p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 56 ) ll-K-13 Docket Number: 

# A-90-37

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 56 of 142P. 2

BEFORE TH E ADMINISTRATO R U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y. n,--,-r- |

WASHINGTON , D.C .

I nth e Matte r of : Hadso nPowe r 1 2 —Altavist a

Applican t DAP C Registratio nNo . 3085 9 

### 41^25 1 

## -ill

1 <J ' i 

## i 77^71 7 : r ! ;«***> . -£-*-x*. PS D Appea lNos . 90-2 , 90-3 , 90-4 , & 90- 5



# fr-fO-5-)

ORDE RDENYIN

GREVIE W LarryHendrick s (Appea l No . 90-2) , Herber t Boli n (Appea l No . 90-3) , Lena C* . Frazie r (Appea l No . 90-4) , and Ro yE . St . John , Jr . (Appea l No . 90-5 ) file d separat e request s fo r revie wo f a Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) permi t tha t author

ize s constructio no f a stea melectricit ycogenerating facilit ya t Altavista , Virginia . Th e Virgini a Departmen t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l (DAPC ) issue d th e permi t t o th e applicant , Hadso nPowe r 12 , o nFebruary21 , 1990 , pursuan t t o a delegatio no f authorit y fromEP ARegio n III , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Becaus e o f th e delegation , DAPC' s permi t determinatio ni s subjec t t o th e review provision s o f 4 0 CF R§124.19 , an d an ypermi t i t issue s wil l b e a n EPA-issue d permi t fo r purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CF R§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 3 (Ma y19 , 1980) . DAP C responde d t o th e petition s o nMa y25 , 1990 , arguing i n eac hinstanc e tha t th e ground s fo r revie wallege d i nth e petition s di d no t mee t th e threshol d fo r revie westablishe d b y th e rule s governing thi s proceeding . DAP C als o note d tha t i nP. 3

2 numerou s instance s th e issue s raise d b ytw o o f th e petitioner s (Boli nan

d St . John ) ha d no t bee nraise d a t th e publi c hearing o r during th e publi c commen t perio d and , therefore , wer e no t eligibl e fo r consideratio no nappeal . DAP C i s correc t o nbot h counts : First , a petitio nmus t contai na statemen t demonstrating "tha t an

yissue s bein g raise d wer e raise d durin g th e publi c commen t perio d (including an ypubli c hearing ) t o th e exten t require d b

ythes e regulation s * * *. " 4 0 CF R§124.19(a) . Th e latter , i nturn , requir e participant s in . th e permi t proceeding s t o "rais e all"reasonabl yascertainabl e issue s and submi t al l reasonabl yavailabl e argument s supporting thei r positio n b yth e clos e o f th e publi c commen t perio d * * *. " 4 0 CF R§124.13 . Collectively , th e purpos e o f thes e regulation s i s t o ensur e tha t al l matter s ar e firs t raise d wit hth e permi t issuer . I nthi s manner , th e permi t issue r ca nmak e timel yan d appropriat e adjustment s t o th e permi t determination , or , i f n o adjustment s ar e made , th e permi t issue r ca ninclud e a nexplanatio no f wh y non e ar e necessary . A s explaine d i nth e preambl e t o th e regulations , "[t]h e late r stage s [o f th e permi t proceedings ] ar e appellat e i nnatur e and ne wissue s shoul d no t b e raise d o n appeal. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 1 (discussing §124.13) . Non e o f th e petition s contain s th e requisit e statemen t unde r 4 0 CF R §124.19(a) , an

d manyo f th e issue s raise d b ytw o o f th e petitioners , a s DAP C correctl yalleges , ha d no t i nfac t bee n raise d wit hth e permi t issue r i na timel ymanner . Thos e issue sP. 4

3 (identifie d i nDAPC' s respons e t o th e petitions ) ar e therefor e ineligibl e fo r revie wo nappeal . Second , a s t o th e fewissue s tha t satisf yth e foregoing requirements , DAP C i s correc t i nasserting tha t the yd o no t mee t th e threshol d fo r review . Unde r th e rules , ther e i s n o appea l a s o f righ t fromth e permi t determination . Ordinarily , a petitio n fo r revie wo f a PS D permi t determinatio ni s no t grante d unles s i t i s base d o na clearl yerroneou s finding o f fac t o r conclusio n o f law , o r involve s a nimportan t matte r o f polic yo r exercis e o f discretio n tha t warrant s review . Th e preambl e t o th e regulation s state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie wshoul d b e onl ysparingl y exercised, " an

d "mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall y determine d a t th e Regiona l [state ] leve l * * *. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Th e burde no f demonstrating tha t th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e o nth e peti

tioner . Upo nconsideratio no f th e petitions , and fo r th e reason s state d i nDAPC' s response , I conclud e tha t non e o f th e petitioner s ha s me t hi s o r he r burden , respectively , o f showing tha t th e permi t shoul d b e reviewed . Accordingly , fo r th e reason s state d above , revie wo f DAPC' s permi t determinatio ni s denied . S o ordered .



### Dated : JU L3 0 199

0 P^LJU^V^S 

### Willia mK. IteiUjpT* ' Administrato rP. 5

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r Denying Review , PS D Appea l Nos . 90-2, 90-3 , 90-4 , an d 90-5 , wer e maile d t o th e following i nth e manne r indicated . Firs t Clas s Mai l Postag e Prepaid : Wallac e N . Davi s Executiv e Directo r Virgini a Departmen t o f Ai r Pollutio nContro l Nint hStree t Offic e Building 200-200 3 N . Nort hStree t Richmond , V

A2321 9 Marci a Mulke y Regiona l Counse l U.S . EPA- Regio nII I 84 1 Chestnu t Stree t Philadelphia , PA1910 7 Herber t J . Boli n 161 4 Avondal e D r Altavista , V

A2451 7 LarryHendrick s 1114 , 8t hSt . Altavista , V

A2451 7 Len a C . Frazie r 111 7 7t hSt . Altavista , V

A2451 7 Ro yE . St . John , Jr . Rt . 3 Bo x40 0 Hurt , Va 2456 3 Dougla s G . Whit e Assistan t Regiona l Counse l U.S . EPA- Regio nII I 84 1 Chestnu t Building Philadelphia , PA1910 7

Dated : 

### JU L

### 3 1 199

0 

# OlfoMj-P. A

for
. Brenda H . Selden , Secretary t o th e Chie f Judicia l Office r secre t