# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 11)11-1- 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-37

Printed 10/29/200810:46:18AM Sheet 11 of 142 _J_

_P. 2

1 2

' 3 4 5 ti 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 24 2 5 2 6 -Va i SHELLE YK

. MclNTYR E Assistant

Attorney General GENERA LCOUNSE LDIVISIO N Natura l Resource s Sectio n 

## "E-r- 3 FILE D 

# / f

^riis?« « — o i

# p—^ 0 3 

# ' 229



# - 572 5 92SEP2 LP M i. : 3 7 CLERK , u s DISTRIC TCOUR T DISTRIC TOFOREGO

N PORTLAHO.OREGON

OC To g ?9^

. E \



### i s *

"">»-

. Ai\::-- :

I NTH E UNITE D STATE S DISTRIC T COUR T FO RTH E DISTRIC T O F OREGO N

Civi l No . 91-13-F R ORDE R OREGONENVIRONMENTAL COUNCI L and TH E SIERR

ACLUB , Plaintiffs , v . OREGONDEPARTMENT O F ENVIRONMENTAL QUALIT Y and FRE D HANSON , Director .

Defendants .

I T I S HEREB YORDERE D tha t plaintiff' s motio nfo r partia l summar yjudgmen t (#9 ) i s GRANTED . DATE D thi s J? J

dayo f September , 1992 . 

# ^fe^j z

HELE NJ . FRY E Unite d State s Distric t Judg e

A O 7 2 (Re v8/82 ) PAGE1 - ORDERP. 3



### i ! r n 

## aC 9 cr p o| , c::, ?.

. in ^.. S.:.I

_ . .

• 11 1 '.. • i. : / C ir--re\*.-.-; n—

• r.'T r-r.: - uli\!

_ivr&r.)i\.-'j:t fcr;TLA.;L..rr;i?i ; BY___

_ 

### ..:__ > ?__... .

6 7 6 9 : 0 H

-. 2 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 I NTH EUNITED STATE S DISTRIC T COUR T FO RTH E DISTRIC T O

F OREGO

N

Civi lNo . 91-13-F R OPINIO N OREGONENVIRONMENTAL COUNCI L and TH E SIERR

ACLUB , Plaintiffs , v . OREGONDEPARTMENT O F ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, and FRE D HANSON , Director ,

Defendants . Davi d Pau l Pau l & Sugerma n 61 0 S . W . Alde r Street , Suit e 80 5 Portland , Orego n9720 5 Victo r M . She r Todd D . Tru e Sierr a ClubLega l Defens e Fund 20 3 Hog e Bldg . 70 5 Second Avenu e Seattle , Washingto n98104-171 1 JohnB . Aru

m Ziontz , Chestnut , Varnell , Berley& Sloni m 210 1 Fourt hAvenue , Suit e 123 0 Seattle , Washingto n9812 1 Attorney s fo r Plaintiff s PAG E 1 - OPINION ^ 7P.4 _

•Si-a- 3 "

- ! l

• ol ! 1 4

• c 1 6 1 7 1 8

. 3 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 Charle s S . Crookha m Attorne yGenera l Denis e G . Fjordbec k Assistan t Attorne yGenera l 45 0 Justic e Building Salem , Orego n9731 0 Shelle yK . Mclntyr e A?_:ist.a--

L Attorne yGenera l 151 5 S . W . Fift hAvenue , Suit e 41 0 Portland , Orego n9720 1 Attorney s fo r Defendant s FRYE , Judge : Thi s i s a citizens ' sui t brough t unde r th e Clea nAi r Act , 4 2 U.S.C . SS 740 1 e t seg. , b yplaintiffs , th e Orego nEnviron

menta l Counci l and th e Sierr a Club , agains t defendants , th e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit yo f th e Stat e o f Orego nand it s director , Fre d Hanso n(collectively , th e DEQ) . Th e matte r befor e th e cour t i s th e motio no f plaintiff s fo r partia l sum mar yjudgmen t (#9) . STATUTOR YBACKGROUN

D I nth e Clea nAi r Act , Congres s charge d th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc yo f th e Unite d State s governmen t (the EPA ) wit hsettin g primar yai r qualit ystandard s fo r certai nai r pollutant s i norde r t o protec t th e publi c health . 4 2 U.S.C . § 7409(b)(1) . Congres s als o charge d th e EP Awit hsettin g secondar yai r qualit ystandard s fo r certai nai r pollutant s i norde r t o protec t th e publi c welfare . 4 2 U.S.C . S 740 9 (b)(2) . Th e Clea nAi r Ac t mandate s eac hstat e t o prepar e a stat e implementatio npla n( a SIP ) fo r achievin g and maintainin g th e PAG E 2 - OPINIO NP. 5

5 6 7 8 9 ) 0 1 1

. 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 ai r qualit ystandard s se t b yth e EPA . 4 2 U.S.C . S 7410(a)(1) . Eac hstat e i s require d t o submi t it s SI P t o th e EP Afo r appro val . Id . Th e EP Awil l approv e a SI P submitte d b ya stat e onl yi f th e SI P meet s al l o f th e requirement s o f th e Clea n

* <, . » _* . g* aa , T » <y

»~* .."* • r

0 y .5 5 74_0(a;(oj (A) , /JU4(C) . unc e tn e EP A approve s a SIP , th e requirement s and commitment s containe d i n th e SI P ar e bindin g a s a matte r o f federa l la wupo n th e stat e whic hha d submitte d th e SI P unti l tha t stat e submit s a forma l revisio n o f th e SI P an d tha t forma l revisio n i s approve d by th e EPA . 4 2 U.S.C . S 7413(a)(2) ; America n Lun o Ass' n v . Kean , 87 1 F.2 d 319 , 32 2 (3r d Cir . 1989) . I n 1977 , Congres s amende d th e Clea n Ai r Ac t t o provid e mor e stringen t requirement s fo r thos e geographica l area s tha t ha d faile d t o mee t federa l standard s (nonattainmen t areas ) fo r pollutio n control . Pub . L . 95-95 ; 4 2 U.S.C . S S 7501-08 . I n th e 197 7 amendmen t t o th e Clea n Ai r Act , Congres s require d thos e state s tha t had faile d t o mee t federa l standard s fo r pollutio n contro l t o submi t revise d SIP s t o th e EPA . 4 2 U.S.C . § 7502 . I n th e revise d SIPs , thes e state s wer e t o documen t al l reasonabl yavailabl e measure s fo r pollutio n contro l and mee t al l o f th e requirement s se t ou t i n 4 2 U.S.C . § 7410(a)(2)(I) . Anystat e tha t ha d faile d t o mee t federa l standard s fo r pollutio n contro l wa s instructe d byth e EPAt o provid e i n it s revise d SI P fo r reduction s i n emission s suffi

cien t t o demonstrat e tha t th e primarystandar d fo r ozon e woul d b e achieve d a s expeditiousl ya s practicable , bu t i n an yeven t PAG E 3 - OPINIO NP. 6

6 7 8 g

' 0 1 1

" 2 13 1 4
: 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 n o late r tha nDecembe r 31 , 1987 . 4 2 U.S.C . S S 7502(a)(2 ) an d (c) . I nsectio n7502(c)(1 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Act , Congres s requires , i npart , tha t eac hstat e shal l provid e i nit s SI P fo r reduction s i nemission s fro mexistin g source s o f pollu

tant s throug hth e adoptio n o f "reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology. " 4 2 U.S.C . S 7502(c)(1) , formerl ycodifie d a t 4 2 U.S.C . S 7502(b)(2) . Th e EP Apublishe s contro l technolog y guideline s whic hse t technology-base d numerica l limit s o n th e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fro mvariou s manufac

turin g processe s an d whic hdefin e reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technolog yi nterm s o f emissio n rate s fo r eac hprocess . 4 5 Fed . Reg . a t 42,269 . I nsectio n7502(c)(1) , Congres s als o require s eac hstat e t o establis hpermi t program s i nit s SI P t o regulat e th e con structio nan d operatio no f major , ne wo r modifie d source s o f ai r pollutan t emissions . 4 2 U.S.C . S 7502(c)(4) , formerl y codifie d a t 4 2 U.S.C . S 7502(b)(5) . Unde r th e syste mfo r th e revie wo f a ne wo r modifie d sourc e o f ai r pollutan t emission s ("ne wsourc e review") , a stat e ma yissu e a permi t fo r th e constructio no f a propose d major , ne wo r modifie d sourc e o f ai r pollutan t emission s onl yi f th e stat e require s th e sourc e o f thes e ai r pollutan t emission s t o compl ywit hth e lowes t achievabl e emissio n rate . 4 2 U.S.C . § 7503(a)(2) . Prio r t o issuin g a permi t t o a ne wsourc e o f ai r pollutan t emissions , th e stat e mus t requir e a n analysi s o f alternativ e sites , PAG E 4 - OPINIO NP.7 _

1 2 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 sizes , productionprocesses , an denvironmenta l control " tech nique s fo r the proposedsourc e tha t demonstrate s tha t the benefit s o f the proposedsourc e significantl y outweighth e environmenta l an

dsocia l cost s t o be attributedt o th e pro- r pose dsourc e . 4 2 U.S.C . $ 7502(b ) (11 ) (A) , now codifie da t 4 2 U.S.C . S 7503(a)(5) . I f the Administrato r o f th e EPA determine s tha t a stat e i s no t properl y implementingthe provision s o f it s SI P i nissuinga permi t t o a new sourc e o f ai r pollutan t emissions , tha t stat e canno t issu e th e permit . 4 2 U.S.C . S 7503(a)(4) . UNDISPUTE DFACT S A . Ozone Ozone i s one o f th e pollutant s for whichthe EPA ha s establishedprimary an dsecondary

standard s pursuan t t o the Clea nAi r Act . Ozone i s the chemica l combinatio no f tw

o pollutant s (oxide s o f nitrogenan dhydrocarbons) , whic har e referredt o a s volatil e organi c compounds . The EPA ha s se t the nationa l ambient ai r qualit y primar y an dsecondary

stan dard s fo r ozone a t 0.1 2 part s pe r million . Thi s standardi s me t whenthe expectednumber o f days pe r calenda r yea r tha t the maximu

m hourl y

concentration s o f ozon e exceed s 0.1 2 part s pe r millioni s equa l t o o r les s tha none . 4 0 C.F.R . S 50. 9 (1988) . Th e emissio no f volatil e organi c compound s b yindustrie s i s a majo r sourc e o f ozone . Accordingly , ozon e concentration s i nth e atmospher e ca nonl yb e reduce d whe nindustrie s reduc e PAG E 5 - OPINION«5S*.

-

1 1

• 2 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 

### 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 thei r emissio no f volatil e organi c compounds . Volatil e orga ni c compound s ar e emitte d b yindustrie s a s by-product s o f pro cesses , suc ha e pape r makin g and ca ncoating , meta l painting , and th e degreasin g an d cleanin g tha t occur s i nth e manufactur e o f computer„chi£_:. •••- - B . Th e SI P Th e DE Q i s th e agenc yresponsibl e fo r meetin g th e obli

gation s impose d upo nth e Stat e o f Orego nb yCongres s i nth e Clea nAi r Act . I n1973 , th e DE Q submitte d a SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nt o th e EPA . Th e EP Aapprove d th e SIP . However , b y Marc h3, 1978 , th e EPAha d designate d th e Portland-Vancouve r metropolita nare a a "nonattainmen t area " wit hrespec t t o con centration s o f ozon e pursuan t t o 4 2 U.S.C . S 7407(d) . Th e Portland-Vancouve r metropolita nare a i s a "nonattainmen t area " today . O nJun e 29 , 1979 , th e DE Q submitte d a revise d SI P fo r th e Portland-Vancouve r metropolita nare a t o th e EP Ai norde r t o addres s th e proble mo f nonattainmen t i nth e Portland-Vancouve r metropolita narea . I nth e revise d SIP , th e DE Q argue d tha t despit e th e implementatio no f thos e contro l measure s whic h wer e reasonabl yavailable , i t di d no t believ e tha t th e Stat e o f Orego ncoul d mee t th e standard s se t b yth e EP Ab yDecembe r 31 , 1982 . O nJul y20 , 1982 , th e DE Q submitte d a revise d SI P t o th e EP Aa s require d byth e 197 7 amendment s t o th e Clea n Ai r Act . Th e SI P submitte d b yth e DE Q o nJul y20 , 198 2 wa s // / PAG E 6 - OPINIO N_EJ _



# • I I . approve d b yth e EP Aand i s th e SI P i neffec t todayfo r th e Stat e o f Oregon . Th e SI P i neffec t fo r th e Stat e o f Orego ntoda ycontain s a genera l emission s standar d thai , provide s a s follows :

Notwithstandin g th e genera l and specifi c emis

sio nstandard s and regulation s containe d i nthi s Division , th e highes t and bes t practicabl e treatmen t an d contro l o f ai r contaminan t emission s shal l i n ever ycas e b e provide d s o a s t o maintai noveral l ai r qualit ya t th e highes t possibl e levels , and t o maintai ncontaminan t concentration s . . . and othe r deleteriou s factor s a t th e lowes t possibl e levels . I nth e cas e o f ne wsource s o f ai r contaminatio n

. . . th e degre e o f treatmen t and contro l provide d shal l b e suc htha t degradatio no f existin g ai r qua lit yi s minimize d t o th e greates t exten t possible . O.A.R . 340-20-001 .

1 4 ; 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 Th e SI P i neffec t fo r th e Stat e o f Orego ntodayals o contain s specifi c measure s t o contro l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s i nand around th e Cit yo f Portland . Spe

cifically , th e SI P provide s that : "The [DEQ ] ha s adopte d emissio nstandard s tha t requir e reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyt o b e applie d t o al l source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic h[the ] EP Aha s publishe d contro l techno

logyguidelines. " Stat e Implementatio nPla nfo r th e Stat e o f Oregon , p . 45 . Th e SI P i neffec t fo r th e Stat e o f Orego ntodayprovide s tha t complianc e wit hth e standard s se t fo r emission s o f vola

til e organi c compound s wa s require d byth e end o f th e yea r 1982 . Se e id . Th e SI P i neffec t fo r th e Stat e o f Orego n todayals o provide s tha t i norde r t o qualif yfo r a permit , PAG E 7 - OPINIO NP.1 0

9

. 0 1 1

- O

• _ _ 13 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 18 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 a ne wsourc e o f emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s mus t compl ywit hth e lowes t achievabl e emissio nrate , obtai n offset s o r a growt hincrement , an d prepar e a nalternative s analysis . Th e SI P i neffec t fo r th e Stat e o f Orego ntoday fl ) establishe s a permi t progra m . for ; _a.lj!.existin g .stationar

y source s o f ai r contaminants ; (2 ) require s al l person s con structin g o r operatin g a stationarysourc e o f ai r contaminant s t o obtai na permi t fromth e DEQ ; and (3 ) require s tha t th e permi t includ e overal l numerica l emissio nlimit s base d o na baselin e emissio n rat e tha t i s th e averag e emissio nrat e fo r th e yea r 197 7 o r th e yea r 1978 . Th e SI P i neffec t fo r th e Stat e o f Orego ntoda yfurthe r provide s tha t plan t sit e emis

sio nlimit s mus t b e establishe d o nth e basi s o f short-term period s o f emission s and mus t b e compatibl e wit hth e opera tion s o f th e sourc e and wit hai r qualit ystandards . Th e Portland-Vancouve r metropolita nare a ha d faile d t o attai n th e nationa l standard s fo r ozon e concentration s byth e end o f th e yea r 198 7 a s require d b yth e Clea nAi r Act . Th e Portland-Vancouve r metropolita nare a ha s faile d t o attai n th e nationa l standard s fo r ozon e concentration s a t thi s time . C . Enforcemen t o f Regulation s Relating t o Reasonabl yAvail

abl e Contro l Technology 1 . Bubble s a . Gunderson . Inc . Gunderson , Inc . (Gunderson ) operate s a rai l ca r an d marin e barg e manufacturin g plan t i nth e Cit yo f Portland . Thi s manufacturin g plan t emit s volatil e organi c compound s a s PAG E 8 - OPINIONP.1 1

_ 6 7 8 9 1 0 

### n •2 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1

2 5 2 6 th e resul t o f painting and coatin g operations . Gunderso ni s subjec t t o a reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio n limi t o f 3. 5 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r ever y gallo no f coating used . Gunderso nobtaine d it s permi t from th e FM C Corporation . I nApril , 1982 , th e FM C Corporatio n informe d th e DE Q tha t i t woul d b e unabl e t o attai ncomplianc e wit hth e applicabl e emissio nlimi t becaus e th e coating s whic hwoul d hav e allowe d th e FM C Corporatio nt o mee t th e applicabl e emissio nlimi t ha d no t bee ndevelope d t o mee t th e requirement s o f th e railca r industry . Th e FM C Corporatio npropose d achievin g complianc e wit hth e applicabl e emissio nlimi t byJanuar y1 , 198 7 through a two-ste p process : 1 ) th e searc hfo r coating s whic hwoul d mee t th e requirement s o f th e railca r industryand th e applic

abl e emissio nlimit ; and 2 ) th e constructio no f a ne wbuilding wit hequipmen t capabl e o f handlin g thes e coatings . I nOctober , 1982 , th e Environmenta l Qualit yCommissio n approve d th e two-ste p process , grante d th e reques t o f th e FMC Corporatio nfo r a variance , and approve d th e complianc e sche

dul e o f th e FM C Corporation . I nJune , 1983 , th e DE Q issue d th e FM C Corporatio n a nai r contaminan t discharg e permi t whic h 2 2 incorporate d thi s complianc e schedule . •^ 3 I nMarch , 1985 , Gunderso npurchase d th e plan t fromth e 2 4 FM C Corporation . Gunderso nprojecte d tha t it s annua l produc

tio nrat e woul d b e substantiall ylowe r tha ntha t o f th e FMC Corporation . PAG E 9 - OPINION«^£tf,. *

_I

1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 I nSeptember , 1985 , th e DE Q issue d Gunderso na modifie d permi t allowin g Gunderso nt o "bubble " exces s emission s o f vol

atil e organi c compound s fromit s coatin g operation s agains t th e unuse d productio ncapacit yo f th e plant . Pursuan t t o th e rule s se t ou t i nth e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Oregon , th e DE Q se t Gunderson' s annua l plan t sit e emissio nlimi t a t 64 0 ton s an d it s dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimi t a t abou t 3.1 5 tons . Pur suan t t o th e modifie d permit , th e DE Q allowe d Gunderso n t o excee d th e reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologylimi t o f 3. 5 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallo n o f coatin g use d provide d tha t th e tota l plan t sit e emission s wer e les s tha nth e annua l and dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimits . I nAugust , 1990 , th e DE Q issue d Gunderso na modifie d per mi t containin g th e identica l "bubble " provisio nfound i nth e 198 5 permit . b . Continenta l Ca nCompany Continenta l Ca nCompany(Continenta l Can ) fabricate s three-piec e stee l can s i nth e Cit yo f Portland . Continenta l Ca napplie s coating s containin g volatil e organi c compound s t o th e stee l fro mwhic hth e can s ar e made , t o th e sid e sea mweld s o f th e cans , and t o th e li d weld s o f th e cans . Th e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fromth e sprayin g o f th e stee l fromwhic hth e can s ar e mad e ar e controlle d i npar t b ya n incinerato r installe d i n1971 . However , th e spraying o f th e coating s t o th e sid e sea mweld s and t o th e li d weld s hav e n o suc hcontrols . PAG E 1 0 - OPINIO NP.1 3

6 7

: 0 1 1

- 2 1 3 1 4

1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 •"is*-

-

Continenta l Ca nemit s annuall ymor e tha n4 0 tons. , o f vola

til e organi c compound s an d i s subjec t t o federa l regulation s fo r th e coatin g o f can s se t fort hi nO.A.R . 340-22-170(5 ) (a) . O.A.R . 340-22-170(5)(a ) provide s fo r a limi t o f 2. 8 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallo no f coatin g applie d t o th e stee l fromwhic hth e can s ar e made ; 5. 5 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallo no f coatin g fo r th e spraying o f sid e seamwelds ; an d 3. 7 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallo no f coating fo r th e spraying o f li d welds . Id . a t (A) , (C ) and (D) . O nJanuar y8 , 1987 , th e DE Q issue d Continenta l Ca na modifie d permi t whic hallow s Continenta l Ca nt o excee d th e specifi c pe r gallo nlimit s se t fort habove , provide d tha t th e tota l emission s fro mth e plan t ar e no t greate r than th e 1 5 emissio n limit s se t pe r mont ho r pe r year . Th e applicatio n 1 0 revie wrepor t o f th e DE Q represente d tha t Continenta l Can' s spraycoatin g t o th e sid e sea mweld s and t o th e li d weld s wer e "bubbled " wit hth e shee t basecoa t lin e whic hwa s "over controlled " byth e incinerator . c . Pacifi c Coatings , Inc . Pacifi c Coatings , Inc . (Pacifi c Coatings ) operate s a n aluminu mcoatin g facilityi nth e Cit yo f Portland . Pacifi c Coating s i s limite d t o 3. 5 pound s o f volatil e organi c com pound s pe r gallo no f coating used . O.A.R . 340-22-170(5 ) (j) . Pursuan t t o it s ai r contaminan t discharg e permit , Pacifi c Coating s i s allowe d t o excee d th e limi t o f 3. 5 pound s o f PAG E 1 1 - OPINIONP.1 4

1 4 1 5 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 26 volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallo no f coatin g use d whe n i t use s a brand o f coatin g knowna s "Duranar, " provide d tha t it s tota l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s ar e les s tha n th e annua l plan t sit e emissio nlimi t o f 6 6 ton s and th e dail y plan t sit e emissio n limi t o f 74 3 pounds , an d tha t emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s from th e Durana r coating s d o no t excee d 5. 6 pounds,pe r gallon . Th e ai r contaminan t discharg e permi t doe s no t requir e th e us e o f an yadd-o nequipment . Th e plan t sit e emissio nlimit s se t fo r Pacifi c Coating s ar e base d o nproductio nrate s that , i f uncontrolled , woul d resul t i nth e emissio no f 9 9 ton s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r year . Pursuan t t o SI P rules , th e DE Q applie d it s reasonabl yavail

abl e contro l technologyrule s t o th e 99-to n emissio nrate , whic hresulte d i na plan t sit e emissio nlimi t o nvolatil e organi c compound s o f approximatel y6 6 tons . 2 . Fatt yFood s Rul e Th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nprovide s fo r a nemissio n limi t o nvolatil e organi c compound s o f 3. 7 pound s pe r gallo n o f coatin g use d fo r th e end-sealing o f cans . O nOctobe r 31 , 1986 , th e Environmenta l Qualit yCommissio namende d th e rule s fo r th e end-sealin g o f can s designe d t o hol d fatt yfood s t o allo wth e emissio n o f 4. 4 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallo no f coatin g use d becaus e the us e o f end-sealin g com pound s whic hwer e i nconformanc e wit hth e SI P resulte d i n th e spoilag e o f th e fatt yfoods . Th e DE Q submitte d thi s rul e // / PAG E 1 2 - OPINIONP.1 5

• 2 13 14 15 1 6 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 chang e t o th e EP Aa s a revisio no f th e SIP . Th e EP Aha s neve r acte do nth e propose drul e change . Afte r relaxin gth e emissio nlimi t o nth e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r end-sealin gcompound s fro m 3. 7 rw-ninrf aTV»T * n a1 1 o nr.r »—. A nonnH cno r—- a1 1 o n. . t^ -1 0HP Q ir-nr _ porate dthi s chang e into a permi t hel db y Silga nContainer s Corporatio n(Silga nContainers) . Th e DE Q als o include dth e revise dlimi t i nth e "bubble " issue dt o Continenta l Ca no n Januar y

8 , 1987 . I nNovember , 1990 , Silga nContainer s claime dtha t i t ha d begu nusin ga surfac e coatin gtha t complie dwit hth e limi t i n th e SI P o f 3. 7 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gal lon . O nApri l 11 , 1991 , th e DE Q issue dSilga nContainer s a n amende dpermi t requirin gth e us e o f end-sealin gcompound s tha t complie dwit hth e SIP / O nApri l 11 , 1991 , th e DE Q als o issue d Continenta l Ca na namende dpermi t fo r can s designe dto hol d fatt y food s whic hrequire s a leve l o f n o mor e tha n3. 7 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallon . O nMa y 15 , 1991 , th e Environmenta l Qualit y Commissio n amende dth e limi t fo r th e end-sealin go f can s containin gfatt y food s fro

m 4. 4 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallon to 3. 7 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallon , con sisten t wit hth e SIP . 3 . Architectura l Coating s Rul e Th e SI P impose s a nemissio n limi t o f 3. 5 pound s o f vola

til e organi c compound s pe r gallo no nth e ai r drie d coating s o f PAG E 1 3 - OPINIO NP.1 6

: 0 miscellaneou s product s and meta l parts . O nOctobe r 31 , 1986 , th e Environmenta l Qualit yCommissio nadopte d a rul e allowin g applicator s o f "hig hperformanc e architectura l coating s o n aluminum " t o emi t up t o 6. 2 pound s o f volatil e organi c com oounds.oe r gallon . Parties ' stirmlat**' * Statemen t o f Fscts , p . 9 . A s wit hth e amende d rul e fo r fatt yfoods , th e EP Aneve r approve d th e rul e applicabl e t o hig hperformanc e architectura l coating s o naluminu ma s a SI P revision . Th e DE Q incorporate d th e amende d rul e i na permi t hel d byPacifi c Coatings . O nMa y15 , 1991 , th e Environmenta l Qualit yCommissio n amende d th e rul e allowing applicatio no f hig hperformanc e architectura l coating s o naluminumfrom6. 2 pound s o f vola

til e organi c compound s pe r gallo nt o 3. 5 pound s pe r gallon , consisten t wit hth e SIP . Th e DE Q ha s no t ye t amende d th e permi t o f Pacifi c Coating s t o reflec t thi s rul e change . I n mid-1991 , Pacifi c Coating s terminate d it s operations , and al l equipmen t relate d t o volatil e organi c compound s wa s remove d fromth e facility . Th e permi t o f Pacifi c Coating s i s stil l i nforce , however . 2 0 D . Enforcemen t o f Ne wSourc e Revie wRequirement s 2 i a . Precisio nCastpart s Corporatio n 2 2 Precisio nCastpart s Corporatio n(Precisio nCastparts ) 2 3 own s an d operate s a n investmen t castin g foundr ylocate di n t h e Cit yo f Clackamas , whic hi s referre dt o a s th e Smal l 2 5 Structura l Busines s Operatio n(SSBO) . O nJun e 6 , 1979 , 2 6 Precisio nCastpart s submitte da napplicatio nfo r a nai r PAG E 1 4 - OPINIO N 1 2 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

2 4

rC 114

15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 23

- 2 4 2 5 2 6 contaminan t discharg e permi t t o th e DE Q i nconjunctio nwit h th e constructio nand operatio no f th e SSBO . O nOctobe r 31 , 1979 , th e DE Q issue d a nai r contaminan t discharg e permi t t o Precisio n Castparts . Th e permi t di d no t allo wPrecisio n Castpart s t o emi t an yvolatil e organi c compounds . O nJun e 24 , 1980 , th e EP Aconditionall yapprove d th e ne w sourc e revie wrule s o f th e Stat e o f Oregon . Fina l approva l o f thes e ne wsourc e revie wrule s wa s grante d o nNovembe r 5 , 1981 . I nJanuary , 1988 , Precisio nCastpart s submitte d a repor t t o th e DE Q indicatin g tha t th e SSB O wa s emittin g quantitie s o f volatil e organi c compounds , primaril yalcoho l and trichlo

roethylen e solvent , a suspecte d huma ncarcinogen . O nJul y27 , 1988 , th e DE Q notifie d Precisio nCastpart s tha t th e facilit y wa s exceedin g it s allowabl e limi t fo r th e emissio no f volatil e organi c compound s and require d Precisio nCastpart s t o submi t a "complianc e schedule " withi ntw o weeks . O nAugus t 2 , 1988 , Precisio nCastpart s submitte d a com plianc e schedul e i nwhic hi t propose d (1 ) completio no f a stud yo f it s emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s an d it s suggeste d contro l alternative s withi nsi xmonths ; and (2 ) fina l complianc e eightee nmonth s later . I nth e interim , Precisio nCastpart s propose d tha t i t b e permitte d t o continu e th e existin g leve l o f emission s o f volatil e organi c compounds . O nSeptembe r 7 , 1988 , th e DE Q issue d Precisio nCastpart s a naddendu

mapprovin g thi s schedule . Unde r th e addendum , PAGE 1 5 - OPINIONP.1 8

2 2 4 5 6 7 6 9 1 0 1 1

" 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 Precisio n Castpart s wa s t o compl ywit hth e regulation s relat

ing t o volatil e organi c compound s mandate d byth e SI P by Septembe r 1 , 1990 . N o interi mcontrol s o f th e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s wer e require d befor e tha t date . O nSeptembe r 15 : . 19fl.9._-

_Precisio nCastpart s submitte d a lette r summarizin g th e emission s o f volatil e organi c com pound s estimate d fo r th e baselin e (1978) , curren t (1989) , and projecte d (1995 ) years . Th e baselin e leve l o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r Precisio nCastpart s wa s zero . Precisio n Castpart s ha s estimate d tha t th e volatil e organi c compound s currentl ybein g emitte d ar e 30 3 ton s and it s projecte d emis

sion s ar e 47 3 tons . Thi s estimatio no f emission s di d no t tak e int o accoun t th e effec t o f an ypollutio n control s tha t coul d b e added . I nit s lette r o f Septembe r 15 , 1989 , Precisio nCastpart s informe d th e DE Q tha t a ninterna l investigatio nshowe d emis

sion s o f alcoho l and ether , bot ho f whic hPrecisio nCastpart s "'had no t previousl ybee naware,' " an d tha t "'th e assumption s (bot htechnica l and economic ) underlying th e contro l strate gie s discusse d las t Spring hav e become invalid.' " Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 11 . Precisio nCastpart s propose d submittin g a revise d fina l contro l strategyb y Octobe r 31 , 1989 . O nNovembe r 7 , 1989 , Precisio nCastpart s submitte d a "Fina l VO C Contro l Strategy " t o th e DEQ . I nit s "Fina l VO C Contro l Strategy, " Precisio nCastpart s propose d aggregating PAGE 1 6 - OPINIONP.1 9

1 3 1 4 15 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 emission s fromth e SSB O wit hemission s fromit s othe r faci

litie s fo r th e purpose s o f complyin g wit hth e regulatio n limitin g plan t sit e emissions . Precisio nCastpart s mad e n o proposa l regarding complianc e wit hth e requirement s fo r revie w of.ne wsource s o f polIntents . O nDecembe r 29 , 1989 , th e DE Q rejecte d th e "Fina l VO C Contro l Strategy " fo r th e SSB O becaus e Precisio nCastpart s ha d propose d "t o bubble " th e emission s fromth e SSB O wit ha n older , non-contiguou s facility . WendySims , manage r o f pro gramoperation s fo r th e Ai r Qualit yDivisio no f th e DE Q state d a t tha t tim e a s follows : Th e SSB O facilit yi s require d t o com e int o compli

anc e wit hth e Ne wSourc e Revie wregulation s withou t delay . Th e Portland are a wa s designate d a non attainmen t are a fo r ozon e prio r t o constructio no f th e SSB O facility , therefor e th e SSB O facilit ywa s subjec t t o Ne wSourc e Revie wa t th e tim e o f con structio n and i s stil l subjec t t o Ne wSourc e Review . Sinc e th e SSB O facilit yemit s i nexces s o f 4 0 tons / year , thi s require s th e applicatio no f LAE R(lowes t achievabl e emissio nrate ) fo r contro l o f al l [vola

til e organi c compound ] emission s (including alcoho l emission s an

d th e trichloroethylen e (TCE)) . Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 12 . Sim s adde d tha t i f th e emission s o f Precisio nCastparts , afte r th e lowes t achievabl e emissio nrat e wa s imposed , wer e no t belo w4 0 ton s pe r year , the noffset s and a ne t ai r qualit ybenefi t woul d b e required . However , i f th e emission s wer e brough t belo w 4 0 ton s pe r yea r throughth e applicatio no f technologyfo r achievin g th e lowes t achievabl e emissio nrate , sh e state d tha t offset s an

d a ne t ai r qualit ybenefi t woul d no t b e required . PAG E 1 7 - OPINIONSh e conclude d tha t "'th e prolonge d operatio no f thi s facilit y i nsubstantia l non-complianc e wit hstat e an d federa l ne w source a revie wrequirement s canno t b e allowed.' " Id . O nMa y17 , 1990 , th e DE Q release d fo r publi c commen t a notic e o f permi t modificatio n propose d b yPrecisio nCastparts . I nth e releas e fo r publi c commen t o f th e notic e o f permi t modificatio npropose d b yPrecisio nCastparts , th e DE Q state d tha t th e applicatio n"'i s fo r a modificatio nan d renewa l fo r a nexistin g permi t whic hdoe s no t requir e revie wunde r th e Ne wSourc e Revie wrules.' " Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 13 . I nth e notice , th e DE Q di d no t stat e wh yth e modificatio nan d renewa l wa s no t subjec t t o revie wunde r th e ne wsourc e revie wrules . Th e notic e o f permi t modificatio n propose d b yPrecisio nCastpart s state s tha t th e permi t incor

porate s a schedul e o f complianc e fo r th e contro l o f emission s o f volatil e organi c compounds , an d tha t "'[u]po ncompletio no f th e complianc e schedul e i n1992 , [volatil e organi c compound ] emission s wil l b e reduce d fro m341. 0 ton s pe r yea r t o n o mor e tha n37. 8 ton s pe r year.' " Id . 2 0 O nAugus t 27 , 1990 , th e DE Q issue d Precisio nCastpart s a ne wpermi t fo r th e SSBO . Th e ne wpermi t contain s a two-par t complianc e schedul e whic hrequire s Precisio nCastpart s t o 2 3 (1 ) instal l a nafterburne r contro l syste mwithi n26 0 day s an d 2 4 b e capabl e o f operatin g i ncontinuou s complianc e withi n27 0 days ; an d (2 ) phas e ou t al l us e o f trichloroethylen e withi n 46 0 days . Th e permi t als o provide s tha t upo ncompletio n o f

PAG E 1 8 - OPINIO N 14 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9

2 1

2 5 2 6P.2 1

1 3 1 4 1 5 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 thes e steps , bu t n o late r tha n46 0 day s afte r issuanc e o f th e permit , Precisio nCastpart s shal l limi t it s annua l emissio n rat e o f volatil e organi c compound s t o 39. 9 tons . Th e permi t doe s no t requir e Precisio nCastpart s t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e lowes t achievabl e emissio n r*r. e anr f offse t require

ment s o r t o submi t th e alternativ e analysi s describe d i n th e ne wsourc e revie wregulations . b . Tektronix . Inc . Tektronix , Inc . (Tektronix ) manufacture s electroni c and othe r equipmen t a t it s plan t i nth e Cit yo f Beaverton . Emis

sion s o f volatil e organi c compound s com e from a painting line , degreasers , electroplating operations , and miscellaneou s othe r sources . O nNovembe r 12 , 1985 , th e DE Q issue d a modificatio nt o Tektronix' s "minima l source " permit . I ndoin g so , th e DE Q calculate d th e "baseline " annua l emissio nrat e fo r Tektroni x fo r th e emissio n o f volatil e organi c compound s t o b e 27 8 tons . Tektroni xrequeste d permissio nt o increas e it s "baseline " annua l emissio nrat e fo r th e emissio no f volatil e organi c compound s b y14 0 ton s ove r th e cours e o f th e lif e o f th e five

yea r permi t i norde r t o accommodat e it s expecte d growt hi n production . Th e DE Q grante d thi s reques t and se t th e annua l emissio nlimi t fo r Tektroni xa t 41 8 ton s pe r year . I nth e permi t applicatio nrevie wreport , th e DE Q conclude d tha t "'[t]he increas e abov e baselin e ca nb e approve d withi nth e availabl e [volatil e organi c compound ] growt hmargi nfo r th e PAG E 1 9 - OPINIO N

^ a P '

c "\• 2

1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 Portland Metropolita narea.' " Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 15 . I n th e permi t applicatio nrevie wreport , th e DE Q di d no t discus s complianc e wit hne wsourc e revie w requirements , includin g th e lowes t achievabl e emissio nrat e an d th e alternativ e analysis . I nth e permi t applicatio n revie wreport , th e DE Q wa s allowe d t o reclai mal l o r par t o f th e growt hmargi n allocate d t o Tektroni xfo r redistributio n t o othe r industrie s i f i t wa s no t use d b yTektronix . Tektroni xdi d no t experienc e it s expecte d growt hi n productio n and , therefore , di d no t increas e it s emission s o f volatil e organi c compounds . Therefore , whe nth e permi t issue d o n Novembe r 12 , 198 5 came up fo r renewa l o nJanuary1 , 1990 , th e DE Q exercise d it s powe r t o reclai mth e growt hmargi n and t o se t th e plan t sit e emissio nlimi t fo r Tektroni xbac k t o th e "baseline " level . Ther e wer e n o physica l modification s o r change s i noperatio na t Tektroni xwhic hresulte d i na ne t increas e o f mor e tha n4 0 ton s above th e "baseline " level . c . Por t o f Portland Th e Por t o f Portland operate s a shi p repai r yar d o n Swa nIsland i n th e Cit yo f Portland . Th e facilit yi s a majo r sourc e o f emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s becaus e o f th e evaporatio no f solvent s use d i nshi p painting . Th e annua l productio ncapacit yo f th e shi p repai r yar d i s approximatel y 216,00 0 gallon s o f marin e paint s an d primers . Th e painting o f th e ship s i s performe d byprivat e contractor s wh o leas e dry 2 6 doc k facilitie s fromth e Por t o f Portland . PAG E 2 0 - OPINION4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 A s o f 1978 , th e Por t o f Portland operate d thre e dr ydoc k facilities . I n1978 , emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fromth e Por t o f Portland totalle d 14 7 tons . I n1979 , th e Por t o f Portland constructe d a fourt h"supertanker-size " dr y deck . By1384 , -imuo i *=___._»si_u_ ; o £ volatil e organi c com pound s fromth e Por t o f Portland wer e 348. 7 tons . Th e Por t o f Portland di d no t appl yt o th e DE Q fo r a modificatio n o f it s permi t unti l Apri l 15 , 1985 . I nit s applicatio nt o th e DE Q fo r a modificatio no f it s permit , th e Por t o f Portland note d tha t "'projecte d annua l [volatil e organi c compound ] emission s byth e yea r 200 0 ar e expecte d t o b e 374.4 5 ton s o r 227.4 9 ton s abov e th e baselin e yea r o f 1978.' " Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 16 . Th e Por t o f Portland requeste d a "growt hmargi n allocation " o f 227.4 9 ton s and a nannua l plan t sit e emissio nlimi t o f 37 5 tons . Id . Th e DE Q issue d a permi t t o th e Por t o f Portland o nJun e 9 , 1986 . A s requeste d byth e Por t o f Portland , th e permi t provide d fo r a nannua l plan t sit e emissio nlimi t o f 37 5 tons . I nth e permi t applicatio nrevie wreport , th e DE Q explaine d tha t becaus e th e fourt hdr ydoc k woul d resul t i na nincreas e o f mor e tha n4 0 ton s pe r yea r o f emission s o f volatil e organi c compounds , th e constructio no f th e "supertanker-size " dr ydoc k wa s a majo r modificatio nsubjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wrequire

ment s . I nth e permi t applicatio nrevie wreport , th e DE Q stated : "'The standar d shi p coating s ar e considere d [lowes t achievabl e PAG E 2 1 - OPINION1 4

; C 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 emissio nrate ] fo r thi s industry.' " .Id . Th e quantitativ e limit s o nemission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fromth e expande d operation s o f th e Por t o f Portland proscribe d i nth e Jun e 9 , 198 6 permi t consiste d solel yo f th e limit s o nplan t sit e emissions . Lastly , tn e permi t applicatio nrevie wrepor t doe s no t contai na n"alternativ e analysis " whic hdemonstrate s tha t th e benefit s resulting fromth e increase d emissio n o f 227.4 9 ton s o f volatil e organi c compound s "significantl yout weigh " th e environmenta l and socia l cost s o f th e increase d emission s o f volatil e organi c compounds . Ld . a t 16-17 . E . Enforcemen t o f O.A.R . 340-20-00 1 (Highes t an d Bes t Prac ticabl e Treatmen t an d Contro l 1 . Contro l TechnologyGuideline s an d Reasonabl yAvail

abl e Contro l Technology Th e process-specifi c rule s relatin g t o th e emissio n o f volatil e organi c compound s whic hwer e promulgate d i nth e lat e 1970' s and earl y1980' s wer e base d o ncontro l technology guideline s issue d b yth e EP Aa s th e "presumptiv e norm " fo r reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology . Th e EP Adi d no t issu e contro l technologyguideline s fo r variou s industries , suc ha s compute r chi p manufacturing , shi p repai r yards , and investmen t foundries . A t th e tim e plaintiff s file d thei r complaint , th e process-specifi c rule s o f th e DE Q whic hrelat e t o th e emissio no f volatil e organi c compound s di d no t addres s emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fromth e processe s fo r whic hth e EP Ahad no t issue d contro l technologyguidelines . A s a matte r o f genera l policy , th e DE Q ha s no t require d tha t PAG E 2 2 - OPINIONP.2 5

majo r source s o f volatil e organi c compound s whic hus e pro cesse s fo r whic hn o contro l technolog yguidelin e ha s bee n issue d b yth e EP Acompl ywit hreasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology . O nMa y15 , 1991 , th e Environmenta l Qualit yCommissio n adopte d a rule , O.A.R . 340-22-104 , whic hestablishe s a pro ces s fo r settin g reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technolog y limit s fo r majo r source s o f ai r contaminant s (ove r 10 0 ton s pe r year ) no t covere d b ya n EPA-issue d contro l technolog y guideline . Unde r tha t rule , th e DE Q mus t firs t notif yth e sourc e i nwritin g tha t i t i s subjec t t o th e rule . Th e sourc e the nha s thre e month s t o submi t a reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technolog yanalysi s t o th e DEQ . Upo nreceip t o f th e analysis , th e DE Q wil l establis hreasonabl yavailabl e contro l technolog y requirement s fo r eac hsourc e o n a case-by-cas e basis . Upo n approva l b yth e EP Ao f th e requirement s a s a source-specifi c SI P revision , th e sourc e the n ha s u p t o on e yea r t o achiev e compliance . O.A.R , 340-22-104(5)-(6) . Th e DE Q submitte d th e rul e t o th e EP Aa s a SI P revision , 20bu t a s o f Decembe r 15 , 1991 , th e EP Aha d no t approve d it . Th e DE Q ha s no t ye t sen t an yo f th e writte nnotice s require d t o commenc e th e proces s fo r establishin g reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technolog ylimit s se t fort hi nO.A.R. 340-22-104 . _i

1 4

.1 6 17 18 19

21 2 2

2 5

^ c 2 . Reguirin g State-of-the-Ar t Control s whe nPermittin g

"Minor " Modification s Jame s Rive r II , Inc . (Jame s River ) operate s a pape r

PAG E 2 3 - OPINIO Na

9 i O M

• 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 coatin g and flexibl e packaging printing plan t i nth e Cit y o f Portland . The proces s o f printin gusedb

y Jame s Rive r include s the printingo f packagin g(wrapping ) shee t for frozenfood s an

dothe r use s onflexographi c an drotogravur e printingpresses . A s o f June , 1991 , Jame s Rive r hada permi t t o operat e si xflexographi c presses . O nJune 27 , 1991 , the DEQ amende dthe permi t o f Jame s Rive r t o allo

w th e compan

y t o instal l a sevent hflexographi c press . I nth

e permi t applicatio nrevie w report , the DEQ notedtha t the additiona l flexographi c pres s woul dno t caus e anincreas e i nplant sit e emission s beyon dthe annua l emis sio nlimi t o f 2,88 9 tons . Inth e revie w report , the DEQ explainedtha t it s findin gof complianc e wit hthe "highes t an dbest " requirement , O.A.R . 340-20-001 , includedthe fol lowing : a . The us e o f a

nenclosedin

kdelivery

syste m whic har e [sic ] estimate d t o reduc e pres s emission s b

y 10% . b . The pape r coatin gline s wer e ove r controlled t o provid e a 60 0 to npe r yea r [volatil e orga ni c compound ] bubbl e t o allo w th e presse s t o operat e withou t exhaus t emissio ncontrols . Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 19 . F . Requiremen t an d Enforcemen t o f Short-TermPlan t Sit e Emissio nLimit s Aplan t sit e emissio nlimi t impose s a noveral l cap o n emission s ove r a perio d o f time . Th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nrequire s tha t plan t sit e emissio nlimit s b e establishe d o nbot ha n annua l an d a "shor t ter

mperio d emissio nbasi s PAG E 2 4 - OPINIONP.2 7

7

1 1

_ 1 3 •1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 tha t i s compatibl e wit hsourc e operatio nand ai r qualit ystan dards. " O.A.R . 340-20-310(2) . A s o f Jun e 15 , 1990 , ther e wer e a t leas t si xmajo r source s o f volatil e organi c compound s i nth e Cit yo f Portland nonattainmen t are a whe nth e DE Q permitte d th e averagin g o f annua l emission s dat a t o demonstrat e "compliance " wit hshort

termplan t sit e emissio nlimits . Thes e source s o f volatil e organi c compound s wer e Inte l Corporation , Gunderson , Freight

line r Corporation , Silga nContainers , Tektronix , and Bro d & McClun g Pac e Compan y(nowknowna s Sink o America , Inc.) . I n Augus t and Septembe r o f 1990 , th e DE Q issue d permi t modifica

tion s regarding th e monitorin g an d reporting o f short-term emission s t o th e following companies : Gunderson , Freightline r Corporation , Bro d & MCClun g Pac e Company , Silga nContainers , Continenta l Can , and Jame s River . I nth e cas e o f Continenta l Can , althoughth e DE Q require s th e reportin g o f maximumdail y emissions , i t ha s no t se t a dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimit . Th e DE Q ha s se t a monthl yplan t sit e emissio nlimit , bu t thi s limi t applie s onl ydurin g th e summe r season . Th e DE Q ha s no t modifie d reporting requirement s wit hregar d t o Inte l Corpora

tion , Tektronix , th e Por t o f Portland an d Pacifi c Coatings . Curren t permit s fo r thes e source s o f volatil e organi c com pound s d o no t requir e th e demonstratio no f complianc e wit h dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimits . Th e Por t o f Portland i s i nth e "100-to nmiscellaneou s reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology " categorytha t i s subjec t t o O.A.R . 340-22-104 , PAG E 2 5 - OPINIONwhic hwa s adopte d b yth e Orego nEnvironmenta l Qualit yCommis

sio no nMa y15 , 1991 . Th e DE Q state s tha t i t wil l revie w short-termplan t sit e emissio nlimit s a t th e Por t o f Portland throug himplementatio nof " thi s rule . Pacifi c Coating s lia s ter__ir-_t_e

d it s or *erations = Th e DE Q contend s ..that . no.practi

cal , technicall ymeaningfu l metho d o f measurin g short-term emission s fo r th e operation s a t Tektroni xand Inte l Corpora

tio ni s known , and tha t a nannua l plan t sit e emissio nlimi t i s compatibl e bot hwit hth e operation s a t Tektroni xand Inte l Corporatio n and th e applicabl e ai r qualit ystandards . CONTENTION S O F TH E PARTIE S I nthei r complaint , plaintiff s alleg e tha t th e DE Q i s violatin g th e Clea nAi r Ac t byfailing t o requir e complianc e wit hfou r type s o f emissio nstandard s containe d i nth e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Oregon . First , plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q 6 ha s faile d t o enforc e mandated , reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio nstandard s and limitation s se t i nth e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego na t majo r source s o f volatil e organi c compound s i nth e Cit yo f Portland nonattainmen t area . Next , plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q ha s grante d permi t applicant s th e righ t t o operat e majo r ne wo r modifie d source s o f volatil e 2 2 organi c compound s withou t requirin g th e permi t applicant s t o

- 3 compl ywit hth e ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s mandate d byth e 2 4 SIP . Third , plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q ha s faile d t o 2 5 provid e fo r th e "highes t and bes t practicabl e treatmen t and control " i n al l case s involving emission s o f volatil e organi c PAG E 2 6 - OPINION 1 4

• 5 1 5 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1

2 5P.2 9

• 1 •2 1 2 14 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 compound s i nth e Cit yo f Portland nonattainmen t area . Finally , plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q ha s faile d t o provid e fo r and thereafte r enforc e short-ter mplan t sit e emissio nlimit s fo r emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s a s require d byth e SIP , allowin g source s instead t o demonstrat e complianc e wit h hourl yo r dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimit s b ydividin g th e tota l annua l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s b yth e numbe r o f hour s o r day s th e plan t operate d i ntha t year . Th e DE Q contend s tha t th e enforcemen t o f th e SI P and source-specifi c permit s i s committe d t o it s discretio nand i s no t reviewabl e bythi s court ; tha t thi s cas e mus t b e reveiwe d unde r th e standar d o f revie wfound i n th e Orego nAdministra

tiv e Procedure s Ac t (OregonAPA) ; and tha t i t ha s adequatel y enforce d it s SIP . APPLICABL E STANDAR D Summar yjudgmen t i s appropriat e wher e "ther e i s n o genu in e issu e a s t o an ymateria l fac t and . . . th e movin g part y i s entitle d t o a judgmen t a s a matte r o f law. " Fed . R . Civ . P . 56(c) . Th e initia l burde ni s o nth e movin g part yt o poin t ou t th e absenc e o f an ygenuin e issu e o f materia l fact . Onc e th e initia l burde ni s satisfied , th e burde nshift s t o th e opponen t t o demonstrat e throughth e productio no f probativ e evidenc e tha t ther e remain s a nissu e o f fac t t o b e tried . Celote xCorp . v . Catrett . 47 7 U.S . 317 , 32 3 (1986) . Ona motio nfo r summaryjudgment , al l reasonabl e doub t a s t o th e existenc e o f a genuin e issu e o f fac t shoul d b e resolve d PAG E 2 7 - OPINION

- f v5'S? 1P.3 0

8 9 1 0 1 1

• 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 agains t th e movin g party . Hecto r v . Wiens , 53 3 F.2 d 429 , 43 2 (9tnCir . 1976) . ANALYSI S ANDRULIN G A . Enforcemen t o f th e SI P an d th e Standar d o f Revie w •ph e initia l * row-e n t . o f th e HE O I s tha t enforcemen t o f th e SI P and source-specifi c permit s i s committe d t o th e discretio n o f th e DE Q and i s therefor e no t subjec t t o revie w bythi s court . Th e DE Q argue s tha t "ther e i s nothin g i n th e Clea nAi r Ac t tha t compel s [the ] DE Q t o tak e enforcemen t actio n. . . agains t a nallege d violator. " Defendants ' Memo randu mi nOpposition , p . 5 . Plaintiffs , however , ar e no t seeking t o compe l th e DE Q t o tak e actio nagains t th e allege d violators ; rather , plaintiff s see k a declaratio no f th e cour t "(a ) tha t [the ] DE Q ha s a dut yunde r th e SI P and th e Clea n Ai r Ac t t o requir e complianc e wit h. . . fou r [specific ] 'emissio nstandard s and limitations' ; and (b ) tha t [the ] DE Q ha s systematicall yfaile d t o requir e complianc e wit hthes e emissio n standard s and ha s violate d th e SI P and th e Act. " Plaintiffs ' Repl yMemorandum , p . 2 . Th e cour t conclude s tha t plaintiff s d o no t see k a norde r o f th e cour t requirin g th e DE Q t o ac t i nit s regulatorycapa cit ybecaus e i t i s th e DE Q itsel f tha t i s th e regulate d part y i nthi s action. 1 Th e requirement s an d commitment s foun d i n

Onc e a pollutio nsourc e i s issue d a permi t b ya n authorize d stat e permitting agency , th e permit , an d no t the Clea nAi r Act , become s binding upo nth e source . I nothe r (continued... ) PAGE 2 8 - OPINIONP.3 1

• 1

• 2

1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nbecame bindin go nth e DE Q a s a matte r o f federa l law afte r th e approva l o f th e SI P b y th e EPA . Se e America nLun a Ass'n , 87 1 F.2 da t 322 . Althoug hi t authore dth e SIP , th e DE Q i s nonetheles s boun db y it s pro vision s andi s afforde dno deferenc e whe na cour t interpret s th e plan . Se e America nLun gAss' nv . Kean , 67 0 F . Supp . 1285 , 129 1 (D . N.J . 1987) , aff'd , 87 1 F.2 d31 9 (3rdCir . 1989) . A determinatio no f whethe r th e DE Q ha s violate dth e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nan dth e Clea nAi r Ac t b y failin gt o requir e complianc e wit hfou r emissio nstandard s andlimitation s con taine di nth e SI P approve db y th e EP A

i s no t a matte r commit te dto th e discretio no f th e DE Q an dtherefor e i s properl y befor e thi s court . Th e DE Q nex t contend s tha t it s allege dviolation s in issuin gpermit s andi nenforcin gth e SI P ar e inessenc e challenge s to th e DEQ' s interpretatio no f it s rules , whic h mus t b e reviewe dunde r th e OregonAPA . Th e DE Q argue s tha t th e onl y

wa y thi s cour t ma y

rul e agains t i t i s i f th e "cour t find s a particula r permi t doe s no t compl ywit h[the ] DEQ' s // /
(...continued ) words , a violatio no f th e permi t i s a violatio no f th e Act . Thus , eve ni f a permi t wa s improperl y issued , a sourc e remain s fre e fro menforcemen t actio nagains t i t s o lon g a s i t complie s wit hit s permit . Unite d State s v . Sola r Tur bines . Inc. . 73 2 F . Supp . 53 5 (M.D . Pa . 1989) . Consequently , plaintiff s canno t obtai n a norde r o f thi s cour t t o requir e th e DE Q t o tak e enforcemen t actio n agains t source s whic h hav e committe d n o violatio n othe r tha nt o ac t i naccordanc e wit hthei r permits . PAG E 2 9 - OPINIO N: 1

" 2 12 1 4 15 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 I rule s whe nreviewe d unde r th e [Orego nAPA ] standard. " Defen

dants ' Memorandu

mi nOpposition , p . 8 . Th e sol e issu e i na citizen' s sui t seekin g enforcemen t o f a SI P unde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t i s whethe r ther e ha s bee n CO__ r »lianc ° Vlt hth e SIP - ftwori ca - T...n< r Ass'n . fi70 V. Ruon . a t 1289 ; Citizen s fo r a Bette r Env' t v . Deukmelian , 73 1 F . Supp . 1448 , 145 8 (N.D . Cal . 1990) . Accordingly , thi s cour t ha s heretofor e rejecte d th e argumen t o f th e DE Q tha t thi s cas e i s " a revie wo f th e action s o f th e DE Q o n a permit-by-permi t basis " and ha s rule d instea d tha t "[t]hi s cas e concern s th e clai mo f plaintiff s tha t th e DE Q i s violatin g federa l la wa s embodie d byth e Clea nAi r Ac t and th e implementatio npla nfo r th e Stat e o f Oregon. " Orego nEnvtl . Counci l v . Orego nDep' t o f Envtl . Quality . 77 5 F . Supp . 353 , 36 4 (D . Or . 1991) . Sinc e th e DEQ' s complianc e wit hth e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego n and th e provision s o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t ar e t o b e determine d i n resolvin g thi s case , th e cour t wil l no t emplo yth e deferen

tia l standar d o f revie wo f th e action s o f th e DE Q provide d fo r unde r th e Orego nAPA . B . Reasonabl yAvailabl e Contro l Technology Th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nand th e provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t mandat e emissio nstandard s t o contro l emis

sion s o f volatil e organi c compounds . Thes e emissio nstan dard s requir e th e applicatio no f "reasonabl yavailabl e con tro l technology " a t al l source s o f volatil e organi c compound s covere d b

ya contro l technologyguidelin e publishe d b yth e PAG E 3 0 - OPINIONP.3 3

1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 22 . 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 EPA . Plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q ha s faile d t o enforc e thes e standards . Th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nand th e provision s o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t requir e th e DE Q t o enforc e complianc e wit hrea sonabl yavailabl e contro l technologystandard s a t al l source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic hth e EP Aha s issue d a contro l technologyguideline . Th e Clea nAi r Ac t state s tha t SIP s fo r nonattainmen t area s "shal l provid e fo r . . . reduc

tion s i nemission s fromexisting source s i nth e are a a s ma y b e obtaine d throughth e adoption , a t a minimum , o f reasonabl y availabl e contro l technology. " 4 2 U.S.C . § 7502(c)(1) . Th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego ni s mor e specifi c i nmandatin g tha t th e DE Q "requir e reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyt o b e applie d t o al l source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic h[the ] EP Aha s publishe d contro l technologyguidelines. " Stat e Implementatio nPla nfo r th e Stat e o f Oregon , p . 45 . A s "th e agenc yresponsibl e fo r meetin g th e State' s obli

gation s unde r th e Clea nAi r Act, " Stat e o f Orego nAi r Qualit y Contro l Program , Vol . 1 , p . 3 , th e DE Q acknowledge s it s dut y t o requir e complianc e wit hth e SIP-mandate d reasonabl yavail

abl e contro l technologystandard s a t al l source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic hth e EPAha s issue d a contro l tech

nologyguideline . Th e DE Q als o acknowledge s tha t "the SI P and th e Ac t requir e th e us e o f [reasonabl yavailabl e contro l tech

nology ] " a t th e source s identifie d i nplaintiffs ' complaint . Defendants ' Memorandu mi nOpposition , p . 10 . However , th e PAG E 3 1 OPINIO N1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 ' 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 DE Q argue s tha t i t i s no t confine d t o a rigi d se t o f emissio n standard s o r contro l technologyguideline s i n achievin g rea sonabl yavailabl e contro l technolog yrequirement s sinc e th e SI P provide s fo r a degre e o f flexibilit yi nachievin g reason abl yavailabl e contro l technology . Consequently , th e DE Q contend s tha t i t i s "i nful l complianc e wit hth e [reasonabl y availabl e contro l technology ] emissio nstandard s throughit s federall yapprove d Plan t Sit e Emissio nLimit s rules , whic h allo wsource s t o achiev e [reasonabl yavailabl e contro l tech

nology ] by'bubbling.-'? ' Id . a t 12 . Plaintiffs , o nth e othe r hand , contend tha t 1 ) a plan t sit e emissio nlimit s rul e i s neithe r th e factua l no r lega l equivalen t o f reasonabl yavail

abl e contro l technology ; an d 2 ) th e DE Q i s substitutin g com plianc e wit ha plan t sit e emissio nlimit s rul e fo r complianc e wit hSIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology rule s i nviolatio no f th e SI P an d th e Clea nAi r Act . Whil e agreein g tha t th e DE Q i s obligate d t o requir e com plianc e wit hSIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l tech

nologyemissio n standards , whic har e i nessenc e th e contro l technologyguidelin e fo r th e particula r source , 4 5 Fed . Reg . a t 42,269 ; se e Nationa l Stee l Corp . v . Gorsuch . 70 0 F.2 d 314 , 32 2 (6t hCir . 1983) , th e partie s disput e whethe r th e DE Q ha s require d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologya t al l o f th e source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic hth e EPA ha s publishe d a contro l technolog yguideline . Th e DE Q ha s issue d a t leas t thre e permit s t o source s o f volatil e organi c PAG E 3 2 - OPINION A O 7 2 • =ev6'62 )1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 compound s covere d byEPA-approve d contro l technologyguide

lines , "whichexemp t th e source s from complianc e wit hreason abl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio nstandard s provide d tha t th e source s remai ni ncomplianc e wit hth e rule s relating

.;.&%__.

_kS_.a_.a

_a . _ . a . ' 0 9XWI 1 — . A "a**— . _-_?" a Complianc e wit ha plan t sit e emissio n limit s rul e i s no t i nfac t complianc e wit hth e reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio nstandard s a t issu e i nthi s case . Th e SIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio n standard s se t specifi c limit s o nth e concentratio no f volatil e organi c compound s i nra wmaterial s use d i nvariou s manufac

turin g processe s vi a a formul a fo r pound s o f volatil e organi c compound pe r gallo n o f ra wmateria l used . Se e O.A.R . 340-22

- 170 . Aplan t sit e emissio nlimit s rule , o nth e othe r hand , control s emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s byplacing a noveral l cap o n th e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s froma plan t ove r a perio d o f time . Se e O.A.R . 340-20-305(5) . Plan t sit e emissio nlimit s ar e calculate d bymultiplyin g th e

Gunderso nand Pacifi c Coating s ar e eac hsubjec t t o th e SIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology emissio nlimi t o f 3. 5 pound s o f volatil e organi c compound s pe r gallo no f coatin g used . However , eac ho f thei r permit s contain s a nexemptio nfromth e reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio nlimit , provide d tha t thei r tota l plan t sit e emission s d o no t excee d annua l o r dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimits . Similarly , Continenta l Ca ni s subjec t t o specifi c SIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio nlimits , whic hi t i s allowe d t o excee d provide d tha t th e tota l emission s fromit s plan t ar e no t greate r tha nit s rule s fo r monthl yo r yearl yplan t sit e emissio nlimits . Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , pp . 4-8 . PAG E 3 3 - OPINION A O 7 2

r~ - r. <•1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 plant' s averag e productio nrat e o f a particula r pollutan t during'th e baselin e yea r (eithe r 197 7 o r 197S ) byth e amoun t o f emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s allowe d b yth e SIP

mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologylimits . Se e O.A.R . 340-20-310(1) . A nexampl e wil l serv e t o illustrat e th e differenc e betwee ncomplianc e wit hreasonabl yavailabl e contro l techno

logylimit s and complianc e wit hplan t sit e emissio nlimits . I f a plan t use d 100 0 gallon s o f a materia l containin g volatil e organi c compound s i n1977 , and th e applicabl e reasonabl y availabl e contro l technologylimit s fo r th e materia l i s a volatil e organi c compound concentratio no f 3. 5 pound s pe r gallon , it s plan t sit e emissio nlimi t woul d b e 3,50 0 pound s o f volatil e organi c compounds . However , i f th e plan t reduce d it s productio nrat e fromtha t o f th e baselin e yea r s o tha t onl y50 0 gallon s o f th e materia l wer e used , i t coul d stil l remai ni ncomplianc e wit hth e plan t sit e emissio nlimit s rules , despit e using a materia l wit ha volatil e organi c com poun d conten t o f 7 pound s pe r gallon , whil e violatin g th e rea sonabl yavailabl e contro l technologylimi t o f 3. 5 pound s pe r gallon . Thus , complianc e wit hplan t sit e emissio nlimit s doe s no t ensur e complianc e wit hSIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologystandards . Regardles s o f th e factua l difference s betwee n th e tw o emissio n contro l strategies , th e DE Q argue s tha t "th e [plan t sit e emissio nlimits ] i s a nEPA-approve d mean s fo r imposing PAG E 3 4 - OPINION A O2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 ' 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 [reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology ] standard s o nsour ce s of"[volatil e organi c compound ] emissions. " Defendants ' Memorandumi nOpposition , p . 1 7 (emphasi s i n original) . Th e EPAapprove d th e plan t sit e emissio nlimit s rule s o f th e Stat e o f Orego na s a SI P revision . 4 7 Fed . Reg . 3519 1 (Augus t 13 , 1982) . Th e plan t sit e emissio nlimit s rule s containe d i n th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nprovide s tha t th e plan t sit e emissio n limit s rule s "shal l no t allo wemission s i nexces s o f thos e allowe d b yan yapplicabl e federa l o r stat e regula

tio n. . . unles s specifi c provision s o f OAR340-20-31 5 [th e "bubbl e rule" ] ar e met. " O.A.R . 340-20-310(6) . Complianc e wit hreasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio nstan dard s i s a regulatio napplicabl e t o source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic hth e EP Aha s issue d a contro l technologyguideline;

- thus , i f th e specifi c provision s o f th e "bubbl e rule " ar e no t met , the na permi t issue d t o suc h a sourc e whic hauthorize s emission s i nexces s o f reasonabl y availabl e contro l technologylimit s violate s th e SI P and th e Clea nAi r Ac t despit e requiring complianc e wit hth e plan t sit e emissio n limit s rules . Th e "bubbl e rule " provides , i npertinen t part , that : Alternativ e emissio ncontrol s ma yb e approve d fo r us e withi na plan t sit e suc htha t specifi c mas s emissio nlimi t rule s ar e exceede d provide d that : (2 ) Ne t emission s fo r eac hpollutan t ar e no t increase d abov e th e Plan t Sit e Emissio nLimit .

A O 7 2 .°ev8'82 ) | PAG E 3 5 - OPINIO NP.3 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 (5 ) Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology (BACT ) an dLowes t Achievabl e Emissio nRat e (LAER ) wher e requiredb

y a previousl y

issue dpermi t an

dNe w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) an dNationa l EmissionStandard s fo r Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s (NESHAP ) wher e required , ar e no t relaxed . O.A.R . 340-20-315 . The DEQ contend s tha t the "bubbl e rule " prohibit s source s o f pollutant s fro m exceedingthe specifi c SIP-mandatedreasonabl y availabl e contro l technolog y emissio

n limit s for volatil e organi c compound s i ntw o instances : 1 ) i f t o allo w source s o f pollutant s t o exceedwoul dincreas e ne t emission s for the particula r pollutant above the plant sit e emissionlimits ; an d2 ) i f t o allo

w source s o f pollutant s to exceedwoul dcreat e a relaxationo f an y o f the fou

r standard s (Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology , Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio n Rate , New

Sourc e Performanc e Standards , an dNationa l Emissio

n Standard s for Hazardou s Ai r Pollutants ) namedi nth e rule . The DEQ argue s tha t the omissionof reasonabl y availabl e con tro l technolog

y fro m the abov

e lis t o f emissioncontro l stra tegie s allows reasonabl y availabl e contro l technolog y to b e "bubbled, " providedtha t th e "bubble " conforms t o th e plant sit e emissionlimit s rules . However , the DEQ fail s to indi cat e precisel y

wha t "alternativ

e emissioncontro l strategy " i s bein gusedwithi nthe plant site s at issue i nthi s cas e which woul dallo

w the specifi c SIP-mandatedlimi t onmas s emissions t o be exceeded . Instead , th e DEQ argue s tha t independent complianc e wit hthe plant sit e emissio nlimit s rule s i s enoug ht o PAG E 3 6 - OPINIO

N A O 7 2P.3 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 15 1 6 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 trigge r th e "bubbl e rule, " therebypermittin g th e reasonabl y availabl e contro l technolog ystandard s t o b e relaxed . Th e DE Q state s tha t "source s tha t mee t [plan t sit e emissio nlimits ] als o mee t [reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology ] require

ments. " De_Cal_._.i't_

_' H__a__!_iii-l__

u 11 1 CppC5_.__.Gii , p . l j . Th e cour t find s tha t complianc e wit ha rul e fo r limit s o nplan t sit e emission s i s no t a n "alternativ e emissio ncon trol; " rather , complianc e wit ha rul e fo r limit s o nplan t sit e emission s i s a conditio n necessar yfo r approva l o f th e us e o f "alternativ e emissio n controls " withi na plan t site . An yothe r interpretatio n o f th e languag e o f th e bubbl e rul e woul d rende r th e provisio n requirin g tha t ne t emission s no t b e increase d abov e th e rule s fo r plan t sit e emissio nlimits , O.A.R . 340-20-315(2) , superfluou s an d i nviolatio no f th e settle d rul e o f statutor yconstruction , whereb yever ywor d i na statut e mus t hav e som e operativ e effect , i f possible . Unite d State s v . Nordi c Village , Inc. . U.S . , 11 2 S.Ct . 1011 , 101 5 (1992) . Moreover , a s illustrate d b yth e exampl e o npag e 3 4 o f thi s opinion , a sourc e o f pollutant s ha s th e abilit yt o compl ywit hth e rule s relatin g t o it s plan t sit e emissio nlimit s withou t th e us e o f an yemissio ncontrol s b y reducin g it s productio n rate . Thus , i t woul d b e a fallac y

Th e cour t decline s t o explor e possibl e example s o f "alternativ e emissio n controls. " I t i s sufficien t fo r th e adjudicatio no f thi s cas e t o not e tha t complianc e wit hth e rule s relatin g t o plan t sit e emissio nlimit s i s no t suc ha n example . PAG E 3 7 - OPINIO N A O 7 2P.4 0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 t o constru e complianc e wit hth e rule s relatin g t o plan t sit e emissio nlimit s a s a n"alternativ e emissio ncontrol. " Th e DE Q nex t contend s tha t it s practic e o f issuin g a permi t whic hallow s a sourc e o f pollutant s t o "bubble " exces s o r .unused , productio n capacit yt o offse t exceedence s o f SIP

mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l techologyemissio n limit s wa s consisten t wit ha propose d polic yo f th e EP Aa t th e tim e th e permit s wer e issued. 4 Th e DE Q cite s th e 198 2 "Emission s Trading Polic yStatement " o f th e EP Aa s it s autho

rit yt o issu e permit s whic hincorporat e "productio nbubbles. " However , "productio nbubbles " tha t resul t i na sourc e o f pol

lutant s bein g i ncomplianc e wit ha rul e fo r plan t sit e emissio nlimit s absen t an y"alternativ e emissio ncontrols " ar e no t sufficien t t o exemp t a sourc e o f pollutant s from complianc e wit hspecifi c mas s emissio nlimi t rule s o f volatil e organi c compounds , suc ha s th e rule s relatin g t o reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologycontaine d i na SIP . Moreover , th e propose d polic ystatemen t o f th e EP Ai s no t determinative . I t i s th e SI P itsel f tha t create s th e obligation s wit hwhic ha stat e mus t comply . America nLun g

Th e fina l "Emission s Tradin g Polic yStatement " o f th e EP Aissue d i n 1986 , 5 1 Fed . Reg . 4381 4 (Dec . 4 , 1986) , di d no t favo r th e "bubbling " o f unuse d o r exces s productio n capacity . However , th e DE Q contend s tha t thi s polic ystate men t contain s unambiguou s languag e whic hgrandfather s al l "bubbles " existing a t th e tim e o f it s publication . Thus , accordin g t o th e DEQ , th e "bubbles " containe d i nth e permit s i t issue d befor e publicatio no f th e fina l polic ystatemen t o f th e EP Anee d onl yb e consisten t wit hth e EPA' s "produc

tio nbubble " policyo f 1982 . PAG E 3 8 - OPINION A O 7 2 ;Re vfl'82)P.4 1

1 2

' 3 4 5 6 7 'a 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 Ass'n , 67 0 F . Supp . a t 1291 ; America nLun g Ass'n , 87 1 F.2 d a t 322 r Th e polic ystatement s o f th e EP Ad o no t exemp t a stat e fromcomplyin g wit hth e term s o f it s SI P o r th e Clea n Ai r Act. 5 Thus , eve ni f "productio nbubbling " wa s acceptabl e unde r th e 198 2 "Emission s Tradin g Policy " o f th e EPA , thi s doe s no t excus e th e DE Q fromrequirin g complianc e wit hth e SIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio n standards . Lastly , plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q ha s issue d per mit s t o industria l source s whic hincorporat e relaxation s o f existin g SIP-mandate d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technology emissio nstandard s withou t prope r approva l fromth e EP Ao f thes e SI P revisions . ASI P revisio ni s no t effectiv e unti l i t i s approve d byth e EPA . 4 2 U.S.C . S 7410(a)(3)(A) ; Se e Genera l Motor s Corp . v . Unite d States . 49 6 U.S . 530 , 54 0 (1990) . Th e DE Q concede s tha t i t issue d permit s containin g unauthorize d relaxe d emissio nlimits , Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , pp . 8-10 , ye t i t claim s no t t o b e violat

ing th e Clea n Ai r Ac t becaus e 1 ) a t th e tim e th e permit s wer e issued , th e la wrelating t o th e effectivenes s o f unapprove d

Onl ytw o method s exis t whic hwil l reliev e a stat e fromcarryin g ou t th e mandate s o f it s SIP . Th e firs t metho d i s tha t a nEPA-approve d revisio no f it s SI P ma yb e obtaine d pursuan t t o 4 2 U.S.C . S 7410(a)(3) . Th e second metho d i s tha t a stat e ma ypostpon e implementatio no f th e SI P fo r no t mor e tha non e year , provide d tha t i t meet s th e stringen t requirement s impose d by4 2 U.S.C . S 7410(f) . Absen t eithe r o f thes e methods , a stat e ha s onl yon e option , complianc e wit hit s SIP . Friend s o f th e Eart hv . Carev . 53 5 F.2 d 165 , 16 9 (2 d Cir . 1976) . PAG E 3 9 - OPINION A O 7 2 •.Re v3-82 11

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 SI P revision s wa s unclear ; an d 2 ) th e issu e i s moo t sinc e al l o f the-offendin g permit s hav e bee ncorrecte d o r ar e n o longe r i nuse . . Genera l Motor s di d not , a s th e DE Q contends , creat e ne w

approve d SI P i s th e applicabl e implementatio npla nduring th e tim e a SI P revisio n proposa l i s pending. " Genera l Motors . 49 6 U.S . a t 540 . Th e Cour t cite s t o a lon g lin e o f cases , th e earlies t o f whic hpre-date s th e issuanc e o f anyo f th e permit s i nquestion , tha t stand fo r th e propositio ntha t th e existing SIP , i nit s origina l form , remain s controllin g unti l a revi

sio ni s approve d byth e EPA . Id . (citing , amon g othe r cases , Trai nv . Natura l Resourc e Defens e Council , Inc. , 42 1 U.S . 60 , 92 , (1975)) . Thus , th e clai mo f th e DE Q tha t i t lacke d clea r preceden t i s unsubstantiated . Furthermore , eve nfollowing th e Genera l Motor s decision , th e DE Q faile d t o correc t certai n permit s tha t contai nunapprove d revisions. 6 I nth e previou s motio nfo r summaryjudgmen t o f th e DEQ , thi s cour t hel d tha t th e cas e shoul d no t b e declare d moo t a s

6 Pacifi c Coating s i s governe d bya SI P provisio n whic hlimit s th e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s t o 3. 5 pound s pe r gallo nfo r ai r drie d coatin g o f miscellaneou s product s and meta l parts . Th e permi t o f Pacifi c Coating s reflecte d thi s SIP-mandate d emissio nlimi t unti l th e DE Q revise d it s permi t allowing i t t o emi t 6. 2 pound s o f vola

til e organi c compound s pe r gallon . Thi s revisio nwa s neve r approve d byth e EPA . Pacifi c Coating s cease d it s operation s i nmid-1991 , and al l equipmen t whic hemitte d volatil e orga ni c compound s wa s remove d fro mth e facility ; however , th e DE Q ha s no t amende d it s permit , whic hremain s i neffect . Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , pp . 9-10 . PAG E 4 0 - OPINION A O7 2 ao.. , O<PO \1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 t o thos e permit s whic hth e DE Q ha s amende d i n accordanc e wit h the SIP . Orego n Envtl . Council , 77 5 F . Supp . a t 364* . The DEQ ha s no t allege

dtha t the fact s hav e changedsinc e the filin g o f it s prior motionfo r summar y judgment ; therefore , th e cour t decline s the invitationo f the DEQ t o reconside r it s rulin go n the previou s motiono f the DEQ for summar y judgment . Finally , whil e none o f the permit s ar e no w i nuse 7 , th

e claim i s no t moo t sinc e plaintiff s seekprospective relie f i ntha t the

y wis ht o ba r simila r future action s o f the DEQ . Se e PresbyterianChurchv . UnitedStates . 87 0 F.2 d518 , 52 8 (9t hCir . 1989 ) ("burde no f demonstratin

gmootnes s i s a heav y one an dmootnes s wil l no t be foun di f the underlyingdisput e betweenth

e partie s i s capabl e o f repetition , ye t evading review" ) (citatio

nan dinterna l quotation s omitted) . I nsummary , the DE Q ha s issuedpermit s t o source s o f volatil e organi c compound s coveredb y contro l technolog y guideline s issue

db y the EPA

which1 ) allo

w non-complianc e wit hSIP-mandatedreasonabl y availabl e contro l technolog y emissionlimits ; an d2 ) fai l t o requir e the us e o f "alter nativ e emissio

ncontrols " withi nth e givenplan t site . Th e DE Q has , therefore , violatedbot hthe SI P fo r the Stat e o f Oregonan

dth e CleanAi r Act .

Th e permit s hel d bySilga nContainer s and Continenta l Ca nhav e bee n amende d i naccordanc e wit hthe approve d SIP . Th e permi t hel d byPacifi c Coating s ha s no t bee namende d s o a s t o compl ywit hth e approve d SIP , bu t th e companyha s ter minate d it s operations . PAG E 4 1 - OPINION A O 7 2 •Re v8/82 )1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 C . Ne wSourc e Revie w

Th e Amendment s t o th e Clea nAi r AC

_enacte d i n197 7 require d tha t state s wit hnonattainmen t area s mus t amend their ' SIP s t o provid e fo r ne wsourc e review . 4 2 U.S.C . S 7502(b ) (6) . I t i s unconteste d tha t th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego n prohibit s th e constructio no f a majo r sourc e o f ai r contami

nant s o r th e majo r modificatio no f a sourc e o f ai r contami

nant s withou t having firs t satisfie d ne wsourc e revie wrules . O.A.R . 340-20-22 0 through276 . Unde r th e ne wsourc e revie w rules , majo r ne wsource s o f ai r contaminant s o r majo r modi

fication s o f existing source s o f ai r contaminant s mus t mee t th e requirement s liste d i nO.A.R . 340-20-240 , includin g th e following : (1 ) Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio nRate . Th e owne r o r operato r o f th e propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio nmus t demonstrat e tha t th e sourc e o r modificatio nwil l compl ywit hth e lowes t achiev

abl e emissio n rat e (LAER ) fo r eac hnonattainmen t pollutant . . . . (3 ) Growt hIncremen t o r Offsets . Th e owne r o r operato r o f th e propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modificatio n mus t demonstrat e tha t th e sourc e o r modificatio n wil l compl ywit han yestablishe d emis

sion s growt hincremen t fo r th e particula r are a i n whic hth e sourc e i s locate d o r mus t provid e emissio nreduction s ("offsets" ) a s specifie d bythes e rules . . . .

• • • • (5 ) Alternativ e Analysis : (a ) An alternativ e analysi s mus t b e conducte d fo r ne wmajo r source s o r majo r modification s o f

A O 7 2 •^ev6'82 ) PAG E 4 2 - OPINIO N2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 source s emitting volatil e organi c compound s o r

carbo nmonoxid e locating i nnonattainmen t areas;. . (b ) Thi s analysi s mus t includ e a nevaluatio n o f alternativ e sites , sizes , productio n processes , an d environmenta l contro l technique s fo r suc hpro pose d sourc e o r modificatio n whic hdemonstrate s tha t benefit s o f th e propose d sourc e o r modifica

tio nsignificantl youtweighth e environmenta l and socia l cost s impose d a s a resul t o f it s location , constructio no r modification . Thes e ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s mus t b e satisfie d prio r t o th e beginning o f constructio nthroug ha formal , pub

li c revie wprocess . O.A.R . 340-20-220(1) . A napplican t fo r a permi t i nth e Stat e o f Orego nmus t firs t submi t al l relevan t informatio n concerning th e constructio no r modificatio no f a majo r sourc e o f ai r contaminants . O.A.R . 340-20-230(1) . Th e DE Q i s the nobligate d unde r th e SI P t o tak e th e following steps : 1 ) t o notif yth e public , loca l official s and th e EP A o f th e permi t application ; 2 ) t o mak e al l relevan t informatio n availabl e fo r publi c review ; 3 ) t o provid e fo r publi c hearing s i f requested ; 4 ) t o conside r al l writte ncomments ; an d 5 ) t o formulat e a writte ndeterminatio no f whethe r th e applican t meet s al l applicabl e ne wsourc e revie wrequirements . O.A.R . 340-20-230(3) , 235 . Th e DE Q ma yno t issu e a permi t t o a majo r ne wo r modifie d sourc e o f volatil e organi c compound s i n th e Portland nonattainmen t are a withou t complyin g wit hth e pre constructio nrevie wprocess . O.A.R . 340-20-230(3)(G) . Plaintiff s conten

d tha t th e DE Q grante d t o th e SSB O a t Precisio n Castparts , t o th e Por t o f Portland Shi p Repai r Dock , and t o Tektroni xthe righ t t o operat e majo r ne wo r modifie d PAG E 4 3 - OPINION A O 7 2 Pe v6/82 )2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 source s o f volatil e organi c compound s withou t requirin g them t o compl ywit hth e rule s mandate d b yth e SI P fo r revie wo f majo r ne wo r modifie d source s o f volatil e organi c compounds . Plaintiff s als o contend tha t th e DE Q ha s breache d it s dut y

-i.-. I _11

__. _— w—'—.w^ . _._._ __w_taau-lt____U Ua—'- . -U_IU_xail_ C »»_.« . « - « . a . _ . 1.11 cit e ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s an d t o mak e tha t documentatio n availabl e fo r publi c review . Th e DE Q contend s tha t n o violatio no f ne wsourc e revie w rule s ha s occurred , eithe r becaus e th e necessit yfo r ne w sourc e revie wwa s neve r triggered , o r i f i t wa s triggered , becaus e th e DE Q too k appropriat e action . 1 . Precisio nCastpart s I t i s undispute d tha t th e permi t issue d t o Precisio n Castpart s fo r it s SSB O doe s no t compl ywit heithe r th e lowes t achievabl e emission s rate , growt hincrement s o r offsets , o r alternativ e analysi s requirement s se t fort hi nO.A.R . 340-20

- 240(1) , (3) / (5) . Th e DEQ , however , contend s tha t th e SSB O o f Precisio n Castpart s wa s no t a "majo r modification " requiring ne wsourc e review . Fo r purpose s o f th e ne wsourc e revie wrules , a "majo r modification " is : anyphysica l chang e o r chang e o f operatio no f a sourc e tha t woul d resul t i na ne t significan t emissio nrat e increas e . . . fo r anypollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Clea nAi r Act . Thi s criteri a als o applie s t o anypollutant s no t previousl yemitte d b yth e source . Calculation s o f ne t emissio nincrease s mus t tak e int o accoun t al l accumulate d increase s an d decrease s i nactua l emission s occurrin g a t th e sourc e sinc e [the PAGE 4 4 - OPINIO N A O7 2 O,- . O/O "2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 baselin e year , either ] January1 , 1978 , o r . . .

th e tim e o f th e las t constructio napprova l issue d fo r th e sourc e pursuan t t o th e Ne wSourc e Revie w Regulation s fo r tha t pollutant , whicheve r tim e i s mor e recent . I f accumulatio no f emissio nincrease s result s i n a ne t significan t emissio n rat e increase , th e modificatio ncausin g suc hincrease s becom e sub

jec t t o th e Ne wSourc e Revie wrequirement s includin g the . retrofi t o f require d controls . O.A.R . 340-20-225(15) . A"significan t emissio nrate " fo r volatil e organi c compound s i s 4 0 ton s pe r year . Jd . Thus , anyphysica l o r operationa l alteratio no f a sourc e o f pollu

tant s whic hresult s i na ne t increas e i nemission s o f volatil e organi c compound s o f 4 0 ton s pe r yea r ove r it s actua l emission s sinc e th e baselin e yea r i s a "majo r modification " trig

gerin g th e ne wsourc e revie wrequirements . Id . O nOctobe r 31 , 1979 , th e DE Q issue d Precisio nCastpart s a permi t fo r constructio no f th e facilit yhousin g it s SSBO . Th e permi t di d no t provid e fo r th e emission s o f volatil e organi c compounds . Thi s permi t wa s issue d befor e th e fina l approva l byth e EPAo f th e ne wsourc e revie wregulation s o f th e Stat e o f Orego no nNovembe r 5 , 1981 . 4 6 Fed . Reg . 5495 0 (1981) . Thus , th e approva l o f th e DE Q fo r th e constructio n o f th e facilit yhousin g it s SSB O wa s no t issue d pursuan t t o ne wsourc e revie wregulations . Accordingly , th e baselin e yea r fo r Precisio n Castpart s i s 1978 , an d th e actua l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fro mit s facilit yhousin g th e SSB O i nth e yea r prio r t o th e constructio no f th e facilit ywer e zero .O nSeptembe r 15 , 1989 , Precisio nCastpart s disclose d

A O 7 2 •3ev6.'82 ) PAG E 45 - OPINIO NP.4 8

-5^3. ,

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 tha t it s annua l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s wer e approximatel y30 3 tons , thereb yexceedin g th e ne t increas e o f 4 0 ton s pe r yea r tha t define s a "majo r modification. " Consequently , Precisio nCastpart s wa s subjec t t o th e ne w sourc e revie wregulation s applicabl e t o majo r modifications . Nevertheless , o n Augus t 27 , 1990 , th e DE Q issue d Precisio n Castpart s a ne wpermi t fo r it s SSB O whic hdi d no t requir e Precisio nCastpart s t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e ne w sourc e revie wrequirements . Th e DE Q offer s tw o reason s whyth e SSB O o f Precisio n Castpart s wa s no t subjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s prio r t o th e issuanc e o f th e permi t i n 199 0 t o Precisio n Castparts . First , th e DE Q argue s tha t irrespectiv e o f it s actua l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s a t th e tim e i t wa s issue d th e permit , th e potentia l o f Precisio nCastpart s t o emi t volatil e organi c compound s wa s les s tha n4 0 ton s pe r year , and thi s figur e i s dispositiv e i ndeterminin g whethe r th e SSB O i s a potentia l "majo r source " o f pollutant s o r a "majo r modification. " Th e DE Q base s it s conclusio ntha t th e potentia l o f th e SSB O t o emi t volatil e organi c compound s a t th e tim e o f th e issuanc e o f th e permi t wa s les s tha nth e "significan t emissio nrate " fo r volatil e organi c compound s o nth e fac t tha t th e permi t containe d a schedul e o f complianc e requirin g Precisio nCastpart s t o limi t it s annua l emission s rat e o f volatil e organi c compound s t o 39. 9 ton s withi n46 0 day s o f issuance . Th e complianc e schedul e specificall y PAG E 4 6 - OPINION A O 7 2•«_.. - P.4 9

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 require s Precisio nCastpart s t o add certai nequipmen t fo r emission s contro l i norde r t o reduc e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s t o th e appropriat e level , an d according t o th e DEQ , "the phras e 'potentia l t o emit ' include s ai r pollutio ncontro l equipment. " r»f<i-Ha-to ' M°!_o_"_nd!__

_i n Opposition , p . 4 3 (citing O.A.R . 340-20-225(19)) . Regardles s o f whethe r th e DE Q ha s appropriatel ydefine d th e phras e "potentia l t o emit " withi nth e meanin g o f th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego n, th e DE Q ha s neglecte d th e languag e o f th e SI P bydefining a "majo r modification " i nterm s o f "potentia l t o emit " an d no t i nterm s o f "actua l emissions. " Th e ne wsourc e revie wregulation s ar e triggere d bymajo r modification s whe nne t emissions , whic har e calculate d by accountin g fo r "al l accumulate d increase s an d decrease s i n actua l emission s occurring a t th e sourc e sinc e January1 , 1978, " resul t i na "ne t significan t emissio nrat e increase. " O.A.R . 340-20-225(15 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e DE Q disregarde d th e "actua l emissions " o f th e SSB O o f Precisio nCastpart s i n determinin g tha t emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s from th e sourc e woul d no t ris e abov e th e "significan t emissio n rate. " Th e determinatio no f th e DE Q is , therefore , flawed .

Th e SI P o f th e Stat e o f Orego ndefine s "potentia l t o emit " a s "the maximu mcapacit yo f a sourc e t o emi t a pol

lutan t unde r it s physica l an d operationa l design. " O.A.R . 340-20-225(22).Pollutio n contro l equipmen t tha t i s t o b e adde d t o a sourc e i s arguabl yno t par t o f th e source' s "physica l and operationa l design. " Thus , i t ma yb e incor

rec t t o accoun t fo r an ycontro l equipmen t no t currentl yi n plac e whe ndetermining a source' s "potentia l t o emit. " PAG E 4 7 - OPINION A O 7 2 iPe v6'S2 )1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 15 16 17 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 A source' s potentia l to emi t volatil e organi c compound s ma y no t be-usedt o excus e a sourc e fro m new sourc e revie

w rule s i f it s actua l emission s s o require , se e Unite dState s v . Louisiana-Pacifi c Corp. . 68 2 F . Supp . 1122 , 113 3 (D . Colo . 198?^, - an

dit i s nnoontestedthai - i-h e actua l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s fro m th e SSBOo f PrecisionCast part s exceed s th

e 40-to nper yea r emissionrat e increas e tha t require s complianc e wit hth e ne w sourc e review

rules . The secon

dcontentiono f th e DEQ i s tha t the permi t ori ginall y issuedt o Precisio nCastpart s b

y the EPA

wa s issue

d prio r t o the approva l o f th e ne w sourc e review

progra m o f th e Stat e o f Oregon , thereb y exemptin

gPrecisionCastpart s fro m th e ne w sourc e revie

w regulation s o f the Stat e o f Oregon . Althoughthe DE Q ha dn o federally-enforceabl e ne w sourc e revie w rule s whe nit ' issue dth e origina l permi t t o Precisio n Castparts , suchrule s wer e inexistenc e an dwer e federally enforcabl e i n199 0 whenth e DEQ issueda new permi t t o Preci sionCastpart s for it s SSBO . The cour t find s tha t th e DEQ violatedthe SI P for th e Stat e o f Oregonan dth e Clea nAi r Ac t b

y issuingPrecisio

n Castpart s a permi t i n199 0 tha t failedt o requir e Precisio n Castpart s t o demonstrat e it s complianc e wit hthe lowes t achievabl e emissionrat e an doffse t requirement s or to sub mi t analternative s analysi s as describedi nthe ne w sourc e revie w regulations . // /

A O72 PAG E 4 8 - OPINIO NP.5 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 

### 2 . Tektroni x

Plaintiff s nex t contend tha t th e DE Q allowe d Tektroni x t o increas e it s emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s by 14 0 ton s pe r yea r abov e th e baselin e level s withou t requiring Tektroni xt o compl ywit h n e wsourc e revie wrequirements . Thc

DE Q contend s tha t 1 ) thi s issu e i s moot ; 2 ) n o majo r modifica

tio nwa s authorized ; and 3 ) eve ni f a majo r modificatio nwa s authorized , th e lowes t achievabl e emissio n rat e wa s required . O nNovembe r 12 , 1985 , th e DE Q issue d t o Tektroni xa modi

ficatio nt o a nexistin g "minima l source " permi t thereb yallow

ing Tektroni xa n annua l increas e o f 14 0 ton s i nemission s o f volatil e organi c compound s abov e it s baselin e rate . Although authorize d byth e modificatio nt o increas e it s emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s by14 0 tons , Tektroni xneve r di d so . Consequently , whe nth e minima l sourc e permi t cam e up fo r renewa l i n1990 , th e DE Q exercise d it s powe r unde r Conditio n8 o f th e minima l sourc e permi t t o reclai mth e increas e o f 14 0 ton s tha t i t ha d allocate d t o Tektronix . Additionally , th e DE Q issue d a ne wpermi t o nNovembe r 13 , 1991 , whic hreturne d limit s o nth e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s t o th e baselin e level . I nligh t o f th e ne wpermi t o f Novembe r 13 , 1991 , th e DE Q contend s tha t "eve ni f th e permi t originall y wa s issue d inappropriately , th e issu e i s moot. " Defendants ' Memorandu

m i n Opposition , p . 52 . I norde r t o rende r a nactio nunde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t moot , [t]he defendan t mus t demonstrat e tha t i t i s 'absolutel y PAGE 4 9 - OPINION A O 7 2 •3ev8'82 )1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 clea r tha t th e allegedl ywrongfu l behavio r coul d no t reason abl yb e expecte d t o recur.' " Gwaltne vo f Smithfield . Ltd . v . Chesapeak e BavFound. . Inc. . 48 4 U.S . 49 , 6 6 (1987 ) (quoting Unite d State s v . Phosphat e Expor t Ass'n . 39 3 U.S . 199 , 20 3 (1968, . (emohasi s i nGwaltnev. . Thus , defendant s ma vno t

% ##«'-

—1 —• —. mm evad e sanction s unde r th e doctrin e o f mootnes s "b ypredict

abl e 'protestation s o f repentanc e an d reform.' " Gwaltney , 48 4 U.S . a t 6 7 (quoting Unite d State s v . Orego nStat e Medica l Soc'v . 34 3 U.S . 326 , 33 3 (1952)) . Th e DE Q maintain s tha t i t wa s justifie d i nissuin g th e modificatio nt o th e existin g "minima l source " permit , thereb yallowing a nincreas e i n th e emission s o f volatil e organi c compounds , th e "allegedl y wrongfu l behavior. " Th e fac t tha t th e DE Q believe s i t wa s justifie d i nissuing th e modificatio nt o th e existin g "minima l source " permi t i s evidenc e indicating tha t th e conduc t o f th e defendant s wil l recur , and therefor e thi s clai mi s no t moot . Th e DE Q nex t contend s tha t th e sanctione d increas e i n emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s b yTektroni xwa s no t a "majo r modification " requirin g ne wsourc e review . Th e DE Q point s ou t tha t "[t]her e wer e n o physica l modification s o r operationa l change s a t Tektroni xresulting i na ne t increas e o f mor e tha n4 0 ton s abov e th e baselin e level. " Defendants ' Memorandumi nOpposition , p . 50 . Th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego ndefine s a "majo r modification " a s "an yphysica l chang e o r chang e o f operatio no f a sourc e [o f pollutants ] tha t woul d resul t i na ne t significan t emissio nrat e increase. " O.A.R . PAG E 5 0 - OPINION i O 7 2 =e v8'S2 )2

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 340-20-225(15 ) (emphasi s added) . Therefore , a "majo r modi

fication " unde r th e SI P need no t actuall yresul t i na "ne t significan t emissio nrat e increase; " rather , a physica l o r operationa l chang e wit hth e potentia l t o resul t i na ne t sig

nifican t emissio nrat e increas e constitute s * "m»jo r modifi

cation . " Th e DE Q assert s tha t th e modificatio no f th e permi t i n 198 5 onl yauthorize d increase s i nemission s o f volatil e orga ni c compound s resulting fromincrease s i nproduction , thereb y no t meetin g th e definitio no f "majo r modification " unde r th e SIP , whic hrequire s a physica l chang e o r a chang e i nopera tion . However , th e permit , afte r bein g modified , grante d t o Tektroni xth e righ t t o increas e it s emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s b y14 0 tons , withou t limitin g th e manne r i n whic hsuc hincrease s i nemission s migh t arise . Tektroni xwa s no t prohibite d frommakin g physica l o r operationa l changes . Moreover , th e DE Q itsel f ha s referre d t o th e permi t modificatio ngrante d t o Tektroni xi n198 5 a s a "majo r modi

fication " withi nth e meanin g o f th e SIP . Th e DE Q responde d t o th e lette r o f plaintiff s whe nthe ygav e notic e o f thei r inten t t o fil e sui t bystating tha t "the modification s [a t Tektronix ] wer e treate d a s 'majo r modifications ' unde r th e rul e and wer e subjec t t o th e ne wsourc e requirements . Th e emission s increas e wa s permitte d i naccordanc e wit hth e ne w sourc e revie wrules. " Exhibi t E o f Parties ' Join t Exhibits , p . 6 . Thus , th e DE Q i s estoppe d t o argu e no wtha t th e

A O 7 2 '<5e v8/82 ) PAG E 5 1 - OPINIONP.5 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

. 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 increas e i nemission s o f volatil e organi c compound s a t Tektroni xwa s no t a "majo r modification 1 subjec t t o th e ne w sourc e revie wrequirements . Finally , th e DE Q contend s tha t any"majo r modification " uutatCiiZcd puz-Uuut • t u _.ii

_ penul t uOui_xi;<_L_uri u i 13o5'iias satisfie d th e ne wsourc e revie wrequirements . However , th e DE Q ha s faile d t o provid e sufficien t evidenc e t o suppor t it s claim . Th e DE Q ha s presente d n o documentar yevidenc e t o sho wtha t i t conducte d a nalternative s analysi s o r require d Tektroni xt o submi t on e a s mandate d byO.A.R . 340-20-240(5) . Th e ne wsourc e revie wrule s containe d i n th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nar e requirements , and th e failur e t o compl ywit h thos e rule s i s a violatio no f th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego n an d th e Clea n Ai r Act . 3 . Por t o f Portland Plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q issue d a permi t t o th e Por t o f Portland o nJun e 9 , 198 6 authorizin g a nannua l increas e i nth e emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s o f 22 8 ton s ove r th e baselin e levels , withou t requirin g th e Por t o f Portlan d t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hne wsourc e revie wrules . Th e DE Q contend s tha t 1 ) th e constructio n giving ris e t o th e increase d emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s occurre d befor e th e Stat e o f Orego nha d a federally

enforceabl e ne wsourc e revie wprogram ; 2 ) th e requirement s o f th e ne wsourc e revie wprogramonl yappl yt o applicant s fo r permit s t o construc t a majo r ne wo r modifie d sourc e PAGE 5 2 - OPINION A O 7 2P.5 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 o f volatil e organi c compounds ; an d 3 ) eve ni f th e Por t o f Portland wa s subjec t t o th e requirement s o f th e ne wsourc e revie wprogrami n1986 , complianc e wit hthos e requirement s woul d hav e bee nfutile . A s th e cour t found wit hrespec t t o Precisio nCastparts . th e relevan t time fo r determinin g th e enforceabilit yo f th e ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s i s no t th e tim e o f th e con structio n o f th e sourc e o f emission s o f th e volatil e organi c compounds . Th e relevan t tim e i s th e tim e whe nth e permi t t o construc t th e sourc e o f emission s o f th e volatil e organi c compound s i s issued . O nJun e 9 , 1986 , th e DE Q issue d t o th e Por t o f Portland a permi t incorporating emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s from th e fourt hdrydock , whic hwa s a n unpermitte d constructio ni n1979 , an d a t thi s tim e th e Stat e o f Orego nha d federally-enforceabl e ne wsourc e revie wrules . Similarly , th e clai mo f th e DE Q tha t th e Por t o f Portland i s exemp t from

th e ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s becaus e th e fourt hdr ydoc k ha d bee nconstructe d a t th e tim e whe nth e per mi t applicatio n wa s submitte d i s meritless . Th e DE Q argue s tha t "the Ne wSourc e Revie wrequirement s ar e ore-constructio n requirement s [an

d mor e specificall ythat ] [t]her e i s nothing i nth e rule s t o sugges t tha t a nalternativ e analysi s shoul d b e conducte d afte r construction. " Defendants ' Memorandu mi n Opposition , p . 54 . Th e onl ysuppor t fo r th e positio n o f th e DE Q i s th e phrasiologyfoun d a t pag e 4 0 o f Plaintiffs ' Memo randu mi nSuppor t o f Motio nfo r Partia l Summar yJudgment , PAG E 5 3 - OPINION A O 7 2 (Re v8/82 )2

3 4 5 6

7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 whereb y"pre-constructio n review " i s th e labe l plaintiff s besto wupo nth e SIP-mandate d proces s designe d t o ensur e com plianc e wit hth e ne wsourc e revie wrequirements . However , a labe l canno t compe l a ninterpretatio ndifferen t fro mth e exrjres s 1 anmiaa eo f .-h eSIP . — J J_—_ —— Th e SI P impose s withou t exceptio nth e ne wsourc e revie w requirement s o nal l "[n]e wmajo r source s an d majo r modifica

tion s whic har e locate d i n designate d nonattainmen t areas. " O.A.R . 340-20-240(1) . Th e DE Q concede s tha t th e constructio n o f th e fourt hdr ydoc k wa s a "majo r modification " withi n th e meanin g o f th e SIP . Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 16 . Th e SI P doe s no t exemp t a sourc e o f pollutant s fro m th e ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s simpl ybecaus e th e "majo r modification " wa s constructe d prio r t o th e issuanc e o f a requisit e permit . Moreover , i f suc ha nexemptio n wer e allowed , a windfal l woul d b e create d fo r thos e majo r ne wo r modifie d source s tha t disregarde d th e SIP-mandate d requirements . Th e SI P provides , i npertinen t part , tha t "[n] o owne r o r operato r shal l begi n constructio no f a majo r sourc e o r a majo r modificatio no f a n ai r contaminan t sourc e withou t havin g receive d a nAi r Conta

minan t Discharg e Permi t fro mth e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit yan d havin g satisfie d [ne wsourc e revie wrequire

ments]. " O.A.R . 340-20-220(1) . I f th e cour t wa s t o accep t th e argumen t o f th e DEQ , a nai r contaminan t sourc e whic h neglecte d th e requirement s unde r O.A.R . 340-20-220(1 ) woul d

A O7 2 PAG E 54 - OPINIO N4

5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 escap e th e exemptionles s ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s con tained-i nO.A.R . 340-20-240 . Th e Stat e o f Orego ncoul d no t hav e intende d t o creat e suc ha loophol e fo r industria l source s o f pollutant s t o avoi d complianc e wit hit s SIP . Additionally , ir . th s SIP-itccif , th e Stat s o f Orego n acknowledge s tha t complianc e wit hne wsourc e revie wrequire

ment s i s a requiremen t fo r existin g construction s tha t mee t th e definitio no f "majo r modifications. " O.A.R . 340-20

- 225(15 ) provide s tha t al l "majo r modifications " ar e "subjec t t o th e Ne wSourc e Revie wrequirement s including th e retrofi t o f require d controls. " Tha t th e retrofittin g o f control s i s amon g th e ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s indicate s tha t thes e requirement s appl yt o ai r contaminan t source s already constructed . Lastly , th e DE Q contend s tha t eve ni f th e constructio n o f th e fourt hdr ydoc k wa s subjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wrequire

ments , it s failur e t o requir e post-constructio ncomplianc e wit hth e ne wsourc e revie wrule s i s excusabl e sinc e i t woul d hav e bee nfutil e t o requir e complianc e wit hthes e rules . Th e DE Q focuse s o nth e futilit yo f th e alternative s analysi s and outline s wh yn o alternative s exis t fo r eac ho f th e SIP-man

date d area s o f evaluatio n—sourc e site , size , productio n processes , and environmenta l contro l techniques . However , th e DEQ' 8 pos t ho c analysi s i s no t a prope r substitut e fo r a n alternative s analysi s conducte d prio r t o th e issuanc e o f a permit . Furthermore , the DEQ' s pos t ho c alternative s analysi s

A C 7 2 ifevS-82 ) PAG E 5 5 - OPINIO N1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 i s flawe d sinc e manyo f th e finding s o f futilit yar e premise d o nthe-fac t tha t th e fourt hdr ydoc k ha d alreadybee ncon structed . I f thi s cour t wa s t o accep t pos t ho c finding s o f futility , i t woul d creat e a nincentive , wherebyexemptio nfro m iie wsourc e revie wrequirement s become s feasibl e provide d tha t ai r contaminan t source s commenc e majo r constructio nproject s withou t applyin g fo r mandatorypermits . Suc ha resul t i s con traryt o th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nan d th e Clea nAi r Ac t whic hprovide , withou t exception , fo r th e applicatio no f ne w sourc e revie wt o thos e source s whic htrigge r it . Th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nrequire s tha t a nai r con taminan t sourc e subjec t t o ne wsourc e revie wmus t demonstrat e complianc e wit heac ho f th e requirement s befor e receiving a permi t t o construc t ane wo r modify . O.A.R . 340-20-220(1) . Th e constructio no f th e fourt hdr ydoc k wa s a "majo r modifi

cation " subjec t t o ne wsourc e review ; thus , th e alternative s analysi s shoul d hav e occurre d prio r t o th e tim e th e DE Q grante d th e permi t i n1986 . Thoug hth e DE Q claim s t o hav e require d th e lowes t achievabl e emissio n rat e a t th e Por t o f Portland , i t neithe r require d th e Por t o f Portlan d t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e growt hincremen t requirement , no r di d i t conduc t o r requir e th e Por t o f Portlan d t o conduc t a nalternative s analysi s befor e issuing t o th e Por t o f Portlan d a permi t fo r a "majo r modification. " Thus , th e DE Q ha s violate d th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nan d th e Clea nAi r Act . PAG E 5 6 - OPINION A O7 2P.5 9

1 2 3

. 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 12 13 1 4 1 5 1 6 17 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 D . Highes t and Bes t Practicabl e Treatmen t and Contro l

Th e thir d contentio no f plaintiff s i s tha t th e DE Q failed t o provid e fo r th e "highes t an d bes t practicabl e treatmen t an d control " i n al l case s involving emission s o f volatil e organi c coiiipouii-l

a i ntilt

s Portland nonattainmeri t area . Sp—___ic_iiiy , plaintiff s argu e tha t the DE Q ha s faile d 1 ) t o requir e com plianc e wit hreasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyemissio n standard s and limitations ; 2 ) t o defin e and enforc e reasonabl y availabl e contro l technologyemissio nstandard s and limita

tion s fo r manufacturin g processe s fo r whic hth e EP Aha s no t publishe d contro l technologyguidelines ; 3 ) t o enforc e ne w sourc e revie wrules ; and 4 ) t o requir e stat e o f th e ar t con trol s a t non-majo r ne wo r non-majo r modifie d source s o f vola

til e organi c compounds . Th e DE Q contend s tha t 1 ) th e standar d o f th e "highes t an d bes t practicabl e treatmen t an d control " i s no t a nenforceabl e emissio nstandar d unde r th e SIP ; and 2 ) eve ni f th e standar d o f th e "highes t an dbes t practicabl e treatmen t and control " i s a n enforceabl e emissio nstandar d unde r th e SIP , tha t standard ha s bee nfull yimplemente d sinc e a ) reasonabl yavailabl e con tro l technologyi s require d a t al l majo r source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic hth e ET Aha s publishe d contro l technologyguidelines ; b ) th e SI P doe s no t requir e reasonabl y availabl e contro l technologya t source s o f volatil e organi c compound s no t covere d byEPA-approve d contro l technology guidelines ; c ) ne wsourc e revie wrequirement s hav e bee n PAG E 5 7 - OPINION A O 7 21

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 enforced ; and d ) stat e o f th e ar t control s ar e require d a t non-majo r ne wsource s o f volatil e organi c compound s and non majo r modification s o f existin g source s o f volatil e organi c compounds .

—a l • . . . __ . _. _a ._ . * . „ J _._.__ . _ __^ - ^ J _ _J_*a

__,.£_

__- C X'UX O _;(_!__._. iictct_.<

__.-:-.--_.ii_- L cua uai la__c^c uv_._/_.<_—xu n_ _ th e "highes t and bes t practicabl e treatmen t and control " rul e i s sufficien t t o establis hth e subjec t matte r jurisdictio no f thi s cour t sinc e th e "highes t and bes t practicabl e treatmen t and control " rul e meet s th e definitio no f a nemissio nstandar d o r limitatio nunde r th e Clea nAi r Act . Orego nEnvtl . Council , 77 5 F . Supp . a t 361-62 . Accordingly , th e DE Q i s foreclose d fromrelitigatin g thi s issue . Tha t th e "highes t and bes t practicabl e treatmen t and con trol " rul e i s a nenforceabl e emissio nstandar d ha s bee ndeci

ded ; however , th e partie s disagre e o nth e leve l o f contro l o f emission s require d byO.A.R . 340-20-001 . Plaintiff s argu e tha t "[a] t a minimum , th e 'highes t and bes t practicabl e treat men t and control ' standar d require s th e us e o f 'reasonabl y availabl e contro l technology ' a t [all ] existing source s [o f volatil e organi c compound s i nth e Portland nonattainmen t area , and ] . . . [i] t i s undispute d tha t [the ] DE Q ha s faile d t o requir e tha t al l majo r source s o f [volatil e organi c compounds ] i nPortland compl ywit h[reasonabl yavailabl e contro l techno

logy ] . " Plaintiffs ' Repl yMemorandum , pp . 39-4 0 (emphasi s i noriginal) . O nth e othe r hand , th e DE Q contend s tha t 1 ) i t ha s PAG E 5 8 - OPINION A O7 2. , P.6 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 require d reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologya t al l exist

ing source s o f volatil e organi c compound s covere d bya nEPA issue d contro l technolog yguideline ; and 2 ) th e rul e requirin g th e highes t an

d bes t practicabl e treatmen t and contro l doe s no t requir e tha t reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologyb e employe d a t source s no t covere d bya nEPA-issue d contro l tech

nologyguideline . Th e cour t ha s heretofor e determine d tha t th e DE Q di d no t requir e complianc e wit hreasonabl yavailabl e contro l techno

logystandard s a t al l source s o f volatil e organi c compound s fo r whic hth e EPAha s publishe d a contro l technologyguide

line . Thus , th e DE Q ha s violate d th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Orego nand th e Clea nAi r Ac t byfailin g t o requir e complianc e wit hO.A.R . 340-20-001 , whic hmandate s th e applicatio no f reasonabl yavailabl e contro l technologya t thes e sources . Th e cour t i s no t compelle d t o addres s whethe r th e emis

sio ncontrol s require d byO.A.R . 340-20-00 1 ar e applicabl e t o a nai r contaminan t sourc e fo r whic hth e EP Aha s no t publishe d a contro l technologyguideline . Similarly , th e cour t i s no t compelle d t o addres s claim s tha t th e DE Q ha s no t enforce d ne w sourc e revie wrule s an d faile d t o requir e stat e o f th e ar t control s a t al l ne wo r modifie d sources . E . Plan t Sit e Emissio nLimit s Th e fina l contentio no f plaintiff s i s tha t th e DE Q faile d t o provid e fo r an

d enforc e short-termplan t sit e emissio n limit s o nemission s o f volatil e organi c compound s a s require d PAG E 5 9 - OPINION
A O 7 ;2

3 4

.. . .5 . 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 15 . 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 b yth e SIP . Aplan t sit e emissio nlimi t impose s a cap o n emission s ove r a perio d o f time , and th e SI P mandate s tha t "[plan t sit e emissio nlimits ] shal l b e establishe d o na t leas t a nannua l emissio nbasi s and a shor t termperio d emissio n a_ab_ 3 ciic-L . i s COiupc.cl_Jx ewlt.i isuuiC cOptsla-iCi iciii\

___ _vj__.iit y standards. " O.A.R . 340-20-310(2) . Th e EP Aha s se t th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystan dar d fo r ozon e a t 0.1 2 part s pe r million . Thi s standar d i s attaine d whe nth e "expecte d numbe r o f day s pe r calende r yea r wit hmaximumhourl yaverag e concentration s abov e 0.1 2 par t pe r millio n.. . i s equa l t o o r les s tha n1. " 4 0 C.F.R . S 50. 9 (1988) . Plaintiff s argu e tha t th e SI P contemplate s hourl y plan t sit e emissio nlimit s fo r source s o f ozone , sinc e th e short-termperio d i s t o b e compatibl e wit hai r qualit ystan dards . Plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q ha s faile d t o compl y wit hth e SI P byno t establishing hourl yplan t sit e emissio n limit s fo r source s o f ozone . Th e DE Q doe s no t disput e tha t th e SI P require s th e esta blishmen t and th e enforcemen t o f short-term plan t sit e emis

sio nlimits ; however , th e partie s disagre e o nth e duratio n o f termand th e mean s bywhic hsource s o f pollutant s maydemon

strat e complianc e wit hthes e limits . Initially , th e positio no f th e DE Q wa s tha t complianc e wit hhourl yo r dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimit s woul d b e demonstrate d bydividin g th e plant' s tota l annua l emission s o f volatil e organi c compound s b yth e numbe r o f hour s o r day s PAGE 6 0 - OPINION A O7 2•«_.. •

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 11 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 th e plan t wa s i noperatio ni ntha t year . Th e DE Q late r ack

nowledge d tha t thi s metho d o f computatio nprovide d n o mean s t o detec t i f a sourc e wa s exceeding it s short-termemissio n limits . Accordingly , th e DE Q amende d th e permit s hel d by severa l source s t c req-ir s the -ccraitcrir. g ar. d th s reportin y o f short-termemissions . Plaintiff s n o longe r conside r thes e source s t o b e i nviolatio no f th e SIP . However , plaintiff s contend tha t th e DE Q remain s i nviolatio no f th e SI P and th e Clea nAi r Act , sinc e al l o f th e permit s issue d t o source s o f volatil e organi c compound s i nth e Portland nonattainmen t are a hav e no t bee namende d "t o requir e complianc e wit ho r allo wfo r th e enforcemen t o f short-term[plan t sit e emissio nlimits]. " Plaintiffs ' Repl yMemorandum , p . 52 . Specifically , plaintiff s argu e tha t th e DE Q ha s no t impose d monitorin g and reportin g requirement s o nplant s operate d byInte l and Tektronix . Th e DE Q contend s tha t th e SI P doe s no t requir e compli

anc e wit ha short-termplan t sit e emissio nlimi t —a nhourl y o r dail ylimi t —

a t th e Inte l an

d Tektroni xplants, sinc e suc hcomplianc e woul d b e incompatibl e wit hsourc e operations . Specifically , th e DE Q assert s tha t "[f]o r thes e sources , annua l (plan t sit e emissio nlimits ] ma yb e th e onl ystandard s compatibl e wit hthei r larg e an d comple xsourc e operation s [and ] [n] o meaningfu l metho d o f measuring emission s from suc hsource s o na n hourl yo r dail ybasi s ha s bee ndiscovered. " Defendants ' Memorandu mi nOpposition , p . 70 . Plaintiff s agre e tha t compatibilit ywit hth e operatio n PAG E 6 1 OPINION A O7 21

2 3 4

r

_ 6 7 8 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 o f th e sourc e i s a prerequist e fo r imposing a short-termplan t sit e emissio nlimi t o na particula r source . Plaintiff s als o conced e tha t th e "DE Q offer s a plausibl e explanatio n. . . fo r whyth e SI P mayno t requir e complianc e wit ha dail y[plan t sit e emissio nlimit ] a t Tektroni xand Intel. " Plaintiffs ' Repl yMemorandum , p . 52 . Althoug hbot hplaintiff s and th e DE Q stat e tha t short-ter mplan t sit e emissio nlimit s ma vno t b e require d a t thes e sources , neithe r part ydispute s tha t fina l resolutio no f thi s issu e require s additiona l analysi s o f th e operatio na t thes e sources . Sinc e additiona l analysi s i s required , thi s issu e i s no t rip e fo r summaryadjudication . Plaintiff s nex t contend tha t th e DE Q ha s faile d t o requir e complianc e wit hshort-termplan t sit e emissio nlimit s a t thre e source s o f volatil e organi c compound s i nth e Portland nonattainmen t area : Continenta l Can , th e Por t o f Portland , and Pacifi c Coatings . I t i s undispute d tha t th e DE Q ha s no t establishe d a dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimi t a t Continenta l Can . Rather , th e DE Q ha s institute d a monthl yplan t sit e emissio nlimit , whic happlie s onl ydurin g th e summe r season . I t i s furthe r undispute d tha t th e DE Q ha s no t amende d th e permit s hel d byth e Por t o f Portland and Pacifi c Coating s t o requir e monitoring an d reportin g o f dail yemissions . Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , pp . 19-20 . Th e DE Q argue s tha t "allowing a limite d numbe r o f source s t o determin e thei r short-term[plan t sit e emissio nlimit ] i s a perfectl ylegitimat e constructio no f th e rul e whic hallow s PAGE.6 2 - OPINIO

N• , ' • -

« « - •

> «_*,- •

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 2 1 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 [plan t sit e emissio nlimits ] t o b e se t a s 'compatible ^ wit h source"operation.' " Defendants ' Memorandumi nOpposition , p . 73 . However , unlik e th e situation s a t Tektroni xand Intel , th e DE Q doe s no t clai mtha t operation s a t th e Por t o f Fox'-i-Liu

i al e so'complex'tha t a short-term plan t sit e emis

sio nlimi t —

hourl yo r dail y—i s inappropriate . Instead , th e DE Q indicate s tha t a nanalysi s o f short-termreportin g possibilitie s a t th e Por t o f Portland wil l occu r durin g th e implementatio no f th e miscellaneou s 100-to nsourc e [reason

abl yavailabl e contro l technology ] rule s adopte d byth e Environmenta l Qualit yCommissio no nMa y15 , 1991 . Parties ' Stipulate d Statemen t o f Facts , p . 20 . Similarly , th e DE Q doe s no t contend tha t a short-termplan t sit e emissio n limi t i s incompatibl e wit hoperation s a t Pacifi c Coatings. 9 Th e DEQ , a s th e agenc yresponsibl e fo r enforcin g th e SI P fo r th e Stat e o f Oregon , mus t ensur e tha t short-termplan t sit e emissio n limit s ar e no t exceeded , s o long a s suc hlimit s ar e compatibl e wit hsourc e operation s and ai r qualit ystan dards . O.A.R . 340-20-310(2) . However , th e DE Q ha s acknow

ledge d that , absen t short-termmonitorin g o r reporting o f emissions , i t i s incapabl e o f determinin g i f short-termplan t sit e emissio n limit s ar e being exceeded . Moreover , th e DE Q

Operation s a t Pacifi c Coating s cease d i n1991 , bu t it s permi t remain s i neffect . Th e partie s disput e whethe r th e closur e o f th e Pacifi c Coating s plan t moot s th e issu e regardin g it s permit . Th e cour t agree s wit hplaintiff s tha t thi s issu e i s no t moot , sinc e plaintiff s ar e seeking pros pectiv e relief . PAG E 6 3 - OPINION A O721

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2 1 3 14 1 5 16 1 7 1 8 1 9 2 0 21 2 2 2 3 2 4 2 5 2 6 ha s mad e n o showin g tha t complianc e wit hshort-term plan t sit e emissio nlimit s i s incompatibl e wit hth e operation s a t Continenta l Can , th e Por t o f Portland , o r Pacifi c Coatings . Thus , th e DE Q i s violating th e SI P and th e Clea nAi r Ac t by1 ) failin g t o requir e th e Por t o f Portlan d and Pacifi c Coating s t o monito r o r repor t thei r short-termemissions ; and 2 ) byfailin g t o establis ha nhourl yo r dail yplan t sit e emissio nlimi t a t Continenta l Can . CONCLUSION Th e motio no f plaintiff s fo r partia l summaryjudgmen t (#9 ) i s granted . DATE D thi s #Y

dayo f September , 1992 .

r rov r / HELE NJ . FRY E Unite d State s Distric t Judg e

PAG E 6 4 - OPINION