P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 49 ) ll-K- 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 49of 142P. 2

BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATO R U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y

WASHINGTON , D.C . ^

### i4\ % b

I n th e Matte r of : Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompan y I D No . 105-0640-002 1

Applican t * r *'i 1 PS D Appea l No . 88-1 1

ORDE R B ypetitio n date d "November 14 , 1988 , and pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R §124.1 9 (1987) , th e Regiona l Administrator , U.S.

- Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Regio nIV , Atlanta , Georgia , requeste d revie w o f a determinatio n b yth e Kentuck

yDepartmen t o f Ai r Qualit yt o issu e a preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t t o Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompany . Th e permi t woul d allo w Columbi a Gul f t o construc t a n11,86 4 horsepowe r (8. 9 MW ) ga s turbin e t o compres s ga s a t it s compresso r statio ni n Clementsville , Kentucky . Th e Departmen t mad e it s permi t determi

natio n pursuan t t o a genera l delegatio no f PSD-issuing authorit y fro mEPARegio n IV . Becaus e o f th e delegation , Kentucky' s authorit yt o issu e PS D permit s i s subjec t t o th e revie wprovi

sion s o f 4 0 CFR§124.19 , an d an ypermi t i t issue s wil l b e a nEPA issue d permi t fo r purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CF R§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 3 (Ma y19 , 1980) .P. 3

Th e Regiona l Administrato r claim s Kentucky' s determinatio n o f bes t availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) fo r th e propose d facilit yi s clearl yerroneous . Th e propose d permi t call s fo r n o add-o n control s t o reduc e NO xemissions , relyin g instea d o n combusto r desig n (so-calle d "dr ycontrols") , wherea s th e Regio n believe s wate r injectio ncontrol s mus t b e adde d t o satisf yBAC T requirements . Kentuckyrespond s byarguing tha t drycontrol s ar e BAC T because : (1 ) th e impac t o f NO xemission s o n ambien t ai r qualit ywil l b e negligibl e i f drycontrol s ar e used , thu s makin g th e additio n o f wate r injectio n environmentall yunnecessar yand economicall yunreasonable ; (2 ) us e o f wate r injectio n wil l caus e additiona l energyt o b e consume d and i t wil l caus e a nincreas e i n C O emissions ; and (3 ) federa l ne wsourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS ) d o no t requir e wate r injectio nfo r "small " turbines . Unde r th e rule s governin g thi s proceeding , ther e i s n o appea l a s o f righ t fromth e permi t determination . Ordinarily , a petitio n fo r revie wo f a PS D permi t determinatio ni s no t grante d unles s i t i s base d o n a clearl yerroneou s finding o f fac t o r conclusio n o f law , o r involve s a nimportan t matte r o f polic yo r exercis e o f discretio n tha t warrant s review . Th e preambl e t o th e regulation s state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie wshoul d b e onl y sparingl yexercised, " an d tha t "mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall ydetermine d a t th e Regiona l [state ] leve l * * *. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Th e burde no f demonstratin g tha t th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e o nth e peti

tioner . EPARegio n IV ha s me t it s burden .P. 4

3 Th e issue s raise d b yKentucky' s contention s ar e discusse d below . 1 . Ambien t Ai r Qualit yan d th e BAC T Determinatio n Kentuck yargue s tha t th e benefit s t o ambien t ai r qualit y fromadding wate r injectio nar e negligible , and ar e clearl y outweighe d byth e additiona l economi c cost s associate d wit hthi s formo f NO xcontrol , whic hi t estimate s ar e $2,121.0 0 fo r eac h additiona l to n o f NO xremoved . According t o modellin g results , ambien t concentration s o f N0 2 fro mal l source s (including th e propose d facility ) withi n5 0 kilometer s o f th e propose d facilit y wil l b e 50.6 7 jig/m 3 withou t us e o f wate r injectio nand 50.6 5 /jg/m 3 wit hus e o f wate r injection . I n othe r words , th e tota l reductio n i n N0 2 pollutio n i s a mer e 0.0 2 /xg/m 3

. Thi s sligh t numerica l improvemen t i n ai r quality , according t o Kentuckyan d th e applicant , i s no t statisticall ysignificant , fo r i t fall s withi n th e margi n o f erro r employe d i n th e ai r qualit ymodel . Th e Regio n doe s no t disput e Kentucky' s evaluatio no f "ai r qualit yimpact s a s presented ; however , according t o th e Region , whe n th e focu s i s o n actua l N0 Xemission s reduction s fromth e facilit yitself , th e cost s o f wate r injectio nar e reasonable . Specifically , b

yusin g wate r injectio n th e facilit ywil l emi t 114.0 8 fewe r ton s o f N0 Xpe r year , a t a cos t o f $2,121.0 0 pe r to n o f NO xremoved , whic hi s belowth e rang e o f cost s ($3,00 0 -P. 5

4 $6,500 ) normall yexpende d fo r N0 Xremoval . ^Accordin g t o th e Region , th e definitio n o f BAC T mandate s us e o f wate r injection , th e mos t effectiv e availabl e technologyfo r N0 Xremova l unde r consideratio n i n thi s case , - f unles s th e applican t ca n demons

trat e tha t th e economic , environmental , o r energyimpact s from usin g thi s technologymak e th e choic e unreasonable . I n th e Region' s opinion , Columbi a Gul f di d no t demonstrat e tha t an yo f thes e consideration s mad e th e choic e o f wate r injectio nunreason able . Bylooking a t th e modelle d impac t o f th e propose d facility' s N0 Xemissions , th e Departmen t argue s tha t i t ha s identifie d a n environmenta l impac t tha t i t mayconside r fo r purpose s o f it s BAC T determination . I disagree . BAC T i s define d i n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t a s a n "emissio n limitation " se t b yth e permi t issuer , base d o n th e "maximu mdegre e o f reduction " tha t ca n b e achieve d fo r eac hregulate d pollutant , o n case-by-cas e basis , afte r "takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , and economi c impact s

yTh e Regio n als o argue s tha t Kentuck yha s overestimate d th e incrementa l cost s o f NO xremova l using wate r injection . Kentuck y compute d th e cost s pe r to n assuming 6,00 0 hour s o f operatio npe r year . Th e Regio n correctl ypoint s ou t tha t thi s assumptio n i s unwarrante d becaus e th e permi t doe s no t contai n an yrestriction s limitin g hour s o f operatio nt o 6,00 0 hour s pe r year . Un restricted , th e facilit ycoul d operat e 8,76 0 hour s pe r yea r (2 4 hrs . x36 5 days) .

^ Th e Regio n ha s concede d tha t althougha mor e effectiv e con tro l technology , selectiv e catalyti c reduction , ha s bee n success full yemploye d o n gas-fire d turbines , tha t technologywoul d b e technicall yinfeasibl e i n thi s cas e du e t o source-specifi c factors .P. 6

5 and othe r costs. " 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) . vTh e latte r claus e i s i n th e BAC T definitio n t o tempe r th e stringencyo f th e technolog y requirement s wheneve r on e o r mor e o f th e specifie d "collateral " impact s —energy , environmental , o r economi c —render s us e o f th e mos t effectiv e technolog yinappropriate . A s explaine d b y Senato r Edmund S . Muskie , th e principa l architec t o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t amendment s o f 1977 :

On e objectio n whic hha s bee n raise d t o requirin g th e us e o f th e bes t availabl e pollutio ncontro l technologyi s tha t a technolog

ydemonstrate d t o b e applicabl e i non e are a o f th e countryi s no t applicabl e a t a ne wfacilit yi n anothe r are a becaus e o f differenc e [sic ] i n feedstoc k material , plan t configuratio n o r othe r reasons . Fo r thi s and othe r reasons , th e committe e vote d t o permi t emissio n limit s base d o n bes t availabl e technolog yo na case-by-cas e judgmen t a t th e Stat e level . Thi s flexibilit yshoul d allo w

, suc hdifference s t o b e accommodate d an d stil l maximiz e th e : us e o f improve d technology . Senat e Debat e o n S.25 2 (June 8 , 1977) , reprinte d i n 3 Senat e Committe e o n Environmen t And Publi c Works , ALegislativ e History

^ Th e complet e tex t o f th e statutorydefinitio no f BAC T states :

Th e term

"bes t availabl e contro l technology " mean s an emissio n limitatio n base d o n th e maximu mdegre e o f reductio n o f eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r thi s chapte r emitte d fromo r whic hresult s fro man ymajo r emittin g facility , whic hth e permitting authority , o n a case-by-cas e basis , taking int o accoun t energy , environmental , and economi c impact s an d othe r costs , determine s i s achievabl e fo r suc hfacilit ythroughapplicatio no f productio nproces se s and availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , includ

ing fue l cleaning o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n technique s fo r contro l o f eac hsuchpollutant . I n n o even t shal l applicatio n o f "bes t availabl e contro l technology " resul t i n emission s o f an ypollutant s whic hwil l excee d th e emission s allowe d b yan yapplicabl e standar d establishe d pursuan t t o sectio n741 1 [newsourc e standards ] o r 741 2 [hazardou s pollutan t standards ] o f thi s title . « 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) .P. 7

6 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 197 7 a t 72 9 (Comm . Prin t Augus t 1978 ) (Congressiona l Researc hService , Seria l No . 95-16) . I n othe r words , th e collatera l impact s claus e operate s primaril y a s a safet yvalv e wheneve r unusua l circumstance s specifi c t o th e facilit ymak e i t appropriat e t o us e les s tha n th e mos t effectiv e technology . Th e permi t applican t mus t instal l th e mos t effectiv e technologyi f i t fail s t o demonstrat e t o th e satisfactio no f th e permi t issue r tha t suc hunusua l circumstance s exist . ^ Here , th e Departmen t argue s tha t th e modelle d negligibl e impac t o f th e propose d facilit yo n overal l ai r qualit yi s a n environmenta l impac t tha t ca n b e factore d int o th e BAC T analysi s t o justif yusin g les s tha n th e mos t effectiv e technologyt o

^Th e proces s o f selecting th e mos t effectiv e technologyi s describe d i n Pennsauke n Count yResourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 (EP AAdministrator , Nov . 10 , 1988 ) (Remand Order) . Pennsauke n cite s recen t Agenc yguidanc e o n th e subject , whic hrefer s t o th e proces s a s th e "top-down " approac ht o BAC T analysis , and quote s fromth e guidanc e a s follows : Th e firs t ste p i n thi s approac hi s t o determine , fo r th e emissio n sourc e i n question , th e mos t stringen t contro l availabl e fo r a simila r o r identica l sourc e o r sourc e category . I f i t ca n b e show n tha t thi s leve l o f contro l i s technicall yo r economicall yinfeasibl e fo r th e sourc e i n question , the n th e nex t mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l i s determine d and similarl yevaluated . Thi s proces s continue s unti l th e BAC T leve l unde r consideratio ncanno t b e eliminat

e d byan

ysubstantia l o r uniqu e technical , environmenta l o r economi c objections . Thus , th e "top-down " approac hshift s th e burde n o f proo f t o th e applican t t o justif ywhyth e propose d sourc e i s unabl e t o appl yth e bes t technology available . I t als o differ s fromothe r processe s i n tha t i t require s th e applican t t o analyz e a contro l technologyonl y i f th e applican t oppose s tha t leve l o f control ; th e othe r processe s require d a ful l analysi s o f al l possibl e type s an d level s o f contro l abov e th e baselin e case . Id . a t 5 .P. 8

7 contro l N0 Xemissions . Thi s argumen t i s withou t merit . I t give s n o effec t t o th e primarypurpos e o f th e collatera l impact s clause , which , a s th e legislativ e historyindicates , i s t o focu s o n loca l impact s tha t constrai n th e sourc e fromusin g th e mos t effectiv e technology . Fo r example , i f th e mos t effectiv e tech

nologywoul d impos e exceptiona l demand s o n loca l wate r resources , s o tha t us e o f th e technologywoul d hav e advers e impact s o nth e environment , then , unde r thos e circumstances , th e applican t woul d hav e a sound basi s fo r foregoing us e o f th e mos t effectiv e technologyi n favo r o f some les s water-intensiv e technology . Thi s woul d b e a "wate r resources " equivalen t o f a "feedstock " o r "plan t configuration " constrain t referre d t o bySenato r Muskie . ^ I n th e presen t case , th e Departmen t an d th e applican t hav e no t demonstrate d th e existenc e o f an yenvironmenta l impact s tha t woul d constrai n o r eve n remotel ycircumscrib e th e applicant' s abilit yt o us e th e mos t effectiv e technology . Th e negligibl e ai r

^ Depending o n th e factor s presen t i n a particula r case , con sideratio n o f collatera l impact s ca n als o resul t i na mor e stringen t BAC T determinatio ntha n woul d otherwis e occur . Fo r example , unusuall yhighcost s mayrepresen t a nadvers e economi c impac t tha t could , standing alone , justif yrejectio no f th e mos t effectiv e contro l technology . However , th e permittin g authorit y coul d ultimatel yconclud e tha t suc hadvers e economi c impact s ar e outweighe d b

yadvers e collatera l environmenta l impact s associate d wit hth e les s effectiv e contro l option . Se e Nort hCount y Resourc e RecoveryAssociates , PS D Appea l No . 85- 2 (EP AJun e 3 , 1986 ) (reman

d order ) (environmenta l impac t o f pollutant s no t regulate d unde r th e Clea n Ai r Ac t maynecessitat e a mor e strin

gen t emissio n limi t fo r regulate d pollutant s undergoin g BAC T review) .P. 9

8 qualit yimpac t o f th e propose d N0 Xemission s i s clearl yno t a constrain t o n implementing th e mos t effectiv e technology . Becaus e i t i s no t a constraint , th e modelle d impac t o f th e propose d facility' s N0 Xemission s o n ai r qualit yshoul d no t b e considere d fo r purpose s o f makin g th e BAC T determination . Thi s conclusio n i s furthe r confirme d b yth e statutoryscheme o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , whic hseparate s issue s o f overal l ai r qualit yfromissue s o f technology . Sectio n165(a)(3 ) o f th e Act , 4 2 US C §7475(a)(3) , addresse s th e direc t impac t o f regulate d pollutant s o n ambien t ai r qualit ybyrequiring a n applican t fo r a PS D permi t t o demonstrat e tha t th e propose d facilit ywil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s o r PS D increments , wherea s sectio n165(a)(4 ) o f th e Act , 4 2 US C §7475(a)(4) , i s concerne d exclusivel ywit hBACT , whic hi s principall ya technology-foreing measur e tha t i s in

tende d t o foste r rapi d adoptio n o f improvement s i ncontro l technology . ^ Bot ho f thes e provision s o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t

^Sectio n 16 5 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t provides , i n relevan t part , a s follows : (a ) N o majo r emitting facilit yo nwhic hconstructio ni s commence d afte r Augus t 7 , 1977 , mayb e constructe d i nan y are a t o whic hthi s par t applie s unles s — (3 ) th e owne r o r operato r o f suc hfacilit ydemonstrate s * * * tha t emission s fro mconstructio no r operatio n o f suc h facilit ywil l no t cause , o r contribut e to , ai r pollutio n i n exces s o f an

y(A ) [increment] , (B ) nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard i nan yai r qualit ycontro l region , o r (C ) (continued... )P.1 0

9 mus t b e satisfie d b ya n applican t seeking a PS D permit , and complianc e wit hon e provisio ndoe s no t reliev e o r lesse na n applicant' s burde n o f complying full ywit hth e other . Thus , even thoughColumbi a Gulf' s N0 Xemission s wil l no t caus e a violatio n o f ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s i n contraventio no f sectio n 165(a)(3 ) o f th e Act , i t mus t stil l satisf yth e BAC T technology requirement s impose d b ysectio n 165(a)(4) . I t doe s no t appea r t o hav e don e s o i nthi s instance , fo r the recor d o n appea l doe s no t sho wtha t an ycollatera l impact s —i n particular , environmenta l impact s — operat e a s a constrain t o n implementing th e mos t effectiv e technology . 2 . EnergyConsumptio n an d Increase d C O Emission s FromWate r Injectio n Kentuck yals o claim s tha t wate r injectio n i s no t BAC T becaus e i t increase s fue l consumptio nb y2. 2 percen t and carbo n monoxid e (CO ) emission s b y4 ton s pe r yea r (TPY ) —from2 TP Yt o 6 TPY . Th e Regio n rejecte d thes e arguments , becaus e th e project

e d 2. 2 percen t increas e i n energ yconsumptio nis , i nit s opinion , insignificant , sinc e th e increas e doe s no t plac e an ysubstantia l strai n o n natura l ga s demand , and th e additiona l 4 TP Yincreas e

-'(...continued ) an yothe r applicabl e emissio n standard o r standar d o f performanc e unde r thi s chapter ; [and ] (4 ) th e propose d facilit yi s subjec t t o th e bes t availabl e contro l technolog

y[BACT ] fo r eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regula

tio n unde r thi s chapte r emitte d from , o r whic hresult s from , such facilit y* * * .P.1 1

1 0 i n C O emission s wil l b e offse t b ya muc hgreate r reductio ni nNO emission s —from19 3 TP Yt o 7 9 TP Y—which , i nth e Region' s opinion , represent s a n environmentall ybeneficia l trade-off . I agre e completel ywit hth e Regio n abou t th e trade-of f betwee n th e C O and NO xemissions ; th e increas e i nC O emission s i s simpl yinsignifican t i n ligh t o f th e reduction s tha t ca nb e achieve d i n NO , emissions . I amles s certai nabou t th e 2. 2 percen t increas e i n energyconsumptio n an d wha t i t implies . Nevertheless , i t i s generall yincumben t o nth e permi t issue r an d th e permi t applican t t o demonstrat e i nth e recor d th e relevanc e o r significanc e o f an yclaime d basi s fo r rejectin g th e mos t effectiv e technologyo n energ yo r othe r statutor ygrounds . I t i s no t ;enoug

hfo r them

t o assert , withou t substantiation , tha t adoptio n o f th e mos t effectiv e technologywil l resul t i n a n energypenalty . The ymus t provid e substantiatio nand the ymus t sho wtha t th e penalt yi s s o substantia l o r unusua l a s t o meri t rejectio n o f th e mos t effectiv e technology . The yhav e no t don e s o i n thi s instance , fo r th e recor d doe s no t disclos e an ysub

stantia l informatio n o n th e impac t o f th e allege d energypenalty . 3 . Ne wSourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) and BAC T Kentuck ybelieve s tha t becaus e th e emissio nlimitatio ni t propose d fo r Columbi a Gulf' s NO xemission s (17 8 ppm ) i s belo wth e leve l specifie d b

yth e NSP S (19 6 ppm) , 1J thi s fac t shoul d serv e a s furthe r proo f tha t it s BAC T determinatio ni s correct .

- ; Se e 4 0 CF R§60.332(d) .P.1 2

1 1 Kentuck ynote s i n thi s respec t tha t th e NSP S contemplat e us e o f drycontrol s fo r smal l ga s turbines . Kentucky' s relianc e o n th e NSP S i s misplaced . Simpl ymeeting o r exceeding th e NSP S doe s no t attes t t o th e correctnes s o f a BAC T determination . A s th e languag e o f th e statut e plainl yindicates , & th e applicabl e NSP S limitatio n merel yserve s a s a floo r fo r th e BAC T limitation , i.e. , th e BAC T limitatio n mus t neve r fal l belo wth e leve l o f stringenc yse t b

yth e NSPS . Althoughth e NSP S ar e develope d b y considering man

yo f th e same factor s tha t g o int o a BAC T deter

mination , ^ thei r utilit yi s limite d i nan yindividua l cas e b y a t leas t tw o considerations . Th e firs t i s tha t BAC T determina

tion s ar e mad e o n a case-by-cas e basi s wherea s th e NSP S ar e se t o n a hindustry-wid e basis . Th e second i s tha t BAC T determina

tion s ar e mad e o n th e basi s o f currentl yavailabl e information , wherea s th e NSPS , althoughbase d o ncurren t informatio nwhe n promulgated , mayno t reflec t th e mos t curren t informatio navail

-

§ / Se e footnot e 3 (las t sentence) .

^ Th e similarit ybetwee n BAC T an d NSP S i s reflecte d i n th e following definitio n o f a "standard o f performance " fo r ne w source s an

d b ycomparing i t wit hth e definitio no f BAC T i n footnot e 3 above : [A ] standard o f performanc e shal l reflec t th e degre e o f emissio n limitatio n an d th e percentag e reductio nachievabl e throughth e applicatio no f th e bes t technologica l systemo f continuou s emissio n reductio n whic h(taking int o considera

tio n th e cos t o f achieving suc hemissio nreduction , an y non-ai r qualit yhealt han d environmenta l impac t an d energ y requirements ) th e Administrato r determine s ha s bee n adequatel ydemonstrated . 4 2 U.S.C . §7411(a)(1) .P.1 3

1 2 abl e a t th e tim e o f makin g a nindividua l BAC T determination . Thes e tw o consideration s ca n combin e i n a n individua l cas e t o creat e a substantia l ga p betwee nth e tw o emissio nlevels . Tha t appear s t o b e th e cas e here , base d o n th e informatio ni n th e recor d o f thi s appeal . Accordin g t o th e Region , th e applicabl e NSP S i s te n year s ol d and thu s doe s no t reflec t th e mos t curren t technologica l considerations . I t therefor e appear s tha t Kentuck y relie d to o heavil yand , i n th e fina l analysis , relie d improperl y o n th e NSP S i n thi s case . Moreover , I not e tha t th e Regio ncite s thre e example s o f comparabl e turbine s currentl yusin g wate r injectio n o r scheduling i t fo r us e —thu s effectivel yremovin g concer n abou t th e availabilit yo f thi s technologyfo r smal l turbines . — '

Kentuck

yha s no t shown tha t wate r injectio n i s no t a n availabl e technologyfo r BAC T purposes . Conclusio n Th e Regio n ha s me t it s burde n o f showing tha t Kentucky' s permi t determinatio n warrant s review . A s explaine d above, . Kentucky' s relianc e o n negligibl e ambien t ai r qualit yimpact s t o justif yusin g a contro l technologyles s effectiv e tha nwate r injectio n represent s clea r error . Kentucky' s rejectio no f wate r injectio n becaus e o f associate d increase s i nC O emission s an d becaus e o f it s interpretatio no f BAC T i nrelationshi p t o th e NSP S als o represent s clea r error . Kentucky' s concern s ove r increase d

— ; Se e Lette r fromBruc e T . Miller , Chief , Ai r Program s Branch , EPARegio n IV , t o Ronal d L . McCallum , Chie f Judicia l Officer , Attachmen t a t 6 , date d January25 , 1989 .P. M

1 3 energyconsumptio n fai l t o establis htha t th e increase s ar e s o substantia l o r unusua l a s t o warran t rejectio no f th e mos t effectiv e technology . I therefor e conclud e tha t clea r erro r ha s bee n shown her e also . Accordin g t o th e procedura l rule s governing petition s fo r review , a briefing perio d i s suppose d t o followth e grantin g o f review . 4 0 CF R§124.19(c) . I na sense , on e ha s alread ybegun , sinc e bot hKentuck

yan d th e Region , following th e filing o f th e petition , hav e submitte d additiona l statement s o f thei r position s o n th e issues . Columbi a Gulf , however , di d no t fil e an yexten siv e submission s during thi s post-petitio nperiod , no r wa s i t reguire d t o fil e an ya t thi s stag e o f th e proceedings . Therefore , t o restor e balanc e t o th e record , I propos e t o se t a briefin g schedul e tha t take s thi s background int o consideration . Specifically , Columbi a Gul f (and , a s permitte d b yth e rules , othe r intereste d persons ) maysubmi t a brie f o nth e issue s dis

cusse d i n thi s orde r withi n thirt y(30 ) day s afte r publi c notic e o f th e granting o f revie wha s bee n given . Se e 4 0 CF R§124.19(c) . (Kentuck

yshal l giv e notic e o f th e briefing schedul e and thi s order , a s provide d i n 4 0 CFR§124.10. ) Kentuck yand th e Regio n shal l the n fil e thei r respectiv e response s withi ntwent y(20 ) day s afte r receip t o f eac hbrie f file d during th e firs t round o f briefing . Columbi a Gul f and , i f applicable , othe r intereste d person s shal l the n hav e fiftee n(15 ) day s i nwhic ht o fil e a repl yt o th e responses .P.1 5

1 4 Also , o n o r befor e th e dat e publi c notic e i s given , Kentuck y shal l transmi t t o th e undersigne d a complet e copyo f th e administrativ e recor d o nwhic hi t mad e it s permi t determination , accompanie d b

ya n inde xo f th e content s o f th e administrativ e record . Copie s o f th e inde xshal l als o b e sen t t o th e Regio n an d Columbi a Gul f and , i f requested , t o othe r intereste d persons . Thereafter , al l person s filing brief s i n thi s matte r shal l suppor t thei r argument s an d factua l assertion s wit happropriat e citation s t o th e document s liste d i n th e index . S o ordered .

WilliamK . Re i Administrato r Dated : JU

N2I|989P.1 6

CERTIFICAT E OP 8BRVTC B I hereb y certif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r i n th e matte r o f Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompany , PS D Appea l No . 88

- 1 1 wer e sen t b

yFirs t Clas s Mai l t o th e following persons :

WilliamC . Eddins , Directo r Divisio nfo r Ai r Qualit y Commonwealt ho f Kentuck y Dep't . fo r Environmenta l Protectio n 1 8 Reill yRoa d Frankfort , KY4060 1 Susa n Midyet t Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompan y 380 5 Wes t Alabama Avenu e Houston , TX Richar d D . Baley Manage r o f Design Engineering Columbi a Gul f Transmissio n Compan y 380 5 Wes t Alabama Avenu e Houston , TX Danie l Ransbottom Senio r Consultan t Entrix , Inc . P . 0 . Box5628 8 Houston , TX77256-628 8 Jame s H . Sargen t Regiona l Counse l U.S . EPA , Regio nIV 34 5 Courtlan

d Street , N E Atlanta , G

A3036 5 Bruc e P . Miller , Directo r Ai r Program s Branc h U.S . EPA , Regio nIV 34 5 Courtlan

d Street , N E Atlanta , G

A30 3 6 5



### Dated : j ^ 2 

### | 198 9 Brenda H . Selden , Secretary t o the Chie f Judicia l Office r