Opinion ID: 785093
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: The re-permitting process

Text: 81 MISC argues that the re-permitting process violates the statute by requiring technologies beyond those determined to be the best technology available at the time a new facility's original permit is granted. 82 The Rule compels the permitting authority, during subsequent permit applications under Track I, to review the performance of the [additional design and construction] technologies implemented [pursuant to § 125.84(b)(4)-(5), (c)(3)-(4)] and require additional or different design and construction technologies, if needed to minimize impingement mortality and entrainment of all life stages of fish and shellfish. 40 C.F.R. § 125.89(b)(1)(i). In addition, the permitting authority must consider whether more stringent conditions are reasonably necessary in accordance with section 125.84(e), the provision concerning more stringent state law requirements. 83 We think this provision, governing re-permitting criteria, is valid for essentially the same reasons we upheld the related provisions that apply to initial permit applications, § 125.84(b)(4)-(5), (c)(3)-(4), (e). See supra Sections III.B, E. If the EPA can require either additional technologies to reduce impingement and entrainment or impose additional conditions based on state law during a facility's first permit application, nothing in the statute forbids the EPA from re-evaluating these specific requirements, which are set on a case-by-case basis in the first place, during the re-permitting process. 84 MISC argues that this provision conflicts with section 306(d), in which Congress included a so-called grandfather clause that exempted new facilities meeting existing discharge requirements from any more stringent standards of performance for a maximum period of 10 years. 33 U.S.C. § 1316(d). But just as we decline to apply section 306's prohibition against variances to regulations promulgated under section 316(b), so, too, do we resist the conclusion that the statute unambiguously compels the EPA to grandfather in new intake structures. In support, we note that section 316(c) contains a grandfather clause that applies only to the thermal discharge component of a modified facility, not to its intake structure. 33 U.S.C. § 1326(c). If Congress intended to grandfather in new or modified intake structures as well as the related point sources that discharge heat, it could have done so in section 316(c). 85 MISC also contends that it lacked notice of and an adequate opportunity to comment on this provision of the Final Rule. The Proposed Rule specifically required the permitting authority to evaluate, before each permit renewal or reissuance, the need for additional or more stringent conditions in the permit. 65 Fed.Reg. at 49,121 col. 3 (proposed § 125.89(b)); see also Proposed Rule, 65 Fed.Reg. at 49,101 col. 1 (providing for review and verification of additional design and construction technologies during permit reissuance). Any semantic differences between the proposed rule and the Final Rule could not have prevented an interested party from commenting on the imposition of additional requirements during re-permitting. 86