P. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 54 ) ll-K-1 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-37

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 54 of 142P. 2

. J BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATOR

U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO NAGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C . \i 

### ft I nth e Matte r of : Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompan y I D No . 105-0640-002 1

Applican t if i i PS D Appea l No . 88-11*^"—"— ?



# tf-zc-il

ORDE RONMOTIONFO

RSTA Y Befor e m e i s a motio nfile d b yth e permi t applicant , Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompany , an d th e permi t issuer , th e Stat e o f Kentucky , whic har e jointl yrequesting a sta yo f th e proceeding s o nEPARegio nIV' s appea l fro m th e State' s permi t determination . yI f a sta yi s granted , th e applican t intend s t o supplemen t th e stat e administrativ e record wit hnewfactua l informatio nwhic hth e applican t believe s wil l confir mth e wisdom o f th e State' s origina l permi t determination . Th e informatio n concern s site-specifi c cost s relevan t t o th e State' s determinatio n o f "bes t availabl e contro l technology " (BACT ) fo r the . propose d facility . Thi s informatio nwa s no t i nth e administrativ e recor d o f th e origina l BAC T analysi s o f th e

yCurrently , anorde r granting revie wo f th e State' s permi t determinatio nha s bee n issued . Columbi a Gul f Transmissio n Company , PS D Appea l No . 88-1 1 (Orde r date d Jun e 21 , 1989) . Th e orde r specifie s tha t th e briefing perio d wil l commenc e upo nth e State' s publicatio n o f th e Agency' s decisio ngranting revie wo f th e State' s permi t determination . Th e Stat e ha s ye t t o giv e th e require d notic e tha t trigger s commencemen t o f th e briefin g period .P. 3 

### 2 

# ' * r facility , a fac t whic hprompte d EP ARegio nIV t o fil e it s appea l o f th e permi t determinatio nalleging , inte r alia , tha t evidenc e o f thes e cost s woul d b e neede d t o suppor t th e State' s BAC T determination . I n thei r motion , th e Stat e an d th e permi t applican t expres s th e belie f tha t staying th e proceeding s woul d b e th e mos t expeditiou s mean s o f disposing o f thi s case ; they clai mtha t a remand , fo r example , woul d no t b e desireabl e becaus e i t migh t trigge r a nentirel yne wand , presumably , time-consuming publi c revie wan

d commen t perio d unde r 4 0 CF R§124.19 . Th e propose d sta

ymechanism , o nth e othe r hand , woul d circumven t thi s process , bu t onl yi f th e Stat e determines , afte r evaluating th e ne winformation , tha t th e origina l permi t determinatio n wa s correc t (an

d therefor e doe s no t requir e change) . Th e stay , a s proposed , woul d restric t opportunit yt o commen t o nth e ne w informatio n t o th e Region , whic hwa s th e onl ycommente r o nth e origina l permi t determination . Th e movant s reaso ntha t ther e i s n o logica l basi s fo r soliciting commen t from th e publi c sinc e i t previousl yha d th e opportunit y—bu t di d no t exercis e i t —t o commen t o nprecisel yth e same permi t conditions . (The movant s appea r t o conced e th e necessity , however , o f solicitin g commen t froma broade r audienc e i f th e State' s revie wproduce s a substantiall yrevise d permit. ) I nopposing th e motion , th e Regio nmake s severa l arguments . First , i t argue s tha t th e administrativ e recor d i s alread yclose d an d th e applican t shoul d no t no wb e permitte d t o submi t informatio ni t shoul d hav e submitte d l^ j year s ag o whe nKentuckyP. 4 3 wa s i nth e proces s o f developing th e draf t permi t determination . According t o th e Region ,

(t]he Applican t ha s faile d t o explai n it s failur e t o provid e thi s informatio no na timel ybasis . Applicant' s allegatio ntha t Kentuck ydi d no t requir e suc hinformation , eve ni f accurate , i s n o justificatio nfo r thi s omission , especiall yi nligh t o f th e timel ycomment s fro m Petitione r [RegionIV ] tha t a detailed , source-specifi c analysi s wa s reguired . Applican t responde d t o th e Region' s comment s b ya lette r date d Augus t 12 , 1988 , bu t stil l faile d t o provid e th e necessary , information . Consequently , a t thi s lat e dat e suc hinformatio nshoul d no t b e include d i nth e record pu t befor e th e Administrato r fo r review . Region' s Respons e a t 2 . Thi s argumen t i s no t caus e fo r denia l o f th e motion . I t i s tru e th e regulation s contemplat e a permi t decisio nbeing mad e o n th e basi s o f th e administrativ e record a s i t exist s a t th e clos e o f th e commen t perio d o nth e draf t permit , see , e.g. . 4 0 CF R §124.18(b)(1) ; an

d i t i s als o tru e th e permi t applicant' s additiona l informatio nmayhav e bee ni nexistenc e o r readil y availabl e o no r befor e tha t dat e (thu s seeming t o eliminat e mos t legitimat e excuse s fo r no t submitting th e informatio nearlier) . Nevertheless , i t doe s no t appea r t o m e tha t th e regulation s ar e inflexibl e i nthi s respect , & o r tha t an yprejudic e woul d resul t fro mgranting th e motio n(th e Region , fo r example , doe s no t clai m

vI t i s wel l settle d tha t a nadministrativ e agencymus t follow procedure s se t fort hi nit s ow nregulations . E.g. , Unite d State s e xre l Accard i v . Shaughnessy , 34 7 U.S . 260 , 7 4 S.Ct . 49 9 (1954) ; Servic e v . Dulles , 35 4 U.S . 363 , 7 7 S . Ct . 115 2 (1959) . O f course , i f n o prejudic e result s o r i f some greate r interes t i s served , anexceptio n t o thi s requiremen t mayb e permitted . Taylo r v . Maryland Schoo l fo r th e Blind , 40 9 F . Supp . 14 8 (D.Md . 1976) , aff' d 54 2 F.2 d 116 9 (4thCir . 1976) ; se e America nFarm Line s v . Blac k Bal l Freigh t Service , 39 7 U.S . 532 , 539 , 9 0 S.Ct . 1288 , 1292 , 2 5 L.Ed.2 d 547 , 55 3 (1970) .P. 5 4 '* i t wil l suffe r any) . Insofa r a s th e possibilit yo f prejudic e t o th e publi c i s concerned , i t wil l no t incur an ybecause , unde r th e movants ' proposal , th e publi c i s give nth e righ t t o commen t i f th e permi t i s subsequentl yrevised ; and , i f i t i s no t revised , furthe r publi c participatio nwoul d b e unnecessarysince , a s th e movant s correctl ypoin t out , th e publi c ha s alread yha d a n opportunit yt o commen t o nth e term s o f th e unrevise d permit . 2 / I nm yopinion , i f th e Stat e i s willing t o reope nth e record t o accep t an

d revie wadditiona l information , i t shoul d b e th e on e t o decid e th e matte r i nth e absenc e o f an yprejudic e t o thir d parties . Th e purpos e o f closing th e record t o receip t o f additiona l evidenc e i s presumabl yt o bring orde r t o th e decision

makin g process , enablin g permi t issuer s suc ha s th e Stat e t o

11 Th e Regio ni s guilt yo f overgeneralizing whe ni t assert s tha t "n o informatio nshoul d b e reviewe d b yth e Administrato r whic hha s no t firs t bee n mad e availabl e t o th e publi c fo r revie wand comment. " Regio nRespons e t o Motio n a t 3 . Th e ultimat e purpos e o f publi c commen t i s t o determin e whethe r th e condition s o f th e permi t shoul d b e changed . See , e.g. , 4 0 CF R§124.1 3 (dut yt o rais e issue s pertainin g t o whethe r th e "an yconditio no f a draf t permi t i s inappropriate") ; 4 0 CF R§124.1 4 (reopene d publi c commen t perio d allow s comment s t o b e file d o n"conditions " o f th e draf t permi t tha t ar e inappropriate) ; 4 0 CF R§124.1 9 (appeal s ar e fo r revie wo f permi t "conditions") . Nothing i nth e statute , e.g . , Clea n Ai r Ac t §165(a)(2) , 4 2 U.S.C.A . ,§7465(a ) (2 ) , o r th e regulations , e.g. . 4 0 CF R§52.21(q) , ca nreasonabl yb e rea d a s mandatin g solicitatio no f publi c commen t o ninformatio nqu a information . Therefore , if , a s i s possibl e unde r th e movants ' proposal , th e ne winformatio nmigh t no t promp t an yalteratio no f th e permi t conditions , n o legitimat e purpos e woul d b e serve d b y solicitin g publi c commen t o nth e ne winformation . Th e genera l publi c ha s alread

yha d a nopportunit yt o commen t o nth e permit' s conditions . Furthe r solicitatio no f publi c commen t unde r thes e circumstance s woul d b e redundant . I t suffice s tha t th e Region , a s th e sol e petitione r contesting th e term s and condition s o f th e permit , wil l hav e a nopportunit yt o commen t o nth e information .P. 6



### T 5 manag e thei r docket s efficientl yan d t o bring finalityt o permi t proceedings . I nthi s manner , th e permi t issue r canavoi d potentiall yendles s round s o f delay s an d reconsideratio no f matter s previousl ydecided . Thus , s o long a s th e permi t issue r i s willin g t o countenanc e th e disruption s attendan t t o reopening th e record , ther e i s n o apparen t reaso nwh yth e record ha s t o b e kep t closed . I conclud e therefor e tha t thi s matte r i s principall yon e fo r th e Stat e t o decide . I nopposing th e motion , th e Regio nals o suggest s tha t i t shoul d hav e th e opportunit yt o submi t newinformatio no nth e appropriat e leve l o f contro l currentl yrepresenting BAC T fo r th e applicant' s turbine . Th e Regio nexplain s tha t i nreviewing th e PS D permi t application , i t tolle d it s assessmen t o f availabl e contro l technologie s fo r BAC T a t th e time th e publi c commen t perio d closed . ^I t therefor e argue s tha t i f th e record i s subsequentl yreopene d t o admi t ne winformatio nsupplie d b yth e applicant , the n th e Stat e mus t als o "conside r anew " wha t technologyrepresent s BACT . Regio nRespons e a t 4 . I agree , although"conside r anew " perhap s exaggerate s th e State' s obligatio n(bette r t o say : th e Stat e wil l hav e t o updat e it s BAC T

-' A s explaine d i na previou s decision ,

Absen t unusua l delaybetwee nth e clos e o f th e publi c commen t piiio d and th e dat e o f permi t issuance , o r th e presenc e o f othe r extraordinarycircumstances , th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t perio d ca nb e use d a s th e referenc e b y whic hth e adequac yo f th e administrativ e record i s judged . Pennsauke nCount yResourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88-8 , a t 7 , n . 1 1 (Novembe r 10 , 1988) .P. 7 6 determinatio nafte r giving ful l consideratio nt o th e informatio n submitte d b

ybot hth e applican t an d th e Region) . Th e nee d t o bas e th e permi t determinatio no ncurren t informatio ni s fundamenta l t o an

ydeterminatio no f "bes t availabl e contro l technology, " fo r ol d technologie s ar e constantl ybein g replace d b ynewe r an

d mor e advance d ones ; an d i nth e absenc e o f overriding consideration s — . fo r example , thos e bearing o nth e orderl y administratio n o f th e permi t program—informatio no nth e lates t availabl e technologie s shoul d ordinaril yreceiv e consider

ation . i ; Therefore , wheneve r th e origina l permi t applicatio ni s bein g update d a t th e behes t o f th e permi t applicant , i t i s onl y fai r tha t th e applicant' s ne winformatio nb e balance d wit hothe r contemporaneou s informatio nrelevan t t o th e BAC T determination .

: Accordingly , th e parties ' motio ni s granted , wit hth e provis o tha t th e Stat e shal l no t onl ygiv e th e Regio na n opportunit yt o commen t o nth e applicant' s ne winformation , bu t shal l als o permi t th e Regio nt o submi t additiona l informatio n o f it s ownt o ensur e tha t th e BAC T determinatio ni s full y

-' Appropriat e allowance s fo r delay s inheren t i nissuing a permi t ar e nevertheles s necessarysince , fo r example , ther e wil l alway s b e som e measur e o f delaybetwee nth e clos e o f th e administrativ e recor d an d th e tim e whe nth e fina l permi t i s actuall yissued . T o thi s end , th e Agenc yordinaril yconsider s th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t perio d o nth e draf t permi t a s tollin g th e tim e fo r consideratio no f ne wtechnologies . Se e not e 4 supra .P. 8

~ 7 contemporaneou s wit hth e State' s updating o f th e permi t determination . S o ordered .

Dated : JU

L 3 199 0 

# 'iL^-.^- WilliamK . ^Aly^ / Administrato rP. 9 CERTIFICATE 0 7SERVICE * * "" " •*- . I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r o n Motio nfo r Stayi n th e matte r o f Columbi a Gul f Transmissio n Company , PS D Appea l No . 88-11 , wer e sen t b yFirs t Clas s Mai l t o th e following persons : WilliamC . Eddins , Directo r Divisio nfo r Ai r Qualit y Commonwealt ho f Kentuck y Dep't . fo r Environmenta l Protectio n 1 8 Reill yRoad Frankfort , K

Y 4060 1 Susa nMidyet t Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompan y 380 5 Wes t Alabama Avenu e Houston , T X Richar d D . Baley Manage r o f DesignEngineering Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompan y 380 5 Wes t Alabama Avenu e Houston , T X Danie l Ransbottom Senio r Consultan t Entrix , Inc . P . O . Bo x5628 8 Houston , TX 77256-628 8 Michae l H . Levi n Nixon , Hargrave , Devan s an d Doyl e On e Thoma s Circl e Washington , D C 2000 5 Ala nE . Dio n Assistan t Regiona l Counse l U . S . EPA , Regio nI V 34 5 Courtland Street , N E Atlanta , G

A3036 5 Bruc e P . Miller , Directo r Ai r Program s Branc h U . S . EPA , Regio nI V 34 5 Courtland Street , N E Atlanta , G

A30 3 6 5 Dated : 

### JU L

### - 9 139

0 

# ISfhi
. tLA.^\ ^ Brend a H . Selden , Secretary t o th e Chie f Judicia l Office r