Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. (Board decision, July 27, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Environmental Geo-Technologies, LLC sought to transfer two underground injection control permits from Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. to Environmental Geo-Technologies for Class I commercial hazardous-waste injection wells in Romulus, Michigan. The Board had previously declined to review the informal appeal concerning EPA Region 5's alleged denial of the transfer request. The Board held that the motion for leave was moot because the earlier order was already final and that 40 C.F.R. Part 124 did not provide a right to reconsider an order declining review of an informal appeal under § 124.5(b). The Board denied both motions.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.2, 124.5(b), 124.9, 124.15(a), 124.18, and 124.19(g).
• Outcome: Procedural. The Board denied the motion for leave as moot and denied reconsideration.
• Key point: The Board distinguished informal appeals under 40 C.F.R. § 124.5(b) from formal permit appeals that may be reconsidered under § 124.19(g).

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

                                                                           JUL27 u
             BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                         WASHINGTON, D.C.

In re:

        Disposal

Environmental
Inc.
Systems, UIC AppealNo. 07-01

UIC PermitNos.M1-163-1W-C007
and
M1-163-1M_2008

 ORDER DEFTYINGMOTIONS FOR LEAVE AND FOR RECONSIDERATION


                               I. BACKGROUND

     EnvironmentalGeo-Technologies,
                                 LLC ("EGT') filed with the Environmental Appeals

Board('Board") a Motion for Leaveto File ReplyBrief ("Motion for Leave")andMotion for

Reconsideration
ofEnvironmental AppealsBoardOrder("Motion for Reconsideration
) on

July 16, 2007,andluly 24, 2007,respectively,
in theabove-captioned
matter. This caseis an

informal appealunder40 C.F.R. § 124.5(b)concerningtheU.S.Environmental
Protection

Agency("EPA") Region5's ("Region")allegeddenialof EGT's February28, 2007requestto

transferfrom Environmental DisposalSystems, hrc., ("EDS") to EGT two Safe Drinking

Act underground injection conhol ("UIC") permitsto operateClassI commercialhazardous

wasteinjectionwells in Romulus,Michigan. After considering
EGT's motions,andin light of

the Board's July 11,2007 orderdeclining to review the informal appeal,the Board deniesthe

Motion for Leaveandthe Motion for Reconsideration.

   Although40 C.F.R. §  124.5(b)doesnot itselfprovidefor briefingby theparties,in this

case,the Clerk ofthe Boardrequested
theRegionfile a response
to EGT's informal appeal.

After reviewingEGT's petitionandtheRegion'sresponse,
theBoarddeniedreviewandissued

anorderto clmi$r for thepartiesthe basisfor its decision.The July 11,2007orderservesasthe

Board'sfinal decisionin this matterandthus,rendersmootEGT's subsequently
filed Motion for

Leave.

   EGT alsomovesunder40 C.F.R. §  na.rcG) for reconsideration
                                                          of theBoaf,d'sJuly 11,

2007orderdecliningreviewof theRegion'sallegeddenialof thepermittransferequest.EGT's

primary argumentfor reconsiderationis that the Board did not havethe opportunityto review the

full record,lthe documents
of whichEGT purportedlyidentifiesin an exhibitto theMotion for

Leave,beforeissuingtheorder. Consequently,
EGT asserts,
theBoard'sorderis both factually

andlegally erroneous.EGT fuither raisesall the argumentsit madein the Motion for Leaveas

well aspoints pteviously arguedin its petilion. Severalof EGT's issueswerenot raisedin the

petition,nor did EGT provideanybasisfor why theycouldnot havebeenraisedearlier.For

example,EGT arguesfor the first time in the Motion for LeaveandMotion for Reconsideration

    1EPA did not providea certifiedadministrative
                                                record"[b]ecausethereis no appealable

final U.S.EPA decisionregardingtherequested permittransfer."EPA Response to Petitionfor Reviewat 8. We further observethat, whenEPA is the permitting authority,the compilationof administrative
recordsis requiredfor draftpermitsandfinal permitdecisions.40 C.F.R.
$$ 124.9,124.18.Accordingto theregulations, "[a] denialofa requestfor modification, revocationandreissuance or termination,asdiscussed in $ 124.5,is not a 'draftpermit."'1d.
$ 124.2.Under$ 124.15,a final permitdecisionis "a frnaldecisionto issue,deny,modifu, revokeandreissue,or terminatea permit." EPA hasnot madea final permitdecisionwith respecto thetransferequest;therefore,anadministrative recordunder$ 124.18doesnot exist, either.

that EPA hasactedin bad faith.

                                  II. ANALYSIS

   Section124.19pertainsto appealsoffinal permitdecisionsissuedunder$ 124.15,

including final decisiors"to issue,deny,modiff, revokeandreissue,or terminatea permit."

40 C.F.R. § 124-15(a).Subsection
(g) allowsa partyto movefor reconsideration
of theBoard's

final order. Id. g 124..19(g).
Sincepromulgatingtheregulationconsolidating
EPA's permit

programsproceduresin 1980,the Agencyhassoughtto:

   distinguisha denialofa requestfor modification,revocationandreissuance,
                                                                        or

   termination[of a permit]under$ 124.5from a tentativedecisionto denya permit

   applicationunder$ 125.6.The formeris not subjecto the sameprocedures
                                                                      asa

   denialof anapplicationfor a permit.* * * [Denialsofrequestsfor modification,

   revocationandreissuance,or termination]aresubjectonly to an informal appeal

   under$ 124.5(b).In adoptingthis position,EPA rejectedcomments
                                                               urgingthat

   modification denialsbe appealablethroughthe sameagencyproceduresaspermit

   issuance
          or denial.

Consolidated
PermitRegulations,
45 Fed.Reg.33,290,33,408(May 19,1980);?
seealsoid. at

33,405('Denialsofrequestsfor modification,revocationandreissuance,
or terminationcannot

be formallyappealed
to theAdministratorunder$ 124.19but only informallyunder

   2Thetentativedecisionto denya permitapplicationis the first step
                                                                   towardsa final

decisionunder$ 124.15,whichis formallyappealableunder$ 124.19.
-3 -

$ 124.5(b)").itn fact,EPA'sproposedrule for Part 124did not contemplate
any appeal

mechanismfor denialsofrequestsmadeunder$ 124.5for modification,revocationand

reissuance,
or terminationof a permit. ,SeeConsolidated 44 Fed.Reg.
PermitRegulations,

        (proposed

34,244,34,327 June14,1979). EPA furtheredthis intentto distinguishbetweenthe

typesofBoard reviewavailablewhentheAgencyaddedsubsection
(g) to $ 12a.19,providingfor

the filing of motionsto reconsider
final orders.Changes
in Regulations
to Reflectthe Roleof the

Environmental
AppealsBoardin AgencyAdjudications,57 Fed.Reg.5320,5335(Feb.13,

1992).EPA hasnot promulgated
a similarprovisionin or relatingto g 124.5(b).Giventhe

separate
development
andregulatoryhistoriesof $$ 124.5(b)and124.19,theBoarddeclinesto

readinto $ 124.5(b)a mechanism
by whichpartieshavea right to seekreconsideration
of a

denialto reviewaninformal appeal.EGT's characterization
of thephrase"final order"in

$ 124.19(g)4
to includeBoarddecisionsmadepursuantto $ 124.5(b)contravenes
a clearAgency

intent to makereconsiderationavailableasofright only to final ordersarising from formal

appeals.

   Moreover,EGT's Motion for Reconsideration
                                          urgestheBoardto revieweithermatters

previouslyconsidered
by theBoardor new issuesEGT raisedfor the first time in the Motion for

   I Uponcreationof theBoard,EPA transferred                 of reviewingformal
                                           theresponsibilities

andinformal appealsunder$$ 124.19and124.5(b),respectively, to theBoard. Changes in Regulationsto Reflect the Role of the Environmental AppealsBoard in AgencyAdjudications, 57 Fed.Reg.5335(Feb.13,1992);Changesin Regulations to ReflecttheRoleofthe Environmental AppealsBoardin AgencyAdjudications;Amendment,57 Fed.Reg.60,128, 60,129(Dec.18,1992).
a"Final order"is not definedin Part 124.

                                        -4 -

Leave,which soughthe filing of a reply. We havepreviouslystatedthat "new issuesraisedat

the replystageofthe [ ] proceedings
areequivalentto latefiled appealsandmustbe deniedon

thebasisof timeliness."Iz re KnaufFiber Glass,GmbH,8E.A.D. 727,126n.9(EAB 1999).

Even if the Board wereto entertainreconsideration,reconsiderationis not "an oppornrnityto

rearguethe casein a more convincingfashion." In re Haw. Elec. Light Ca.,PSD AppealNos.

97-15through97-22,at 6 (EAB Mar. 3, 1999)(OrderDenyingMotion for Reconsideration);
see

also In re Ariz. Mun. Storm lltater NPDESPermitsfor City of Tucson,Pima County,City of

Phoenix,City of Mesaand City of Tempe,NPDES
AppealNo.97-3, at 2 (EAB Aug. 17,1989)

(OrderDenlng Motion for Reconsideration)("A parfy's failure to presentits strongestcasein

the first instancedoesnot entitle it to a secondchancein the form ofa motion to reconsidet'').

Rather,

   Motionsfor reconsideration
                            servea limitedfunction:to correctmanifesterrorsof

   law or fact or to presentnewly discoveredevidence. Suchmotions cannotin any

   casebe employedasa vehicle to introducenew evidencethat could havebeen

   adducedduringthependencyof the [original]motion.** * Nor shoulda motion

   for reconsiderationserveasthe occasionto tendernew leeal theoriesfor the first

   time.

Publishers
Res.,
Inc.v. llalker-Davis
Publ'ns,Inc.,762F.2d557,562(7th
Cir. 1985).

                                 III. CONCLUSION

   BecausetheBoardpreviouslydeclinedto reviewEGT's petition,EGT's Motion for

Leaveis moot andtherefore,denied.Furthermore,
40 C.F.R.Pal-t124doesnot providefor the

                                         -5 -

reconsideration
ofa Boardorderdecliningreviewofan informal appealmadeunder$ 124.5(b).5

Accordingly, EGT's Motion for Reconsideration
is alsodenied.

  So ordered.




                                       ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD


                                       By,                  4 s{;
                                                    KathieA. Stein
                                              Environmental AppealsJudge




  5 In any event,EGT's Motion for Reconsideration
                                                doesnot appearto be well-founded.

                                     -6 -


                       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I herebycertifythatcopiesofthe foregoingOrderin thematterof Environmental
Disposal
Systems,
Inc.,AC AppealNo. 07-01,weresentto the followingpersonsin themannerindicated:

By Certified U,S.Mail, DonaldP. Gallo Return ReceiptRequested(and facsimile): PamelaH. Schaefer
ReinhartBoemerVanDeurenSC
P.O.Box 2265
Waukesha,WI 53187-2265

                                       fax: (262) 951-4690

By EPA PouchMail: ThomasJ. Kreuger
AssociateRegionalCounsel
U.S.EPA, Region5
77 W. JacksonBlvd.
Chicago,n 60604

     JUL3 0 2007