UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

MEMORANDUM
 

DATE: October 10, 1978 

SUBJECT: Source Construction Prior to Issuance of PSD Pennit 

FROM: Director Division of Stationary Source Enforcement 

TO: Thomas W. Devine, Chief Air Branch, Region I 

This is in response to your memo of September 8, 1978, requesting guidance on the extent 

to which a company can legally construct, prior to PSD pennit issuance, a building which will 

house both PSD-affected and non PSD-affected facilities. General rules for detemlining the extent 

to which construction lnay proceed and specific in your 

memo, MATEP and Hampshire Chemical, will be discussed below. 

In general, a structure which is to house independent facilities, some of which are subject 

to PSD and some which are not, may be constructed before a PSD pelmit is issued only if the 

building is a necessary part of the PSD-exempt project and if it is in no way modified to 

specifically accommodate the PSD-affected facilities. For example: 

We understand that the MATEP project mentioned in your memo involves the 

construction of steam boilers and diesel engines which are to be housed in the same building. The 

steam generators have been detennined by the Region I Office to be exempt from PSD 

requirements. The diesel engines on the other hand are subject to PSD review. MATEP may begin 

construction on the building which will hold the boilers and the diesels, before the PSD pennit is 

issued, as long as the drains, piping, footings for the diesels, and any other installations necessary 

to accommodate the diesels are not installed until the pennit is issued. Although drains, diesel 

footings, and various other installations may be considered part of the structure of the building, 

they may not be constructed until the pennit is issued if they are specific to the diesel engines and 

are not considered part of the boiler construction project. 
The other case mentioned in your memo is the construction of the Hampshire Chemical 

wastewater treatment plant. As we understand it, the wastewater treatment facility is subject to 

PSD review because it will be equipped with a sludge incinerator. In this case, as in cases 

involving municipal wastewater treatment plants, the question of whether construction of all 

parts of the treatment facility must await permit issuance depends on the reliance ofthe treatment 

facility on the incinerator. That is, if the sludge incinerator is an integral part of the wastewater 

treatment facility (the facility would not be built without an incinerator), the PSD permit must be 

obtained before any work can begin on any portion of the treatment plant. If the installation of a 

sludge incinerator is "optional", the rules for determining whatportions of any buildings or other 

structures common to the incinerator and other parts of the treatment facility will be those 

discussed earlier in this memo. By "optional" we mean that the treatment facility could be 

operated without the incinerator. In this way, if the PSD permit for the incinerator is denied, the 

portion of the treatment plant which has already been constructed will not be lost. It is extremely 

difficult to deny issuance of a permit when it results in a completed portion of a project having to 

remain idle. Therefore, in order to avoid any equity arguments at a later time, it is better to 

prevent any construction now rather than to have a "white elephant" on our hands later on. 

If you have any further questions on this issue, please contact Libby Scopino at FTS 

755-2564. 

Edward E. Reich 

cc:	 Dick Rhoads 

Peter \Vyckoff