p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 31 ) ll-B-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:19 AM

Sheet 31 of 147P. 2 

# i : J \ UNITE

D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENC

Y ^ffi Z J * WASHINGTON , O.C. 2046 0

. . . , , „ - . ——.- * - ,,v

)IV 1 ' ! H G i i '• ' . . . .<**••>*

•' • i 

## JU LI 5 ' ? r 

## ORM 2 51 ' MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Procedure s fo r EP At o Addres s Deficien t Ne w Sourc e Permit s Unde r the Clea n Ai r Ac t FROM : Michae l S . Alushi nJLYmviJ l^nLL^-fc'******* Associat e Enforcemen t Counse l fo r Ai r Offic e o f Enforcemen t an d Complianc e Monitorin g Joh n S . Seitz , D i rect o r y ^^-u//V/7(/lw/ C StationarySourc e Complianc e Dvrisio n Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standard s TO : Addressee s I . Introductio n Thi s guidanc e applie s t o permit s issue d fo r majo r new source s an

d majo r modification s unde r bot hth e preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) programan d th e nonattainmen t newsourc e revie w(NSR ) program . I t contain s thre e set s o f procedure s —on e fo r permit s issue d pursuan t t o EPA-approve d stat e program s (NSR permit s an d PS D permit s i n mor e than hal f th e states ) on e fo r permit s issue d b ystate s pursuan t t o dele

gation s o f authorit yfro mEPA , an

d on e fo r instance s wher e EP A issue s th e permi t directly . A n appendi x o f mode l form s appear s a t th e end . Th e nee d fo r thi s guidanc e ha s becom e increasingl yeviden t in th e las t two years . Befor e then , EP Ahad attempte d onl yonce , in 1981 , t o enforc e agains t source s constructin g o r operatin g wit hne wsourc e permit s th e Agenc ydetermine d t o b e deficient . I n 1986 , BP

A litigate d Greate r Detroi t Recover yFacilit yv . Adamku s et al . No . 86-CU-72910-D T (Octobe r 21 , 1986) . In tha t case , EP

A wantedt o enforc e agains t a majo r stationarysourc e constructin g wit ha PS D permi t issue d b yMichiga n unde r a dele

gatio n agreemen t wit hEPA . Th e Agenc yha d firs t determine d tha t the bes t availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) determinatio n fo r SO 2 in the permi t wa s inadequate . Befor e EP Astarte d forma l enforcemen t action , th e sourc e file d sui t agains t th e Agency , 

# JP. 3 -2

- ^ arguing tha t EPAhad n o authorit yt o "secon d guess " th e BAC T determinatio n an

d that , i n an

yevent , w e shoul d b e equitabl y foreclose d froa challengin g th e permi t becaus e w e had remaine d silen t durin g th

e tw o year s sinc e w e had faile d t o commen t o n the permit . Th

e cour t agree d an

d grante d the source' s motio n for summaryjudgment . Th e Detroi t cas e wa s an exampl e o f th e nee d fo r promp t an d thoroughEP

Arevie wo f an

d writte n comment s o n newsourc e permits . Ou r abilit yt o influenc e th e term s o f a permit , bot hinformall y an d throughlega l procedures , diminishe s markedl yth e longe r EP A wait s afte r a permi t i s issue d befor e objectin g t o a specifi c term . Thi s i s du e bot ht o lega l constraints , tha t is , tigh t time limit s fo r comment s provide d i n th e regulations , an d t o equitabl e consideration s tha t mak e court s les s likel yt o requir e newsource s t o accep t mor e stringen t permi t condition s th e farthe r planning an d constructio n hav e progressed . Accordingly , a s a prerequisit e t o successfu l enforcemen t action , i t i s imperativ e tha t EP A revie wal l majo r sourc e permi t package s o n a timel ybasi s an d provid e detaile d comment s o n deficiencies . I f EPAdoe s no t obtai n adequat e consideratio n o f thos e comments , i t i s als o importan t fo r EP

At o protec t ai r qualit yb ypromp t an

d consisten t enforcemen t actio n agains t source s whos e permit s ar e foun d lacking . Becaus e PS D permit s ar e issue d o n a case-by-cas e basis , taking int o consideratio n individua l sourc e factors , permittin g decision s involv e th e exercis e o f judgment . However , although no t an exhaustiv e list , an yon e o f th e followin g factor s wil l normall yb e sufficien t fo r EP At o fin

d a permi t "deficient " an d conside r enforcemen t action : 1 . BAC T determinatio n no t using th e "top-down " approach . 2 . BAC T determinatio n no t base d o n a reasone d analysis . 3 . No consideratio n o f unregulate d toxi c pollutant s i n BAC T determination . 4 . Publi c notic e problem s - n o publi c notic e & commen t perio d o r deficiencie s i n th e publi c notice . 5 . inadequat e ai r qualit ymodelin g demonstrations . 6 . Inadequat e ai r qualit yanalysi s o r impac t analysis . 7 . unenforceabl e permi t conditions . 8 . Fo r source s tha t impac t Clas s I areas , inadequat e notificatio n o f Federa l Lan d Manage r o r inadequat e consideratio n o f impact s o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f Clas s I areas .P. 4

-3

- I n NS R permitting , eac ho f the following factors , whil e no t necessaril yan exhaustiv e list , ar e ground s fo r a deficien t permit : 1 . Incorrec t LAE R determination , i.e. , failur e t o b e a t leas t a s stringen t a s th e mos t stringen t leve l achieve d in practic e o r require d unde r an ySI P o r federall y enforceabl e permit . 2 . No finding o f state-wid e compliance . 3 . No emission s offset s o r incorrec t offsets . 4 . Publi c notic e problem s - no publi c notic e an d commen t o r deficiencie s in publi c notice . 5 . Unenforceabl e permi t conditions . II . Timin g o f EP

ARespons e A . Commen t AlthoughEP

Ashoul d knowabou t everypermit , a t leas t b yth e time i t i s publishe d a s a proposal , th e Agenc ysometime s doe s no t lear n abou t a permi t during it s developmen t prio r t o th e time th e fina l permi t i s issued . I f w e d o becom e awar e o f th e permi t an d hav e objection s t o an yo f it s terms , w e shoul d commen t durin g th e developmenta l stag e befor e th e permi t become s final . Stat e agencie s shoul d sen d copie s o f al l draf t permi t publi c notic e package s an d al l fina l permit s t o EP Aimmediatel yupo n issuance . (The requirement s fo r content s o f publi c notic e package s ar e se t fort ha t 4 0 C.F.R . S51.166(q)(2)(iii). ) Th e Regiona l Offic e shoul d revie wal l draf t permi t publi c notic e package s an d fina l permit s durin g th e 3 0 daycommen t period s provide d fo r in th e federa l regulations . I t shoul d writ e detaile d comment s wheneve r Agenc ystaf f doe s no t agre e wit hth e term s o f a draf t o r fina l permit . T o mak e sur e theyge t permit s i n time fo r review , Regiona l Office s shoul d conside r requirin g state s wit happrove d newsourc e programs , throughSectio n 10 5 Gran t Conditions , t o notif ythemo f th e receip t o f al l majo r ne wsourc e permi t applications . The y shoul d als o requir e state s t o sen d themcopie s o f thei r draf t permit s a t tbe beginnin g o f th e publi c commen t period . Fina l permit s shoul d b e require d t o b e sen t t o EP Aimmediatel y upo n issuance . (Not e tha t th e requiremen t fo r Region s t o revie w draf t an

d fina l permit s i s containe d i n guidanc e issue d b yCrai g Potte r o n Decembe r 1 , 1987. ) Region s shoul d carefull ychec k thei r agreement s wit hdelegate d states . Thes e agreement s requir eP. 5 -4

- state s t o send draf t permit s t o EP Aduring th e commen t period . I n addition , 4 0 C.F.R . S52.21(u)(2)(ii ) require s delegate d agencie s t o sen d a cop y of an ypubli c commen t notic e t o th e appropriat e regiona l office . Pursuan t t o 4 0 C.F.R . S124.15 , a final , permi t doe s no t becom

e effectiv e unti l 3 0 day s afte r issuance , unles s ther e ar e n o comment s receive d durin g th e commen t period , i n whic hcas e i t become s effectiv e immediately . Region s shoul d mak e sur e tha t delegate d state s knowabou t permi t appea l procedure s a t 4 0 C.F.R . S12 4 and , i f necessary , issu e advisorymemorand a notifyin g themtha t EP Awil l us e thes e procedure s i f th e Agenc y determine s a permi t i s deficient . B . Forma l Enforcemen t Actio n I f th e permi t wa s issue d unde r a delegate d program , i t i s importan t t o initiat e forma l revie wo r appea l withi n 3 0 day s afte r th e fina l permi t i s issued . (Thi s respons e i s se t fort hi n Sectio n I

V below . Th e 3 0 da yperio d i s require d b yth e regula

tion s a t 4 0 C.F.R . $124.19) . Whe n enforcin g agains t permit s issue d unde r stat e programs , th e same lega l requiremen t t o initiat e enforcemen t withi n 3 0 day s doe s no t exist , bu t i t i s stil l extremel yimportan t t o ac t expeditiously . III . Enforcemen t Agains t th e Sourc e v . Enforcemen t Agains t th e Stat e I f a stat e ha s demonstrate d a patter n o f repeatedl yissuing deficien t permits , EPAmayconside r revokin g th e delegatio n fo r a delegate d stat e o r acting unde r Sectio n 113(a)(2 ) o f th e Ac t t o assum e federa l enforcemen t fo r an approve d state . I t i s no t appropriat e t o issu e a $16 7 orde r t o a state . Revocation s o f delegate d authorit ya s t o individua l permit s an d revocation s o f actua l permit s ar e theoreticall ypossible , bu t theyar e unneces sarywher e EPAca n ac t unde r Par t 12 4 (i.e . withi n 3 0 day s o f issuance) . Revocatio n ma yb e appropriat e wher e Par t 12 4 appeal s ar e unavailable , bu t likel ywil l b e subjec t t o lega l challenge . IV . Procedure s t o Follo wWhe n Enforcin g Agains t Deficien t Permit s i n Delegate d Program s A . I f possible , th e followin g action s befor e constructio n commences : 1 . Take actio n unde r 4 0 C.F.R . $124.19(a ) o r (b ) withi n 3 0 day s o f th e dat e th e fina l permi t wa s issue d t o revie w deficien t provision s o f th e permit . a . $124.19(a ) i s an appeal , whic hmayb e take n b y an yperso n wh o commente d durin g th e publi c commen t period .P. 6



### -5 - b . S124.19(b ) i s a revie w of th e term s of th e permi t b y th e Administrator unde r hi s ow

ninitiative . Regiona l Office s informally reques t th

e Admini strator t

o tak e thi s action . The y nee dnot hav

e commente

ddurin

g th e publi c comment period . Th e Administrator ha s demonstrateda preferenc e fo r usin g $124.19(b ) over $124.19(a) . I nth e fou r instance s thu s fa

r whe nh e wa s giventh

e choic e of actin

g under (a ) o

r (b) , h

e chos e (b) . However , th e Administrator ma y not hav

e sufficien t tim

e to ac t withi n3 0 day s i never y situatio

ni nth e future . 2 . I nth e majority

o f situations , i t i s mor e appropriat e fo r th e Agenc y to ac t a s on

e bod y to initiat e revie w under S124.19(b) . I nsom e instances , however , th e thir dparty

rol e fo

r a Regiona l Office , throug h4 0 C.F.R . $124.19(a ) ma y be preferable . Region s shoul d pick(a ) o

r (b) . However , i f bothprovision s ar e legall y available , the

y shoul drequest , i nth e alternative , that th e Administrator ac t under th e provisionother tha nth e one chosenb

y th e Regio n shoul dh

e dee m it mor e appropriate . I nparticular , i f a Regionrequest s th e Administrato r t o ac t under $124.19(b) , it shoul daskthat it s memorandu m b e considereda s a petitio nfo r revie w unde r $124.19(a ) shoul drevie

w under $124.19(b ) not b e grantedwithi n 3 0 days . Thi s i s to protec t th e Regions ' righ

t to appea l a permi t i f th e Administrator doe s not hav e sufficien t tim

e t o act . Therefore , al l memorand a requestin

g revie w shoul db

e writtent o withstan d publi c scrutin

y i f considereda s petition s under $124.19(a) . 3 . I f th

e 3 0 da y perio dfo r appea l ha s ru

nan dstron g equitie s i

nfavor of enforcemen t exist , issu e a $16 7 orde r an

db e preparedt

o fil e a civi l actio nt o prohibi t commencemen t o f constructionunti l th e sourc e secure s a vali dpermit . (See SectionI V B(2) ) below . B . Fo r source s wher e constructionha s alread y commenced : 1 . I f the permi t wa s issue dles s tha

n3 0 days previousl y take actionunder 4 0 CF R$124.19 . 2 . I f th

e permi t wa s issue dmor e tha

n3 0 days previously , issu e a $16 7 order requirin g immediat e cessationof constructionunti l a vali dpermi t i s obtained . Thi sP. 7 

### -6

- ste p shoul d onl yb e take n i f extremel ystron g equitie s i n favo r o f enforcemen t exist . Region s shoul d be keepin g stat e an

d sourc e informe d o f al l informa l effort s t o chang e permi t term s befor e th e $16 7 orde r i s issued . $16 7 order s mayb e use d bot hfo r source s

- whic hhav e an

d hav e no t commence d construction . However , becaus e the $124.1 9 administrativ e appea l an d revie wproces s i s availabl e i n delegate d programs , i t i s greatl ypreferre d fo r challengin g deficien t permit s i n state s wher e i t ca n b e used . 3 . I f EP

Adetermine s tha t penaltie s ar e appropriate , issu e a NO

V unde r Sectio n 113(a)(1 ) o f th e Ac t fo r commencemen t o f constructio n o f a majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n withou t a vali d permit . Thi s i 3 necessarybecaus e $16 7 contain s n o penalt yauthority . Not e tha t stron g equitie s fo r enforcemen t mus t exis t befor e taking thi s step . EP Aca n issu e bot ha $16 7 orde r requirin g immediat e injunctiv e relie f an d a NO V i f w e decid e tha t bot har e appropriate . 4 . Follo wu

p wit hjudicia l actio n unde r $16 7 an d $113(b)(2 ) i f constructio n continue s withou t a ne wpermit . C . Not e tha t th e appea l provision s o f 4 0 C.F.R . $124.1 9 appl yt o al l delegate d PS D program s eve n i f $124.1 9 i s no t specificall yreference d i n th e delegation . V . Procedure s t o Follo wWhe n Enforcin g Agains t Permit s i n EPA-Approve d Stat e Program s (Al l NS R an d Mor e Tha n Hal f o f th e PS D Programs ) A . issu e S113(a)(5 ) orde r (fo r NSR ) o r 16 7 orde r (fo r PSD ) a s expeditiousl ya s possible , preferabl ywithi n 3 0 day s afte r th e permi t i s issued , requirin g th e sourc e no t t o commenc e construction , o r i f alread y started , t o ceas e constructio n (o n th e basi s tha t i t woul d b e constructin g wit han invali d permit) , an d t o appl yfo r a ne wpermit . Not e tha t EP Ashoul d issu e a S16 7 orde r i f i t ha s determine d tha t ther e i s a reasonabl e chanc e th e sourc e wil l comply . Otherwise , the Regionshoul d mov e directl yt o sectio n V. D below . B . Fro m th e outse t o f EPA' s involvement , kee p th e sourc e informe d o f al l EPA' s attempt s t o convinc e th e permittin g agenc yt o chang e th e permit . C . Issu e an NO

V (113(a) ) a s soo n a s constructio n commence s i f EP Adetermine s penaltie s ar e appropriate .P. 8



### -7

- D . I f sourc e doe s no t compl ywit horder , follo wu p wit h judicia l actio n unde r S167 , S113(b)(5) , or , i f NO V issued , 5113(b)(2) . I f penaltie s ar e appropriate , issu e NO

V an d late r amen

d complain t t o ad

d a $11 3 coun t whe n 3 0 da

ystatutorywaitin g perio d ha s ru n

- afte r initia l actio n i s file d unde r $167 . VI . Fo r EPA-issue d Permit s (Non-delegated ) A . I f sourc e submitte d inadequat e informatio n (e.g. , misleading , no t identifying al l options ) an d EP Arecentl yfoun

d ou t abou t it , 1 . I f withi n 3 0 day s o f permi t issuance , reques t revie wb

yth e Administrato r unde r 4 0 C.F.R . $124.19(b) . 2 . I f permi t ha s bee n issue d fo r mor e than 3 0 days , issu e $16 7 o r S113(a)(5 ) orde r preventin g start u p or , i f appropriate , immediat e cessatio n o f construction . 3 . Issu e NO

V i f constructio n ha s commence d an d EP A determine s penaltie s t o b e appropriate . 4 . I f necessary , reques t additiona l informatio n fro m source ; i f sourc e cooperates , issu e ne wpermit . 5 . Conside r taking judicia l actio n i f appropriate . EP Arecognize s the distinctio n betwee n permit s base d o n fault yan

d correc t informatio n onl yfo r EP Adirectly-issue d permits . Thi s distinctio n i s necessaryfo r EP Apermit s du e t o equitabl e considerations . B . I f sourc e submitte d adequat e informatio n an d EP A issue d fault ypermit , w e shoul d attemp t t o ge t sourc e t o agre e t o necessarychange s an d accep t modificatio n o f it s permit . However , i f sourc e wil l no t agree , onl yavailabl e option s ar e revoking th e permi t an d enforcing , consolidate d permi t regulation s ar e unclea r abou t EPA' s authorit yt o revok e PS D permits . Becaus e o f thi s an d th e equitabl e problem s associate d wit henforcin g agains t ou r ow n permits , unles s ne w informatio

nabou t healt heffect s o r othe r significan t finding s i s available , w e maychoos e t o accep t th e permit . I f fault ypermi t produce s unacceptabl e environmenta l risk , ac t unde r 4 0 C.F.R . $124.19 , i f possible . I f actio n unde r 4 0 C.F.R . $124.1 9 no t possible , firs t revok e permi t an d the n ac t a s se t fort hi n Sectio n IV .P. 9 

# 1

m -8 - - . : Addressees : Regiona l Counsel s Region s I-

X Regiona l Counse l Ai r Contact s Region s I-

X Ai r an dWast e Managemen t Divisio nDirector Regio nI I Ai r Managemen t Divisio nDirector s Region s I , III , an dI X Ai r an dRadiationDivisio nDirector RegionV Air , Pesticides , an dToxic s Managemen t Divisio nDirector s Region s I

V an dVI Ai r an dToxic s Divisio

nDirector s Region s VII , VIII , an dX PS DContact s Region s I-

X AlanEcker t Associat e Genera l Counse l Greg Foote , OG

C Gar y McCutchen NPPB , AQM

D(MD-15 ) Ro nMcCallu

m Chie f Judicia l Office r Bo bVanHeuvelen Environmenta l Enforcemen t Section Departmen t o f Justic e Davi dBuente , Chie f Envlronaenta l Enforcemen t Section Departmen t o f Justic eP.1 0 */ ' • Appendi x

1 . Reques t fo r Revie wunde r 4 0 C.F.R.$124.1 9 2 . $16 7 Orde r 3 

### ' NoL^fo^vfoUMon ^ Vi0lati0 nan d ac 

### ^Panyin gS113(a)(l )