D 

### o 

## JAN 1 2 2012

(Slip Opinion) NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Environmental Administrative Decisions (E.A.D.). Readers are requested 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 corrections may be made before publication.

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D.C.

Inre:
Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc. OCS Permit No. RI00CSIPSD-AK09-01 &
Shell Offshore, Inc. OCS Permit No. RI00CS/PSD-AK2010-01 Noble Discoverer Drillship ) ) ) ) ) OCS Appeal Nos. 11-02, ) 11-03, 11-04 & 11-08 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

# --------------------)

[Decided January 12, 2012] ORDER DENYING REVIEW Before Environmental Appeals Judges Charles J. Sheehan, Kathie A. Stein and Anna L. Wolgast.IN RE SHELL GULF O F MEXICO , INC. & SH ELL OF F SH ORE, INC. OC S A ppeal Nos . 1 1- 02, 11

- 03, 11

- 04 & 11- 08 ORDER DENYING REV IEW

Decid ed January

12 , 2 012

This decision ad dresses petitio ns f or review

that challenge tw o Outer Cont ine nta l She lf

(“ OC S” ) Pre v ent ion of

Signif ic ant D et er iora

tion (“ PSD” ) pe rmits (“P erm its”) Region 10 (“Reg ion ”) of the U.S. Environme ntal Pro tecti o n A gency ( “ Ag e n c y” ) i s s u e d t o S h e l l Gu l f o f M e x i c o , I n c . an d S h e l l O ff s h o r e , I n c . ( c o l l e c t i v e l y, “S hel l” ). T he Permits , i ss ued on Sep te m b er 19, 2010, pur sua

nt t o s ec tion 328 of

the Cl ea n A ir A ct (“ CA A ”) , 42 U .S.C . § 7627, a

uthori ze She ll to “ cons truc t a nd ope ra te the Nobl e Di sc ov er er

dri lls hip a

nd i ts a ir emis si on unit s and to c onduct othe r a ir pollut ant emitt inga ct iv iti es ” w ithi n She ll’ s le as e bloc k s in t he Chuk chi and Be auf

ort Se as of

f the Nor th Sl ope of

A la sk a. T he Permits a lso p ro vid e for the us e of an a ss oci at ed f

le et of suppor t sh ip s, inc ludingic ebr ea k er s, s upply

s hips , a nd oil s pill re spons e v es se ls in addi tion to the Discovere r . T hes e tw o Permits are be f ore the Boa

rd f ollow ingthe Re g ion’s pos t- rem and pro cee din gs. In the previou s appeal, the Board denied review of on e issue, but rem anded both pe rmits in the ir ent ire ty to the Re g ion f

or f urthe r cons ide ration of tw o is sue s: the Re g ion’s de te rmination of when the drills hip bec om es an O CS sour ce and the Re g ion’s

2 an al y si s o f th e impa ctof n it ro gen di o xid e (“N O ”) emiss io n s o nA la ska Nat ive “e nv ironm ent al jus tic e” c om m uniti es loc at ed in the af

f ec te d are as . See In re Shel l G ulf of Mex. Inc. , O CS A

ppea l N os. 10-01 through 10-04 (EAB D ec . 30, 2010), 15 E.A .D . __. Short ly the re af te r, and at

the Re g ion’s re ques t, the B o ard iss ued anot her de ci si on addr es si ng f

our a dditi onal is sue s that i t had not addre ss ed in t he De ce m ber 2010 de ci si on. Se eI n reSh e l l

G ul f of M e x
. I nc. , OCS Appea l N os. 10-01 through 10-04, at 14- 19 (EAB M ar . 14, 2011), 15 E.A .D . __. The Board receive d four pet i t i on s f or review of the P erm its. T w o w ere f iled by groups, one by

the Native Vil lage o f P o i n t Hope, Resisting Environ m ental De st ruc tion of Indi g enous L ands (“ RE DO IL ”) , A la sk a W ilde rne ss L ea g ue, Cen ter f or Bi o lo gi c a l D ive rs it y , N atu ral Reso u rce s Defen se Co u n ci l, No rt h ern A la ska Env ironm ent al Ce nte r, Oc ea n Cons er v anc y , O ce ana , P ac if

ic Envi ronm ent , Si er

ra Cl ub, and T he W ilde rne ss Soc ie ty (c olle ct iv ely , “NV PH Petit ione rs ”) , a nd the othe r by

the Iñupia t C om m unity of the Arcti c Slope (“ IC A S” ) a nd the A la sk a Es k im o W hal ing Com m is si on (“ A EW C” ). A EW C l at er re ques te d that i t be a llow ed to w ithdr aw f rom thi s m atte r, a re ques t t

he Boa rd gra nts in toda

y ’s dec is ion. IC A S, the re f ore , re m ai ns as s ole petitio ner f

or th at appeal. A

third petitio n w as f

iled by Mr. Daniel Lum . In addi tion , Ms.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 2

Donna Arv el o f

ile d a docum ent that the Boa rd cons true d as a pet iti o n . M s. A rv el o’s petitio n, h owe ver, w as f

iled late. The Bo ard theref ore dism isses it in to day ’s decision as u n t i me l y. Th e t h r ee r ema i n i n g p et i t i o n s c o l l ec t i ve l y ra i se se ve ni ss u es fo r re vi ew. Two of the is sue s – a

c hal le ng e to t

he Re g ion’s O CS sour ce det er mination and a cha lle ng e to the Reg ion’s e nv ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s – are the s am e is sue s the Boa rd r em ande d in its D ec em ber 2010 de ci si on. The Boa

rd’ s sc ope of re v ie w is limite d to is sue s the Boa rd re m ande d, i ss ues ra is ed in t he pre v ious appe al s of

thes e Permits but not a ddre ss ed by the Re g ion, and cha

ng es to the Permits re quire d by inte rv eni ng cha ng es in the la

w or m ade duringthe re m and per iod. Peti tione rs ra is e five new is sue s that a

ris e f rom the re m and pro c e e d i n g s : ( 1 ) D i dth e R e g i o nc l e ar l y e rr i na d o p t i n g S h e l l ’ s am

b i e n ta i r qual ity

2 analy sis? (2) Did th e Re gion clearly err i n determ inin g that the 1-ho ur NO nation al am bie nt a ir qual ity

s ta ndar d (“NA

A QS ”) w ould bem et

w ithout sepa rate ly de te rmining

2 com plia nce w ith the “ m ax im

um al low abl e conc ent

ration” of N O ? (3) D id t

he Re g ion cl ea rly e rr in its am bie nt a ir ex em

ption det er

m inati o n ? (4) D id t

he Re g ion a

buse it s discret i o n i n d eclinin g to includ e a dd itio nal perm it lim itation s on m ethane emission s? (5) D id t he Re g ion c le ar ly

e rr or abus e its dis cr et ion i n only provid in g 30 day s to com m ent on the conc urr ent ly

is sue d dra f

t C huk chi and Be auf

o rt P er m its duri ng the re m and per iod? He ld: T he Boa

rd deni es re v ie w of the Permits

. Peti tione rs hav e not m et the ir burde n of demonst ratingthat r ev ie w

is w ar ra nte d on a ny of the g rounds pre se nte d. (1) O CS Sourc e Det ermin at ion. T he Boa rd c oncl udes that I CA S ha s f ai le d to dem on strate th at th e Re gion’s determ inatio n of w hen th e Discovere r becom es, and cease s to be, an O CS sourc e is c le ar ly e rr oneous . The Re g ion’s de te rmination of w hen the Discovere r

be com es , a

nd c ea se s to b e, a n O CS sourc e in t he cont ext of

the se Permits show s that the Re g ion adhe re d to the Boa rd’ s dire ct ions on re m and and under took a cogent, w ell-reasoned analy sis of the statuto ry and regulato ry requirem ents f

or an OCS sour ce and rea sonab ly appl ied that analy sis to the Discovere r d rillshi p. ICA S’s pro po sed def init ion of the O CS sour ce is not suppor te d by the la ng uag e of

the s ta tute s and the re g ulation that de f

ine the O CS sour ce . (2 ) En vir o n m en ta l Jus ti ce Anal y si s. The Bo ard co n cl u d es th 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 Ex ec utiv e Or der

12898 a nd a pplic abl e Boa

rd pr ec ede nt. T he Re g ion com plie d w ith the Board’s in structio n on rem and and conducted a supp l eme n t al environme ntal ju stice analy sis that endeavored to in clud e a ndanalyze data that is germ ane to the environm ental jus tic e is sue s ra is ed duri ng the com m ent peri od. In t

he se v er al argum ent s the y put f orth in thei r pet iti ons, ICA S and Mr. L um do not dem onst

rate howthe Re g ion’s re spons es to com m ents are inad equate, ove rcom e the particul arly heavy burd en a petition er m

ust m eet to d em on strate that rev iew of the Region’s technical decision s is w arranted, raise issues w ithi n the Boa

rd’ s limite d scope of re v ie w on re m and, or ra is e is sue s w ithi n the Boa rd’ s juri sdi ct ion.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 3
(3) A m bie nt A ir Qua lit

y A nal y si s. NVP H P et iti oner s cont end 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 app licable A gency guidance. Up o n e x am i n at i o n o f th e a d m i n i s tr at i v e r e c o r d , th e B o ar d c o n c l u d e s th at N VP H P etition ers f

ailed to raise this issue du ring the com m ent perio d. This issue, theref ore, w as not pr es er v ed f or r ev ie w .

2 (4) N O N AA QS A

nal y si s. N VP H Petit ione rs a ss er t th at the R eg ion v iola

te d s ec tion

2 165(a )( 3) of

the CAA by fa ili ng to re quire that She ll demonst rate that i ts N O e m is si ons w ill not ca

use poll ution in e x ce ss of

the 100 ppb m ax im

um a llow abl e conc ent

ration le v el

. Up on e x am i n at i o no f

th e a d m i n i s tr at i v e r e c o r d , th e B o ar dc o n c l u d e s th atN VP H Petit ione rs did not r ai se thi s spe ci f ic is sue in the ir com

m ent s on the dra f

t pe rmit. T his i ss u e, th er efo r e, was n o tp r es er ve dfo r re vi ew. (5) A m bie nt A ir Ex em

ption De te rmination. T he Boa rd c oncl udes that N VP H Petit ione rs hav e not show

n that the Reg ion cle ar ly

err ed in its dec is ion t o e x em pt t he ar ea w ithi n a 50 0 m eter radiu s f

rom the Discovere r

– the ar ea w ithi n the U .S. Coa st

G uar d s af et y z one – f rom the de f init ion of “ am bie nt a ir. ” T he Re g ion, in i ts Re spons e to C o mm ents docum ent , pr ov ide d a re as onabl e inte rpr et at ion of the am bie nt a ir re g ulation and 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. (6) Metha

ne Emis si ons Permit Condi tions . The Boa rd c oncl udes that t

he Re g ion di d not abus e its dis cr et ion i n de cl iningto inc lude a dditi onal pe rmit condi tions on m et hane emission s, w

hich w ou ld otherw ise be nece ssary to ensure the enforcea

bili ty of “pot ential to emit” (“PT E” ) l imita

tions . B oth Per

m its c ount a ll m et

hane e m is si ons f

rom the dri lli ng mud s y s t e m ( “ D M S ” ) o p e r at i o n s ( t o th e f u l l e x t e n t o f th e s o u r c e s ’ PT E ) t o w ar ds the Permits ’ t ota l a llow abl e g re enhous e g as emis si ons. Under the se c irc um st anc es , I CA S’s ar g um ent that t he Permits m

ust inc lude c ond it ions e nsur ingthe e nf orc ea bili ty of lim itation s on a sour ce’s P TE is m isplaced, a s the P erm its do no t cont ain owner re qu ested lim its on me than e e m ission s or oth erw ise lim it the sou rces’ P TE f rom DMS op erations. Furth er, w ith re g ar d to the bulk of g re enhous e g as e m is si ons, the Permits c onta in enf orc ea ble pe rmit condi tions

. (7) Public Com

m ent Periods on Re m and. T he Boa rd c oncl udes tha

t I CA S ha s f

ai le d to demonst rate that t he Re g ion c le ar ly

e rr ed or a

buse d it s dis cr et ion i n only prov iding30 day s to c om

m ent on the conc urr ent ly is sue d dra f t Chuk chi and Be auf

ort Permits duri ng the re m and per iod. T he Re g ion prov ide d the re g ulatory m inim um c om m ent pe riod f or the draft permits, and ICAS does notpoi nt to any statutory or regulatory

provisio n th at requires the A gency

to pro vide a lon ge rc o m m ent perio d when th e A gency issues conc urr ent

pe rmits

. I CA S’s atte m

pt t o re ca lc ulate the le ng th of the c om m ent pe riods based on an unexplain ed m athem atical f ormula involving the n um ber and lengths of other com m ent pe riods is unc onv inc ing . F urthe rm ore , i t i s cl ea r f rom the a dm inis tra

tiv e re cor d that t he Re g ion appr opria

te ly bal anc ed the conf

lic ting cons ide rations , w

hic h inc lude the nee d f or e xpedi te d r ev ie w

of PSD pe rmits , i n de ci dingon the le ng th of the c om m ent perio ds and in deny ing requests f or lo nger period s.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 4

N VP H Petit ione rs inc lude N at iv e Villa g e of Point H ope, Re si st ing 1 Envi ron m ental Destruction of Ind igenou s L ands (“REDOIL ”), A laska W ildern ess L ea g ue, Cent er

for Biolog ic al Div er si ty , Natura l Re sour ce s De f ens e Counc il, N orthe rn A la sk a Env ironm ent al Ce nte r, Oc ea n Cons er v anc y , O ce ana , P ac if

ic Envi ronm ent , Si er

ra C l ub , an dTh e Wi l d e rn e s s S o c i e ty.

Initia lly the A la sk a Es k im o Wha lingCom m is si on joined IC A S in f ili ng the 2 p e t i t i o n f o r r e v ie w . See P etition f or Review

(Oct. 24, 2 01 1) (“ICA S P etition ”). On Nov em ber 22, 2011, c ounse l f

or bot h en tit ie s f

ile d a m otion re ques tingthat t

he Boa rd allow the A laska

Eskim o Whaling Com

m ission to w ithd raw fr o m th e a bo ve-c aptio ned m atte rs . See Moti on of P etition er A laska Eskimo Whaling Com

m i ss i o n t o Withdraw fr o m Th es e P r o ce ed i n gs (N o v. 2 2 , 2 0 1 1 )

. Th e B o ar d h er eb y gra n t s Al as kaE sk i mo Whal ingCom

m is si on’s m otion.
N VP H Petit ione rs ’ pe tit ion w as de si g nat ed as O C S A p p e a lN o. 11- 02, I CA S’s 3 petitio n w as designated as OCS A pp eal N o. 1 1-0 3, and Mr. Lum’s p et i tion w as des ignat ed as O CS A

ppea l N o. 11- 04. Befo re E nviron m ental App eals J udges C harles J . S heeh an, K at h ieA . S te in a n d A n n a L . Wo lgas t. Opin ion of th e B oard

by Jud ge S tein: I

. Statem ent o

f the Cas e A g roup of co nserv ation petitioners (“NVPH Petitione rs”), the 1 I ñupiat Com

m unity of the Arctic S lope (“I CA S”), and Mr. Dan iel Lum 2 each petitioned the Env ironm ental A ppeals Board (“B oard”) to rev iew 3 two Cle a n Air Act (“CA A or “A ct”) O uter C ontinental Sh elf (“O CS ”) Prev ention

o f S i gn ificant D eterioration (“PS D”) perm its (“Pe rm its”) that Reg ion 1 0 (“R eg ion”) of the U .S. Env ironm ental P rotection Ag ency (“ E P A ” or

“ Ag en cy ”) is su ed

to S he ll Gul f of

Me xi co , Inc . and

S he ll Offsh ore, I nc. (collectiv ely , “ Shell”) on Septem ber 1 9, 2011

. See OCS PSD Pe rm it t o Con struct, Perm it Num ber R 10O CS /PSD

- AK- 09- 01 (Sept. 19 , 2 011) (“Chuk chi P erm it”) (A dm inistrativ e R ecord (“A. R. ”) SSS- 3); OCS PSD Per m it to Con st ruc t, Per m it Num berR10OCS/PS DAK- 2010

- 01 (Sept. 19 , 2011) (“Bea ufort P erm it”) (A .R . S SS- 2). The Perm its authoriz e S hell “to con struct an d o perate the N oble Disco v ererS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 5

The nam e of

the drillsh ip changed from the Fron tier Disc overer

to the Noble 4 Discovere r

duri ng th e su mme r of 20 10 due to a c hange in ownership. Supp lem ental St at e m e nt of B a s i s f or Pr op os e d O C S PSD Pe rm its N o b le Disc overer

D ril ls hip 27 (July 6, 20 11 ) (“Supp . Statem ent of Ba sis”) (A .R. QQQ-3). A ltho ugh th e Board ref erred to th e drill sh i p a s the Fron tier Disc overer in al l of the orde rs that a ddre ss ed the 2010 Permits , t o av oid c onf

usi on in the c urr en t p roc ee ding s, the Boa rd w ill re f

er to the drill ship sim

ply as the Discovere r . T o date, th e Board has pub lished t h r ee o r d er s related to p erm its Shell h as 5 sought t o c onduct

e xplora tory a ct iv iti es on the Arc tic O CS, in addi tion to num er ous unpublis hed orde rs .

In 20 07, the Boa

rd i ss ued an orde r de ny ingre v ie w in par t a nd re m andi ng in par t tw o OC S m inor sour ce per m its that She ll Of

f shor e Inc

. sought f

or tw o drilli ng v es se ls to oper at e in t

he Be auf ort Se a. In re Shell Offsho re, Inc. , 1 3 E

. A. D

. 3 5 7 (E AB 2007) [he re ina f

te r Shel l 2007 ]. In 2010, the Boa rd iss ued an order

deny ingrev ie w

in par t and re m andi n g t h e per

m its in the c onsol idate d a ppea ls of tw o O CS PSD pe rmits that, upon c om ple tion of re m and proc ee ding s, are now the s ubje ct s of

the curr ent

a ppea ls

. See I n r e Sh e l l G ulf o

f Me x. , Inc. , O CS A

ppea l N os. 10-01 through 10-04 (EAB D ec . 30, 2010), 15 E.A .D . ___ [he re ina f te r Shel l 2010 ]. Upon a

re ques t f rom the Re g ion, and in the int erests of adm inistrative eff iciency and ju dicial econo m

y , the Board later decided fo u r a d d i t i o n al i ss u es t o a ss i st t h e R eg i o ni nco mp l et i n g r eman dp r o ce ed i n gs fo r th e t wo OC S PSD pe rmits now

be f ore the Boa

rd. In re Shell Gu lf of Mex. , Inc. , OCS A pp eal Nos

. 10-01 through 10-04 (EAB Mar. 14, 2011), 15 E.A .D . ___ [he re ina f te r Shel l 2011 ]. drillship and

its a ir em ission units and to co nduct other air p ollutant 4 em ittingactiv ities,” within S he l l ’s lease bloc k s in the C huk chi an d Beau fort S eas of

f the NorthSlo pe o f A lask a. C huk chi P erm it at 1 ; Beau fort P erm it at 1

. The Perm its a l s o pr ovide for th e us e of an ass ociated fleet of supp ort sh ips, includin gicebre ak ers, supp ly ship s, and oil sp ill respo nse v essels in ad di t i on to the Disco verer . See C huk chi Perm it at 1 1- 13; B eaufort Perm it at 1 3- 15. Thi s is th e se co nd ti m e th at O C S P S D pe rm it s fo r pr op os ed o il exploration o n S hell’s lea se b lock s w ithin th e C huk chi an d B eaufort Seas hav e co m e be fore th e B oard. In t he p rev ious conso lidated appea ls, 5 sever al cit izens ’ andcons er vatio n g r oups chal le nged the ori ginal OCS P S D p erm it s (“ 20 10 P erm it s” ) th e R eg io n ha d is su ed to S he ll. Due to circum stances that aro se as a res ult of the A pril 20 10 Deep wate r H

orizon oil spill – both the suspension of drillingactiv ities in the Arctic for theS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 6

2010 drillingseaso n an d the initiation of a com prehen siv e ind

ustry

- wide rev iew of o ffshore drillingsafetyand oil spill resp onse capab ilityby the U. S. Dep artm ent o f the I nter i or (“D OI ”) – the B oard issued a de cision that o nly address ed three issues (those that were leg al in nature) becau se th e an al y se s se t fo rth inth e do cum enta ti on s up po rt in gth e 20 10 P erm it s fo r th os e is su es w ou ld

unl ik el y be af

fe ct ed b y any f ut ur e re qu ir em ents or m andates that m ay

hav e resu lted from

D OI ’s re vie w that w as unde rway at th e tim e. In the B oard’s Dece m ber 2 010 decision , here i na f t e r referred

to as Shell 2010 , th e B oard rem anded the 2010 Perm its with specific finding s on two of the three leg al issues, de nied re v ie wo f th e th ir d le g al iss ue , and g en er al ly rem an de d th e 20 10 P erm it s in the ir entirety

as to all other issues in the petition s. Se e In re Sh el l G ul f of Mex. , In c. , O CS Appeal Nos. 1 0- 01 through 1 0- 04 (EA B Dec. 30 , 20 10 ), 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _

__ [ he re in af te r Shell 2010 ]. Upo n co m

pl et io n of r em an d pr oc ee di ng s, th e R eg io n is su ed to S he ll th e tw o P erm it s th at are th e su

bjec t o f th e pre sen t app eals

. B oth the Re gion and She ll fil ed re spo nse s to the t hre e pet it ion s forreview. P et it io ne rs th er ea ft er

e ac h fi le d m ot io ns r eq

ue st in gle av e to f

il e re pl y briefs, wh i c h a re currently pen dingand

which the B oard address es below

. See infra Se ction V. The Board did not hold oral argum ent. Fo r the rea sons discuss ed b elow , th e B oard denies rev iew of the Pe rm its.
I I

. Issues The B oard

h as d et erm in ed

th at th e thre e petiti on s fi le d inth is case, c o l l e c t i v e l y , p r e s e n ts e v e ni s s u e s f o r r e v i e w . T h e B o a r d

f irst address es the O CS source d eterm ination and the env ironm ental justice analy sis, the tw o is s ue s t ha t the Board rem anded in Shell 2010

. The Boa rd th e nc o n s i d e r s f i v e n e wi s s u e s ar i s i n go u to f th e r e m a nd procee ding s. The sev en iss ues the B oard m ust res olv e he re are: A. Did the Reg ion clearly err in determ iningwhen t h e Disco verer

bec om es, and ceases to be , an OC S s ource?S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 7

B. Did the R eg ion s atisfy its o blig ation to co nsider env ironm ental j ustice under Exec utiv e O rder 1 2898 and co m pl y w ith ap pl ic ab le B oard

p re ce de nt ? C. Did the R eg ion c learly err in adoptingSh ell’s am

bient air qu ality

ana ly sis? D. Did the R eg ion c learly err in determ iningthat the 1

- 2 ho ur n itro g en d io xi de ( “N O ”) n at ional am bi ent a ir quality stand ard (“N AA QS ”) w ould be m et w ithout separately determ ining com pliance with the “m axim

um
2 allowa ble co ncentratio n” o f N O ? E. Di d t he Reg ion c learly err in determ iningthe am

bient air exe m ption?
F

. D id

th e R eg io n ab us e it s di sc re ti on in d ec li ni ngto include add itional p erm it lim itations on m ethane em issions? G

. D id th e R eg io n cl earl y er r or a bu se it s di sc re ti on

in o nl y pr ov id in gth irty

d ay s to c om

m ent o n th e co nc ur

re nt ly issued draft C huk chi an d B eaufort Perm its duringthe rem and period?
I I I

. Stand ard of R eview OC S P SD perm its are g ov erned by Title 40 of

t he Code of Fede ral R egulations (“C. F.R .”), part 55, which in turn states that, whe n pr oc es si ngO C S P S D p erm it s, th e pr oc ed ur al r ul es c onta in ed

w ithi n 40 C.F .R . p a rt12 4 –

whi c h a r e u s e d t o i s s ue PS D pe rmit s gen e r a l l y – apply

. 40 C. F.R . § 55 .6 ( a ) (3). U nder part 1 24, the Board w ill not ordinarily rev iew a PSD perm it unless it is based on a clearly erron eous findingof fact or conclu sion of l aw, or inv olv es a m atter of policy or ex er ci se o f di sc re ti on

th at w ar rant s re v ie w . 4 0 C

. F

. R . § 1 24

. 19 (a ); Con solidated

Perm it Reg ulations, 45 Fed. Reg . 3 3,2 90, 33 ,41 2 (May 19 ,S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 8

1980 ). When analy z ingPS D perm its, t he B oa rd is cog niz ant o f the pr eam bl e to sec ti on

12 4. 19 , in w hi chth e A g en cy s ta te s th at

th e B oard ’s pow er of rev iew “shou ld be on ly sparing l y exercised” and that “m ost perm it con ditions shou ld be finally determ ined at the [ pe r mit issue r’s] le v el

. ” 4 5 F ed

. R eg . a t 3 3, 41 2; accor d In re Car

dinal FG C o. , 12 E.A.D. 153, 16 0 (E AB 20 05).
I n th is in st an ce , B oard

r ev ie wis f

urth er li m it ed

b y th e B oard ’s decision in Shell 2010

. S

ee Sh e l l 2010 , s lip op . at 82, 15 E. A. D. __ _; accord In re K nauf Fiber Glas s GmbH , 9 E. A. D. 1, 7 (EA B 2000 ) (“K na uf I I ”) ( expl ai ni ngth at

th e sc op e of

r ev ie wf or th e P S D p erm it issued upon

com pletion of rem and procee ding s was express ly lim ited b y t he p rev ious K

na uf d e c i s i o n t o t h e t w o r e m a n d e d i s s u e s a n d to p er m it cond itions m odified duringthe rem and period). The Board clearly stated that, upon

co mpl etion of rem and procee ding s, any petition s for rev iew of the R eg ion’s perm ittingdec isions “shall be lim ited to issues address ed by the Reg ion o n rem and and to issu es o therw ise raised in the p etitions before the B oard in this procee ding but n ot ad dressed by the Reg ion o n rem and. ” Shell 2010 , s lip op

. a t 8 2, 1 5 E .A .D . _ __. F urther, in the curre n ta p p e a l s , “ [ n ] o n e wi s s u e s m a y b e r a i s e d th a tc o u l d

h a v e b e en raised, but were no t raised, ” in the p rev ious appea ls. Id. ; accor d K nauf II , 9 E. A. D. at 7 (not i ngthat issues raised outside of the ap peal p eriod ar e co ns id er ed

unt im el y ); see a ls o In re Upp er B lackston e W ater P ol lu ti on A ba te m en t D is t. , N PD ES App eal N os. 10- 09 through 1 0- 12, slip o p. at 7- 8 (Mar. 31 , 2 011), 15 E. A. D. __ _ (citingcase s where the Board h as d eclined to consid er issu es raise d in later briefs that w ere n ot raised in the initial p etition fo r rev iew), appe al do cketed, N o. 11- 1474 ( 1st C ir. Apr. 29, 20 11), appe al do cke te d sub no m. C o n s e rv a tion L aw Fou nd. v. EP

A , N o . 1 1

- 1 6 1 0 ( 1 s tC i r . M a y 2 7 , 2 0 1 1 ) ; In re Dom inion Ener gy B r ay t on Po int, LLC, 1 3 E

. A

. D

. 4 07 , 4 39 ( E A B 2 00 7) ( sam e) , appeal ren dered

m oot b y settlem ent , N o. 07- 2059 (4th Cir. Dec. 17 , 2007 ). Nev ertheless, any

chang es to the P erm its required b y interv ening chang es in the lawor any m odification s to perm i t c ondition s m ade duringthe rem and period are ex cepted from the lim itation on the sc ope of rev iew establishe d in Shell 2010bec ause such cond it i on s hav e no tS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 9

2 For exam ple, NV P H P etition ers challenge the Reg ion ’s 1-ho ur NO NAA QS 6 determ inatio n, w

hich i s b ased on a standard th at w as f inalized bu t no t y et in ef

f ect w hen the Re g ion i ss ued the 2010 Per m its

. See NV P H P e t i t i o n a t1 0

- 2 6

. In ad d i t i o n , IC AS cha lle ng es a

ne w pe rmit condi tion es ta

blis hingthe am

bie nt ai r boundar

y at 500 m et er s f rom the Discovere r . I CA S Peti tion at 27-30. been prev iously

sub j ect to the ap peal p r oc e s s. See, e. g. , Upp er 6 Black stone , s li p op . a t 7

- 8, 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _
__ ; K na uf I I , 9 E. A. D. at 7

. The p et it io ne r be ar s th e burd en of de m on strati ngth at

r ev ie wis warranted. See 40 C.F. R. § 124. 19. To m eet this burde n, the p etitioner m ust sati s f y thre shold pleadin grequ irem ents in cludingtim eliness, standin g , and issue p reserv ation. See id. ; In re Russ ell City Ener gy C tr. , LLC, PSD Appeal Nos. 10- 01 th rou gh 10- 05, sl ip op . at 12 ( EAB Nov

. 18, 201 0), 15 E.A .D . _ __, appe al do cketed sub nom . C habo t-Las Posita s Cmty. Coll. D ist. v . E PA , N o. 10- 7387 0 (9 th C ir. D ec. 20, 20 10) (“ R us se ll Cit y II ”) ; In re BP Che rry P oint , 1 2 E

. A

. D

. 209, 21 6 (EA B 2 0 0 5 )

. F o r e x a m

p l e , a p e t i t i o n e r s e e k i n g r e v i e w m u s t f i l e an appea l of the p erm it decisio n w ithin thi r t y day s of serv ice of the decision , a nd m

ust h av e filed com

m ents o n the draft perm it or part ic ip at ed

in th e pu bl ic he ar in g . 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 19 (a ); ac co rd R us se ll Cit y II , s lip op . at 12, 15 E. A. D. __ _. In ad dition, a petitioner m ust n ot on ly s pe ci fy o bjec ti on s to the pe rm it , b ut a ls o expl ai n w hy

th e pe rm it issu e r ’ s p r e v i o u s r e s p o n s e t o t h o s e o b je c t i o n s i s c l e a r l y e rr o n e o u s or otherw ise w arrants rev iew. See 4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 13 ( re qu ir in gth at a ll person s who believ e a cond ition o f a draft p erm it is in appro priate “ m ust ra is e al l r ea so na

bl y a sc erta in ab le is su es an d su bm ita ll r ea so na

bl y av ai la bl e ar gum ents sup po rt in gthe ir po si ti on by the clo se of th e pu

bl ic co m m ent p er io d” ); id. § 1 24

. 19 (a ) (s ta ti ngth at apeti tion

f or r ev ie wto the B oard “shall include * * * a dem onstration that any issue s be ing ra is ed w er e ra is ed

d ur in gth e pu

bl ic c om m ent p er io d” ); see a l

s o In re Av e na l P owe r C

enter, LL C , P SD Appeal Nos . 1 1- 02 through 1 1- 05, slip o p. at 4- 5 (E AB Aug . 1 8, 2011 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _ __, appe als d

ocketed sub nom . S

ierra Club v. EP

A , No. 11- 7334 2 (9th C ir. N ov . 3 , 2 011), El Pueb lo Para el A ire y Agu a L i mpio v. EP A , N o. 1 1- 73 35 6 (9 thC ir

. N ov . 4 , 2 01 1) ; BP Che rry P oint , 12 E

. A

. D

. a t 2 16

- 17

. Th e pe ti ti on er ’sS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 10

burde n is particularly

heavy in cases where a petitioner seek s rev iew of an iss ue th at is f

un da mentally

techn ical or scientific in nature, as the Board w ill ty

picall y defe r to a pe rm it issuer’s technica l exp ertise an d expe ri en ce o n su chm atte rs if th e pe rm itis su er

a de qu atel y expla in s it s rationale and supp orts its reasonin gin the ad m inist rativ e reco rd. See , e.g. , In r e Domin ion E

nergyBrayton Poin t, L

LC, 1 2 E .A .D . 4 90, 51 0 (E A B 2 00 6) ; In re Peab ody W . C oal C o. , 1 2 E .A .D . 2 2, 33- 34 (E A B 2 00 5) ; In re NE

H ub Partn ers, L.P

. , 7 E.A.D. 561, 567-68 (EAB 1998 ), reviewden ied sub nom
. Penn Fuel Gas , In c. v. EPA , 1 85 F.3 d 8 62 (3 rd C ir

. 1 99 9) ; see also In re Ash Gro ve C emen t C o. , 7 E. A. D. 38 7, 404 (E A B 1 99 7)

. When ev aluatinga pe rm it app eal, the B oard exam ines th e adm inistrativ e reco rd p repared i n s up port of the perm it to d eterm ine whe ther th e p e r mit issuer e xercised his or h er “co nsidered

judg m ent.” Ash Gro ve C

emen t , 7 E

. A

. D

. a t 41 7- 18 ; accor d I n re Ca pe W ind Asso cs., LL C , OC S Ap pe al No

. 11

- 01 , sli p o p. at 5 ( E A B May 2 0, 2 01 1) , 15 E. A

. D

. _

__ ; In re G

SX Servs. O

f S. C. , In c. , 4 E

. A

. D . 4 51, 45 4 (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 orting its conclu sion and the sig nificance of the cruc ial facts it relied u

pon whe n rea chingits c on c l usion. E.g

. , I n re S he ll Offsho re , Inc. , 13 E

. A

. D

. 35 7, 38 6 (E A B 20 07 ) [h er ei na ft er Shell 2007] ( c i t i ng In re Carolina Light & Po wer Co. , 1 E

. A

. D

. 4 4 8 , 4 5 1 ( A ct ’g A dm ’r 1 97 8) ); Ash Gro ve C

emen t , 7 E. A. D. at 417 (sam e). As a who le, the rec ord m

ust dem onstrate that the perm it issuer “duly con sidered the issues raised in the co m

m ents and [that] the app roach ultim ately ado pted by the [perm it issuer] is ration al 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. Fin a lly , th e B oard endeav ors to con strue lib erally ob j ections ra is ed b y par ti es un re pr es ente d b y

couns el (i. e. , th os e pr oc ee di ngp ro 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

. 68 0, 68 7 & n. 9 (EAB 1999 ); accor d R us se ll Cit y II , s lip op . at 15, 15 E.A .D . _ __. Wh ile the Board d oes notS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 11

A l l o f th e g r o up s c o n s t i t u t i n g th e N VP H Pe t i t i o n e r s p art i c i p at e din the 7 appe al s of

the 2010 Permits , w ith the ex ception of T he W ilde rne ss Soc ie ty , w hic h joi ns the N VP H Petit ione rs in its c urr ent a ppea l. expe ct s uc h pe ti ti on s to c onta in s op hi st ic at ed

le g al argum ents o r to ut il iz e pr ec is e te chni ca l o r le g al te rm s, th e B oard n on ethe le ss e xp ec ts su chp et it io ns “ to art ic ul at e so m e su pp orta bl e re as on

o r re aso ns a s to why the perm ittingauth ority e r r e d or why rev iew is oth erwise warranted.” Sutter , 8 E. A. D. at68 7-88 (c i t i ng In re Be ckma n Prod. Servs. , 5 E

. A

. D

. 1 0, 1 9 (E A B 1 99 4) ).

I V. Sum mar

y of Decis ion F or a ll of the r ea so ns s ta te d be lo w , th e B oard c on cl ud es th at : (a) the Reg ion d id no t clearly err in determ iningwhen the Disco v e rer be co m es , and

c ea se s to b e, an O C S s ourc e; ( b) th e R eg io n’ s supp lem ental e nv ironm ental justice an aly sis an d r e l a ted co nclusio ns satisf y its o blig ation to co m

ply w ith E xecutiv e O rder 1 2898 and applicab le Boa r d precedent; (c) the issu e of the R eg ion’s adop tion o f Shel l’ s ambient airqual it y ana lysis wa s notprop er ly rai sedbelo w; (d) the issue of the Reg ion’s determ ination that Shell wou ld m eet the 1-

2 hour NO NAA QS without separately determ iningcom

pliance with the

2 “m axim um allow able c oncentration” of N O w as n ot pro perly

raised be lo w ; ( e) the R eg io n di d no t c le ar ly e rr in d et erm in in gth e am

bi ent a ir ex em pt io n; ( f) th e R eg io n di d no t a bu se its d is cr et io n ind ec li ni ngto include add itional p erm it lim itations on m ethane em issions; and (g ) the Re gio n di d no tcl e a r l y err orab us e it s di s c r e t i on in pr ovi di ng t hi rt y da ys to c o m m e n to nth e c o n c urr e n t l y i s s u e d dr a f tC hu k c h i an d

B e au f o rt Perm its. Acco rding ly , th e B oard denies rev iew of the Pe rm its.

V. Releva nt F

actual and Proc edura l H istory The R eg io n is su ed

th e 20 10 Pe rmit s to S he ll in Marc h an d Apr il of that y ear. Sev eral g roups filed petitions for rev iew, and in D ecem ber 7 2010 , th e B oard rem anded th e 2 010 Perm its w ith direc tions for the Reg ion to further consid er two issues: (1) the determ ination of when theS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 12

See In re Shell Gulf o f Me x. , Inc. , O CS A

ppea l N os. 10-01 through 10-04, at 2 8 (EAB F eb. 10, 2011) (Or der on Mot ions f

or R ec onsi der at ion a

nd/or Cl ar if

ic at ion) (de ny ingthe Re g ion’s and She ll’ s re ques ts f or re cons ide ration, but agre ei ng to the Re g ion’s re ques t t o de ci de f our i ss ues not addr es se d in the rem and orde r so as to prov ide addi tiona l guida

nce f or t he Re g ion’s pe rmit dec is ions on r em and)

. Disco verer bec om es an OCS sourc e sub j ect to re gulat ion underCAA section 328, and

(2) t he R e g ion’s env ironm ental justice an aly sis. See Shell 2010 , slip o p. at 55 , 6 2- 63, 78

- 81, 15 E. A. D. __ . The Bo ard d enied re v ie wo f a ch al le ng e to th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on n ot to a pp ly b es t av ai la

bl e co ntro l t ec hn ol ogy

( “B A C T”) to th e as so ci at ed fl ee t o f su pp ort v es se ls and rem anded

the 2010 Pe rm its in their entirety as to all other issues raised in the p etitions. See id. at 38 , 82 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. a t _ _. Th e B oard ’s Dec e m b e r 2 0 1 0 o r d e r

c o n t a i n s ad e t a i l e d

a c c o un t i n go f

th e p r o c edural and f a c t ual h istory

leadin gup to the rem and of the 20 10 Perm its. Id. at 11

- 19, 15 E. A. D. at __. I n March20 11, in respon se to m otions for r ec on si de rati on

and /o r cl ar if ic at io n fr om

S he ll and th e R eg io n, th e B oard issued an order address ing four addit i on a l issue s. In re S hell G ulf of 8 Mex. , Inc. , O CS Appeal Nos . 1 0- 01 through 1 0-04 , slip op . at 14- 19 (E A B Mar. 1 4, 20 11 ), 15 E

. A

. D

. _ _ [h er ei na ft er Shell 2011 ]. Th e B oard denied rev ie w of

three of th e four issue s but declin ed to susta in the Reg ion’s source im

pacts analy sis for particulate m atter w ith a diam eter

2 .5 of 2

. 5 m ic ro m et er s or

le ss ( “PM ”) b ec au se th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd

2 .5 la ck ed any a ss es sm ent o f w he th er

e m is si on s of

P M p recur sors c ou ldS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 13

In declining to e xerc ise revie w of the oth er three issues, the Board con clud ed 9 that: (1) based on the determ inatio n of w hen th e Discovere r becom es a n O C S s ou rce, Ic ebreak er #2 is no t part of the OCS s ou rce w hen setting and retrieving the Discovere r’s anc hors ; (2) the Re g ion di d not cl ea rly e rr w hen, f or pur pose s of de te rmining bes t a v ai la ble c ontrol tec hnolog y

(“B A CT ”) lim ita

tions , the Re g ion as sum ed that al l par

tic ulate m at

te r e m is si ons - PM (pa

rti cul at e
2 .5 m atte r) , PM (pa

rti cul at e m at

te r w ith a diam et er

of 2.5 mic rom et er s
10 or less), and P M (particulate m atter w ith a di ameter of ten
2 .5 m ic rom et er s or l es s) - w er e PM e m is si ons w hen it conduc te d a BA CTanal y si s, and; (3) the Re g io n d id n ot c le ar ly e rr w hen it dec line d to inc lude emissi o n s fr o m

unp lann ed op erations of the oil spil l and respo nse ves sels in the pot ential to em it analy sis. Shel l 2011 , s lip op. at 8- 14, 20- 40, 15 E .A .D . __.

See Pro p o s e d O ut e r C o nt i nent al She lf

Prev ent ion of

Signif ic ant D et er iora tion 10 P erm it to Con struct, P erm it No. R1 0OCS/P SD-A K-20 10 -01 (July 6, 20 11 ) (“Pro po sed Be auf ort Permit” ) ( A .R. Q QQ -1) ; Propos ed Out er Cont ine nta l She lf

Prev ent ion of Signif ic ant D et er iora

tion Permit to Const

ruc t, Permit No. R10O CS/PSD-AK- 09-01 (July 6, 20 11 ) (“Pro po sed Chukchi P erm it”) (A .R. QQQ-2); Su pp . Statem ent of Ba sis. 2 .5 potentially

contribute to cum

ulativ e im

pacts as sec ondary

PM

. Id

.

9 at 14

- 19, 15 E. A. D. at _

_. Upon co m

ple ti on of re m andp roc eed ings, the Re gion is sue d two propo sed OC S P SD perm its for Shell’s operatio ns in the Chuk chi an d Beau fort S eas o n July

6, 20 11, a c c ompanied

by a sing le sup plem ental st at em ent o f ba si s. Th e R eg io n so li ci te d pu bl ic c om m ents o n bo th 10 propo sed OC S P SD perm its from J uly 6, 2011 , through August 5 , 2 011, andheldan inf

ormati ona l m eet ing and a pub li c hea ri ng i n Barr ow, Alask a, on August 4 , 2 011. S upp. State m ent o f B asis at 12- 14. P et it io ne rs s ub m itte d co m m ents o n th e pr op os ed

p erm it s duri ngth isS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 14

See Em ai l f

rom Dani el Lum

to Suz anne Sk adow ski, EPARe g ion 10 (A ug . 3, 11 2011 1:20 pm PDT ) (“ L um Com m ent s” ) ( A .R. RR

R- 24); IC A S, A la sk a Es k im o W hal ing Co m m is si o n , an dNo rt h Sl o p e Bo ro u gh Co m m en ts to EP A Regi o n 1 0 Re: Revi sedDraft A ir Permits f

or S hell’ s Di sco ver er

Ex plora tion in B ea

uf ort and Chuk chi Se as (A

ug . 5, 2011) ( “I CA S C om

m ent s” ); A la sk a W ilde rne ss L eagu e, A udubon A la sk a, Ce nte r f or Bi o lo gic al D ive rs it y , Defen d ers o f W il d li fe, Green p eace, Ear th ju st ic e, Nat io n al Wild li fe Fe der at ion, Nativ e Villa g e of P oint Hope , Natura l Re sour ce s De f ens e Counc il, N orthe rn A la sk a Env ironm ent al Ce nte r, Oc ea n Cons er v anc y , O ce ana , P acif

ic Env ironm ent , REDOIL , Sierra Club, T he W ildern ess Society , and World Wildli f e Fund Com

m ents Re: Re v is ed Dr af

t A ir Permits f

or She ll’ s Propose d Oi l and G as Ex plora tion Dr ill ingin the B e a u f o rtS e a an dC h u k c h i S e a , A l a s k a ( A u g . 5 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( A

. R

. RRR

- 3 0 ) ( “ N VP H Com m ent s” ).
O n O ct ober

25, 2 0 1 1 , the Boa

rd r ec ei v ed a re ques t f

rom D onna Arv el o 12 se ekinginf

orm at ion on how

to f ile a pe tit ion f or r ev ie w . N ine day s late r, on Nov em ber 3, 2011, the Boa

rd r ec ei v ed a docum ent

atta che d to an em ai l f

rom Ms . A rv el o. See Em ai l f rom D onna Arv el o to Euri k a Dur r, Cl er k of the Boar d, Envi ronm ent al Appea ls Boa rd, U. S. E PA , atta ch. 1 (Nov . 3, 2 0 1 1 , 10: 38 am ED T ). T he Boa

rd c onst rue d thi s Nov em ber 3 s ubm is si on a s a pet iti on f or r ev ie w and de si g nat ed it as O CS A ppea l N o. 11- 08. B ec aus e this pe tit ion w as f ile d af te r Oc tobe r 24, 2011, t

he dat e by

w hic h pe tit ions f or r ev ie w of the se Permits w er e due, the Boa rd he re by dis m is se s Ms . A rv el o’s pe tit ion as unti m el y . See , e. g. , In re Envotech , L.P. , 6 E.A .D

. 260, 266 (EA B 1 996); In re Beckm an Prod. Servs., Inc. , 5 E .A .D . 10, 15-16 ( EAB 1994) ; see also Environ m ental A ppea ls Boa

rd, U. S. E PA , Pra ct ic e Ma n u al10-12 (Se pt. 2010), avai lableat http ://ww w .epa.gov/eab (c lic k

on EAB G

uida nce Docum ent s) (disc uss ingge ner al f ili ng re quire m ent s inc ludingti m el ine ss of s ubm is si ons) ; O rde r A

uthori zi ng Elec troni c Fil ing in Pro c e e di ng s B e f

or e the E nv i r on m e nt a l A pp e a l s B oa

r d n ot G ov e rne d b y

40 C.F.R. Part 2 2 , at

3 ( Ja n. 28, 2010), avai lableat http ://ww w .epa.gov/eab (c lic k

on St andi ng Or der s) (a

uthori zi ng e le ct

ronic f ili ng thr oug h the Ce ntra l Da ta Ex cha ng e (“ CD X”) and st at in g th at“[ s] en d in g a do cu m en t d ir ect ly to th e Bo ard viae-mail , r ath er t h an th ro u gh the CD X p o rt al , d o es not cons tit ute e le ct ronic f ili ng unle ss othe rw is e spe ci f ie d by the Board. ”). T he Board notes that Ms. Arv elo’s inform ation al request on filing appeals w as (c ontinue d...) ti m e. O n S ep te m

be r 19 , 2 011, th e R eg io n is su ed th e fi na l P erm it s 11 alongw ith a sing le supplem ental response to com m ents docum ent. See B eauf ort P erm it ; C huk ch i P erm it ; S up pl em enta l R es po ns e to C om m ents for O CS PS D Perm its N oble Disco v erer D rillship (S ept. 19, 20 11) (“ S up p. R TC ”) ( A

. R

. S S S

- 4)

. The Bo ard rec eiv ed three tim ely petition s seekingrev iew of the Perm i t s . Th e R e g i o n a n d S h e l l f i l e d r e s p o n s e s t o t h e p e t i t i ons on 12S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 15

(.. .c ontinue d) 12 also rece ived af

ter the appeal deadlin e. Mr. L um al so re ques te d ora l a rgum ent in an em ai l date d N ov em ber 8, 2011, 13 but t he Boa rd ha d a lre ady

de nie d oral argum ent

in a pre v ious orde r. See O rde r D enying Re ques ts f

or S tatus Conf

er enc e and Or al A rgu m en t a nd Es ta blis hingFil ingD ea dline (N ov . 4, 2011).

T he Boa rd r ec ent ly

is sue d a s ta ndingorde r i n wh ic h it

a dopte d c er

ta in 14 proc edur es int ende d to f

ac ili tate ex

pedi tious re sol ution of pet iti ons re ques ting re v ie w of per m its is sue d unde r t

he CA A new sour ce re v ie w

(“NS R” ) pr og ra

m , i ncl udingO CS PSD per m its

. See Order G overnin g P etition s f or Re view of Clean A ir A ct New Sou rce R evie w Permits 1 n.2 (EAB A pr. 1 9 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( “S ta

ndingO rde r” ), avai lableat http ://ww w .epa.gov/eab (cl ic k

on Sta ndingO rde rs ); se e als o 40 C. F.R . § 124. 19. A m ong othe r t hing s, the Boa

rd w ill a pply a pre sum ption ag ai nst

the f ili ng of re ply bri ef s and sur re plie s in N SR appe al s. See Sta ndingO rd er at 3 . How ev er , the Boa rd m ai nta ins dis cr et ion t o m odif

y the se proc edur es a s appr opria te on a c as e- spe ci f

ic ba si s. Id. at 6. N ov em be r 16 , 20 11

. P et it io ne rs ea ch fi le d m ot io ns re qu es ti ng le av e to file reply briefs and attached

their propo sed reply briefs. A petitioner 13 seekingleav e to f

i l e a r e ply

brief in an

app eal of a ne w source rev iew (“NS R”) perm it issued

pursuant to the C AA , s uc h a s the OC S P SD P erm it s at

is su e he re , m

us t s ta te “ w ith part ic ul ar ity th e ar gum ents t o whic h the Pe titioner se ek s to respon d an d the reasons the Petitione r believ es it is bo th ne cessary to file a reply to those argum ents * * * and howthos e reaso ns o v ercom e the presum ption in the Stan ding

O rder.” 14 Orde r D eny ingR eques ts for Status Con ference and Oral Argum ent an d Establish ingFilingD ead l ine 6 (N ov . 4 , 2 011) (“No v em ber O rder”) (citingO rde rG ove r ningPe titions fo r R ev iew of C lean A ir A ct N ew S ourc e R ev ie wP erm it s 3 (E A B Apr . 1 9, 2 01 1) (“S tand in gO rd er ”) , availab le at http://www. epa. g ov/eab (click on Stan dingO rders)). Upo n co ns id er at io n of

P et it io ne rs ’ m ot io ns to f il e re ply b ri ef s and propo sed reply

briefs, the Board find s that only tw o se le c t issues wi t hi n NV PH 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 thre sh ol d re qu ir ed

to o v er co m e th e pr es um pt io n ag ai nst f

ilin gr ep ly briefs th at the Board applies in NS R appea ls. See Stan dingO rder at 3; see a lso N ov em

be r O rd er at 5- 6. S pe ci fi ca ll y , N VP H P et it io ne rs a ss ertS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 16

See

, e .g. , In re Arce lorMitta l Cleve lan d Inc. , N PDES A ppea l N o. 11-01, at 1- 15 3 (E A B D ec . 9, 2011) ( Or der Gra ntingin Part EPA ’s Moti on to Fil e Surr epl y , D enying Petit ione r’ s Re ques t t o Prov ide A dditi onal Inf o rmation, and Gra

ntingO ra l A

rgum ent ) (gra ntingin par

t pe rmit is sue r’ s re ques t to fi le a s ur- re ply but limiti ng the s cope to a subs et of is sue s ra is ed in pe rmit is sue r’ s m otion re ques tingle av e to f ile s ur- re ply). th at th e R eg io n offers an ewr at io na le and c it es n ewa

ut ho ri ty in it s respon se b rief to j ustify the 500- m eteram

bient air bo undary . See P et it io ne rs N at iv e Vil la g e of P oi nt H op e et a l. Mo ti on

f or L eav e to F il e Rep ly B rief 3- 5 (Nov . 2 3, 2011 ); Re ply to Resp onses to P etition fo r Rev iew Sub m itted by Nativ e Village of Point Hop e et al. 2

- 7 (N ov . 2 3, 2011 ) (“NVPH Rep ly ”). Sim ilarly , I CA S asserts that the R eg ion re lies on newi n f

o rm a t i o ni ni t s r e s p o n s e b r i e f th a tw a s n o tav a i l ab l e i nthe supp lem ental re spon se to com m ents re g ardingwhether the m ethane em is si on s li m itis p ra ct ic al ly e nf or ce ab le

. M ot io n for Lea ve to F il e R ep ly B ri ef in S up po rt of I C A S ’s P et it io n fo r R ev ie w 2 (N ov . 2 3, 2 01 1) ; [ P r o p o s e d ] Re p l y B r i e f

i nSup p o rt o f

I C A S ’ s Pe t i t i o nf

o r Re vi e w3 -4 (Nov . 2 3, 2011 ) (“I CA S R eply ”). The Bo ard c onclud es that these t wo select issues that N VPH P e t i t i o n e r s an d

I C A S r a i s e mee tth e h i gh th r e s h o l d r e qu i r e d t o o ve r c o me the B oard’s stated presum ption ag ainst th e filingof reply briefs in an N S R a pp ea l. I n p arti cu lar, the se tw o is su es cou ld n ot b e ra is ed p ri or to 15 t he Re gio n’ s re s po ns e as as s e rt e d b y pe t i t i on e r s be c aus e th e re s pe c t i ve rationales the R eg ion c ites in its r e s po nse do not a ppear in the adm inistrativ e reco rd. Furtherm ore, a ne w explan ation or ration ale for the R eg ion’s perm ittingdec isions that ap pears for the first tim e in the R e gi o n ’ s r e s p o n s e h a s t h e p o t e n t i a l t o s i gn i f i c a n t l y i mp a c tth e o u t c o me of th e B oard ’s d ec is io n on th at is su e, and

th e Boar d has h is to ri ca ll y g ran t e d p a rt i e s ’ m o t i o n s t o f

i l e r e p l i e s o r

s ur - r e p l i e s wh e nn ew argum ents are raised

for the first tim e in oppo singbriefs. A cc or di ng ly , N VP H P et it io ne rs ’ m ot io n fo r le av e to f il e a re pl y br ie f is g rant ed

in part

. I n re ac hi ngits con cl us io ns set for thin th is o rd er , the B oard has c onside red th e po rtion o f N VPH Petitione rs’ reply brief th at a dd re ss es t h e R eg io n’ s re sp on se r eg ar di ngth e 50 0- m et er am bi ent a irS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 17

T he Boa rd, in addr es si ng the re lations hip bet w ee n the O CS sour ce and the 16 P SD perm ittin g re qu irem ents, has held that af ter EP A has identified the ex istence of an OC S s ourc e, EPA

m ust ne x t “det erm in[e] the s cope of the ‘s tationa

ry s ourc e’ f or PSD pu rpo ses.” Shel l 2010 , sli p op. at 27, 15 E.A .D . ___ ( quoting In re Shell Offsho re , Inc. , 13 E.A .D . 357, 380 (E A B 2007) (“ Shel l 2007”) ). T hus, the “st at iona ry s ourc e” re m ai ns the re le v ant

unit of anal y si s f

or de te rminingPSD a

pplic abi lit

y in the of f shor e cont ext. See She ll 2010 , s lip op. at 27, 15 E. A .D . ___; Shel l 2007 , 13 E .A .D . at 380- 81. I n thi s instance, th e Re gion h as e stablishedtha t t h e OCS So urce, the Discovere r , i s the (c ontinue d...) boun dary

. See N VPH Rep ly at 2

- 7. I CA S’s m otion for lea ve t o f ile a reply brief is also g ranted in part, an d in reachingits c onclus ions the Board h as co nsidered

the portion of I CA S’s reply brief that ad dresses the Reg ion’s reliance on newinform ation to sup port th e R eg ion’s perm iting decision s for m ethane em issions. See I C A S R ep ly a t 3

- 4. Th e B oard de ni es NVP H P et it io ne rs ’ an d I C A S ’s m ot io ns f or le av e to f

il e a re pl y br ie f wit h resp ec t t o al l o th er is su es . Th e B oard

d en ie s Mr. L um ’s m otion for leav e to file a reply brief. The Boa rd ana ly z es th e part ie s’ argum ents and s et s fo rth it s determ inations below

. VI

. A N A L YSI S A. IC A S H as No t D em on stra te d T

ha t t heR eg io n’

s D eter m in at io n of W hen the “Disco verer”Becom es, and Cea ses to Be, an O CS Source is C learly Erro neou s The determ ination of when the Disco verer becom es, and ceases to b e , a n OCS source is a foundation al elem ent o f the Perm its that dictates whe n C AAsectio n 3 28, 42 U .S. C. § 7627 , a pplies to, and thus regulates air pollution from , th e Disco verer . As the Board noted in the appea ls of the 2 010 Perm its, th e de term ination of when the Disco verer be co m es , and

c ea se s to be , an O C S so ur ce is ante ce de nt to a lm os t e v er y decision the Reg ion m

ust m ak e in these OC S P SD perm it proc eeding s, an d be ca us e itis an i ssu e of

f ir st im pr es si on , th e B oard

is o bl ig ed

to carefully exam ine when the Disco verer becom es an OCS sourc e. Sh el l 16S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 18

(.. .c ontinue d)

16 st at iona ry s ourc e. Shel l 2010 , sli p op. at 45 n.52, 15 E.A .D . (inte rna l cit at ions om itt ed)

. 2010 , sli p o p. at 39 , 15 E

. A

. D

. _
__ ; In re Shell Gulf of Mex. , Inc. , OCS App eal N os. 10- 01 through 10- 04, at 21 , 2 5 (E AB Fe b. 10, 20 11) (Orde r on Mo t i o n s f

o r R e c o n s i d e r a t i o nan d/ o r

C l a r i f i c a t i o n ) ( “ C l a r i f

i c a t i on Orde r”).
I CA S c halleng es the Reg ion’s perm ittingdecisions on th is issue , ar gui ngth at

th e O C S s ourc e de fi ni ti on c onta in ed in th e P erm it s is c le ar ly erroneo us based on the Reg ion’s m isapplicatio n of the regulatory and statutory auth orities that defin e an O CS source, particu larly the requirem ent th at the Disco verer be lo cate d at an auth or iz ed

dri ll s it e to becom e an

O CS source. The R eg ion argues that the OCS source definitionin the Perm its g iv es m eaning to all three criteria pre sent in the EPA

- prom

ulg ated re gulation that defines an O CS source an d further m ai nt ai ns th at

th e O C S so ur ce de fi ni ti on in th e P erm it s is r ea so na bl e in the co ntext of the statutory authorities that contribute to the O CS source definition

. The ques tion th e B oard mus t r e s olv e is: did th e R eg ion reasona bly interp ret and

app ly the stat ut or y an d regulatory auth orities th at de fi ne an O C S so ur ce in th es e P erm it s an d ad eq uate ly suppor t its perm ittingdec isions in the adm inistrativ e reco rd? Befo re ad dressingthe parties’ arg um ents in detail, a brief rev iew of th e fo ll ow in gb ac k g ro un d in fo rm at io n is w ar rant ed : ( a) th e st at

ut or y an d re gul at or

y autho ri ti es th at

d ef in e th e O C S s our ce; (b ) th e B oard ’s rem and of the O CS source d eterm ination in Shell 2010 , and; (c ) the new m oori ng pr ocess dev eloped for the Disco verer

o n re m an d th at

in turn m ust be a ssessed

in lig ht of the O CS source d efinition in the new Perm its.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 19

1. Statutor

y A uthorities and Factu al H istory S ec t i o n 3 2 8 o f t h e C A A , 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 7 6 2 7 , e s t ab l i s he s ai r po ll ut io n co ntrol s th at

r eq ui re O C S s ourc es “ to a tt ai n an d m ai nt ai n Fede ral and State am

bient air qualitystandards” and to com ply with the PSD pro g ram . The Ac t defin es an O CS source as follow s: T he te rms “Out er Cont ine nta l Shelf sour ce” and “OCS so ur ce ” in cl ud e any eq

ui pm ent, ac ti v ity , or facility w h i c h- - (i ) em it s or

h as th e po te nt ia l t o em itany a ir p ol lutant , (ii) is regulated or authori z ed under the O uter C onti ne nt al S he lf

L an ds Ac t [4 3 U

. S

. C

. § 13 31 et s eq . ], and (iii) is located on the Oute r Continental Sh elf or in or on w at er s ab ov e th e O ut er

C onti ne nt al S he lf

. S uc h ac ti v it ie s in cl ud e, but are n ot li m it ed to , p la tf or m an d dr il l sh ip e xp lo rati on , c on stru ct io n, d ev el op m ent, produ ction, proc essing , and transpo rtation. Fo r purpo ses of this subsec tion, em issions from anyv essel serv icingor associated

w ith an O CS source, includin g em issions while at the OC S s ource or en route to or fr om the OCS sou rc e wit hin 25 m il es of the OCS source, sha ll be consid ered direct e m issions from the OC S s ource. CA A § 328(a )(4)(C), 42 U. S.C

. § 7627 (a)(4)(C). The regulations EPA prom ulg ated to im

plem ent C AAsection 32 8 d efine an O CS source b y first in c or poratingthe languag e from sectio ns (i), (ii), and (iii) of s e c t i on 32 8, ab ove , a ndth e n a dd i ng: This definitionshall include ves sels only when they

are:S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 20

In Shel l 2010 , the Re g ion i niti al ly propos ed tw o a lte rnativ e def init ions of the 17 OCS source, and afte r re ceiv ing public com m ents on bot h alternatives, ultim ately decided on the f ollo w ing def

init ion of the OCS source f or th e 201 0 P erm its: For the pur po s e of thi s Pe rm i t , the D i s c ov e r e r i s an O C S s ource

(c ontinue d...) (1) P erm anently

or tem porari l y a ttached to the seab ed and e r e cted th ereon and used for the purposes of e x p l o r ing, develo pin g or pr oduc ing r e s o ur c e s th e r e f r o m, within the m eaningof section 4(a)(1) of O CS LA* * * ; or (2) P hy sically

attach ed to an OC S facility , in which case only the stationary

source asp ects o f the v essel w ill be regulated. 40 C. F.R . § 55 .2. S ection 55.2 r e f e r e nces section 4(a)(1) of the O uter Continental Shelf Land s Act (“OCS LA ”), 43 U .S. C. § 1333 (a)(1), whic h st at es in r el ev ant p art: The Co nstitution and laws and civ il and po litical j urisdiction

of the United States are ex t e nd ed to the su bs oi l and s ea be d of th e oute r C onti ne nt al S he lf and to all artificial islands, and all i ns t all ations and other devices perm anen t l

y or tem pora rily atta ched to the seabe d, whic h m ay b e ere cted th ereon f orthe purp ose of exp loring for, develop ing, or p rodu c ing resourc es therefrom * * *

. OC SLA § 4 ( a ) ( 1 ) , 4 3 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 3 3 ( a ) ( 1 ) ( e m p h a s i s a d d e d )

. T a k en toget her , the Boardlooks to t hes e aut hor it ie s when evalu a t i n g a n OCS PSD perm it’s defin ition o f the OC S s ource. The Board rem anded

the 2010 Perm its to the R eg ion b ecause the R eg ion’s rat io na le f

or d ef in in gth e O C S s ourc e w as n ot a de qu at el y explain ed o r sup ported by the record. See Shell 2 010 , slip o p. at 44

- 55,

17S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 21

(.. .c ontinue d) 17 bet w ee n the tim e the Dis cov er er is de cl ar ed by

the D is cov er er ’s onsi te c om pany re pre se ntativ e to be s ec ure and s ta ble in a po sition re ady to c o mm enc e ex

plora tory a ct iv ity at t he dril l s ite unti l t

he Di sc ov er er ’s on-s ite c om pany re pre se ntati ve dec la

re s that, due to retrieva l of a

n ch o r s o r discon nection of its anchors, it is no lo nger suf f ic ie ntly s ta ble to conduc t e xplora

tor y a ctiv ity at t he dril l s i t e * * *

. OC S PSD Per

m it to C onst

ruc t, Permit No. R10O CS/PSD-AK- 09-01 a t 5 (Ma r. 31, 2010) (“2010 C huk chi Permit” ) ( A .R. L -1) ; O CS PSD Permit to C onst ruc t, Permit N o . R 1 0 O C S / PS D

- A K

- 2 0 1 0

- 0 1 at 1 4 ( A p r . 9 , 2 0 1 0 ) ( “ 2 0 1 0 B e a

u f o rtPe rm i t ” ) ( A

. R

. PP2).
T hr ou g ho ut the de v e l op m e nt , i s s ua nc e , and a

pp e a l s of the 20 10 P erm its, 18 Shell con sistently

m aintain ed that th e Discovere r w ould not

be “ se cur e an d s ta b le in a p o si ti o nread y to co m

m en ce exp lo rat o ry acti vit y ” u n ti l al l ei gh t o f Di sc ove re r’ s anchor s w er e on the s ea

bed. See Shel l 2010 , s lip op. at 56 & n.64; id. a t 5 9-61 & n.66. T he Re g ion a ls o c onsi st ent ly main taine d that i t di sa g re ed w ith She ll, and the Re g ion repeatedly stated its belief that the Discovere r

could be “s ec ure and sta

ble in a posi tion re ady to com m enc e ex plora tory ac tiv ity” w ith le ss tha n ei g ht anc hors on the s ea bed. Id. at 56, 60- 61. 15 E.A .D

. ___. The Board explain ed that the Reg ion neit he rprov ided a co hesiv e explanation

for howit interpreted

the “erected thereon ” an d “used for the p urpose of explorin g , dev eloping , or produ cingresources therefrom ” criteria in 40 C .F. R. § 55. 2 to m ean “secure a nd s t a ble in a po si ti on to c om m en ce e xp lo rato ry

a ct iv ity , ” no r an al y z ed h owit s int erpre ta ti on of

40 C.F.R. § 5 5

. 2 w a s i nfo rmed by the t er m s of CAA § 328 or O CS LA§ 4(a)(1). See id. a t 4 5- 49

. In ad di ti on , th e B oard h el d that the adm inistrativ e reco rd d id not sup port th e R eg ion’s perm itting decision bec ause the R eg ion’s OC S so urce definition resulted in a de fa ct o “e ight

- anchor s- do w n” r eq ui re m ent. D es pi te th e R eg io n’ s

18 di sa g re em ent w ith S he ll r eg ar di ngh owm any anc ho rs w er e re qu ir ed

to be on the seabed for th e Disco verer to b ec om e an O C S s ourc e, S he ll ’s on- site co m

pany repres entativ e none theless wou ld ultim ately determ ine whe n the Disco verer be cam e “s ecure a nd st ab le in ap os it io n re ad

y to commence exploratory

activ ity ,” and thus subject to regulation unde r CA A section 328. A s a result, the B oard also h eld th at the OC S s ourceS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 22

T he Moori ng P roc es s Guide line s note that “[u]nlik e m ost of f shor e dril ling 19 rigs, durin g sea transit th e Noble Discove rer m oo ring w ires a re not rigged or conn ected to th e a ncho rs[ ;] [t he ancho rs] are transpo rted on t he ancho r h andl ing tug supp ly ve ssel (AHT S) and ca

n be pos iti oned prior

to ar riv al ” at She ll loc at ions in the Chukchi a nd Be auf ort Se as . M ooringProce ss G uide line s at

4.
T he A HT S v es se l w ill be e ithe r Ic ebreak er #1 or Ic ebreak

er #2

. See Supp. 20 State m ent of Ba si s at

22; see also Supp. RT C at 22 (noti ng that both ice bre ak er s cont ai n both s el ec tiv e c at al y

tic reduc tion (“ SCR ”) a

nd ox idation ca

ta ly st (“ Oxy Cat” ) c ontrol s)

. He re af te r, the Boa

rd r ef er s to t he A HT S v es se l s im

ply a s the ic ebr ea

k er . T he icebreak er will then sequen tially deplo y the Discovere r’s m oo ring lines 21 f or con nection to the pre-laidanchors, and af ter f ou r lines are c on nected, th e Discovere r w ill retrieve the ship’ s anchor before the ice breake r conn ects the Discovere r’s m ooring line s to t he re m ai ningf

our a nchor s. Moor ingProce ss G uide line s at

12. definitionin the 2010 Perm its repres ented an im perm issible d eleg ation to S hell o f the Reg ion’s authority to determ ine when the Disco verer was subject to regulation unde r C AAsectio n 3 28. See id. at 5 5- 63. Durin gthe rem and procee ding s, Shell dev eloped a newm ooring pr oc e ss for the Disco verer an d co or di nate d w ith th e R eg io n to cons i de r a bly a lter the OC S s ource definitionin these Perm its. See Ope rations Guid eline: Moo ringPro cess fo rt he Noble D iscov erer D r i l l s h i p ( Ap r . 2 1 , 2 0 1 1 ) ( “ M o o r i n g P r o c e s s Gu i d e l i n e s ” ) ( A

. R

. AA A -2 & CC C- 298). In b rief, th e ne w m ooringpro cess c a l l s for an an chor ha nd l i ng tu g s u pp l y (“ AH T S” ) ves s e l to pr e - l a y Disco verer’s eig ht ancho rs at a

drill s ite and

m ark the position

of each ancho r w ith a 19 s ur f a c e bu oy. Id . at 10. The Disco verer wil l pr oce ed und erits own

20 pow er to appro xi mat e l y

on e m ile aw ay

from the pre- laid an chor buoy pattern, shut down its prop ulsion eng ines, and from there, the icebreak er will to w the Disco verer the rem ainingm ile to the d rillingpo sition c enter of the bu oy

pattern at th e drill site. Id. at 11. The Disco verer will th en deploy the ship’ s an chor to ho ld the Disco verer’s position , and it is at this p oint th e Disco verer w il l bec om e an O C S s ourc e. B as ed o n th is 21 newm ooringpro cess, the P erm its defin e the OC S s ource as follo ws: F or th e purp os e of

th is p erm it :S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 23

During the de-ancho ring pro cess the icebreak er w ill assist the Discovere r in 22 re tri ev ingit s m ooringli nes s eque ntia lly , a nd a f te r t he oper at ion is ca

rr ie d out f or f our of the ancho rs, the Discovere r shi p’s anc hor w illbe de ploy ed to pr ov ide c ontinue d s ta bili ty before the ic eb r ea ker pro cee ds to assist the Discovere r in di sc onnec tingf rom the re m ai ningf

our a nchor s. See E ma i l fr o m M ark S c h i n d l e r , O c t an e , t o D o u g H ar d e s ty, EPA , atta ch. 1 ( May

27, 2011, 4:32 p.m . PDT ) (prov iding suppl em ent al pag e 12.1 t o the Moori ng Proce ss G

uide line s that d escr ibe s dril ls hip di sc onnec tion and depa rtur e proc edur es ) ( A .R. CC C- 340). T hus, the s hip’s anchor w ill be the la st

anchor to be re m ov ed f

rom the s ea bed. a. The Disc ov erer is an “OC S S ource” at any tim e the Disco v erer is a tt ac he d to the se abed at a drill site by at le ast on e ancho r; and b. A dr i ll site is any locatio n at whic h Shell is auth oriz ed to op erate under this p erm it and

for whic h She l l has receiv ed fro m

the [ Bure au o f O cean Energy Manag em ent, Regulation and Enfo rcem ent] (BOE M RE) an authoriz ation to drill. Chuk chi P erm it at 1 3; Beau fort Perm it at 16

. Durin gde- ancho ring , th e Disco verer w ou ld

r em ai n an

O C S s ourc e w hi le it s m oo ri nglines w er e dis con nec te d fr om

all eight an c h o rs and woul d cea se t o be an OCS source only

after the Disco ver er ship’s ancho r is ra ised. See E m ai l 22 from Mark Sc hind l e r , Octane , to D ougH ardesty , E PA , attach. 1 (May 27 , 2 011, 4:32 p. m . PD T) (p rov iding supp lem ental pag e 12. 1 to the MooringPro cess Guidelines that describe s drillsh ip dis conn ection and departure pro cedure s) (A .R . C CC

- 340). With this fram ewo rk

in m ind, the Board

no w turns its attentio n to the argum ents p resented in these appea ls.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 24

T he Reg ion explain ed in the respon se to com m ents f or th e 201 0 P erm its that 23 the term “A ssociated Fleet” ref ers to the v esse ls supp ortin g the Discovere r’s oper at ions that m ay be operatin g w ithi n twe nty -f ive m iles of

the Discovere r “w

hile th e Disc overer is an OCS source,” and ex plain ed that th e A ssociated Fleet in clud ed, am on g other thin gs, the ic ebr ea

k er and the anchor

handle r/i ce bre ak er . R es ponse to Com m ent s f or OC S PSD Permit to C onst

ruc t, Permit No. R10O CS/PSD-AK- 09-01 a t 7 n .3 (Mar. 31, 2010) (e m phas is a dded) (“ 2010 Chukchi RT C” ) ( A .R. L -2)

. A s notedea

rlier in t h i s d ec ision , the Board clearly stated in its Dec em

ber 24 2010 re m and orde r that any par ty f ili ng a pet iti on f

or re v ie w of

the Re g ion’s f

ina l pe rmit decision s issued upo n com pletio n of rem and pro cee din gs coul d no t raise any n ew issues (c ontinue d...) 2. Both the Regio n’s In terpretatio n o f the OC S Source D efinition and the R egion’s Ap plication of the O CS Source D ef in it io n to th e “

D is co ve re r”A re R ea so na ble At t h e o u t s e t , I C A S ’ s p e t i t i o n f o r r e v i e w o f t h e O C S sou rce de f i nit ion a ck

now ledg es I CA S’s m ain underly ingcon cern – that em issions from

the icebreak er that will p re- lay the Disco verer’s an ch or s ar e no t c ap ture d inS he ll ’s po te nt ia l to em itana ly si s be caus e th e ac ti v ity w i l l o c c ur

wh e nthe Di s c ov e r er is no t an OC S s ource. I CA S P etition a t1 1

- 12 ; s e e also Clarification O rder at 21- 22 (explain ingthat the “predicate dete rm ination of when the O CS source ex ists” g ov erns “whi che m is si on s fr om

th e A ss oc ia te d F le et m

us t be in cl ud ed

in th e ai r 23 quality im pacts analy sis and which em issions are wholly unregulated by the O CS PS D perm its”). I CA S refers to the icebreak er’s em issions that will o ccur wh e n i t pre- lay s the Disco verer’s ancho rs as “classic preco ns tr uc ti on e m is si on s. ” I C A S P et it io n at 1 1. H ow ev er , a s th e B oard noted in its Febru ary

20 11 order that address ed m otions requestin gthe Board to reconsid er an d/or c larify certainaspects of the D ecem ber 2 010 rem and order, “no party has argued that any of the ice break er or ancho r hand le r em is si on s m

us t b e in cl ud ed

w ithi n th e ai r qu al ity

im pa ct s analy sis pursuant to C AA§ 165(a )(3), 42 U. S.C . § 74 75(a)(3) , a s ‘em issions f

r om c onstruc tion’ o f the stationary source.” C larification O rd er a t 22 n . 15 ( ci ta ti on s om itte d)

. Th e B oard c onti nu ed

th at it w ou ld consid er the issues pertainingto the air qu ality im pacts analy sis on ly

“as framed b y

the parties in

this case. ” Id. A lthough I CA S d oes not

24S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 25

(.. .c ontinue d) 24 “that could h av e b ee n r aised, bu t w ere not raised, in th e present appeals.” Shel l 2010 , sl ip op. at 82, 15 E. A .D . ___.

A s note d a

bov e, the int er

pre tation of

the “ er ec te d the re o n” cr ite rion in 25 40 C.F.R. § 55. 2 pro ved pivotal in th e a pp eals of the 201 0 P erm its. directly assert that em issions resultingfrom the icebreak er pre- lay ingthe Disco verer’s an ch or s sh ou ld b e in cl ud ed i n th e ai r qu al ity im pa ct s analy sis as constru ction em issions, I CA S’s arg um ents w ith resp ect to the O C S s ourc e de fi ni ti on

are a ll u lt im at el y

f oc us ed o n ob ta in in gs pe ci fi c relief – the in clusionof the icebreak er’s em issions that will occur when i tp r e - l a y s th e Di s c ov e rer’s ancho rs in the air quality im pacts analy ses that m ust ac com

pany these Pe rm its.
B oth th e R eg io n an d I C A S s tipu la te th at w ith re sp ec t t o determ ini ng whe n the Disco verer becom es an O CS source, for the purpo ses of 4 0 C .F. R. § 55. 2, the Disco verer is “te m po rari ly a tt ac he d to the se abed” when one ancho r is deploy ed, and the Disco verer’s status a s a drillsh ip fulfills the “used for the purpo ses o f exp loring , d ev elopingor produ cingresources” re quirem ent in sectio n 5 5.2

. See I CA S P etition at 1 1, 1 3 & n.5 ; Su

pp. State m ent o f B asis at 22- 24; S upp. R TC at 1 7. Thus, th e fulcrum

of the p arties’ disag reem ent in large part rem ains th e interpretation

of the “e rected thereon ” criterion in 40 C. F.R . § 55 .2. 25
I C A S argue s th at th e R eg io n’ s de fi ni ti on o f th e O C S s ourc e in the P er m it s con st it ute s cl earerr or. In supp ort of it s ar gum ent , I CAS asserts th at the Reg ion wron g ly concludes that the regulatory defin ition of O C S s ourc e an d se ct io n 4( a) (1 ) of O C S L A , 43 U

. S

. C

. § 1 33 3( a) (1 ), contem plate m ore th an attachm ent to the seabed

. I CA S Pe t i t i on at 11 (assertingthat drillships “are e rected onsh ore o r at p ort be fore th ey ev er se t s ai l” ); id. at 1 2- 14 (disputin gthe Reg ion’s interpretation of “erected thereon ” as bein g g eog raphically spe cific to a drill site). To cure the Reg i on ’s error in de term iningwhen the Disco verer bec om es an OCS source, which I CA S a sserts, am ongothe r thing s, leads to irra t i onal results, I CA S c ounters that the Disco verer sho uld be consi der ed an OCS s ou r c e whe ne verit dr op s an an c ho r onon e of

Sh e l l ’ s le a s e bl oc ksS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 26

IC AS d oes not ac knowledge the Reg ion ’s state m ents in th e suppl em ental

26 st at em ent of ba si s that a

ppea r t o dire ct ly addr es s IC A S’s c once rns re g ar dingthe f uture appl ication of the OCS source definition to diff erent ty pes of exploratio n equi pm ent, such as dri lli ng platf

orm s. See ICA S P etition at 14. The Re gion explains:
In re ac hingthi s conc lus ion, Re g ion 10 note s that v es se ls us ed f or oi l ex plora tion and produc tion (not to m ent ion O CS v ess el s use d f or oth er purp oses) v ary grea tly in con f

iguration . T heref

ore, Region 10 ’s prop osal in th is ca se that the Disc over [sic] is an OCS sour ce a s def

ine d in 40 C. F.R . § 55. 2 w hen atta che d to the s ea

bed by a single ancho r at a

drill site do es no t necessa rily resolve w

hen o ther ty pes of v es se ls or dril l r ig s bec om e OC S s ourc es , an iss ue that w ill v ar y to some e x te nt de pendi ng on the f ac tua l di f f er enc es in the equi pm ent used to ca

rry outthe OCS a ct i vity and th e particular proje ct

. Supp. S tate m ent

of Ba si s at 25; se e a ls o Sh el l 2 010 , s lip op. at 56- 57, 15 E .A .D . ___ (noti ng that onc e a per

m it is sue r r ec ei ves an OC S PSD a pplic at ion t

her e is s uf

f ic ie nt notic e of the propos ed equi pm ent c onf igura tion and OC S a ct iv iti es to r ea sona bly det er m ine w hen that v es se l or

e quipm ent

be com es an O CS sour ce ).
T he aut horit ie s IC A S c ite s in s upport of it s as se rti on that atta chm ent to the 27 se abe d on a

ny of She ll’ s le as e bloc k s in t

he Chuk chi or Be auf

ort Se as , w ithout

any thing else, re nd ers the Discovere r an OC S sour ce , do not suppor t I CA S’s int er

pre tation of

the (c ontinue d...) any whe re in the C huk chi o r B eaufort Seas. Id. at 12 , 1 4-16 (asserting that the “erec ted th e r eon” criterion does not a pply to drillships, and rather o nly

app lies to other ty

pes of equipm ent used for exploration suc h as p latform s, and to “th e oth er ph ases o f oil and g as ac t i vity , and not drillship e xp l or ation”). F inally , I CA S a sserts th at allow ingthe lease 26 blo cks to def

ine the s cop e of t he Per m it s butthen m aking the OCS so ur ce d et erm in at io n co nt in g ent o n th e re ce ip t of an auth or iz at io n to dri ll fr om th e D ep artm ent o f th e I nt er io r co ns ti tute s cl ear erro r be caus e itis an in consistent interpre tation o f O CS LA

. Id. at 1 5- 16. Desp ite I CA S’s c onside rable e fforts to persuad e the Board that the d eterm ination of when the D is c o v e r er be c omes an O CS source shou ld be con ditioned solely on the criterion from 40 C. F.R

. § 5 5.2 that requires Disco verer’s attachm ent to the seabed , and furthe r that 27S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 27

(.. .c ontinue d) 27 re g ulatory

def init ion of the O CS sour ce a s it appl ie s to Discovere r . In f act, the sources IC A S c ite s f

or s upport ar e ea si ly

dis m is se d. First, ICA S cites the preamb le to the pro po sed OCS air regula tion s in s upport of its asse rtion that attachm ent to the seabed alon e is suff icient to rend er the Discovere r dril ls hip a

n O CS sour ce . I CA S Peti tion at 14 (ci ti n g O u ter Cont ine nta l She lf A ir Re g ulations , 56 F ed. Reg . 63,774, 63,777 (pr opose d Dec . 5, 1991)) . ICA S s im ply f ai ls to a ck now le dg e th at i n the f

ina l O CS re g ulations , EPA m odif ie d the de f

init ion of the OCS source to clarif

y w hen vesse ls w ou ld b e c on sidered OCS sou rces, a n d t he f inal language of the re gulation includ es the c riterion “e rected thereon

. ” O uter Con tinen tal Shelf A ir Regulatio ns, 57 F ed. Reg. 40 ,79 2, 40 ,80 7 (Sept. 4 , 19 92 ) (co dified at 40 C.F.R. § 55.2)

. Se cond, IC A S pluc k s a se nte nce f ra g m ent f

rom the le g is lativ e h is tory ac com panyingthe 1 9 7 8 a m endm ent s to O CSLA that r ea ds “f

ede ra l l aw

is to be appl ic abl e to al l ac tiv iti es on al l dev ic es in cont ac t w ith the se abe d for e xplora tion, dev el opm ent , a

nd produc tion. ” IC A S Peti tion at 14 ( ci tingH.R. Rep. N o. 95- 1474, at 80, re pri nte d in 1978 U. S.C .C. A .N

. 1674,1679). T he Boa rd c ar ef ully e x amine d the re le v ant le g is lativ e and re g ulatory his tory of the de f init ion of OCS s ourc e in Shel l 2010 , slip o p. at 51 -55 , 15 E.A .D. __ _, in clud i n g the 197 8 OCSLA am endme nts. Con gres s el iminate d the re f

er enc e to “ f

ix ed st ruc ture s” in OC SL A se ct ion 4(a)( 1) and re pla ce d it w ith “a ll ins ta lla

tions and othe r de v ic es pe rm ane ntly or te m pora ril y attache d to the seabed.” See

id. at 52 n. 62 , 15 E.A .D. __ _. The Board reas on ed that th e c o n ference re port f rom w hic h IC A S s el ec ts the la

ng uag e that al le g edl y

s upports it s inte rpr et at ion of the O CS sour ce de f

init ion w ith re spe ct

to dril ls hips e xpla ins that, in l ar g e part, the r ea son Congre ss am ende d O CSLA s ec tion 4(a )( 1) i n 1978 w as to ens ure that f ore ign-built produc tion platf

orm s coul d not es ca

pe U. S. cus tom s dutie s once the y w er e brought i nto OC S w at er s. See

id. (c iti ng H. R. Re p. No. 95-1474, at 8 0 -81, re pri nte d in 1978 U .S.C .C. A .N . at 1679- 80). T hus, the s enten ce f ra g m ent IC A S r emov es f

rom the cont ext of

the le g is lativ e his tory

of the 1 9 7 8 O CSLA

am endm ent s does not suppor t ICA S’s conten tion that the determ inatio n of w hen th e Discovere r becom es a n OCS sour ce is g ov er

ned only by atta chm ent

to the s ea

bed.
F i n a l l y , I C A S ’ s r e l i an c e o nth e F i r s tC i r c u i td e c i s i o ni n A l l i a n ce to Pro tect Nan tucket Sou nd

, Inc. v. U.S. Army , 398 F .3d 105 ( 1st Ci r. 2005) t o s upport its cont entio n th at an OCS sour ce need no t eve n be related to mineral extra ction , m uch less b e e r ec t ed o nth e se ab ed a n du se dt o e xp l o r e, d ev el o p , o r p r o du ce re so u r ce s t h er efr o m, is m is pla ce d. This ca se is ina pposi te to t

hes e OC S PSD a

ppea ls be ca

use it a ddre ss es the U.S. Arm y Corps of Engineers’ jurisdictio n to issue a pe r mit t o o p er ate a data tow er loc at ed on the O CS purs uant to Se ct ion 10 o f t h e Ri ver s and Ha rbor s A ct of 1899, (c ontinue d...)S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 28

(.. .c ontinue d)

27 33 U .S.C . § 403. The Boar d ag re es w ith the Re g ion t hat the re is nothi ng in this c as e to sug g es t “t hat a v es se l that is si m

ply anc hore d any

w her e on the OC S” or on a sp eci f ic lease ho ld is suff

icient t o rend er that ve ssel, such as the Discovere r dril ls hip, subj ec t t o OC SL A ’s jur is dic tion. Supp. RT C a t 18 & n.6.
T he Board is m ind f

ul th at ICA S’s asse rtion , namel y t h atthe “ere cted 28 thereon ” c riterion does no t apply to d r i l l ship s such as the Discovere r , I CA S Peti tion at 13-14, e f f ec tiv el y re nder s the “ er ec te d the re on” cr ite rion of the O CS sour ce de f

init ion m er e sur plus ag e, w

hic h is g ene ra lly

prohi bite d un d er th e ca nons of s tatutor y and re g ulatory

c onst ruc tion. See In re Bec kman Prod. Servs. , 8 E.A .D . 302, 310 (EA B 1999) (“Under w ell ac cepted canon s of c o n st ru ction , a rule shou ld b e rea d in a m anner that gi ve s e ffec tt o al l o f i t s p ar t s r at h e r th an i na way th atre n d er s s o me o f i t s t er ms m ea ning le ss or re dundant .” ), quote d in In reVi dik si s , T SCA A ppea l No. 07-02, sl ip op. at 16 (EAB A

pr. 22, 2009) , 14 E .A .D . ___; Cl ar if ic at ion O rde r a

t 1 6 n.12; see also O ute r C ontine nta l She lf A ir Re g ulations , 57 F ed. Re g . at 40, 793 (s tatingthat t he re g ulatory def

init ion of an OC S sour ce “w ould inc lude , f or ex am ple , dril l shi p s o n the OC S” ). If

a dri lls hip i s “e re ct ed” ons hore o r at p o rt bef ore it e v er s et s sa il, the te rm “e re ct ed” w ould be m ea

ning le ss or re dundant

be ca use e v er y dri lls hip w il l there f

ore be “e re ct ed” f

or pur pose s of the O CS sour ce de f

init ion c onta ine d in 40 C. F.R . § 55. 2. attachm ent to the seabed by a sing le anc hor any

whe re w ithin o ne of Shell’s lease b lock s in the Beau fort or Chuk chi S eas sh ould suffice, I CA S’s arg um ents fa ll sho rt for sev eral reas ons. F ir st , I C A S f

ai ls to re co nc il e it s po si ti on th at o nl y a tt ac hm ent t o t h e s e ab e d

i s r e qu i r e d

f o r the Di s c overer to be com e an O CS source 28 w ith th e R eg io n’ s ro bu st ana ly si s th at , a s di re ct ed b y th e B oard ’s Dece m ber 2 010 rem and order, prov ides a cog ent, reasone d explanation for the R eg ion’s OC S s ource definitionand g iv es m eaning to all three criteria in 40 C. F.R . § 55 .2 consistent w ith b oth C AAsectio n 3 28, 42 U. S

. C

. § 76 27 , and

OC S L Asec ti on

4(a )( 1) , 43 U. S

. C

. § 1 33 3( a) (1 ). See Su p p . S t a t e m e n t o f B a s i s a t 2 2

- 2 5 ; S up p . R TC a t 1 7

- 1 9

. I nthe supp lem ental s tatem ent o f basis , th e R e g ion c arefully exam ined the criteria contained in the regu latory defin ition o f the OC S s ource becau se 40 C. F.R

. § 55. 2 references the “attached, ” “ere cted,” and “us ed fo r the purp os e of

” te rm s fr om O C S L A se ct io n 4( a) (1 ), 43 U

. S

. C

. § 1 33 3( a) (1 ). Sup p. Statem ent o f B asis at 23. In particular, the R eg ion a ck now ledg ed that t he p hr asingin OC SLA§ 4(a)(1) is different than in section 55. 2,S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 29

but conclud ed that the reference to “ere cted th ereon” in 40 C. F.R . § 55 .2 is “ in te nd ed

to re fl ec t th e pr oc es s by w hi ch a v es se l be co m es atta ch ed to t he se abe d a ndus e d t he r e a f t e r f ort he pu r po s e of ex pl or i ng, de vel op i ng, o r p r o du c i n g r e s o ur c e s f r o m t h e s e ab e d .” Id. (n ot in gth at th er e is neith er any di sc us si on of “e re ct ed ” in th e le g is la ti v e hi st or y for CAA § 3 28 o rO CS LA§ 4(a)(1), no r any indic ation in the pro posed or final OC S re gulations that the c r i t eria pre sent in 40 C .F. R. § 55. 2 sh ould be interpreted

in any w ay differently

than they are in O CS LA§ 4(a)(1)). The Reg ion also analy z ed the m eaning of the v erb “to ere ct” an d explain ed th a t i t s cus tom ary m eaning“to constru ct” or “to b uild” sug g ests that the activ ity be carried out a ccord i ngto a plan or specification , and that req uiringthe attachm ent to the seabed occ ur at the location whe re O CS activ ity is reasona bly expec ted to occ ur, i.e., at th e dr il l si te , ens ur es th at

a tt ac hm ent t o th e se ab ed is r el at ed to e ng ag in gin a sy stem atic an d p lanned activ ity as an O CS source, and not fo r othe r purpo ses su ch as w a i tingout a s torm or ancho ringin a harbor to g et supp lies. Id. at 2 4 (citingthe Am erican Heritag e an d Merriam Webster di ct io nary

def in it io ns of “t o er ec t” ); see a lso Su pp. R TC at 1 8. Thus, the R eg io n ha s de m on strate d thro ugh it s an al y si s of th e te rm s co nt ai ne d in 40 C

. F

. R

. § 5 5. 2, p arti cu larl y th e “e re ct ed

thereo n” c ri te ri on , th at

it exercised its c onside red judg m ent in determ iningthat the Disco verer becom es an

O CS source under 4 0 C .F. R. § 55. 2 when it is attac hed to the sea bedat a dr il l si te where it ca n rea son abl y be ex pec te d to conduc t OCS activ ities. See, e. g. , R us se ll Cit y II , s lip op . at 86, 1 5 E. A. D. __ (determ iningthat adm ini strativ e reco rd su pported the perm itting authority ’s selec te d com pliance m arg in an d reflec ted th e pe rm itting auth or ity ’s “ co ns id er ed

jud g m ent” o n th e m atte r)

. The alternativ e de finition of the O CS source I CA S p ropose s, although inte nded

to capture the icebreak er’s em issions whe n p re- lay ing the Disco verer’s anc hor s, woul d nevert hel ess l eadt o abs urdr esu lt s. As the Reg ion points out, I CA S’s propos ition th at the Disco verer becom es an O CS source whenev er it d rops an ancho r onon e of Shell’s lease blo cks cont ra venes t he st atuto ry and re gu l at ory defi nit ion s of OCS source contain ed in

C AA§ 328 and 40 C. F.R . § 55 .2. R eg ion R espon seS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 30

A s the Boar d note d in Shel l 2010 , in May 20 10 the Secretary of DOI signed 29 a Se cr et ar ia l Or der re org ani zi ng the f orm er Mine ra ls Ma

nag em ent Se rv ic e (“ MMS” ) i nto thre e inde p en d en t en tit ie s to be tte r c ar ry out its thr ee m is si ons of : ( 1) i m prov ingthe (c ontinue d...) at 9- 10; S up p . R TC a t 1 8

. S h e l l ’ s l e a s e b l o c k s i n t h e C hu k c h i and Beau fort S eas a r e c om prised of tho usand s of square m iles eac h. Sup p. RTC at 18. Under I CA S’s p ropose d d efinition of the O CS source, the Disco verer co ul d be anc ho re d on o ne o f S he ll ’s le as e bl oc k s li te ra ll y hund re ds o f m il es aw ay fr om th e dr il l s it e w he re O C S a ct iv ity w il l o cc ur , an d I C A S ’s de fi ni ti on

o f th e O C S s ourc e w ou ld c ap ture th e ic eb re ak er ’s em issions whe n it pre- lay s Disco verer’s ancho rs. See id.
I n ad di ti on , I C A S f

ai ls to a dd

re ss th e im

pl ic at io ns o f it s re as on in gf

or th e st at ut or y p ro v is io n inC AA s ec ti on 3 28 th at p re v ents em issions from

v essels serv icingor associated w ith the OC S s ource that are m ore th an tw enty

- fiv e m iles from the OC S s ource from

countingas di re ct e m is si on s of

th e O C S s ourc e. 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 7 62 7; see a lso R eg ion R es po ns e at

1 0. I C A S ’s pro po se d de fi ni ti on o f th e O C S s ourc e co ul d also le ad to the absurd

result of n ot regulatingthe Disco verer as an OCS source if the Disco verer w er e an ch or ed jus t o ut si de of

o ne o f S he ll ’s lease block s and the icebreak er was p re- lay ingthe Disco verer’s an ch or s only a m ile away

on on e of Shell’s lease b lock s where the Disco verer is au t h o r i z e d t o c o n du c t e x p l o r a t o ry a c t i v i t ies. See S up p . RT C a t1 8

. In sum , I CA S’s propos ed a lternativ e of definingthe Disco verer as an OCS s ou r c e whe ne verit de pl oys asi ngl e an c ho r onon e of Sh e l l ’ s le a s e bl oc ks in the C huk chi o r B eau f or t Sea s is unsu

pported by the statutes and re gul at io ns th at de fi ne an O C S so ur ce an d w ou ld al so le ad to absu rd results.
I CA S a l s o c on t e nd s th a tth e OCS PS D pe rmit s , wh i c h a ut ho r i ze Shell to co nduc t air p ollutant em ittingactiv ities on entire lea se b lock s, shou ld g ov ern th e sco pe of the OC S source definition, which is lim ited to drill sites where Shell has receiv ed an authoriz ation to drill from the Bure au o f O cean Energy Manag ement, Regulation and Enfo rcem ent (“ BOEMRE”), m

us t f ai l. I C A S P et it io n at

1 5- 16 ; see a lso C huk chi 29S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 31

(.. .c ontinue d) 29 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 re turn to the taxpay er f

rom of f shor e roy al ty and re v enue col le ct ion and d is burs em ent ac tiv iti es ; a

nd (3) prov idinginde pende nt s af et y and e nv ironm ental ove rs ig ht a nd enf orc em ent of of f shor e ac tiv iti es . See

She ll 2010 , s lip op. at 11 n.7, 15 E.A .D . ___; see also U .S. DO I, De par

tm ent al Ma

nual , pt s. 118 & 119, c h. 1 ( Se pt. 30, 2011) , avai lable at h ttp ://e li p s. d o i. go v/ap p

_ d m /d m .c fm (“ De par tm ent al Ma

nual ”) (e st abl is hingthe creation , auth oriti es, objectives, a ndreportin g re lation ship s f or th e Bureau of

Oce an Ene rgy Ma nag em ent (“B OE M” ) a

nd Bur ea u of Sa f et y and Env ironm ent al Enf

orc em 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

there org ani za

tion into the thre e se par at e ent iti es w as c om ple te

. See Shel l 2010 , s lip op. at 11 n.7, 15 E.A .D . ___. T he tra nsf er of t h e re v enue c olle ct ion f unct ion to the Of

f ic e of Na tura l Re sour ce s Re v enue w as c om ple te d on O ct ober

1, 2010. See Sec re ta

ry of the Inte rior , U.S. DOI , Orde r N o. 3306, Organ izatio na l Cha ng es U nder the Assistan t Secretary - Poli cy, M an ag ement and

Bud get (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 ep art m ent al Ma nual , pt . 112, ch. 34 ( A pr. 15, 20 11 ). One y ea rl at er , o n Octob er 1, 20 11 , the reorganization 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 w ill none the le ss re f

er to BO EMRE t

hroughout t

his dec is ion be ca

use the Permits and the s up p orti ng doc um ent at ion r ef er e x cl usi v el y

to BO EMRE. P erm ita t 1 ( li st in gle as e bl oc k s to whi chth e pe rm it a ppl ies) ; B eauf ort Perm it at 1 (sam e). I CA S’s c ontentio n that this is an incons istent in te rp re ta ti on

o f O C S L Ais un su

pp orte d. A s th e R eg io n ap tl y s ta te s in th e su pp le m enta l r es po ns e to c om m ents , “ [i ]tis n ot

th e le as e ri g ht s he ld by a com pany but the a

uthoriz ation to drill that d eterm ines th e area wh e r e a dr i l l s hi p m a y be e r e c t e d an d us e d fo r t he pu r po s e of ex pl or i ng, dev eloping , o r prod

ucingresources from

the seabed .” Su

pp. R TC at 1 9. I n o ther w ords, contrary

to I CA S’s interpretation, it is the authoriz ation to dri ll at a

s pe ci fi c si te , and

n ot th e m or e g en er al le as eh ol ds S he ll m aintains on the OCS , th at rend ers the Disco verer “regulated or a ut ho riz ed under OC SLA .” See C A A§ 3 28 (a )( 4) (C )( ii ), 4 2 U

. S.C. § 7 627(a )(4)(C)(ii).
I C A S ’s argum ents a ls o blit he ly igno re th e larg er

r egul at or

y schem e that g ov erns O CS exp loration, dev elopm ent, and produ ction. S ee IC AS Pe tition at 15- 16 (referencingdifferent pha ses related to the exploration fo r and recov ery of oil and g as reso urces). It is B OE MRE,S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 32

located within

D OI , th at has jurisdiction to authoriz e drilling activ ities on the O CS

. EPA is respon sible for pe rm ittingthe air po llutant e m itting ac ti v it ie s on

port ions of

th e O C S

. A s th e B oard n ot es b el owin S ec ti on VI

. E , wi th out the autho ri z at io n fr om B O E MRE to o pe rate a t a particular drill site, Sh ell w ill not be a bl e t o c ondu ct any

air p ollutant em itti nga ct iv it ie s as an O C S s ourc e. Thus , th e R eg io n did not c le ar ly er r whenit r ef er en ce d B O E MRE ’s autho ri z at io n fo r a pe rm itto dri ll whe n d efiningthe drill site in the OC S s ource definitioncontained in the Permi ts bec ause witho ut the auth oriz ation, the Disco verer will n ot becom e an

O CS source. I n sum , th e R eg ion’s determ ination of when the Disco verer be co m es , and

c ea se s to b e, an O C S so ur ce in th e co nt ex t o f th es e P erm it s de m on strate s th at

th e R eg io n un de rt oo k

ac og ent, w el l- re as on ed

ana ly si s of the statutory and regulatory requirem ents for an OC S s ou r c e and reasona bly app lied that analy sis to the Disco verer d ri llsh ip

. I C A S ’s atte m pt s to arg ue th at

S he ll m us t i nc lu de in

it s ai r qu al ity

im pa ct s analy sis em issions from

the icebreak er that will p re- lay the D is co ve re r’

s ancho rs at a drill site by

assertin gthat the Disco verer bec om es an OCS source whe n it m erely

att a c he s t o the seab ed b y a sing le anc hor any whe re on on e of Shell’s lease b lock s m ust fail. I CA S’s p ropose d definitionof the O CS source is not s uppo rted b y the languag e of the statutes and the regulation that define the O CS source. Fo r the foreg oing reasons , th e B oard denie s rev iew of the O CS source d efinition in the Perm its. B. ICA S and Mr. L um Hav e N ot D emo nstrated

Th at theRe

gion Failed to Satisfy Its Oblig

ation to Com

ply with ExecutiveOrder 1289 8 and A pplicab le B oard

Preceden t I CA S and Mr. L um

argue th at the Regi on ’ s sup plem ental env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s w as ins uf fi ci ent to con cl ud e th at

S he ll ’s oi l e xp lo rati on

a ct iv it ie s on

th e O C S wi ll n ot

h av e a di sp ro po rt io nate ly hig han d a dv e r s e e f

f e c to nth e h e a l t ho f

th e A l a s k aN a t i v e p o p ulation liv ingon the NorthSlo pe. I CA S a lleg es that the Reg ion’s env ironm ental just ic e an al y sis fa il s to p ro pe rl y a cc ount f or th e im pa ct s of s ho rt

- te rmS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 33

2 NO and oz one expo sures on the Alask a Nativ e popu lation, and further asserts th at the o pp ortunities for pu blic p articipation were inadeq uate. Mr. L um c ha ll en g es th e la ck

o f an al y si s re g ar di ngth e im pac ts a ir em issions from

Sh ell’s O CS activ ities cou ld hav e on traditional subsisten ce fo od sources , a s w ell as Shell’ s oil spill resp onse ca pa bi li ti es . T he R eg io n ar gue s th at it s env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s and t he con clusion s resu ltingtherefro m com ply w ith E xecutiv e O rder 1 2 8 9 8 , e n t i t l e d “ F e d e r a l A c t i o n s t o A d dr e s s E n v i r o n m e n t a l Ju s t ic e in M i no r i t y Pop ul a t i on s an d L ow Inc ome Po pu l a t i on s ” (“ Ex e c ut i ve Orde r”). The disp ositiv e issu e the Board m ust res olv e is: did th e R eg ion m ee t i ts o bl ig at io n to c om pl y w ith th e E xe cuti v e O rd er and a pp lica bl e 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 si bi l i ties. To th e greatest ex tent pr ac ti ca bl e an d pe rm itte d by

law , and c ons is te nt

w ith principles set fo rth in the rep ort on the Nation al Pe r f or man c e Re vi e w , e a c h F e de r a l age nc y sh a l l m a ke achiev ingenv ironm ental justice a part o f its m ission by i de nt i f yin g an d a dd r e s s i ng, as ap pr op r i a te, disprop ortionately

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 a c t i vi t i e s o n mi n o r i t y a n d l o w -i n c o me popu lations * * *

. E xe c. O rd er

1 28 98 , 59 F ed

. R eg . 7 62 9, 7 62 9 (F eb

. 1 1, 1 99 4) ( A

. R

. F

- 1)

. Fede ral ag encies are req uired t o im

plem ent th e E xecutiv e O rder “cons i s t e nt with, and to the extent perm itted by , e xistinglaw .” Id. at 7 63 2. As the B oard

r ec entl y r ei te rate d, th e E xe cuti v e O rd er “ pl ai nl y states th at it is ‘intende d only to im prov e the internal m anag em ent o f the executiv e branch * * * ’ and ‘shall not b e constru ed to create any rig ht to judi c i a l r ev iew’ of the A g ency ’s efforts to co m ply w ith the Orde r.” I d. at 76 32- 33, quoted

in Aven al , s l i p o p . a t 2 0 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

.

_ _ _. The B oard h as h el d th at

ap erm itis suer sho uld

e xe rc is e it s di sc re ti on

to exa m ine any “super fi ci al ly plau si ble ” cl ai m that a m i n o ri ty or low-S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 34

Under

the Ex ec utiv e Or der , the A la ska Nat iv e population re si dingon the 30 Nor th Slope qual if

ie s as a m inori ty population. See S up p . S t at eme n to f Ba si s a t6 4 ; IC AS Petit ion at 22.

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 31 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 reAES Pue rto Ri co, 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 Shel l 2010 , sli p op. at

64 n.72, 15 E. A .D . ___. T he A dm inis tra tor is re quire d to ca

rr y o u tp er i o d i c r ev i ews o f th e a i r qu al i ty cr i t er i a p u b l i sh ed u n d er se ct i o n 1 0 8 o f th e C AA, 42 U.S.C. § 740 8, as w ell as the NAA QS, an d t o r ev i se t he criteria a ndstandards as appr opria te . C AA § 109( d)( 1), 42 U.S.C . § 7409(d) (1)

. T he Boa rd outline d the hi st ory
2 of the N O N AA QS re v ie w s in i ts D ec em ber 2010 r em and orde r. See She ll 2010 , sl ip op. at 65 nn.73-74, 15 E. A .D . ___. incom e po pulation m ay be disprop ortionately

affected by a particular 30 facility seekinga PSD perm it. In re EcoEléctrica, L. P. , 7 E. A. D. 56 , 6 9 n. 17 ( E A B 1 99 7) ; accor

d Shell 2010 , sl ip op. at 63- 64 & n.71 , 15 E.A.D.

___ (citingPS D cases). The Bo ard rem anded

the 2010 Pe rm i t s i n part d ue to the Reg ion’ s i n s u f

f i c i e nt e nv i r o nm ental justice an aly sis reg ardingthe im pact
2 of short- term

NO exposures on No rth Slope com m unities. Shell 2010 , sl ip o p. a t 6 3- 81 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _
__ . Th e ch alle nge t o th e R eg io n’ s env ironm ental justice an aly sis oc curred in a distinct contex t . The Reg ion is sued the fin al 20 10 Perm its after the A dm inistrator h ad publishe d a f

i nal rule in the F ederal Reg ister on Fe bruary

9, 20 10,

2 e s t abl i s hi ng a1-ho urN A A Q S fo r NO to supp l e men tth e al r e a dy2 existingann

ual N O NA AQ S, but prior to the effe ctiv e date of the n ew
2 1- hour NO standard , April 12, 20 10. See id. , sli p op. at71, 15 E.A.D. 31

__ _. Th e su

bs tanc e of

th e R eg io n’s env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s supp ortingthe 2010 Pe rm its con sisted o f a scant, on e- paragraph

2 statem ent o f com

pliance with the annual NO N AA QS , d espite the av ailability

of updated sc ientific an d tech nical re v iews supp ortingthe

2 Adm ini st ra tor ’s unequ ivocal dete rminat ion that the an nua l NO NAAQS alone was insufficient, b y itself, to pro tect t he p ub lic hea lth w ith an adequ ate m a r gin o f

s a fety

. See id. , s lip op . at 74- 76 & n.8 3, 15 E.A .D

___. The record did n ot c ontain any ack now ledg m ent o r prov ide aS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 35

T he supp lem ental analy sis also includ es, f or some of t h e n o rthern Iñup iat 32 com m unit ies, the dis ta

nce s re si dent s hav e re porte d tr av el ingof f shor e to hunt

f or tra diti onal s ubsi st enc e f

ood s ourc es inc luding bow hea d w hal e, s ea l, and w al rus . See Supp. E J Anal y si s at

7 (noti ng Nuiqs ut r es ide nts hav e tra v el ed up to si x ty

m ile s of f shor e to t he north and as f

ar e as t a s Ca

m den Ba y to hunt f or bow hea d w hal e and that K ak

tov ik re si dent s hav e tra

v el ed as f ar a s thir ty -f iv e m ile s of

f shor e to hunt for

bowhea d whal e and w al rus ); se e als o She ll 2010 e t al

. , slip o p. at 72 n.8 0, 1 5 E

. A. D

. _
__(not ing that (c ontinue d...) ra ti o n a l e s qu a r i n gth e R e g i o n ’ s d e t e rm i n a t i o nr e g a r d i n gth e h e al th

2 ef fe ct s of N O w ith th e A dm in is tr at or ’s f in di ng s, and

thus th e B oard

h el d that com pliance with a NA AQ S standard that the Ag ency has a l ready de e medi na de qu a t e to pr ot e c tth e publ i c he a l t h c a nn ot by it s e l f sa t i s f y a pe rmitis s ue r ’ s o bl i gat i on to ad he r e to th e re qu i r e men t s of th e Ex e c ut i ve Orde r. See id. , s lip op . at 75, 78 , 1 5 E .A .D . _ __. 1. R eg io n’

s Su pp le m en ta l E

nv ir on m en ta l J

us ti ce A na ly

si s Upo n com

pletion of rem and procee ding s, the Reg ion re leased a twenty

- pag e su

pplem ental e nv ironm ental j ustice analy sis to accom pany the P erm its and include d it in th e reco rd to allow for pu blic co m m ent o n the rev ised analy sis. See S up pl em enta l E nv ir onm enta l Ju st ic e A na ly si s fo r P ro p o s e d

O C S P S D P erm itN o. R 10 O C S /P S D

- A K- 20 10

- 01 & P erm it No. R10OCS/ PSD- AK

- 09- 01 (u nda te d) ( “Sup p. EJ Analysi s”) ( A.R. FFF

- 8). The su

pplem ental analy sis explains that the no rthern I ñupiat co m m un it ie s co ns is t m os tl y

o f re m ot e co as ta l v il la g es who se r es id ents rely on sub sistence food sources obtaine d through trad itional a ctiv ities such as hunting , fishing , and wha ling

. Id. at 6

. The analy sis catalo gues th e di st an ce s be tw ee n th e I ñu pi at co m m un it ie s on th e co as t o f th e N orth Slope and

Sh ell’s lease bloc k s clos est to shor e in the C huk chi an d B eauf ort S ea s an d al so in cl ud es r el at iv e di st an ce s be tw ee n th e sp ec if ic pl anne d dr il l s it es in

th e C huk ch i and

B eauf ort S ea s, a s co nt em

pl at ed in S he ll ’s e xp lo rati on

p lans , and th e di st an ce s to th e cl os es t o ns ho re com m unities. Id. The Reg ion a lso in cluded a n i l l ustration that jux ta po se s th e loc at io n of

S he ll ’s le as e bl oc k s, in cl ud in gp lann ed dri ll si te s, in th e C huk ch i and

B eauf ort S ea s w ith on shore an d of fs ho re subsisten ce u se area s for the n orthern I ñupiat com m unities. Id. at 8

.

32S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 36

(.. .c ontinue d)

32 subs is te nce a ct iv iti es , w

hic h c an tak e Iñupia

t r es ide nts li v ingon the Nor th Sl ope f ar f rom their lo cal com

m un ities and closer to em ission s sources, are a potenti al environm ental jus tic e cons ide ration that m ay be unique to the O CS PSD pe rmitt ingc onte x t).
T he Re g ion us ed demog ra phic inf orm at ion g ath ere d from

the 2000 U .S. 33 Ce nsus to com

par e the population of

the N orth Slope Bor oug h to the populations of both the Sta te of A la sk a and the entir e Uni te d Stat es , whic h ser v ed a s re f er enc e populations for t h e demog ra

phic anal y si s. Supp. EJ A nal y si s at 9-11 & n.9. T he Nor

th Sl ope B o r o u g h c o n s i s t s o f th e fo l l o wi n g e i g h ti n c o r p o r at e dvi l l a g e s : P o i n tH o p e , P o i n tLay, Wa inw right, Atqa suk , B ar

row , Nuiqs ut, Ka

k tov ik , a nd A nak tuv uk Pas s. See Supp. State m ent of Ba si s at 64.
T he Re g ion a

nal yze d he al th c onditi ons in t he Nor th Sl ope Bor oug h uti liz ing 34 d at a fro m th e Alaska Na ti ve Heal th St atu s Rep o rt20 0 9 , p rep are db y t h e Alaska Na ti ve Epidemio lo g y

Ce nte r a nd the A la sk a Na

tiv e T riba l H ea lth Cor

poration. See Supp. EJ Anal y si s at

11 n.12
In re spons e to t

he Boa rd’ s re m and of

the 2010 Per

m its , She ll submitt ed a 35 new air quality

i m pacts analys is o f

the op erations auth orized in the current P erm its, which

2 now re quire a de m onst ration of com

plia nce w ith the new

1-hour N O N AA QS . S upp. EJ

(c ontinue d...) The R eg io n th en

ana ly z ed d em ogra ph ic , h ea lth- re la te d, and

a ir qu al ity dat a. The dem ogra

ph ic ana ly si s in di cate s th at 68 % o f re si de nt s 33 liv ingin the N orth S lope Boro ug h clas sify them selv es as Alask a N ativ es. I d. at 10. I n addition , nearly half of North Slope residents speak a languag e oth er than

En g lish at hom e. Id. T h e a n a l y s i s o f h e a lt h da ta rev eale d, a mong o ther th ing s, that from 19 90 to 20 07 there h as b een a 158% r a t e o f

i n c r e a s e i nth e p r e v a l e n c e o f d i ab e t e s f

o r A l a s k aN a t i v es r e s i d i n g i nt h e No rt hSl o p e Bo r o u gh , wh e r e a s d ur i n g th e s a me t i me 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 Nativ es throughout the S tate of Alask a. Id. at 1 1- 34 12. In ad di t i on , t he re is a higher in cidence of outpatient v isits for respiratory

pro blem s rang ingfrom

the com m on cold to pneum onia in the NorthSlo pe th an in

the rest of Alask a. Id. at 1 2.
I n the air im

pacts analy sis, the Reg ion a ddresse d the new1- hour

2 2 NO N AA QS , the new1- hour sulfur dioxid e ( “ SO ”) N AA QS , and 35S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 37

(.. .c ontinue d) 35 Anal y si s at

15; se e als o She ll 2010 , slip o p. at 66 n.7 6 (e xplainin g that as a c on sequence of the Boa rd’ s dec is ion t o re m and the 2010 Permits , per m its is sue d upon c om

ple tion of rem and p roceedings m

ust dem on strate c om

plian ce w ith, am on g other thin gs, the a nn ual

2 and 1-hour

N O N AA QS ).
Ba ckg round a ir qual ity

data c onsi st s of

am bient a ir qual ity

m ea sur em ent s 36 assum ed to be representative of th e existing air qu ality i n the pro ject area du e to ge neral indus tri al de v el opm ent

on the Nor

th Sl ope. See2010 C huk chi RT C a t 147. com pliance with other NA AQ S s tandard s, includin goz one. Id. at 1 5- 20. The results of the m axim

um m odeled total im

pacts unde r the Perm its for

2 1- ho ur N O , in cl ud in gc on si de rati on o f ba ckg ro un d ai r qu al ity d at a, are 36 81. 6 μg/m in the B eaufort Sea and 174. 0 μg /m in the C huk chi S ea. Id.

3 3 at 15 , 1 7. The m axim

um v alues were m odeled

500 to 2000 m eters from

2 the hull of the Disco verer , and ar e bot h les s th an th e 1

- hourNO

2 standard of 188 μg/m

. Id. T he Region conc lud ed th atthe 1-hour NO

3 NA AQ S is expec ted to be attained in all areas accessible to th e pu blic, includin gareas both onsh ore and offshore where local c om m unities eng ag e in subsisten ce ac t iv ities. Id. (n ot i ng t ha tco ns e rvat i ve assum ptions were used in m odeling ). The m odeled im pacts for 1- hour

2 N O in c om m un it ie s lo cate d on

th e B eauf

ort and C huk ch i S ea s ar e al l

2 substantially

low er than

the 188 μg/m 1- hour NO stand ard. Id. at 1 6. 3 The R eg ion a ls o expl ai ne d th at in in st an ce s w he re ac om m un ity is located m ore th an fifty

kilom eters from

the closest lease b lock , th e im pact and total co ncentratio n at the co m m un i t y is assum ed to be the im pact and conce ntration at fifty kilom eters from

the Disco verer

in the direction of the com

m unity

. Id. at 1 6- 17. Thus, m odeled im pacts at com m unities located m ore th an fifty kilom eters from

Sh ell’s clos est lease b lock

in either th e C huk chi o r the Beau fort Sea are expec ted to be ev en lo wer than reported in the su

pplem ental e nvi r onm ental justice analy sis. Id. a t 1 6. A s a result, the R eg ion c onclud ed th at the 1- hour

2 NO stand ard w ill be attained in all locations be yon d 500 m eters from

2 t he h ul l of the Disco verer and wil l be wel l bel ow the 1- hourNO NA AQ S in

N orth S lope com

m unities a nd in area s where local com m unities cond

uct su bsistence activ ities. Id.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 38

2

In the B eauf

ort Se a, the w ors t c as e m odel ed 1-hour SO im pac t at t he 37 50 0 m eter bo un dary

assume d by

S hell in its analy sis is 35 μg/m , and in the Chu kchi Sea 3 the w orst case mo d ele d im pac t at t he 500 m et er

boundary

is 40.3 μ g /m . S upp. EJ 3 Anal y si s at1 8

. I n co m m u n it ie s b o rd eri n g th e Beau for t S ea in cl u d in g Kakt o vik, De adhor se , a

nd Nuiqs ut, m odel ed conc ent rations are all le ss than 10% of the 196 μ g /m3

2 1-hour SO N AA QS , a

nd s imila rly , at f if ty k ilom et er s the c once ntra tions in Point L ay

and

2 W ai nw right bor der ingthe Chukchi Se a ar e al so l ess tha n 10% of the 196 μ g /m SO 3 st anda rd. Id. The Reg ion n ext considered Shell’s com

pliance with the n ew 1-

2 ho ur S O N A A Q S , s e t a t 1 9 6 μ g / m , f o r w h i c h S h e l l i n c l udeda new 3 m od el in gana ly si s of

th e ai r qu al ity impa ct s du e to th e st an dard be c om ingeffectiv e in J une 2010

. Id. at 1 8. Ev en u singcon serv at i ve
2 m odelingassum

ptions, the m odeled

im pacts for 1- hour SO are expec ted to be m inim al at all locatio ns d ue i n l a rg e part to a co ndition in the Perm its that requires Shell to us e ultra low sulfur diesel fuel to po wer the Disco verer

and th e A ss oc ia te d F le et

. Id. Ba s e d on these m odeled 37

2 im pacts the R eg ion c onclud es that the 1- hour SO stand a r d w ill be atta in ed at

a ll lo cati on s be y on d th e 50 0 m et er a ss um ed b ound ar y and w il l be w ell belo w the NA AQ S in the North Slope com m unities and in area s whe re loca l com

m unities cond

uct su bsistence activ ities. Id. With re sp ec t t o othe r NAAQS, th e R eg io n st at ed th at d es pi te increases in em issions from certainun its, relativ e t o the 20 10 Perm its, “ov erall em issions from

the Disco v erer an d the A ssociated Flee t on an annu al and

1- hour basis will be reduced by m ore th an 5 0%” for oxides

x of nitr o g e n( “ N O ” ) , p a rt i c u l a t e m a t t e r w i t had i a m e t e r

of

10 10 m icrom eters o r less (“PM ”), par t i c ul ate m atter w ith a diam eter of

2 .5 2. 5 m ic ro m et er s or

le ss (“P M ”) , car

bo n m on ox id e (“ C O ”) , and v ol at il e org anic c om

poun ds (“VO C”), w ith “less er but still s u b s t ant i al redu ctions

2 of S O .” Id. a t 1 8. The Reg ion a lso n oted that w ith resp ect to oz one,

x g iv en th at ozo ne precursor em issions of NO and VOC “hav e de creased substantially in com

parison to those perm itted un der th e 20 10 Perm its, Reg ion 1 0 co ntinues to believ e that em issions from the Disco v erer an d the A ssociated

Fle e t w i l l no t caus e or contribute to a v iolation of the oz one NA AQ S” as d is cussed in the statem ents o f basis sup portingthe 2010 Pe rm its. Id. at 2 0.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 39

ICA S asse rts that the Region erred bo th when it didnotpost th e suppl em ental 38 env i r o n m e n t a l j u s t i c e an a l y s i s o n i t s w e b s i t e u n t i l a s k e d t o d o s o , an d w h en it did not inc lude the s upple m ent al anal y si s w ithi n the s upple m ent al s tate m en t o f b as is f or t he Permits , a s othe r R eg ions hav e done. I CA S Peti tion at 32-33. First, alth ou gh the Reg ion didnotinclud e the en t i re suppl em ental env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s in the suppl em ent al st at em ent of ba si s, the Re g ion m ade cl ea r t hat the s upple m ent al e nv ironm ent al jus tic e anal y si s “i s in t he re cor d f

or t his a ct ion and is s um

m ar iz ed her e. ” Supp. State m ent of Bas is a t 62; se e als o Region Respon se at 38-39 (noti ng the supple m ent al state m ent of bas is conta ine d an e ig ht-pa g e sum m ar y of the tw enty -o n e p ag e suppl em ent al e nv ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s) . A s longa s the suppl em ent al e nv ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s in i ts e ntir et y was in the re cor d and thus av ai la ble f or publ ic ins pec tion and com m ent , a s her e, t he Boa

rd f inds no e rr or i n inclu di n g a d etailed sum m ary of the sup plem ental environmental justice a naly sis, as oppose d to the ana ly si s in i ts e ntir et y , i n the s upple m ent al s tate m ent of ba si s. I n a dditi on, the Region further ex

plain s that w

hile it is no t requi red, the Region f ully int endedto po st the s upple m ent al env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s to i ts w ebs ite but ina dv er te ntly did not until IC A S point ed out t he om is si on. Reg ion R es ponse at 38- 39. The Re g ion im m ediately em ailed ICA S a copy of the analy sis and po sted the do cum ent to its we bsite. Id. at 39. T he Boa

rd agre es w ith the Reg ion that the inadv er

te nt and tem

pora ry f ai lure to i ncl ude the s upple m ent al e nv ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s on the Re g ion’s w ebs ite amounts to no m ore tha

n harmle ss e rr or. (c ontinue d...) Overal l, the Region conc lud ed th atShel l’ s p r o pos ed OCS ac ti v it ie s in t he Chuk ch i and B eauf ort S ea s w il l n ot

r es ul t i n disprop ortionately

high an d ad

v erse hum an h ealth o r env ironm ental effects w ith respect to Alask a Nativ es residing on the N orth S lope, and further, that in reac hingthis conclu sion the R eg ion c onside red th e im pact on com m unities eng ag ingin subsisten ce ac tiv ities. Id. W ith th is ba ckg ro un d inm in d, th e B oard no wtur ns to th e sp ec if

ic a ss erti on s bo th I CA S and Mr. Lum m ak e in supp ort of their argum ents th at the Reg ion has not c om

plied with its ob lig ation unde r the Exec utiv e O rder.

2 2. One- Hour

NO N A A Q S A na ly

si s

2 I CA S c hal le nges the Region’s cons ide ra ti on of 1- hourNO N A A Q S com

pl ianc e inthe sup pl em enta l env ir onm enta l ju st ic e an al y si s
2 on sev eral ground s. I CA S a sserts th at in addition to NO em issions 38S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 40

(.. .c ontinue d)

38 Mo re gene ral ly, IC AS ch al le n ges th e Regi o n ’s co m p li an ce with th e Exec u ti ve Order based on th e adequ acy of the pu blic particip ation the Reg ion af f ord ed interested par tie s throughout t

he dev el opm ent of the Permits on re m and. IC A S Petit ion at 31- 33; see also Knauf

II , 9 E .A .D . at 16- 17 (di st inguis hingbe tw ee n obje ct ions to the quantit y and qu ality

of pu blic particip ation in the perm ittin g process, includi ng the environme ntal jus tic e ana ly si s, and s ubst ant iv e ob je ct ions to the m et

hodolog y and data us ed in t he env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s)

. IC A S’s re m ai ningc hal le ng es to the am ount a nd qua lit y of p u b lic participatio n op po rtun ities av ailable pertainin g to the supp lem ental env ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s appe ar to m irr or its m ore g ene ra l ar g um ent s re g ar dingthe p ub l i c p art i c i p at i o n p r o c e s s. See IC A S Peti tion at 7-10. A cc ording ly , the Boa rd addr es se s IC A S’s c hal le ng es to the a dequa cy of the publi c par

tic ipati o n proc es s, both g ene ra lly and w ith re spe ct

to the s upple m ent al e nv ironm ent al jus tic e ana ly si s, in Se ct ion V I

. G b el o w. from the Disco verer whe n it is an OC S s ource and from the Asso ciated Fleet whe n it is w ithin tw enty

- fiv e m iles of the Disco verer , th e R eg ion

2 m us t a ls o ac co unt f

or m ob il e so ur ce N O e m is si ons that r em ai n unregulated by

the OC S P SD Pe rm its when assessingpo tentially adv erse
2 hea lt h impact s o f

N O em is si ons on Nort h Slop e comm uni ti es. I CAS

2 Pet it ion at 26-27. I CAS fur the r as ser ts that when in cl ude d in t he NO NA AQ S analy sis, these m obile em issions could collect iv ely cau se o r contribute to a N AA QS v iolation. Id. at 29. I n ad d it ion , I CAS challeng es the R eg ion’s “fatal flawof the e nv ironm ental justice analy sis,” nam ely

the failure to analy z e the im pacts of S hell’s em issions on residents of the N orth S lope cond uctingsub sistence activ ities offshore

. Id. F in al ly , I C A S cha ll en g es the R eg io n’ s an al y si s of S he ll ’s

2 1- hour NO N AA QS com

pliance based

on sev eral technical d eci s i o ns th e Reg ion m ade. Id. at 3 0.
I CA S’s a ssertion that m obile so u r c e e m issions that are othe rwise unregulated in the contex t of an OC S PSD perm it m ust b e inclu ded whe n
2 ca lc ul at in gth e 1- ho ur N O N A A Q S m us t fa il

. Th e R eg io n expl ai ns in th e su pp le m ental re sp on se to c om m ents th at

th e C A Aand

E P A ’s i mpl e mentingregulations m ak e clear that a stationary source d oes not inc lud e emissi ons f

rom m obi le s our ces . Sup p. RT C at 97 (c it ing CAA § 30 2( z ), 4 2 U

. S

. C

. § 7 60 2( z ) an d 40 C

. F

. R

. § 5 2. 21 (b )( 18 ), ( k))

. Nowhere in its petition does I CA S a ck now ledg e the Reg ion’s respon seS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 41

T he Re g ion not es that be ca use e m is si o n s fro m

mobile s ourc es are not 39 consid ered in P SD perm ittin g a ction s, it had limited inform ation reg ardin g s uch emis si ons and thus it

ha d “ ins uf

f ic ie nt i nf orm at ion t o conc lude w ith ce rta inty whet her or not e m is si ons f

rom the se dif f er ent v es se ls and a ct iv iti es that ar e not r equi re d to be consid ered in a P SD NAA QS analy sis w ou ld, in c on jun ction w ith perm itted em ission s,
2 ca use or cont

ribut e to a v iola tion of the 1-hour

N O NAA QS .” Re g ion Re spons e at 46- 47 (ci ti n g Av enal , s lip op. at 24, 15 E. A .D . ___)

. or att em pt to expl ai n w hy , des pi te the cle ar lan gua g e of

th e C A Aand

it s im plem entingregulations, the Reg ion s hould no netheles s in this ins tance
2 i n c l u d e mobil e sou rc e emissi ons in it s cal cul at ion of th e 1- hourNO NA AQ S. A s the Board h as m ade clear b efore, petitioners bear the bur d e no f

d e m o n s t r a t i n gth a tr e v i e wi s w a rr a n t e d , wh i c hi n cludes explain ingwhy

a perm it issuer’s respon se to com m ents is inade quate. See , e. g. , R us se ll

Cit y II , slip op. at 14 , 1 5 E .A .D . _ __. H ere, in the face of the R eg ion’s reasone d explanation for why m obile em issions were not
2 include d in the 1- hour NO NA AQ S calculation , I CA S sim pl y state s, “Reg ion 1 0 failed

to unde rtak e an analy sis of all of the em issions from Shell’s operatio ns.” I CA S P etition at 27. I CA S has not m et its b urden

. I CA S n ext as serts t ha t t he R eg ion e rred when the R eg ion co nc lu de d itd id

n ot h av e su ff

ic ie nt in fo rm at io n to e st im at e m ob il e source em issions that m ay cau se o r contribute to a v iolation of the 1- hour

2 NO N AA QS

. I CA S P etition at 28. Desp ite the fact that, as exp lained abov e, m obile source em issions p l a y n o p art in a N AA QS im pact analysi s , t he R eg ion a ctually w ent further than it was leg ally requ ired and “non etheless consid ered inform ation av ailable to it” and attem pted to a cc ou nt f or e m is si on s fr om

m ob il e so ur ce s w he n as se ss in gth e im pa ct s
2 of h ourly N O exp osures on residents of t he N or th S lope. See Su pp. 39 RTC at 10 3- 04. N owh ere in it s p e t i t i on does I CA S a ck now ledg e the Reg i o n ’ s l au d ab l e e f

f o rt s o r t h e B o a r d ’ s r e c e n t s t a t e m e n t t h a tthe E x e c u t i ve Or d e r

d o e s n o tr e qu i r e EP At o r e a c had e t e rmi n a t i ve o u t c o me wh e n c on du c t i ng a n e nvi r on men t a l j us t i c e an a l ysi s pr i orto is s u i ng a perm it, p articularly

w he n the av ailable d ata is inconc lusiv e. Aven al , sl ip o p. a t 2 4, 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _
__ . A g ai n, I C A S h as n ot m et it s burd en t o dem onstrate that rev iew is w arranted.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 42

The Bo ard a g rees w ith the Reg ion th at I CA S’s a ssertion that the Reg ion fa iled “to analyz e the im pacts of S hell’s em issions on subsisten ce hunt er s andfis her s whil e off sho re ,” is uns uppo rt ed by the rec ord . I CAS P et it io n at

2 9 & n . 19 ( em

ph as is in o ri g in al ). Th e R eg ion s ta te d init s supp lem ental e nv ironm ental j us t ice an aly sis that m obile source em issions will d issipate while v essels are in transit, Sup p. RTC at 10 4, and the Reg ion also m ade efforts in the supp lem ental en vironm ental j ustice analy sis to dem onstrate howthe subsisten ce areas located in clo se pro ximity to Shel l’ s le ase bloc ks m ight be aff ect ed by Shell ’s OCS ac ti v it ie s. S up p. E J A na ly si s at 1 6- 17 ; id. at 7 (discu ssingdis t a nc es su bs is te nc e hunt er s, wha le rs , and f is he rm en h av e tr av el ed

o ff sho re in sea rcho f su

bs is te nc e fo od s) ; id. a t8 ( d e p i c t i n gs ub s i s t e n c e u s e areas m apped ov er S hell exploration

plan w ell sites). The R eg ion c ondu cted a su pplem ental e nv i r o nm e nt a l justice analy sis that include d an d an aly z ed data th at is g erm ane to the env ironm ental j ustice issue raised duringthe com m ent p eriod, see S

hell 2 010 , slip op. at 79 n.8 7, 15 E.A .D . _ __, and the R eg ion h as d em onst r a ted th at it ex ercised its con sidered j udg m ent whe n it j uxtapo sed the su

bsistence use areas and the p lanned exp loration areas and discuss ed th e distances betw een the NorthSlo pe v illag es an d the clo sest leas e block s and well sites, respectiv ely

. Altho ug h I CA S m ay disag ree w ith the conte nts or conclusions of the R eg ion’s supp lem ental env ir onm enta l ju stic e an al y si s, I C A S h as n ot d em on strate d th at

th is difference in opinio n h as resu lted in an in sufficient ef f ort on the Reg ion’s part reg ardingenv ironm ental justice, or that the Reg ion fa iled to an aly z e im

pacts. F in al ly , I CAS e num er at es s ev er al p ro bl em s w ith th e R eg io n’ s supp lem ental e nv ironm ental justice an a l ysis th at am ount to ch alleng es to the R e gio n’ s techn ical expertise. See I CA S P etition at 30; Reg ion Resp onse a t 4 4- 45. Witho ut elab orating any furthe r, I CA S e xpresse s
2 “s igni fi cant

c on ce rn s” w ith, am on g othe r th in g s, in st al le d N O c ontr ol s and their abilityto function pro perly in cold weath er, the u se o f “diurnal

2 pa ir in g ” of

N O d at a, and

the nee d fo r ad di ti on al “tr ac er e xp er im ents ” to supp ly data f or the A ERMOD m odel. Id. I t i s a xi oma t i c t ha ta c ha l l e nge to the fun dam ental tec hnical expertise of a perm it issue rrequires a petitioner to ov ercom e a particularly heavy burden, and

that a su ccessfulS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 43

ch al le ng e to ap erm itis su er ’s te chni ca l e xp erti se m us t c on si st

o f m or e t ha n j ust a differenc e of opinio n. See Shell 2011 , s l i p o p . a t1 5, 15 E

. A

. D

. _

__ ; accor d In re N E H ub Partn ers, L.P

. , 7 E. A. D. 56 1, 567 (EA B 1998 ), reviewden ied su b n om. Pe nn Fuel Gas, Inc. v. EPA , 18 5 F

. 3d 8 62 ( 3r d C ir

. 1 99 9)

. H er e, I C A S h as f ai le d to o v er co m e th is particularly

heavy burden. 3. O zo neN A A Q S A na ly

si s I C A S a ls o ch al le ng es th e R eg io n’ s co m pl ianc e with it s ob li g at io n un de r th e E xe cuti v e O rd er ba se d on 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 0.7 5 parts per m illion (“ppm ”), as oppo sed to the ran g e of 0.6 0 to 0

. 70 pp m

f or th e 8- ho ur

o z on e N A A Q S th at

w as p ro po se d by

E P A ’s Adm inistrator i n J a nuary20 10 but n ev er finaliz ed. See I CA S P etition at 2 2- 24 ; see Region Resp ons e at39- 42; Supp. RT C at 94, 10 8. On Septem ber 2 , 2 011, sub seque nt to the close of t he p ublic com m ent p eriod and prior to the Reg ion is suingthe Perm its, th e P resident requeste d that the Adm ini st ra torwith dra w the pr opos ed 8- hourozo n e NAAQS sta nd a r d, and instead enforce the current 8

- hour oz one standard of 0.7 5 p pm until the oz one standard is re consid ered ag ain in 20 13. Statem ent o n the O z one Nation al A m bient Air Qua lity

Stan dards, 20 11 D a i l y C o m p . P r e s . D o c . 6 0 7 , p . 1 ( S e p t

. 2 , 2 0 1 1 ) , availab le at http://www. gpo. g ov/fdsy s/ (click on Com pilation of

Pre sidential Doc um ents). The R eg io n as se rt s th at

th e im pa ct o f th e pr op ose d re v is io n to t he 8-ho urozo ne st a nd a r d wa s ra i s e d o nl y in th e c on t e xt of cu mul a t i ve im pacts in co m

m ents o n the 20 10 Perm its, R eg ion R espon se at 40, but that n o p arty

petition ed for specific rev iew of the R eg ion’s oz one analy sis for the 2010 Perm its, whic h is unch ang ed in the current Perm its, an d thus th e B oard

s ho ul d pr ev ent I C A S fro m cir cum v enti ngth e B oard ’sS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 44

T he Re g ion a ls o a ss er ts that I CA S s hould not

be a llow ed to que st ion a ny 40 as pec t of the Re g ion’s te chni ca l det er m ination that per

m itt ed emis si ons w ill not c aus e or cont ribu te to a v iolatio n of the 8-ho ur ozo ne NAA QS, and t h at the Reg ion ’s tec hn ical det er m ination that a

m odel inganal y si s f

or oz one is unne ce ss ar

y to re ac h that conc lus ion shoul d s imila

rly re m ai n unc onte st ed. R eg ion R es ponse at 41. rem and order by

raisingno w t he a de qu acy of the R eg ion’s oz one a n a l ys i s a s ane n vi r o n me n t a l j u s t i c e c l a i m. Id. at 4 1. 40 The distinct facts surround ingthe propo sed 8- hour oz one NA AQ S re v ision do not chang e the procedural posture of the appeal of th is iss ue onr em an d. A ltho ugh I C A S argue s to th e co ntrary , th e curr ent, en for ce ab le s tand ar d th at S he ll m us t d em on strate c om

pl ianc e w ith is 0.7 5 p pm . As this B oard has stated prev iously , “ [a] perm it issuer m ust apply the statutes and im

plem enting regulations in effect at the tim e the f inal p erm it decisio n is m ade. ” R us se ll Cit y II , s l i p o p . a t 1 08 n.9 8, 15 E.A .D

. ___ (quotin gIn re Phelps Dod ge C orp. , 10 E.A .D . 4 60, 47 8 n. 10 ( EAB 20 02 ))

. Th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on to r eq ui re S he ll to c om

pl y w ith th e 0. 75 p pm

8

- ho ur o z on e N A A Q S is co nsiste nt w ith ap pl ic ab le law and the co rrespon dingregulations in effec t at th e t i me the R eg ion issued the P erm its.
I n ad di ti on , I C A S d oe s no t d em on strate th at t he Re g io n’ s a na l ysi s of t he i mpa c t s t he 8-ho ur ozo ne s t a nd a r d m a y h a ve o n Al a s ka N at iv es r es id in go n th e N orth S lo pe w ou ld re su lt inad is pr op orti on at el y hi g h o r adv erse im

pact o n the hea lth of Alask a N ativ es. The R eg ion explain ed in

the supp lem ental re spon se to com m ents suppo rtingthe P erm it s th at i t cho se n ot to r ev is itit s de ci si on

to f or eg o m od el in gto de m on strate th at

is su an ce o f th e P erm it s w ou ld no t caus e or

c ontr ib ut e to an exceedence of the 8

- hour oz one NA AQ S, in larg e part beca use the m ost rec ent o z one data indicates that current oz one lev els in the C huk chi and Beau fort S eas are w ell b e l ow e ven the low end of the rang e of the propo sed 8- hour oz one NAAQS

. Sup p. RTC at 94

. The Reg ion a lso

x n o t e d t h a t t h e c o n t r i b u t i o n o f o z o n e p r e c ur s o r s , N O a n d VO C, un der these Perm its, is sm all in relation to other sources of precurso r em issions inth e ar ea . R eg io n R es po ns e at 4 2. F in al ly , w ith re sp ec t t o I C A S ’sS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 45

assertion that the Reg ion fa iled to consid er the cum ulativ e em issions of the o peration s on

the Arctic OC S, t he R e gion noted that the P SD regulations only

requ ire a perm it issuer to co nsider exist i ng sources , s ou r c e s th a tar e pe rmit t e d b ut no tco ns t ruc t e d, an d s ou r c e s th a th a ve subm itted com

plete PSD app lications. Id. at 42; Sup p. RTC at 95 (citing NewSo urce Rev iew Work shop Manu al, P rev ention of S i gnificant Deterio ration and Non attainm ent Area P e r mit tingC .32 to C. 34 (O ct

. 1 99 0) ). I C A S f

ai ls to d em on strate h owth e R eg io n’ s re sp on se s to its c omments are inadeq uate, and thus, do es n ot m eet its burde n o f dem onstr a t i ng that rev iew is w arranted. See, e. g. , R us se ll Cit y II , slip o p. at 14 , 1 5 E .A .D . _ __ . 4. Impa cts of Air E

missi on s o n T

radition al Su bsistenceFo od So urces Mr

. Lum asserts that as a result o f Sh ell’s O CS activ ities, “[h]und reds o f tons of exhau st/contam inants will be introduce d into the subsisten ce z ones of the coastal I ñupiat, ” whic h will contam i na t e the food supp ly

and sig nificantly

alter I ñupiat c ult ure d

ue to insu fficient ac ce ss to s ub si st en ce foo ds

. L um Pe ti ti on (O ct

. 24 , 20 11 ). The B oard constru es Mr. Lum ’s asse rtion a s a challeng e to the ad equac y of the R eg io n’ s co m

pl ianc e w ith th e E xe cuti v e O rd er . The Bo ard is cog niz ant th at Mr. Lum file d com

m ents o n the Perm its and

that he is representing him self in these procee ding s. See Em ail from Dan iel Lum to Suz anne Sk adow sk i, EPA Reg ion 10 (Aug . 5 , 2011 , 1 :20 p m

PD T) (“Lum

C om m ents”) (A. R. RRR

- 24). Yet the issu e Mr. L um raises, the im

pacts of S hell’s p lanned air e m issions on traditional subsisten ce fo od sources utiliz ed b y Alask a N ativ es liv ingon the N orth S lope, “co uld h av e be en r a i s ed, but [w as] no t raised, in the [ 2010 Pe rm it] app eals.” Shell 2010 , s l i p o p . a t 8 2 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _
__ ; see also R eg io n R es po ns e at

4 7 (n ot in gth at

th es e co nc er

ns wer e ra is ed

in co m m e n t s o nth e 2 0 1 0 P e rm i t s an d th a tth e R e g i o nr e s p o n d e d t o those com m e n t s )

. A s t h e B o a r d n o t e d e a r l i e r i n S e c t i o n I I I , b e c au s e the Perm its in the s e a ppeals were issued subject to a rem and, the scope of B oard r ev ie wu

pon co m pl et io n of

r em an d pr oc ee di ng s is li m it ed toS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 46

issue s t h e R e g i o n a d dr e s s e d o n r e m a n d , a n d t o i s s u e s r a i s e d i nthe petitions before the B oard in the 2010 Perm it appea ls but not a ddresse d by the Reg ion o n rem and. See Shell 2010 , slip op. at 82, 15 E. A. D. __
_ . The Reg ion respond ed to comm ents reg ardingsubsistence activ ities and traditional us e in the resp onse to co m m ents a ccom

pany ingthe 2010 Perm its. See 2 01 0 C huk ch i R TC 1 44

- 45 ; see a lso Sup p. RTC at 11 1- 14 (respon dingto com

m ents reg ardingsubsistence activ ities and tradition al us e fo r P erm it s is su ed

u po n co m pl et io n of

r em an d proceedi ng s in J uly 20 11). How ev er, no party raised this issue in a petition for rev iew of the 2010 Perm its. As a result, the B oard denies rev iew becau se the im pacts of air em issions on traditional subsisten ce fo od sources w ere n ot raised at t he t i me of the first ap peal. See, e. g. , K na uf I I , 9 E

. A

. D

. a t 7 (“All other issues pertainingto this PSD perm it sho uld h av e be en ra ised at the tim e of first app eal. I ssues raised outside of the appeals period on the o rig inal perm it are consid ered untim ely .”), quoted in In re Upp er B la ck ston e W ater P ol lu ti on A ba te m en t D is t. , N PD ES App eal N os. 10- 09 through 10- 12, slip op. at 8 (Mar. 31, 2011), 15 E. A. D. __ _ (citingcase s consistent w ith this lim itation where the B oard has deni e d rev iew of is su es n ot r ai sed i n the ini ti al p et it io n fo r re v ie w , b ut in st ea d ra is ed

in later briefs), appe als d

ocketed, sub nom . U

pper Black

stone W ater Pollutio n A batem ent D ist. v . E PA , N o. 11

- 14 74 (1 st C ir

. Apr . 2 9, 2 01 1) , Con servation La w Fou nd. v. EP A , No

. 11

- 16 10 (1s t C ir

. May 2 7, 2 01 1)

. 5. Oil S pill R espon se C

apab ilities Mr. L um a ss erts th at t he E P Ah as f ai le d to r eq

ui re S he ll to dem onstrate its oil spill resp onse capab ilities in op e n wa ter, ic e floes , an d un de r sh ee t i ce . Lum P et it io n at

1

. Th e R eg io n re sp on ds th at th is issue, am ongothe rs, is outside the scope of these perm it proc eeding s an d thus is no t prop erly

sub j ect to rev iew. R eg ion R espon se at 47- 48. The Bo ard h as p rev iously em phasiz ed th at “[t]he PSD rev iew process is n ot an

op en fo r um for conside ration 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 F

iber G lass GmbH

, 8 E.A .D

. 121, 127 (EA B 1999 ) (“K na uf I ”), quo t e d in In re Sutter Pow er P lant , 8 E. A. D. 68 0, 688S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 47

A s the Boa

rd e xpla ine d in n o te 9 a

bov e, in its Ma

rc h 2011 or der

on f our 41 addi tion al issues the Board held, amo ng oth er things, that th e Re gion d id n ot err w hen it declinedto inclu de emission s f rom un plan ned op erations of th e o il spill and respo nse v es se ls in She ll’ s pote ntia l t o e m it ana ly si s. See She ll 2011 , slip o p. at 26 -40 , 15 E.A .D. ___. A lthough thi s is sue inv olv ed the oil spill res ponse ve ss el s, the Board dec ide d the is sue be ca

use it dir ec tly re late d to the pote ntia l t o e m it ana ly si s re q u ir ed b y t he PSD regulation s. On Dece m

ber 16 , 20 11 , BOEMRE (now BOEM, s ee no te 2 9 ab ove) 42 condi tiona lly

a pprov ed She ll’ s ex

plora tion pla n f or t he Chuk chi Sea

. L ette r f

rom D av id Johns ton, Re g iona l Supe rv is or f or L ea si ng and Plans , A la sk a OC S R eg ion, BO EM, U. S. DO I, to Sus an Chi lds , She ll G ulf of Me x ic o, I nc. (D ec . 16, 2011) ( “C huk chi EP L ette r” ). The appro val of th e Ch ukchi Sea exploratio n plan was co nd itio ned, am on g ot her thin gs, on a djus tingthe dri lli n g s ea son ac cor dingto a “‘ tri g g er date ’ e st abl is hed ea ch y ea r by BO EM, bas ed upon the date of f irs t i ce enc roa chment ov er the dri ll si te w ithi n any of the la st f iv e y ea rs ,” w hic h is inte nded “ to re duce risk s * * * by ass uringa gre at er

opport unity f or respon se a

ndclea nu p in the un likely

ev ent of a

late s eason oil sp ill.” Id. at 2. I n addi tion, She ll w ill be re quire d “ to conduc t a f ie ld ex er ci se to demonst

rate the ir abi lit

y to d ep lo y ” th e sub sea well cap p in g an dco n ta in m en t syste m Sh el l h as co m

m it te dto ha ve at it s dis posa l. Id. at 3- 4. (EAB 19 99 ); see a lso In r e E nc ogen C ogen erat io n F

ac il it y , 8 E

. A.D. 244, 25 9- 60 (EA B 1999 ). The Board has j urisdiction “to rev iew issues dire c t l y r e l a t e d t o p e rm i tc o n d i t i o n s th a ti m p l e m e n tth e f

e d e r a l P SD pr ogram ,” Sutter , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 6 8 8 , b u t w i l l d e n y r e v i e w o f i s s u e s no t g ov erned by

the PSD regulations be c a us e it lack s jurisdiction o v er t h e m. Id. ; s ee a lso E

ncogen , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 2 59 ( no ti ngth at p et it io ne rs 41 ha d no t s ho w n ho wth e is sue s th ey r eq ue st ed th e B oard

to r ev ie wf

el l within the Board’s P SD jurisdiction). Moreov er, there are often othe r regulatory program s in place that m ay address a petiti on e r ’ s con cern. K na uf I , 8 E

. A

. D

. a t 1 62 ; see a lso S hell 2 007 , 1 3 E .A .D . at 405 n. 66.
E P A ’s jur is di ct io n ov er

p orti on s of

th e O C S a

pplies to a ir em is si on s su

bjec t t o th e C A Aand

it s im pl em enti ngr egul at io ns . In th is instance , BO EMRE is re spon sible fo r im plem entingregulations that a dd r e s s oi l sp i l l an d r e s po ns e capa b i l i t i e s . T he Bo a r d d oe s no tha ve 42 j urisdiction to consid er Shell’s oil spill and respon se ca pabilities in the Arctic OC S, and thus, the Board denies Mr. Lum ’s petition for rev iew on these g round s.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 48

T he re v is ed st anda rd be ca m e ef f ec tiv e in the inte rim

be tw ee n the pri or S hel l 43 per m its and the re v is ed per

m its at i ss ue in t

his ca se . For a sy

nopsi s of the tim e line s f

or
2 issuance of the 1-h ou r NO NA A QS, see She ll 2010 , s lip. op. a t 68- 69, 15 E .A .D . ___. T he 98 th percentile f

orm correspon ds appro xim ately t o the 7th o r 8 th h ighest 44 dai ly m ax im um c once ntra

tion in a y ea r. 75 Fe d. R eg . at 6492. For all of the fo reg oingreaso ns, the Board 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 preced ent. C. N V P H Pe ti ti on er

s F ai le d to Ra is e B elow

Th ei r C on te nt io n T

ha t S hell’s A mbie nt Air Quality Analysis W as F lawe d in Tha t It F

ailed to C onform to App licable Agen cy G uidan ce O n F eb ru ar

y 9 , 2 010, EPAp ub li sh ed

in th e F ed er al R eg is te r a

2 fi nal ru l e (e ff

ect ive Apri l 12, 20 10) revisi ng the pri m ary NO NAAQS “i n or de r to pr ov id e re qu is it e pr ot ec ti on of pu bl ic h ea lth as a

pp ro pr ia te

2 unde r se ct ion 109 of t he Cle an AirAct.” Primar y NAAQS for NO , 75 F ed

. R eg . 6 47 4, 6 47 5 (F eb

. 9 , 2 01 0) ; see a lso Section VI.B a bo ve; Sh e l l 20 10 , s l i p o p . a t6 4

- 6 5 & n . 7 4 , 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _
_ _ . T h i s r u l e s e tthe

2 2 new 1- hourNO NAAQS st a n dar d (he re ina ft er“the 1- hourNO NA AQ S”) at 10 0 p arts pe r billion(“ppb” ) to supple m ent th e ex isting annu al stan dard, set at 53 ppb. 75 Fed. Regat 6 475. E PAregulations 43 specify ho w attainm ent o f the standard is to be calculated , p rov idingthat th e 10 0 pp b st an dard is m et “ w he n th e annu al 9 8th pe rc enti le o f th e da il y m axim um 1- hour av erag e conce ntration is less than or equal to 100 ppb, as d eterm ined in accord ance with App endix S of this p art for the 1

- hour standard .” 40 C .F. R. § 50. 11(f). T his calculation is som etim es referre d to as “th e form .” See 75 Fed. Reg . at 6477 n.5, 649 2- 93 . The 100 ppb 44

2 st an dard re fl ec ts th e m ax im um al lo w ab le N O co nc entr at io ns any w he re in an area. Id . at 649 3, 6502

. I n its Sup plem ental S t a tem ent o f B asis, th e R eg io n st at ed

th at th e ai r qu al ity

ana ly si s co nd

uc te d fo r th es e P erm it s dem onstrates that the em issions will n ot cau se o rc on t r ibute to a
2 v io la ti on o f th e 1- ho ur

NO NA A Q S and

that th e P erm it s in cl ud e li m it s that co rrespon d to the 1

- hour em is s i on s “from the v arious em issions un it s on th e D is co v er er

and th e A ss oc ia te d F le et

a ss um ed in S he ll ’s a irS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 49

A cc ording to t

he Pag e Me m o, the g uida

nce w as is sue d in re spons e to r epor ts 45

2 th atso u r ce s we r e mo d el i n g p o t en t i al vi o l at i o n s o f th e 1

- h o u r NO NAAQ S

. P ag e M emo at 1. T he Me m o s tate s that “ [t]o res pond to the sere ports a n d facilita te 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 G

uida nce f or I m ple m ent ingthe 1-hour

N O N at iona l A

m bie nt Qua lit

y Sta ndar d

2 in P reve ntio n of Signif

icant Deterioration P erm i t s, In clud ing an interim 1-h ou r NO Signif 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 . at1- 2 . Alth o u gh th e P age Me m o atta che s the se tw o m emora nda, the Mem o is cons ec utiv el y num ber ed a s a si ng le docum ent

. In ord er to establish com plian ce w i t h th e NA

A QS and P SD increm ents, 46 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 em 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 bi ent air by

m od eling a propo sed f ac ili ty’s ex

pec te d e m is si ons of

the poll uta

nt a g ai nst the ba ckdrop of

e x is tingam

bie nt condi tions . T o c onduct

an a ir qua lit

y ana ly si s, a permit appl ic ant c om pile s dat a on the pro po sed f

acility ’s phy sical sp ecification s and anticip ated emission rates , local 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 ); Knauf

I , 8 E.A.D. (c ontinue d...) qu al ity m on it oring a naly si s. ” S up p. S tate m ent o f B as is a t 3 1; see a lso id . at 49- 51 (ModelingR esul t s). EPAhas issue d guidanc e clarify ing

2 pro cedure s ford emonstr at ing com pli anc e wit h the new 1- hourNO NA AQ S. See Mem or an dum f ro m S te ph en D

. P ag e, D ir

. , O ff

ic e of A ir Qual it y Pla nni ng & Stand ar ds, U.S. EPA, to Reg’l AirDi rs ., U.S. EPA,

2 Guid ance Con cerning

the Imple men tation of the 1-H our NO N AAQS for the Preventio n o

f Sign ificant D eterioratio n (J un e 2 9 , 2 01 0) (“ Pa ge Me m o” ) (A

. R

. B B B

- 15 3) ; Me m or an dum f ro m Ty le r F ox , L ea de r, A ir 45 Qua lity Monito ringG rp., O ffice of Ai r Q uality Planning& Stan dards, U. S. EPA , to R eg ’l A ir D i r s ., U. S. EPA , Add itional Clarifica tion Rega r di ng Applica tion o f Ap pend ix W Modeling G uidan ce for

the 1-

2 Hou r N O N ationa l Am bient Air Q uality S tanda rd (Mar. 1, 2011 ) (“Fo x Me m o” ) (A

. R

. B B B

- 80 ).
N VP H P et it io ne rs a ss ert 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 part ic ul ar , N VP H P et it io ne rs s ta te th at in 46S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 50

(.. .c ontinue d)

46 at 145-48; O f

f ic e of A ir Qua lit

y P la nning& St anda

rds , U .S. EPA , New Sou rce Review W ork shop M anual at C. 16-.23, .31- .50 ( dra f

t O ct . 1990) (“

NSR M anual ”) . Thes e dat a ar e the n proce ss ed usi ng m at hem at ic al m odel s that ca lc ulate the rate s at whic h poll uta

nts ar e lik el y to dis per se into the at m osphe re under v ar ious c lim at olog ic al c onditi ons, w ith the g oal s of

de te rminingw

het her e m is si o n s fr om

the propos ed sour ce w ill c aus e or cont ribut e to a

v iola tion of e ithe r t he NA A QS or the P SD i n cre m ents. See 40 C.F .R. § 52.21( f ); id . pt . 51 a

pp. W ; NSR M

anual at C. 24-.27, .51- .70. “ de mons t r a t [ i ng] co mpl i a nc e wi t h th e f or m, Sh e l l a l t e r e d t he cu mul a t i ve im pa ct s fr om

whi chit

s el ec te d the 9 8th p er ce nt il e 1- ho ur d ai ly m axim um . More sp ecifically , N VPH Petitione rs alleg e that S hell u sed backg round

v alues that w ere alrea dy adj usted to the 98 th pe rcentile, instead of b asingits c alculation s on the full distrib ution of b ack g round v alues. ” NVPH Pe tition at 24 (footno te om itted). Acco rdingto NVPH Petitione rs, th is m ethod for de m onstratingcompliance w ith the 1- hour NA AQ S w as rejected in the Pag e Mem o as “not beingpro tectiv e of the NA AQ S.” Id

. (q

uo ti ng P ag e Me m o at

1 8)

. N VP H P et it io ne rs th en c it e t o ap o rt i o no f

th e mor e r e c e n tFo x M e mo wh i c h , a c c o r d i n g t o th e m, a l l o w s f o r t h e m e t h o d S h e l l u s e d t o c a l c u l a t e b a c k g r o un d v a l u e s. Id

. a t25 . T ha tis , t he Fo x M e mo st a t e s t ha tt he app r oa c h us e d i n t he Pa ge Mem o w as o v erly

con serv ativ e an d sh ould not b e us ed in m ost ca ses. Id

. (citingFo x Mem o at 17- 20). N V PH Petitioners as sert that the R eg ion allowe d S hell to dem onstrate com pliance with the fo rm

of the 1

- ho ur NA AQ S u singthe appro ach perm itted in the F ox Mem o w ithout p r o vi d i n g ane x p l a n a t i o na s t o w h y t h e d e t e rmi n a t i o ni nth e Pa ge M e mo was incorrect. Id

. NVPH Petitioners argue th at “[b]e cause neither EPA northe Regio n pro vided an y exp la nat ion abo ut whe the r and , if so, how, it s earl ie r co nc lu si on

[ inth e P ag e Me m o] th at th e us e of

th e 98 th percentile backg round

v alues ‘is not protectiv e of the n ational am bient air qu ality

stand ard’ w as inc orrect, EPA ’s new guida nc e and

the appro ach tak en b y

the Reg ion h ere in reliance on it a re arbitrary .” Id

. at 26 (qu oting Pag e Mem o at 17- 20). NVPH Pe titioners c ontend that the Reg ion h ad an ob l i gat ion to exp lain this “de parture from its p rior analy sis.” Id

.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 51

Upo n ex am ina ti on

o f th e re co rd , th e B oard

c on cl ud es th at

th is issue was not ra ised d

uringthe com

m ent p eriod and was therefore not preserv ed fo r rev iew. A s stated abo v e, t he regulations require any pe rs on wh o be li ev es th at

ap erm itc on di ti on

is in ap pr op ri at e to r ai se “ al l re as on ab ly

a sc erta in ab le is su es and * * * al l r ea so na bl y av ai la bl e argum ents s uppo rting[petition er' s] po sition” duringthe com m ent p eriod on the d raft perm it. 40 C. F.R . § 12 4.1 3. Th a t requ irem ent is m ade a prerequ isite to appea l by 40 C .F. R. § 124. 19( a ) , whichrequ ires any petitioner to “d em onstrat[e] that any issue [] bein graised

[w as] raised during the public com

m ent period * * * to the ex tent req uired[. ]”). In re Con ocoPhillips C

o. , 13 E .A.D. 7 68 , 8 00

- 01 ( E A B 2 00 8) ; accor d In re Chr istian C

nty. Gen eration , L

LC , 1 3 E

. A

. D . 4 49, 457 ( E A B 2 00 8) ; Shell 2007 , 1 3 E .A .D . at 394 n. 55. The requirem ent that an issue m ust h av e be en ra ised d

uringthe public com

m ent p eriod in ord er to pr e s e rv e it fo r rev iew is no t an arbitrary hurdle p laced in the p a t h of potential p etitioners. R us se ll Cit y II , s li p op . a t 1 3, 1 5 E

. A

. D

. _
__ ; In re City of

M ar lborou gh , 12 E.A .D . 2 35, 244 n.1 3 (EA B 2005 ), appe al dis missed for lack o f juris. , N o. 0 5- 20 22 ( 1s t C ir

. S ep t. 3 0, 2 00 5) ; In re BP Ch erry P oint , 12 E.A .D . 2 09, 21 9 (E AB 20 05). R ather, the req uireme nt serv es an im po rt ant f un ct io n rela te d to th e ef

fi 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 perm ittingauth ority first h as th e op po rtun ity

to a dd re ss pe rm it ob

ject io ns 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 per mit t ingpro cess d em ands that the pe rm itis su er

b e g iv en the o pp ortuni ty

to a dd re ss p ot enti al p ro bl em s w ith draft p erm its befo re they becom e final. ” In re Teck Com inco , 11 E.A.D. 457, 48 1 (E AB 20 04) (quotin g In re E nc ogen C ogen erat io n F

ac il it y , 8 E .A .D . 2 44, 25 0 (EA B 1999 )). “I n this m anner, the perm it issuer can m ak e ti m el y

and a pp ro pr ia te a dju 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 ation of why no ne are ne cessary .” In re EssexC ounty ( N. J.) Res. R ecover

y F ac il it y , 5 E

. A

. D

. 2 18 , 2 24 ( E A B 1 99 4)

.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 52

In its respon se, the Reg ion asserts th at NVP H P etition er’s a rgum ent is based 47 on a m is re adi ng of

the Pag e Me m o. A cc ordingto the Reg ion, the c ite d la ng uag e in t

he

2 2 .5 Pa g e M e m o d o e s n o tr e l at e t o th e 1

- h o u r N O N AA Q S, but t o t

h e 2 4

- h o u r

PM NA A QS . Re g ion R es ponse at 30. B ec aus e the Boa rd c oncl udes that t

his is sue w as not ra is ed duringthe publi c com m ent pe riod, the Boa

rd doe s not a ddre ss thi s as se rti on. See In r e Teck Comin co Alaska, Inc. , 11 E .A .D . 457, 481-82 ( EAB 2004) 48 (de ny ingre v ie w

w her e is sue w as not spe ci f

ic al ly ra is ed duringthe c om

m ent peri od). T he Board n otes that the issue NVP H P etition ers did ra i se d u r i n g th e c omm ent perio d w as fu l l y an da d e qu at e l y

a d dr e s s e di nth e S up p l e m e n t a l R e s p o n s e t o C o m m e n t s . S p e c i fi c a l l y, in comm entin g on the draft permit, NV P H P etition ers raised the argum ent that Sh ell had

2 f ai le d to dem onst

rate c om plia nce w ith the 1-hour

N O N AA QS be ca

use , a cc ordingto NVP H P etition ers, Shell used b ackgroun d am bien t air d ata in a m anner that u nd erstated th e i m p a c to f i t s o p e r at i o n s . N VP H C o m m e n t s at7

- 8

. A s st at ed a b o v e , N VP H Petit ione rs ’ c om

m ent s re cogniz ed that She ll’ s approac h to ana lyzi ng ba ckg round data w as c onsi st ent

w ith the Fox

Me m o, but

argued that She ll’ s appr oac h w as inc onsi st ent
2 w ith the 1-hour NO N AA QS s ta ndar d it se lf

. Id

. at 8. The Region pro vided a detailed re spons e to t

his a ss er tion in t he Supple m ent al Re spons e to C om m ent s. Supp. RT C at

75- 76; se e als o id. at 6 8 -71. N othingin the N VP H Petit ion i ndic 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 Boa rd r ev ie w , nor

doe s the Boa rd f ind a ny thinge rr oneous in the Re g ion’s re spons e. T hus, e v en had Petit ione rs p r e s e rv e d th i s i s s u e , th e B o ar d w o u l d d e n y re v ie w . See, e.g., In re G ua m W aterworks Auth. , N PDES A

ppea l N os. 09-1 5 & 0 9 -1 6, s lip op. at 17- 18 (N ov . 16, 2011), 15 E.A .D . ___ ( st at ingthat “ a pet iti oner m ay not si m ply re ite rate c om

m ent s m ade duri ng the publi c com

m ent pe riod, but mu st

s ubst ant iv el y

c onf ront the pe rmit is sue r’ s ex pla nat ions in its re spons e to com m ent s d o cu m ent ”) ; In re Pe abody W . C oal C o. , 12 E.A .D . 22, 33 (E A B 2005) (s am e)

. A ltho ugh N VP H P et it io ne rs ’ co m m ents o n the dra ftp erm it asserted that S hell h ad u sed b ack g round am bient air data

in a m anner that understated

the im pact o f its o peration s, see NVPH Com m ents at 7- 8, nowhere in these comm ents d id P etitioner assert th at Sh ell’s app roach co nf li ct ed w ith th e P ag e Me m o or

th at th e R eg io n ha d any

o bl ig at io n to prov ide an explan ation for its alleg ed departure from the Pag e Mem o. 47 I ndeed , N VPH Petitione rs’ com m ents recogniz ed that, accord ingto the FoxMem o, Shell’s appro ach is app ropriate in certain circum stances. Id

. at 9. The com

m ents, how ev er, did n ot ass ert any con fl i c t b e t we en th e Pag e Mem o an d the Fox Mem o nor is it clear to this Board that any suc h conflict exists. T hus, this “battle o f the m em os” issue was not 48 pre ser ved for r eview.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 53

This c lause ref

ers to w hat are c om

m on ly known as “PSD in crem ents.” See , 49 e. g. , Shel l 2010 , s lip op. at 33 n.40, 15 E.A .D . ___ ( dis cus si ng CA A s ec tion 165(a)(3) re quire m ent s)

. D. NV PH Petitioners Failed to Raise Below Th eir C ontentio n T

hat E PA

2 E rr ed in D eter m in in g T ha t t he1 -H ou r N O N A A Q S W ou ld B e Me t W it hout Separ ate ly Dete rmi nin g Compl ian ce wi th the “M axi mum
2 All owabl e Conc ent rat ion ” of NO Con g ress, in sec tion 1 65 of the C AA , directs o wne rs and oper a t ors of prop osed m aj or em ittingfacilities to de m onstrate that em issions from

the constru ction or operation of the ir facilities “ will n ot cause, or contribut e t o, a i r po llution in ex cess o f any (A ) m axim

um allowable inc rease o r m axim um allow able c oncentration fo r any pollutant in any

area to which this p art app lies m ore th an o ne tim e pe r y ear, (B ) nati on al a m

bie nt a ir q ua li ty s tand ar d [N A A Q S ] inany a ir 49 quality control regio n, or (C) any other app licable e m ission standard or st an dard of pe rf

or m an ce und er

th is c ha pt er . ” C A A§ 1 65 (a )( 3) , 42 U.S .C . § 74 75(a)(3). E PA ’s regulations im plem ent th is pro v ision by re qu ir in g , am on go th er

th in g s, th at

each a ppl ic ant f

or aP S D p erm it cond uct a “so urce im

pact analy sis.” See 40 C. F

. R

. § 5 2. 21 (k). A s part of this analy sis, the o wne r or operato r of the p ropos e d s ou r c e or m odification

m ust “d em onstrate that allo wab le em ission increases from the pr opos ed s ource or m odification , in con j unction w ith all other ap pl ic ab le e m is si on s in cr ea se s or r ed uc ti on s (i nc ludin gs ec on dary em is si on s) , w ou ld

n ot c au se o r co ntri bute to ai r po ll ut io n inv io la ti on o f: (1) any natio nal am

bient air qu ality

stand ard in

any air quality

control reg ion; o r (2) any

app licable m axim

um allow able inc r ease ov er the baseline con centration

in any area. ” Id

. NVPH Petitioners as sert that the R eg ion v iolated se ct io n 16 5( a) (3 ) of

th e A ct b y f ai li ngto r eq

ui re th at S he ll d em on strate
2 that its NO em issions will not cause pollution in excess of the 10 0 p pb m axim um allow able c oncentration le v el. A ccordin gto Petitione rs,S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 54

T he Re g ion f ully and ade quat el y re sponde d to t hes e com m ent s. See Supp. 50 RT C a t 68- 69. I n parti cul ar , the Re g ion r es ponded that “ She ll’ s appr oac h f or
2 demonst ratingc om

plia nce w ith the 1-hour

N O s ta ndard i s cons is te nt w ith the f orm of

2 the NAA QS and EP A

guidance on d em on strating com plian ce wi th th e 1-ho ur NO NAA QS.” Id . at 68. T he Sup plem ental Resp o n se t o C o mm ents states f urth er that (c ontinue d...) [t]he unam

biguous languag e of S ection 165(a )(3) of the C le an A ir A ct re qu ir es a P S D ap pl ic ant to d em on strate c om pliance not o nly

w ith the [NA AQ S] o v erall, but also w ith a separate, stricter standard for each pollutant whic h is a co m

pone nt of the ov erall national am bient qu al it y s tandar d: the “m ax im um a ll ow ab le conce ntration. ” 42 U.S .C . § 7475(a)(3). While it m ay be p erm issible fo r the Re g ion to use the m ore len ient “f or m ” to g au g e w he th er

Sh el l’ s po ll ut io n w ou ld

le ad to a v iolation in an air quality reg ion of the ov erall 1- hour

2 NO standard pursuant to section 165(a )(3)(B), sectio n 16 5( a) (3 )( A) m ak es p la inth at S he ll also m

ust dem onstrate com

pliance with the 100 ppb “ma xim um allowa ble co ncentratio n.” NVPH Pe tition at 10- 11. Beca use this issu e w as n ot raised duringt he p ub lic com

m ent period, it w as n ot pre serv e d f or r ev iew. D uringthe com m ent p eriod, NV PH P et it io ne rs s ta te d th at th e P erm it s m ay

n ot b e is su ed

a bs ent a de m on strati on

th at e m is si on s w ou ld

n ot “ caus e or co ntri bute to a ir po ll ut io n inv io la ti on

of any NA A Q S or in cr em ent. ” N VP H C om m ents at 4. N VPH Petitione rs also asserte d that, in de t e r min i ngcom

pliance with the N AA QS , th e Reg ion erred b y “allow inga propo sed newsource to dis count its h ig hest p roj ect im pacts. ” Id

. a t 5 n.1. Ac cordi ngto NVPH Petitione rs, “such an appro ach ig nores both the im portanc e of the absolute v alue o f the NAAQS standard - which m

ust b e set at the requisite lev el to protect hum an h ealth * * * as w ell as the P SD pro g ram requirem ent th at a propo sed newsource d em onstrate that it will n ot cause a N AA QS exc eedan ce.” Id

. N owhere intheir com m ents d o 50S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 55

(.. .c ontinue d) 50 “[a ]lthoug h it

is tr ue that the m odel ings how ed indiv idua l 1- hour i m pac ts higher

tha n the

2 10 0 pp b * * * lev el of the 1-h ou r NO NA A QS, the 98 percentile poi nt o f the annu al th distrib utio n of daily

m axim um 1-ho ur con centration s does no t ex cee d 10 0 pp b * * * at any location that constit utes am bien t air.” Id . Pet iti oner s do not m ak e cl ear wh y the Re g ion’s re spons es to the se c om m ent s w er e cl ea

rly e rr oneous o r

othe rwis e w ar

ra nt B oar d revie w of the Region’s po sition on “m axim um av ailable concentratio n.” See G uam Waterworks , s lip op. at 17- 18, 15 E .A .D . ___.

For an are a that is not cons ide re d w ithi n the def init ion of “am bie nt air ,” She ll 51 w ould not hav e to demonst

rate com plia nce w ith the NA

A QS and PSD i ncr em ent s. Supp. RT C a t 41. NVPH Petitioners use the term “m axim um allow able c oncentration” or a s s e rtan y sp e c i f

i c vio l a t i on of

se c t i on 16 5( a ) ( 3) ( A) . S p e c i f i c a l l y, N VP H P et it io ne rs ’ co m

m ents d id n ot c onte nd th at “ m ax im um a ll ow ab le co nc entr at io n” cr eate d a re qu ir em ent se parate fr om th e re qu ir em ent to dem onstrate t hat allo wab le em issions from the source, in conjunction w ith othe r ap pl ic ab le e m is si on s in cr ea se s or r ed uc ti on s, w ou ld

v io la te
2 th e 1- ho ur

N O N A A Q S s tand ar ds , o r w ou ld e xc ee d an a ll ow ab le in cr ea se o v er

th e ar ea ’s b as el in e co nc entr at io n. A cc or di ng ly , th e B oard denies rev iew of this issue. E. N V P H P et it io ne rs H

av e N ot D em on stra te d T

ha t t heR eg io n Cle ar ly Erred in D eterm ining the A mbie nt A ir Ex emp tion N VP H P e t i t i o n e r s a l l e g e th a tth e R e g i o nc l e a r l y e rr e d in exem ptingthe area within a 500 m eter rad ius fro m the Disco verer

from the d efinition of “am

bient air.” N VPH Petition at 27

. This area is also

51 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 Guard (“US CG ”) “safe ty

z one. ” See , e.g. , S upp. R TC at 3 9- 41. N VPH P et it io ne rs c la im

th at th e R eg io n’ s de ci si on

“ co ntrav en es b oth E P A ’s definitionof ‘am

bient air’ as well as E PA ’s lon g standin ginterp retation of that regulation. ” NVPH Pe tition at 28. In particular, they assert that the Reg ion’s 500 m eter am bient air bo undary

fails to m eet eithe r of the two cr i t e r i a the Ag ency has prev iously

use d in ev aluatingthe appro priateness of an e xem ption. Id . at 28- 30. A ccordin gto NVPH P et it io ne rs , the Re g io n’ s de ci si on ess enti al ly

all ow s S he ll to e m itm or eS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 56

In their reply brief, NVP H P etition ers argue th at th e Region, i n its respon se,

52 “a ss er ts a new rationa le and ci te s new aut horit y to suppor

t i ts de te rmination to e x cl ude f rom ‘am bien t air’ the are a w ithi n a radius of 5 00 m eters f rom the Discovere r dril ls hip.” NV P H Re ply

Br ie f at 2. T he Boa

rd a g re es that a

port ion of

theRe g ion’s c urr ent ex pla nat ion f or ex em ptingthe 500 m et er

saf et y zone w as not ex

plic itl y include d in the Region’s Su

pp l e me nt a lRe s po ns eto Comm ents do cum ent (or sup po rting do cum ents cited the re in). I n parti cul ar , the Re g ion di d not re ly on the ar g um ent

that the v er

y nature of the condi tions at t

he si te – the re m ote loc at ion, the hos til e env ironm ent , a nd the hars h and rug g ed se as – c onst itut e a nat ura l ba rr ie r a k in t o a b arr ie r g ene ra lly re quire d by

the “l ong st andi ng int er

pre tation’ s” s ec ond c rit er ion. Compa reRe g ion R es ponse at 18, 20 wi th Supp. RT C a

t 39- 41. A s the Boa

rd ha s st at ed in t

he pas t, a per

m it is sue r m ay

not re ly on j ust if ic at ions f or per m it condi tions not inc lude d in the adminis tra tiv e re cor d and ra is ed f or t he f irs t t im e on a

ppea l. E.g. , In reAsh Grov e Ce me nt C o. , 7 E .A .D . 387, 424 (EAB 1997) ; In re Che mi cal W aste M gmt

. , 6 E .A .D . 144, 151-52 ( EAB 1995) ; In re A m o c o O i l

Co. , 4 E.A .D . 954, 964 (E A B 1993) ; se e als o In reAus tin Pow der Co. , 6 E.A .D . 713, 718 (E A B 1997) (r em andi ng so that t he per m it is sue r c ould r ec onci le it s tw o ration ales and p rovide a cle ar basis f or th e determinatio n). Beca use the reasons that are s p ecif

ie d in the a dm inis tra

tiv e re cor d are s uf

f ic ie nt, on the ir ow

n, t o s upport the Re g ion’s de ci si on, the Boa rd onl y c onsi der s the ra

tiona le that i s inc lude d i n the Supple m ent al Re spons e to C om m ent s docum ent

and doc um ent s ci te d the re in. Wit h resp ectt o t h e “ n e w au th o ri ti es” t h e Regi o ncit es, th e Bo ard m ay ta ke of f ic ia l not ic e of

and c onsid er

any A g enc y s tate m ent s m ade in public al ly av ai la ble Federal Reg ister noti ces (pu blish ed prio r to the per mit ’ s issuance), includ ing tho se Fe der al Re g is te r not ic es c ite d in t h e Re g ion’s re spons e. E.g. , Rus se ll Ci ty II , slip o p. at 47 -48 (listing case s and exa m p l es o f relev ant no n-recordgove rnme ntal docum ent s of

w hic h the Boa

rd ha s tak en of

f ic ia l not ic e)

. pollution , and possib ly

w ith few er co ntrols, than wou ld ot herw ise be law fu l. Id . at 27.

52 The CAA regulations define “am bient air” as “that p ortion of the atm osph ere, external to bu ilding s , t o which the g eneral public has access. ” 40 C.F. R. § 50. 1(e). B ased on this d efinition, the Ag ency has , on occ as io n, exe m

pt ed certa inare as fro m

the def in it io n o f am

bi ent a ir

. E.g

. , L etter from

Stev en C

. Ri va, C hief, Perm ittingSe c., U .S. EP A R eg io n 2, to L eo n Sede fian , 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 a tion at 1- 2 (O ct. 9 , 2 007) (A .R . B BB

- 25) (“Bro adw ater Le tter”); Le tter from D oug las M. Cos tle, A dm ’r, U .S. EPA , to Se n. J enning s R ando lf, Chairm an, Env ’t & Pub. Work s C om m ., at 1 ( D ec . 1 9, 1 98 0) ( A

. R

. B B B

- 1) ( “C os tl e L ette r” ); see a lso Le tterS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 57

T he precise te rm s and cond itio ns of the Perm its are as f ollo w s: 53
T he per m it does not aut

horiz e oper at ion unl es s:

a. T he Di sc ov er er

is s u b je ct to a cur re ntly e f f ec tiv e sa f et y z one (c ontinue d...) fr om N an cy H el m , F ed er al and

D el eg ated Air P ro g ram s, U

. S

. E P A , to J ohn Kuterbach, A lask a D ep’t o f Envtl. Q uality , at 2 (Sept

. 11 , 2 007) (area ex em

pt if certain conditions m et) (“H elm Le tter”). The parties ag ree that the Ag ency ’s “lon g standin ginterp retation” of this exe m ption is des cribed in a letter signed by form er E PAA dm inistr a t or D oug las C os tl e, whi chs ta te s th at

“ th e exe m

pt io n fr om

am bi ent a ir is av ai la bl e only for the atm osph ere o v er land owned or co ntrolled by

the source and t o wh 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 o t h e r p h y sical barr ie rs . ” C os tl e L ette r at 1; N VP H P et it io n at 2 8 (q uo ti ngs am e le tt er ); Reg io n R es po ns e at

1 8 (s am e) ; S he ll R es po ns e at 1 5 (s am e) ; see a lso S up p. R TC a t 3 9 (s am e)

. T he C os tl e L ette r al so in di cate s th at , in det er m ini ng whet herthe ex emption appl ie s, th e Agency re views “i nd iv id ua l s ituati on s on

ac as e- by

- ca se b as is

. ” C os tl e L ette r at 1 ; see also App rov al and Prom

ulg ation of State I m

plem entation Plans, 50 Fe d. R eg . 7 05 6, 70 57 (F eb

. 20 , 19 85 ) (n ot in g th at , in c on si de ri ngam

bi ent a ir exem ptions, “ind iv idual v ariations in the type of land and nature of the lim itation o n ac cess n ecessitate a cas e- by

- case ev a l ua t i on of the fac ts, and applicatio n o f the principles inv olv ed in this determ ination”). Here, in its perm ittingdecisions, the Reg ion d eterm ined that, as lo ngas ce rt ai n p erm itcon di ti on s w er e be in gm et , it wa s ap pr op ri at e to set the am bient air boun dary at a 50 0 m eter rad ius fro m the Disco verer , or, in oth er word s, the 500 m eter rad ius “s afety z one” was exem

pt from th e am bi ent ai r de fi ni ti on . S up p. R TC a t 3 9; S up p. S ta te m ent o f B as is at 26

- 27 & n.1 5. The term s and cond itions upon whic h the R eg ion re lied to e xe m pt th is ar ea pr oh ib it th e op er at io n of v es se ls an d em is si on s un it s un le ss ( 1) th e U S C G es ta

bl is he s a sa fe ty z on e w ithi n at le as t 5 00 m et er s from the center of the Disco verer , ( 2) m em be rs o f the p ub li c ar e preclud ed fro m

enterin gthe safety zon e , and (3) S hell d ev elops and im plem ents a

“pu blic ac cess c ontrol program .” C huk chi P erm it at 1 0; 53S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 58

(.. .c ontinue d)

53 established b y

the [ USCG ] w

hich encom

passes an area w ithi n at least 500 me ters f

rom the center p oin t of the Disc overer a ndw hich prohibi ts m em

bers of the publi c f

rom e nte ringthi s ar ea

e x cept f or atte ndingv es se ls or v es se ls aut horiz ed by the US CG (s uch ar ea s hal l be re f er re d to as the “ Sa f

et y Zone ”) ; a

nd b. She ll has dev el oped in w rit ing and is im

ple m ent in g a pu blic ac ce ss c ontrol progra

m to:

• loc at e, ide ntif

y , a nd int ercept the g ene ra l public 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 pub lic 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

• com

mu n ic ate to the N orth Slope c om m uniti es on a per iodic ba si s w

hen ex plora tion ac tiv iti es ar e ex

pec te d to begin and end at a

drill site, th e lo ca t i o n o f the drill site, and any re st ric tions on a ct iv iti es in the vic init y of She ll’ s exploratio n op erations. Chuk chi Permit at

10; Be auf

ort Permit at

12; accord

Supp. RT C a

t 41. Beau fort P erm it at 1 2. The R eg ion d eterm ined that, as l on g a s these safety z one and public access restriction perm it con ditions are co m plied w i t h , e x e m

p t i n gth e ar e aw i t h i nth e s a f e t y z o n e f r o m th e am b i e n ta ir definitionw ould g enerally be cons istent w ith pre v ious Ag ency interpretation s. Sup p. RTC at 39- 40. I n so finding , the Reg ion no ted that “[g ]iv en th a t the perm itted activ ities occ ur o v er op en w ater in the Arctic, the[] criteria [for exem ption include d in the Costle Letter] m ust be a dapted

to s om e ex tent when applied to this env ironm ent.” Id

. In specifically

con sideringthe applicab ilityof the tw o ex em ption criteria, th e R eg io n st at ed : Reg ion 1 0 r ecogniz es that Sh ell do es n ot “o wn” the areas o f the Beau fort an d C huk chi S e a s on which the D is co v er er

w il l b e op er at in ga s m ight b e th e ca se f

or a stationary source o n lan d. Sh ell has a lease a uthoriz ing the co m pany to use these areas for the activ ities cov ered by the perm its. The Co ast Guard safety zon e estab lishesS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 59

NVP H P etition ers also cont end that the Region’s appro ach is f law ed because 54 it “i s bas ed upon an as sum ption that She ll w ill re ques t, and the [USC G ] w ill e st abl is h, a sa f et y z one re st

ric tingthe pa ss ag e of

othe r v es sels. ” NVP H Petit ion at 27. T his ar g um ent is unpe rs uas iv e bec aus e it se eming ly f ai ls to rec o gn ize that, as the pe rmit condi tions quot ed in not e 53 s tate , ope ration of v es se ls is prohi bite d unle ss and unti l (c ontinue d...) leg al auth ority

for exclud ingthe g eneral public from the area in side th e z one. E PAhas prev iously reco g niz ed a safety zon e established by

the Coa st Guard as ev idence of sufficient ownersh ip or control by a source ov er areas ov er w ater so as to qu alify as a bo undary

for defining am bient air where that safetyzon e is m onitored to pose a barrier to public access. L etter from Stev en C. Riv a, E P A R eg io n 2, to L eo n S ed ef ian, N ew Y ork

State Dep artm ent of

C onserv ation, re: Am

bient Air for the Offsh ore LNGB roadw at e r Pro j ect, dated Octo ber 9 , 20 07 ( B ro ad

w at er L ette r)

. To m eet the seco nd of the criteria ap plied by EP A and en sure th e so ur ce a ct

ua ll y tak es s te ps to p re cl ud e pu bl ic access, Sh ell pro posed

and R eg ion 10 required as a co ndi ti on of

o pe rati on

und er th e pe rm it s th at

S he ll dev elop in writing and im plem ent a publi c access control pr ogram

to locate, identify , and intercept the g eneral public by

radi o, phy sical co ntact, or o ther re as on ab le meas ur es to in fo rm th e pu bl ic th at th ey are prohib ited b y

C oast Guard regulations from enteringthe area w ithin 5 00 m eters o f the Disco v erer. R eg ion 1 0 be li ev es th at , f

or th e ov er w at er lo cati on s inth e ar ct ic env ironm ent at issue in the se p erm ittingaction s, such a pr ogram of m on it or in gand

n ot if ic at io n is s uf

fi ci entl y sim ilar to a fen ce o r phy si cal barrier onland suc h that the area within the Coast Guard safety zon e qualifies for exclusio n from

am bient air. See B roadw ater Letter at 2. Sup p. RTC at 40

. 54S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 60

(.. .c ontinue d)

54 the se tw o c onditi ons ar e m et

. See Chukchi Permit at 10; Be auf

ort Permit at

12.
In suppor

t of the ir cont ent ion, NVPH P et iti oner s re ly he av ily on a pre v 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 ai r bec aus e the le ss ee did not hav e cont rol ov er ac ce ss to its le as ed p ro per ty (on ly the land lord did ). NVP H P etition at 29 (citing Helm L etter). Petit ion ers a ssert that this ons hore int er

pre tation m

ust a pply e qual ly to an OC S le as e is sue d by BO EMRE. Id

. (c ontinue d...) Upo n co nsideratio n o f the adm inistrativ e record 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 err ed in it s 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 of “am bi ent ai r. ” The R eg io n, inits S up pl em enta l R es po ns e to C om m ents d oc um ent, pro v id ed a r ea so na bl e int er pr et at io n of

th e am bi ent a ir r egul at io n an d th e A g en cy ’s “l ongsta ndi ng int erpre ta ti on” of th atregula ti on as appl ie d in t he OCS co nt e x t

. A s th e R e g i o nr i g h t l y n o t e d , th e r e gu l a t i o nan d th e C os tl e Letter, by their v ery

term s, were clearly

written w ith ov erland situations in m ind. See 40 C. F.R . § 50 .1(e) (referringto “buildin g s”); C ostle L etter at 1 ( re fe rr in gto “ land ” an d “f enc es” ). F urth erm or e, th e R eg io n’ s analy sis w as entirely

con sistent w ith a sim ilar an a l ysi s un dertak en b y R eg io n 2 inwh ic h th at

Re g io n d et erm in ed

th at it w as a pp ro pr ia te f

or a pe rm itte e to u se th e U S C G sa fe ty z on e to de fi ne an am bi ent a ir b ound ar y aroun d a propo sed offshore lique fied n atural g as fac i l i t y . See Broa dwater Letter at 2. The Broa dwater Letter, m oreov er, sug g ests that Reg ion 2 ’s ana ly sis, as w ell as Reg ion 1 0’s, is no t un ique, statingthat

“ [ i] n p revious per

mitting decision s invo lving * * * drilling opera tions , EPA Re giona l offices have used the USC G’s safety zone as th e bo unda ry fo r de fi ni ng a m bi en t a ir .” Id . at 2 (em phasis added ). The letter explains th at th e A g en cy ha s fo un d th at “[ t] he ‘s af ety z on e’ a pp ro ac h re pr es ents a reaso nable surrog ate for a source’s fence or phy sical barrier and thus could act as an am

bient air bo undary .” Id

. Thu s , wh i le it is true, as P et it io ne rs al le g e, th at th e A g en cy h as g en er al ly

r eq ui re d th e so ur ce to own or control access ov er the area in question for that area to m eet the first criterion, N VPH Pe t i t i on at 28

- 29, this requirem ent h as b een for s ou r c e s locate d o n lan d. See , e. g. , H e l m L e t t e r a t 1 ( r e f e rr i n g to 55S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 61

(.. .c ontinue d) 55 A s the Peti tione rs the m se lv es note , f ed era l c ourts hav e f

ound a g enc y

a ct ion t o be arbitrary w hen th e a gency ’s “e xplanatio n ‘run s count er to the evidence,’” id . ( quoting M otor Ve hic leM

fr s. Ass’n of theU

.S., Inc . v
. State Far

m M ut. Auto Ins . C

o. , 463 U .S. 29 , 43 (198 3)), and “‘the agen cy off er[s] insuff

icient reasons f

or treating sim ilar situatio ns diff

erently ,’” id . ( qu o ti n g Tran sactive Corp. v. United S tates , 91 F.3d 232, 237 (D .C. Ci r. 1996)) ; see also FC C v . Fox Te le vi si on Stat ions , Inc. , 556 U. S. 502, __, 129 S. Ct . 1800, 1810-11 (2009) (dis cus si ng standar d of re v ie w of an a g enc y ' s polic y

c hang e)

. Here, not only are the situatio ns dissim ilar enou gh to arguably notbe gove rned b y

these ca se s, but the A g enc y

did of f er p ersuas iv e re as ons f

or t re at ingthe tw o s itua

tions dif f er ent ly

. NVP H P etition ers’ argum ents that the Region’s determ inatio n fa ils to m eet

56 the second criteria because the sa f ety zone “f ails to eff ectuate a b arrier th at ‘precludes’ public a cc es s” aree qual ly unper sua si v e. N VP H Petit ion at 29. N VP H Petit ione rs f ocus o n t he f act that the USCG

w ill lim it acc ess to th e a rea base d on saf

ety concerns rather tha n f or a ir qual ity

c onsi der at ions

. Id . at 29- 30. The im porta nt f ac t i s that a cc es s w ithi n the z one w ill be s tri ct ly

lim ite d, not the re as on be hind i t. Mor eov er , N VP H Petit ione rs do not addr es s the othe r c onditi on of the p ermit that t

he Re g ion r el ie d upon f

or i ts am bien t air bo un dary determ inatio n: th e pub lic ac cess contro l pro gram Shell is requi red to implem ent. The Board do es not find clear error in th e Re gion’s con clusion that, based o nth e U S C G li mit i n g a cc es s t o th e s afe ty zo n e an dth e p ub l i c a c ce ss co n tr o l p r o gr am, the latte r of

w hic h w ill inc lude noti f

ic at ion t o the loc al re si dent s of the loc at ion o f t

he dril lingand the f

ac t t hat the public is res tri ct ed f

rom the sa f et y zone , the g ene ra l publ ic w ill not hav e ac ce ss to the are a ins ide the s af et y z one. possib le exe m

ption near coal- fired p owe r plant); Mem orand um from Stev en D . P ag e, Directo r, O ffice of Air Qua lity Planning& Stan dards, U.S. EPA, to Reg’l Air Div

. Dir s., U.S. EPA (J une 22, 2007 ) (A.R. BBB21) (discussin gthe applicab ilityof the exem ption whe re a source locates on “land” beingleased

to them by ano ther so urce). A s already noted, the Reg ion (and the A g ency befo re it) rea sonab ly

determ ined that ap pl ic at io n of

th e re gul at io n an d th e in te rp re ti v e le tt er to an “ ov er w at er ” situation requires som e leew ay . NVPH Pe titioners’ re liance solely on land- based

exe m ption decision s is unpe rsuasiv e. Fin ally , a s m entione d 56 ab ov e, th e A g en cy

h as c on si st entl y

tak en the posi ti on

th at am bi ent a ir exem ption determ inations are an aly z ed o n a case- by

- case basis.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 62

G HG s ar e def ine d a s “t he ag g re g at e g roup of

s ixg re enhous e g as es : c ar bon 57 diox ide , ni trous ox ide , m eth ane , hy drof 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 emitted and is computed by “[ m ] ulti ply ing the m ass am ou nt o f emission s (tpy ), f

or each of the six

gre enho use ga ses in th e pollu tant G HGs, b y th e g as’s associated g lob al w arm ing po tential pu blish ed 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 . at ( b)( 49)( ii) ( a ).

T he P SD regulatio ns define PTE as: 58 [T]he m ax im

um c apa ci ty of a s tationa ry s ourc e to e m it a poll uta

nt under it s phy si ca l a

nd ope rationa l de si g n. A ny phy sical or o p era ti o nal li m ita

tion on the c apa ci ty

of the s ourc e to e m it a pollut ant , i ncl udinga ir pollut ion cont rol equi pm ent

and re st ric tions (c ontinue d...) For all the reasons stated abo v e, NV PH P etitioners hav e no t shown that the Reg ion c learly erred in its am

bient air exe m

ption determ ination. C onseq

uently , re v iew based

on this issue is den ied. F. ICA S Has Failed to Dem onstra te That the Region Abus ed its Discre tion in Declin ing to Inc lude Add itional Perm it Lim itations on Metha ne E

missio ns Durin gthe perm itti ng process for the rev ised Disco verer perm its , Shell re quested the inclusion

of perm it con ditions lim iting g reenho use g as (“G HG ” ) em issions to be low the 7 5,0 00 tons per y ear (“tpy ”) “su

bject to regulation” thresho ld. See 40 C.F .R. § 52

. 21 (b )( 49 )( iv ) (s ta ti ng th at be g inni ng January 2, 20 11 , GHGs are su bjec t t o re gul at io n if

an ews ourc e w il l em itor ha s th e po te nt ia l t o em it

2 75, 000 tpy

or m ore o f carbo n d ioxide equiv alent (“ CO e ” ) ; P SD and T i t l e V GH G T a i l o r i n g R u l e , 7 5 Fe d

. Re g. 3 1 , 5 1 4 ( J u n e 3 , 2 0 1 0 )

. In 57 respon se to Shell’s request, the Reg ion in cluded perm it conditions in the rev ised p erm its lim itingG HGem issions to 70 ,00 0 tpy (belo w the regulatory

thresh old). A s the Reg ion e xplaine d: Shell has requeste d that R eg ion 10 i nclude in each pe rm itli m it s on

th e [p ote nti al to e m it ( “P TE” )] [ 58]S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 63

(.. .c ontinue d) 58 on hou rs of

operatio n or o n th e ty pe or amo u n t of material co m b u st ed , st o red , o r p ro cess ed , sha ll b e tr eat ed as part o f its de si gn if the lim ita tion or the e f

f ec t it w ould hav e on em is si ons is f ede ra lly enforce able. 40 C. F.R . § 52. 21(b) (4) . Under the Cl ea n A ir A ct , de te rmininga s ourc e’ s PTE is nec es sa ry f or t he A g enc y

to ide ntif

y w hic h s ourc es are “ m aj or s ourc es ” subjec t t o re g ulation under the appl ic abl e PSD re quire m ent s. See , e .g. , CAA § 1 65 (a), 4 2 U.S. C. § 74 75 ( a ) ( r e qu i r i ng PSD pe rm i t s f or any “ m a

j or e m i tt i ng f

a c i l i ty ” )

. PTE re f

lects a source’s m axi m

u m em is si o n s cap aci ty con si d eri n g th e ap p li cat io nof an y e m is si on c ontrol equi pm ent , or

othe r c apa ci ty -li m iti ng re st ric tions , that

e f f ec tiv el y and e nf orc ea bly li m it emis si ons ca

pac ity

. See

She ll 2007 , 13 E .A .D . at 365- 66.
In case s w

here a sour ce’s P TE w ou ld o therwise be signif icant, th e source m ay 59 re ques t t hat PTE be li m ite d to le v el s bene at h a pplic abl e re g ulato ry t

hre shol ds the re by av o i d i n g PS D r e v i e w

an da p p l i c at i o no f

B A C T

. S u c h a

s o u r c e i s c a l l e da

“ s y n th e tic m ino r” source (in contrast to a “ natu ral mino r” w ho se e m ission s wo u l d n ot exce ed si g nif ic anc e thre shol ds ev en w

hen oper at ingat f

ull ca pac ity w ithout a dditi onal poll ution cont rol equi pm ent ). EPA g uida nce de f ine s the te rm

“ sy nthe tic m inor” a s “a ir pollut ion sou rce s w

hose m ax im

um c apa ci ty to emit ai r pol luti on unde r t hei r phy si ca l a

nd op erational design is large enou gh to exc eed the m ajor sou rce thresholdbut[i s] lim ited by an enf orc ea ble em is si ons re st

ric tion that pre v ent s this phy si ca l pot ent ia l f rom be ing rea li zed .” Memor an du m from Jo h nS. S ei 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 , t o Re g ’l A ir Di rs . a n d C o u n sel s, U .S. EPA , Pote ntial to Em it Tran sition Policy for Part 7 1 Implementa tion in Ind ian Coun try2 n.2 (Ma r. 7, 1999)

. GH Gs such that it wou ld no t be subject to P SD for G H G s. * * * Th e 20 11 R ev is ed D ra ftPe rm it s th er ef

or e in cl ud e co nd it io ns th at

e ns ur e th at

the PTE G H G s w il l

2 no tex c e e d7 0 , 00 0 tpy CO e al on g wi t h mon i t or i ng, re co rdk ee pi ng , and

r ep orti ngr eq

ui re m ents to e ns ur e th at th e co nd it io ns ar e en fo rc ea bl e as ap ra ct ic al m atte r. Su pp. State m ent o f B asis at 29. 59 The bu lk o f G H G e m is si on s th at

th e P erm it s auth or iz e re su lt from the com bustion of fuel in eng ines and boilers and the co m bustion of w aste ininci ne r a t ors (hereinafter “ com bustion sources”). Id . at 29. The Perm its contain v arious operatio nal, m onitoring , and recordk eepingS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 64

A s the Re g ion poi nts out in t he suppl em ent al R TC, t h e Permits c onta in 60 oper at iona l l imits on the amount of ti m e a sour ce c an oper at e, t h e am ount of f uel and w aste com

bu sted, andthe ty

pe of f uel com bu sted to ensu re com

plian ce w ith GHG emis si ons limita

tions

. See Supp. RT C a

t 27 (c iti ng Be auf

ort and Chukch i fina l pe rmit co n d it io n s B. 2 .1 - .3 , B .2 .5 , B .6 .2 - .3 , B .5 , an dB. 7 ). In a d d it io n , th e sup p le m en ta l R TC st at es that the per

m its inc lude “ m onitor ingand re cor dk eepingre quire m ent s to doc um ent w hen em ission s m

ust be coun ted towards th ese lim its, testing req uirem ents that establish sour ce-spec ific emission f actors, m on itori ng requirem ents to track andd ocume nt the f uel and w as te c om

bust ed, and m ai nten an ce req uire m ent s to e nsur e the e m is si ons units are pro perly operated andm aintain ed.” Id. (c iti ng Be auf ort and Chuk chi permit condi tions B.2. 4, B .4, B .5.2, B.6. 4, B .7.2, B.25, C. 8, a nd C. 9).
A s the Reg ion stated in its Sup plem ental Statem ent of Ba sis: 61 Whe nw el ls are d ri ll edth ro u gh po ro u s, hydr o car b o nbe ari n g ro ck, dril lingf luids (m ud) c irc ulate d throug h the dr ill bit c an ca rr y g as eous hy droc ar bons f rom the w el l b ack

to dril ls hip. T hes e g as es are ty pically relea sed as f

ugi t i ve emission s w

hen th e m udis processed f or reuse on th e drillshi p andstored on the Cut t ings/Mu d Dispo sal Ba rg e; how ev er , s om e of

the e mis si ons pas s through a v ent

. Supp. S tate m ent

of Ba si s at 30. Condition B.6. 1.3 in both the Be auf ort and Chuk chi Permits st at es: “To 62 ac count f or m ud of f -g as si ng , m onthly

[m et hane ] emis si ons f

rom the dri lli ng m

ud s hal l be as sum ed to be 0.798 t ons/ m onth.” B ea

uf ort Permit at

27; Chuk chi Permit at

21. requirem ents to ens ure that G HGem issions from these sources d o n ot exceed the Perm its’ 70, 000 tpy

lim itation. In ad di tion to com bustion 60 sources , a

relativ ely

sm all am ount of G HG s (0. 12%) in the fo rm of m ethane are e m itte d fr om th e dr il li ng m ud s y st em ( “D MS ”)

. Id . at 30;

61 Sup p. RTC at 29. For both Perm its, the R eg ion e stim ated an unrestricted PTE for m ethane em issions f r om D MS o peration s of 0.7 98 tons per
2 m onth (the eq

uiv alen t o f

17 tons per m onth (“tpm ”) C O e). Su pp. State m e n to f

B a s i s a t3 0 ; R TC a t2 9

. T h e P e rm i t s a s s u m e m e t h a ne
2 em issions reflectingthe sources ’ full P TE of 1 7 tpm C O e w ithout im posingadditional lim itations or req uiringpo llution control equ ipment. I n det er m ini ng compli anc e wit h the Permits ’ overa ll GHG

62 li m it s, th es e m ethane e m is si on s (r ef le ct in gth e unre stri ct ed

P TE) areS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 65

IC A S s tate s that it w as unabl e to ev al uat e the bas is f or S hel l’s e st im at es of 63 m et hane e m is si ons f

rom D MW ope rations be ca

use She ll did not

re le as e its e st im at es unti l af ter the close of

the com m ent per iod . ICA S P etition at 19 n. 9. Howe ver, in response to c om m ent s ex pre ss ing conc er

ns re g ar ding the PTE ca lc ulation f or m et hane , the Re g ion st at edth e fol lo win g: Re g ion 10 re ques te d She ll to r e- ex amine it s es tim at e and prov ide the w el l i nf orm at ion pre v ious ly -c la im ed by She ll as c onf

ide ntia l t o conf irm that t he es tim at e of

m et hane potenti al to emit it pre v ious ly pro vided to Region 1 0 is a re asonabl e up per-bo un d e stim ation . See em ai l fr o m

Susan Chi lds, Sh ell, to Dou g H ardesty , Region 10 , re: She ll Mud a

nd Cutting s De g as si ng Emis si ons, dat ed Se pte m ber 16, 2011. T he inf

orm at ion pr ov ide d s ho w s that She ll re lie d on w el l pre ss ure , t em

per at ure , poro si ty , a

nd de pth of

the hy droc ar

bon bea ringz one f

rom pa st A rc tic e xplora

tion proje ct s in its e st im at ion. Su p p . R TC at 2 9 . Th u s, ICAS ha d th e o p p o rtu n it y to evalu at e th e b asi s forSh el l’ s P TE es tim at es and the Re g ion’s ass es sm ent of thos e es tim at es in pre par ingit s appe al to this Boa rd. See In re Cape W

ind Assoc. , LLC, O CS A

ppeal N o. 1 1 -0 1 , slip op. at 8, 10 (EAB M ay

20, 2011) , 15 E .A .D . ___ (per m it is sue r i s aut

horiz ed to s u p p le m ent the admi n i st r at i ve record w ith n ew inform ation and to rev ise its a naly sis (citing 40 C.F. R. §§ 124.17( a) (r equi ringthe re spons e to com m ent s to ide ntif

y cha ng es to t he dra f t pe rmit and to i ncl ude a re spons e to al l si g nif ic ant c om m ent s) , .17(b) ( aut

horiz ingEPA

pe rmit is sue rs to add new

m at er ia l t o the a dm inis tra tiv e re cor d in re spons e to c om m ent s) , .18(b) (de f ining the adminis tra

tiv e rec o rd) )) ; se e als o D ow A gros ci enc es v . N at’l M ari ne Fisheries Serv. , N o. 09 C iv . 00824, at * 6 (D . Md. O ct . 31 , 2011) (a llow inga g enc y to suppl em ent

the a dm inis tra

tiv e re cor d w

here t h e addi tiona l i nf

orm at ion s er

v es to (c ontinue d...) ad de d to em is si on s fr om co m bu st io n so ur ce s. S up p. S ta te m ent of B as is at 30

. I n its petition for rev iew, I CA S a sserts th at the Reg ion e rred b y fa il in gto in cl ud e pe rm itc on di tions c onta in in ge nf or ce ab le p erm it lim itations for em issions of m ethane from the DMS, suc h as m onitoring requirem ents o r prod

uction lim its o n the am ount of m ud process ed. I CA S P etition at 17- 18. In su pport of this assertion, I CA S cites to EPA guidanc e as well as p rior B oard case s requiringthat own er requ ested lim itations on PTE be enforcea ble as a practicab le m atter. Id . at 17- 20. Up o n c o n s i d e r a t i o n , t h e B o a r d c o n c l u d e s t h a t I C A S h a s f a i l e d to establish that rev iew is w arranted. 63S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 66

(.. .c ontinue d)

63 ill um inate or ex

pla in m atte rs in the re cor d).
In its re ply

bri ef , IC A S as se rts that t

he Re g ion c hang ed its ra

tiona le duri ng 64 the se a ppea l pr oce edi ng s f

or de cl iningto inc lude additi onal pe rmit condi tions re g ulating m et hane e m is si ons. T he Boa rd di sa g re es . In i ts re spons e to c om m ent s on thi s is sue , the Region stated, in p art, that em ission s w ere c alculat ed based on th e m axim um ex pected ca pac ity ov er the c ours e of

the dri lli ng s ea son and that t he Permits , a s w

ritte n , w er e suf f ic ie nt t o e nsur e com

plia nce w ith G HG

li m its

. See Supp. RT C a

t 28. T he Boa

rd f inds that th e Re gion’s respon se in these proceedings is c on sistent w ith th is rationale. As I CA S correctly states, and as this Board has prev iously held , owne r re qu es te d li m it s on as ourc e’ s P TE m

us t be le g al ly

and p ra ct ic al ly enforcea ble. See In re Peab ody W . Coal Co. , 12 E. A. D. 22 , 3 0- 31 (EA B 2005 ). As stated abov e, how ev er, the Perm its in this ca se d o n ot in cl ud e owne r re qu es te d li m it s on P TE fo r m ethane em is si on s. R athe r, as the R eg io n st at ed

in it s S up pl em enta l R es po ns e to C om m ents docum ent, m ethane em issions were a s s um ed to occ ur at the so urces’ m axim um exp ected capacity

ov er the fiv e- m onth drillingseaso n w ithout pollution control equipm ent or other operational res trictions. See Su pp. RTC at 28

. The R eg ion a ssum ed m ethane em issions reflectingthe sources ’ full P TE for th e fiv e- m onth drillingse a s on (0.7 98 tons per m ont h), a n dt h e Permits count thes e emissi ons towar ds t he to ta l GHG lim itation o f 70 ,00 0 tpy

. See Su pp. State m ent o f B asis at 30 (statingthat Shell has ag reed to co unt a ll m ethane em issions occurrin g d uringfiv em onthdri ll in gsea so n inm ea suri ngthe s ourc es ’ to ta l G H G e m is si on s)

. The Reg ion d eterm ined that b ecause these unrestricted em issions of m ethane (whe n co m

bined wi t h GHGem issions from com bustion sou rc es) wouldnot r esu lt in an ex cee dan ce of the Pe rmi t s’ tot al GHG em issions lim it, ad ditional perm ittingrestriction lim its w ere n ot required

. 64 Und er thes e circum stances, I CA S’s reliance on the req uirem ent that p erm its inclu de cond itions ensurin g the enforcea bility of lim itations on a so urce’s PTE is m isplaced, a s the Perm its do no t contain o wne r requeste d lim its on m ethane em issions or otherw ise lim it th e sources’S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 67

See M em orand um

from T errell E. Hunt, A ssoc. Enforcem ent Cou nsel, Of f ice 65 of Enf orc em ent & Com plia nce Monit oring , U .S. EP A , & J ohn S. Se itz , D ir. , O f f ic e of Ai r Qu al i ty P l an n i n g & S t an d ar d s, U

. S

. E P A, t o R eg ’ l C o u n se l s & Ai r D i r s. , U. S

. E P A, Gui dance on Li mi ting Pote ntial

to Em it in N

ew Source Pe rm itt ing

(J une 13, 1989) (stating that in o rder to limit P TE p ermits “ m ust con tain a prod uctio n or o peration al limita tion in a dditi on to the emis si ons limita tion in ca se s w

her e the emis si ons limita

tion does not re f

le ct m ax im

um emis si ons of the sour ce oper at ing at f ull des ig n cap acity w ithout poll ution cont

rol equi pm ent ”)

. A s st at ed in the suppl em ent al RT C, G HG e m is si ons f

rom the D MS r epr es ent 66 o n ly 0. 1 2 % of to ta l GHG

e m is si o n s al lo wed u n d er t h e p ermit s (7 0 ,0 0 0 tp y). Sup p . R TC at 29. A s st at ed abov e, the Permits c onta in e nf orc ea ble ope ratio n al , m onitor ing , a nd re cor dk eepingre quire m ent s f or c om bust ion s ources o f G HG s (c onst itut ingthe bulk of G HG em is si ons) . T he IC A S Peti tion does not cont es t t he enf orc ea bili ty of the se pe rmit cond itio ns. PTE from

D MS o peration s. B ecause t he Perm its count all m ethane 65 em issions from

D MS o peration s (to the fu ll extent of the so urces’ PTE) to w ar ds th e P erm it s’ tot al a ll ow ab le G H G e m is si on s, th e B oard 66 conclu des that the Reg ion did not abuse its discre tion in determ iningthat addition al perm it con ditions (otherw ise ne cessary to ensure theS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 68

In a sim i l ar v ei n , ICA S asse rts that the P erm its’ overall limit on G HG

67

2 emis si ons f

rom She ll’ s oper at ions of 70,000 tpy of CO e is insuf

f ic ie nt by it se lf to ens ure the e nf or c e a bi l i ty of m e tha ne e m i s s i onl i m i t s or

e ns ur e that“ any

ot he r g r e e nh ou s e ga s emission s are ca

pp ed.” ICA S P et i t i o n a t 20 . A ccordin g to ICA S, “[ t] his is because ‘lim its’ that fa il to restrict pro du ction or op erations are sim p l y n o t enf

orceable.” Id

. How ev er , be cau se t

he per m it as sum es m et

hane e m is si ons at

the s ourc es ’ f

ull and unre st ric te d P T E, t

he Re g ion de te rmine d that a dditi onal ope rationa l or produc tion limits w er e not r equi re d. See S u pp. R T C a t 28- 29. A s st at ed abov e, IC A S ha s f ai le d to es ta blis h that t

he Re g ion’s de te rmination w as c le arly e rr o n eo us or ot

her w is e w ar ra nts re v ie w . Furt

her , cont ra ry to IC A S’s as se rti on, the Permits inc lude e nf orc ea ble c onditi ons
2 ens uring c om plia nce w ith the 70,000 t

py c ap on CO e emis si ons. See id. at 27-29.
T he Boa

rd not es f

urthe r t hat the Re g ion’s Suppl eme nta l R es ponse to Com m ent s docum ent

c onta ins a

de ta ile d re spons e to t

he as se rti on that pe rmit condi tions

2 re st ric tingthe s ourc es ’ PT E f or C O e are ins uf

f ic ie nt t o e nsur e com

plia nce w ith the Permits ’ 70, 000 tpy

G HG li m it. See

id. at 27- 29. N othingin the pe tit ion or the re cor d on appeal in d i ca t es why the Reg ion ’s res po nse w as c learly erroneou s or oth erw ise w ar ra nts re v ie w

by th is Boa rd, nor doe s the Boa

rd f ind a ny thinge rr oneous in the Re g ion’s re spons e. See

, e .g., In re Guam W

ate rw ork s Auth. , NPDES A

ppea l N os. 09- 15 & 09-16, s lip op. at 17- 18 (N ov . 16, 2011), 15 E.A .D . ___.

T o th e e xtent t hat ICA S is obj ecting to the P TE calculation itself , ICA S has 68 f ailed to establish that revie w i s wa rranted. The Region f

ully and adeq uately

respond ed to c om m ent s ques tioni ng the PTE c al cul at ion. In par tic ula r, the Re g ion s tate d, i n part: Methan e e missions from the [ DMS] are subj ect to an operatio nal re st ric tion limiti ng ope rations to the f iv e m o n ths be tw ee n July

and Nov em ber and thi s oper at iona l l imit is a cc om pani ed by m onitor ing in t he f orm of re cordke epi ng . [(C iti ng Condi tion B.3 in bot h per m it) ]. In t his c as e, She ll ca lc ulate d the pote ntia l m et hane emis si ons f

rom the dri lli ng m

ud s y st em

b ased upon the m ax im

um ex pec te d c apa ci ty

ov er the f iv e- m onth pe ri o d

o f ope ration tak ingint o consid eration in herent p hy sical limitation s and actual w ell data. Re lyingupon re as onabl e proje ct ions of pote ntia l e m is si ons w

her e inh erent phys ical lim itation s ex ist is consisten t w ith EP A ’s guid ance f or grain t er m inals. See Mem orand um f rom John Seitz, EP A , re: Ca lc ulatingPotent ial to E m it (PT E) and Ot her G uida nce f or G ra in Ha ndlingT er

m ina ls , date d N ov em

ber 14, 1995. (c ontinue d...) enforcea bility of PTE lim itations) were not re quired in the se P erm its. 67 Acco rding ly , th e B oard denies rev iew of this issue. 68S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 69

(.. .c ontinue d) 68 * * * *
In a dditi on, R eg ion 10 as su m ed t h at w hat She ll es tim at ed as it s emis si ons ov er

the fiv e m onth dr ill ings ea son w ould oc cur duri ng eac h o f t h e f

iv e m onths (t

hus inc re as ingthe pote ntia l t o e m it f rom this s ourc e by a f

ac tor of f iv e) to prov ide a

w ide m ar g in of

s af et y in the e st im at e of

pote ntia l t o e m it f

or t he dril li ng m

ud s y st em . F or c o mp ar i s o np u r

p o s e s , E P A r e c o mme n d s gr a i nt e rmi n a l s a p p l y a sa f et y f ac tor of 1.2 t o the highes t of

the pre v ious f

iv e y ears of throughput t o c onst itut e a re al is tic uppe r-b o und pote ntia l t o e m it. See Mem orand um f

rom John Seitz, EP A , re: Calculati n g P o t ential to Emit (PTE) a n d O t h er G uid ance f or Grain Handli ng T erm inals, dat e d N o v e m

b e r 1 4 , 1 9 9 5 , at 5

. I t i s i m p o rt an t t o e m

p h a s i z e tha t, ev en w ith the se c onse rv at iv e as sum p ti o n s, the G HG

e m is si ons (85

2 tons per y ea

r CO e) f rom the dril ling m

ud sy st em re pre se nt only

2 0.1 2% of the t o tal G HG emission s (70, 00 0 to ns per y ear C O e) al low ed under

e ac h pe rmit. Sup p. RTC a

t 28 . Nothi ng in the petitio n c on vinces the Board th at the Reg ion ’s tec hn ical d e t e rm i n at i o n s o n th i s i s s u e w e r e c l e ar l y e rr o n e o u s o r o th e rw i s e w arr an t r e v i ew . See , e. g. , Peabo dy, 12 E. A .D . at 41 (pe ti ti oner s ee k ingre v ie w

of is sue s f undam ent al ly te chni ca l i n nature be ar s a par tic ula rly he av y burden bec aus e the Boar d ge ner al ly de f er s to t he per m it is sue r on ques tions of te chni ca l j udg m ent ). G. ICA S Has Failed to D emo nstrate Tha t the Regio n C learly Erred

or Ab used Its D iscretion in O nly Providing T hirty D ays to C

omm ent o n the Conc urrently Issued

Draft Chukch i and

Be aufort Perm its D uring th e R ema nd Period
I CA S c laim s that the R eg ion “ com m itted clear l eg al error by failingto prov ide the public an adequate o pportunity to com m ent” o n the dra ftpermits on r emand. I CAS Pe ti ti on at7 . More spec if ic al ly, I CAS alleg es that the Reg ion fa i l e d to m eet the part 124 proced ural re qui re m ent s th atrequ ir e per m it iss uer s to “al low at le as t 30 da ys f

or public com

m ent” o n d

raft perm its. I

d

. ( ci ti ng4 0 C

. F

. R

. § 1 24

. 10 (b )) (em phasis added

by Pe titioners). A lthough I CA S ack now ledg es that the com m ent p eriods for bo th the Chuk chi an d the B eaufort Perm its ran from July 6 to Augus t 5 , 2 01 1, an inte rv al of th irty d ay s, I C A S c onte nd s th at , be caus e th e co m

m ent pe ri od s w er e enti re ly c on curr ent and

a ls o part ia ll yS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 70

T he Re g ion i ss ued tw o other draf t air permits f or publ ic c om

m ent around t his 69 sam e tim e: (1) a perm it f

or Sh ell to op erate the Kul luk dri lls hip in the Be auf

ort Se a and (2) a perm it f

or Con ocoP hill ips permit to operate a jack up drill rig in the Chu kchi Sea. IC A S Peti tion at

8-9; Supp. RT C a

t 11- 12. coincid ed with the com

m ent periods for tw o o ther p ropose d air perm its, 69 the R eg ion “ at m ost p rov ided the p ublic wi t h 15 d ay s to com m ent o n e a c h m aj or so urce perm it for th e D iscov erer.” Id

. T h i s i s b e c au s e, ac co rd in gto I C A S , in re al ity , “ lo ca l c om m un it ie s on ly

h av e th e ca

pa ci ty to co m m ent o n o ne a ir perm it at a tim e.” Id

. at 8 tbl.1. I CA S n otes th at the Reg ion had prev iously prov ided non- ov erlappin gforty and sixty

- day c o mme n tp e r i o d s wh e ni th a d i s s u e d e a r l i e r dr a f tve r s i o n s o f

th e s e s a me perm its. Id

. a t 9 & n . 3; see a lso Sup p. RTC at 11

. I CA S a lso cla im s that “the s ho rtand

o v er la pp in gc om

m ent p er io ds * * * d ep ri v ed th em o f a m eanin gful opportunity

to com m ent o n S hell’s n ew air m odeling results.” I CA S P etition at 10.
I n ad dition, I CA S questio ns the Reg ion’s rationale for de ny ing Petitione rs’ requ est “to ho ld no n- ov erlappin gcom m ent p eriods on the OC S p erm its and

to prov ide 4 5 d ay s to com m ent o n eac h pe r mit, ” a request I CA S m ade before any of the d raft perm its w ere issu ed. Id

. at 9; see id

. a tt ac h. 11 (L ette r fr om H ar ry B ro w er , A E WC C hari m an , e t a l. , to Dou gH ardesty , A ir Perm its Pro j ect Mana g er, U. S. EPAR eg ion 1 0 (J une 15, 201 1) ( DDD- 31)) (A EWC and I CA S re quest for no nov er la pping co m

m ent p er io ds ); id

. a tt ac h. 1 2 (L ette r fr om R ic hard Albright, Directo r, Office of Air, Waste, & Toxics, U .S. EP A Reg ion 1 0, to H ar ry B ro w er , A E WC C ha ir

m an , e t a l. ( J uly 2 1, 2 01 1) ( D D D

- 58 )) (E P A re sp on se ) (“ R eg io n 10 L ette r” ). I C A S ar gue s th at the Reg io n’ s offer to m eet w ith them

during the com

m ent p eriod was “not equiv alent to pro v idingsufficient tim e for public rev iew. ” Id . at 10. The part 1 24 proced

ural regulation g ov erningpu blic n otices 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 ftp erm it* * * s ha ll a ll owa t l ea st 3 0 d ay s fo r pu

bl ic com m ent. ” 40 C .F. R. § 124. 10(b)(1 ). The regulation, therefo re, est abl is hes a m ini m

um comm ent per iod le ngth of t hir ty days but al lowsS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 71 the p erm it issuer, in its discre tion, to grant a long er co m m ent p eriod. Id .; accor d In re Russ ell City En e r gy C tr. (“Russ ell City I

”), PSD Appeal N o. 0 8- 01 , s li p op . a t 7 n . 6 (E A B Jul y 2 9, 2 00 8) , 1 4 E

. A

. D

. _

_; In re Gen esee Pow er S

tation , 4 E. A. D. 83 2, 841 (EA B 1993 ) (pub lic com m ent period “only

requ ired to last 30 day s”).
I n this case, the Reg ion prov ided thirty day s for public com

m ent for eac h o f the perm its, a lbeit co ncurrent thirty

- day perio ds. The R eg ion th er ef or e pr ov id ed

th e re gul at or

y m in im um c om m ent pe ri od fo r th e dr af

t pe rm it s. I C A S d oe s no t p oi nt to any o th er s ta tutory

o r re gul at or

y pr ov is io n th at requires the Ag ency to prov ide a lon g er co m m ent p eriod whe n the A g ency

issues m ore than one p erm it in a g iv en m onth. To th e co ntrary , th e re le v ant r egul at io n auth or iz es the Ag en cy to is su e a si ng le public notice to “d escr i be mor e than on e pe rm it or perm it action s,” 40 C.F .R . § 12 4.1 0 (a)(3 ), b ut do es n ot sp ecify , o r ev en m ention the possib ilityof, a different tim e fram e f or pu blic co m m ent when co nc ur re nt p erm it s ar e is su ed

. I C A S ’s att em pt to re ca lc ul at e th e le ng th of th e co m m ent p er io ds bas ed

onan un expl ai ne d m athe m at ic al f or m ul a inv ol v in gth e numbe r an d le ng th s of o th er c om m ent p er io ds is unco nv incing

. See I C A S P et it io n at 8. A cc or di ng ly , I C A S h as f ai le d to dem onstrate that the R eg ion “ com m itted clear leg al error” in establishin g thirty

- day c om m ent p eriods for the se tw o p erm its. Se e C on n. L ig ht & Pow er C o. v. NR C , 6 73 F.2 d 5 25, 534 (D .C . C ir. 1 982) (upho lding ag ency ’s selec tion o f the m inim um com m e nt p eriod as reas onab le and observ ingthat “[n]either statute n or regulation m andates that the ag ency do m or e” ); C

on fe re nc e of

S ta te B an k Su

pe rv is ors v
. O

ff ic e of T hr if t Supe rvision , 7 92 F.S up p. 8 37, 84 4 (D .D .C . 1 992) (deny ingclaim that co m m ent p er io d sh ou ld

h av e be en

lo ng er whe re s tatute d id

n ot r eq ui re a gen c y to p r ovi de mor e t ha n t hi rt y- da y co mm e nt pe r i odan d t hi rt y da ys w as n ot unr ea so na

bl e) ; se e al

so R us se ll

Cit y II , s lip op . at 127

- 31, 15 E

. A

. D

. _

_ (d eny in gr ev ie wo f a pr oc ed ur al err or

c la im whe re petitioners fail to point to a part 1 24 proced ural regulation that w as v io la te d)

. Som e of I CA S’s argum ents can also b e read as challeng ingthe Reg ion’s decisio n t o se lect thirty day s rathe r than

a long er tim e pe riodS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 72

for the se co m

m ent p eriods unde r4 0 C. F.R . § 12 4.1 0(b)(1) or as challeng ingthe Reg ion’s decision to deny I CA S’s re quest f

or a long er c om m ent p eriod. B ecause bo th of these decision s w ere d iscretionary , ch al le ng es to th em

are , in e ss en ce , c la im s th at

th e R eg io n ab us ed

it s discretion

. E.g

. , In re Gua m W aterw orks Auth

. , NPD ES Ap peal Nos. 09

- 15 & 09- 16, slip op. at 9 n. 7 (E AB N ov . 1 6, 2011 ), 1 5 E .A .D . _

_ (e xplai ni ngB oard ’s s tand ar d inr ev ie w in gc la im s inv ol v in gap erm it is su er ’s e xe rc is e of

d is cr et io n) ; In re Deser t Rock E nergyC o. , P SD App ea l N os . 08

- 03 thro ugh 08

- 06 , sl ip op . at 65 (S ep t. 24, 2009), 14 E

. A .D

. _

_ (u si ngan ab us e of

d is cr et io n st an dard

whe re th e pe rm it is su er h ad “ br oa d di sc re ti on ” in m akin gth e ch al le ng ed d et erm in at io n)

. The B oard

c on si de rs th is c ha ll en g e ne xt

. The R eg io n, in

it s S up ple m ental R es po ns e to C om m ents do cum ent, p ro v id ed

ale ng thy , w el l- re as on ed e xp lanation fo r it s es ta bl is hm ent of th irty

- day co m m ent p er io ds and

f or it s de ni al o f I C A S ’s request for longer, non

- concurrent co m m ent p eriods. The Reg ion g enerally stated that, “[i]n lig ht of the p rior pu blic co m m ent p eriods and th e fa ct that c om m ent o n th e 20 11 R ev is ed D ra ftP erm it s w as li m it ed in scope , [it had] determ ine d t hat a thirty

- day com m ent p eriod was appro priate.” S upp. RTC at 11. T he R eg ion further explained that the th irty

- day p ub li c comm ent p er io d “w as n ot inte nd ed to r eo pe n pu

bl ic co m m ent o n th e enti re ty of th e 20 11 R ev is ed D ra ft P erm it s, b ut to s ol ic it public com

m ent o n the issue s ad dressed by the [Board], th e issu es othe rw is e ra is ed in the 2 01 0 P erm itp et it io ns b ut n ot a dd re ss ed in issuanc e of these rev ised p erm its, th e rev ised a spects of the perm its, and the new m odelingalg orithm s.” Id

. Finally , the Reg ion p ointed out th at it had receiv ed m ore th an 1 4,0 00 com m ents d uringthe thirty

- day com m ent p eriod, and that “[t]he v olum e of com m ents re ceiv ed and the su bs tant iv e is su es r ai se d by c om m ent ers on

th e te chni ca ll y

and le g al ly com plex com pone nts of the perm its and m odelingalg orithm s sup port th e R e gi o n ’ s d e t e rmina ti o nth a tth e th i rt y-d a y p e r i o d p r o vi d e d a d e qu a t e t i me for the pu blic to prov ide in form ed and m eaning ful co m m ent on the 20 11 Rev ised D raft Pe rm its.” Id.S H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 73

I n f a c t , th e R e g i o n u l t i m at e l y e x t e n d e d th e c o m m e n t p e r i o df

or the 70 Conoc oPhillips pe rmit to s ixty day s and the c om

m ent pe riod f or t he She ll Kul luk

pe rmit to f orty -s ixday s. Supp. RT C a t 12; IC A S Peti tion at

8 t bl. 1. Furthe rm ore, in resp ondin gto com men t s spe cifically

raising conce rns ab out th e ov erlappin gcom m ent p eriods, the Reg ion e xplaine d th at i th a d “ e x t e n d e d

th e c o m m e n tp e r i o d

o nth e C o n o c o P h i l l i p s dr a ft pe rm itf or an ad di ti on al tw o w ee k s, ” an d th at “ [t ]h is * * * a dd

re ss es to som e ex tent the com

m enters’ conce rn ab out o v erlappin gcom m ent periods .” Id

. at 12

- 13

. The R eg io n al so e xp la in ed th at , “ [t ]o f

ac il it at e 70 public c o m

m e n t , [ i th a d ] m a d e av a i l ab l e ar e d l i n e - s t r i k e o u tv e r s i o nof the 2 011 Rev ised D raft Pe rm its so com m enters could easily

identify the specific chang es m ade to the orig ina l 201 0 P erm its. The Sup plem ental Statem ent o f B asis fo r th e 2011 R ev ised D raft Pe rm its also include s a section dev oted exclusiv ely to explain ingthe k ey

rev isions to the perm its.” Id

. at 13 (referringto Sup p. Statem ent o f B asis § 1. 4 (entitled “Key C hang es in 2011 R ev ised D raft Pe rm its”)). The Reg ion p ointed out that there we re a num

ber o f identical issue s be tween the two perm its, i ncludingrelianc e on

the sam e m odel and alg orithm s. S e e id. The Reg ion a dditiona lly

no ted th at it h ad i nf

orm ed I CA S o f the upco m ing public com

m ent p eriod for the rev ised draft permits duringinform ational m eeting s “held three week s prior to the start of the com m ent p eriod. ” Id

. at 14

. Finally , the Reg ion stated that, while it ag reed that “s om e asp ects” of the 20 11 draft p erm its are “technic ally and leg ally com plex, ” the num ber and substan ce of t he com m ents s ubm itted “d em onstrate that the public was able to rev iew, ev aluate, and com m ent on man y of

the com plex issues duringthe com m ent p eriod prov ided. ” Id . at 13.
I n resp ondin gto the R eg ion’s rationale, I CA S argues that the se perm its raise “an im

portant issue for loc al com m unities” and that the sim ilarities betw een the two perm its “do no t justify holdin gov erlappin g pe rm itp er io ds

. ” I C A S P et it io n at 9

. Th e B oard

und er st an ds I C A S ’s desire f o r al o n g e r c o m m e n tp e r i o d

f o r th e s e p e rm i t s . Ap e rm i tissue r m ust n onethe less b alance the p ub l i c’s de sire for a lengthy com m ent peri od a gainst other factors, inclu ding , fo r exam ple, the n eed for expe di te d re v ie w of N S R pe rm it s, th e le ng th of ti m e th e part ic ul ar p erm itS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 74

T he Boa

rd is unper sua ded by

IC A S’s argum ent

that i t ha d dif

f ic ulty loc at ing 71 an ex per t t o rev ie w

the air m odel ing

. See ICA S P etition at 10. A s the Reg ion ind icated in i ts Supple m ent al R espons e to C om m ent s, Supp. RT C a

t 11, othe r c om

m ent er s prov ide d s ubst ant iv e, tec hnic al com m ent s on the air

m odel ing , whic h sug g es ts that the com m ent pe riod w as s uf

f ic ie nt t o a llow

opport unity f or m ea ning f ul c om m ent

. See

Fl a. Po w e r & Li

gh t C o. v
. United

Sta tes , 8 4 6 F. 2 d76 5 , 7 7 2 (D. C. Ci r. 19 8 8 ) (u p h o ld in g a shor t com m ent perio d a s suff

icient w here the age ncy had rec eive d num erous comm ents, som e le ng thy , a

nd the c om

m ent s had had a “m ea sur abl e im pac t” on the f

ina l r ule ); State Ban k Sup ervisors , 792 F. S u p p . at 844 (hol dingle ng th of c om m ent pe riod not un reasonable especially

in light o f t he com

m ents that plain tiff

s and oth er parties submitted ). Furth erm ore, as Region p oin ts out , Sup p. RTC a t 14 , ICA S knew

w hat is su es wou ld be co n si d ere d o nremand , an ditha dbe en given ap p ro ximate ly th ree w eeks adv anc e notic e of

the im pendi ng c om

m ent pe riod. or related activ ity

has bee n under consid eration, and its c urrent posture

. As the B oard has prev iously noted, “N SR perm its are tim e- sensitiv e.” S tand in gO rd er

a t 1 ; see a lso id

. at 2

- 6 (p ro v id in gp ro cedure s to “facilitate expeditiou s reso lution of N SR appea ls”). The C AAitself a lso indicates that N SR perm its are tim e- sensitiv e. See C WA§ 1 65 (c ), 42 U. S.C . § 74 75(c) (“Any com pleted perm it applicatio n * * * to whic h this p art applies shall be g ranted or denied no t later th an o ne y ear after th e date of fi li ng of su ch co m pl et ed ap pl ic at io n. ”)

. The se two pe rmits hav e be en under consid eration for so m e tim e , and sev eral co m m ent periods hav e alread

y bee n p rov ided. In ad dition, the scope of rev iew duringthe com

m ent period was of a lim ited nature: rev iew was confine d to the issues the Board had rem anded and the rev isions to the perm it the Reg ion h ad m ade in resp onse. See , e. g. , S upp. State m ent o f B asis at 12 (“ [O ]n ly th e condit ions of

th e 20 11 R ev is ed

D ra ftP erm it s th at

are pr op os ed f or rev is io n inth is p ro ce ed in gand th e in fo rm at io n an d an al y si s supp ortingthos e ch ang es are open for public com

m ent.”). F urtherm ore, the Regio n w a s awar e, as is th e Boar d, tha t del ays in is sui ng OCS perm i t s i n t h e A r c t i c c a n l e a d t o d e l a y s i n e x p l o r a t i o n b e c au s e o f the sh ort d ri ll in gs ea so ns . R eg io n 10 L ette r at 1 ; Su pp . R TC a t 1 2. It i s cl ear f rom th e adm in is tr at iv e re co rd th at th e R eg io n ap pr op ri at el y balance d the conflicting consid erations in decidin g on the leng th of the com m ent p eriods and in deny ingrequests for long er periods. I CA S h as not d em onstrated

othe rwise and

has therefo re f

ailed to sho w that the 71 Reg ion a bused its d iscretion i n e ither sele ctingthirty

- day com m entS H E L L G U L F O F M E X IC O , IN C . & S HEL L OFF S HO RE , I NC. 75 periods or in de ny ingI CA S’s re quest for lon g er, non- concurrent com m ent p eriods. Therefo re, the B oard denies rev iew of this issue.

VI I

. Con clusion & O rder For all of the reasons prov ided, the Board denies rev iew of the Perm its. So ordered

.

### CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the forgoing Order Denying Review in the matter of Shell Gulf of Mexico, Inc., and Shell Offshore, Inc., OCS Appeal Nos. 11-02, 11-03, 11-04 & 

### 11-08, 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 ej orgensen@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

David Hobstetter Erik Grafe EARTHJUSTICE 441 W. 5 th 

### Avenue, Suite 301 Anchorage, AK 99501 Telephone: (907) 277-2500 Facsimile: (907) 277-1390 dhobstetter@earthjustice.org egrafe@earthjustice.org
Donna Arvelo dmzaug25@optonline.net

### By 

### EPA Pouch Mail: Julie Vergeront Alexander Fidis Office of Regional Counsel U.S. EPA, Region 10 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900 (ORC-158) Seattle, WA 98101 Telephone: (206) 553-1497 (JV) Telephone: (206) 553-4710 (AF) 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: 

### ,lAN 1 

## 2 2012