UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

MEMORANDUM DATE: October 10, 1978 SUBJECT: Source Construction Prior to Issuance ofPSD Pennit FROM: Director Division ofStationary Source Enforcement TO: Thomas W. Devine, ChiefAir Branch, Region I This is in response to your memo ofSeptember 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 ofwhich are subject to PSD and some which are not, may be constructedbefore a PSD pelmit is issued only ifthe building is a necessary part ofthe PSD-exemptproject and ifit 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 ofsteam 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 otherhand are subject to PSD review. MATEP may begin construction on the building which will hold the boilers and the diesels, before the PSD pennitis 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 pennitis issued. Although drains, diesel footings, and various other installations may be considered part ofthe structure ofthe building, they may not be constructed until the pennit is issued ifthey are specific to the diesel engines and are not considered part ofthe boiler construction project.The other case mentioned inyour memo is the construction ofthe 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 ofwhether construction ofall parts ofthe treatment facility must awaitpermit issuance depends on the reliance ofthe treatment facility on the incinerator. That is, ifthe sludge incinerator is an integralpart ofthe wastewater treatment facility (the facility would not be built without anincinerator), the PSD permit mustbe obtainedbefore any work canbegin on any portion ofthe treatment plant. Ifthe installation ofa sludge incinerator is "optional", the rules for determining whatportions ofany buildings or other structures common to the incinerator and otherparts ofthe treatment facility will be those discussed earlier in this memo. By "optional" we mean that the treatment facility could be operated without the incinerator. Inthis way, ifthe PSDpermit for the incinerator is denied, the portion ofthe treatmentplant which has already been constructed will notbe lost. Itis extremely difficult to deny issuance ofa permit when itresults in a completedportion ofa 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. Ifyou have any further questions onthis issue, please contact Libby Scopino at FTS 755-2564. Edward E. Reich

cc: DickRhoads Peter\Vyckoff