Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. (Board decision, July 11, 2007)

Plain-English summary

Environmental Geo-Technologies, LLC appealed EPA Region 5's alleged denial of its request to transfer two Safe Drinking Water Act underground injection control permits from Environmental Disposal Systems, Inc. to Environmental Geo-Technologies. The Board concluded that the petition was premature because the Region had proposed terminating the permits and had not yet decided whether to process or deny the transfer request. The Board stated that if EPA later processed and denied the request as a permit modification or revocation and reissuance, Environmental Geo-Technologies could then appeal under 40 C.F.R. § 124.5(b). The Board declined review.

Decision snapshot

• Cited authorities: 40 C.F.R. §§ 124.5(b) and 144.39.
• Outcome: Procedural. Review was declined because the petition was premature.
• Key point: An informal permit appeal under § 124.5(b) requires a denial of the permit modification or transfer request.

Full text (EPA EAB public release)

              BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS
         UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                          WASHINGTON, D.C.
                                                                      JULI I il07

In re;

Environmental
Disposal
Inc.
Systems, UIC Appeal No. 07-01

UIC Permit Nos.M1-163-1W-C007
and
M1-163_1M_2008

                                     ORDER


     On May 14,2007, Environmental             LLC ("EGT") frled an appealunder
                                Geo-Technologies,

40 C.F.R. § 124.5(b).The appealconcemed ProtectionAgency("EPA )
theU.S. Environmental

Region5's ("Region')allegeddenialof EGT's February28, 2007request to transferfrom

Environmental
DisposalSystems,
Inc.,("EDS")to EGT two Safe DrinkingAct

underground injection conhol ('IJIC') permitsto operateClassI commercialhazardouswaste

injectionwellsin Romulus,Michigan. Upon consideration
of EGT's appealandthe Region's

response
thereto,theBoarddeclines to reviewthe appealbecause
EGT'spetition is prematurely

filed andthereforecannotbe considered
under40 C.F.R. § 124.5.1

   ' Although40 C.F.R. 124.5(b)doesnot requirethattheBoardissueanorderdeclining
                        $

reviewof thedenialofa requestfor permitmodificationor termination(i.e.,pursuanto the regulation,the appealis consideredeniedifthe Boardtakesno actionwithin 60 daysof receivingit), the Boardhaschosento issuethis orderto clarifyfor thepartiesthe basisfor its decision.

   On April 12, 2007, the Regionproposedterminationof theIIIC permitsthatarethe

subjectofthe transferequest.Becauseofthe proposedtermination,the Regiondecided"not

[to] consideror process[the]requestat the presenttime" andinvitedreapplication
for the

permits"in the eventthat U.S. EPA doesultimately terminateEDS's permits." Letter from Jo-

Lynn Traub,Director,WaterDivision,U.S. EPA,Region5, to RDD InvestmentCorp.andEGT

(April 12,2007). In its response
to thePetitionfor Review,theRegion hasfurtherclarifiedits

intentto first rendera decisionregardingtheproposedterminationofthe permitsbeforedeciding

whetherto grantthe transfer request,asfollows:

   OnceU.S.EPA decides(afterconsideringandrespondingto publiccomments)

   whetherto terminatethe EDS permits,the Agencywould then decidewhetherto

   denythepermittransferequestasmoot. While EGT may fearsuchanoutcome,

   thatoutcomeis neitherfore-ordained             by U.S.EPA's April 12,
                                    nor effectuated

   2007letter. On theotherhand,if U.S.EPA decidesnot to terminatethe EDS

   permits,it would then completeits substantivereview of the pendingtransfer

   feouest.

Region'sResponse
to Petitionfor ReviewC'Region'sResponse")
at 4. Consequently,
at this

time,theRegion hasnot denieda requestfor modificationor revocationandreissuance
of the

IIIC permits;a denialof sucha requestis a prerequisite
to filing aninformalappealto theBoard

underS 124.5(b)
.

                                       -2-


   EGT arguesthat,while theApril 12letteron its facestatesthatit is not final agency

action,"[i]t is in effectfinal because
no furtheractionwill be takenon thetransferequest,

pendingthe outcomeof the hearingon termination+ t + ." EGT Petitionfor Reviewat 2.

Assumingwithout decidingthat "effective denial" of a requestfor transferwould constitutea

denialofthe requestwithin themeaningof $ 124.5,this casedoesnot in our viev/ constitute

effectivedenialof therequest.To the contrary,theRegion hasmadeclearthatfollowingits

decisionon theterminationof thepermits,it will makea decisionon the hansferequest.

Specifically,asto the proposedpermit termination,the Regionrepresentsthat it intendsto

"considerandrespondto EGT's comments[submittedduringthepubliccommentperiod]before

making[EPA's] final decisionon permit termination."Region'sResponse
at 7.2 Further,there

is no allegationor indicationin the recordthat the Regionis not moving forward in a timely

mannerto decidetheterminationissueor is otherwiseusingtheproposedterminationasa

pretextto avoid decidingthe transfer request. Should the Regiondeoidenot to terminatethe

existingUIC permits,andshouldtheRegionprocessanddenyEGT's transferequestasa

modificationor revocationandreissuance
under40 C.F.R. § 144.39,EGTmay,at thattime,

appealthe denialto theBoardunder40 C.F.R. § 124.5(b).3

   '? The public commentperiod on
                                    the termination closedon or about June 22,2007.
   ' The three-judgepanel deciding this
                                      matter is comprisedofEnvironmental Appeals

JudgesScott C. Fulton, Edward E. Reich, and Kathie A. Stein

                                          -1_


 In sum,because
              EGT'spetition is prematurelyfiled, theBoarddeclinesreview.



 So ordered.


                                    ENVIRONMENTAL APPEAIS BOARD

  ,---   /,   . /

Dated: / / /t/ F--
1t f KathieA. Stein
t
Environmental AppealsJudge

                                    A


                        CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

   I herebycertify that copiesof the foregoingOrderin the matterof Environmental

DisposalSystems, Inc.,AC AppealNo. 07-01,weresentto the followingpersonsin themanner indicated:

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

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

      JUL1 2 no\
                                                   AnnetteDuncan