OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

47) ll-K-4 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:20 AM Sheet 47 of 142 

P.1 
READ 1 

P.2 

E.LILLIS (EPA6246) 

R.MCCALLUM (EPA1150) Delivered: Tue 30-May-89 12:16 EDT Sys 163 

To: 

From: 

(186) 

Subject: Foster Wheeler Passaic, Inc. 

Mail Id: IPM-163-890530-110410917 

Acknowledgment Sent 

** CHRONICLE ** 

MAY - AUGUST 1989 

1. Texaco Refining and Marking Inc. 

RCRA Appeal No. 88-26 

2. RCRA Permit Appeals/Status Report 

3. MEMO - K001 Bottom Sediment Sludge 

Docket No. F-88WPDP-FFFFF 

4. Final Decision - Brown Wood Preserving Company 

RCRA Appeal No. 86-4 

: Docket No. 84-16-R 

5. Albuquerque Utilities Corporation 

NPDES Appeal No. 88-4 

6. Envirosafe Services of Ohio, Inc. 

RCRA Appeal No. 88-40 

7. Sinclair Oil Corporation, Sinclair, Wyoming 

EPA ID No. WYD 079 959 185 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

M 251995 Wj 

EPAAIRDOCXETii 

In the Matter of: 

Foster Wheeler Passaic, Inc. 

Applicant 

DEP ID Number [TO BE ASSIGNED] 

PSD Appeal No. 89-1 

NOTICE OF DECISION TO REVIEW PERMIT 
P.3 

On April 26, 1989, the New Jersey Department of 

Environmental Protection (DEP) issued a Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) permit that, upon becoming effective, would 

authorize Foster Wheeler Passaic, Inc. (the "permit applicant") 

to construct a proposed resource recovery facility in Passaic, 

New Jersey. DEP made its determination pursuant to a delegation 

of authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region II, New York, New York. Because of the delegation, 

DEP's authority to issue PSD permits is subject to the review 

provisions of 40 C.F.R. 124.19 (1988), and any permit it 

issues will be an EPA issued permit for purposes of federal law. 

40 C.F.R. 124.41; 45 Fed. Reg. 33413 (May 19, 1980). 

The rules authorize me to review permit determinations 

either upon the receipt of a petition for review from an 

qualified petitioner or upon my own initiative if the 

circumstances appear to warrant it. 40 C.F.R. 124.19(a) and 

(b). The regulations provide that the review of a permit at the 

request of a petitioner is justified if the permit decision is 

clearly erroneous or involves a matter of discretion or policy 

that is important and therefore warrants review. 40 C.F.R. 

124.19(a)(1) and (2). The regulations do not specify when it is 

appropriate for me to review a permit on my own initiative. See 

40 C.F.R. 124.19(b). However, it would appear that the same 

circumstances that justify the review of a permit at the request 

of a petitioner would also justify the review of a permit on my 
P.4 

own initiative. Thus, a clearly erroneous decision or one that 

raises an important question of policy or discretion would also 

justify the review of a permit on my own initiative. Some or all 

of those circumstances exist here. 

DEP has concluded that combustion controls rather than 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) of NOx emissions is the 

appropriate control technology to meet the "best available 

control technology" (BACT) requirement for this permit. In 

Pennsauken County, New Jersey Resource Recovery Facility, PSD 

Appeal No. 88-8 (Remand Order, November 10, 1988), EPA determined 

that SNCR is the appropriate and available control technology for 

NOx control, unless a lesser degree of control is determined to 

represent BACT after performing the "top down" analysis required 

by EPA for such a demonstration. Such an analysis would have to 

demonstrate significant technical defects in the technology or 

substantia/ local economic, energy, or environmental factors or 

other costs to warrant use of a control technology less stringent 

than SNCR. In this case, DEP claims that significantly higher 

costs have been demonstrated, and that there are significantly 

greater safety concerns than in other uses of this technology. 

The conclusions as to higher costs are, for the most part, 

based on a method of analysis that appears to have artificially 

doubled the costs of using SNCR when compared to analyses in 

other similar cases -- Pennsauken, for example. Other than this 

different method of analysis, DEP has not identified any other 

factors that would account for higher costs at this facility. In 
P.5 

brief, DEP calculated the cost-effectiveness of SNCR by using an 

NOx emissions rate much lower than the maximum potential rate for 

the proposed facility using combustion controls alone, i.e., 300 

parts per million (ppm) on a dry basis, corrected to 7% 02. Use 

of a rate lower than the maximum potential rate represents a 

deviation from normal practice and had the effect of producing a 

dollar-per-ton cost for SNCR that is roughly double the amount 

that would have resulted had DEP instead used the maximum rate of 

300 ppm. DEP did not explain its reasons for using this method 

of analysis, nor did it compare its cost-effectiveness figures 

for this facility with those from other facilities using the same 

method of analysis. In addition, DEP's cost analysis was based 

on a relatively low control efficiency (30% versus 35% at 

Pennsauken), which also had the effect of reducing the cost 

effectiveness of SNCR at this facility. DEP did not explain its 

reasons for the downward reduction in control efficiency. 

With regard to safety concerns, DEP has not demonstrated any 

that are unusual or unique to this resource recovery facility. 

The transportation and use of ammonia in densely populated areas 

is not uncommon for many of the facilities in which SNCR is being 

employed or will be employed in the near future, as well as for 

many other industrial users of ammonia. 

Based on the reasons cited above, I find that grounds exist 

for reviewing the permit on my own initiative, or, more precisely, for reviewing the conclusion that combustion controls, rather 

than SNCR, is BACT for NOx control for this project. Moreover, 

J 

\ 
P.6 

the result is inconsistent with the decision enunciated in the 

Remand Order in Pennsauken. 

I intend to establish a briefing schedule in the near future 

and to identify the specific issues that DEP and the permit 

applicant should address. When this is done, DEP shall be 

responsible for giving public notice of today's decision as 

directed by 40 C.F.R. 124.10. Until review is completed, the 

permit applicant is without an effective permit and construction 

cannot lawfully commence. 

So ordered. 

Dated: 5/26/89 /s/ 

F. Henry Habicht II 

Acting Administrator 
P.7 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Notice of 

Decision to Review Permit in the matter of Foster Wheeler 

Passaic, PSD Appeal No. 89-1, were sent to the following persons 

in the manner indicated: 

By 1st class mail, 

postage prepaid: 

William J. Muszynski 

Acting Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region II 

26 Federal Plaza 

New York, NY 10278 

Robert J. Burcin, President 

Foster Wheeler Passaic, Inc. 

Perryville Corporate Park 

Clinton, NJ 08809-4000 

Christopher J. Daggett 

Commissioner 

New Jersey Dep't. of Environmental 

Protection 

401 East State Street, CN-027 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Dr. Iclal Atay, Acting Chief 

Bureau of Engineering & Regulatory 

Development 

Division of Environmental Quality 

New Jersey Dep't. of Environmental 

Protection 

401 East State Street, CN-027 

Trenton, NJ 08625 

Dated: 5/30/89 N 

Brenda H. Selden, Secretary 

to the Chief Judicial Officer 

Disposition:AZ