Opinion ID: 77243
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Plant Wansley

Text: 14 Plant Wansley, located in Heard County, Georgia, is a large power plant facility that burns fossil fuels in seven principal emission units. Two of these units are older, coal-fired, steam electric generating units that emit exhaust through a 1000-foot tall stack. These older units are referred to as SG01 and SG02. 15 Plant Wansley's Title V permit limits the opacity of emissions from SG01 and SG02 to 40%. [Permit Condition 3.4.2]. 4 This permit condition is a restatement of the identical requirement from the Georgia SIP, a requirement that appears in the Georgia Rules. See Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 391-3-1-.02(2)(b)(1). The 40% opacity limit has been part of Georgia's SIP for the entire period relevant to this lawsuit. 16 Plant Wansley's permit requires that the Plant continuously monitor the opacity of its emissions and report all excess emissions to the EPD. [Permit Conditions 5.2.1.a, 5.2.7.a, 5.3.1]. 5 Plant Wansley has installed what is known as a continuous opacity monitoring system, or COMS, on the two coal-fired units. The COMS, which is located at a height of 430 feet within the stack, shines a light through the emissions to measure opacity. The COMS summarizes the opacity data over six-minute intervals, so there is a different opacity measurement for every six-minute period. Once Plant Wansley submits this data to the EPD and EPA, these emissions reports become public documents. 17 Plant Wansley's COMS data shows that during roughly 4,000 six-minute intervals from 1998 to 2002, the opacity of emissions emanating from SG01 or SG02 exceeded 40%. Based on this data, Counts One and Two of Sierra Club's lawsuit allege that the emissions from SG01 and SG02 represent violations of the Georgia SIP and the terms of Plant Wansley's Title V permit. 18 In the district court, Georgia Power did not dispute the COMS data and thus the fact that these exceedances occurred is not at issue. Instead, Georgia Power contends that these exceedances were not Clean Air Act violations because all exceedances occurred during periods of startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM). The permit and the Georgia Rules each include an SSM provision that, according to Georgia Power, allows Plant Wansley to exceed the 40% opacity limit during SSM. Thus, we turn to the state-wide SSM Rule and the Plant Wansley-specific SSM condition in Plant Wansley's Title V permit.
19 Georgia's SSM Rule was adopted as part of the Georgia SIP in 1979 and approved by the EPA in 1980. 6 Since 1980, the Georgia SSM Rule has not been revised and has been a continuous part of the Georgia SIP. 20 The Georgia SSM Rule expressly addresses exceedances that occur during SSM. According to the Georgia SSM Rule, [e]xcess emissions resulting from startup, shutdown, [or] malfunction of any source which occur though ordinary diligence is employed shall be allowed  so long as: (1) the best operational practices to reduce emissions were used; (2) pollution control equipment was operated properly; and (3) the duration of excess emissions [was] minimized. Ga. Comp. R. & Regs. 391-3-1-.02(2)(a)7(i) (emphasis added). 7 21
22 Plant Wansley's Title V permit, which became effective on January 1, 2000, also contains an SSM provision. Although the SSM condition in Plant Wansley's permit is derived from the state-wide SSM Rule, the SSM condition is phrased slightly differently. 8 23 The SSM condition in Plant Wansley's Title V permit states that  [t]he Division [i.e., Georgia EPD] may allow excess emissions in certain cases as described below. [Permit Condition 8.13.1] (emphasis added). The permit then repeats the relevant language from the Georgia SSM Rule, stating that [e]xcess emissions resulting from startup, shutdown, [or] malfunction of any source which occur though ordinary diligence is employed shall be allowed  provided that: (1) the best operational practices to reduce emissions were used; (2) pollution control equipment was operated properly; and (3) the duration of excess emissions [was] minimized. [Permit Condition 8.13.1.a] (emphasis added). 9
24 The district court concluded that even if the exceedances at Plant Wansley occurred during SSM, this fact offers Georgia Power no defense against Sierra Club's lawsuit. Sierra Club v. Georgia Power Co., 365 F.Supp.2d 1297, 1304-05 (N.D.Ga. 2004). Georgia Power conceded that the exceedances took place, and therefore the district court's SSM decision led the court to grant partial summary judgment in Sierra Club's favor. Id. at 1308-09. Because the district court found categorically that Georgia Power could not raise an SSM defense, the district court did not evaluate whether any or all of the 4,000 alleged exceedances occurred during SSM. 10 25 The district court's opinion focused on the SSM condition in the Plant Wansley permit, and in particular on its opening language stating that the [EPD] may allow excess emissions in certain cases as described below. Id. at 1305. In the district court's view, the condition's plain language limits it to what EPD `may allow. . . in certain cases.' Id. In other words, the district court accepted Sierra Club's position that because the SSM condition refers explicitly to the EPD (and not to citizen enforcers), it does not offer Georgia Power a defense where the allegations of opacity violations are raised in a citizen enforcement action. 26 Upon motion by Georgia Power, the district court certified its liability ruling for interlocutory appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). We subsequently granted Georgia Power's petition for leave to appeal the partial summary judgment order. Id.