 (c i t i ng NSR Ma nual at C

. 3, C

. 5, H

. 5) ; see Pe rm it Co nditions D. 1.3- .4

. I n ad dition, I CA S a sserts th at the Reg ion c learly erred by ac ce pt in gan owne r- re qu es te d li m itf or m ethane a ttri buta

bl e to m ud o ff

g assingfrom

the DMS that is not o nly un enforcea

ble, but a lso less than the “m axim

um exp ected capacity ” or “ upper- boun d p roj ection” Con ocoP hillips su

bm itted in anothe r Arctic OCS perm it proceeding

. Id. at 22

- 26. Base d o n the foreg oing inform ation, I CA S’s g eneral assertion that the G HGem ission lim it is p ractically u nenforceable m ust fail. The Reg ion h as d em onstrated

in both the P erm it and

the docum entation in the re c o r d s up p o rt i n gth e P e rm i tth a ti tc r a f t e d as yn t h e t i c m i n o r

l i m i tthat wou ld no t only

prev ent S hell from

bein gsub j ect to regulation unde r the P S D p ro g ram

f or G H G e m is si on s, b ut

a lso woul d be p ra ct ic al ly en fo rc ea bl e as ar es ul t o f th e num er ou s ope ra ti on al r es tr ic ti on s in co m bi na ti on w it h m on it ori ng, recor dkeepi ng, and rep ort ing req uirem en ts contain ed in

the Perm it. While I CA S a ck now ledg es the op erational li m it s co nt ai ne d inth e P erm it , I C A S s im ul taneou sl y

d is pute s th ei r e f f i c a c y wi t ho ut ex pl a i ni ng wh y su c h o pe r a t i on a l l i mit s wi l l no tha ve their inte nded

effect of restricting Shell’s potential to em it GH Gs. See 34S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 38

(.. .c ontinue d)

34 ca lc ulations w ill be c al cul at ed once a m onth bas ed on the Re g ion’s s tate d c onf ide nce in its com plian ce m etho d, th e data re qu ir ed t o m ake such calculation s is c ollected cont inu ou sly

thro ugh fuel usag e m on itori ng. RT C at 43-4 4 (“Shell is generally required to c on t i nu ou s l y m e a s ur e and r e c or d, on an ho ur l y ba s i s , the f ue l c on s um e d by

ea ch emis si on unit

or g roup of

e m is si on unit s. ”) ; see also Regi o n Resp o n se at24 (ci ti n g 1989 Gui dance on Li mi ting PTE and notingthat “i n lig ht of annua l va ria tions in oper at ions and the f act that the source operates durin g only part of the y ear” the Reg ion determ inedthat
2 a 12-m onth r olli ng li m it f or CO e w as a

ppropr iate a s st at ed) . A g ai n, I CA S ha s f ai le d to m ee t i ts burde n of

de m onst ratingthat r ev ie w

is w ar ra nte d, w her e, a s h ere , it ha s not addressed the Region’s stated ratio nale for requi ring on ly month ly ca lculatio n of GHG emis si ons and has not demonst rate d that m o n th ly c al cul at ion of G HG e m is si on w ould inhibi t v er if

ic at ion of c om plia nce w ith the G HG

e m is si on li m it. See

s upra Part II I. I C A S P et it io n at

2 1- 22

. W itho ut

s ta ti ngm or e th an

m er e di sa g re em ent, I CA S c anno t m eet the especially hig h thresho ld of dem onstratingthat the Reg ion’s inherently

techn ical de cisions reg ardingt he GHGem ission limit w a r rant B oard rev iew. See, e. g. , NE H ub Partn ers , 7 E.A.D. at 5 67 ; Shell Disco verer 2012 , s lip op . at 42- 43, 15 E. A. D. at _ __. I CA S’s m ore sp ecific co ntention that the R eg ion c l e a r l y erred by ac ce p t i n g a n o w n e r r e qu e s t e d r e s t r i c t i o n f o r m e t h a n e f

r o m m u d o ff

g assingthat is prac tically un enforceabl e i s unav ailing

. See I CAS P et it io n at

2 2- 26

. I C A S rai se d th is s am e ar g um ent i n pr ev io us a pp ea ls of tw o OCS PSD perm its the Reg ion is sued to S hell fo r op erations in the Chuk chi S ea o f the Arctic OC S. See Shell Dis c ov erer 2 012 , s lip op

. at 62

- 68 , 15 E. A

. D

. at _

__ ; see a lso su

pra no te 2 0. In br ie f, th e m onth ly calculation

of m ethane to be released in m ud off- g assingin both Sh el l Disco verer 2012 and

th e curr ent a

pp ea l are no t onl y th e sam e am ount , 17 t p m , th e y a l s o b o t hr e f

l e c tth e un r e s t r i c t e d

P TE f o r m e t h a ne em issions from

D MS o peration s. See R TC a t 34- 35; Shell Disco verer 2012 , s lip op . at 66, 15 E. A. D. at _ _. T he Board

rejects I CA S’s a ssertion in this instance , rely ing on the sam e reasons it g av e in Shell Disco verer 2012 : [T]he Perm it[] in th is case do [es] not include o wne r requ ested lim its on PTE fo r m ethane em issions. R ather, * * * m ethane em issions were assum ed to occur at the source[’s] full PT E fo rS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 39

T his is the sam e unrestricted P TE f or m ethane em ission s as in the Kul luk 35 per m it (1596 l b / 2000 lb = 0.798 t ons)

. the fiv e- m onth drillingseaso n (0 .79 8 ton s pe r m onth), and the 35 Per mi t [ ] count [s ] th ese em is si ons towar ds t he to ta l GHG lim itation * * * . The Reg ion d eterm ined t ha t beca use these unr est ri ct ed emissi ons of m et han e (whe n combinedwith GHG e m issions from

com bustion sources) w ould not re sult in an ex ce ed an ce o f th e P erm it [’ s] to ta l G H G e m is si on s lim it, addition al permittingrestriction lim its w ere n ot req

uired. Und er thes e circum stances, I CA S’s re liance o n t h e r e q uirem ent that p erm its inclu de co nd i tions ensurin gthe enforcea bility of lim it a t i ons on a so urce’s PTE is m isplaced , a s the Perm its do not c on t a i n owner requeste d lim its onm ethane em issions or otherw ise lim it the source[’s ] PTE from D MS o peration s. Shell Disco verer 2012 , s lip op . at 66- 67, 15 E. A. D. at ___ (citations om itted). I n a d d i t i o n , I C A S h a s n o td e m o n s t r a t e d th a tth e R e g i o n’ s cal c ul a t ion o f m ethane em issions from the DMS unde restim ated th e “upp er- lim it” pro

j ection that is in turn

use d t o i dentify the “m axim um c ap a c i t y ” o f

aso ur c e ba s e d

on an“i n h e r e n tphy s i c a l li m i t a t i o n . ” R TC a t34 (c i t i ng Optio ns fo r L imiting PTE at 8 and Mem orand um from John S ei tz , D ir

. , O ff

ic e of Air Qu al ity

P lann in g& S tand ar ds , to R eg ’l A ir Di r s ., U .S. EP A, C

a l c u l a t i n g

P o t e n t i a l

t o E m i t ( P T E ) a n d O ther Guid ance for G rain Han dling Facilities at4- 5 (Nov. 14, 1995 ) (A.R. B10 ) [h er ei na ft er Gra in H andling G uidan ce ])

. I C A S ’s a sse rt io n is prem ised o n C onoc oPh illips’ higher e stim ate of D M S m e th an e e mi s sions subm itted to the R eg ion in ano ther p e r mit proceed ingcon cerning exp l o r a t o ry dr i l l i n g i n t h e A r c t i c O C S

. I C A S P e t i t i o n a t23

- 26. How ev er, I CA S s im

ply states that the discrepancy between Shell’s and Con ocoP hillips’ ca lculations of DMS m ethane em issions m eans that the R eg io n cl earl y erred

in a cc ep ti ngS he ll ’s m ethane c al cu la ti on s, b ut it does not a ck

now ledg e or ev aluate the rec ord inform ation Shell subm ittedS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 40

In Shel l D is cov erer 2012 , I CA S a ss er

te d that i t w as una

ble to ev al u at e the 36 bas is f or Shel l’s est im at es of DMS m et hane em is si ons that the Re g ion had re lie d on t o ca lc ulate PTE be ca

use She ll did not re le as e its e st im at es unti l a f te r t he cl ose of

the com m ent pe riod. Sl ip op. at 65 n.63, 15 E.A .D . at __

_ . I n that i nst anc e, the Boa rd conc lude d that t

he Re g ion w as a

uthori ze d to suppl ement t h e re cor d w ith pre v ious ly un ava ilable inform ation confirm ing that Sh ell’ s es tim ate of m ethane P TE w as a re as onabl e upper -bound e st im at ion, and “[t]hus, IC A S ha d the opportunity to ev al uat e the ba si s f

or She ll’ s PTE e st im at es and the Re g ion’s a ss es sm ent of thos e es tim at es in preparin g its appeal t o t h i s B o ard .” Id. (ci ti n g In re Cape Wind Assoc. , LLC , OCS A ppea l N o. 11-01, s lip op. at 8, 10 ( EAB M ay 20, 2011) , 15 E .A .D . at ___, and 40 C. F.R . §§ 124. 17(a )- (b) , .18( b))

.

The m aterial in q uestion i s n ot o nly in the record sub m itted with the Discovere r appe al s, it

a ls o a ppea rs in the re cor d f

or t he ins ta nt a ppea l. See E-m ail f

rom Susan Child s, Shell, to Dou g H ardesty , EP A Region 1 0 (Sept. 1 6, 20 11 1 4:3 1 pm P DT ) (A .R. CC C- 438 in Shel l D is cov erer 2012 and A .R. C- 575 in t he cur re nt a ppea l). T hus in t

he cur re nt a ppea l t her e is no que st ion t

hat the inf orm at ion f

rom She ll cl arif

y ingand exp la in i n g i ts est imate of DM S meth an e emissi o n s, in cl u d in g th e h igh ly con servat ive ass u m p ti o n s She ll inc lude d in its e st im at e, w as at I CA S’s dis posa l. In addi tion, She ll submitt ed f

urthe r c la

rif ic at ion of

it s DMS m et h an e es tim at es a s com par ed to Con ocoP hill ips’ in ord er to “explain ho w diff erent assum

ptio ns led to d iff

erent results, and w hy She ll bel ie v es that C onocoPhill ips ’ e st im at e is unre al is tic al ly h igh .” E- m ai l f rom Susan Ch i lds, Sh ell, to EP A Reg ion 10 (Sep t. 20 , 20 11 17: 57 pm P DT ) (A .R. C577). IC A S’s pe tit ion doe s not addr es s ei the r of the se re cor d s ubm is si ons or t he Re g ion’s re lia nce on this inf

orm at ion t o determ ine that t he Re g ion’s c al cul at ion of m et hane emis si ons f

rom the D MS r epr es ent s “a

re aso n ab le uppe r- bound proj ec tion f or S hel l’s op erations [ that] is not expected to be exce eded un der any reas on ably

anticipated oper at ings ce nar io.” R T C a t 35. that explains in depth th e cau ses fo r the div erg ent m ethane calculation s. 36 Upo n co nsideringthis inform a t i on, the Reg ion e xercised its tec hnical expertise in co ncludin gthat Shell’s estim ates o f m ethane em issions from t he DM S we r e pe rmis s i bl e , e s pe c i a l l y g i ven th e co ns e rvat i ve assum ptions the R eg ion in corpo rated when calculatingPTE. I CA S d oes no t a dd re ss e ithe r th e re cor d in fo rm at io n th at s up po rt s th e R eg io n’ s decision to accept Sh e ll’s m ethane estim ate or the R eg ion’s stated rationale f

or co ncludin gthat m ethane m onitoringis n ot req uired. See RTC at 35

- 36 (explain ingth a t , based on the inherent lim itations that exi stand th e re la ti vely small co ntr ibu ti on of the DM S to overa ll GHG em issions, the Reg ion d oes not b eliev e m onitoringof DMS em issions or op er at io ns is ne ce ss ar

y in ad di ti on to th e m on it or in ga lr ea dy r eq ui re d in t he p e r mit). A s this Board h as o ften state d, a pe titioner c anno tS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 41 de m on stra te th at

r eview is w ar

rant ed if th e pe ti ti on er

f ai ls to substantiv ely

con front a

perm it issuer’s respon se. Peab ody , 12 E.A.D. at 3 3 (n ot in gth at

to o bt ai n re view a

p et it io ne r m

us t “ expl ai n w hy , in lig ht of the p erm it issuer’s rationale, the perm it is cle arl y e r r on e ous or o t h e rw i s e d e s e rv i n go f

r e v ie w ”) ; see a lso In re BP Che rry P oint , 12 E.A .D . 2 09, 21 7 (E AB 20 05). Mo reover , a s stated abo v e, the R eg io n’ s de ci si on

r eg ar di ngth e G H G e m is si on li m it is i nh er entl y t e c hn i c a l in na tur e , a ndI CA S h a s f a l l e n s ho rtof

th e pa rt i c ul a r l y hi gh thre sh ol d itm

us t m ee t to d em on stra te th at r ev ie wo f th e R eg io n’ s technica l determ ination is warranted. See Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 33- 34; see a lso NE

H ub , 7 E .A .D . at 567

- 68. 4. The R eg io n D id

N ot C le ar lyE rr in R es tr ic ti ng

O C S So urce ’s

2 Poten tial to Em it SO

2 The Perm it restricts S O emissions f r om the Kullu k

and the Asso ciated Fleet to no m ore th an 1 0 tpy , w ell bel ow t he 2 50 tpy PS D thresho ld lev el. See P erm itC on di ti on D. 4. 3. C om

pl ianc e w ith th is li m it is dete rm ined on a rolling12

- m onth basis and is ach iev ed b y requ iring that S hell n ot co m

bust any liquid fuel with sulfur con t e nt greater than 0.0 1 p ercent by

w eig ht in an y em ission unit o n the Kullu k or the Asso ciated Fleet and that all fuel purch ased for us e in em ission units on the Kullu k

and A ssociated

Flee t hav e a m axim

um sulfur content o f 0. 00 15 p er ce nt

b y w ei g ht

. P erm itC on di ti on s D

. 4. 5, D

. 4. 9. S hell i s required to k eep diesel fuel purchase records docum entingsulfur content for eac h b atch o f fuel purch ased. P erm it Co ndition D. 4.9 .2. In ad dition, the t ot a l am ount of fue l com busted in eng ines and boilers m ust n ot ex ce ed 7 , 00 4, 42 8 g al lo ns d

ur in gany r ol li ng1 2- m onthp er io d. P erm it C on di ti on D

. 4. 6; see a lso P erm itC on di ti on F

. 2. 4 (r eq

ui ri ng She ll to (1) ob tain rep resentativ e fue l sam ples a nd determ ine fu el sulfu

r content in parts per m illion from fuel storag e t ank s on

the Kullu k

and the Asso ciated Fl e e t p r ior to their m obiliz ation, (2) determ ine th e su lfur c o n t e n to f

e a c hd e l i v e ry

o f f u e l t o the Kullu k

and the Asso ciated Fleet once the v essels are m obiliz ed, and (3) m aintain records of all sam pling an d an al y si s)

.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 42

2 I CA S a sserts th at the Reg ion justifies its bl a nke t SO em issions lim its by inclu ding“purpor t ed ‘o peration al lim its’” that restrict fuel c o n t e n tan d

u s a g e an d

c o n c l u d e s th a tco m

p l i a n c e w i t hth e re s t r i c t e d P TE

2 fo r S O is p ra ct ic al ly

une nf or ce ab le b ec au se th es e op er at io na l li m it s ar e no t uni t- sp ec if

ic and b ec au se th e ov er al l lim itis b as ed o n a 12

- m onth ro ll in gli m it

. I C A S P et it io n at 2 6- 27

. I C A S o ff

er s no e xp lanati on

a s to w hy th e op er at io na l l im it s an d av er ag in gti m e th e R eg io n ch os e to in cl ud e inthe Pe rm it , bo thof w hi chare c le ar ly c on si de re d le g it im at e in Ag ency guid a nce, non etheless constitute clear error. See R eg ion R es po ns e at

2 8; Optio ns on Lim iting P TE attach . 1 at 5 (“[L ]im itations on sulfur dioxid e em issions could be b ased on specified s ul fur co ntent of fue l a nd the so urce’s oblig ation to lim it usag e to certain m axim um amounts. ”) ; 1989G uidan ce o n L imiting PTE at 9

- 10 ( no ti ngth at

in certain s i t ua tions a rollinglim it of up to a y ear m ay be appro priate fo r so ur ce s w ith “s ubstant ia l and unp re di ct ab le ann

ua l v ar ia ti on

in produ ct i on ,” inclu ding“so urce whic h shut do wn or curtail ope ration duringpart of the y ear o n a regular se asona l cy cle”). I CA S a ls o c halleng es the m onitoringpro v isions for sm all and /or infreque ntly

use d em ission units that are not required to hav e fuel flow m on it or s. I C A S P et it io n at 2 7. A s th e R eg io n co rr ec tl y p oi nt s out, how ev e r, I CA S m ak es n o attem pt to explain

w hy the specified fuel m easurem ent alternativ es, tog ether w ith the requirem ent to m easure and re co rd f ue l us ag e be fo re an d af

te r op er at io n, do no t al lo wf or ar el ia bl e and accurate assessm ent o f fue l usa g e. R eg ion R espon se at 28 (citing Perm it Co ndition F.2 .2. 2). Here ag ain, I CA S o ffers no thingm ore th an a ba ld ass ertion of clear error wi t ho ut anyana ly sis of why the Reg ion e r r e d. Where, as here, the Reg ion’s decision w as technical in

nature, I CA S h as failed

to m eet the particularly

high thresh old fo r estab lishing that rev iew of the R eg ion’s technica l determ ination is w arranted. 5. Sh el l’ s Min or S ou rc e P er m it I s N ot a “Sh am ”P er

m it I CA S a sse r ts that in ord er to ensure the Kullu k ’s status as a m inor source, Sh ell has ag reed to op erational lim itations in it s O CS / Title V pe rm itth at

are n ot r ep re se nt ed

in o th er autho ri z at io ns and

p erm it app li cat ion s for Shel l’ s exp lor at ory act ivit ie s in the Bea ufo rt Sea. I CASS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 43

T he NSR Manu al def

ines a sham

perm it as f

ollo w s: 37 A s ham pe rmit is a

f ede ra lly e nf orc ea ble pe rmit w ith oper at ing restri ct i o n s lim itin g a

source’s poten tial to em it such th at poten tial emis si ons do not ex ce ed the m aj or or de m in imis lev el s f

or t he purpos e of

allow ingconst

ruc tion to c om

m enc e prior

to appl y ingf

or a m aj or s ourc e per

m it. P er m its w ith condi tions tha

t do not r ef

le ct a sour ce’s pla nn ed

m ode o f ope ration m ay

be c onsi der ed v oid a

nd ca nnot s hie ld t

he source f

rom the re quire m ent

to under g o m aj or sour ce pre cons truc tion re v ie w . I n othe r w ords , i f a s ourc e ac ce pts oper at iona l l im its to obta in a m inor sour ce c onst

ruc tion per

m it but inte nds to ope rate the sour ce in ex ce ss of thos e limita

tions onc e the u n i ti s b u i l t , th e p er mit i s c o n si d er ed a s h am. NSR M anual at C .6. IC A S a ss er

ts tha t i ts c once rn w ith the pote ntia l f or S hel l t o o bta in a

m inor 38 sour ce s ham

pe rmit ar ose be ca

use “ Re g ion 10 has prov ide d no a ss ura nce that r epor

ting m ec hani sm s in t

he per m it w ill prov ide s uf

f ic ie nt t im e f

or S h el l t o ha lt dril lingw ith enough of

an e m is si ons buf

f er re m ai ningto se cur e a par tia lly dri lle d w el l f

or t he ent ire w inter season * * *

. ” ICA S P etition at 29

. ICAS also ac knowledge s that any ex cee dance of an e m is si on li m it w ould a llow the A g enc y

to ex er ci se i ts e n for ce m ent pow er s. Id. Withou t m ore, ICA S canno t dem on strate th at th e Region clearly erred in determ inin g that S h el l ’ s mi n o r

so u r ce p er mit i s n o ta s h am. P et it io n at

2 8. I C A S a ll eg es th at

S he ll ’s in ci de nt al h az ar d as se ss m ent, re qui re d unde r th e Ma ri ne M amm a l Prot ect ion Act, 16 U.S.C. § 1 37 1(a)(5)(A), (D ), a uthoriz es 7 8 d ay s of drillingw hereas the OC S/ T itle V perm it only auth oriz es 6 8 d ay s of drilling

. Id. B a s e d on th is s in g le d is cr ep an cy , I C A S c at eg or ic al ly c on cl ude s th at

“ S he ll is sub m i t t i n gp e rm i ta

p p l i c a t i o n s an d

s e e k i n gau t h o r i z a t i o nf

r o m o t h er ag en c i e s w i t hd i f

f e r e n tp l a n s th a nar e p r o v i d e d f o r i ni t s a i r p e rm i t.” I CA S P etition at 28- 29. I CA S a lso as serts that the Reg ion d id no t adequ ately

respo nd to its conce rn that Sh ell’s ap plication for a m inor s o ur c e p e rmi ti s as h a m. Id. 37 At the o utset, the B oard notes that I CA S’s assertion that S hell h as se cure d a sh am

m in or s ourc e pe rm itw ith th e in te ntionto av oi d pr ec on stru ct io n re v ie wa s a m ajor s ou rc e under the P S D p ro g ram is who lly un supp orted in the record. A s the Reg ion n oted in the R espon se 38 to C om m ents , th er e is no th in gto in di cate th at S he ll inte nd s to late r ap pl yS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 44

Spe ci f

ic al ly , the g uide line s f

or det er m ining w hen m inor sour ce c onst

ruc tion 39 per m its are s ham s st at e in r el ev ant part: 1. Fi linga PSD or nonatta inm ent

N SR per m it appl ic at ion If a m ajor sou rce or m ajor m od ific ation perm it appl ication is f iled sim ultan eously w ith o r at the sam e tim e a s the m ino r source co n st ru ct io n pe rmit , t h is is st ro n g evid en ce o f an intent to circumve nt th e re qu irements of preconstru ction rev iew

. * * * * (c ontinue d...) to th e R eg io n to re m ov e th e sy nthe ti c li m it s co nt ai ne d in the Pe rm it

. RTC at 22. The Reg ion continu ed that, reg ardless of what the in cidental ha z ar d as se ss m ent s ay s re g ar di ngth e numbe r of d ay s S he ll m ay

dri ll , Shell none theless “m

ust compl y with all requirem ents o f the Kulluk Perm it and failure to do so is a v iolation of the CAA. ” Id. ( ci ti ngP erm it Con dition A. 3). Fin ally , th e R eg ion m ade clear that whe ther an orig inal request for a m inor s ource perm it is a “sham ” m ay be ev aluated whe n the Reg ion re ceiv es a request to rem ov e the synthetic lim its. Id. I CA S re j ects th e R eg ion’s statem ent th at there is nothin g to su g g est that S hell inte nds to ob tain a m inor s ource perm it nowand then app ly for a m aj or so urce perm it down the road, and baldly asserts that “th is is n ot the p roper test.” I CA S P etiti on a t 2 8. I CA S ignores the ele m ent o f intent to ob tain a m inor source sham perm it that both the R eg ion in the Resp onse to C om

m ents and the 1989 Guid ance on Lim itingPTE discuss and instead quotes the NS R Manual languag e for the p ropositio n that the “prop er test” is a pe rm it that does not re flect a source’s “ plann ed m ode of op e r a t i on .” I CA S Pet i t i on a t 2 8 ( c i t i ng NSR Manu al at C .6) (e m ph as is in o ri g in al ); see also 1989 Guid ance on Lim iting P TE at 12

. How ev er, the 1 989 Guid ance on Lim iting P T E c ontains guidelines for de te rm in in g, bas ed onan ev al uati on o f sp ec if ic f ac ts and e v id en ce in e a c hi n d i vi du a l c a s e , w h e nmi n o r s o ur c e c o n s t ru c t i o np e rmi t s ar e s h a ms an d in cl ud es tw o o f fo ur

cri te ri a th at

d is cu ss th e in te nt

o f th e so ur ce to circum v ent the PSD precon struction rev iew process . 1989G uidan ce o n Lim iting P TE at 14

- 15. 39S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 45

(.. .c ontinue d) 39 4. St at em ent

of a uthori ze d re pre se ntativ es of the s ourc e re g ar ding pla ns f or ope ration State m ent s by

re pre se ntativ es of

the s ourc e to E PAor to s tate or local perm ittin g a gencies abou t the sour ce’s plan s f or operation ca

n be ev iden ce to sho w intent to circumvent preconstructio n r ev iew re quirem ent

s . 1989 G uidanc e on Lim iti ng PTE at 14- 15 (e m

phas is a dded)

. I C A S h as n ot

id enti fi ed any in fo rm at io n in th e re co rd th at s up po rt s it s as se rt io n th at

S he ll is s ee k in gto av oi d pr ec on stru ct io n re v iew. Moreov er, m inor s ource sham perm its are g enerally

discov ered whe n a source seek s an other air em issions perm it that requests the p erm it issuer to relaxthe synthetic lim its in the m inor p erm it, see 1989G uidan ce o n L i m i t ing P TE at 12

- 14, rather than whe n the source see k s an other auth or iz at io n un de r a diff er ent s ta tute s uc h as th e Mari ne Mam m al s P ro te ct io n A ct

. F in al ly , I C A S h as n ot d em on stra te d any

d ef ic ie nc y in the Reg ion’s respons e to its com m ent reg ardingsham

perm its. See, e. g. , R us se ll Cit y II , s li p op . a t 3 0- 31 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ( no ti ngth at

th e part 12 4 re g ul at io ns r eq

ui re ar es po ns e to c om m ents d oc um ent t o “dem onstrate that all sig nificant com m ents w ere considered

but does no t require a pe rm it issuer to resp ond to eac h co m m ent in an indiv idualiz ed m anne r or re qu ir e th e pe rm it is su er ’s re sp on se to b e of th e sam e le ng th or lev el of detail as com

m ent”) (c itation o m itted). F or a ll of th e re as on s st at ed ab ov e, th e B oard d en ie s re v ie wo f th is issue.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 46

2 2

T o date, EP A

has es tablish ed P SD increm ents f or four po llut ants – SO , NO , 40

1 0 2 .5 PM , a nd PM . T he in cr em ent s cons is t of num er ic c once ntra

tions , m ea sur ed in m ic rog ra m s of poll uta nt pe r c ubic m et er

of ai r, that v ar

y a cc ordingto av er ag ingpe riod (3-h ou r, 24 -ho ur, o r annu al av erag es) a nd ge ographi c location (areas desig nated as “C la ss I, ” “C la ss II ,” or “C la ss II I” ). See 40 C .F.R . § 52. 21(c ) ( ta ble of inc re m ent

le v el s)

. B. RED OIL Pe t i t i on ers H ave Not Dem onstra ted T hat th e R egion Clea rly Erred in D eclining to R equire PSDIncre men t C onsu mptio n An alyses for th e K ulluk’s Prop osed Em issions as Part o f the Title V Perm itting Process 1. Section 504(

e) of CA A Title V Impo ses Per mitting Requ ireme nts o n “ Tem

pora ry” Stationa ry S

ources The CA A ’s P S D p ro g ram r eq ui re s pe rm ita

pp li cant s to d em on stra te com pliance with a m

bient air qu ality

“incre m ents” (also c alled “ PSD increm ents”) for s pecific air po llutants. See C AA§§ 16 1, 163, 165( a) (3) (A) , 42 U.S.C. §§ 7471 , 7473 , 7475 (a )( 3)( A); 4 0 C.F.R. § 52

. 21 (c ), ( k). S uc h in cr em ents are m ax im um a ll ow ab le in cr ea se s in po ll ut ant c on ce ntra ti on s th at m ay o cc ur in p arti cu lar ar ea s. T he y

are 40 desig ned to “p rev ent significant deterioration ” of air qu ality in locations th at a lr ea dy have r el at iv el y

c le an a ir b y e ns ur in gth at

c ontam in ants contributed b y

pro posed

newsources, com

bined with lev els of contam ination already

prese nt in the am

bient air as of a specific baseline date, fall w ithin b ound s established by the Ag ency . Se e ge ne ra ll y NSR Manual ch. C. As noted in P art VI .A .1. b ab ov e, Con g ress d e s i gne d the P SD pr ogr a m t o r e gul a t e “maj or ” so ur c e s of ai r po l l ut i o n , whi c h h a ve potential to em it certain specific pollutants in am ounts exceed ingm aj or source thresho ld lev els. “ M i no r ” so urces, w hich hav e pro j ected em is si on s th at

f al l b el ow th e P S D m ajor so ur ce thre sh ol ds , g en er al ly are not re g ulated unde r the PSD pro g ram . The Bo ard d eterm ined abov e that the Kullu k

qu alifies as a m inor s ource for P SD purposes, and so it is n ot required to obtain a P SD perm it. The Kullu k no netheles s is still subject to pe rm ittingun der th e C AA ’s Title V prog ram . The qu estion presente dS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 47 is whether section 504(e ) of Title V i mpos e s P SD increm ent requirem ents in

this circum stance. I n sec t i on 504(e ) of Title V, Con g ress se t out perm itting requirem ents fo r “tem

porary ” station ary

sources o f air p ollution, as follow s: The pe rm it ti ng auth or ity m ay is su e a si ng le [Tit le V] per m it auth or iz in ge m is si on s fr om s im il ar o pe rati on s at

m ul ti pl e te m po rary lo cati on s. N o su ch pe rm it sh al l be is su ed unl es s it include s co nditions that will a ssure com pliance with all the requirem ents of this chapter [i.e., the CA A] at all au t horized locations , in cluding , b ut no t lim ited to, am bient standard s an d com pl ianc e w ith any

a pp li ca bl e in cr em ent o r v is ib il ity requirem ents under part C of subch apter I of this ch apter [i. e., th e P S D p ro g ram ]. CA A § 5 04(e), 42 U .S. C. § 7 66 1c(e). In allo wingfor a stream lined perm ittingpro cess in

w hich a sing le perm it could auth oriz e em issions at m ultiple tem

porary locatio ns, Con g ress explained : Som e so urces requiring[Title V] perm its do n ot o perate at fixed l oc ations. These m ig ht inc lude asbesto s de m olition con tr act ors and ce rt ai n asp hal t pl ant s. Subse c t i o n (e) all ows the p erm ittee to r e c e i v e a perm it allow ingop erations, after notification

to the p erm ittingauth ori ty , at num erous fixed locations w ithout requiring a n ew perm it at ea ch s ite. Any s uc h p erm it m

ust as sure c om

pliance at all lo cations of operatio n w ith all applicab le requ irem ents o f the Act, inclu ding visibility protection

and PS D requirem ents and am bient standard s. H

. R

. R ep . N o. 1 01

- 49 0, p t. 1 , a t 3 50 ( 19 90 ). The parties’ dispute cente r s on com petinginterp retations of section 504(e ) and

w hether, in prov idingfor a stream lined perm itting process for tem

porary sour c e s , Congress in tended tem porary m inorS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 48

sources to hav e incre m ent prov isions in their Title V perm its w here the st a t e im plem entation plans do not o therw ise im pose increm ent prov isions on such sources . Section 50 4(e) is an unusu al prov ision, no t only bec ause it add

resses tem porary rather than perm anent stationary sources o f air p ollution (whi chc om

pr is e th e m ajor ity

o f Titl e V s ourc es ), b ut a ls o be caus e it im poses substantiv e air requirem ents o n tem porary sources. As a g eneral m atter, Tit le V is a procedural rather than a substantiv e statute. I t serv es as a v ehicle for co llectingdiv erse CA A r e quirem ents o therw ise applicab le to a sou rce into on e all- encom passingair p erm it for th at source. See , e.g. , Ohi o Pu b. Interest Research G rp., Inc. v. W hitma n , 386 F.3 d 7 92, 79 4 (6 th C ir. 2 004) (“Title V does not i m pose new oblig ations; r a t he r , it conso lidates p re- existingrequ irem ents into a si ng le , c om

pr eh en si v e do cum ent fo r ea chs ourc e” ); O pe ra ti ngP erm it Program , 5 7 F ed. Reg . 32, 25 0, 32, 251 (J uly 21 , 1 992) (explain ingthat Title V “g enerally

do es n ot im

pose substantiv e ne w r e quirem ents” on sources but instead

attem pts to “clarify, in a sing le do cum ent, whic h requirem ents a

pply to a source, ” there by ena blingall p arties to better un de rs tand

and tr ac k th at s ourc e’ s C A A co m

pl ianc e)

. F or

th e m os t p art, re qu ir em ents th at

are “ ap pl ic ab le ” to as ourc e’ s em is si on s un it s un de r a Title V perm it are directly im posed no t by Title V itself but, rath er, by st at e or f ed er al im pl eme nt at io n pl an s, p re co ns tr uc ti on p er m it s, th e ai r toxics or ac id rainpro g ram s, and other substantiv e C AApro v isions. See 40 C. F.R . § § 7 0.2 , 7 1.2 (defin itions of “applicable requirem ents” unde r st at e an d fe de ra l o pe ra ti ngp erm itp ro g ram r egul at io ns , r es pe ct iv el y ). To ensure ade quate regulation of tem porary sources, C ong ress directed that Title V perm its for such sources mus t includ e, as n oted ab ov e, “ co nd it io ns th at

w il l a ss ur e co m

pl ianc e w ith al l the r eq

ui re m ents of [the C AA ] at a ll autho r i zed l oc a tions, inclu ding , b ut no t lim ited to, am bient standard s an d co m pliance with a ny a pplicab le incre m ent o r v is ib il ity r eq ui re m ents und er

[ th e P S D p rog ram ]. ” C A A § 5 04 (e ), 42 U.S .C . § 76 61 c ( e ) . T he pa rt i e s do no tdi s pu t e th a t t h i s la ngu a ge se rv es to im

po se , thro ugh Tit le V it se lf , sub st anti v e C A A r eq

ui re m ents on tem porary sources. See RE DO I L Petition at 19

- 25; R eg ion R espon se at 5- 6. Indeed , th ey

ag ree that, b ecause of section 504(e ), th e Kullu k ’sS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 49 Titl e V p erm it“ m

us t c onta inte rm s and

c on di ti on s th at

e ns ur e com pliance with the N AA QS at a ll rele vant locations .” State m ent o f Basis at 26 , qu oted

in R eg io n R es po ns e at

5 ; see RED OI L Petition at 21

. The p arti es s tr on g ly

d is pute , h ow ev er , w he th er P S D in cr em ents s ho ul d also b e included in the com plem ent o f sub stantiv e req uirem ents fo r the Kullu k

. 2. Und

er theRe

gion’s Interpre tation, PS D Increm ent Com plianceD emo nstration s A r e N ot Mand atory for Tem pora ry Minor

So urces but MayBeRe quired by States The R eg io n’ s ba si c po si ti on is th at s ec ti on 5 04 (e ) un if

or m ly im poses am bient standard s (i.e ., NA AQ S) c om pliance requirem ents o n all t e m p o r a ry s o ur c e s , b u t t h a t i t d o e s n o t un i f o rm l y s o i m

pose PSD increm ent req

uirem ents. The R eg ion in itially based this d istinction on th e langua g e of

sec ti on 5 04 (e ) an d th e im

pl em enti ngr eg

ul at io ns , a s w el l as on a prior Ag ency

interpretation of these auth orities. SeeState m ent of B asis at 25- 27. T he d i s tinction hing ed p rim arily on C ong ress’ insertion of the adjectiv e “ap plicable” in sec tion 5 04(e) to m odify no t “am bient standard s” b ut on ly

“incre m ent o r v isibility

requ irem e nt s u

n der [the P SD pro g ram ].” Id

. a t 2 6; see CA A § 50 4( e) , 42 U. S

. C

. § 7 66 1c (e ). PSD increm ents are only

“ap plicable” to a tem

porary source, the R eg ion reasone d, if the source a l s o qualifies as a PSD m aj or so urce, ob lig ated to obtain a PSD perm it. Statem ent of Basis a t 26 (“ a pplicab le” in cr em ent r eq

ui re m ents are th os e ap pl ic ab le “ un de r [the P S D p ro g ram ]” (i.e., part C of subchap ter I of the CAA ), whichcov ers only PSD m aj or sources ). By

this log ic, th e Kullu k , aPS D min orso ur c e , wo ul d n ot ha ve to de m onstrate com

pliance with PSD increm ents at anyof its auth oriz ed locations

. Id

. Com m entors on the Kullu k ’s dra ftp erm itp re ss ed th e R eg io n on

th is po i n t , w h i c h p r o m

p t e d i t t o t a k e a c l o s e r l o o k a t t h e e n t i r e issue. The R eg io n pr ep ar ed

ale ng thy , d et ai le d R es po ns e to C om m ents d oc um ent, in w hi c h it repeated

the abov e po ints, but a lso ad ded a far m ore ro bust discuss ion o f the precon struction perm ittingpro gra m s for m aj or an d m inor s ources. The Reg ion e xplaine d that, unde r the statute and im plem entingregulations, states hav e d i s c r etion to im pose PSDS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 50 increm ent req

uirem ents o n P SD m i no r s ou rces as part of the ir m inor source constru ction perm ittingpro g ram s, if the states d eem suc h r e qu i r e men t s ne c e s s a ry t o pr e ven t s i gni f i c a nt de t e r i or a t i on of a i r

qu a l i t y. See R TC a t 10 2- 09 ( ci ti ngand d is cu ss in g , e . g . , C A A § § 11 0( a) (2 )( C ), 161, 16 3, 165(a )(3)(A), 50 4(e), 42 U.S .C . §§ 7410(a)(2 )(C), 7471 , 7 473, 74 75 (a )( 3) (A ), 7 66 1c (e ); 4 0 C

. F

. R

. §§ 51

. 16 0( a) (2 ), ( b) (2 ),

. 16 6( a) (1 ), (3), 70. 2, 71. 2, 71. 6(e)). The R eg ion e m phasiz ed th at states are n ot obliged to do this but hav e discretionary auth ority to pursue this course if they deem it nece ssa ry to ful fi ll thei r obl igati ons underCAA sections 161 and 163(a ). Se e id . at 103

- 06. These clarification s led the R eg ion to enc apsulate its understan ding of se c t i on 50 4( e ) an d t he pr e c on s t ruc t i on pr ogr a ms i n t he f ol l ow i ng wa y: “PS D m aj or so urces are su bject to N AA QS and

increm ent in

the perm ittingpro cess, whe reas n on- PSD so urces are su bject only

to the NAAQS u nless the ap plicable m inor s ource prog ram also include s the [PS D] i nc r em ent[s].” Id

. a t 1 07

. Th e R eg io n co nc lu de d th at th e S ta te of A la sk a’ s m in or

s our ce pr ec on stru ct io n pr ogram d oe s no t r eq

ui re perm anent m inor s ources to de m onstrate com pliance with PSD in cr em ents a s a co nd it io n of c on stru ct io n, s o nei the r w ou ld it r eq ui re such com pliance of tem

porary m inor s ources. Se e id . at 103

- 04, 10 7- 08; see a lso R eg ion R espon se at 12, 11 n. 7. Fo r this reason, the Reg ion declin e d t o r e qu i r e th a tS h e l l c o n du c tP S D i n c r e m e n tc o m p l i a n ce an al y se s fo r Kullu k

em issions at any

of its auth oriz ed lo cati ons in the Beau fort S ea. The Reg ion’s statutory

and regu latory

interpretation of the Title V tem porary source p rog r a m f

i nds supp ort in Board ca se lawthat r e c ogn i zes th e s t a t e s ’ pr i mary r ol e i n us i ng PS D i nc r e men t s to m a na ge econo m ic gro wth. In In re W

. Subu rban Recyc ling & Ener gy Cen ter, LP , 8 E .A .D . 1 92 (E AB 19 99 ) , t he Bo a r d o bs e rvedth e fo l l ow i ng: From the beg inningof the P SD pro g ram , E PAhas ack n o w l e d g e d t h a t d e c i s i o n s ab o u t h o w i n c r e m e n t s h o u l d b e used or allo cated are p rim arily w ithin th e pro v ince o f the states. Fo r exam

ple, in the pream

ble to th e o r i g inal P SD re g ul at io ns , E P A no te d th at all oc at io n o f P S D in cr em ent c ou ldS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 51 af fe ct e co no m ic d ev el op m ent an d th at EP A s ho ul d en de av or

to pr es e rv e th e s t a t e s ’ au t h o r i t y o ni s s u e s o f

e c o n o m ic dev elopm ent an d growth : “EP A s hould

no t m ak e de cisions [that] w ould hav e a sig nifica nt im

pact u pon future g rowthop tions of the [s]tates.” 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 1 96 ( qu ot in gApp ro v al a nd Pro m ul g at io n of

S ta te I m pl em enta ti on

P lans , 4 3 F ed . Re g. 26 , 38 8, 2 6, 40 1 (Jun e 19 , 1 97 8) ); accor d In re Commo nw e al th C hesap eake Cor

p. , 6 E. A. D. 76 4, 768 (EA B 1997 ) (“‘The P SD requ irem ents p rov ide fo r a sy stem of area classification s [that] affords [s]tates an opportunity to identify

local land use g oals. * * * Each classification differs in term s of the a moun t of [i nd us tr ia l or othe r] g ro w th it w il l pe rm it be fo re si g ni fi cant ai r qua li ty de t e r i or a t i on w ou l d be d e e medto oc c ur .’ ” (q uo t i ng NSR Manu al at C .4-

. 5) ). 3. RED OIL Pe t itioners Hav e N ot D emo nstrated

Th at the Regio n’s In terpretatio n Is Clea rly E rroneo us On appea l, RE DO I L Petitione rs claim on a num ber of ground s that the R eg ion’s interpre t a t i on is c learly erron eous and thus a ba sis for rem and of this perm it. RE DO I L P etition at 19- 37. RED OI L P etitioners’ central contention is that t he plain languag e, structure, and purpose of se ct io n 50 4( e) r ev ea l C on g re ss ’ “u nam bi g uo us ly exp re ss ed

inte nt ” to ti e inc r e ment requ irem ent ap plicability to the in crem ent status o f the g eo g r ap h i c a r e a o r a r e a s i n w h i c h a t e m p o r a ry s o ur c e w i l l e m it pollutants. Se e id

. at 20

- 32. RED OI L P etitioners also c ontend that the Ag e n c y ’ s i m

p l e m e n t i n g r e g u l a t i o n s c o n f i rm t h e p l a i n m e a n i n g o f the statutory languag e an d, addition al l y, c ontain prov isions that “at least im ply ” ind epend e nt ob lig ations to en sure P SD increm ent co m pliance. Id . at 33- 35. RE DO I L P etitioners observ e t hat section 5 04(e) distinguishes be tw ee n am

bi ent st an dard s (i

. e. , NA A Q S ), wh ic h ap pl y to al l t em po rary sources “at all tim es and in all locatio ns,” id

. at 21, and PSD increm entS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 52 standard s, whic h d o n ot ap ply at a ll tim es an d in all locatio ns bec ause they “are not univ ersally

applicable to all areas.” Id

. Rath er, as d esig ned by C ong ress, PSD increm ents “ apply ” on ly in areas where they specifically

hav e be en trigger e d, bym eans of the sub m ission of an initial, c om

plete PSD perm it applicatio n to em it in a particular area. Id .; see CAA §§ 163 , 169( 4), 4 2 U.S. C. §§ 7473 , 7479( 4); 40 C.F.R. § 5 2.2 1(b)(14 )(ii), (15 )(i )

. T he c oncentration o f po llutants in su ch an ar ea ’s a m

bi ent a ir is m ea sure d at

th e ti m e th e in it ia l appli cati on is subm i t t e d ( t h e “ b a s e l i n e d a t e ” ) an d th e nf i x e d a s th e “ b a s e l i ne conce ntration” for th at area. See NSR Manu al at C. 6- .8, .12

- .15

. Fro m th at p oi nt f or w ar d, P S D in cr em ents s erv e as t he m ax im um a ll ow ab le increases that pollutan t c on centration s m ay rise abov e the establishe d ba se li ne le v el s. C A A § 1 63 , 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 7 47 3; 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 5 2. 21 (c ). RE DO I L P etitioners r e ason from this basic desig n that C ong ress in te nd ed “ ap pl ic ab le in cr em ent * * * re qu ir em ents ” ins ec ti on 5 04 (e ) to be area- depen dent rather th an s ource- depen dent. See RED OI L P etition at 21

- 22, 25

- 27, 29

. By

this log ic, any new source, inclu dingany new te m po rary m in or s ourc e, th at

p ro po se s to em itin g eo g ra ph ic are as w he re in cr em ents p re v io us ly

h av e be en

tr ig g er ed

w ou ld b e obligate d to dem onstrate compl i ance with such increm ents, as “a pplicab le” r e qu i r e men t s un de r s e c t i on 50 4( e )

. On l y in ar e a s whe r e in c r e men t s ha ve no t y et b ee n tr ig g er ed

w ou ld P S D in cr em ents b e in ap pl ic ab le to tem porary m inor s ources. Se e id

. RE DO I L P e t i t ioners claim the A g en cy ’s im

pl em enti ngr egula ti on s ar e fu ll y in a cc or d w ith th is interpretation

and thus do not bar inc rem ent co m pliance dem onstration s prior to issuance of Title V perm its. Id . at 33- 35. As des cr i b e d b e low, the Regio n didnot cl ear ly errin it s own interpr e t ation of the se authorities. The B oard ag rees w ith the Reg ion that its interpretation

m ore fu lly

com po r t s w ith the structure and langua g e of

th e C A A and

th e im pl em enti ng re gu la ti on s, and r ejec ts RE DO I L P etitioners’ assertion that the statutory lang uag e is so plain that there is no am

biguity about whe ther Con g ress intende d t o im pose in cr em ent p ro v is io ns o n te m po rary m in or s ourc es w he re th e st at e im pl em enta ti on

plan d oe s no t o th er

w is e im po se in cr em ent r eq

ui re m ents on s uc h so ur ce s. RE D O I L P et it io ne rs m is app re he nd o r fa il to g ra

pp leS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 53

The Reg ion ac k

now le dg es that st at em ent s in the State m ent of Ba si s coul d be 41 re ad to s ug g es t s uch an appr oac h. R eg ion R es ponse at 8. w ith se v er al k ey

p oi nt s th at

f or m ed th e ba si s fo r th e R egion ’s interpretation

in its finalp e r

m ittingdec ision and Resp onse to C om m ents.

a. RED OIL Pe titio ne r

s Misund erstand Po rtions of the R eg io n’ s R es po ns e to C

om m en ts In s e ve r a l o f

i t s p o i n t s o f

a dvo c a c y b e f

o r e th i s Bo a r d , RE D O IL Petitione rs rev eal a m isunde rstandingof the explanatio ns the R eg ion s et forth i n the R espon se to Com m ents. In the m ost significant exam ple, RE DO I L P etitioners argue th at the Reg ion e rroneou sly con strues “any applicab le increm ent * * * requirem ents under Part C ” in section 504(e ) to m ean that o nly

those t e mpor ary

sources th at are also P SD m aj or sources m ust d em on s tr ate P SD increm ent co m pliance. RED OI L P etition at 29 , 3 3- 34. Wh ile this des c r i pt ion re flects the po sition th e R eg ion adv an ce d in th e S ta te m ent of B as is , it fa il s to ac k no w le dg e th e very 41 sub s t a nti al furthe r interpre tiv e ex eg esis the R eg ion d ev eloped and pr es ente d init s R es po ns e to C om m ents o n th e dr af

t p erm it ti ngr ec or d (whi chin cl ud ed

th e S ta te m ent o f B as is ). In th at late r an d m or e com prehen siv e ana l ysi s , the R eg ion m ade clear th at, in its v iew, states hav e disc retionary

auth ority

in their minor source precon struction prog ram s to im

pose PSD incr e men t requ irem ents o n tem porary m inor sources , e ither as im

plem entation plan requirem ents or on a c ase- by

- case basis, as they

dee m nec essary

to protect the N AA QS

. See R TC at 1 03- 06

. RE D O I L P et it io ne rs f ai l t o ad dr es s or de m on stra te w hy th e R eg io n’ s po si ti on , a s m or e fu ll y

art ic ul at ed

in the Res pons e to C om

m ents , is cl earl y e rr on eo us . B ec au se RE D O I L P et it io ne rs h av e fa il ed to substantiv ely

con front the Reg ion’s Resp onse to C om m ents, they

cannot prev ail on this g round

. See , e.g. , In re Gua m W aterw orks Auth

. , N PD ES Appea l Nos. 09- 15 & 09- 16, sl ip op . at 17-18 ( Nov. 16, 2011 ), 15 E.A.D. at _
__ ( pe ti ti on er s “m

us t s ub stanti v el y

c on fr ont the p erm itis su er ’s expl an at io ns in

it s re sp on se to co m

m ents d oc um ent” ); I

n r e Pe a b o d

yW. Coa l C o. , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 2 2, 3 3 (E A B 2 00 5) ( sam e)

.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 54 RE DO I L P etitioners also m isunde rstand the interplay of se ct io ns 1 61 , 1 65 , and

5 04 (e ) of

th e A ct , a s those p ro v is io ns are discuss ed by the R eg ion in the Resp onse to C om

m ents. See RTC at 1 03- 06

. RE D O I L P et it io ne rs p oi nt ou t that s ec ti on 1 63 , n ot s ec ti on 1 65 , is the so urce of incre m ent req uirem ents w ithin th e P SD pro g ram and con t e n d s th a tth e R e g i o n“ i g n o r e [ d ] ” th i s p r o v i s i o ni ni n t e r p r e t i ng s e c t i o n5 0 4 ( e )

. RE D O IL Pe t i t i o na t3 0

. Ins o ar gu i n g, RE D O IL Petitione rs tak e the position that s ection 504(e ) m ak es the sectio n 1 63 i nc r e men t s direc tly

app licable to tem

porary sources. Se e id . at 30- 31. T h e p l a i nl a n gu a ge o f

s e c t i o n 1 6 3 , h o w e ve r , i s t o th e c o n t r a ry. It pr ov id es th at

“ ea cha pp li ca bl e im ple m enta ti on

p lan sh al l c onta in m easures assuri ngthat m axim um allow able in creases ov er ba seline con cen tr at ion s [i .e., i ncr ement s ] * * * shal l not be exc eed ed.” CAA § 1 63(a), 42 U .S. C. § 7473 (a). Moreov er, the tex t of section 161, w hich establishe s im

plem entation plan requirem ents, prov ides th at suc h p lans “shall contain

em ission l i mitations an d su ch o ther m easures as m ay be nec ess ary * * * to pr event s ignif ic antdete ri ora ti on of

airqual it y.” CAA § 1 61, 42 U .S. C. § 7471

. I ncrem ents, in ot he r w ords, are not d irectly im posed by section 504(e )

. I nstead, they m ust b e im plem ented (i.e., app lied to a source) through either of two m eans: (1) a state im plem entation plan, per section 161 and 40 C. F.R . § 51.166 (a)(1); or (2) the PSD m aj or so urce perm ittingpro g ram , p er sectio n 1 65(a)(3)(A ) and 40 C.F. R. § 52. 21. See RTC at 103- 04. Thus, while section 504(e ) can serv e as the d irect source of N AA QS com

pliance requirem ents and other CA A requirem ents fo r tem porary sources ( see infra n ot e 44 and a cc om pany in gte xt ), it

o nl y im po se s P S D in cr em ent r eq

ui re m ents to th e ex te nt

suc h re qu ir em ents are “applica ble” to the source. F in al ly , RE D O I L P et it io ne rs a ls o su g g es t that th e S ta te o f A la sk a’ s operatin gperm it regulations are “m ore len ient” th an th e fed eral re g ul at io ns b ec au se th ey d o no t r eq

ui re P S D m in or

s ourc es to dem onstrate com

pliance with PSD increm ents a s a precon s t r uction cond ition. RED OI L P etition at 27- 28. N otingthat t he A lask a rules apply to source s o n t he inner O CS on ly , and not o n the outer O CS , RE DO I L P etitioners sug g est that the purpo rtedly m ore strin g ent fed eralS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 55

T his OCS-specific regulatio n pro vides: 42 If the A dm inis tra

tor det er m ine s that a dditi onal re quire m ent s ar e nec es sa ry to prote ct

[f ]ede ra l a nd [s]tate am

bie nt a ir qual ity st anda rds or to com

ply w ith par t C of titleI, such re quire m ent s w ill (c ontinue d...) op e r a t i n gp e rm i tr

u l e s i ne f f e c to nth e o u t e r

O C S r e qu i r e t e m

po ra ry sources situated on the outer OC S to dem onstrate com pliance with PSD increm ents. Id

. a t2 8 ( c i t i n g 4 0 C. F

. R

. § § 7 1

. 2 , 7 1

. 6 ( e ) )

. RE D O IL Petitione rs claim , th erefore, that Shell m ust co nduc t, at the v ery

least, a PSD increm ent an aly sis for the Kullu k ’s auth oriz ed lo cations on the outer OC S. Id

. Thi s ar g um ent r ev ea ls am is un de rs tand ingo f th e R eg io n’ s discuss ion o f relev ant leg al requ irem ents o n the inne r v ersus outer OC S. I n the R espon se to Com

m ents, the R eg ion e xplaine d: I n th is ca se , th e re qu ir em ents fo r Titl e V te m po rary s ourc es in t h e i n n e r OC S an d

o u t e r OC S o f f o f Al a s kaar e th e s a me becau se A lask a ha s ad opted EPA ’s Part 71 rules w ith resp ect to Ti t l e V t e m

p o r a ry s o ur c e s b y

r e f e r e n c e f o r a p p l i c a tion on sh or e an d R eg io n 10 has in turnado pt ed the se r eq ui re m ents into th e [C orrespo ndingO nsho re A rea] regulations for applicatio n in the inner O CS

. RTC at 10 9. A s the Reg ion e xp l a i ne d, PSD increm ents are no t applicab le to any

te mpor ary

m inor s ources, w herev er they m ig ht be located on the O CS , unless as ta te e xe rc is es it s di scr et ionto r eq ui re m inor s ource com

pliance with such increm ents. Astate, of course, has lim ited jurisdiction, and

its a uthority do es n ot ex tend bey ond its bo rders. E.g

. , C AA § 107(a ), 42 U. S.C

. § 7407 (a) (“[e]ach [s]tate sh all hav e the pr im ar y r es po ns ib il ity

f or a ss ur in ga ir

q ua li ty w ithi n th e enti re g eog raphic area c om

prisingsuc h [s]tate” ). That wo uld m ean, therefo re, th at in th e oute r O C S or othe r pl ac es w he re o nl y f ed er al o pe ra ti ngp erm it rules a pply , P SD increm ents w ould not b e ap plicable to tem porary m inor sources , unless fede ral O CS regulations required it o r EP A chose to add increm ent com

pliance oblig ations unde r 40 C.F. R. § 55. 13(h) on ce the 42S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 56

(.. .c ontinue d)

42 be inc orpor at ed in t

his part. 40 C. F.R . § 55. 13(h)

. source becom es o peration al. See R TC a t 1 09

. RE D O I L P et it io ne rs f ai l to s qu ar el y

c on fr ont thi s le g al land sc ap e, w hi chr es ul ts in af ai lure to dem onstrate howthe Reg ion’s interpretation is c learly erron eous. See , e.g. , In re Teck Com inco Alaska , In c. , 11 E .A.D . 4 57, 49 4- 95 (EA B 2004 ) (burd en of dem onstratingreview is w arranted rests w ith the petitioner, w ho m

ust raise obj ections to the perm it and explain why the perm it issuer’s prev ious respon se to those objections is clearly erron eous or o th er w is e w ar rant s re v ie w ); In re W

estboro ugh , 1 0 E .A .D . 297, 30 5, 31 1- 12 ( E A B 2 00 2) ( sam e)

.

b. RED OIL Pe tit ioners Mischarac terize th e T itle V Regu lat ory Sche me RE DO I L P e t i tioners’ notion that “applica

ble in crem ent requirem ents” in sec tion 5 04(e) m ean “appli c a ble to the area ” rathe r than “applicab le to the source ” is n ot s up po rt ed

b y th e Titl e V r egul at or

y m odel as a who le. A Title V perm it for a tem porary source to op erate at m ultiple lo cations m

ust in clude, am ongothe r thing s, “[c]ond itions th at will a ssure com

pliance with all app licable re quirem ents at all authoriz ed locations .” 40 C .F. R. §§ 70. 6(e)(1), 71 .6(e)(1 ). Broa dly spe ak ing , th e B oard h as r ec ogni z ed th at “‘ [a ]p pl ic ab le re qu ir em ent’ is a te rm of art i n t he T i t l e V pr ogr a m t h a t , i n ge ne r a l , r e f e r s to an y subs t a nt i ve requirem ent th at app lies to an e mi s s ions sourceunderany CAA regulatory prov isions. ” Peab ody , 12 E.A .D . at 28 n.1 4 (em phasis added ) (citing40 C .F. R. § 71. 2). Fu r t her, the regulations im plem entingthe fe de ra l Ti tl e V p ro g ram

p ro v id e th at

“ [a ]p pl ic ab le r eq

ui re m ent m eans a ll of the follow ingas they

app ly to emissio ns u nits in a p art 7 1 so urce .” 40 C. F

. R

. § 7 1. 2 (e m

ph as is a dd ed ). In turn , th e te rm “ em is si on s un it ” m eans “any

part or ac tiv it y o f a stationa ry so urce that em its or has the potential to em it any

regulated air po llutant.” Id

. ( em ph as is a dd ed ).S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 57 A cc or di ng ly , th e R eg io n’ s in te rp re ta ti on o f th e te rm

“ ap pl ic ab le ” in se ct io n 50 4( e) as m eani ng“ ap pl ic ab le to th e so ur ce ” is c on si st ent w ith the A g ency ’s Title V regulations, in which applicability

is determ ined by reference to th e source , n ot the area . RE DO I L Petitione rs fail to prese nt l e g a l au t h o r i t i e s s up p o rt i n gth e i r o w nn o v e l v i e wo f

a p p l i c ab i l i t yin a w ay s uf fi ci ent t o de m on stra te th at th e R eg io n’ s differ ent a pp ro ac h is clearly erron eous.

c. RED OIL Petitioners Con fuse A ir Q uality Man agem ent Oblig ations with Perm itting O bligation s REDO I L P etitioners argue th at the Reg ion’s interpretation of se ct io n 50 4( e) s ho ul d be rejec te d be caus e itis inhe re nt ly in co ns is te nt

. RE DO I L P etition at 31- 32. On the o ne h and, RED OI L P etitioners note, the Reg ion e xplicitly

reco g niz ed th at the Kullu k w ill cons um e a portion of the av ailable PSD increm ents in its a uthoriz ed d

rilling areas, but the Reg ion n onethe less refu sed to im pose precon struct ion in crem ent com pl i a nce requirem ents in the Title V perm it, find ingthem “inapp l i c ab l e . ” R TC a t1 0 2 , 1 0 5

- 0 6

. O nth e o t h e r h a n d , th e R eg ion ack now ledg ed th at after the Kullu k bec om es o peration al, it m ig ht be ne ce ss ar y to im po se in cr em ent- re la te d re stri ct io ns ; i

. e. , in cr em ents wou ld be “applica

ble.” I n the Resp onse to Com m ents, the R eg ion s tated: I f , a t any tim e after the Kullu k

b eg in s op er at io n un de r it s Title V/OCS perm it, R eg ion 1 0 determ ines th at the actual em issions i ncreases from the perm itted O CS source ca use or co ntri bute to an in cr em ent vio lati on , R eg io n 10 h as autho ri ty to a do pt a dd it io na l r eq

ui re m ents to e ns ur e th at

in cr em ents are not v iolated. Id . at 106 (footnote om itted). RED OI L P etitioners argue th at the Reg ion cann ot h av e itb oth w ay s, c onte nd in go n this bas is that the R eg io n’ s interpretation

sho uld n ot be susta ined. RED OI L P etition at 32. The B oard pe rc ei v es no co nf li ct be tw ee n th e R eg io n’ s purp orte dl y “incon sistent” position s on increm ent applicability

. As the R eg ion n oted in its Resp onse to C om

m ents, EPAhas auth ority , s eparate and apart fro mS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 58

T his s tate im

ple m ent at ion pl an re g ulation prov ide s, in re le v ant part: 43 If t he [s]tat e or t

he A dm inis tra

tor det er

m ine s that a [n] im ple m ent at ion] pla

n is s u b stant ia lly

ina dequa

te to pre v ent si g nif ic ant det er iora

tion or that an appl ic abl e inc re m ent is be ing v iola te d, the pla

n s hal l be re v ised to c orr ec t t he ina dequa cy

or the v iola tion. 40 C. F.R . § 51. 166(a )( 3). T he re g ulations als o provi de, in the ne x t s ubse ct ion, that t he st at e “s hal l r ev ie w

the a dequa cy

of a [n im ple m ent at ion] p la n o n a pe riodi c bas is and w ithi n 60 da

y s of s uch tim e as inf

orm at io n be com es av ai la ble tha t a n a pplic abl e increm ent is being violated.” Id . § 51. 166(a )( 4). section 504(e ) and

the pr e c onstruc tion p rog ram s, to ad dress v iolations of in cr em ent s tand ar ds th at

m ig ht ari se o nc e so ur ce s be co m e op e r at io na l. S ee R T C a t 1 06 (citingC AA§§ 30 1, 328, 42 U .S. C. §§ 76 01, 76 27; 40 C

. F

. R

. § 5 5. 13 (h ))

. M or eov er , s ta te s hav e auth or ity to r ev is e th ei r im plem entation plans to ad opt e m ission lim its and othe r rem edial c ontrol m easures in cas es where existingcontrols are not a dequ ately pro tecting air qu ality increm ents. 40 C. F.R

. § 5 1.1 66(a)(3), ci te d in R TC at 1 06. 43 R E D O I L P et it io ne rs c on fu se p erm it ti ngo bl ig at io ns w ith on g oi nga ir quality m anag em ent o blig ations, but the t wo a r e distin ct. See R TC at 10 5- 06. S i mpl y p os itingthat the R eg ion’s v iew of “a pplicab le” in cr em ents is in co ns is te nt is n ot suff icie nt to o v er co m e th e sp ec if ic st at ut or y and r egul at or y autho ri ty th e R eg io n re fe re nc es in

s up po rto f it s position

. The Bo ard th erefore finds no show ing of clear erro r justifyin g a rem and on this ground

.

d. RED OIL Pe titioners Misconstruethe Regu lations The Ag ency ’s Title V i m

p l em entingregulations for state and federal operatin gperm it program s clos ely para llel the languag e of section 504(e ). Com

pare C AA§ 504(e ), 4 2 U.S.C . § 76 61c(e), w ith 40 C

. F

. R

. § § 70.6 (e ), 71

. 6( e)

. Th e re g ul at io ns d ef in e “a pp li ca bl e requirem ent” fo r Title V purpo ses as (am ongothe r thi ngs ) : “ (2) [a]ny term or cond ition of any precon struction perm its” issued unde r parts C orD of t i t l e I; an d

“ ( 1 3 ) [ a ] n y

[ N A A Q S ] o r

i n c r e m e n to r

v i s ib il it y re qu ir em ent und er

part C of ti tl e Iof th e A ct , bu t o nl y a s itw ou ld

a pp ly to tem porary sources p erm itted pursuant to sec tion 5 04(e) of the A ct.”S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 59

A s suc h, the NA

A QS and PSD inc re m ent re quire m ent s f or f uture loc at ions 44 w ould be “ addi tiona l” re quire m ent s im pose d on the te m

pora ry s ourc e by s ec tion 504(e ). RT C a t 107- 08. 40 C. F.R . § § 7 0.2 , 7 1.2

. RE DO I L P etitioner s a r gue on app eal, as com m entors did on the draft perm it, that the Reg ion’s interpretation of “applica ble req uirem ent” i m

p r o p e r l y r e a d s t h e t h i r teenth requirem ent o ut of the r egul at io ns b y

s ub sum in git

w ithi n th e se co nd

r eq ui re m ent. RE DO I L P etition at 33- 34. The Reg ion e xplaine d in the R espon se to Com m ents why

this was not s o. See R T C at 10 7- 08. The Reg ion s tated th at “the intent of the Title V tem

porary source p rov isions is to reliev e sources o f the burde n o f ap p l yi n g f

o r T i t l e V p e rmi t s f

o r e a c h n e w l o c a t i o n , w h i l e a t t h e s a me tim e[] assuringcompl iance with all requ irem ents to w hich the so urce wou ld be sub

j ect if it we re a new[perm anent] source at each suc h n ew location. ” Id . at 108. F or a tem porary source that is a lso a PSD m aj or source, this wou ld inc lude ensurin gthat the N AA QS and increm ent standard s are m et at each future location – a requirem ent th at, th e R eg ion pointed out, w ould exceed

the requirem ents o therw ise ap plicable to the source unde r the PSD pro g ram alon e. Id

. at 107. For a tem po rary 44 source that is also a PSD m inor s ource, this wou ld inc lude ensurin gthat th e N A A Q S an d , i f

r e qu i r e d un d e r th e i m p l e m e n t a t i o np l a nf

o r m inor pe rm an ent s ourc es , P S D in cr em ent s tand ar ds ar e m et a t e ac h future location, ev en if the im ple m entation plan did n ot req uire su ch a dem onstration for tem

porary m inor s ources. Se e id . at 107

- 08; R eg ion Resp onse at 12

. R E DOI L P et it io ne rs f

ai l t o m eani ng fu ll y

c on fr ont the R eg io n’ s reasonin gon

thi s i ssue or d em onstrate why it is clearly

erron eous. I ns te ad , RE D O I L P et it io ne rs r ef er enc e an

ir re le v ant m in or

p erm it m o d i f i c a t i o n p r o v i s i o n ( 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 7 1

. 7 ( e ) ( 1 ) ( i ) ( A ) ( 3 ) ) , r a t h e r than a m inor s ource prov ision, as suppo rt for their position. RED OI L P etition at 34

. RE DO I L P etitioners also s ug g est that the Title V perm itting r e gul a t i on s in se c t i on s 70 .6 ( e ) an d 7 1. 6( e ) e s t a bl i s h a m or e ex pa ns i ve re g ul at or y p ro g ram

th an th e on e th e R eg ion f in ds p re se nt

in se ct io n 50 4( e) ; in de ed , on e th at w ou ld ev en b e br oa d en ou g h to r eq

ui reS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 60

In light of

the Boa rd’ s d eci si o n to uphold t he Re g ion’s int er

pre tation of 45 se ct ion 504( e) and the im ple m entin g regulations , t he Boa rd ne ed not r ea ch RE DO IL Petit ione rs ’ f

ina l a rgum ent , w

hic h c hal le ng es the Regio n ’s f indingthat a ir qual ity m od eling esta

blish es the Kul luk ’s emission s w ill no t violate the P SD increm ents. the Kullu k

to dem onstrate PS D i nc rem ent co m pliance. Id . at 33. The Board find s oth erwise, in light o f the fact that section s 70 .6(e) and 71. 6(e) are exp ressly

lim ited b y

a reference to sec tion 5 04(e) itself and therefore canno t expan d the m eaningof the statute. See R TC at 1 07- 08. 4. Increm ent S

ection Con clusion The Bo ard h as carefully

exam ined each of RED OI L P e t i t i oners’ in cr em ent- rela te d ar g um ents and d et erm in ed

th at n on e hav e m er it

. Pe t i t i on e r s ’ b ur de n i s t o s ho w c l e a r er r or , b ut RED OIL Pe t i t i on e r s ha ve fa il ed in a ll in st an ce s to a ch ie v e th is s tand ar d. Th e Boar d th er ef or e denies rev iew of the Pe rm it on this ground

. 45 C. RED OIL Pe titioners Failed to Raise Belo w Their Con tention Tha t Shell’s Am bient Air Q uality A nalysis W as F lawe d in Tha t It F

ailed to C onform to App licable Agen cy G uidan ce On Feb ruary

9, 2010, EP A publish ed in the Fede ral R eg ister a final

2 ru le ( ef fe ct iv e Apr il 1 2, 2 01 0) r ev is in gth e pr im ar y N O N A A Q S “ in or de r to p ro v id e re qu is it e pr ot ec ti on o f publi c he al tha s ap pr op ri at e
2 unde r se ct ion 109 of t he C l ean Air Act .” Pri m ary NAAQS for NO , 75 F ed

. R eg . 6 47 4, 6 47 5 (F eb

. 9 , 2 01 0) ; see a lso Sh e l l 201 0 , s lip op

. 2 at64- 65 & n.74, 15 E. A

. D

. a t _
_ _. Th is rul e set the ne w 1- hourNO

2 N A A Q S s tand ar d (h er ei na ft er “ the 1- ho ur

N O N A A Q S ”) a t 1 00 p arts per b illion (“p pb”) to su pp l e ment the existingann ual standard , s et at 53 ppb. 7 5 F ed.R egat 6 475. E PAregulations specify ho w attainm ent of th e st an dard

is to b e calcu la te d, p ro v id in gth at th e 10 0 pp b st an dard is m et “when the annual 98th pe r c e nt i l e of the d aily m axim um 1- hour av er ag e co nc entr at io n is le ss th an o r eq ua l t o 10 0 pp b, a s de te rm in ed in accord ance with App endix S o f this part fo r the 1- hour standard .” 40 C. F.R . § 50.11(f). This calculation is som etim es referred to as “th eS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 61

T he 98 th p erce ntil e f

orm correspon ds appro xim ately to the 7t h or 8 th h ighest 46 dai ly m ax im um c once ntra

tion in a y ea r. 75 Fe d. R eg . at 6492.
A cc ordingto the Pag e Me m o, the g uida nce w as is sue d in re spons e to r epor ts 47

2 th at s o u r ce s wer e mo d el i n g p o t en t i al v i o l at i o n s o f t h e 1

- h o u r N O N AAQS

. P ag e M emo at 1. The M em o s tate s that “ [t]o res pond to the se re ports and f ac ili tate the PSD perm ittin g of

new and m od ifie d m ajor station ary sources, w e a

re issuing the attached guidan ce in th e f

orm of tw o m em orand a.” Id. T he attached m em orand a a re titled
2 “G ene ra l Guida

nce f or I m ple m ent ingthe 1-hour

N O N at iona l A

m bie nt Q ual ity

Sta ndar d
2 in P reve ntio n of Signif

icant Deterioration P erm its, Inclu din g a n in t er i m 1-ho ur NO Sig nif ic ant Im pac t L ev el ” and “A

pplic abi lit

y of A ppendi xW

Mode lingG

uida nce f or t he
2 1-h ou r NO National Am bien t A ir Quality

Stand ard.” Id . at 1- 2 . Alt h o u gh th e P age Me m o atta che s the se tw o m emora nda, the Me m o is c onse cut iv el y num ber ed as a s ing le docum ent

. In ord er to establish com plian ce w ith t he NAA QS and P SD increm ents, 48 perm it appl icants m

ust c on du ct an “am

bien t air qu ality analy sis,” w hich applicants m

ust prepare un der the perm ittin g rules f or each regulated p ollu tant th eir prop osed fa cilities w ill e m it in “s ig nif

ic ant ” am ounts

. 40 C.F.R . § 52.21(b) (23) (i) , ( m)( 1)( i). T his anal y si s predi cts a pol lutan t’s f

utu re concentration in the am bien t air by

modelin g a

prop osed f ac ili ty ’s e xp ect ed emis si ons of the poll uta

nt a g ai nst the ba ckdrop of

e x is tingam

bie nt (c ontinue d...) form .” See 7 5 F ed

. R eg . a t 64 77 n. 5, 64 92

- 93

. Th e 10 0 pp b st an dard

46

2 reflects th e m axim

um allowable NO con centration s anywhe re in an area. Id

. at 6493 , 6502

. EPA has issued g uidanc e clarify ingpro cedure s
2 for de m onstratingcom

pliance with the n ew 1- hou r N O N AA QS

. See R E D O I L P e t i t i o n E x . 1 6 ( M e m o r a n du m f r o m S t e p h e n D

. P a g e, Dir. , O ff ic e of A ir Q ua li ty P lann in g& S tand ar ds , U.S. E P A , to R eg ’l A ir Dir s., U .S. EP A, Guid

ance Con cerning

the Imple men tation of the1-

2 Hou r NO N

AAQS for

the Preve ntion of Sig

nificant Deter ioration (J une 29, 20 10) (“Pag e Mem o”)); Mem or a nd um from Ty ler Fo x, 47 Le a de r , Ai r

Qua l i t y M on i t or i ng Grp. , Of f i c e of Ai r Qua l i t y Pl a nn i ng & Stand ards, U. S. EP A, t o R eg ’l A ir D irs., U. S. EPA , Add itional Clarifica tion R egard

ing A pplicatio n o

f Ap pend ix W Modelin g G uidan ce
2 f or the 1-H

our NO N

ationa l Am bient Air Q uality S tanda rd (Mar. 1, 20 11 ) (“ F oxMe m o” ) (A

. R

. B B

- 83 ). R E D O I L P et it io ne rs a ss ert that Sh el l’ s am bi ent a ir q ua li ty ana ly si s w as f law ed

. In part ic ul ar , RE D O I L P et it io ne rs s ta te that i n

48S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 62

(.. .c ontinue d)

48 condi tions . T o c onduct an ai r qual ity ana ly si s, a per m it appl ic ant com

pile s dat a on the pro po sed f

acility ’s ph y sical specif ication s and a

nticip ated em ission rates, l o cal topog ra phy , e x is ting am

bie nt ai r qual ity , m et eor olog y , a nd re late d f

ac tors

. See , e. g. , id. § 52.21( l), (m

); id . pt . 51 a

pp. W (G uide line on A ir Qua lit

y Mode ls ); In re Kna uf Fib er Gla ss, Gm bH

, 8 E .A .D . 121, 145-48 ( EAB 1999) ; NSR M anual at C. 16-.23, .31- .50. These data are then p rocessed using m athem atical m od els th at calculate t he rates at w hich po llut ants are likely

to disp erse into the atm osph ere under various clim atolo gica l cond itio ns, with the goals of determ inin g w

heth er emissi o n s from

the pro po sed source w ill c aus e or c ontri bute to a v iola tion of e ithe r t he NA A QS or the PSD i ncr em ent s. See 40 C. F.R . § 52. 21(f

); id . pt . 51 a

pp. W ; NSR M

anual at C. 24-.27, .51- .70. “i den ti fying the Kull uk’s 98t h per cen ti le cumulat ive impact- i.e. , th e Kulluk ’s im

pact a dded

to back g round

lev e l s o f po llutants

- for

2 com parison to the 1

- hour NO stand ard, Shell used an a pproa ch th at the Reg ion a dm i t s i s ‘less conserv ativ e.’ More specifically , S hell u sed back g round

v alues that w ere alrea dy adjusted to the 98th percen tile, instead of b asingits c alculation s on the full distrib ution of b ack g round v al ues .” RE D O I L P et it io n at 3 8 (f oo tn ot e om it te d)

. A cc or di ngto RE DO I L P etitioners, this m ethod for dem onstratingcom pliance with the 1-ho urNAA QS wa s re

j e c t e d i n th e Pa ge Me mo a s “ no t be i ng p r ot e c t i ve of t he [ NA AQS]. ” Id

. a t3 8 -39 ( qu o t i n g P a ge M e mo a t1 8 )

. RE D O IL Petitione rs then

cite to a portiono f

t he m ore rec ent F ox Mem o which, ac co rd in gto them , a ll ow s fo r th e m etho d S he ll u se d to c al cu la te back g round

v alues. Id . at 39. That is, th e F ox M e mo states that the appro ach used in the Pa g e Mem o was ov erly conse rv ativ e an d sh ould not be used in certain cases. Id

. ( c i t i n g F o x M e mo a t1 7 -20 )

. RE D O IL P e t i t i o n e r s a s s e rtth a tth e R e g i o na l l o w e d S h e l l t o d e m o n s t r a te com pliance with the fo rm

of the 1

- hour NA AQ S usingthe appro ach perm itted in the Fox Mem o without prov idingan explan ation as to why the d eterm ination in the Pa g e Mem o w as inc orrect. Id

. a t 4 0

. RE D O IL Petitione rs argue th at “[b]e cause neither EPAno r the Reg ion p rov ided any e xp lanati on

a bo ut w he th er an d, if

s o, h ow , it s earl ie r co nc lu si on [ in th e P ag e Me m o] th at th e us e of th e 98 thp er ce nt il e ba ckg ro un d v al ue s is ‘not p rotectiv e’ of the n ational am bient a i r q uality s tandard w as incorrect, E PA ’s new

guidanc e an d the app roach tak en b y the Reg ion here in relian ce o n it are arb itrary .” Id

. (q uo ti ng P ag e Me m o at

1 7- 20 ).S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 63 R E D O I L Pe ti ti on er s co nt en d th at th e R eg io n ha d an

o bl ig at io n to e xp la in this “d eparture from

its p rior an aly sis.” Id . at 40- 41. Upo n ex am ination of the record, the Board conclu des that this issue w as n ot a de qu at el y

r ai se d duri ngth e co m

m ent p er io d an d w as th er ef or e not p reserv ed fo r rev iew. A s stated abo v e, the regulations require any pe rs on w ho b el ie v es th at

ap erm itc on di ti on

is ina pp ro pr ia te to r ai se “ al l re a s o n ab l y

a s c e rt a i n ab l e i s s u e s an d * * * a l l r e a s o n ab l y

av a i la bl e argum ents s uppo rting[petition er' s] po sition” duringthe com m ent p eriod o nth e dr a f

tp e rm i t

. 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 2 4

. 1 3

. T h a tr e qu i r e m e n ti s m ade a prer e qu isite to appea l by 40 C .F. R. § 124. 19(a), w hich requires any petitioner to “d em onstrat[e] that any issue [] bein graised

[w as] raised duringthe public com

m ent period * * * to the extent required [.]”). In re Con ocoPhillips C

o. , 1 3 E

. A

. D

. 7 6 8 , 8 0 0

- 0 1 ( E A B 2 0 08 ); ac c ord In re Chr istian C

nty. Ge ne r at i on, LL C , 1 3 E

. A

. D

. 4 49 , 4 57 ( E A B 2 00 8) ; Shell 2007 , 1 3 E .A .D . at 394 n. 55. The requirem ent th at an issue m us t h a ve been raised duringthe publ i c c o m

m e n t p e r i o d i n o r d e r t o p r e s e rv e i t f o r r e v i e w i s n ot an arbitrary hurdle p laced in the pathof potentia l p e t i t ioners. R us se ll Cit y II , s li p op. at 1 3, 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ; In re City of Marlbo roug h , 12 E.A .D

. 235, 244 n.1 3 (E AB 20 05), appe al dis missed for lack o f juris. , N o. 05

- 20 22 (1 st C ir

. S ep t. 30 , 200 5) ; In re BP Che rry P oint , 12 E.A .D . 2 09, 21 9 ( EA B 2005 ). Rath er, the req uirem ent se rv es an im po rt ant f un ct io n re la te d to t he effi ci en cy and inte g ri ty o f th e ov er al l adm inistrativ e pe rm ittingsch em e. Marlboro ugh , 1 2 E .A .D . at 244 n. 13. The intent of the rule is to ensure that the pe rm ittingauth ority first h as th e op po rtun ity

to a dd re ss p erm ito bjec ti on s an d to g iv e so m e fi na li ty to the p erm ittingpro cess. Id. ; In r e Su tt er P ow er P la nt , 8 E.A .D . 6 80, 68 7 (EA B 1999 ). As the B oard has explain ed, “[t]he e ffectiv e, efficient and predictab le adm inistration of the perm ittingpro cess d emand s that the pe rm itis su er be g iv en th e op po rtun ity to ad dr es s po te nt ia l pr ob le m s w ith draft p erm its before they

bec om e final. ” In re Teck Com inco , 11 E.A.D. 45 7, 48 1 ( EA B 2 00 4) (q uo t i ng I n r e E n c o g e n C o g e n e r a t i o n F

ac il it y , 8 E .A .D . 2 44, 250 (EAB 1999)). “I n this m anner, the perm it issuer can m ak e ti m el y

and app ro pr ia te adju stm ents to th e pe rm itd et erm in at io n, o r, if no adjustm ents are m ade, the perm it issuer can include an explan ationS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 64

See Teck

Cominco , 11 E.A .D

. at 481-82 (de ny ing re v ie w w her e is sue w as not 49 spe ci f ic al ly ra is ed duringthe com

m ent per iod). T he Boa

rd note s that the is sue RE DO IL Petit ione rs did ra is e duringthe c om m ent pe riod w as f

ully and a dequa

te ly a ddre ss ed in t

he Re g ion’s Re spons e to C om m ent s. Spe ci f

ic al ly , i n c om

m ent ingon the dra f

t pe rmit, REDOILP etition ers ra ised the argum ent that Sh ell had fa iled to dem on strate c om plian ce
2 w ith th e 1-ho ur NO NA A QS because, ac cordi ng to REDOIL P etition ers, S hell used backgrou nd am

bien t air data in a m anner that u nd erstated the im pact of its op erations. RE DO ILCom

m ent s at 10-11. A s st at ed abov e, RE DO ILPeti tione rs ’ c om m ent s re cogniz ed that Shel l’s approa ch to ana lyzi ng ba ckg round da ta w as c onsi st ent

w ith the

2 Fox Mem o, b ut argued that Sh ell’s appr o ac h wa s i ncon sistent w ith th e 1-ho ur NO NA A QS s ta ndard i ts el f

. Id . at 11. T he Re g ion pr ov ide d a de ta ile d re spons e to t

his as se rti on in the Re spons e to C om m ent s. R T C a

t 74-78. Not

hingin the RE DO ILPeti tion indic at es w

hy the Re g ion’s re spons e on this is sue w as er rone ous or othe rw is e w ar ra nts Board review , no rd o es th e Board f ind any thin g e rron eous in the Reg ion ’s res po nse. T h u s , e v e n i f

Pe t i t i o n e r s h a dp r e s e rv e dth i s i s s u e , th e B o ar dw o u l dd e n y re v ie w . See, e. g., I n re Guam W

ate rw ork s Auth. , N PDES A

ppea l N os. 09-15 & 09-16, s lip op. at 17- 18 (No v . 1 6 , 2 0 1 1 ) , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _
_ _ ( s t at i n g th at“ a

p e t i t i o n e r

m ay n o ts i m p l y re ite ra te com m ent s m ade during the public com m ent per iod, but m

ust s ubst ant iv el y

c onf ront the per m it is sue r’ s ex

pla nat ions in its re spons e to c om m ent s docum ent ”) ; In re Peab od y W

. Coal Co. , 12 E .A .D . 22, 33 (E A B 2005) (s am e)

. of why no ne are ne cessary .” In re EssexC ounty ( N. J.) Res. Reco very F ac il it y , 5 E

. A

. D

. 2 18 , 2 24 ( E A B 1 99 4)

. A lthoug h R E D O I L P et it io ne rs ’ co m m ents o n th e dr af

t p erm it asserted that S hell h ad u sed back g round am bient ai r d ata in a m anner that understated

the im pact o f its o peration s, see RE D O I L C om m ents at 9

- 11 , n owhe re in

th es e co m

m ents d id P etit ion ers as se rtth at

S he ll ’s appro ach conflicted

w ith the Pag e Mem o o r that t he R eg ion h ad any ob l ig ation to pro v ide an

exp lanation for its alleg ed d eparture from the Page Me m o. Ind ee d, RE D O I L P et it io ne rs ’ co m m ents r ec ogni z ed

th at , a c c o r d i n g t o th e Fo x M e mo , Sh e l l ’ s a p p r o a c hi s a

p p r o p r i a t e i ns o me c i r c um stances. Id . at 11. The com m ents, how ev er, did n ot ass ert any co nf li ct b etw ee n th e P ag e Me m o an d th e F oxMe m o no r is it c le ar to th is Board that any

suc h co nflict e xi s t s . Thus, this “b attle of the m em os” is sue was not pre ser ved for r eview. See Shell Disco verer 2012 , s lip op

. 49 at 52 , 1 5 E .A .D . at ___

.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 65

For an are a that is not cons ide re d w ithi n the def init ion of “ am bie nt a ir, ” She ll 50 w ould not

hav e to de m onst

rate c om plia nce w ith the N AA QS

. See CA A §§ 109( b), 160, 163, 42 U .S.C . §§ 7409( b), 7470,7473 (NA A QS appl y

to ar ea s m ee tingthe de f

init ion of am bie nt a ir) ; 40 C.F .R. § 50.1( e) (de f init ion of “ am bie nt a ir” ); In reH

ib b ing Taconi te Co. , 2 E .A .D . 838, 848 & nn.23- 24 (A dm ’r 1989); RT C a

t 53.
RE D OILP etition ers a dd itio nally arg ue that, sho uld the Reg ion ’s res po nse 51 cont ain a “natural phys ical f eature” a rgum ent sim ilar to a

n a rgum ent the Region raised in i ts re spons e brie f

in Shel l D is cov erer

2012 , the Board sh ou ld co n si d er such an argum ent a “

po st hoc rationa liz at ion” and shoul d dis al low it. RED OI L Peti tion at 19; see als o Shel l Di

sc ove re r 2012 , sli p op. at 56 n.52 (dis cus si ng this is sue ), 15 E.A .D . at ___. RE DO ILPeti tione rs a ls o re se rv e the rig ht to reque st leav e to f ile a re ply bri ef a ddre ss ing this i ssu e. RE DOILPeti tion at 19. Unl ik e the s itua

tion in Shel l D is cov erer

2012 , the Boa rd doe s not f

ind t hat the Re g ion’s re spons e b ri ef c onta ins an e xpla

nat ion t hat is cl e ar l y d i f f e r e n tth an th e r at i o n a l e s e tf o rth i n th e R e s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s . Mor eov er , R E D O I L P e t i t i o n e r s d o n o tr a i s e t h i s p art i c u l ar i s s u e i n th e i r

r e p l y b r i e f. C o n s e qu e n t l y, the Boa rd doe s not c onsi der

RE DO ILPeti tione rs ’ “ post h oc rationa liz at ion” argum ent f urthe r. D. RED OIL Pe t i t i on ers H ave Not Dem onstra ted T hat th e R egion Clea rly E rred in Its Am bient Air E

xemp tion D eterm ination R E D O I L P et it ioner s al le g e th at th e R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed in exem ptingthe area within a 50 0 m eter rad ius fro m the Kullu k

from the definitionof “am

bient air.” RED OI L P etition at 15. This area is also

50 re fe rr ed to thro ugho ut

th e re co rd

a s th e U ni te d S ta te s C oa st G uard (“US CG ”) “safe ty

z one. ” See , e.g. , R TC at 52

- 54

. R E D O I L P et it io ne rs claim that the R eg ion’s decision “contrav enes both EPA ’s defin ition o f ‘am bient air’ a s w e ll as EPA ’s lon g standin ginterp retation of that regulation. ” RE DO I L P etition at 16. In p articular , t hey assert th at the Region’ s 500 meteram

bie nt ai r bou nda ry fai ls to m eet eit herof th e two criteria the Ag ency

has previo usly

used in ev aluatingthe appro priateness o f a n e x e m

p t i on. Id . at 16- 18. A ccordin gto RE DO I L P etitioners, the Reg ion’s decision essentially allows Shell to em it m ore pollution , and po ss ib ly w ith fewe r con tr ol s, th an w ou ld o th er w is e be la

w fu l. Id

. 51 at 15

- 16. The CA A regulations define “am bient air” as “that p ortion of the atm osph ere, external to bu ilding s, to w hi c h the g eneral public has access. ” 40 C. F.R

. § 50. 1(e). Base d on this definition , the Ag ency has ,S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 66

on o cc as io n, e xe m

pt ed c erta in ar ea s fr om

th e de fi ni ti on

o f am bi ent a ir

. E.g

. , L e t t e r f

r om Stev en C . R iv a, Chie f, P erm ittingSe c., U .S. EP A R eg io n 2, t o LeonS ed ef ian, A ir P ol luti on

Me te or ol og is t, N

. Y

. S ta te Dep ’t of Env ’t Co nserv ation, at 1

- 2 (O ct. 9 , 200 7) (A.R . B B- 19) [h er ei na ft er

B ro ad w at er L ette r] ; L ette r fr om D ou g la s M. C os tl e, A dm ’r , U. S. E P A , to Se n. J e nn i ngs Ra nd ol f , Ch a i rman , E nv’ t& Pub. Wo rks C om m . , a t 1 ( D ec . 1 9, 1 98 0) ( A

. R

. B B

- 1) [ he re in af te r C os tl e L ette r] ; see also Le tter from

N ancy H elm , Fed

. & Deleg ated A ir Pro g ram s, U. S. EPA , to J ohn Kuterbach, A lask a D ep’t o f Envtl. Q uality , at 2 (Sept. 11 , 20 07 ) (are a ex em

pt if ce rt ai n co nd it io ns m et ) [h er ei na ft er H el m L ette r]

. The p arti es ag re e th at

the Ag en cy ’s “lo ng st an di ngint er pr et at io n” o f th is exem pt i on is s et forth in a letter sig ned by form er E PAA dm inistrator D ou g la s C os tl e, w hi chs ta te s tha t “t he ex em pt io n fr om

am bi ent a ir is av ailable o nly

for the atm osph ere ov er land owned or co ntrolled by

the source an d

t o w h i c hth e p ub l i c a c c e s s i s p r e c l u d e d b y af e n c e o r othe r phy sical b arriers.” C ostle L etter at 1; RED OI L Petition at 16 (qu oting sam e le tt er ); R eg io n R es po ns e at 29

- 30 (r ef er ri ng to s am e le tt er ); S he ll R es po ns e at

2 6- 27 & n . 27 ( sam e) ; see a lso RTC at 51 (sam e). The Cos tle Le tter also indicates that, in de term iningwhether the ex em ption applies, the Ag ency

rev iews “indiv idual situations on a cas e- by

- case ba si s. ” C os tl e L ette r at

1 ; see a lso App ro v al and P ro m ul g at io n of

S ta te I m plem entation Plans, 50 Fed. Reg

. 7056 , 7057 (Fe b. 20, 19 85) (noting that, in consideringam

bient air exem

ptions, “indiv idual v ariations in the t ype of l a nd a nd na tur e of th e li mit a t i on on ac c e s s ne c e s s i t a t e a c a s e - byca se e v al uati on

o f th e fa ct s, and

a pp li cati on

o f th e pr in ci pl es inv ol v ed in this d eterm ination”). Here, in its perm ittingdec isions, the Reg ion d eterm ined that, as lon g as ce rtain perm it cond itions were being m et, it was appro priate to set the am bient air boundary

at a 50 0 m eter rad ius fro m

the Kullu k , o r, in

othe r word s, the 500 m eter radius “sa fety z one” was exem

pt from the am bient ai r de fi ni tion. RT C a t 5 1- 52 ; see a lso State m ent o f B asis at 40. The term s and conditions upo n which the Reg ion relied to exem pt this area prohib it the operatio n o f v essels and em issions units u nl e s s ( 1) the US CGesta bl i s he s a safety z one within

at le ast 50 0 m eters from the center of the Kullu k , (2 ) m em bers o f the public ar e p r e c l ud ed fro m en t e r i n g t h e s a f

e t y z o n e , a n d ( 3 ) S h e l l d e v e l o p s a n d i m p lem ents aS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 67

T he pre ci se te rm s and condi tions of the Permit is a s f

ollow s: 52
T he per m it does not aut

horiz e oper at ion unl es s: 5.1.1. T he Kul luk

is s ubje ct

to a cur re ntly eff ect iv e sa f et y z one established b y

the [ USCG ] w

hich encom

passes an area w ithi n at le as t 500 m et er s f

rom t h e h ull of

the K ulluk and w hic h prohi bits m em ber s of the publi c f

rom e nte ring thi s ar ea e x ce pt f or a tte nding v es se ls or v es se ls a

uthori ze d by

the U SCG

(s uch ar ea

s hal l be re f er re d to as the “ Sa f

et y Zone ”) ; a

nd 5.1.2. T he pe rmitt ee has dev el oped in w rit ingand is im

ple m ent ing a public a cc es s cont

rol prog ra m to: 5.1.2.1. L oca

te , i dent if y , a n d i n te rce pt t

he g ene ra l publ ic by

ra dio, phy si ca l c onta ct , or

othe r r ea sona

ble m ea sur es to inf

orm the publ ic that t hey are prohi bite d by

Coa st G uar d re g ulations f

rom e nte ringthe Sa f et y Zone ; a nd 5.1.2 .2

. Com

m unic at e to t

he Nor th Sl ope com

m uniti es on the Be auf ort Se a on a

pe riodi c bas is w

hen e xp lorat ion a ct iv iti es are expec ted to b egin and end at a drill site, the locatio n of the drill site, and any re st ric ti o n s o n a ct iv iti es in the v ic init y of the K ulluk ’s exploratio n op erations. Permit at 42-43. “pub lic acce ss co ntrol p rog ram .” P erm it a t 42- 43. The Reg ion 52 determ ined that, as lon gas these safety zon e an d p ublic access restriction perm it con ditions are co m plied with, exe m

ptingthe a r e a within the safety z one from

the am bient air definition would g enerally be consistent with prev ious Ag ency interpretation s. RTC at 51- 52. In so findin g , th e Reg ion n oted that “[g ]iv en that the perm itted activ ities occ ur o v er op en w at er in th e A rc ti c, th e[ ] cr it er ia[ fo r ex em pt io n in cl ud ed

in th e C os tl e L ette r] m

us t b e ad ap te d to s om e ex te nt w he n appl ie d to th is env ironm ent.” Id

. I n sp e c i f i c ally con sideringthe applicab ilityof the tw o ex em pt io n cr it er ia , th e R eg io n st at ed : Reg ion 1 0 rec og niz es that Sh ell do es n ot “o wn” the areas of the Beau fort S ea on which the Kulluk w ill be operatin gas m ig ht be the ca se for a station ary sour c e o n land. Sh ell has a leaseS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 68

RE DO ILPeti tione rs a ls o s ee m to sug g es t t

hat the Re g ion’s a

pproa ch is 53 fl awe db ec au se i t“i s b as ed up o n an as su mp t i o n th at S h el l wil l re qu es t , an dth e [ U S C G] w ill e st abl is h, a

s af et y z one re st ric tingthe pa ss ag e of othe r v es se ls .” RE DO ILPeti tion at 15 & n .45. T his argum ent is unpe rs uas iv e bec aus e it f ai ls to re cogniz e that, as the p er mit co n d i t i o n s q u o t ed i n n o t e 5 2 st at e, o p er at i o n i s p r o h i b i t ed u n l es s t h es e t wo condi tions are m et

. See Permit at 42-43. authoriz ingthe com

panyt o us e thes e area s for the ac tiv ities cov ered by

the perm its. A Coa st Guard safety z one establishe s leg al author i t y fo r exc ludingthe g eneral public from the area inside the z one. E PAhas prev iously recog niz ed a safety z one es t ab l i s h e d

b y th e C o a s tGu a r d

a s e v i d e n c e o f

s u f f i c i ent owne rs hi p or

c ontr ol b y

asourc e ov er

are as o v er

w at er s o as to qu al if y a s a bo un dary fo r de fi ni ng am bi ent ai r w he re th at

s af ety z one is m onitored to pose a barrier to public a c c e s s . Letter from Stev en C . R iv a, EPAR eg ion 2 , to Le on Sede fian, New York State D epartm ent of Co nserv ation, re: Am bient Air for the O ffshore LN G Broa dwater Proj ect, dated Octo ber 9 , 2 007 (B ro ad w at er L ette r)

. To m ee t the s ec on d of

th e cr it er iaa

pp li ed b y E P A and e ns ur e th e so ur ce a ct

ua ll y tak es s te ps to pr ec lu de publ ic acc es s, S he ll propo sed and Reg ion 10 requ ired as a cond ition o f op eration unde r the perm its that Shell dev elop in writingand im plem ent a p ublic access control prog ram to locate, identify , and intercept the g eneral public by radio, phy sical contact, or o ther re aso na bl e m ea sure s to in fo rm th e pu bl ic th at th ey are prohibi t e d by

C oast Guard regulations from enterin gthe area within 50 0 m eters of

the hull o f the Kulluk

. Reg ion 1 0 be li ev es th at , f

or th e ov er

w at er lo cati ons i n th e ar ct ic env ironm ent at issue in the se p ermittingaction s, such a prog ram of m onitoringand

no ti f i cation is sufficiently

sim ilar to af en ce o r phy si ca l b ar

ri er on land su ch th at th e ar ea w ithi n the C oast Guard safety

z one qualifies for ex clusionfrom am bient air. See B roadw ater L etter at 2. RTC at 52

. 53S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 69

A s the Re g ion r ig htly

note d, seeRT C at

51-52, the re g ulation and the Cos tle 54 L ette r, by th ei r very t erm s, w er e cl ea rly w ritte n w ith ov er la

nd s itua tions in m ind. See 40 C.F.R . § 50.1(e ) (re f

er ringto “bui lding s” ); Cos tle L ette r a t 1 (r ef er ringto “l and” and “f enc es ”)

. In suppor

t of the ir cont ent ion, RE DO ILPeti tione rs relyon a pr ev ious 55 A g enc y de te rmination that l ea se d prope rty c ould not be e x em pte d f rom the de f init ion of am bie nt a ir bec aus e the le ss ee did not ha v e cont rol ov er a cc es s to i ts leas ed prope rty (only the la ndlord did)

. RE DO ILP et iti on at 17 & n.52 ( ci tingH el m L ette r) . Pet iti oner s asse rt that thi s onsh o r e in terpretation m ust app ly equally to an OCS lease BOEMRE is sue d. Id . A s the P et iti oner s the m se lv es note, f ede ra l c ourts hav e f

ound a g enc y

a ct ion to b e a rbitr ary w hen th e a gency ’s “e xplanatio n ‘run s count er to the evidence,’” id . at 17 ( q u o t in g M

o t o r V e h i c l e M f r s
. A s s ’ n o f th e U

. S

. , I n c
. v
. Sta t e F

a r m M u t

. A u t o I n s
. Co. , (c ontinue d...) Upo n co nsideratio n o f the adm inistrativ e re c ord and the p arties’ argum ents, the B oard conclu des that P etitioners hav e no t sho wn that the Region cl ear ly erre d in its dec is ion to exempt the are a wit hin the USCG sa fe ty z on e fr om

th e de fi ni ti on

o f “am bient a ir

. ” Th e R eg io n, in it s Resp onse to C om

m ents, prov ided a reaso nable int erpretation of the am bient air regulation and the A g ency ’s “lon g standin ginterp retation” of that regulation as ap pl i e d in the O CS context. F urtherm ore, the 54 R eg io n’ s an al y si s w as e nt ir el y c on si st ent w ith a si m il ar ana ly si s unde rtak en b y

R eg ion 2 in whic h that Re gio n de term ined that it was appro priate fo r a perm ittee to use the U SC G saf e t y zo ne to defin e an am bient air bo undary

around a pro pos ed o ffshore liquefied natural g as facility

. SeeBr oa dw at er

Le tt er at 2. The Br oa dw at er

L ette r, m or eo v er , sug g ests that Reg ion 2’s analy sis, as w ell as Reg ion 1 0’s, is no t uniq ue, st at in gth at

“ [ i] n p revious per

mitting decision s invo lving * * * drilling opera tions , EPA Re

giona l offices have used the U SCG ’s safe ty zon e as th e bo un da ryfo r de

fi ni ng a m bi en t a ir .” Id . at 2 (em phasis added ). The letter exp lains th at the Ag ency has found that “[ t ] he ‘safetyz one’ appro ach represents a r e a sonab le surro g ate for a so urce’s fence or phy sical b arrier an d thu s co uld a ct as an am bient air bo undary .” Id

. Thus, while it i s t rue, as P etitioners alleg e, that the A g ency has g en er al ly r eq ui re d th e so ur ce to o w n or c ontr ol a cc es s over the a rea in questio n fo r that area to m eet the first criterio n, RE DO I L P etition at 16- 17, this requirem ent has been lim ited to sources locate d o n lan d. See, 55S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 70

(.. .c ontinue d)

55 46 3 U.S. 29, 43 (1 98 3)), and “‘th e agency o f f er[s] i nsuff

icient reasons for treating sim ilar situatio ns diff

erently ,’” id . ( qu o ti n g Tran sactive Co rp. v. Un ited St ates , 91 F .3d 232, 237 (D .C. Ci r. 1996)) ; see also FCC v. F ox Television S tati on s, Inc. , 556 U .S. 502, __, 129 S.C t. 1800, 1810- 11 (2009) (dis cus si ng st anda rd of re v ie w of an ag enc y ’s polic y c hang e)

. Here, not on ly

are the situatio ns dissim ilar en ou gh t o arguably n ot be gove rned b y

these ca se s, but the A g enc y

did o ff er pe rs uas iv e re as ons f

or t re at ingthe tw o s itua

tions d i ff e r e n t l y. REDOILP etition ers’ a rgum ents that the Region’s determ inatio n fa ils to m eet 56 the second criteria because the saf ety zone “f

ails to e f f ectuate a barrier that ‘preclud es’ public a cc es s” are e qual ly unpers uas iv e. RE DO ILP et iti on at 17. RED OI L Peti tione rs f ocus on the f

ac t t hat the U SCG

w ill li m it ac ce ss to the are a base d on s af et y c once rns rathe r t han f or a ir qual ity

c onsi der at ions

. Id . at 17-1 8. The im po rtant fa ct is that ac cess w ithi n the z one w ill be s tri ct ly li m ite d, not

the r easo n b ehi nd it . M ore ov er , RED OI L Petit ione rs do not

a ddre ss the othe r c onditi on of the per m it tha t the Re g ion r el ie d upon f or i ts am bie nt a ir boundar

y de te rmination: the publi c ac ce ss c ontrol pro gra m She ll is re quire d to im

ple m ent . T he Boa

rd doe s not f

ind c le ar e rr or i n the Re g ion’s c oncl usi on that, b ased on t h e USCG lim itin g a cce ss to the saf ety zone and th e perm ittee im ple m ent inga

publi c acces s cont

rol prog ra

m , the latte r of

w hic h w ill inc lude notif ic at ion t o the loc al res ide nts of the location of the drill ingand the f

ac t that the publ ic is restricte d from

the sa fet y z o ne, th e g eneral pub lic w ill be den ied acce ss to the area ins ide the s af

et y z one. e.g. , Helm Letter at 1 (referring to possib le exem ption near c oal- fired po w er p lant ); Me m or an dum fr om S te v en D

. P ag e, D ir ec to r, O ff ic e of A ir Qua lity Planning& Stan dards, U .S. EPA , to R eg ’l A ir D iv . D irs., U. S. EPA , Interpre tation of “ Am bient Air” in Situ ations I nv olving Leas ed Lan d U nder the R egulatio ns f orthe Preve ntion of Sig nificant Det eri ora ti on (PSD) (J une 22, 20 07) (A. R. B

- 26) (discu s s i ng the applicab ilityof the exem ption whe re a source is located o n “lan d” le as ed to th em by an othe r so ur ce ). The R eg io n (and th e A g en cy b ef or e it) rea s onab ly

determ ined that ap plication of the regulation and the i nt e r pr e t i ve l e t t e r

to an “o ver wa t e r ” si tua t i on re qu i r e s so me l e e w a y. RE DO I L P etitioners’ reliance solely on land- based

exe m ption decision s is thu s un

persuas iv e. F inally , a s m entione d ab ov e, the Agency has 56 consistently

tak en th e po sition th at am bient ai r e x e m p t i o n d e t erm inations are an aly z ed o n a case- by

- case basis. For all t he reasons state d ab ov e, RE DO I L P etitioners hav e no t shown that the Reg ion c learly erred in its am

bient air exe m

ptionS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 71

T he Boa rd c am e to t

he sa m e conc lus ion i n Shel l D is cov erer 2012

. Sees lip 57 op. at 60- 62, 15 E .A .D . at ___. I n that c as e, the Re g ion ha d a dopte d and f ollo wed the sa m e or a v er y s im ila r in te rp reta

tion as de sc ribe d in the te x t a bov e. See

id . at 57- 59, 15 E.A .D . at ___. Not

hing RE DO IL Petit ione rs of f er in the pre se nt c as e conv inc es the Boa rd t hat any thingin the pri or a

nal y si s – and re ite rate d he re – w as in er ror . determ ination. C onseq

uently , re v iew of the Perm it based on this issu e 57 is den ied. E. ICA S a nd Mr. L um Hav e N ot D emo nstrated

that the R egion Failed to Satisfy Its Oblig

ation to Com

ply with ExecutiveO rder 1289 8 a nd App licable Boa rd Precede nt I CA S an d Mr. Lum

argue th at the Reg ion’s env ironm ental justice an al y si s la ck ed

av al id b as is o n w hi chto c on cl ud e th at Sh el l’s oi l exploration a ctiv ities in the B eaufort Sea will n ot hav e a di s pr op or t i on a t e l y hi gh a ndad ver s e ef f e c ton th e he a l t h o f

t h e Al a s ka Nativ e po pulation

liv ingon

the NorthSlo pe. I CA S a lleg es that the R eg io n’ s env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s fa il s to a cc ount for th e im pa ct s
2 of sh ort- term

N O and oz one expo sures on the A lask a N ativ e po pulation residingon

the NorthSlo pe , a nd also asserts that the op portun ities for public participation

w e r e i na de quate. Mr. Lum cha lleng es the lack

of analy sis reg a r dingthe im pacts em issions from

Sh ell’s activ ities in the Beau fort S ea co uld h av e on tradition al sub sistence food sources , and a lso ch al le ng es S he ll ’s o il s pi ll r es po ns e ca pa bi li ti es . Th e R eg io n co unte rs th at it s env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s an d re su lt in gc on cl us io ns c om pl y with Exec ut i v e O r d e r

1 2 8 9 8 , “ F e d eral A ctions to A ddress Env ironm ental J ustice in Mino rity

Population s and LowIncom e P opulatio ns” (“Exe cutiv e O rder”). The issu e the Bo ard m ust res olv e is: did th e Reg ion s atisfy

its o blig ation to co m

ply w ith the Exec utiv e O rde r and ap pl ic ab le B oard

p re ce de nt ? The E xe cuti v e O rd er

s ta te s inr el ev ant p art: Agen cy R espon sibilities. To the greatest ex tent p racticable and perm itted by

law , and consistent with princip les set forth in the r eport on the N ational Perform ance Rev iew, eachFe deralS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 72

U nder

the Ex ec utive Or d er , the A la sk a Na tiv e population re si dingon the 58 Nor th Sl o p e q u alif

ie s as a m inori ty population. See S t at eme n to f Ba si s a t5 5 ; IC AS Petit ion at 30.

I CAS’ s re m ai ningc hal le ng es to the am ount a nd qua lit y of publi c 59 par tic ipation opportuni tie s av ai la ble per ta ining to the env ironm ent al jus tice a nal y si s appear to m irror its m ore genera l argum ents reg ardin g the pub lic participatio n pro cess . See ICA S P etition at 6-1 0, 38 -39

. Acc ord ingly , the Board add resse s ICA S’s challenges to t he ade quac y

of the public par

tic ipation proc es s, both g ene ra lly and w ith re spe ct

to the en vi r o n men t al j u st i ce an al ysi s, i n P ar t s V I

. F an dV I

. G b el o w. ag en cy s ha ll m ak e ac hi ev in ge nv ir onm enta l ju st ic e a parto f it s mis s ion b y

identify ingand

add ressing , a s ap propriate, disprop ort ionately

high an d ad

v erse hum an h ealth o r env ironm ental e ffects o f its p rog ram s, policies, and activ ities on m inority

and low

- incom e po pulation s * * *

. Exec . O rder 1 2898 , 5 9 F ed. Reg . 7 629, 76 29 (Feb. 11 , 1 994) (A. R. FF

1). Fe deral agen c ies are required to im plem ent th e E xecutiv e O rder “cons istent w ith, and to th e e xtent perm itted by , e xistinglaw .” Id. at7 63 2

. T h e B o a r d h a s h e l d t h a t a p e rm i t i s s u e r s h o u l d e x e r c i s e it s di sc re ti on to e xam in e any

“ su pe rf ic ia ll y p laus ib le ” cl ai m

th at a m in or ity orlo w-in c ome po pu l a t i on m a y b e d i s p r op or t i on a t e l y af f e c t e d b y a 58 particular facility

seekinga PS D perm it. In re EcoE léctrica, L. P. , 7 E

. A

. D

. 56 , 69 n . 17 ( E A B 1 99 7) ; accor d Shell 2010 , slip op. at 63- 64 & n . 71 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t

__

_ (c it in gP S D c as es ). A t the outs et , th e B oard no te s th at bo th I C A S an d Mr. L um r ec entl y challeng ed th e R eg ion’s envi r onm ental justice an aly sis in Sh el l Disco verer 2012

. See slip o p. at 32- 48, 15 E. A. D. at _ __. In ad dition, the env ironm ental justice an aly sis the Regi on p r epared in the current m atter is rem iniscent of the env ironm ental j ustice analy sis pre pared for the Disco verer

perm its that were the su bject of the Board’s Sh el l Disco verer 2012 de ci si on . M or eo v er , wh il e th ei r pe ti ti on s fo r re v ie win Shell Disco verer 2012 an d th e curr ent ap pe al ar e no t id enti ca l, both I CA S and Mr. L um

raise substantially sim ilar argum ents in their current ap p e a l s a s t h e y d i d i n t h e i r ap p e a l s o f the Disco verer perm its. 59 C omp are Lum

Pe titionw ith Eskim o Wha le r Pet it ion forReview,S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 73

T he Re g ion f

urthe r e xpla ine d that: 60 [T]he T itl e V oper at ingpe rmit progr am is g ene ra lly

a v ehi cl e f or en su ringtha

t e x is tinga ir qual ity

c ontrol re quire m ent s ar e appro priately

ap plied t o f

acility emission uni ts and that compliance w ith the se re quire m ent s is ass ure d. A cc ording ly , the prim ar y m ea ns of a ddre ss ing env ironm ent al jus tic e is sue s in t he T itl e V prog ra

m is through inc re as ed public parti ci pat ion a nd re v iew

by pe rmitt ing ag enc ie s, an d c onditi ons to a ss ure c om plia nce w ith appl ic abl e re quire m ent s. A s dis cus se d abov e, the T itl e V per m it at is sue in this ca se is unus ual in that i t r equi re s the s ourc e, as a T itl e V te m pora ry sour ce , t o m ee t t

he NA A QS and a ls o e st abl is hes li m its on the po tential to emi t

. R eg ion 10 h as c on sidered environ m ental justice conc er ns in t h is pe rmitt inga ct ion w her e poss ible in the c onte x t of as sur ingc om

plia nce w ith appl ic abl e re quire m ent s f or t he sour ce , i n particul ar as surin g c om

plian ce w ith th e NA

A QS as a Title V tem po rary source and establishi ng P SD av oid ance lim its. EJ A nal y si s at 2; see also Sta

te m ent of Ba si s at 54. Shell Disco verer 2012 ( D oc . N o. 2 4) , an d I CA S P etitionw ith I CA S and AE WC P etition fo r R ev iew, Shell Disco verer 2012 ( D oc . N o. 7 ). 1. R eg io n’

s E nv ir on m en ta l J

us ti ce A na ly

si s The R eg io n in cl ud ed

a f if te en - pa g e env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s in the adm inistrativ e reco rd to accom pany the Perm it and

to allow for public com

m ent on t he analy sis. Env ironm ental Justice Analy sis for P ro po se d O C S P erm itN o. R 10 O C S 0300 00 Kul luk D ri ll in gU ni t (und at ed ) (“ E J A na ly si s” ) (A

. R

. F

- 1)

. The R eg io n’ s an al y si s be g in s w ith a disc ussion

of env ironm ental justice in the p erm ittingcontext, and notes that “[t]h e Title V operatingperm it program do es n ot g enerally

im pose newsubs t a ntiv e air quality control requ irem ents.” E J A naly sis at 2. 60 I n a d d i t i o n , t h e a n a l y s i s i n c l u d e s a d i s c u s s i o n o f h o w t h e natio nal am bient air qu ality

stand a r ds (“N AA QS ”) are crafted by integrating scientific in form ation a nd e v idence from rig orously

rev iewed stud ies, anda summ ary of t he Boa rd’ s cas e la w sta ti n g tha t th e Boar d v ie ws com pliance with the N AA QS a s “em blem atic of achiev inga lev el of public health protection

that, bas ed o n the lev el of protection afford ed b y th e N A A Q S , d em on stra te s th at m in or ity or lo w - in co m e po pu la ti on s w il lS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 74

T he ana ly si s al so inc lude s, for som e of the northe rn Iñupiat com

m uniti es , the 61 distances res i d en t s h ave reportedtrav eling off shor e to hu nt for traditio nal sub sistence f ood s ourc es . See EJ Analy sis at 6 (notin g Nuiq sut residents h ave trav eled up to 60 m iles off shor e to the no rth and as f ar east as Cam den Ba

y to h un t f

or bo w head whale and th at Ka k tov ik re si dent s hav e tra

v el ed as f ar as 35 m ile s of

f shor e to hunt

f or bow hea d w hal e and w al rus ); State m ent

of Ba si s at 55; see also Shel l 2010 , slip op. a t 72 n.8 0, 1 5 E.A.D. at ___ ( notingthat s ubsi st enc e ac tiv iti es , w hic h c an tak e Iñupia

t r es ide nts li v ingon the N o r t h Slo pe f

ar f rom their lo cal c omm

un ities and closer to em ission s sources, are a pote ntia l e nv ironm ent al jus tic e cons ide ration t h at m ay be unique to the O CS PSD per m itt ingc onte x t); Shel l 2012 , s lip op. at 35 n.32, 15 E.A .D . at ___ (s am e)

. T he Re g ion us ed demog ra phic inf orm at ion g at

her ed f rom th e 2 0 0 0 U .S. 62 Ce nsus to com

par e the population of the Nor th Sl ope Bor oug h to the populations of both the Sta te of A la sk a and the ent ire Uni te d State s, w hic h s er v ed as re f er enc e populations forth e d emogr ap h ic an al y si s. EJ An al y si s at6- 8 & n. 6 . Th e No rt h Sl o p e Bo ro u gh cons is ts of the f

ollow inge ig ht i ncor

porate d v ill ag es : Point H ope, Point L ay , W ai nw right, Atqa suk , B ar

row , Nuiqs ut, Ka

k tov ik , a nd A nak tuv uk Pas s. SeeStat em ent

of Ba si s at

55. not e xperien ce d ispropo rtionately hi gh and adv erse hum an h ealth o r env ironm ental e ffects due to expo sure to relev ant criteria pollutants.” Id. ( qu ot i ng Shell 2010 , sl ip op . at 74 , 15 E

. A

. D

. at

__ _) ( ci ta ti on s om it te d) ; see a lso State m ent o f B asis at 54- 55. The analy sis g oes on to catalogue the distance s betw e e n Iñupiat co mm un i t i e s o nth e c o a s to f

th e N o rt hS l o p e th a tar e c l o s e s tt o S h e l l’ s lease b lock s in the B eaufort Sea, and discu sses th e im

portanc e of subsisten ce fo ods obtaine d thro ugh hunting , fishing , and whalingto the I ñupiat diet, and m ore g enerally the nexu s be tween

sub sistence activ ities and I ñu piat cu lture. EJ An aly sis at 3, 5. The R eg ion a lso in cluded an illustration that juxtapose s the location of Shell’s lease blo ck s, includin g propo sed exploration s ites, with onsh ore and of f s hore subsisten ce u se areas for the northern

Iñupiat com

m unities. Id. a t 4 ; see a lso State m ent

61 of B asis at 56. The Reg ion then procee ded to analy z e dem og raphic, hea lth- related, and air quality data. The dem og raphic analy sis indicates that 6 8% of 62 residents liv ingin the N orth S lope Boro ug h clas sify them selv es as Alask a N ativ es. EJ Ana ly sis at 7. In ad dition, nearly half of N orth S lope residents speak a lang uag e oth er than En g lish at hom e. Id. at 8

. TheS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 75

T he Re g ion ut ili ze d data

f rom the A la sk a Na

tiv e He al th St at

us Re port 2009, 63 w hic h the A la sk a Na

tiv e Ep id emio log y

Ce nte r a nd the A la sk a Na

tiv e T riba l H ea lth Cons orti um

ha d pre par ed to ana lyze hea lth condi tions in the Nor th Slope Bor oug h. See EJ A nal y si s at 8-10 & n.11.
T he Boa rd not es that t

he inf orm at ion i ncl uded in t abl e 5 o f t h e ai r qua lit y 64 ana ly si s inc lude s m odel ed im pac ts in the ne ar es t ons hore c om m uniti es f rom ope ration of the Kul luk

a lone , w ithout

im pac ts f rom the A ss ociate d Fle et

or bac k g round conc ent rations . E J Anal y si s at

12 & tbl .5. The R egion e xpla ins that t he m ax im

um m odel ed conc ent

ration s in N u iqs ut, De adhor se , a nd K ak tov ik li st ed in t abl e 5 are a ll bel ow the s ig nif

ic ant im pac t l ev el s (“ SIL s” ) e st abl is hed f or e ac h c rit er ia

poll u ta nt. Id. at 12. In t he PSD progr am , SIL s f

unct ion as thre shol d lev el s f or am bie nt c once ntra

tions of a gi ve n p ollu tant; for a giv en po llut ant and averag ing period , any source that has a m ea sur ed conc ent

ration that i s bel ow

the SI L is c onsi der ed too s m al l t o c aus e or cont ribut e to a

v iola tion of the N AA QS

. Id. The Region m ade clea

r earlier in th e e nviron m ent al j u st ice a naly sis that em ission s f

rom the A ssociated Fleet w hile op erating w ithi n 25 m iles of the Kulluk, together w ith em ission s f rom the Kul luk, a

re c onsi der ed in conduc tingan am bie nt a ir qual ity anal y si s to de te rmine w

het her e m is si ons f

rom the proje ct

w ill ca use or cont

ribut e (c ontinue d...) an al y si s of

h ea lth datar ev ea le d, am on go th er th in g s, th at fr om

1 99 0 to 2007 there has been a 15 8% rate of increase in the p rev alence of d iabetes f o r Al a s kaNa t i ve s r e s i d i n g o nt h e Ar c t i c Sl o p e , wh e r e a s d ur i n g th e s a me ti m e pe ri od

th er e ha s be en

a1 17 % r at e of

in cr ea se in

th e pr ev al en ce in diabetes for Alask a N ativ es statew ide. Id. at 9. I n ad dition, there is a 63 hig her incidence of outpatient v isits for respiratory pro blem s rang ing from the com m on cold to pn eum onia in the A rctic S lope than in the rest of A lask a. Id. I n th e ai r im

pac ts ana ly si s, th e R eg io n fi rs t n ot ed th at th e N orth Slope B orough is currently des ig nated as attainm ent/unc l a s s ifiable fo r al l of t he NAAQ S , m eani ngth at th e N orthS lo pe h as s uf

fi ci ent d at a to determ ine th at the area is m eeting the NA AQ S, or that due to no data o r insufficien t da t a , E PAcannot m ak e a determ ination. Id. at 1 1 & n. 15 (citingCAA§ 107(d ), 4 2 U .S. C. § 7407 (d)). The R eg ion th en e xam ined

2 the t ot a l m odeled

con centration s of NO , p articulate m atter w ith a

10 dia met e r of 10 m icrom eters o r less (“PM ”), particulate m atter w ith a

2 .5 2 diam eter of 2.5 m icrom eters or l ess (“PM ”), SO , and CO , inclu ding 64S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 76

(.. .c ontinue d)

64 to a v iola tion of the N AA QS

. Id. at 4. T he Reg ion ’s analy sis repeate dly em ph asize d th at com plia nce w ith the NA

A QS is “e m

ble m at ic of ac hie v ing a le v el of public h ea lth pro te ct ion” that de m onst rate s that minori ty

or low -inc om e populations w ill not ex per ie nce dis propor

tiona te ly high and adv er se hum an hea lth or env ironm ent al im pac ts due to e xposur e to r el ev ant c rit er ia poll uta nts

. Id. at 4 -5 (qu o ti n g Shel l 2010 , s lip op. at 7 4 , 15 E.A .D . at ___) . W hile the inc lus ion of

inf orm at ion on m odel ed im pac ts of em ission s f

rom the Kul luk

alo n e o n th e n ear eston sh o re co m m u n i t i e s i s il lu strat ive rega rdin g the Kul luk ’s contr ibuti on to the ov er al l e m is si ons prof ile , i t i s the inf

orm at ion that e ncompasse s bo th backgroun d c on centration s and e m ission s f rom the Kul luk

and the A ssociated Fleet w

hen it is w ithi n 25 m iles of the Kul luk

t hat establishes the Reg ion has sa tis f ie d it s oblig at ion t o c om

ply w ith the Ex ec utiv e Or der

. Monit oringdata

f rom Prudhoe Ba

y , D ea dhors e, and Endi cott w er e use d f or 65 bac k g round v al ues . EJ Anal y si s at 13. T he Re g ion al so note d that t he m odel ed im

pac ts ar e bas ed on c onse rv at iv e as sum ptions , i ncl udingthat a ll f our w el ls are dril le d at t

he sa m e loc at ion to a cc ount f

or ov er la ppingplum es , e v en thoug h the dri lli ng of f our w el ls at a f ix ed loc at ion a

nd the ov er la

p of plum es w ill not occ ur. Id. Spe ci f ic al ly , the Re g ion not ed that in Kak tov ik , loca

te d 8 m ile s f

rom She ll’ s 66 closest lea se block in the Beauf ort Sea, the to tal m axim um m od eled concentratio ns, assum ing Shell’s Discovere r is in operation and c on siderin g bac kg rou nd concentratio ns,
2 are m easured at the f

ollo w ing percentage s of

the NA A QS: 11 % fo rt h e 1

- ho ur NO
2. 5 10 NA A QS ; 20% f

or t he 24-hour PM NA

A QS ; 35% f

or the 24-hour PM N AA QS , a nd;
2 .5 20% f or t he annua l PM N AA QS . EJ Anal y si s at 13-14 & tbl .6. Simila

rly , i n Nuiqs ut, loc at ed 33 m ile s f

rom She ll’ s cl ose st

le as e bloc k

in the Be auf

ort Se a, and a

pply ingthe sa m e as sum

ptions , the total m ax im

um m odel ed conc ent

rations are m ea sur ed at

the
2 f ollow ingpe rc ent ag es of

the N AA QS : 50% for

the 1-hour NO NAA QS ; 48% f or the 24-
2 .5 1 0 2 .5 h o u r PM N AA Q S , 3 5 % f

o r th e 2 4

- h o u r PM N AA Q S , an d2 6 % f o r th e an n u a l PM NA A QS

. Id. ba c kgro un d c on c e nt r a t i on s and m axim um con centration s from

the Kullu k an d th e A ss oc ia te d F le et

. Id. at 13

- 14 & tbl.6. The R eg ion c om pared 65 the to tal m odeled

con cent r a t ions for eac h o f the three n earest com m unities while the so urce is in oper a t i on a nd found that the to tal m axim um m odeled conce ntrations dem onstrate that the NA AQ S will b e attained at all lo cations bey ond the 5 00- m eter b ou nd a r y, and that the m odeled con centration s i n the N orth S lope com m unities and in area s whe re the com

m unities cond

uct su bsistence activ ities will be b elowthe relev ant standard

. Id. at 14

. F in al ly , the Re g io n no te d th at am ajor ity 66 of the total im

pacts result fro m

bac k g round

con centration s. Id.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 77

N AA QS are he al th ba se d-s ta ndar ds, de si g ned to prote ct public hea lth w ith 67 an ade quat e m ar g in o f s af et y , i ncl udings ens iti v e populations s uch as c hildr en, the el der ly , a nd a st hm at ic s. See In re AES

Puerto Rico , L.P. , 8 E .A .D . 324, 351 (E A B 1999) , aff’d s ub nom . Sur

Cont ra La C ontam inac ión v . EP

A , 202 F.3d 443 ( 1st

Ci r. 2000), cited in She ll 2010 , s lip op. at 64 n.72, 15 E.A .D . at ___. T he A dm inis tra tor is re quire d to ca rr y out per iodic re v ie w s of

the a ir qual ity cr ite ria

publi she d unde r s ec tion 108 of the CA A , 42 U .S.C . § 7408, a s w el l a s the NA A QS , and to r ev is e the c rit er ia and s ta ndar ds as a ppropr iate . C AA

§ 109( d)( 1), 4 2 U .S.C . § 7409( d)( 1). T he Boa rd out line d the
2 his tory of the NO NA

A QS re v ie w s in its De ce m ber 2010 re m and orde r. See Shel l 2010 , sl ip op. at 65 nn.73-74, 15 E. A .D at ___. Ov erall, the R eg ion c onclud ed th at Sh ell’s pro posed O CS activ ities in the B eaufort Sea will n ot resu lt in disprop ortionately high an d ad

v erse hum an h ealth o r env ironm ental e ffects w i th resp ect to Alask a N ativ es residingon

the North Slope , and further, in reac hingthis conclu sion the R eg io n co ns id er ed

th e im pa ct o n th es e co m

m un it ie s w hi le e ng ag in gin su bs is te nc e ac ti v it ie s inth e area s w he re s uc h ac ti v it ie s ar e re g ul ar ly cond ucted. Id. at 1 5. With th is bac k g r ou nd in m ind, the B oard now turn s to th e sp ec if

ic a ss erti on s bo thI C A S and Mr

. L um m ak e ins up po rt of the ir argum ents th at the Reg ion has n ot co m plied with its ob lig ation un de r th e E xe cuti v e O rd er .

2 2. O ne -H ou r N O N A A Q S A na ly

si s

2 I CAS chal le nge s t h e Region’ s con si der at ion of 1- hourNO NA AQ S com

pliance in the env ironmen t a l justice analy sis on sev eral 67 g ro un ds , arguing tha t it is “ in su ff ic ie nt and igno re s sa li ent r ec or d

2 evi d e nce .” I CAS Peti ti on at 34. I CAS ass er ts that in add it ion to NO em issions from

the Kullu k

w he n i t i s an OC S s ource and from the Ass oc i a t ed F leet when it is w ithin 2 5 m iles of the Kullu k , th e R eg ion

2 m us t a ls o accoun t fo r m ob il e so ur ce N O e m is si on s th at r em ai n unre g ul at ed by

th e P erm itw he n as se ss in gp ot enti al ly a dv er se h ea lth

2 im pacts of N O em issions on NorthSlo pe c om m unities. Id

. a t 3 5 -38

. In addition , I CA S c halleng es the R eg ion’s “fatal flawof the env ironm ental j ustice analy sis,” nam ely the failure to analyz e th e im pa cts of Sh el l’ s em issions on r esidents of the N orth S lope cond uctingsub sistence activ ities offsh ore. Id. at 36-37 (em pha si s in ori ginal ). Fin a l ly, I CAS

2 ch a ll enges t he Region ’s anal ysis of Shel l’ s 1- hourNO NAAQSS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 78

ICA S asse rts that the Boar d s h o u l d rem and th e Kul luk pe rmit so that t

he 68 Re g ion c an as se ss m obile s ourc e emis si ons in cl u d ed in S hel l’s e m is si ons inv ent ory submitted to BOEMRE as part of Shell’s Explo ration P lan, b oth because it “shows that the a dditi onal e m is si ons es tim at es are not as hard to obtai n as Re g ion 10 im plie s, ” and b e c a u s e o n c e i t a s s e s s e s th e a c c u r a c y o f th e i n v e n t o ry th e R e g i o n c an “ u s e the inform ation to con du ct an EJ a naly sis that acc ou nts for

all o f S h el l ’ s emi ss i o n s. ” IC AS Petit ion at 35 (e m

phas is in orig ina l). Now her e in its pet iti on does IC A S a ck now le dg e the Re g ion’s s tate m ent in the Re spons e to C om

m ent s, that “ [t]he Ex

plora tion Plan * * * doe s not i ncl ude e st im at es of ai r e m is si ons f

rom the se othe r v es se ls duri ng the ti m e the y are m ore tha

n 25 m ile s f

rom the Kullu k or bef

ore the Kullu k bec om es a n O CS sour ce.” RT C at 15 . T he Board h as c o n s i s t e n t l y s t at e d th at i n o r d e r t o s u s t a i n i t s b u r d e n o f d e m o n s tr at i n g th at r e v i e wis w ar ra nte d, the pet iti oner m

ust addr es s the per

m it is sue r’ s re spons es to re le v ant c om m ent s m a d e du r i n g th e p e rm i t p r o c e edi ng . See , e. g. , Pe abody , 12 E .A .D . at 33 (“ [T]he pet iti oner m ay not si m ply rei te rate com

m ent s m ade during the public c om m ent pe riod, but m ust s ubst ant iv el y

c onf ront the pe rmit is sue r’ s subs eque nt e xpla nat ions .” ). Fu rt h ermo re, ICAS ’s su ggest io n th atth e Regi o n sh o u l d“co m p il e ro u gh estim at es ” of

the se m obile s ourc e emis si ons bec aus e “[s ]om e addi tiona l s te ps ar e particul arly

necess ary

here” is sim ilarly

unavailing. ICAS P etition at 36. ICA S has ackn o wled gedit s o n go in g co n cern regar d in g em is si o n s th atare n o t i n cl u d edi n t h e P TE analy sis, along w ith it s ef f orts to com

pel Region 10 to con sider n o n - P TE em ission s as OC S s ourc e emis si ons in pr ior appe al s to t his Boa rd. IC A S Peti tion at 34. De spi te it s conc er ns, IC A S c annot

de m onst rate that r ev ie w

is w ar ra nte d w her e, a s her e, ICA S of

f er s (c ontinue d...) c o m p l i a n c e b a s e d

o ns e v e r a l t e c h n i c a l d e c i s i o n s th e R e g i o nm ade. Id. at 37

- 38. I C A S a ss erts th at

th e R eg io n’ s env ir onm enta l ju stic e an al y si s is in ad eq uate b ec au se it

d oe s no t a cc ount

f or e m is si on s fr om

m ob il e sources that are n ot inc luded in the air quality im pact analy sis co nduc ted to d et erm in e w he th er

e m is si on s fr om

th e pr ojec t w il l c au se o r co ntri bute to a v iolation of the N AA QS

. See Id

. a t 3 4 & n . 3 0 ; E J Ana ly sis at 4. The Bo ard d isag rees. The R eg io n ap pr op ri at el y determ in ed

th at it w as n ot r eq ui re d to an al y z e th es e m ob il e so ur ce e m is si on s w he re , a s he re , the Title V p erm it did n ot ad dress m obile source em issions, and the record lack ed s ufficient dataf or s uc h an ana ly si s. R TC a t 1 14 ; S ta te m ent o f B as is a t 5 4; see

68S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 79

(.. .c ontinue d) 68 a g ene ra liz ed obje ct ion t o the Re g ion’s c onsi d eration of m obile s ourc es in the env ironm ent al justi ce anal y si s, and the Re g ion ha s demonst rate d that i t l ac k s suf

f ic ie nt dat a to r ea ch a det er

m inativ e conc lus ion r eg ar dingthe se m obile s ourc e emis si ons in t he env ironm ent al jus tic e cont ext. See Av enal , s lip op. at 25-26, 15 E.A .D . at ___; see also In re Cap e W

ind Assocs. , LLC , O CS A

ppea l N o. 11- 01, s lip op. at 4 (EAB M ay 20, 2011), 15 E.A .D . ___ ( notingtha t pe tit ione rs “ m

ust ra is e spe ci fic o bje ct ions to the per m it” ); In re BP Che rr

y Point , 12 E .A .D . 209, 217 (E A B 2005) (s am e)

. In a m emora

ndum a ddre ss inge nv ironment al jus tic e in t he p e r mi t t i ng c onte x t, 69 the A g enc y

s tate d: Unlike P SD/ [ N ew S o u r ce Re vi ew] p er mit t i n g, Ti t l e V ge n er al l y does no t im po se s ub stanti ve em ission contro l requirem ents, bu t rather requi res a ll appl icable requirem ents to be i n cl u ded in a T itle V op era t i n g p erm it. * * * Bec ause T itle V d oes not directly im po se subs ta ntiv e emis si ons cont

rol re quire m ent s, it is not c le ar w het her or how EPA c ould t ak e envi ronm ent al jus tic e is sue s into ac count in Tit le V pe rmit ti n g - o th er th an to al lo w p ub li c p art ic ip at io n to serve as a m otivating f

actor f or app ly ing cl o se rscrut iny to a T itle V perm it’s com

plian ce w ith app licable CAA requirem ents. Mem orand um

f rom G ary G

uzy , G eneral Coun sel, U.S. EP A , to As sistant A dm inistrato rs, U. S. E PA , EPA Statutor y and Re gulator y Author iti es Un d er Whi ch Env ironme ntal Jus tic e Issue

s M ay BeAddresse d in Pe rm itt ing 13 ( De c. 1, 2000) (A .R. FF- 7). also EJ Ana ly sis at 2; Reg ion Resp onse at 36 n.3 4. The Re gion ac k no w le dg ed

th at th e Titl e V pe rm it at is su e inth is c as e is unu su al in that it requires a tem

porary Title V source to m eet the N AA QS , and the perm it a l s o e s t ab l i s h e s l i m i t s o n P TE

. E J A n a l y s i s a t 2 ; S t a t e m e n tof B as is a t 5 4; R TC a t 1 14

. H ow ev er , th e Titl e V p erm itd oe s no t r egul at e m obile source em issions. 69 Desp ite the fact t ha t mobile source em issions are n ot regulated unde r the Title V perm it, the R eg ion d id g o b ey ond its requ ired rev iew t o co nsider m obile source em issions with respect to env ironm ental j ustice in the Resp onse to C om m ents. See RTC at 114- 15. The Re g ion was unab le to reach a de term inativ e co nclusio n w ith resp ect t o the se em issions due to ins ufficient inform ation.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 80

IC A S inc lude s a ci tation to Av enal f or t he propos iti on t h at “ m o tor v ehi cl e 70 em ission s are by

f ar the g reates t concern,” in supp ort of its cont entio n th at m ob ile source
2 emis si ons shoul d be inc lude d in the s hort- te rm N O N AA QS a ss es sm ent inc lude d in the env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s, but the quote is tak en out of cont ext and does not s upport IC A S’s pos iti on. See ICA S P etit ion at 35. T he ci rc um st anc es in Av enal are m ar k edl y dif f er ent tha n thos e in t

he pre sen t c as e. In Av enal , the A gency cond ucted an
2 env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s that f ocus ed in pa

rti cul ar on s hort- te rm N O im

pac ts in supp ort o f

a PSD p erm it to b uild a 600 m ega w att power plan t. S lip op . at 2 1, 15 E.A .D. at ___ . T he A gency

not ed that in the are a su r r o u n d ing the pro po sed site f or th e new
2 sour ce , m otor v ehi cl es ac count ed f or 91% of N O e m is si ons loc al ly , a s com par ed to 61%
2 of N O e m is si ons nat ionw ide

. Id. , 15 E.A .D. at _

__ . In addi tion , the environ m ental jus tic e ana ly si s in Av enal not ed that th e a

rea s urro u nd ing the pro po sed f acility w as
2 des ignat ed as e x tre m e nonatta inm ent f or oz one, and N O is a

pre cur so r emi ss ion. Id. , 2 15 E.A .D . at ___. Fi nal ly , the A g enc y f urthe r e xpla ine d that N O c once ntra tions on or (c ontinue d...) I C A S ’s a ttem

pt to c on stru e th e E xe cuti v e O rd er and B oard preced ent to requirein this ins tance the an aly sis of em issions from m ob il e so ur ce s th at

the Re g io n m ay

n ot h av e ac cura te o r su ff

ic ie nt d at a t o c ompl e t e in t he c on t e xt of a T i t l e V pe rmitis unpe r s ua s i ve. Not abl y, th e B oard

h as h el d th at

it wil l decli ne to r ev ie wap erm itis su er ’s e nvi r o nme nt a l j us t i c e an a l ysi s th a tca nn ot re a c h a de t e rmin a t i ve conclu sion due to the in sufficiency of av ailable v alid d ata. See R TC at 11 5; Av enal , s lip op . at 25- 26, 15 E.A. D. at ___ (statingthat whe re a perm it issuer cond

ucts a sub stantiv e env ironm ental justice an aly sis that endeav ors to inclu de and a na l yz e data that is g erm ane to the env ironm ental justice issu e raised d ur i ng the co m

m ent p eriod, and

the perm it issuer dem onstrated it exercised its consid ered j udgmen t w hen determ iningthat it cann ot reac h a determ inativ e co nclusio n d ue to the insufficien cy

of av ailable d ata, the B oard will decline to g rant rev iew of the env ironm ental j ustice analy sis). M oreov er, “[t]he plain languag e of th e E xe cuti v e O rd er

im part s co ns id er ab le lee w ay to fe de ra l a g en ci es in de t e rmin i ng h ow to co mpl y wi t h t he sp i r i tan d l e t t e r of th e Ex e c u t i ve Orde r.” Aven al , slip op. at 24, 15 E. A. D. __ _. I CA S o v erreads Aven al w he n its ug g es ts th at Aven al com pels th e analy sis of the se m obile source em issions in the context o f this perm it. See I CA S P e t i t i on at 35 (“The Ag ency has c on s i dered m obile em issions prev iously in its EJ analy ses a nd s ho ul d be r e qu i r e d to do so he r e .” ) (c i t i ng Aven al , s lip op . at 21- 22, 15 E

. A

. D

. _

__). 70S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 81

(.. .c ontinue d) 70 nea r m aj or road

ways hav e appr ec ia

bly higher e m is si ons tha

n thos e m ea sur ed at

m onitor s in t he A g ency -ap p ro v ed net w ork

. Id. at 21- 22, 15 E .A .D . at ___. I CA S ha s not

2 demonst rate d that t

he nee d to as se ss N O im

pac ts fr om

m obile s ourc es in Av enal , w her e
2 NO e m is si ons nea

r r oadw ay s w er e k

now n to be m

u ch hig her , tra

nsl at es int o a re quire m ent

that t he A g enc y

a cc ount f

or t hes e m obile em is si ons on the A rc tic O CS to demonst rate that i ts e nv ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s is s uf f ic ie nt. I CA S’s c halleng e also fails b ecause I CA S n ev er resp onde d to the R eg io n’ s st at ed ra ti on al e in th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd th at Titl e V p erm it s g enerally do no t im

pose newsub stantive air qu ality control requirem ents. A petitioner cannot sim ply repeat comm ents m ade during th e co m m ent p er io d, bu t m

us t su bs tant iv el y

con fr ont th e pe rm itis su er ’s su bs tant iv e expl an at io ns in o rd er to d em on stra te th at

r ev ie wo f a particular issue is w arranted. Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 33. Furthe r, I CA S’ s assertion that the Reg ion fa iled “to analyz e the im p a c t s o f S h e l l ’ s e m i s s i o n s o ns ub s i s t e n c e hun t e r s an d f i s h e r s w hi le offshore ,” is un supp orted by the r e cord. I CA S P etition at 36- 37 (e m ph as is in o ri g in al ); see a lso S

hell 2 012 , slip op. at 42, 15 E. A. D. __ _. The env ironm ental j ustice analy sis stated that m obile source em issions will d issipate while v essels are in transit, RTC at 11 5, and the env ironm ental justice analy sis an aly z ed h ow the su bsistence areas located in clo se p roxim ity to Shell’s lease b locks m ig ht be affected by S h e l l ’ s O C S a c t i v i t i e s . E J A n a l y s i s a t5 ; id. at 6 (discu ssingdistan ces su bs is te nc e hunt er s, w ha le rs , and fi sh er m en h av e tr av el ed

o ff sh or e in se ar ch of su

bs iste nce foo ds ); id. at 4 (dep ictingsub sistence use areas m ap pe d ov er S he ll expl or at io n pl an w el l si te s)

. I n add it ion to dem onstratingcom

pliance with the ap plicable NA AQ S, the R eg ion cond ucted an env ironm ental j ustice analy sis that includ ed and analy z ed data th at is g erm ane to the env ironm ental justice issu es raise d during the com m ent p eriod. See Shell 2010 , s lip op . at 79 n.8 7, 15 E.A .D . at ___

. Altho ug h I CA S m ay

disagree w ith the contents or con c l usions of the Reg ion’s env ironm ental justice an aly sis, I CA S h as n ot de m onstr at ed th at this d ifference in op inion equates to an in sufficient ef f or t o n the Reg ion’s part reg ardingenv ironm ental justice, or that the Reg ion fa iled to an aly z e im

pacts. See id. , s lip op . at 42, 15 E. A. D. __ _.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 82 F in al ly , I C A S e num er at es s ev er al p ro bl em s w ith th e R eg ion ’s env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s th at am ount to ch al le ng es to th e R eg io n’ s technica l exp ertise. See I CA S P etition at 37; Reg ion R espon se at 43- 44; see a lso S

hell 2 012 , s lip o p. at 42- 43, 15 E. A. D. __ _. Without elaboratin gany

furthe r, I CA S e xpresse s “significan t con cerns” with,

2 am ongothe r thing s, installed NO controls and the ir ability to function

x 2 prope rly in cold weath er, the u se o f g eneri c NO /NO ratios in lieu of

2 actual source tests, the u se o f “diurnal p airing ” of NO data, and the need foraddi ti ona l “t ra cere x per iments ” to s uppl y dat a forthe AERM OD m ode l

. I C A S P e t i t i o n a t 3 7

. I t i s a x i o m a t i c t h a t a c h a l l e n g e t o the fundam ental tec hnical expertise of a perm it issuer requires a pe titioner t o o ver c ome a pa rt i c ul a r l y he a vy bu r de n, an d t ha ta s uc c e s s f ul ch a l l e nge to a pe rm it is su er ’s te chni ca l expe rt is e m us t c on si st

o f m or e th an

jus t a difference of opinio n. Shell 2012 , s lip op . at 42- 43, 15 E. A.D. at ___; accor d In re NE

H ub Partners , L.P

. , 7 E

. A

. D

. 5 61 , 5 67 ( E A B 1 99 8) , reviewden ied su b n om. Pe nn Fuel Gas , In c. v. EPA , 18 5 F

. 3d 8 62 ( 3r d Ci r . 1 99 9) . He r e , ICAS h a s fa i l e d t o o ver c ome th i s pa rt i c ul a r l y he a vy burde n b ecause it does nothin g m ore than list its b road objections to the Reg ion’s env ironm ental justice an aly sis. 3. O zo neN A A Q S A na ly

si s I CA S also challeng es the Reg ion’s com pliance with i t s oblig ation un de r the E xec ut iv e O rd er b as ed o n th e R eg io n’ s al le g ed f ai lure to adequ ately

add ress b oth th e latest

s cientific fin ding s reg ardingoz one and the p otential i mpa c t s of oz one on local c om m unities. I CA S P etition at 3 1. I C A S ’s as se rt io ns f

oc us in larg e parto n th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on to dem onstrate com

pliance with the current 8- hour oz one NA AQ S, whic h is set at 0. 75 parts per m illion (“ppm ”), as opposed to the ran g e of 0.6 0 to 0. 70 ppm

for the 8

- hour oz one NAAQ S th at E PA ’s A dm inistrator propo sed in January

20 10 but n ev er finaliz ed. See id

. at 30

- 34; R eg ion Resp onse at 40

- 42; R TC at 9 6- 98, 11 9- 20. O n S eptem ber 2 , 2 011, four day s be fore th e clos e of the p ublic com m ent p eriod and prior to the Reg ion is suingthe Perm it, the President requested that the A dm inistrator withd raw t he proposed 8- hour oz one NA AQ S s tandard , and instead enforce the current 8

- hour oz one standard of 0. 75 ppm

until the oz one standard is re consid ered ag ain in

20 13. S tatem ent o n the O z one Nation alS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 83 A m bi ent A ir Q ua li ty S tand ar ds , 20 11 Da il y

Co m p. Pre s. Do c. 60 7, a t 1 (Sept. 2, 20 11), availab le at http:/ / www. gpo. g ov/fdsy s/(click on Com pilation of Preside ntial D ocum ents). I CA S a lso as serts that the R eg io n’ s co nc lu si on

n ot to m od el e m is si on s fr omo z on e pr ec ur so rs based on av ailable b ack g rou nd data that d oes not a ccount for the cum ul at iv e im

pa ct s of p ro po se d ac ti v it ie s on th e Arcti c O C S w as in error, and that the R eg ion’s respon se to its com m ents re g ardingoz one were inadeq

uate. I CA S P etition at 33. The R eg io n re sp on ds th at I C A S ’s p et it io n ra is es issu es th at are larg ely technica l, and that the Reg ion appro priately rel i e d o n the A g en cy ’s c ur

re nt le g al s tand ar d of

0

. 75 p pm

w he n as se ss in gS he ll ’s com pliance with the 8- hour oz one NA AQ S. Reg ion Resp on s e at 40

. The R eg io n fu

rthe r as se rt s th at

it e xe rc is ed it s te chni ca l e xp erti se to determ ine th at oz one lev els in the are a w ere n ot expected to ex ceed ev en the lo west lev el of 0.60 p pm that EPAinclu ded in its propo sed 8- hour ozo ne NA AQ S. Id. a t 4 2

. F i n a l l y , t h e R e g i o n a s s e rt s th atit ap pr op ri at el y

r es po nd ed to c om

m ents r ec ei v ed , in cl ud in gc om m ents specifically

raising conce rns about the cum ulativ e im

pacts of p ropose d OC S o peration s w ith resp ect to attainingthe oz one NA AQ S. Id. Altho ug h I CA S arg ues to the contrary , th e current, enforcea ble 8

- hour oz one NA AQ S that Shell m ust dem onstrate com

pliance with is 0 .75 pp m . A s th is B oard ha s st at ed pr ev io us ly , “[ a] pe rm itis su er m us t a pp ly the statutes and im

plem entingregulations in effect at the tim e the final perm it decisio n is m ade. ” R us se ll Cit y II , sli p op. at 108 n.98 , 15 E.A.D. a t__ _ ( qu ot i ng I

n re Phelps Dod

ge C orp. , 1 0 E .A .D . 4 60, 47 8 n .10 (EA B 2002 )). The Reg ion’s decision to require Shell to co m ply w ith the 0.7 5 p pm 8- hour oz one NA AQ S is consistent w ith ap plicable law and the correspo ndingregul a t ions in effec t at th e tim e the Reg ion is sued the P erm it

. I n ad di ti on , I C A S d oe s no t de m on stra te th at th e R eg io n’ s an al y si s of the im pacts the 8

- hour oz one NA AQ S m ay hav e on A lask a N ativ es residingon

the NorthSlo pe w ould result in a disprop ortionately hig h o rS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 84

IC A S’s ass er

tion that i n the c onte x t of

an e nv ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s the 71 Re g ion’s tr ea

tm ent of the 8-hour ozone s ta

ndar d in the c urr ent

a ppea l i s ana log ous to t

he
2 Re g ion’s tr ea

tm ent of t h e n ew ly

prom ulg at ed 1-hour

N O N AA QS in Shel l 2010m ust al so f ai l. See IC A S Peti tion at 32. A s the Boa

rd re ce ntly ex

pla ine d, the cont ext of

the cha lle ng e to t

he env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s in Shel l 2010w as unusu al in that th e OCS PSD pe rmits at i ss ue w ere fina liz ed in t he inte rim

be tw ee n the A dm inis tra tor’ s
2 pu blicatio n of the f

inal rul e e stablishi ng the ho urly NO NAA QS in the Federal Reg ister
2 on Fe brua

ry 9, 2010, and the e f

f ec tiv e dat e of

the ne w hourl y N O s ta ndar d, A p ri l 12, 2010. Av enal , s l i p o p . at 2 4 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. at

_ _ _ . T h e B o ar d e m

p h a s i z e d th atthe environ m ental justice aspect of the Shel l 2010re m and orde r t urne d on the Re g ion’s s ca nt env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s, w hic h prov ide d no ex amination or a nal y si s of s hort- te rm
2 NO im pac ts w hat soe v er . Id. , 15 E .A .D . at ___. He re , the Re g ion not

only anal yze d im

pac ts fr om

oz one emis si ons, seeRTC at 96-98, 119 -2 0 , it f

urthe r e xpla ine d tha

t c urr ent le v el s of oz one in t

he ar ea are w el l bel ow the low end of the rang e EPAhad reque st ed com m ent on i n the propos ed ozone NAA QS, and that e m ission s of ozon e precursors w ou ld also no t lead to an exc eedance of the low ra

ng e of the propos ed ozone N AA QS

. Id. at 120; see also Reg ion Response at 41 n .37 (not ing that t h e d iscussion of ozon e in the Reg ion ’s environm ental justice ana ly si s wa s brie f

, but tha t bot h the Re spons e to C om

m ent s and the te chni ca l s upport docum ent c onta ine d in the a dm inis tra tiv e re cor d prov ide m ore de ta ile d dis cus si ons of the Re g ion’s de te rmin ation r eg ar dingoz one) . O f e qual im porta nce , a nd unli k e the e v ent s le adi ng up to the Boa

rd’ s re m and orde r i n Shel l 2010 , i n thi s ins ta nce the A g enc y

ha s not m ade a f ina l de te rmination or i ss ued a f ina l r ule s tatingthat t

he cur re nt 8- h o ur oz one st anda rd i s ina dequa

te

. See Re g ion R es ponse at 41. I CA S ha s not de m onst rate d that t

he Region’s consid eration o f the ozon e NA

A QS in th e current a

pp eal w arrants Board review
2 bas ed on s im ila

rit ie s to t he Re g ion’s tr ea

tm ent of the hourl y

N O N AA QS in Shel l 2010

. IC A S cha lle ng es the Re g ion’s c oncl usi on not to m odel e m is si ons of oz one 72 and ozone pre cur sor s, and al le g es that t he “l im ite d ba ckg round da ta ” that e x is ts doe s not (c ontinue d...) adv er se im

pa ct o n th e he al tho f A la ska N at iv es . In th e Resp ons e to 71 C om m ents s up po rt in gth e P erm it , the Re g io n st at ed that i t “ st an ds b y

it s decision ” to foreg o reg ional photo chem ical m od elingand furthe r expl ai ne d th at

“ R eg io n 10 r ev ie w ed

o z on e m on it or in g dat a al on gw ith existingprec ursor em issions that w ill i m pact o z one form ation. B ased on this re v i e w , R e g i o n1 0 d e t e rm i n e d f urt h e r an a l y s i s o f

o z o n e w a s n ot warranted.” R TC at 97. I n addition, the Reg ion explained that the m ost recent oz one data in dicates that current o z one lev els in the B eaufort Sea are w ell belo w 0.6 0 p pm , which represents the low end of the rang e of the p ropose d 8

- hour oz one NA AQ S. Id. at 9 7- 98, 12 0. 72S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 85

(.. .c ontinue d) 72 d emo n st r at e th at cu rr en to zo n e l ev el s a r e we l l b el o w th e p r o p o se do zo n e N AAQS

. IC AS Petit ion a t 33. I CA S doe s not pr o vid e an y cita tion or r ef

er enc e as s upport f

or t his st at em ent , w

hic h am ounts to a cha lle ng e to t he Re g ion’s te chni ca l ex

per tis e. T his Boa

rd rece ntly stated that “it is axiom atic that a challenge to th e f un dam ental technical ex

pertise of a perm it issuer requires a petition er to overcom e a particularly

heavy burd en, andthat a succe ssf ul challenge to a perm it issuer’s techn ical expertise m ust consist of m ore than just a diff erence of opin ion .” Shel l Dis cov erer 2012 , s lip op. a

t 42- 43, 15 E .A .D . at ___ (ci ti n g Shel l 2011 , sl ip op. at 15, 15 E.A .D

. at __
_ , an d NE H ub , 7 E .A .D . at 567)

. IC A S’s ba ld a ss er

tion that bac k g round ozone dat a w as limite d and does not suppor t t he Re g ion’s c oncl usi ons ca

nnot ov er com e this parti cul ar ly he av y burde n. Finally , I CA S’s a ssertion that the R eg ion failed to consid er the cum ulativ e im

pacts of em issions from

pro posed Arctic OC S o peration s is un av ailing

. See I CA S P etition at 33. I CA S’s p etition fo r rev iew not on ly la ck s any

f urth er s up po rtf

or th is s ta te m ent, i t al so f ai ls to subst anti v el y

c on fr ont the R eg io n’ s expl an at io n inth e R es po ns e to Com m ents. See Peab ody , 12 E

. A

. D

. at 33 ( pe ti ti on er m us t d em on stra te why a perm ittingauth ority ’s resp onse to ob j ections m ade duringthe public com

m ent period warrants rev iew). I n this instance , t he R eg ion explain ed: [T]he Clean Air Act perm ittingpro g ram s are essentially ‘first com e, first serv ed’ p rog ram s an d ea ch s ubseq uent perm itting action needs to account for all of those that w ent b efore b ut no t any action s that will o ccur subseq uent t o t ha t action

. The perm its for the D i s c ov erer drill ship in the C huk chi S ea an d Beau fort S ea are the first perm its in their respectiv e v icinities an d th ey o nl y n ee d to a ss es s th ei r im

pa ct s on th e ex is ti nga ir quality situatio n. The Ku ll uk

dri ll r ig in th e B eauf

ort S ea is th e se co nd

p erm it and EPAhas add

ressed cum

ulativ e im

pa c ts by inclu ding cond itions in

the perm it that prev ent Shell from operatin gthe K ull uk dri ll r igand

th e D is co v er er

dri ll s hi p inth e B eauf

ort Sea during the sam e drilling season . Perm it Con dition D. 4.8

. As such, on ly

on e of the tw o d

rill rig s can

op erate intheS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 86

A s notedabove, see P art VI.A.1.a, th e OCS a ir regulatio ns requi re that OCS

73 per m it proc ee ding s f

ollow the proc edur es u sed t o iss ue PSD pe rmits c onta ine d in 40 C. F.R . pa

rt 124. 40 C.F .R. § 55.6( a) (3)

. B eauf ort i n any y ear so th er e w il l b e no o v er la pp in gim pa ct s with respect to co m

pliance with short[]term

N AA QS . * * * * A s di sc us se d ab ov e, C on oc oP hi ll ip s ha s w ithd raw n it s pe rm it applicatio n fo r op eration of a j ack

- up drill rigin the Chuk chi Sea. R TC a t 1 01 ; see a lso EJ An aly sis at 14 (reportingtotal m axim um m od el ed c on ce ntra ti on s fo r cr it er iap ol lutant s inKak to v ik and N ui qs ut , whic h ac count for both the Disco verer ’s operatio n and back g round conce ntrations); Reg ion R espon se at 42 n. 39 (notingthat “[p]otential OC S o peration s in the C huk chi S ea an d the B e a ufort S ea are ov er 20 0 m iles ap art at the clo sest p oint.” ). Asid e from its plain statem ent that the Region di d notcons ide r th e emissi ons fro m a ll prop ose d OCS op er at io ns , I C A S d oe s no t a dd re ss th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se to it s co m m ent, an d thus cann ot de m ons tr at e tha t th is iss ue war ra nts Boardreview. Peab ody , 1 2 E .A .D . at 33. 4. Oil S pill R espon se C

apab ilities Mr. L um a ss erts th at E P A ha s fa il ed to re qu ir e S he ll to d em on stra te its oil spill respo nse capab ilities in “clear, wind y , b rok en ice and

she et ic e co nd it io ns . ” L um

P et it io n at

1

- 2. Th e R eg io n re sp on ds th at th is issue is outside th e sco pe o f these perm it proc eeding s an d t hu s is n ot prope rly sub j ect to rev iew. R eg ion R espon se at 47. The Bo ard h as p rev iously em phasiz ed th at “[t]he PSD rev iew process i s n ot an ope n fo rum for consid eration of ev ery env ironm ental as pe ct o f a pr op os ed

p ro ject , o r ev en

e v er y is su e th at

b ears o n ai r quality .” In re Kna uf Fi be r G l as s GmbH

, 8 E. A. D. 12 1, 127 73 (EAB 1999 ) (“K

na uf I ”), quoted

in In re Sutter Pow er P lant , 8 E.A.D. 68 0, 6 88 ( E A B 1 99 9) ; see a lso In r e E nc ogen C ogen erat io n F

ac il it y , 8 E

. A

. D

. 2 44 , 2 59

- 60 ( E A B 1 99 9)

. Th e B oard h as jur is di ct io n “t oS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 87

A s the Boar d has notedin previou s Shel l de ci si ons, in May

2010 the 74 Secretary of the Departm ent of the Interior (“DOI”) s igned a Secret ar i al Order re org ani zi ng the f

orm er Mine ra ls Manag em ent Se rv ic e (“ MMS” ) into thre e inde pende nt ent iti es to bette r c ar

ry out its thre e m is si ons of

: ( 1) i m prov ingthe m ana g em ent , ov er si g ht, and ac count abi lit

y of a ct iv iti es on the OC S; ( 2) e nsur inga f ai r r et urn t o the taxpay er

f rom of f shor e roy al ty

and re v enue c olle ct ion a nd dis b u rs ement a ct iv iti es ; a nd (3) prov iding ind epend ent saf

ety and environ m ental oversig ht and enf orcem ent of of

f shor e a ctivities. Shel l 2012 , sli p op. at

30 n.29, 15 E. A .D . at ___; se e als o She ll 2010 , s lip op. at 11 n.7, 15 E.A .D . at ___; U .S. DOI, D epa rtm ent al Ma

nual , pt s. 118 & 119, c h. 1 ( Se pt. 30, 2011), a v a i la b l e at h ttp :/ /e li p s. d o i. go v/a p p

_ d m /d m .c fm (“De partm ental Manu al”) (e st abl is hingthe c re at io n , a uthori tie s, obje ct iv es , a

nd re porti ng re lations hips f or t he Bur ea u of O ce an Ene rg y

Ma nag em ent ( “BOEM” ) a nd Bur ea

u of Sa f et y and Env ironm ent al Enf

orce m ent (“ BSE E” )) . B OE MRE a ss um ed al l of MMS’ s re spons ibil iti es in the int er im unti l t he f ull im ple m ent at ion of

the re org ani za

tion into the three separate entities w as c om plete. She ll 2012 , sli p op. a t 30 n.29, 15 E.A .D . at ___; see Shel l 2010 , s lip op. at 11 n.7, 15 E.A .D . at ___. T he tra nsf er of the re v enue c olle ct ion f unct ion to the Of

f ic e of Nat ura l Re sour ce s Re v enue w as c om ple te d on O ct ober

1, 2010. See Se cr et ar

y of the Inte rior , U. S. DO I, Or der N o. 3306, Organ izatio na l Cha ng es U nder the Assistan t Secretary - Poli cy, Mana gement an d Bu dg et (S ept . 20, 2010), avai lableat h ttp :/ /e li p s. d o i. go v/ap p

_ SO /s o .c fm ; D epa rtm ental Ma nual , pt . 112, ch. 34 ( A pr. 15, 20 11 ). One y ear la

ter, on Oc t o b er 1 , 2 01 1, th e reorga nizatio n w as c om

pleted when BO EMRE w as re pla ce d by BO EM a nd BS EE. See D epa

rtm ent alMa

nual , pt s. 118 & 119. F or c onsi st enc y

the Boa rd r ef er s to B OE MRE be ca

usethe P ermit and the suppor tingdoc um ent at ion r ef

er e x cl usi v el y

to BO EMRE. rev iew issues directly

re l ated to perm it con ditions that im plem ent th e federal PSD pro g ram ,” Sutter , 8 E.A .D

. at 688, but w ill deny rev iew of issues not g ov erned by

the PSD regulations becau se it lack s jurisdiction ov er them

. Id. ; s e e a l s o En cogen , 8 E. A. D. at 2 59 (notingthat pe ti ti on er s ha d no t s ho w n ho wth e is su es th ey r eq ues te d th e B oard

to re v ie w f ell w ithi n th e B oard ’s P S D jur is di ct io n)

. M or eo v er , th er e ar e often other regulatory

pro g ram s in place that m ay add ress env ironm ental conce rns th at fall o utside the B oard’s scope of rev iew. K na uf I , 8 E.A.D. at 1 62 ; see a lso S

hell 2 007 , 1 3 E .A .D . at 405 n. 66. EPA ’s jurisdiction o v er po rtions of the OC S applies to air em issions subject to th e C AAand

its im plem entingre gul a t ions. In this instan ce, B O E MRE is re sp on si bl e fo r im pl em enti ng re g ul at io ns th at a dd re ss o il 74S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 88

On A

ugust 4, 201 1, BOEMRE ( no w BOEM, see no te 74 abo ve) 75 c o n d i t i o n a ll y

ap p ro vedSh el l’ s exp lo rat io n pl an for t h e Beau for t S ea. Lette r fro m Jeff W al k er , R eg iona l Supe rv is or, Fie ld O per at ions , A la sk a OC S R eg ion, BO EMRE, U .S. DO I, to S usa

n Chi lds , She ll Of

f shor e, Inc . ( A

ug . 4, 2011) [he re ina f

te r B ea uf ort EP Le tter] . The appro val of th e Beaufort S ea exploratio n pl an w as c on diti on ed, am on g other thi n g s , o n S h e l l s ub m i t t i n g t o B O E M R E p r i o r t o th e c o m

m e n c e m e n to f

e xplora tory dril lingope rations doc um ent at ion r eg ar dingthes ubse a w el l c appi ng and c onta inm ent sy st em She ll has c om

m itted to hav e at

it s dis posa l. Id. at 3. Specif ically , Shell must “s ubm it docum ent at ion on the proc edur es f or de ploy m ent , i nst al lation, and ope ration of the sy stem

u nd er anti cipated environ m ental cond itio ns, inclu din g th e potent ial presence of s ea ic e f or a pprov al by

BO EMRE. She ll w ill a ls o b e require d to conduc t a f ie ld exe rcise to d em on strate Shell’s ability to dep loy

the sy stem .” Id. spill an d resp onse capab il ities. The Board d oes not h av e jurisdiction 75 to co nsider Shell’s oil spill and respon se capabilities in the Arctic OC S, and thus, the Board d enies M r . Lu m’s petition for rev iew on these g round s. 5. Impa cts of Air E

missio ns o n T

radition al Su bsistenceFo od Sources Mr. L um ass erts that the Kullu k ’s op erations in the B eaufort Sea will introduce toxin s into the ocean “vi a t he exh aust [fro m

the Kullu k

] that se ttles do wn into it, ” an d co ntam inate th e m arine m am m als an d fish the co astal Iñupiat consum e as pa r t o f their indig enou s diet. L um P et it iona t 2

- 3. M r. L um c onti nu es th at

th is w il l n ot

o nl y c ontam in at e the fo od supp ly

but also alter tradition al Iñupiat culture. Id. The Reg ion r e s po nd s th a tth i s is s ue is ou t s i de th e sc op e of th e s e pe rmitpr oc e e di ngs and thus is no t prop erly

sub j ect to Board rev iew. Reg ion Respo nse at 47

. The Bo ard c onstrue s Mr. Lum ’s asse rtions a s a cha l l e nge to the adequ acy of the R eg ion’s com

pliance with the E xecutiv e O rder. Mr. L um al so ra is ed th is is su e in th e ap pe al s th at le d to th e B oard ’s Shell Disco verer 2012 dec ision. See slip op. at 45- 46, 15 E. A. D. at _ __. I n S h e l l D is c o v e rer 2 012 , th e B oard denied rev iew on proced

ural g round s be cause the im

pacts of air em issions on traditional subsisten ceS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 89

A s m ent ione d a b o ve, the Boa rd r em ande d to the Re g ion t w o O CS PSD 76 per m its in De ce m

ber 2010. See

ge ner all y Shel l 2010 , 15 E .A .D . at ___. I n the subs eque nt appea ls of

the pe rmits is sue d upon c om ple tion of re m and proc ee ding s, the Board u nequ ivocally

stated th at “in t he current appeals, ‘no n ew i ssues m ay

b e raised that coul d have been raise d, but w ere no t raised,’ in the previou s appeals.” Sh ell Discoverer 2012 , sl ip op. at 8, 15 E.A .D

. at

___ (q u o ti n g Shel l 2010 , slip o p. at 82 , 15 E.A .D. at ___).
T he Boa

rd al so cons ide rs IC A S’s c la im unde r a n a buse of dis cr et ion 77 st anda rd. See infra note 80. food sources w as n ot raised at th e tim e of the first appea ls. Id. In the 76 current appea l, Mr. Lum

tim ely sub m i t t e d c omm ents o n this issue and thus his p etition fo r rev iew is proced urally soun d. See L um

C om m ents at 1

. The Bo ard, how ev er, has prev iously held that “[i]m

pacts on subsisten ce huntingand fis hi ng a re outside th e sco pe o f the PSD prog ram and therefo re the Board’s jurisdiction. ” Shell 2007 , 13 E.A.D. a t40 5 n .6 6 ( c i t i ng K

na uf I , 8 E. A. D. at 1 61- 62), qu oted in RTC at 125. The B oard

d oe s not h av e juri sd ic ti on

to c on si de r th e im

pa ct s of a ir em issions on traditional subsisten ce fo od sources and Iñupiat culture, a nd t hu s , the B oard denies Mr. L um ’s petition for rev iew on these g round s. For all o f t he foreg oingreaso ns, the B oard declines to rev iew the R eg io n’ s co m

pl ianc e w ith th e E xe cuti v e O rd er and a pp li ca bl e B oard pr ec ed ent. F. ICA S H

as F ailed to D emo nstrate Tha t the Regio n C learly Erred

or Abu sed Its D iscretion in Provi di ng46 Da ys for C omm ent o n the Dra ft Per mit a nd in Denying

ICAS’s Requ est for Non -Over lapping Com men t Pe riods I CA S c laim s that the R eg ion “ com m itted clear leg al error by failing to p ro v id e th e pu

bl ic an ad eq

uate op po rtun ity

to co m m ent on ” th e dr af

t perm it. I CA S Petition at 6. More specifically , I CA S alleg e s th a t the

77 Reg ion fa iled to m eet the parts 71 and 124 proced ural req uirem ents th at re qui re p er m it iss uer s to “al low at le as t 30 day s for public com m ent” o n draft p erm its. I

d . at 7 (citing40 C .F. R. §§ 71 .11 (d)(2)(i), 124. 1)S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 90

T he Reg ion had issued two draf t perm its f

or Sh ell’s Di sco vere r

dri lls hip 78 ea rli er in Jul y of 2011. See

She ll Di sc ove re r 2012 , s lip op. at 13, 15 E. A .D . at ___. T he com m ent pe riod f or t ho se two p ermits ra

n f rom July 6 t o A ug ust 5, 2011. Id

. ; IC AS P etition at 7. In addit ion , on the sam e date the Region had issued the Kul luk dra f t pe rmit, it had al so is sue d a

dra f t pe rmit f or C onoco Phillips to oper at e a ja ck up dri ll rigin the Chu kchi Sea. ICA S P etition at 7. The com m ent perio d for this perm it origin ally ended at the sam e tim e a s the Kul luk draf t pe rmit, but w as late r e x te nded to Se pte m ber 21, 2011. IC A S Peti tion at

8-9; RT C a

t 7. (em phasis added

byPetitioners). Although I CA S ack now ledg es that the com m ent p eriods for the P erm it ran from July22 , 2 011, to Septem ber 6 , 2011 , an inte rv al of 46 day s, I CA S c ont e nd s t ha t, b ecause the Reg ion is su ed th e dr af t Kullu k perm it for c ommen t a t the sam e tim e it iss ued anothe r draft m inor source air perm it for c om m ent an d in the m iddle of co m m ent p er io ds f

or tw o m ajor

s ourc e ai r pe rmits f

or ano th er S he ll drillship, in r eality , I CA S o nly “ha d 1 6 d ay s to com

m ent o n ea ch o f 78 the[] perm its,” rather than the require d minim um of 30. Id

. at 7. Thi s is becau se, accord ingto I CA S, it “does not hav e the resource s to co m m ent on m ore th an o ne a ir perm it at a tim e.” Id

. I CA S further claim s that “the sh ort and o v er la pp in gc om

m ent p er io ds * * * d ep ri v ed [ th em ] of

a m e a ni ng ful op portun ity

to com m ent o n S hell’s n ew air m odeling results.” Id . at 8. I n a re late d ar g um ent, I C A S as se rt s th at th e R eg io n cl earl y

e rr ed in deny i n gi t s r e qu e s tth a tth e R e g i o n“ h o l d n o n - o v e r l ap p i n gc o m

m e nt periods on

the OC S perm its and [] prov ide 4 5 d ay s to com m ent o n ea ch perm it.” Id . at 8- 9. I CA S c laim s that it m et the regulatory stand ard fo r de mons tratingthe need for ad ditional tim e to prepare com m ents. Id

. (r ef er ri ngto th e st an dard at

4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 7 1. 11 (g )) ; se e al so id . attach. 8 (Letter from

H arry B rowe r, C hairm an, Alask a E sk im o Wh a l ing Com m ission (“AE WC”), et al., to Dou g Hard esty , Air Perm i t s Pr oj ect M a n a g e r , U

. S

. E P A R e g i o n1 0 ( Jun e 1 5 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( A

. R

. C

- 4 8 7 ) ) ( A E WC and I CA S r e quest for no n- ov erlappin gcom m ent p eriods) [hereinafter I C A S L ette r] ; id

. a tt ac h. 9 ( L etter fr om R ic hard A lb ri g ht , D ir ec to r, O ff ic e of A ir , Wa st e, & To xi cs , U

. S

. E P A R eg io n 10 , to H ar ry B ro w er , A E WC C ha irm an , et al

. ( July 2 1, 2 01 1) ( A

. R

. C

- 53 2) ) (E P A r es po ns e)

.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 91

A s the Re g ion ex

pla ine d, the Permit is s ubje ct to the proc edur al re quire m ent s 79 of both par t 55 (a nd c onse quent ly

part 124) a s w el l a s par

t 71: T he porti on of

thi s per m it that is a

Part 71 pe rmit (e .g ., t

he porti on of the pe rmit that appli es on the Out er O CS) is is sue d unde r 40 CFR Part55 and

40 C FR

Part71 and

s ub j e c tt o t he procedural re quire m ent s of

40 C FR Part 71 a s prov ide d in 40 CF R § 71.4(d)

. The po rtion of this p erm it that is a COA T itle V p erm it and a COA m inor sou rce permit (e .g ., t he porti on of

the pe rmit that a

pplie s on the Inn er OCS) is issued un der 40 CFR P art 55 and , in th e a bsence of other appli cabl e p rocedu res, subject to th e perm it issuance proc edur es f

or PSD per

m its unde r 40 CFR

Part 124, S ubpar

t A and C. See 40 C FR §§ 55.6( a) (3) and 124.1. RT C a t 6 n.3.
Be ca use the re g ulations a

uthori ze the pe rmit is sue r t o g ra nt a long er c om m ent 80 p eri o dup o n an ad equ at e sh o win g of n eed , t h e B o a r d a ls o co n si d ers ICAS ’s ch al le n ge (c ontinue d...) The part 71 proced

ural regulation g ov erning public notice s and public com

m ent p eriods specifically

pro v ides th at “[p]u

blic n otice o f the pr ep ar at io n of

adra ftper

m it* * * s ha ll a ll owa t l ea st 3 0 day s fo r pu

bl ic com m ent.” 40 C .F. R. § 71.11(d)(2)(i). The part 1 24 proced ural regulations, w hich also apply to the P erm it, contain the sam e languag e. 79 See 40 C .F. R. § 124. 10(b). The Board h as tra di t i onally read these regulations to establish a m inim um com m ent period leng th of 30 d ay s, re co g ni z in gth at

th e re g ul at io ns c le ar ly

a ll owth e pe rm itis suer, in its discretion , to g rant a longe r com m ent p eriod. Sh ell D iscovere r 20 12 , slip o p. at 70

- 71, 15 E. A. D. at _ __ (di scussin gthe applicab le part 124 re g ul at io n) ; see al

s o I n re G enesee Po wer Station , 4 E. A. D. 83 2, 841 (E A B 1 99 3) ( no ti ngth at th e part1 24 r egul at io n g ov er ni ngp ub li c com m ent periods “only

requ ire[s them ] to last 30 day s”). In ad dition, as I C A S p oi nt s out, p art 7 1 co nt ai ns as ep ar at e pr ov is io n sp ecif ic al ly authoriz ing a perm it issuer to g rant addition al tim e. I t states t ha t “[ a] c ommen tpe r i odlo nge r th a n 3 0 d a ys may be ne c e s s a ry to give co m m ente rs ar ea so na

bl e op po rtun ity

to c om pl y w ith th e re qu ir em ents of th is s ec ti on . A dd it io na l t im e sh al l b e g rant ed to t he exten t that a com m enter who requests add itional tim e de m onstrates the need fo r such ti m e. ” 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 7 1. 11 (g ))

.

80S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 92

(.. .c ontinue d)

80 un der an abuse of discre tion ev en tho ugh ICA S did not clea rly pr es ent its challenge a s such, alleging instead o n l y “c lear e rror.” See

She ll Di sc ove re r 2012 , s lip op. at 71- 72 (c onsi der ings im ila

r a rgum ent a s ra is ingan a

buse of dis cr et ion c la im), 15 E.A .D . at ___; In re Guam W

ate rw ork s Auth. , N PDES A

ppea l N os. 09-15 & 09-16, s lip o p . at 9 n.7 ( E AB N o v. 1 6 , 2 0 1 1 ) , 1 5 E

. A. D

.

_ _ _ ( ex p l ai n i n g Bo ar d ’ s s t an d ar di n re vi ewi n g c l ai ms inv olv inga

pe rmit is sue r’ s ex er ci se of dis cr et ion); In re De

se rt Roc k Ene rgy

Co. , PSD A ppea l N os. 08-03 through 08-06, s lip op. at 65 (Se pt. 24, 2009) , 14 E .A .D . ___ ( usi ng an abus e of

dis cr et ion s ta

ndar d w her e the permit is sue r ha d “ broa d dis cr et ion” in m aking the c hal le ng ed det er

m ination) . T he Bo ard s im ila rly re ads IC A S’s c hal le ng e to t he Re g ion’s de nia l of

non-ov er la

ppingc om

m ent pe riods a s ra is ing an a b u se of dis cr et ion cl ai m . I n the prese nt cas e, the R eg ion prov ided a 46 day pu blic co m m ent period for the Kullu k

dra ftp erm it , a lb ei t a c om m ent p er io d th at

p arti al ly ov er la pp ed w ith se v er al o th er

c om m ent p er io ds

. The Re gion, init s Resp onse to C om

m ents, prov ided a leng thy , w ell- reasone d explanation for its establishm ent of a 46 day comm ent p eriod for the Kullu k p erm it and for its denial of I CA S’s re quest for no n- concurrent co m m ent p eriods. See R TC at 5

- 8. In ad dressingcom m ents o n t he se top ics, the R eg ion po in te d out that it

h ad g rant ed ap er io d lo ng er

th an th e re g ul at or

y m inim um for this p erm it and had also e xtende d the com m ent p eriod for one of the othe r perm its, th e C onoc oPh illips pe rm it. Id

. at 6 ; ac co rd

id

. at 7. The R eg ion further n oted that the C onoc oPh illips pe rm it, fo r w hich it had exten ded the co m

m ent p eriod to 60 day s, was for a propo sed 2013 operatio n, whe reas S h e l l “ i ntends to be g in its exploratory drill o peration s with the Kulluk

in J uly 20 12. ” Id

. at 7. The R eg ion a lso en um erated the m any s te ps it ha d tak en be fo re an d duri ng th e pu bl ic c om m ent p er io d “t o prom ote m eaning ful pu

blic inv olv em ent.” Id . at 6. I n ad dition, the Reg ion o bserv ed that, while “it agree [d] with the c o m m e n t e r s th a ts o m e a s p e c t s o f th e D r a f tP e rm i tar e t e c h n i c a l l y

and leg ally com plex, ” on the other hand , “[ t ] he c om m ents s ubm itted * * * dem onstrate[d ] that the p ub l i c w as ab le to rev iew, ev aluate, and com m ent o n m any

com plex issues duringthe com m ent p eriod prov ided. ” R TC a t 8

. Th e R eg io n no te d th at a m ong t he m or e th an 1 4, 50 0 pu

bl ic c ommen t s it ha d r e c e i ved , an umbe r o f t he m ha d c on t a i ne d “ s ub s t a nt i ve co m m ents o n, am on go th er

is su es , th e de fi ni ti on

o f O C S S ourc e, li m it s on the so urce’s potential t o em it, ch oice o f m odel, m odelingdata,S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 93

A s the Boar d disc uss ed a bov e in Par

t I II , a pe tit ione r m

ust e xpla in w

hy the 81 perm it i ssuer’s previous respon se to those ob jection s is c learly

erroneou s or oth erw ise w arrants rev iew . “[ A ] p etition er’s fa ilure to address the perm it issuer’s response is f atal to its requ est f

or review .” In re Inde ck -El woo d LLC, 13 E .A .D . 126, 143, 170 (EAB 2006) ; acc ord Rus se ll Ci ty II , s lip op. at 92, 15 E. A .D . at ___. am bi ent a ir b ound ar y , s ourc e te st in g , e m is si on f ac to rs , a ir

q ual ity a na l ysi s , app l i c abi l i t y of in c r e men t s an d vi s i bi l i t y, a ndcu mul a t i ve im pacts. ” Id

. Acco rding ly , th e R e gion believ ed th at “[t]he v olum e of com m ents re ceiv ed and the substantiv e issues ad dressingtechn ically and le g al ly c om pl exis su es d em on stra te [d ] th at th e publ ic w as a

bl e to m eaning fully

rev iew and com

m ent o n the D raft Pe rm it.” Id

. The Reg ion also explain ed that “40 CF R § 71. 7(a)(2) re qu ires that it tak e a final ac tio n on a Tit le V perm it app lication within 18 m onths of rece i v inga com plete a pplication

. I n co nduc tingthe perm itting pr oc es s, R eg io n 10 m

us t s tr ik e a ba lanc e be tw ee n it s ob li gation to pr ovi de fo r

m e a ni ngf ul publ i c pa rt i cipation an d i t s re s po ns i bi l i t y to m a ke a final perm ittingdec ision in a tim ely m anner. ” Id

. Base d o n all these factors, the Reg ion h ad d eterm ined that “th e co m m enters hav e no t dem onstrated

that a period of m ore than 46 day s is necessary to g iv e the public a reasona

ble oppo rtunity to co m

m ent.” Id . at 7 (c it ing 40 C.F.R. §§ 7 1. 11 (g ) an d 12 4. 13 ). I n its petition, I CA S d oes not e xplain why the Reg ion’s respon se to th es e co m

m ents is c le ar ly

e rr on eo us o r an

a bu se o f di sc re ti on . In fa ct , I C A S d oe s no t e v en

a dd re ss th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se . I C A S ’s f ai lure to ad dr ess th e R eg io n’ s re sp on se is , in and o f it se lf , s uf fi ci ent t o de ny

it s claim s of proced

ural erro r con cerningthe com m ent p eriod. 81 Nev ertheless, ev en if the B oard consid ered I CA S’s c laim of proced ural erro r, th e Board wou ld de ny rev iew of this claim

for sev eral reasons . First, the len g th of t im e the Reg ion p rov ided for co m m ent o n this p erm it – 46 day s – is 16 d a ys m ore th an th e regulatory m inim um required by 40 C .F. R. §§ 71 .11 (d)(2)(i) an d 124.1 0(b). I t is also o ne d ay m ore th an th e am ount of tim e I CA S had specifically requeste d for eac hS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 94

N ota

bly , ther ef

ore , f or t his pe rmit, by

prov idinga

lo n ger c om m ent pe riod, 82 the Re g ion di d in es se nce parti al ly g ra nt I CA S’s re ques t. A nd, i n thi s ca se , the Regio n d id , p rov ide a dditi onal ti m e f or c om m ent on 83 tw o of the pe rmits w

hose c om m ent period ov er la

pped. T he Re g ion i ncr ea se d the com m ent peri od for

the S hel l Kul luk per

m it to 46 day s and the com m ent per iod f

or t he Conoc oPhillips pe rmit to 60 day s. See supra note 78. pe rm itin it s le tt er . See ICAS Le tter at 2 (requ estingno n- concurrent

82 co m m ent p er io ds o f 45 d ay s)

. I C A S ’s a tt em pt to r ec al cu la te th e le ng th of the com

m ent p eriod a s “ 16 day s” b ased on an unexp lained m athem at i c a l form

ula inv olv ingthe num

ber and leng ths o f othe r co m m ent p er io ds is unc onv in ci ngand do es no t de m on stra te c le ar e rr or . See Shell Disco verer 2012 , s lip op . at 71, 15 E. A. D. at ___; see also R us se ll Cit y II , s lip op . at 127

- 31, 15 E. A. D. at _ __ (deny ingrev iew of a pro cedura l e r r or claim w here petitioners fail to point to a part 1 24 pr oc ed ur al r egul at io n th at

w as v io lated); K

na uf I I , 9 E. A. D. at 1 7 (d eny in gr ev ie ww he re th e pe rm itis su er f ul fi ll ed th e ap pl ic ab le re g ul at or y o bl ig at io ns , b ut

d id n ot g o be y on d th os e re qu ir em ents ). Furthe rm ore, while it is true that the Reg ion did not g rant I CA S’s re quest for no n- ov erlappin gcom m ent p eriods, I CA S h as n ot pointed to any regu lations that p rohibit the A g ency from issuin g con c ur r e nt perm its or that req uire – or ev en s pecify

– a differe nt com m ent period leng th when the Ag ency does issue con current perm its. To the c ontrary , th e relev ant regulations authoriz e t he Ag ency to issue a s i n g l e p ub l i c n o t i c e t o “ d e s c r i b e m o r e th a no n e p e rm i to r p er m it actions, ” 40 C

. F

. R

. § § 7 1

. 1 1 ( d ) ( 1 )(iii), 12 4.1 0 (a)(3 ), w ithout m entionin g a di ff er ent t im e fr am e fo r pu

bl ic c om m ent whe n co nc ur

re nt p erm it s ar e issued. W h i l e s e c t i o n 7 1

. 1 1 ( g ) au t h o r i z e s t h e A g e n c y t o e x t e nd a particular com

m ent p eriod on a cas e- by

- case basis whe re a com m enter ha s d em onstrated

the need for ad ditional tim e – whic h w ould thereby pr ov id e an

av enue for

com m ente rs to ob ta inlo ng er

c om m ent p er io ds in situations whe r e c om

m ent p eriods ov erlap – the p rov ision does not 83 prohib it, o r ev en m ention, ov erlappin gcom m ent p eriods. Finally , it is clear from

the adm inistrativ e record that the Reg ion appro priately

balan ced conflict i ngcon sideration s in decidin gon theS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 95

T he Boa rd i s unper sua ded by

IC A S’s argum ent

that i t had dif

f ic ulty loc at ing 84 an ex per t t o re v ie w

the a ir m odel ing

. See ICA S P etition at 8. A s the Reg ion ind icated in its Respon se to Com m ents, RTC at 8, oth er com m enters p r o vi d ed substan tive, technical com

m ents on the air m od eling, w hich sugg ests th at t he com m ent perio d w as suf f ic ie nt to a llow

opport unity f or m ea ning f ul c om m ent

. See Fla. Power & Ligh t Co. v. Un i t ed Sta tes , 846 F .2d 765, 772 (D .C. Ci r. 1988) ( upholdinga s hort com

m ent pe riod as s uf f ic ie nt w her e the a g enc y

ha d rec ei v ed num er ous com m ent s, som e le ng thy , and t he com m ent s had h ad a

“ m ea sur abl e im

pac t” on the f

ina l r ule ); Conf

erenc e of St

ateBank Super vi sor s v. O ffi ce of Thr ift Supe rv is ion , 792 F . Supp. 837, 84 4 (D.D .C. 1992) (holdi ng le ng th of

c om m ent pe riod not unr ea sona

ble espe ci al ly

in light of

the c om m ent s that pl ai ntif

f s and othe r pa

rti es s ubm itt ed ). F u rt her m ore , a s the Re g ion poi nts out, it notif ie d IC A S in May

that t he comm en t p eriods w ould be g in i n July

. See L ette r f rom DougH ar des ty , EPA , t o N orth Slope Bor oug h et al

. (Ma y 25, 2011) (A .R. H H- 1). T he Regi o n als o co n du ct edth ree sep ara te in for m at io n al m eet in gs in Barro w an dKakt o vik, A la sk a m ore tha

n a m onth pr ior to t

he st ar t of the public com

m ent peri od for

the Per m it “to inform

the North Slo pe com

m un ity of the draft permit and to describe opp ortu niti es f or publ ic parti ci pat ion.” R T C a t 6. leng th of the co m

m ent p eriod for this perm it and in deny ingthe request for no n- ov erlappin gperio ds. I CA S h as n ot d e m o n s trated o therw ise and 84 ha s th er ef or e fa il ed to s ho wth at

th e R eg ion c le ar ly

e rr ed o r ab us ed

it s discretion in either se lect i ng a 46 day com m ent p eriod or in deny ing I CA S’s re quest for no n- concurrent co m m ent p eriods. Se e She ll Disco verer 2012 , s lip op

. a t 7 1, 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t _

__ ( de ny in gr ev ie wo f a si m il ar c la im b as ed o n si m il ar

f ac ts ). R ev ie wo f th e P erm itis th er ef or e denied on this issue. G. IC A S H as F ai le d to D em on stra te T

ha t t heR eg io n Cle ar lyE

rr ed in Its Pub lic Hea ring Proc edures or Tha t Any of t he Al l eged Proc edura l D eficiencies Othe rwise W arran t Re view As noted abov e in Part V, the R eg ion h eld tw o p ublic he a ring s on the draft perm it, one in Barrow, and a secon d in Anchorag e. The R eg ion a l s o h e l d a n i nf

or mat i on a l m e e t i ng p r i orto th e Ba r r o w p ub l i c he a r i ng. See S t a t e m e n to f

B a s i s a t1 1 ( s c h e du l i n gi n f o rm a t i o n a l h e a r i n gfrom 5:00- 6:30 pm , p ublic hearingfrom 7:00

- 9:00 pm ); RTC at 6- 7. I CA S c laim s that the R eg ion “ com m itted clear leg al error by failing to pro v ide th e pu

blic an ad e qu a t e opportunity ” to participate in theS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 96

Acc ord ing to ICA S, altho ugh th e Re gion m ay have not ed that an int erpreter 85 w as av ai la

ble at t he top of

the he ari n g’s s ig n-in she et , i t di d not m ak e a public announc em ent

of thi s f ac t at the outse t of

the he ar ing . I CA S Peti tion at 10; IC A S R epl y at 6; see also infra note 89. B ar row pu bl ic h eari ng . I C A S P et it io n at 6 ; see a lso id

. at9- 10. I CAS alleg es three pro cedura l prob lem s w ith the Barro w hearing

. Id . at 9- 10. I C A S f ir st c la im s th at

th e R eg io n co nt inue d w ith th e hea ri ng de sp it e difficulties with the telec onferen ce p hone sy stem that alleg edly im paired the ab ilityof the R eg ion to hear all c om m ents. Id . at 9. I CA S n ext alleg es that, “fo r a sig nificant portio n of the hearing ,” the R eg ion discuss ed a PowerP oint presentation that was not m ade av ailable to the public a t t e nd i ngthe hearing

. Id . at 9- 10. F inally , I CA S c ontend s that th e R eg io n fa il ed

to s uf fi ci entl y in fo rm th os e atte nd in gth e pu bl ic he a r i ng t ha tit ha d p r oc ur e d a n Iñupi a t i nt e r pr e t e r f orth e he a r i ng. Id

. 85 at 10

. I CA S a sserts th at m ak ing an interpreter “av ailable in this fashion is akin to not h av ing[on e] at all.” Id

. P art 7 1 an d part1 24 e ac h co nt ai n a pr ov is io n g ov er ni ngp ub li c hearing s. See 40 C .F. R. §§ 71 .11 (f), 1 24.1 2. Both pu blic h earing regulations require the p erm ittingauthority to hold a pu

blic h earing whe n th e p e rm i t t i n g au t h o r i t y “ f i n d s , o n t h e b a s i s o f r e quests, a sig nificant deg ree o f pu

blic inte rest in a dra ft perm it.” Id

. § § 71

. 11 (f )( 1) , 12 4. 12 (a )( 1)

. The regul at io ns als o auth or iz e th e pe rm it ti ngautho ri ty to hold a p ublic hearing“at its discre tion, whe nev er, for ins tance, suc h a he ar in gm ig ht

c lari fy o ne o r m or e is su es inv ol v ed in the p erm it de c i sion. ” Id

. § § 71

. 11 (f )( 2) , 1 24

. 12 (a )( 2) ; a c c o rd I n r e R u s s e l l

Cit y Ener gy C tr. (“Russ ell City I

”), PSD Appeal No. 08

- 01, slip op. at 7 & n. 6 (EA B J uly

29 , 2 008), 14 E. A. D. __. The public hearingregulations also pre scr ibe the methodof giv ing publ ic noti c e o f t he he ar ing, 40 C.F.R. §§ 71. 11(f)(3), 124.12 (a)(4), the proced ure fo r designatinga presiding officer to presid e at the h earing , id . § § 7 1. 11 ( f ) ( 4), 124. 12 (b), and the proced ures fo r the public to c om m ent at the h earing , id

. § § 71

. 11 (f )( 5) , 124. 12 (c). Finally , b oth re g ulations require t ha t a tape rec ordingor written transcript of the hearingbe m ade publi cally av ailable. Id

. §§ 71. 11(f)(6), 12 4.1 2 (d ).S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 97 P arts 7 1 and 1 24 a ls o bo thr eq ui re th e pe rm it

is su er , in m akin git s fi na l d eci si on, t o co ns id er a ll c om m ents it r ec ei v es d

ur in gth e pu

bl ic co m m ent p er io d and at any

p ub li c he ar in g s an d to is su e a “r es po ns e to com m ents.” Id

. § § 71

. 11 (j), 1 24

. 17 (a ); se e al so id . § § 7 1.1 1(e), 124. 11. Mo re p arti cu larl y , th es e pr ov is io ns r eq ui re th e pe rm itis su er

to “ [b ]r ie fl y de sc ri be and

r es po nd to a ll s ig ni fi cant comm ents o n th e dr af t p erm it * * * ra is ed

d ur in g th e pu

bl ic co m m ent pe ri od , o r duri ngany h eari ng ” in the res pons e to com

m ents d ocum ent issu ed at the sam e tim e the final p e rm i td e c i s i o ni s i s s u e d

. Id

. § § 77

. 11 (j)( 1) (i i) , 1 24

. 17 (a )( 1)

. I m portantly , n one of the aforem entione d regulations re f e r t o, or in any w ay m enti on , ar eq

ui re m ent t o pr ov id e an

inte rp re te r or

ar eq ui re m ent t o prov ide written m aterials at the h earing

. Upo n rev iew of the a dm inistrativ e reco rd an d the parties’ argum ents, the B oard conclu des that I CA S h as n ot sh own that the R eg ion clearly erred in its han dlingof the B arrowpu blic h earingfor any

of the three re a s ons I CA S a dv ances. N ot on ly do es I CA S fa il to p oint to any specific regulatory

pro v ision that the R eg ion v iolated, but non e of the alleg ed problem s otherwise warrant Board rev iew. The Board ad dresses each alleg ed d eficiency

in m ore d etail belo w. I CA S’s first contention – that the Reg ion c om

m itted clear error becau se it was alleg edly un able to ade quate l y o btain input from the pu bl ic d ue to te le co m

m un ic at io n pr ob le m s duri ng th e he ar in g– is un pe rs ua si v e. Th e R eg io n ad dr es se d th is c on ce rnin it s Resp on se to Com m ents. See R TC at 9

. There , t he R eg ion e xplaine d that, b ecause su chte le co m

m un ic at io n pr ob le m s ar e com m on o n th e N orthS lo pe , it had “ r e c o r d e d

th e p ub l i c h e a r i n gi na d d i t i o nt o h a v i n gth e hea ring transcribed

by a court reporter. F rom

these two sources, Reg ion 1 0 w as able to cap ture th e comm e nt s prov ided duringthe public hearing .” Id

. (e m ph as is a dd ed ); see a lso P ub l i c H e a r i n g T r a n s c r i p t ( “ P ub

. H rg Tr.”) at 3 (exp lainingthat the hearingwas reco rded on the telec onferen ce line as a “safety

net”). In resp onse, I CA S m erely asserts that “th is do es not c hang e the fact that peo ple w ere n ot ab le to be heard v ia ph one. ” I CA S P etition at 9. Significantly , h owe v er, I CA S d oes not id entify any co m m ent that the R eg io n fa il ed to he ar or fo r w hi ch th e R eg io n fa il ed toS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 98

A s dis cus se d a bov e, the re g ulatory

re quire m ent

is f or a pe rmit is sue r t o 86 re spond to s ig nif

ic ant c om m ent s. See40 C.F .R. § 7 7.1 1(j)(1 )(ii), 1 24

. 1 7 ( a)(1 ). T hu s, had IC A S ide ntif

ie d s ign ific ant c om

m ent s ra is ed at

the publi c hea

ringthat t he Re g ion f ai le d to addr es s, IC A S’s argum ent s w ould ha v e bee n m ore pe rs uas iv e. See, e.g., In re Rockgen En ergy Ctr. , 8 E.A .D. 53 6, 557 (EA B 199 9) (rem andi ng so that perm it issuer coul d de m onst

rate it ha d g iv en th o u ghtf

ul a nd f ull cons ide ration to publ ic c om m ent s) ; In re W . Su bu rban Recy cling

& Energy Ctr. , L. P. , 6 E .A .D . 692, 710-12 ( EAB 1996) (r em andi ng pe rmit and re quiri ng pe rmit is sue r t o c om ply w ith proc edur es unde r pa rt 124 inc luding prov is ion re quiri ng a re spons e to al l s ig nif ic ant c om m ent s re ce iv ed) ; see also In re N

. Mi ch

. Un iv. , PSD A

ppea l N o. 08- 02, s lip op. at 47- 48 (E A B F eb. 18, 2009) , 14 E.A .D . at ___ (dis cus si ng part 124 requi re m ent to ade quat el y

re spond to c om

m ent s)

. Th e R eg i o n ’ s e xp l an at i o n make s s en se i n l i g h t o f th e p u r p o se o f th e t wo 87 m ee ting s. W

hile the pe rmitt inga

uth o ri ty ma

y pre se nt i ts anal y se s, f

inding s, and conc lus ions a

bout t he dra f t per m it at an inf orm at iona l m ee ting , the purpos e of the publi c hearing is to ob tain comm ents from the pu blic. prov ide a respon se. Se e id . at 9; I CA S R eply a t 6

. N or h as any 86 co m m ente r co m e for war d al le g in gth at th e R eg io n fa il ed

to r es po nd

to his or her public hearingcom m ents. The fact that the call center expe ri en ce d so m e te le co mmunicati on s pr ob le m s duri ngth e pu bl ic hearing– whic h the R eg ion a ppears to hav e ad equately anticip ated and addre s s e d b y ut i l i z i n gtw o m e t h o d s o f n o t e t a k i n g–

d o e s n o t , w ithout m ore , c o n s t i tu t e c l e a r

l e g a l e rr o r . S p e c u l a t i v e c l a i m s th a tap e rm i t t i ng authority m ay hav e failed to hear a co m m ent are insu fficient to warrant Boar d revie w. I CA S’s c ontentio n that the R eg ion c om m itted clear proc edural error by f ai li ngto p ro v id e pr e- m ee ti ngc op ie s of aP ow er po in t p re se nt at io n is in ap po si te

. In it s re sp on se to th e pe ti ti on , th e R eg io n expl ai ns th at th is presentation w as g iv en d

uringthe inform ational m eeting , not duringthe pu bl ic he ar in g . R eg io n R es po ns e at 3 9; see a lso Statem ent of Ba sis at 11 ( s c h e du l i n g i n f

o rma t i o n a l h e a r i n g p r i o r

t o p ub l i c h e a r i n g) ; RT C a t6 -7 (m entionin ginform ational m eeting ). I CA S does not dispute this. See 87 I CA S R eply

at 5- 7. Furtherm ore, nowhere do the reg ulations require a p e rm i t t i n g au t h o r i t y t o p r o v i d e i n f o rm a t i o n a l h a n d o u t s at anS HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 99

T h e o n l y do cum ent the pu blic hearing regulation s require a permit issuer 88 m ak e av ai la

ble to the publi c is the tr ans crip t o f t h e h ea ring . 40 C.F .R. §§ 71.11( f )( 6), 124.12 ( d).
T he par

tie s se eming ly

dispute the m et

hod in w hic h the Re g ion not if

ie d the 89 public of the av ai lab il it y

o f t he inte rpr et er . T he Re g ion s tate d in its Re spons e to Com m ents that, “[p]rior

to the Ba rr ow publi c hea

ring , R eg ion 10 cont ac te d [ICA S] to arr an ge f or a n Iñupi at s pea k er to be av ai la

ble to prov ide Iñupi at

int er pre tation at

the hea ringif reque st ed by

any parti ci pant . A

t t he beg inningof

the he ar ing , pa

rti ci pant s w er e pro vided t h e o pp ortu nity to requ est Iñup iat interpretatio n du ring the hearing. No par tic ipa nt r eque st ed tra

nsl at ion a nd the re f ore an inte rpr et er w as not us ed. ” RT C a t 10- 11. I n re spons e, IC A S c la im s that atte ndee s only re ca ll m ent ion of

an int er pre te r on the si g n-up s hee t, and only

i n E n glish. IC A S Peti tion at 10. IC A S f

urthe r a ss er

ts that t he tr an sc r i p to f th e p ub l i c h ea r i n g d o es n o ti n d i ca t e th at a n an n o u n ce men twas mad e. IC AS Re ply at 6. I n lig ht of

the Board’ s conc lus ion on this iss ue, it is unnec es sa ry to det er m ine the pre ci se m et

hodolog y the Re g ion us ed to n o tif y the publi c of

the int er pre te r’ s av a i l a b i l i ty. inform ational m eeting(or at a public hearing ). Thus, while it m ay be 88 useful for a perm it issuer to pro v ide co pies o f a presentation to the audien ce atten dingan inform ational m eeting , fa ilure to d o so at th e m eeting– or at a su

bsequ ent p ublic hearing– do e s no t con stitute clear erroror ot her wis e warra nt Boa rd r eview. I CAS’ s final contention – that the R eg ion c om

m itted clear proced ural erro r by

no t adeq

uately i nform ingthe public that an i nt e r pr e t e r wa s a vai l abl e at th e publ i c he a r i ng – is al s o u nc on vin c i ng. I m portantly , a s no ted ab ov e, ther e is no regulatory requ irem ent fo r an interpreter in eithe r part 71 or p art 12 4, nor is there a pro v ision specify ingthe m ethod a perm it issuer shou ld us e to inform the public of the av ailability

of an interpreter at the public hearing

. I CA S ha s no t 89 pointed to any othe r requ irem ent, regulatory or otherw ise, requiringan i nt e r pr e t e r orpr e s c r i bi ng t he m e t ho d f or a nn ou nc i ng on e . Ac c or di ngl y, while it m ay

be preferable for the p erm it issuer to form ally ann ounc e the av ailability

of an interpreter at the b eg inningof the p ublic hearing , and in bo th lan g uag es, failure to do so does not c onstitute cl e ar error or oth erwis e warra nt Boa rd r eview.S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 100 I n sum , I CA S ha s failed to de m onstrate that the pu blic h earing proced ures utiliz ed by the Reg ion constitute d clear error. I CA S has not shown that the Reg ion v iolated any part 71 or 124 procedura l regulation. Moreov er, the alleg ed p roblem s I CA S h as ide ntified d o n ot, ev en if the Board w ere to find th em

to constitute a deficienc y in som e w ay , w arrant Board rev iew. C onseq

uently , the B oard denies rev iew of the Pe rm it on this ground

. VI I

. CO NC LU SION AN D OR DE R For the fo reg oingreaso ns, the B oard conclu de s that none of the petitioners hav e de mons t r a ted th at rev iew of P erm it No . R 10 O C S 03 00 00 is w ar

rant ed on a nyo f th e g ro un ds p re se nt ed

. Th e B oard th er ef or e de ni es r ev ie wo f th e P erm it

. So ordered

.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

### I hereby certify that copies ofthe forgoing Order Denying Petitions for Review in the matter of Shell Offshore, Inc., OCS Appeal Nos. 11-05,11-06 & 

### 11-07 were sent to the following persons in the manner indicated: By First Class U.S. Mail:


### Duane A. 

### Siler Sarah 

### C. Bordelon Tony G. Mendoza Crowell & 

### Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington, DC 20004 Telephone: 202-624-2500 Facsimile: 202-628-5116 dsiler@crowell.com sbordelon@crowell.com tmendoza@crowell.com Colin O'Brien Eric Jorgensen EARTHJUSTICE 325 Fourth Street Juneau, AK 99801 Telephone: (907) 500-7134 Facsimile: (907) 463-5891 co brien@earthjustice.org ejorgensen@earthjustice.org Daniel Lum P.O. Box 70169 Fairbanks, AK 99707 Telephone: (907) 799-1491 eskimo. whaler@yahoo.com Tanya Sanerib Christopher Winter Crag Law Center 917 SW Oak Street, Suite 417 Portland, OR 97205 Telephone: (503) 525-2722 Facsimile: (503) 296-5454 tanya@crag.org chris@crag.org

Erik Grafe EARTHJUSTICE 441 W. 5 th 

### Avenue, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 277-2500 Facsimile: (907) 277-1390 egrafe@earthjustice.org

### By 

### EPA Pouch Mail: 

### Alexander Fidis Julie Vergeront Office of Regional Counsel U.S. EPA, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 (ORC-158) Seattle, W A 98101 Telephone: (206) 553-4710 (AF) Telephone: (206) 553-1497 (JV) Facsimile: (206) 553-1762 vergeront.julie@epa.gov fidis.alexander@epa.gov
By 

### EPA Interoffice Mail: 

### David Coursen Office of General Counsel U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Ave

. NW (2322A) Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: (202) 564-0781 Facsimile: (202) 501-0644 coursen.david@epa.gov

Dated: 

## MAR 3 0 2012 Secretary