Opinion ID: 2465274
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Fine Particulate Matter Emissions

Text: [¶ 32] As its second issue, the Sierra Club claims that DEQ, in its decision to issue an air quality permit to Medicine Bow, failed to consider fine particulate matter emissions from the facility. DEQ asserts that it did consider fine particulates, but because emissions of fine particulates are difficult to measure, model, and control, the agency used measurements, models, and controls of coarse particles as a surrogate to determine that Medicine Bow also complied with requirements relating to fine particulates. Medicine Bow supports DEQ's position. The Sierra Club acknowledges that DEQ used coarse particles as a surrogate for the smaller particles, but argues that it was improper for DEQ to do so without making a case-specific determination that it was reasonable to use coarse particles as a surrogate for finer particles. [¶ 33] A brief history of the regulation of particulate matter is needed as background for this issue. When the EPA first issued NAAQS for particulate matter, the standards applied to a broad class of chemically and physically diverse substances that exist as discrete particles (liquid droplets or solids) over a wide range of sizes. 62 Fed.Reg. 38652, 38653 (July 18, 1997). Particulate matter was measured as total suspended particulates, which included particulates of all sizes. Id. Over time, the EPA considered evidence that smaller particles in the air present greater health risks than larger particles. In response, the EPA promulgated particulate matter standards measured in terms of PM10, which refers to particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. Id. at 38654 n. 1. Later, the EPA sharpened its focus on even smaller particles, and added particulate matter standards measured in terms of PM2.5, or particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 2.5 micrometers. Id., n. 5. [¶ 34] When it promulgated the PM2.5 standards in 1997, the EPA recognized that the methods needed to measure or calculate emissions of such small particles had not been established, that modeling techniques for projecting the ambient impacts of these fine particles were undeveloped, and that means of controlling PM2.5 emissions were unproven. To help fill these gaps, the EPA issued guidance authorizing the use of PM10 as a surrogate in order to determine compliance with the PM2.5 standards. Memorandum from John Seitz, EPA, to All Regions, on Interim Implementation of New Source Requirements for PM2.5 (Oct. 13, 1997) (the Seitz Memorandum). See 73 Fed.Reg. 28321, 28324 (May 16, 2008). [¶ 35] In 2005, the EPA issued a guidance document reaffirming the continued use of PM10 as a surrogate to address the requirements of the PM2.5 standards. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, EPA, to Regional Administrators on Implementation of New Source Review Requirements in PM2.5 Nonattainment Areas (April 5, 2005) (the Page Memorandum). See 73 Fed.Reg. at 28324. Then, in 2007, the EPA proposed additional rules relating to PM2.5, and reconfirmed that states could continue using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 until their State Implementation Plans were approved by the EPA. 72 Fed.Reg. 54112, 54114 (Sept. 21, 2007). [¶ 36] In May of 2008, the EPA approved a revision to Wyoming's SIP. In its approval, the EPA expressly stated that Wyoming will implement the current rules in accordance with EPA's interim guidance using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 in the PSD program. 73 Fed.Reg. 26019, 26024 (May 8, 2008). [¶ 37] Also in May of 2008, the EPA promulgated finalized regulations implementing the PM2.5 standards. 73 Fed.Reg. 28321 (May 16, 2008). In the preamble to these regulations, the EPA acknowledged that it had previously approved of using PM10 as a surrogate for meeting PM2.5 requirements until certain difficulties were resolved, primarily the lack of necessary tools to calculate the emissions of PM2.5 and related precursors, the lack of adequate modeling techniques to project ambient impacts, and the lack of PM2.5 monitoring sites. 73 Fed.Reg. at 28340. The EPA declared, however, that these difficulties have largely been resolved. Id. Accordingly, the EPA planned a transition away from the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 and toward more direct enforcement of the PM2.5 standards. During this transition period, however, the EPA elected to maintain our existing PM10 surrogate policy. 73 Fed.Reg. at 28341. The transition period lasts for three years after promulgation of the finalized PM2.5 regulations, i.e., (until May 2011) or until the individual revised State . . . programs for PM2.5 are approved by EPA, whichever comes first. 75 Fed.Reg. 6827, 6831 (Feb. 11, 2010). [¶ 38] DEQ has not yet received EPA approval for its PM2.5 programs, and so Wyoming remains in the transition period. Citing the history reviewed above, DEQ and Medicine Bow assert that the EPA's PM10 policy expressly allows DEQ to continue using PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 during this transition period. For that reason, DEQ and Medicine Bow assert that it was proper for DEQ to use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 when it analyzed Medicine Bow's permit application and issued the air quality permit. [¶ 39] The Sierra Club does not seriously dispute DEQ's authority to use PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, but claims that the surrogate policy must be justified in each case by a permit-specific determination that it is reasonable to use it. As support for its position, the Sierra Club relies on the EPA decision set forth in In re Louisville Gas & Electric Co., Trimble County, Kentucky, Title V/PSD Air Quality Permit # V-02-043, Revisions 2 and 3, Petition No. IV-2008-3 (August 12, 2009) ( Trimble ). In that case, the Kentucky Division for Air Quality had issued a permit for the construction of a new coal-fired boiler for an existing electric generating station. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 7661d(b), the petitioners, including the Sierra Club, asked the EPA to object to this air quality permit. The EPA granted the petition and determined that it would object to the permit, on grounds including Kentucky's use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5. As the Sierra Club characterizes the EPA's decision in Trimble, a permitting authority seeking to use the PM10 surrogate policy must undertake a rigorous, individualized assessment of the appropriateness of surrogacy as applied to the proposed unit. [¶ 40] As a first step in analyzing the Sierra Club's argument, we note that Medicine Bow submitted its permit application on December 31, 2007, and received the permit on March 4, 2009. Trimble was not issued until August 12, 2009. The Sierra Club asserts that the Trimble decision applies to Medicine Bow because it is an expression of the EPA's previously existing policy. DEQ and Medicine Bow argue that Trimble is a declaration of new policy, and does not apply retroactively. For a number of reasons, we believe that the Trimble decision reflects a change in the EPA's policy toward the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5, and conclude that it does not apply in Medicine Bow's case. [4] [¶ 41] The Trimble decision observed that, [w]hen the EPA issued the PM10 Surrogate Policy in 1997, the Agency did not identify criteria to be applied before the policy could be used for satisfying the PM2.5 requirements. In a footnote, the EPA noted that, in 2007, it had denied a petition requesting that EPA object to [an air quality permit] for failure to include a BACT limit for PM2.5 emissions. The fact that the EPA made one decision in 2007, then reached a contrary result in Trimble in 2009, establishes that Trimble was meant to promulgate a change in EPA policy, not to confirm a previously existing policy. In fact, the EPA signaled that a change was being made when it explained that the decision in Trimble reflected an evolving understanding of the technical and legal issues associated with the use of the PM10 Surrogate Policy. [¶ 42] The change is also indicated by the EPA's legal analysis. In Trimble, the EPA reviewed four decisions from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, all dealing with the use of surrogates in the air quality context. The EPA concluded that the overarching legal principle from these decisions is that a surrogate may be used only after it has been shown to be reasonable. In finding this overarching legal principle, however, the EPA recognized that these court decisions do not speak directly to the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5. In fact, none of the cases discussed the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5. One dealt with the use of hydrocarbons as a surrogate for fine particulate matter. Bluewater Network v. Environmental Protection Agency, 370 F.3d 1, 18 (D.C.Cir.2004). The other three dealt with the use of surrogates for hazardous air pollutants. National Lime Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency, 233 F.3d 625, 637 (D.C.Cir.2000) (The EPA may use a surrogate to regulate hazardous pollutants if it is `reasonable' to do so.) (emphasis added); Sierra Club v. Environmental Protection Agency, 353 F.3d 976, 982-84 (D.C.Cir.2004); Mossville Environmental Action Now v. Environmental Protection Agency, 370 F.3d 1232, 1242-43 (D.C.Cir.2004). PM10 and PM2.5 are criteria pollutants, not hazardous pollutants. [5] In addition, none of the four considered whether a case-specific reasonableness determination was required for every individual permit decision. Instead, all four considered the determination of reasonableness the EPA must make to support the promulgation of a generally applicable regulation implementing a surrogate policy. [¶ 43] One court that considered the impact of the ruling in National Lime noted the limitations of that decision. Contrary to the EPA's decision in Trimble, the court specifically concluded that National Lime did not mandate a permit-specific determination that the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 was reasonable: [T]he National Lime test does not apply to the use of PM10 as a surrogate for PM2.5 in PSD permits as is the issue in this case. Rather, National Lime involved the use of PM as a surrogate for hazardous air pollutants.. . . Accordingly, the case is inapposite to this issue. Appalachian Voices v. State Air Pollution Control Board, 56 Va.App. 282, 297-98, 693 S.E.2d 295, 303 (2010). The point here is not that a court has disagreed with the EPA's Trimble decision. Our point is that the requirement of a permit-specific reasonableness determination is not immediately apparent from the holdings in the four court cases on which the EPA relied. The EPA first recognized this overarching principle in Trimble, signaling a change in the EPA's PM10 surrogate policy, not a continuation of previously established policy. [¶ 44] The Sierra Club has not cited any document in which the EPA imposed a permit-specific reasonableness requirement prior to the Trimble decision. The history of the EPA's PM10 surrogate policy, as set forth by the DEQ, includes no expression of such a requirement by the EPA prior to the Trimble decision on August 12, 2009. By then, Medicine Bow had already received its air quality permit, and it was too late for retroactive application of the EPA's Trimble decision. [¶ 45] When DEQ and Medicine Bow moved for summary judgment against the Sierra Club on this issue, they argued as a matter of law that no permit-specific reasonableness determination was required, but even if it were, as a matter of fact the use of the surrogate was reasonable. The Council ruled as a matter of law that the Trimble decision did require a permit-specific reasonableness determination, but that there were no genuine issues of fact that DEQ had made such a determination. We, on the other hand, conclude that the Trimble decision does not apply retroactively, so that no permit-specific reasonableness determination was required in Medicine Bow's case. The practical result of our decision is, however, the same as the Council's decision: a ruling against the Sierra Club's claim and in favor of DEQ and Medicine Bow. [W]e can affirm an administrative agency's summary judgment decision on any basis apparent in the record. Powder River Basin Resource Council, ¶ 33, 226 P.3d at 819. Although we reach this conclusion on a basis different from the Council's, we conclude that the Council did not err when it rejected the Sierra Club's fine particulate matter claim and upheld DEQ's issuance of Medicine Bow's air quality permit.