EcoEléctrica, L.P.

Plain-English summary

EPA Region II issued a PSD permit for EcoEléctrica, L.P. to build and operate a 461-megawatt cogeneration plant and a liquefied natural gas marine terminal in Puerto Rico. Two petitioners challenged the permit based on preconstruction air-quality monitoring, multi-source modeling, environmental justice, backup oil use, energy need, environmental impacts, and procedure. The Environmental Appeals Board held that the projected impacts were below the regulatory de minimis levels for an exemption from preconstruction monitoring and that no generally applicable rule required multi-source modeling in this case. The Board found that EPA considered environmental-justice concerns, that the permit limited oil to backup use, and that the record did not support the other claims. It denied both petitions, including issues that were not raised during the permit comment period or concerned the non-PSD portion of the permit.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 42 U.S.C. §§ 7409, 7475, and 7661d; 40 C.F.R. §§ 50.2, 52.21, 70.2, 70.6, 124.13, and 124.19
• Outcome: Both consolidated petitions for review were denied.
• Key point: A PSD permit applicant may qualify for the preconstruction monitoring exemption when projected air-quality impacts remain below the regulation's de minimis levels.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

56 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

                   IN RE ECOELÉCTRICA, L.P.
                      PSD Appeal Nos. 96-8 and 96-13

                       ORDER DENYING REVIEW



                              Decided April 8, 1997




                                         Syllabus
    Two petitioners seek review of a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit

issued by U.S. EPA Region II to EcoEléctrica, L.P., pursuant to Clean Air Act § 165, 42 U.S.C.
§ 7475. The permit authorizes EcoEléctrica to install and operate a 461-megawatt cogeneration
plant in Peñuelas, Puerto Rico, and to construct a liqufied natural gas marine terminal to
receive deliveries of the plant’s primary fuel. In Appeal No. 96-13, the Committee to Save the
Environment in Guayanilla (Committee) seeks review of the Region’s permit decision on the
grounds that: (1) the Region erred by failing to require EcoEléctrica to compile preconstruc-
tion ambient air quality monitoring data of the kind described in 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m); (2) the
Region erred by failing to require EcoEléctrica to present a “multi-source modeling” analysis
examining emissions from existing facilities in the vicinity of the proposed EcoEléctrica plant;
(3) the Region’s failure to require additional data-gathering by EcoEléctrica “is an example of
environmental injustice”; (4) the Region did not impose restrictions adequate to prevent this
facility from burning oil, rather than natural gas, as its primary fuel on a permanent basis; and
(5) the Region should refrain from issuing PSD permits for facilities proposed to be con-
structed in Puerto Rico, because it has not properly enforced applicable regulatory require-
ments against existing permittees. In Appeal No. 96-8, Mr. Hector Arana seeks review of the
Region’s permit decision on the grounds that: (1) Puerto Rico’s electric power needs can be
met through the implementation of energy conservation measures, making the proposed
EcoEléctrica facility unnecessary; (2) an Environmental Impact Statement for the EcoEléctrica
project, prepared by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Puerto Rico Planning
Board outside the context of the PSD permitting process, contains inaccurate statements con-
cerning Puerto Rico’s energy needs; and (3) issuance of this permit decision should be held
in abeyance until the conclusion of other litigation filed by Mr. Arana bearing on the proposed
EcoEléctrica facility.

    Held: The Region did not err by exempting EcoEléctrica from preconstruction ambient air

quality monitoring requirements. The PSD regulations provide, at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(8), two
alternative grounds for exempting a permit applicant from the preconstruction ambient moni-
toring requirements: An exemption may be granted if emissions from the applicant’s proposed
facility will cause air quality impacts less than certain specified de minimis levels or, alterna-
tively, if existing pollutant concentrations in the area of the proposed facility are less than those
de minimis levels. In this case the Region found, and the Committee has not disputed, that the
EcoEléctrica facility’s projected air quality impacts are less than the de minimis levels for all rel-
evant pollutants. The Region’s exemption decision is therefore fully authorized by section
52.21(i)(8)(i) of the PSD regulations, and the Committee has failed to demonstrate that the deci-
sion is clearly erroneous.

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 57

  The Region did not err by failing to require EcoEléctrica to perform multi-source model-

ing. The Committee has identified no generally applicable regulatory requirement to perform
such an analysis. In the absence of any such regulatory requirement, the Region acted permis-
sibly by following PSD program guidance that calls for multi-source modeling only when an
applicant’s own modeled air quality impacts exceed specified levels of significance. Because the
EcoEléctrica facility’s modeled air quality impacts do not exceed those significance levels for any
pollutant, the Region did not clearly err by choosing not to require multi-source modeling in
connection with this permit application.

   The Region did not overlook principles of environmental justice generally, or the require-

ments of Executive Order 12898 in particular, in connection with this PSD permitting process.
The Region undertook an environmental justice analysis to consider whether this proposed facil-
ity would produce any disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
effect upon a low-income community. Based on that analysis, the Region concluded that no
such effect should occur. The Committee has identified no specific error among the Region’s
analytical methods or conclusions, nor has it explained how or why an examination of addi-
tional data would be expected to reveal an impact of the kind addressed by Executive Order
12898. The Committee’s challenge to this permit on environmental justice grounds is therefore
rejected.

   The Committee’s contention that this permit allows the EcoEléctrica facility permanently

to combust oil as its primary fuel is rejected. The permit expressly states that oil “will only be
fired as a backup fuel,” and specifically limits the quantities of oil that the facility is allowed to
combust. Region II determined, moreover, that no impermissible air quality impacts would result
if EcoEléctrica were to combust oil to the full extent authorized by this permit, and the
Committee has suggested no basis for concluding that that determination is clearly erroneous.

  Finally, the Committee’s allegation that EPA enforcement efforts are generally inadequate

provides no basis for review of this permit decision.

   Mr. Arana’s objections are rejected as grounds for review of this permit decision because:

(1) it was not clear error for the Region to defer the question of the need for the facility to the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s own authorized decisionmakers, rather than reexamine the
merits of their decisions; (2) Mr. Arana raised no issue concerning the Environmental Impact
Statement for this project during the public comment period applicable to the PSD permit deci-
sion, and Mr. Arana, therefore, failed to preserve any such issue for appeal in the manner
required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.13 & 124.19(a); and (3) the pendency of other litigation challeng-
ing the EcoEléctrica facility on non-PSD grounds does not justify holding this Agency’s final PSD
permit decision in abeyance.

Before Environmental Appeals Judges Ronald L. McCallum,
Edward E. Reich and Kathie A. Stein.

  Opinion of the Board by Judge Stein:

                                  I. BACKGROUND

Before us are two petitions seeking review of a final permit deci-

sion issued by U.S. EPA Region II under the Clean Air Act program to
Prevent Significant Deterioration of Air Quality (“PSD permit”). The
PSD permit authorizes EcoEléctrica, L.P. to install and operate a 461-
megawatt cogeneration plant at a site on Punta Guayanilla Bay in
Peñuelas, Puerto Rico, fifteen kilometers west of the City of Ponce,

                                                                                    VOLUME 7

58 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

and to construct a liquefied natural gas marine terminal to receive
deliveries of the plant’s primary fuel. The plant will produce electricity
from two combustion turbines, each with an extraction-condensing,
reheat steam turbine generator, and will also include an auxiliary
diesel-cycle generator for emergency purposes. The turbines will
employ natural gas as a primary fuel, propane as a secondary fuel,
and No. 2 oil as a backup fuel. Permit Attachment I, at 1.

 The EcoEléctrica facility is subject to PSD permitting requirements

for the following pollutants: nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide
(SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter less than ten microns
in diameter (PM10), and volatile organic compounds (VOCs). See
Permit Attachment I, at 1-2; 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23).

 The PSD permit requires EcoEléctrica to control NOx emissions by

using a steam or water injection process into the combustion system
and employing a selective catalytic reduction system. Permit
Attachment I, at 2. EcoEléctrica will be required to control SO2 emis-
sions by using clean fuels (pipeline quality natural gas or commercial
grade propane, with use of low sulfur No. 2 fuel oil [sulfur content
not to exceed 0.04 percent by weight] allowed as a backup fuel only).
Id. EcoEléctrica must employ good combustion practices to control
emissions of CO, PM10, and VOCs. Id.

  The petitioner in Appeal No. 96-8 is Mr. Hector Arana, a resident

of Puerto Rico and President of Wind Energy Development
Corporation. Mr. Arana’s principal contention is that the electric
power to be generated by the EcoEléctrica facility is not needed.
Specifically, Mr. Arana maintains that Puerto Rico’s existing sources of
electric power would be adequate if Puerto Rican consumers of elec-
tricity were to adopt energy conservation measures such as those EPA
itself has recommended in the context of its “Green Lights” program.

  The petitioner in Appeal No. 96-13 is an organization identifying

itself as the Comité Pro Rescate del Buen Ambiente de Guayanilla, or
Committee to Save the Environment in Guayanilla (hereinafter
“Committee”). The Committee principally argues that Region II
should, as a discretionary matter, have insisted that EcoEléctrica com-
pile additional, more extensive air quality data before acting on
EcoEléctrica’s PSD permit application, despite the Region’s determi-
nation that EcoEléctrica met the conditions for a regulatory exemp-
tion from any legal requirement to gather such additional data. The
Committee also suggests, albeit in very general terms, that the
Region’s failure to demand such additional data raises issues of envi-
ronmental justice.

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 59

 At the request of the Environmental Appeals Board, Region II

submitted responses to both petitions for review.1 The Region urges
that both petitions be denied for failure to identify, pursuant to 40
C.F.R. § 124.19, any clear error of fact or law, or any important policy
matter or exercise of discretion that warrants review.2 For the reasons
that follow, we agree with the Region’s assessment and we deny both
petitions for review.

                                  II. DISCUSSION

A. Statutory Background

 The Clean Air Act’s PSD program serves to regulate air pollution

in “attainment” areas, in which the air quality meets or is cleaner than
the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), as well as in areas
that cannot be classified as “attainment” or “nonattainment” (“unclas-
sifiable” areas). In re Commonwealth Chesapeake Corp., 6 E.A.D. 764,
766-67 (EAB 1997) (citing Clean Air Act §§ 160 et seq.). The NAAQS
are “maximum concentration ‘ceilings’ measured in terms of the total
concentration of a pollutant in the atmosphere.” New Source Review
Workshop Manual (hereinafter “Draft Manual”), at C.3.3 The primary
NAAQS “define levels of air quality which the Administrator judges are
necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public
health,” and the secondary NAAQS “define levels of air quality which
the Administrator judges necessary to protect the public welfare from
any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant.” 40 C.F.R.
§ 50.2(b).

      The goals of the PSD program are:

      (1) to ensure that economic growth will occur in
      harmony with the preservation of existing clean air

 1
   The response to Petition No. 96-8 was submitted jointly by Region II (through its Office

of Regional Counsel) and by EPA’s Office of General Counsel, and is signed by representatives
of both offices. The response to Petition No. 96-13 was submitted in the Region’s name alone,
but indicates that it was prepared “in coordination with” the Office of General Counsel.
2
In addition, with leave of the Board, EcoEléctrica itself submitted a brief urging that both
petitions be denied.
3
The New Source Review Workshop Manual is a draft document issued by EPA’s Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards in October 1990. It was developed for use in conjunction
with new source review workshops and training, and to guide permitting officials. Although it
is not accorded the same weight as a binding Agency regulation, it has been looked to by this
Board as a statement of the Agency’s thinking on certain PSD issues. See In re Masonite Corp.,
5 E.A.D. 551, 558 n.8 (EAB 1994).

                                                                                  VOLUME 7

60 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

    resources; (2) to protect the public health and welfare
    from any adverse effect which might occur even at air
    pollution levels better than the [NAAQS]; and (3) to
    preserve, protect, and enhance the air quality in areas
    of special natural recreational, scenic, or historic value,
    such as national parks and wilderness areas.

Draft Manual at 5. To that end, the PSD regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21
require, among other things, that new major stationary sources of air
pollution and major modifications of such sources be carefully
reviewed prior to construction to ensure that emissions from such facil-
ities will not cause exceedance of the NAAQS or applicable PSD ambi-
ent air quality “increments.” A PSD “increment” refers to “the maximum
allowable increase in concentration that is allowed to occur above a
baseline concentration for a pollutant.” Draft Manual at C.3; see also 40
C.F.R. § 52.21(c) (setting forth increments for regulated pollutants).

 The PSD regulations further require that new major stationary

sources and major modifications of such sources employ the “best
available control technology” (BACT) to minimize emissions of regu-
lated pollutants. Clean Air Act § 165(a)(4); 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(j)(2). BACT
is defined in part as follows:

    [BACT] means an emissions limitation (including a vis-
    ible emission standard) based on the maximum degree
    of reduction for each pollutant subject to regulation
    under [the] Act which would be emitted from any pro-
    posed major stationary source or major modification
    which the Administrator, on a case-by-case basis, tak-
    ing into account energy, environmental, and econom-
    ic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable for
    such source or modification through application of
    production processes or available methods, systems,
    and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or
    innovative fuel combustion techniques for control of
    such pollutant.

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(12).

B. Standard of Review

Under the regulations that govern the Board’s review of PSD per-

mit decisions, a PSD permit decision will ordinarily not be reviewed
unless the decision is based on a clearly erroneous finding of fact or
conclusion of law, or involves an important matter of policy or exer-

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 61

cise of discretion that warrants review. 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a). The pre-
amble to section 124.19 states that the Board’s power of review
“should be only sparingly exercised,” and that “most permit condi-
tions should be finally determined at the Regional level.” 45 Fed. Reg.
33,412 (1980). The petitioners bear the burden of demonstrating that
review is warranted. E.g., Commonwealth Chesapeake Corp., 6 E.A.D.
at 769. Moreover, the Board has repeatedly emphasized that petition-
ers’ burden under section 124.19 requires both that they clearly iden-
tify their objections and that they specifically explain why the Region’s
previous response to those objections is clearly erroneous or other-
wise worthy of review. Id.; see also, e.g., In re Puerto Rico Electric
Power Authority, 6 E.A.D. 253, 255 (EAB 1995).

C. The Committee’s Petition

      1. Air Quality Analysis

                 a. Failure to Require Preconstruction Ambient
                    Monitoring

 The PSD permitting regulations require, pursuant to 40 C.F.R.

§ 52.21(m), that a permit application for a major stationary source
(such as the EcoEléctrica facility) include “an analysis of ambient air
quality in the area that [the source] would affect for * * * each pollu-
tant that [the source] would have the potential to [e]mit in a significant
amount.” 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m)(1)(i)(a).4 For any Clean Air Act “crite-
ria” pollutant (i.e., pollutant for which there exists an applicable
NAAQS) that is to be emitted in a significant amount, the ambient air
quality analysis must generally include “continuous air quality moni-
toring data gathered for purposes of determining” whether the applic-
able NAAQS or PSD increment will be exceeded. Id. § 52.21(m)(1)(iii).

 The regulations specifically allow, however, for an exemption

from the requirement to gather such air quality monitoring data for
any particular pollutant as to which either of two conditions is satis-
fied: The exemption is potentially available if “the emissions increase
of the pollutant from the new source * * * would cause, in any area,
air quality impacts less than” certain specified concentrations (40
C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(8)(i)) or, alternatively, if existing “concentrations of
the pollutant in the area that the source * * * would affect are less
than” those same specified values (40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(8)(ii)). The
specified concentrations that are compared, in this analysis, either

 4
    The terms “major stationary source,” “potential to emit,” and “significant” are defined at

40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b).

                                                                                 VOLUME 7

62 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

with the predicted impacts from a proposed source or with existing
pollutant concentrations in the area of a proposed source, are some-
times referred to as “de minimis levels.” See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i), foot-
note 1. The Region’s briefs refer to them as “monitoring de minimis
levels” — highlighting their role in assessing the need for precon-
struction ambient air quality monitoring — and we employ that
terminology in the discussion that follows.5

 In applying for its PSD permit, EcoEléctrica requested an exemp-

tion from preconstruction ambient monitoring and demonstrated, in
making that request, that emissions of all relevant pollutants from its
proposed facility would produce air quality impacts below the moni-
toring de minimis levels set forth at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(8)(i).
Specifically, EcoEléctrica submitted technical analyses demonstrating
that the maximum air quality impacts from its proposed facility would
not exceed: 375 µg/m3 (eight-hour average) for CO, below the moni-
toring de minimis level of 575 µg/m3; 0.73 µg/m 3 (annual average) for
nitrogen dioxide (NO2), below the monitoring de minimis level of 14
µg/m3; 4.52 µg/m 3 (24- hour average) for SO2, below the monitoring
de minimis level of 13 µg/m3; and 4.97 µg/m 3 (24-hour average) for
PM10, below the monitoring de minimis level of 10 µg/m3.6
EcoEléctrica further established that the proposed facility’s potential to
emit VOCs would be limited to a rate of 96 tons per year (tpy), there-
by demonstrating its eligibility for exemption from the requirement to
conduct preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring for ozone.7
The Region concluded, based on these modeled air quality impacts,
that EcoEléctrica would not be required to perform the ambient mon-
itoring described in 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m).

  5
    The New Source Review Workshop Manual refers to this set of pollutant concentrations

as “significant monitoring concentrations.” See Draft Manual at C.17. Like the terminology we
employ in the text, that designation serves to distinguish the significance levels used in evaluat-
ing the need for preconstruction ambient monitoring (set forth in 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(8) and in
Table C-3 of the Draft Manual) from the “significant ambient impact levels” (Draft Manual Table
C-4) discussed in the following section of our opinion. The latter are consulted to determine
whether a particular permit applicant should be required to perform a “full impact analysis” —
including multi-source modeling — in order to demonstrate its compliance with PSD regulatory
requirements, or whether a “preliminary analysis” alone will suffice to make that demonstration.
6
To provide context for these figures we would point out that the existing primary
NAAQS, expressed in terms of the same units (µg/m3) and the same averaging times as the mon-
itoring de minimis levels cited in the text, are 10,000 µg/m3 for CO, 100 for NO2, 365 for SO2,
and 150 for PM10. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 50.4, 50.6, 50.8, and 50.11.
7
A new source may be exempted from the ambient air quality monitoring requirement for
ozone if the source would emit less than 100 tpy of VOCs. See footnote 1 to 40 C.F.R.
§ 52.21(i)(8)(i); Masonite Corp., 5 E.A.D. at 576-77.

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 63

 EcoEléctrica’s air quality impact analyses for CO, NO2, SO2, and

PM10 emissions from its proposed facility have not been challenged,
nor is there any dispute concerning the figure (96 tpy) cited by
EcoEléctrica as representing the facility’s potential to emit VOCs. It is
therefore undisputed that this facility was eligible for exemption from
the requirement to conduct preconstruction ambient air quality mon-
itoring for all pollutants for which such monitoring would otherwise
have been required. Such an exemption is, however, not mandatory.
Even if emissions from a proposed new source would produce air
quality impacts below the de minimis levels set forth in section
52.21(i), the Region nonetheless “has discretion to order a full ambi-
ent air quality analysis” for any pollutant for which the source is sub-
ject to PSD review. In re Masonite Corp., 5 E.A.D. 551, 579 (EAB
1994). Indeed, section 52.21(i)(8) itself says only that EPA “may
exempt” a source from preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring
requirements if the de minimis levels are not exceeded; the regulation
nowhere suggests that EPA must do so.

 In its petition for review, the Committee argues that Region II

abused its discretion by failing to require (that is, by granting an
exemption from) preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring in
connection with the EcoEléctrica permit application. Such an abuse of
discretion is, the Committee contends, evident from certain statements
in the Responsiveness Summary that accompanied the Region’s final
permit decision, in which the Region indicated that it had evaluated
certain existing ambient air quality data from “other areas * * * similar
in industrialization [to] Guayanilla”8 during its review of the Eco-
Eléctrica permit application.

 According to the Committee, the existing ambient air quality data

that the Region claims to have evaluated is, for various reasons, either
inherently unreliable or unrepresentative of conditions in the specific
area that would be affected by emissions from the EcoEléctrica facili-
ty. Committee’s Petition at 1-3. To support that contention, the
Committee specifically asserts that the ambient air quality data exam-
ined by the Region did not satisfy certain standards of data quality,
data currentness,9 and monitor location that are described in the May
1987 EPA publication titled Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for

 8
     Responsiveness Summary at 9.
 9
    In its response to the Committee’s petition, Region II argues that during the public com-

ment period and public hearing for this permit, neither the Committee nor any other commenter
raised any challenge to the existing air quality data on grounds specifically related to when the
Continued

                                                                                VOLUME 7

64 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD). The Committee con-
cludes that by referring to existing air quality data of such limited
value, the Region committed an error that invalidates the Region’s
decision exempting EcoEléctrica from the requirement to conduct
preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring.

 The Committee’s argument reflects an apparent misunderstanding

of the regulatory provision underlying the Region’s exemption deci-
sion. As noted above, that regulatory provision, 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(i)(8),
describes two alternative grounds for exempting a proposed source
from the preconstruction ambient air quality monitoring requirements
of section 52.21(m): An exemption may be granted based on the
source’s own projected de minimis air quality impacts (section
52.21(i)(8)(i)) or, in the alternative, an exemption may be granted on
the basis of existing de minimis pollutant concentrations in the area
of the proposed source (section 52.21(i)(8)(ii)) without regard to the
source’s own projected impacts.10 In this case, EcoEléctrica was deter-
mined to have qualified for the exemption based on EcoEléctrica’s
own projected air quality impacts — which the Region found to be
below the monitoring de minimis level for each pollutant at issue —
and not based on estimates of currently existing ambient concentra-

data were originally collected. Response to Committee’s Petition at 5. The Region argues that,
for that reason, the Committee lacks “standing” to raise such an objection on appeal. Id. (citing
In re Patowmack Power Partners, L.P., PSD Appeal No. 93-13, at 3 n.2 (EAB, Feb. 24, 1994)
(unpublished Order Denying Review)).

  Strictly speaking, the problem identified by the Region is not one of standing. The Committee

has standing to seek review of this permit decision by virtue of its acknowledged participation in the
public hearing on the permit. See 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a); In re Envotech, L.P., 6 E.A.D. 260, 266 (EAB
1996) (petitioner has standing to seek review “if the petitioner filed timely comments on the draft
permit or participated in the public hearing on the draft permit”). Instead, it appears that the essence
of the Region’s concern is that the Committee should not be permitted to raise issues, like the data-
currentness issue, that were reasonably ascertainable during the public comment period but were
not raised during that period. In other words, the argument is that this particular issue was not pre-
served for review in the manner required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.13 and 124.19(a). However, because
the issue of data currentness is so closely related to other challenges to the existing air quality data
that were properly preserved for review (by commenters other than the Committee) and that the
Region has had an opportunity to address, we decline to deny review based on the Committee’s
alleged failure to preserve a specific data-currentness objection. See Puerto Rico Electric Power
Authority, 6 E.A.D. at 257 n.5.
10
These alternative grounds for an exemption from preconstruction monitoring are also
described in the May 1987 Guidelines, as follows: “[N]o preconstruction monitoring data will
generally be required if the ambient air quality before construction is less than the significant
monitoring concentrations. * * * Cases where the projected impact of the source or modification
is less than the significant monitoring concentrations would also generally be exempt from [the
requirement to compile] preconstruction monitoring data, consistent with the de minimis con-
cept.” Ambient Monitoring Guidelines for PSD at 4.

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 65

tions of the relevant pollutants in the affected area. See Respon-
siveness Summary at 3 (“EcoElectrica was exempt from installing
ambient monitors since the modeled air impacts were below the mon-
itoring de minimis levels defined in 40 CFR 52.21.”) (emphasis added);
id. at 10 (“EcoElectrica was not required to install monitoring data [sic]
since their impacts are below the monitoring de minimis levels.”)
(emphasis added).

Thus, nothing in the Committee’s challenge to the available air

quality data for the Guayanilla-Peñuelas region affects the validity of
the exemption granted to EcoElectríca. Region II was not required to
examine any existing air quality data before granting the exemption,
given that EcoEléctrica’s own projected de minimis air quality
impacts, without more, provided sufficient grounds for the exemption
under section 52.21(i)(8)(i). We therefore conclude that the Region
did not abuse its discretion by exempting EcoEléctrica from the pre-
construction ambient air quality monitoring requirements set forth in
40 C.F.R. § 52.21(m).

            b. Failure to Require Multi-Source Modeling

 In an argument closely related to the one we have just addressed,

the Committee faults Region II for failing to demand from EcoEléctrica
“an analysis of the combined impacts from the existing facilities” in
the vicinity of the proposed cogeneration plant. Committee’s Petition
at 4. The Committee suggests that Region II “exempted” EcoEléctrica
from an otherwise applicable regulatory requirement to perform such
multi-source modeling, and the Committee challenges that “exemp-
tion” decision as having been based on unreliable and unrepresenta-
tive air quality data.

 The Committee, however, seems to have mischaracterized the

Region’s decision not to require multi-source modeling in this case.
The Committee identifies no regulatory provision stating that PSD per-
mit applicants are generally required to perform multi-source modeling
unless declared to be “exempt” from doing so, and we have located no
such provision in our own review of the PSD regulations. It appears
that the regulations do not expressly require all applicants to perform
multi-source modeling but do require applicants, in more general
terms, to demonstrate that the proposed source will not cause or con-
tribute to a violation of any NAAQS or any PSD increment. 40 C.F.R.
§ 52.21(k). Clearly, however, when acting on a PSD permit application
EPA may, in its discretion, insist that the applicant perform multi-
source modeling as part of its demonstration of PSD compliance. See
Draft Manual at C.24-C.25; 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(n)(2) (“Upon request of the

                                                            VOLUME 7

66 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Administrator, the owner or operator shall also provide information
on * * * [t]he air quality impacts * * * of any or all general commercial,
residential, industrial, and other growth which has occurred since
August 7, 1977, in the area the source or modification would affect.”)
(emphasis added). Therefore, the question before the Region was not
whether to “exempt” EcoEléctrica from an otherwise applicable regu-
latory requirement to perform multi-source modeling; the question,
instead, was simply how much information to demand about existing
sources of air pollution as part of EcoEléctrica’s demonstration of PSD
compliance.

  With the issue properly framed, it becomes readily apparent that

the Region’s decision not to require multi-source modeling does not
represent an abuse of discretion. In making its decision concerning
the scope of the analysis that EcoEléctrica would be required to per-
form, the Region followed an approach outlined in the New Source
Review Workshop Manual. The Draft Manual indicates that an appli-
cant will generally be required to perform a full impact analysis —
that is, an analysis “involving the estimation of background pollutant
concentrations resulting from existing sources and growth associated
with the proposed source” — only if the applicant’s own modeled
impacts (as shown by the applicant’s preliminary analysis) exceed a
specified level of significance. Draft Manual at C.24-C.25.11 If the pre-
liminary analysis shows that impacts from the applicant’s own facility
are expected to be insignificant, then a full impact analysis will gen-
erally not be required. Id.12 It is undisputed that the modeled impacts
from the EcoEléctrica facility, for all relevant pollutants, were below
the “significant ambient impact levels” set forth in the Draft Manual.
Id. at C.28 (Table C-4).13 The Region therefore did not clearly err by
failing to require the performance of a full impact analysis including
multi-source modeling.

 11
    As noted in footnote 5, supra, these significance levels (referred to in the New Source

Review Workshop Manual as “significant ambient impact levels”) are distinct from the “signifi-
cant monitoring levels” used in deciding whether to exempt a permit applicant from ambient
monitoring requirements.
12
“The EPA does not require a full impact analysis for a particular pollutant when emissions
of that pollutant from a proposed source or modification would not increase ambient concentra-
tions by more than prescribed significant ambient impact levels * * * .” Draft Manual at C.24.
13
In µg/m3, the facility’s modeled impacts and the corresponding “significant ambient
impact levels” listed in the Draft Manual are as follows: For NO2, 0.71 (annual average) with a
Continued

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 67

                 c. Environmental Justice Analysis

 Near the conclusion of its challenge to the adequacy of

EcoEléctrica’s air quality impact analysis, the Committee states: “The
exemption of this industry from additional modeling is an example of
environmental injustice.” Committee’s Petition at 4. It would appear
that this may be intended as a reference to Executive Order 12898
(Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-Income Populations), issued February 11, 1994.
But because the Committee’s reference to environmental justice is
entirely unexplained, we do not know the specific basis for the
Committee’s contention that additional modeling — or, perhaps more
generally, additional information-gathering in the context of the per-
mit applicant’s air quality impact analysis for this proposed source —
should have been required for reasons of environmental justice.14 We
have, however, examined the Region’s application of Executive Order
12898 in this case, and we are satisfied that the Executive Order was
not violated in any respect.

 The Executive Order directs each Federal agency to incorporate

environmental justice as part of the agency’s mission “by identifying
and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects of its programs, policies, and
activities on minority populations and low-income populations.”
Executive Order § 1-101.15 Thus, in response to a commenter’s obser-
vation that “Guayanilla and Peñuelas are poor towns,” the Region
explained that it had performed an analysis specifically designed to

significant impact level of 1; for SO2, 0.40 (annual average), 4.33 (24-hour average), and 20.32
(3-hour average) with significant impact levels of 1, 5, and 25 for those averaging times; for PM10,
0.83 (annual average) and 4.94 (24- hour average) with significant impact levels of 1 and 5 for
those averaging times; and for CO, 187 (8-hour average) and 131 (1-hour average) with signifi-
cant impact levels of 500 and 2000 for those averaging times. See Responsiveness Summary at 15.
14
We recognize that Mr. Efraín Emmanuelli, who signed the Committee’s petition for
review and appeared on the Committee’s behalf at the public hearing, is not an attorney (see
Public Hearing Transcript at 29), and we therefore take a broad view of the reference to envi-
ronmental justice that appears in the Committee’s petition. See In re Beckman Production
Services, 5 E.A.D. 10, 19 (EAB 1994) (“The Board generally tries to construe petitions filed by
persons unrepresented by counsel in a light most favorable to the petitioners.”).
15
Although EPA has not issued formal rules or detailed written guidance on environmen-
tal justice with respect to PSD permitting, see Response to Committee’s Petition at 19, the
absence of such guidance does not prevent the Agency from addressing environmental justice
issues. See In re Chemical Waste Management of Indiana, 6 E.A.D. 66, 78 (EAB 1995); In re
Envotech, L.P., 6 E.A.D. 260, 283 n.27 (EAB 1996).

                                                                                  VOLUME 7

68 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

identify any disproportionate impact of the EcoEléctrica PSD permit-
ting decision upon a low-income community.16 The Region explained
that in the course of that analysis it had assembled per capita income
data derived from the 1990 Census, and source location data derived
from the 1990 Toxics Release Inventory and from the Region’s own
Permit Compliance System database.

      These data were subsequently geographically plotted
      for the Ponce, Guayanilla and Penuelas Municipalities
      and for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico as a whole.
      The location of the proposed facility, maximum emis-
      sion impact data and monitored meteorological data
      were then plotted on maps to determine: (1) if the pro-
      posed facility was located in a lower income area; and
      (2) if the maximum emission impacts occurred in areas
      that were either lower than the Island’s or the
      Guayanilla/Peñuelas’s per capita income average.

Responsiveness Summary at 4.

 Based on that analysis, the Region determined that the location

of the proposed facility was characterized by a median household
income lower than the Commonwealth average but higher than the
median household income elsewhere in Peñuelas or in nearby
Guyanilla and Ponce. Id. Likewise, the Region determined that the
maximum emission impacts from the proposed facility would occur
primarily in areas of higher median household income than the sur-
rounding areas. Id. at 4-5. The Region emphasized, moreover, that
“the modeled maximum emission impacts from this project are
insignificant and well below NAAQS, and [the] project therefore
should have insignificant impacts on the surrounding communities.”
Id. at 5; see also supra note 6 (comparing modeled air impacts of the
EcoEléctrica facility with the NAAQS). For those reasons, the Region
concluded that “the proposed EcoElectrica facility does not have any
disproportionately high impact to lower income communities.”
Responsiveness Summary at 5.

 16
    The Region also points out that notice of the preliminary determination on this permit,

of the opportunity to comment, and of the public hearing to be held were all published in a
Spanish-language newspaper as well as in English, and that the public hearing itself was con-
ducted primarily in Spanish. Response to Committee’s Petition at 17. These are among the kinds
of actions specifically encouraged by the environmental justice Executive Order, which states:
“Each Federal agency may, whenever practicable and appropriate, translate crucial public doc-
uments, notices, and hearings relating to human health and the environment for limited English
speaking populations.” Executive Order § 5-5.

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 69

 The Committee does not take issue with the procedures

employed by the Region in its environmental justice analysis, nor does
the Committee express disagreement with the results of that analysis.
It makes no specific showing, for instance, that (contrary to the
Region’s conclusion) the facility would have a disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental impact on a low-income
population, nor does it even explain how or why an examination of
additional data would be expected to reveal such an impact.17 The
Committee therefore has made no showing of clear error in connec-
tion with the Region’s analysis of any environmental justice issues
associated with this permit. See Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority,
6 E.A.D. at 257. Accordingly, we decline to review the Region’s per-
mit decision on grounds of environmental justice.

      2. Use of Distillate Oil

 The Committee argues that the PSD permit does not impose suf-

ficient restrictions to prevent EcoEléctrica from permanently using oil
as the primary fuel for this facility — which, according to the
Committee, is precisely what EcoEléctrica secretly intends to do.
Committee’s Petition at 4-5.18 The permit specifically states, however,

 17
    In connection with other types of permit proceedings, this Board has previously encour-

aged EPA Regional offices to examine any “superficially plausible” claim that a minority or low-
income population may be disproportionately affected by a particular facility. See Chemical
Waste Management, 6 E.A.D. at 75 (RCRA permit proceeding); Envotech, 6 E.A.D. at 280 (injec-
tion well permit proceeding under the Safe Drinking Water Act). In this case, the Committee sug-
gests no plausible basis for concluding that further examination of air quality data, beyond the
examination that the Region has already conducted, would disclose the kind of disproportion-
ate impact that the environmental justice Executive Order seeks to address.
18
Much like it did in connection with the Committee’s data-currentness argument, see supra
note 9, Region II suggests that no issue relating to this facility’s combustion of distillate oil was
preserved for review in the manner required by 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.13 and 124.19(a). The Region
acknowledges that before issuance of a final permit decision, the Committee (or a commenter
working in collaboration with the Committee) raised a concern about this facility’s possible com-
bustion of distillate oil “on a prolonged basis” (see Responsiveness Summary at 12), but the
Region points out — and the Committee does not dispute — that the issue was raised only after
the close of the public comment period.

  The Region’s argument against entertaining this objection on appeal is certainly not with-

out merit. See, e.g., Beckman Production Services, 5 E.A.D. at 17 (the obligation to file comments
in a timely manner should be “given its full meaning”). Nonetheless, because the Committee’s
objection is so clearly refuted by the permit conditions governing this facility’s use of distillate
oil and because, in addition, the Committee has failed to suggest how the Region’s response to
the original (untimely) comment on this issue was erroneous, it is unnecessary for us to decide
whether review should also be denied based on the Committee’s failure to comment in a time-
ly manner. We therefore do not address the effect of the Committee’s untimely submission of its
comments.

                                                                                   VOLUME 7

70 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

that each combustion turbine “shall be primarily firing natural gas or
LPG [propane],” and that “No. 2 fuel oil (distillate oil) will only be
fired as a backup fuel.” Permit § VI.1. The permit further provides that
each turbine may consume distillate oil at a rate no higher than 12,500
gallons per hour, and that the combined consumption of distillate oil
by both turbines may not exceed 54 million gallons per year. At the
other end of the combustion-rate spectrum, the permit provides in
substance that neither turbine may (except during startup, shutdown,
or fuel switching operations) be operated at less than 50% of the max-
imum allowable rate.19 Given these restrictions, if EcoEléctrica were to
fuel the plant exclusively with distillate oil, it would be limited to
roughly six hours of operation per day (over a 365-day period) with
the plant firing oil at the maximum allowable rate, or to roughly
twelve hours of operation per day (over a 365-day period) with the
plant firing oil at the minimum allowable rate. Response to
Committee’s Petition at 21-22. It is difficult to see why, in the
Committee’s view, EcoEléctrica might routinely choose to curtail the
operation of its plant to the extent necessary to burn distillate oil in
compliance with those restrictions.20 In any event the Region, in
reaching its permit decision, concluded that firing distillate oil to the
fullest extent allowed by those restrictions would not produce any
impermissible air quality impacts. The Committee has not challenged
that conclusion, nor has it cited any basis for its assertion that
EcoEléctrica does not intend primarily to fire natural gas or propane.
Review of this issue is, accordingly, denied.

      3. Violations by Other Permittees

Finally, the Committee argues that other permittees have violated

EPA-issued permits, and that EPA should refrain from issuing new per-
mits such as this one so long as “EPA is unable to carry out enforce-
ment.” Committee’s Petition at 5. This Board’s role, however, is to
examine specific permit conditions that are claimed to be erroneous,
not to address generalized concerns broadly directed toward the
enforcement capabilities of this or any other regulatory agency. See,

  19
     To be more precise, it appears that minimum allowable fuel-consumption rates for each

fuel will be set during performance testing, and will be determined with reference to VOC emis-
sions measured at that time. In no event, however (other than during startup, shutdown, or fuel
switching), would this permit allow the EcoEléctrica facility’s turbines to combust any fuel at a
rate less than 50% of their design capacity for that fuel. Permit § VI.4.
20
Region II points out that a worst-case operating scenario — involving combustion of dis-
tillate oil twelve hours a day, 365 days a year — is unlikely to occur, “since it is impractical and
economically disadvantageous to run a power plant 12 hours on, 12 hours off.” Response to
Committee’s Petition at 22 n.13.

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 71

e.g., In re Brine Disposal Well, Montmorency County, Michigan, 4
E.A.D. 736, 746 (EAB 1993) (review denied where petitioner merely
alleged a generalized concern over EPA’s ability to enforce compli-
ance with regulatory requirements). “The Board has the authority to
examine specific provisions of a permit that might tend to make sub-
sequent enforcement of the permit more or less effective,” In re
Federated Oil & Gas, 6 E.A.D. 722, 730 (EAB 1997), but no such pro-
visions have been challenged in this case. The Committee’s request
for review based on this objection must, accordingly, be denied.21

D. Mr. Arana’s Petition

      1. Need for the Facility

  Petitioner Hector Arana, in Appeal No. 96-8, argues that Region II

should have denied EcoEléctrica’s PSD permit application because
there is no real need for the power that the proposed facility would
generate. He argues, specifically, that if residential customers of the
local electric utility were to replace eight million of their incandescent
light bulbs with fluorescent lighting, the utility would find itself with
surplus power equal to the entire generating capacity of the Eco-
Eléctrica cogeneration plant. More generally, he advocates “the imple-
mentation of Demand Side Management and energy conservation” as
preferred methods for alleviating any existing or anticipated shortage
of power-generating capacity in Puerto Rico, and he notes that EPA
itself advocates such conservation measures in the context of its vol-
untary “Green Lights” program.22 Petition at 3. Mr. Arana does not
argue that this permit should include additional or more-stringent

  21
     The Committee has also attempted to argue — though there is some dispute as to

whether the attempt was timely — that EPA must determine, before acting on this PSD permit
application, the extent to which the EcoEléctrica facility would be subject to future NAAQS revi-
sions such as those proposed by EPA on December 13, 1996. See 61 Fed. Reg. 65,637 (1996)
(proposing for public comment new air quality standards for ozone and for particulate matter
less than 2.5 microns in size). Whether or not it was raised in a timely fashion, the Committee’s
argument is plainly wrong. As the Region explains in its response to the Committee’s petition,
the revisions to which the Committee refers are still only proposals, not final rules. Response to
Committee’s Petition at 23. EPA’s publication of those proposals for public comment provides
no basis for review of the permit decision currently before us.

 22
    As described by the Region in response to Mr. Arana’s petition, the Green Lights pro-

gram is an “important EPA voluntary initiative to encourage businesses, public schools, and gov-
ernment agencies to reduce the amount of electricity used” by installing energy-efficient light-
ing systems. “EPA does not mandate implementation of this voluntary program nor is the
program designed for residential implementation. The Green Lights program is implemented
through education and outreach, and has not been imposed on entities. EPA asks willing
Continued

                                                                                 VOLUME 7

72 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

emissions limitations for any particular pollutants. He argues that no
permit should be issued at all, thus precluding the building of the
facility.23

 In response, Region II and EPA’s Office of General Counsel (here-

inafter jointly referred to as the “Region”) strongly endorse the general
proposition that “[e]nergy conservation is central to meaningful air pol-
lution prevention initiatives.” Response to Arana’s Petition at 17. The
Region also asserts that energy conservation falls comfortably within
the range of considerations that a PSD permitting agency might rea-
sonably choose to examine in the context of, for example, determining
how much (if any) of a PSD increment should be devoted to a partic-
ular proposed facility. Id. at 9-10 (citing S. Rep. No. 127, 95th Cong.,
1st Sess. 31 (1977), reprinted in Senate Comm. on Environment and
Public Works, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., A Legislative History of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1977, vol. 3 at 1405 (1978)). The Region further
notes that one of the express statutory prerequisites for construction of
a major emitting facility subject to PSD review is that interested persons
must be provided an opportunity to submit comments concerning
“alternatives” to the facility and concerning “other appropriate consid-
erations.” See Clean Air Act § 165(a)(2); see also Clean Air Act § 160(5)
(purposes of the statutory PSD provisions include “assur[ing] that any
decision to permit increased air pollution in [an attainment area] is
made only after careful evaluation of all the consequences of such a
decision and after adequate procedural opportunities for informed
public participation in the decisionmaking process”).

We agree that energy conservation can produce significant envi-

ronmental benefits, and we recognize the importance of promoting
conservation through initiatives such as the voluntary Green Lights
program. However, the very nature of the Green Lights program is

participants to sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with EPA. Participants agree to
survey 100 percent of their facilities, and within five years of signing the MOU, to upgrade 90
percent of the square footage that can be upgraded profitably without compromising lighting
quality.” Response to Arana’s Petition at 19.
23
Although Mr. Arana’s petition includes a very general reference to “BACT,” it offers no
explanation of how Mr. Arana’s principal argument — that the EcoEléctrica facility is not really
necessary — is meant to relate to the specific concept of “Best Available Control Technology”
as defined and employed in Clean Air Act §§ 165(a)(4) & 169(3) and in 40 C.F.R. §§ 52.21(j)(2)
& 52.21(b)(12). In the absence of any such explanation by Mr. Arana, we will not undertake an
abstract reconsideration of the BACT determinations that are reflected in the Region’s permit
decision. Cf. In re Ross Incineration Services, 5 E.A.D. 813, 819 (EAB 1995) (where petitioner
fails to explain an objection presented to the Board as grounds for review under 40 C.F.R. §
124.19(a), the Board “will not speculate as to what the explanation might be”).

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 73

such that EPA does not mandate the program’s implementation.
Moreover, neither the Clean Air Act nor the PSD regulations specifi-
cally require a PSD permitting agency to demand that conservation
alternatives to the building of a proposed power-generating facility be
fully implemented before the permitting agency may authorize con-
struction of such a facility. Mr. Arana has cited no authority suggesting
that this is a requirement, nor has he shown that the Region committed
clear error in exercising its discretion not to deny the permit.

  In determining whether to review a final permit decision, the

Board’s role is not to substitute its own judgment for that of the per-
mit issuer; rather, it is to ensure that the permit issuer’s decision has
been adequately explained and does not represent clear error. See 40
C.F.R. § 124.19(a); 45 Fed. Reg. 33,412 (1980). We find that the
Region’s decision not to deny this particular permit, notwithstanding
Mr. Arana’s allegations, has been more than adequately explained. In
response to Mr. Arana’s comments on the draft permit, the Region
described at some length its reasons for not engaging in an energy
planning analysis of the kind urged upon it by Mr. Arana. Specifically,
the Region explained that unlike many PSD situations in which a sin-
gle State government is responsible both for the PSD permitting
process and for any related energy planning decisions, in this case
those responsibilities are divided between two different governments:
Responsibility for the PSD permitting process lies with an agency of
the Federal government, whereas the responsibility to plan for the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s current and future energy needs lies
principally with the Commonwealth’s own government. Given that
division of responsibility, the Region concluded that Mr. Arana’s argu-
ments concerning the need for this proposed facility would more
appropriately be addressed by the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico
itself, in the context of the Commonwealth’s own deliberations
regarding the facility:

       In [response to Mr. Arana’s comments], the Region
   explained that it was not well-positioned to engage in
   regional or Commonwealth-wide energy planning in
   Puerto Rico during its review of the EcoElectrica PSD
   permit. This is distinguishable from the circumstances
   governing most PSD permits, where the State is the PSD
   permit issuer and the State can more readily coordinate
   its energy planning with permitting. By contrast, Region
   II was not well-situated in the context of the
   EcoElectrica PSD permit review to determine what
   Puerto Rico’s short- and long-term energy needs are, to
   decide the importance of diversifying energy supply


                                                           VOLUME 7

74 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

      through the use of natural gas, or to make a permit
      decision based on the conclusion that demand side
      management and other energy conservation measures
      in Puerto Rico render the proposed facility unnecessary.

Response to Arana’s Petition at 18-19 (citing Responsiveness Summary
at 2).

 Mr. Arana does not express any specific disagreement with the

premise that the energy planning authorities of the government of
Puerto Rico are deserving of deference under these circumstances. He
disagrees, instead, with the decisions that those government authori-
ties have reached.24 But it would not be appropriate for the Board, in
this proceeding, to undertake a detailed reexamination of the merits
of the Commonwealth’s energy planning decisions. As explained
above, the Board’s role in this proceeding is to determine whether the
Region committed clear error. We conclude that, in the circumstances
of this case, far from committing clear error, the Region acted reason-
ably and appropriately by deferring questions concerning the need for
the facility to the Puerto Rican government. See In re Kentucky Utilities
Co., PSD Appeal No. 82-5, at 2, 1982 PSD LEXIS 32 at 2-3 (Adm’r, Dec.
21, 1982) (“the need for the proposed power plant will be more
appropriately addressed by the state agency charged with making that
determination”).25 Review of Mr. Arana’s contentions regarding the
need for the proposed EcoEléctrica facility is therefore denied.

 24
    In particular, Mr. Arana expressly criticizes the Commonwealth’s Energy Affairs

Administration (Petition at 2-4), for its favorable comments on the EcoEléctrica project during
the PSD permitting process and for its alleged inattention to promoting energy conservation, and
impliedly criticizes the Puerto Rico Planning Board (Petition at 4-5 and Attachment 7 — Mr.
Arana’s complaint seeking judicial review of the Planning Board’s siting decision), for its role in
approving the project (see infra section II.D.3) and in preparing the project’s Environmental
Impact Statement (see infra section II.D.2).
25
In In re SEI Birchwood, Inc., 5 E.A.D. 25 (EAB 1994), we stated that a challenge to
whether the power from a proposed facility was needed was “outside the scope of the Board’s
jurisdiction and does not, therefore, warrant review.” Id. at 27 n.1 (citing In re Kentucky Utilities
Co., PSD Appeal No. 82-5, at 2 (Adm’r, Dec. 21, 1982)); see also id. at 28. By that statement, the
Board did not mean to address the issue of whether, and under what circumstances, the Board
could consider a challenge based on alternative means of meeting energy needs. Rather, as in
Kentucky Utilities and as in this case, the Board merely meant to suggest that review under 40
C.F.R. § 124.19(a) was not warranted because the need for power from a proposed facility would
“more appropriately” be addressed by the responsible State agency.

VOLUME 7
 ECOELÉLECTRICA, L.P. 75

      2. The Environmental Impact Statement

 Mr. Arana’s petition challenges certain statements regarding

Puerto Rico’s energy needs that appear in the Environmental Impact
Statement jointly prepared for this project, pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 4321-4370d (NEPA), by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the Puerto Rico Planning
Board. He asserts that “[t]he decisions of EPA can not be separated
from verification of the correctness of the statements presented in [the]
Environmental Impact Statement (‘EIS’).” Petition at 1. The Region
points out, however, that Mr. Arana made no reference to the contents
of the EIS in his comments on the draft PSD permit, although any
alleged deficiencies associated with the EIS would have been “rea-
sonably ascertainable” during the comment period applicable to the
PSD permit.26 Having examined Mr. Arana’s comments, we conclude
that the Region is correct. Mr. Arana therefore failed to preserve any
objection concerning the contents of the EIS in the manner required
by 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.13 and 124.19(a), and review of any such objec-
tion must be summarily denied.27

      3. Other Pending Litigation

 Mr. Arana, finally, requests that we hold the PSD permit decision

for this facility in abeyance pending final resolution of certain litiga-
tion that he has commenced in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’s
Circuit Court of Appeals. In that litigation, Mr. Arana seeks judicial
review of the Puerto Rico Planning Board’s May 29, 1996 approval of
the siting of the EcoEléctrica facility. Mr. Arana’s action, alleging that
the challenged administrative decision was in error because the facil-
ity is unnecessary, has already been dismissed by the Court of
Appeals by order dated November 6, 1996, but Mr. Arana, in his peti-
tion to this Board, states that “the case will * * * be elevated to the
Puerto Rico Supreme Court” and will ultimately be brought before the

  26
     The EIS was issued during April 1996. See Attachment 5 to Mr. Arana’s Petition for

Review. The public comment period applicable to Region II’s PSD permit decision did not begin
until July 20, 1996, and did not end until August 29, 1996 (when the Region held its public
hearing).
27
We note, moreover, that the PSD permitting process itself does not require the prepara-
tion of an EIS, because “[n]o action taken under the Clean Air Act shall be deemed a major
Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the meaning
of [NEPA].” See Energy Supply and Environmental Coordination Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C.
§ 793(c)(1). Thus, a PSD permit decision would not ordinarily be rendered clearly erroneous
merely because inaccuracies are alleged to appear in an EIS prepared for the same proposed
facility.

                                                                                VOLUME 7

76 ENVIRONMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Federal courts as well. Petition at 5. In addition, Mr. Arana has ver-
bally advised EPA’s Office of General Counsel “that legal action is still
pending against the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority for a matter
related to the EcoEléctrica project and that [he] is pursuing adminis-
trative relief with FERC.” Response to Arana’s Petition at 25-26.

 The matters referred to by Mr. Arana do not, individually or col-

lectively, constitute grounds for holding this PSD permitting process
in abeyance. See In re West Suburban Recycling & Energy Center, 6
E.A.D. 692, 705-06 (EAB 1996) (declining to allow PSD permitting
process to be held in abeyance by State agency, notwithstanding the
pendency of other administrative litigation challenging the same facil-
ity on State-law grounds). EPA’s issuance of a final PSD permit is inde-
pendent of, and should not affect the resolution of, any non-PSD
issues that are currently awaiting determination and that may have
some relevance to the construction or operation of the proposed
EcoEléctrica facility. As Region II explains in its brief, “a decision to
grant a PSD permit under the Clean Air Act does not mean that a pro-
posed source has satisfied applicable local, state, or federal require-
ments” other than the PSD requirements themselves. Response to
Arana’s Petition at 26. We therefore decline to stay the issuance of the
final PSD permit in any manner.

                       III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the petitions for review are

denied in all respects.

 So ordered.

VOLUME 7