Opinion ID: 767481
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sulfur Dioxide

Text: 10 SURCCo first alleges that the EPA should have required AES to conduct a full impact analysis of sulfur dioxide emissions. AES's modeled impact analysis for the 24-hour averaging time for sulfur dioxide emissions (4.97 micrograms per cubic meter) was minutely below the significant impact level (5.00 micrograms per cubic meter). SURCCo contends that the EPA should have ordered a full impact analysis before granting the final permit because: a) the EPA accepted a combination of controls which have never been used before, and b) to achieve the emissions limit, AES must achieve a 99% efficiency rate. That is, because the efficiency of this combination of technologies is untested, the EPA should have ordered a full impact study despite the fact that the modeled impact was below the significant impact level that would automatically trigger further testing. Further, SURCCo says that evidence it submitted -- which the EPA rejected -- contradicted AES's impact analysis. The EPA says, in response, that the permit requires AES to limit the facility's emission rate to extremely low levels through an innovative combination of state-of-the-art control technologies. EPA also says that AES used appropriate models while the modeling on which SURCCo relies applied the models simplistically and made unrealistic assumptions. 11 SURCCo has provided no evidence of arbitrariness or capriciousness in the EPA's determination that AES's proposed controls will achieve BACT, even though the combination of controls is novel. Each of these three components has been tested and used; only their combination is new. It was rational for the Agency to prefer its own model, to reject SURCCo's proposed alternative modeling that allegedly showed sulfur dioxide emissions above the threshold levels, and to accept, instead, AES's modeling. As other courts have held, the Agency's choice of a model will be sustained if it bears a rational relationship to the characteristics of the data to which it is applied. Appalachian Power Co. v. EPA, 135 F.3d 791, 802 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (computer models); see also Pan Am. Grain, 95 F.3d at 105. The Agency was, thus, within its discretion, under the regulations, to exempt AES from conducting a full impact analysis. 12 SURCCo next alleges that the EPA erred in including in its permit a condition that a full impact analysis be conducted after the issuance of the permit. This is, in a sense, an odd argument for SURCCo to make, but it is made in furtherance of the plea that a full impact analysis be required before, not after, the permit issues. A post-permit analysis will not do, SURCCo says, because this denies SURCCo the right to comment on data collected in that analysis. Without accepting the premise that a community group has no mechanism at all to comment, we note that there is no legal requirement that there be public comment for a post-permit analysis. Indeed, the regulations allow the EPA to require post-operation monitoring. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m)(2). Further, the analysis must be conducted in accordance with EPA models and protocols, see 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(l)(1), which have been subject to nationwide public review. 6 13 SURRCo next contends that the EPA relied on outdated -- and perhaps incorrect -- air quality data to evaluate current air quality conditions in Guayama. It claims that AES should have relied on more recent data collected by the Puerto Rico Environmental Quality Board in 1990. Further, before the EPA issued this permit, it should have conducted ambient air quality analysis (or, alternatively, should have relied on more recent data) in order to determine if Guayama is, in fact, in attainment. Failure to have done so, SURCCO claims, was error. The EPA replies that it had no reason to question the continuing validity of its conclusion that total sulfur dioxide emissions from all sources in the area were well below the [Standards], because no major new sources had been constructed in the area since 1983, when the EPA last determined that the air quality in the area was below the Standards. The EPA also states that the Environmental Quality Board's data would have been rejected if it had been presented. Finally, the EPA says that ambient air monitoring is required once the facility is in operation. In this case, there is no legal requirement that ambient air monitoring should have been done prior to the issuance of the permit, nor is there evidence that casts doubt on the EPA's conclusion that current air quality is within the Standards.