Common use of Program Overview Clause in Contracts

Program Overview. Section 70.1 prescribes the “Program Overview” of a Title V (Part 70) program, while Section 70.2 provides definitions. According to Section 70.1 (b), “All sources subject to these regulations shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance by the source with all applicable requirements.” According to 40 CFR §70.1 (c), “No permit, however, can be less stringent than necessary to meet all applicable requirements.” “Applicable Requirement” is defined within 40 CFR §70.2 and includes several specific requirements. One such requirement is “Any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under Title I of the Act that implements the relevant requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan promulgated in part 52 of this chapter.” An additional requirement within the definition of Applicable Requirement is “Any term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” On information and belief, the source has never received a permit that complied with the EPA approved SIP or that was issued pursuant to an EPA approved SIP. Clearly, the current ATC would have been based upon the less stringent, shadow regulations of Section 12 in use by the DAQM at the time of issuance. Petitioners object to every condition in the proposed permit that cites the source’s August 19, 1997 ATC or the December 13, 2000 OP as the legal authority for the condition. These objections cover virtually every condition in “Part III Special Conditions” of the instant part 70 permit. When the APCD management removed the offending NOX monitor(s) from service prior to the source’s construction, the opportunity to review the stricter non-attainment area requirements were forever concealed. The non-attainment requirements would have included LAER as well as federally enforceable emission reduction offsets. While we do not object to the emission concentration limits for this source, we do object to the deal that was struck regarding offsets. Rather than comply with legitimate, real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction offsets, a special tree-planting caper was dreamed up by the masters of deceit. The public did not know any better, the source benefited by not having to comply with the federally enforceable emission reduction offset, and the county tax base increased. Everybody won except for the lungs of the people. Another deal apparently was struck to the source so that they didn’t have to comply with the pre- and post-construction monitoring requirements of the SIP. Obviously, the APCD did not want a monitor out in the area or they wouldn’t have removed their own offending monitor. But, ozone monitoring was required by the SIP and the NEC objects to the evasion of this requirement. The SIP has requirements for total suspended particulate (TSP) which is completely ignored in the TSD and in the permit. The NEC objects to the relaxation afforded by the wording of Condition D-10 of Part III of the proposed permit. Simply to fix and report any exceedances may be insufficient. In some instances a violation may simply be negated if a phone call is made. As noted above, DAQM's predecessor agency AQD rescinded its own EPA approved SIP rule section 15. The appeals court vacated the 1999 proposed SIP regulation additions/amendments. Clark County has long been in a SIP lapse. DAQM does not have the lawful authority to issue “preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I.” DAQM’s local rules contain many regulations that are less stringent than its previous approved SIP and federal requirements. DAQM has failed to submit the side- by-side comparison that provides evidence to the contrary. The burden is on DAQM to provide evidence that their proposed rules are at least as stringent as the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules and that a permit should be issued. The definition for Applicable requirement also includes “Any standard or other requirement under section 111 or the Act, including section 111 (d)”; and “Any standard or other requirement under section 112 of the Act, including any requirement concerning accident prevention under Section 112 (r) (7) of the Act”. DAQM cannot issue permits that comply with any approved SIP that includes section 111 requirements because DAQM does not have the required SIP regulation and has long ignored the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules in any event. DAQM does not have any authority whatsoever to administer or enforce the section 112(r) requirements of the Act, since the responsible agency for section 112(r) is the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP).

Program Overview. Section 70.1 prescribes the “Program Overview” of a Title V (Part 70) program, while Section 70.2 provides definitions. According to Section 70.1 (b), “All sources subject to these regulations shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance by the source with all applicable requirements.” According to 40 CFR §70.1 (c), “No permit, however, can be less stringent than necessary to meet all applicable requirements.” “Applicable Requirement” is defined within 40 CFR §70.2 and includes several specific requirements. One such requirement is “Any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under Title I of the Act that implements the relevant requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan promulgated in part 52 of this chapter.” An additional requirement within the definition of Applicable Requirement is “Any term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” On information and belief, the source has never received a permit that complied with the EPA approved SIP or that was issued pursuant to an EPA approved SIP. Clearly, the current ATC ATC/OP is not a “preconstruction permit,” did not undergo public notice, and would have been based upon the less stringent, shadow regulations of Section 12 in use by the DAQM at the time of issuance. Petitioners object to every condition in the proposed permit that cites the source’s August 19June 6, 1997 ATC or the December 13, 2000 2003 ATC/OP as the legal authority for the condition. These objections cover virtually every condition in “Part III Special Conditions” of the instant part 70 permit. When The permit is poorly written and extremely inaccurate. Page 19 of the APCD management removed renewal permit indicates the offending NOX monitor(s) from service prior “entire facility” is subject to the source’s construction, the opportunity to review the stricter §12.2.2 and §12.2.7 serious non-attainment area requirements were forever concealedpollutants. The permit however is based exclusively on Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) rules. DAQM has claimed all along that the APEX Valley was a PSD area. Perhaps DAQM is finally admitting the area is a serious non-attainment requirements would have included LAER as well as federally enforceable area. Regardless, the issue of BACT for CO emission reduction offsetsconcentrations is totally absent in the renewal permit. While we do not object This same page 18 of the renewal permit indicates the entire facility is subject to the emission concentration limits for this source, we do object to the deal that was struck regarding offsets. Rather than comply with legitimate, real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction offsets, a special tree-planting caper was dreamed up by the masters of deceit. The public did not know any better, the source benefited by not having to comply with the federally enforceable emission reduction offset, and the county tax base increased. Everybody won SIP’s “all subsections except for the lungs of the people. Another deal apparently was struck to the source so that they didn’t have to comply with the pre- and post-construction monitoring requirements of the SIP. Obviously, the APCD did not want a monitor out in the area or they wouldn’t have removed their own offending monitor. But, ozone monitoring was required by the SIP and the NEC objects to the evasion of this requirement. The SIP has requirements for total suspended particulate (TSP) which is completely ignored in the TSD and in the permit. The NEC objects to the relaxation afforded by the wording of Condition D-10 of Part III of the proposed permit. Simply to fix and report any exceedances may be insufficient. In some instances a violation may simply be negated if a phone call is made. §15.14.” As noted above, DAQM's predecessor agency AQD rescinded its own EPA approved SIP rule section 15. The appeals court vacated the 1999 proposed SIP regulation additions/amendments. Clark Xxxxx County has long been in a SIP lapse. Because Xxxxx County rescinded Section 15 in 1998 it has no business now trying to enforce those requirements. DAQM does not have the lawful authority to issue “preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I.” DAQM’s local rules contain many regulations that are less stringent than its previous approved SIP and federal requirements. DAQM has failed to submit the side- side-by-side comparison that provides evidence to the contrary. The burden is on DAQM to provide evidence that their proposed rules are at least as stringent as the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules and that a permit should be issued. The definition for Applicable requirement also includes “Any standard or other requirement under section 111 or the Act, including section 111 (d)”; and “Any standard or other requirement under section 112 of the Act, including any requirement concerning accident prevention under Section 112 (r) (7r)(7) of the Act”. DAQM cannot issue permits that comply with any approved SIP that includes section 111 requirements because DAQM does not have the required SIP regulation and has long ignored the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules in any event. DAQM does not have any authority whatsoever to administer or enforce the section 112(r) requirements of the Act, since the responsible agency for section 112(r) is the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Xxxxx County has knowingly and willfully misled the public and the EPA regarding the Carbon Monoxide (CO) limits as well. According to the current CO SIP submittal that is being reviewed by EPA’s Region IX, TIMET is the only source of CO greater than 100 tpy in the Las Vegas Valley. DAQM admits in this instant action that the Xxxxx Xxxxx Station has a CO PTE of over 150 tpy. Given that Nevada Power was trying to buy reasonably priced electricity during the difficult 2001 period, Petitioners believe that the company would have operated their own units first and that would have resulted in CO emissions from their units far in excess of 100 tpy. Nevertheless, the proposed CO SIP indicates there are no other (except TIMET) sources of CO that are authorized to emit over 100 tpy. Petitioners object to emissions of CO that have the PTE above 100 tpy from this source.

Program Overview. Section 70.1 prescribes the “Program Overview” of a Title V (Part 70) program, while Section 70.2 provides definitions. According to Section 70.1 (b), “All sources subject to these regulations shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance by the source with all applicable requirements.” According to 40 CFR §70.1 (c), “No permit, however, can be less stringent than necessary to meet all applicable requirements.” “Applicable Requirement” is defined within 40 CFR §70.2 and includes several specific requirements. One such requirement is “Any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under Title I of the Act that implements the relevant requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan promulgated in part 52 of this chapter.” An additional requirement within the definition of Applicable Requirement is “Any term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” On information and belief, the source has never not received a permit that complied with the EPA approved SIP or that was issued pursuant to an EPA approved SIP. Clearly, the current ATC ATC/OP is not a “preconstruction permit,” did not contain a full public disclosure by DAQM of LAER and federally enforceable emission reduction offsets, and would have been based upon the less stringent, shadow regulations of Section 12 in use by the DAQM at the time of issuance. Petitioners object to every condition in the proposed permit that cites the source’s August 19, 1997 ATC “NSR” or the December 13, 2000 OP “OP” as the legal authority for the condition. These objections cover virtually every condition in “Part III Special Conditions” of the instant part 70 permit. When The permit lacks citations for every SIP requirement. There are no conditions that cite Section 15.14 of the APCD management removed SIP as the offending NOX monitor(s) from service prior to basis for the sourcecondition. Thus, we conclude that DAQM has evaded Section 15.14’s construction, the opportunity to review the stricter non-attainment area requirements were forever concealed. The non-attainment requirements would have included for LAER as well as federally enforceable and emission reduction offsets. While we do not object to the emission concentration limits for this source, we do object to the deal that was struck regarding offsets. Rather than comply with legitimate, real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction offsets, a special tree-planting caper was dreamed up by the masters of deceit. The public did not know any better, the source benefited by not having to comply with the federally enforceable emission reduction offset, and the county tax base increased. Everybody won except for the lungs of the people. Another deal apparently was struck to the source so that they didn’t have to comply with the pre- and post-construction monitoring requirements of the SIP. Obviously, the APCD did not want a monitor out in the area or they wouldn’t have removed their own offending monitor. But, ozone monitoring was required by the SIP and the NEC objects to the evasion of this requirement. The SIP has requirements requires LAER for those emissions of total suspended particulate (TSP) which is completely ignored and CO associated with modifications that occurred after the late 1970s. EPA-approved emission reduction offsets were also required for these TSP and CO emissions. We cannot find evidence that the emission reduction offsets were achieved. On opinion and belief, Xxxxx County and TIMET have evaded the discussion of these requirements. To add further insult to a process that has evolved in secrecy, DAQM has continued to conceal this information from the TSD public. We can find evidence that few, if any, of the listed modifications and in their associated permits complied with the public notice requirements. After the fact, the DAQM secretly issued yet another permit to try and “justify” their actions from the past. In the process, the public was denied the information that LAER and federally enforceable emission reduction offsets continued to be evaded. DAQM issued the permit without public notice specifically for the purpose of not allowing public scrutiny of yet another sham permit. Petitioners object to the lack of public review for LAER and offsets for all CO and particulate matter emissions. Petitioners object to the lack of public review for LAER and offsets for all emissions, and their exclusion from the permit. The NEC objects Petitioners object to the relaxation afforded by the wording lack of Condition D-10 of Part III federally enforceable emission offsets. Petitioners object to these ongoing violations of the proposed permit. Simply to fix SIP Section 15.14 and report any exceedances may be insufficient. In some instances a violation may simply be negated if a phone call is madeCAA §173. As noted above, DAQM's predecessor agency AQD rescinded its own EPA approved SIP rule section 15. The appeals court vacated the 1999 proposed SIP regulation additions/amendments. Clark Xxxxx County has long been in a SIP lapse. DAQM does not have the lawful authority to issue “preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I.” DAQM’s local rules contain many regulations that are less stringent than its previous approved SIP and federal requirements. DAQM has failed to submit the side- by-side comparison that provides evidence to the contrary. The burden is on DAQM to provide evidence that their proposed rules are at least as stringent as the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules and that a permit should be issued. The definition for Applicable requirement also includes “Any standard or other requirement under section 111 or the Act, including section 111 (d)”; and “Any standard or other requirement under section 112 of the Act, including any requirement concerning accident prevention under Section 112 (r) (7) of the Act”. .” DAQM cannot issue permits that comply with any approved SIP that includes section 111 requirements because DAQM does not have the required SIP regulation and has long ignored the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules in any event. DAQM does not have any authority whatsoever to administer or enforce the section 112(r) requirements of the Act, since the responsible (we hesitate to call any Nevada agency responsible) agency for section 112(r) is the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Many prior part 70 permits and their TSDs included a listing of when each emission unit was placed into service. This TSD for this source does not include that pertinent information. The only reason to not include this pertinent information is to keep it out of the eye of the public. The NEC believes that many of these emission units were placed into service at a time when they would be subject to the 1979/81 SIP, including LAER and offsets. The permit includes no information whatsoever about federal offsets or even compliance with the local road-paving sham offset program. The NEC requested the complete TSD. Conspicuously absent from the information that DAQM submitted were all Appendices of the TSD. For this simple act of omission on DAQM’s part, the NEC requires more time to review these documents.

Program Overview. Section 70.1 prescribes the “Program Overview” of a Title V (Part 70) program, while Section 70.2 provides definitions. According to Section 70.1 (b), “All sources subject to these regulations shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance by the source with all applicable requirements.” According to 40 CFR §70.1 (c), “No permit, however, can be less stringent than necessary to meet all applicable requirements.” “Applicable Requirement” is defined within 40 CFR §70.2 and includes several specific requirements. One such requirement is “Any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under Title I of the Act that implements the relevant requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan promulgated in part 52 of this chapter.” An additional requirement within the definition of Applicable Requirement is “Any term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” On information and belief, the source has never not received a permit that complied with the EPA approved SIP or that was issued pursuant to an EPA approved SIP. Clearly, the current ATC would ATC/OP is not a “preconstruction permit,” it does not contain a full public disclosure by DAQM that requirements are evaded through a carefully controlled scheme to reduce the emission factors. By reducing emission factors, the subsequent outputs from dispersion modeling were reduced by a corresponding amount. When the outputs of the model were reduced, significant requirements of pre and post-construction monitoring were evaded. VOC emissions, for example, are “estimated” to fall just under the regulatory threshold for the SIP requirement (Section 15.13) to monitor for ozone. There is no basis for the reduced VOC or PM-10 emission factors but the fact that these emission factors are unproven should require that the source validate their emission factors by performance testing. Additionally, potential adverse effects on Grand Canyon visibility were reduced on paper only. All the while, DAQM and EPA have been not required the source to provide evidence of the validity of their reduced emission factors. If the source didn’t write their own permit conditions, they might as well have written them since EPA and DAQM are not enforcing CAA requirements. BACT, an applicable requirement of Section 15.13 of the SIP, is applied inconsistently if at all throughout the entire permit. At a minimum, all applicable requirements should be shown as a citation within the legal authority of permit conditions within the permit. The SIP’s citations are conspicuously absent from within the permit. Permit citations are based upon on some nebulous “2003” ATC/OP that was allegedly issued pursuant to the less stringent, shadow local regulations of Section 12 in use by the DAQM at the time of issuance. Petitioners object to every condition in the proposed permit that cites the source’s August 192003 “ATC, 1997 ATC “NSR” or the December 13, 2000 OP “OP” as the legal authority for the condition. These objections cover virtually every condition in “Part III Special Conditions” of the instant part 70 permit. When The permit completely lacks citations for every SIP requirement. There are no conditions that cite Section 15.13 of the APCD management removed SIP as the offending NOX monitor(s) from service prior to basis for the source’s construction, the opportunity to review the stricter non-attainment area requirements were forever concealedcondition. The non-attainment requirements would have included LAER as well as federally enforceable emission reduction offsets. While we do not object to the emission concentration limits for this sourceThus, we do object to the deal conclude that was struck regarding offsets. Rather than comply with legitimate, real, quantifiable, Section 15.13’s requirements for BACT and enforceable emission reduction offsets, a special tree-planting caper was dreamed up by the masters of deceit. The public did not know any better, the source benefited by not having to comply with the federally enforceable emission reduction offset, pre and the county tax base increased. Everybody won except for the lungs of the people. Another deal apparently was struck to the source so that they didn’t have to comply with the pre- and post-post- construction monitoring requirements of the SIP. Obviously, the APCD did not want a monitor out in the area or they wouldn’t have removed their own offending monitor. But, ozone monitoring was required by the SIP and the NEC objects to the evasion of this requirementbeen evaded. The SIP has requirements requires BACT for total suspended particulate (TSP) which is all regulated emissions associated with modifications that occurred after the late 1970s. Particulate matter emissions are controlled by minimal means. Sulfur oxide controls are completely ignored in neglected from the TSD and permit. Fuel sulfur limits would help to meet BACT but are evaded in the permit. The NEC objects We cannot find evidence that the emission factors that the source has not justified could ever be proven at such low levels. These low emission factors were used simply to evade more meaningful requirements. Xxxxx County and CLC-APEX have evaded discussion of these requirements. To add further insult to the relaxation afforded use of a secret process, DAQM continued to conceal the information from the public. We can find evidence that few, if any, of the listed modifications and their associated permits complied with the public notice requirements. After the fact, the DAQM has secretly issued yet another permit to try and “justify” their previous actions. No one is supposed to know that emissions of chlorine have been eliminated from the permit. Don’t tell the public that emissions of particulate matter are not really controlled according to the “Best” available control technology but; rather, with conveniently available paper only reductions through the use of artificially lowered emission factors. Petitioners object to the lack of a comprehensive, top-down BACT review by the wording of Condition D-10 of Part III EPA on such a large source. To simply allow the source to write its own permit seems disgraceful when competitor companies to CLC-APEX are required to comply with BACT elsewhere. Xxxxx County BACT levels should be no less stringent that BACT in other parts of the proposed permitcountry. Simply The EPA has not shown an ability to fix coordinate BACT levels from Region to Region. As a result, any company operating in Xxxxx County has essentially a free ride from environmental controls. Petitioners object to the negligence of DAQM and report any EPA to continue to allow permits to be issued in the APEX Valley based on a bogus attainment status. Monitors have shown numerous exceedances may be insufficientof the NAAQS for both PM10 and ozone. In some instances a violation may simply be negated if a phone call is madePetitioners object to these ongoing violations of the SIP Section 15.13 and the CAA. As noted above, DAQM's predecessor agency AQD rescinded its own EPA approved SIP rule section 15. The appeals court vacated the 1999 proposed SIP regulation additions/amendments. Clark Xxxxx County has long been in a SIP lapse. DAQM does not have the lawful authority to issue “preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I.” DAQM’s local rules contain many regulations that are less stringent than its previous approved SIP and federal requirements. DAQM has failed to submit the side- by-side comparison that provides evidence to the contrary. The burden is on DAQM to provide evidence that their proposed rules are at least as stringent as the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules and that a permit should be issued. The definition for Applicable requirement also includes “Any standard or other requirement under section 111 or the Act, including section 111 (d)”; and “Any standard or other requirement under section 112 of the Act, including any requirement concerning accident prevention under Section 112 (r) (7) of the Act”. .” DAQM cannot issue permits that comply with any approved SIP that includes section 111 requirements because DAQM does not have the required SIP regulation and has long ignored the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules in any event. DAQM does not have any authority whatsoever to administer or enforce the section 112(r) requirements of the Act, since the responsible (we hesitate to call any Nevada agency responsible) agency for section 112(r) is the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP).

Program Overview. Section 70.1 prescribes the “Program Overview” of a Title V (Part 70) program, while Section 70.2 provides definitions. According to Section 70.1 (b), “All sources subject to these regulations shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance by the source with all applicable requirements.” According to 40 CFR §70.1 (c), “No permit, however, can be less stringent than necessary to meet all applicable requirements.” “Applicable Requirement” is defined within 40 CFR §70.2 and includes several specific requirements. One such requirement is “Any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under Title I of the Act that implements the relevant requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan promulgated in part 52 of this chapter.” An additional requirement within the definition of Applicable Requirement is “Any term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” On information and belief, the source has never received a permit that complied with the EPA approved SIP or that was issued pursuant to an EPA approved SIP. Clearly, the current ATC would have been based upon the less stringent, shadow regulations of Section 12 in use by the DAQM at the time of issuance. Petitioners object to every condition in the proposed permit that cites the source’s August 19, 1997 ATC or the December 13, 2000 OP as the legal authority for the condition. These objections cover virtually every condition in “Part III Special Conditions” of the instant part 70 permit. When the APCD management removed the offending NOX monitor(s) from service prior to the source’s construction, the opportunity to review the stricter non-attainment area requirements were forever concealed. The non-attainment requirements would have included LAER as well as federally enforceable emission reduction offsets. While we do not object to the emission concentration limits for this source, we do object to the deal that was struck regarding offsets. Rather than comply with legitimate, real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction offsets, a special tree-planting caper was dreamed up by the masters of deceit. The public did not know any better, the source benefited by not having to comply with the federally enforceable emission reduction offset, and the county tax base increased. Everybody won except for the lungs of the people. Another deal apparently was struck to the source so that they didn’t have to comply with the pre- and post-construction monitoring requirements of the SIP. Obviously, the APCD did not want a monitor out in the area or they wouldn’t have removed their own offending monitor. But, ozone monitoring was required by the SIP and the NEC objects to the evasion of this requirement. The SIP has requirements for total suspended particulate (TSP) which is completely ignored in the TSD and in the permit. The NEC objects to the relaxation afforded by the wording of Condition D-10 of Part III of the proposed permit. Simply to fix and report any exceedances may be insufficient. In some instances a violation may simply be negated if a phone call is made. As noted above, DAQM's predecessor agency AQD rescinded its own EPA approved SIP rule section 15. The appeals court vacated the 1999 proposed SIP regulation additions/amendments. Clark Xxxxx County has long been in a SIP lapse. DAQM does not have the lawful authority to issue “preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I.” DAQM’s local rules contain many regulations that are less stringent than its previous approved SIP and federal requirements. DAQM has failed to submit the side- by-side comparison that provides evidence to the contrary. The burden is on DAQM to provide evidence that their proposed rules are at least as stringent as the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules and that a permit should be issued. The definition for Applicable requirement also includes “Any standard or other requirement under section 111 or the Act, including section 111 (d)”; and “Any standard or other requirement under section 112 of the Act, including any requirement concerning accident prevention under Section 112 (r) (7) of the Act”. DAQM cannot issue permits that comply with any approved SIP that includes section 111 requirements because DAQM does not have the required SIP regulation and has long ignored the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules in any event. DAQM does not have any authority whatsoever to administer or enforce the section 112(r) requirements of the Act, since the responsible agency for section 112(r) is the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP).

Program Overview. Section 70.1 prescribes the “Program Overview” of a Title V (Part 70) program, while Section 70.2 provides definitions. According to Section 70.1 (b), “All sources subject to these regulations shall have a permit to operate that assures compliance by the source with all applicable requirements.” According to 40 CFR §70.1 (c), “No permit, however, can be less stringent than necessary to meet all applicable requirements.” “Applicable Requirement” is defined within 40 CFR §70.2 and includes several specific requirements. One such requirement is “Any standard or other requirement provided for in the applicable implementation plan approved or promulgated by EPA through rulemaking under Title I of the Act that implements the relevant requirements of the Act, including any revisions to that plan promulgated in part 52 of this chapter.” An additional requirement within the definition of Applicable Requirement is “Any term or condition of any preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I, including parts C or D, of the Act.” On information and belief, the modern day source has never not received a permit that complied with the EPA approved SIP or that was issued pursuant to an EPA approved SIP. Clearly, the current ATC ATC/OP is not a “preconstruction permit,” did not undergo public notice, and would have been based upon the less stringent, shadow regulations of Section 12 in use by the DAQM at the time of issuance. Petitioners object to every condition in the proposed permit that cites the source’s August 19, 1997 ATC or the December 13, 2000 02/27/03 ATC/OP as the legal authority for the condition. These objections cover virtually every condition in “Part III Special Conditions” of the instant part 70 permit. When the APCD management removed the offending NOX monitor(s) from service prior to the source’s construction, the opportunity to review the stricter non-attainment area requirements were forever concealed. The non-attainment requirements would have included LAER as well as federally enforceable emission reduction offsets. While we do not object to the emission concentration limits for this source, we do object to the deal that was struck regarding offsets. Rather than comply with legitimate, real, quantifiable, and enforceable emission reduction offsets, a special tree-planting caper was dreamed up by the masters of deceit. The public did not know any better, the source benefited by not having to comply with the federally enforceable emission reduction offset, and the county tax base increased. Everybody won except for the lungs of the people. Another deal apparently was struck to the source so that they didn’t have to comply with the pre- and post-construction monitoring requirements of the SIP. Obviously, the APCD did not want a monitor out in the area or they wouldn’t have removed their own offending monitor. But, ozone monitoring was required by the SIP and the NEC objects to the evasion of this requirement. The SIP has requirements requires LAER for those emissions of total suspended particulate (TSP) which is completely ignored associated with modifications that occurred after the late 1970s. EPA approved emission reduction offsets were also required for these TSP emissions. We can find no evidence that the emission reduction offsets were achieved. Xxxxx County and CLC seem to evade discussion of these requirements. To add further insult to the process that heretofore had been accomplished in utmost secrecy, DAQM continued to conceal the TSD information from the public. We can find no evidence that any of the listed modifications and in their associated permits complied with the public notice requirements. After the fact, the DAQM secretly issues yet another permit to try and “justify” their actions from before. But keep it quiet. Don’t let the public know that LAER and federally enforceable emission reduction offsets continue to be evaded. DAQM issued the permit without public notice specifically for the purpose of preventing public scrutiny of another sham permit. These are serious violations of the law. Petitioners object to the lack of public review for LAER and offsets for all PM10 emissions. Petitioners object to the lack of public review for LAER and offsets for all TSP emissions, and their exclusion from the permit. The NEC objects Petitioners object to the relaxation afforded by the wording lack of Condition D-10 federally enforceable emission offsets. Petitioners object to these ongoing violations of Part III of the proposed permit. Simply to fix and report any exceedances may be insufficient. In some instances a violation may simply be negated if a phone call is madeCAA §173. As noted above, DAQM's predecessor agency AQD rescinded its own EPA approved SIP rule section 15. The appeals court vacated the 1999 proposed SIP regulation additions/amendments. Clark Xxxxx County has long been in a SIP lapse. DAQM does not have the lawful authority to issue “preconstruction permits issued pursuant to regulations approved or promulgated through rulemaking under title I.” DAQM’s local rules contain many regulations that are less stringent than its previous approved SIP and federal requirements. DAQM has failed to submit the side- by-side comparison that provides evidence to the contrary. The burden is on DAQM to provide evidence that their proposed rules are at least as stringent as the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules and that a permit should be issued. The definition for Applicable requirement also includes “Any standard or other requirement under section 111 or the Act, including section 111 (d)”; and “Any standard or other requirement under section 112 of the Act, including any requirement concerning accident prevention under Section 112 (r) (7) of the Act”. DAQM cannot issue permits that comply with any approved SIP that includes section 111 requirements because DAQM does not have the required SIP regulation and has long ignored the 1979/81 EPA approved SIP rules in any event. DAQM does not have any authority whatsoever to administer or enforce the section 112(r) requirements of the Act, since the responsible agency for section 112(r) is the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP). Many prior part 70 permits and their TSDs included a listing of when each emission unit was placed into service. This TSD for this source does not include that pertinent information. The only reason to not include this pertinent information is to keep it out of the eye of the public. The NEC believes that many of these emission units were placed into service at a time when they would be subject to the 1979/81 SIP, including LAER and offsets. The permit includes no information whatsoever about federal offsets or even compliance with the local road-paving sham offset program. The NEC requested the complete TSD. Conspicuously absent from the information that DAQM submitted was the entire Appendix A of the TSD that supposedly included a consent decree, and copies of prior ATC/Ops. For this simple act of omission on DAQM’s part, the NEC requires more time to review these documents.