# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 58 ) ll-K-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 58of 142 P. 1P. 2

BEFOR E THE ADMINISTRATO

R U.S . ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENCY WASHINGTON , D.C .

I n th e Matte r of : Worl d Colo r Press , Inc . Applican t IEPAI D Nos . PSD-1988-IL-1 , 2 , & 3 f.jxJ^tx^ PS D Appea l No. ^ 88- 4

••i2gi e 

### 111" 

# P

REMAN D ORDE R O n Apri l 1 , 1988 , th e Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y("IEPA" ) issue d Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n ("PSD" ) permit s t o Worl d Colo r Pres s ("WCP" ) fo r th e operatio no f printing presse s i n thre e Illinoi s locations . yI grante d revie wo f thes e permit s pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R §124.19(b ) o n May4 , 1988 , o n th e ground tha t th e permit s di d no t contai n emissio n limitation s reflectin g th e bes t availabl e contro l technology ("BACT") . Becaus e i t appeare d tha t th e IEPAapplie d an interpretatio no f th e statutoryBAC T definitio n whic hwa s rejecte d i n Columbi a Gul f Transmissio nCompany . PS D Appea l No . 88-1 1 (June 21 , 1989) , I directe d th e partie s o n Jun e 7 , 1990 , t o showcaus e wh

yth e permit s shoul d no t b e remande d t o correc t thi s

yTh e I2£ Amad e it s determinatio n pursuan t t o a delegatio n o f authorit yfromth e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio n V . Thus , thes e permit s ar e EPAissue d permit s fo r purpose s o f federa l law , an

d ar e subjec t t o th e revie wprovision s o f 4 0 CFR §124.19 . 4 0 CF R §124.41 .P. 3

error . s / I conclud e tha t IEPA' s BAC T determinatio ni s base d o n a n erroneou s interpretatio n o f th e statutoryBAC T definition , an d thu s a remand i s warrante d t o determin e wha t constitute s BAC T fo r thes e permits . BACKGROUN D I n Jul y1986 , WC P submitte d t o IEPAapplication s t o obtai n PS D permit s fo r th e constructio n o f heatse t we boffse t printing presse s a t it s Mt . Vernon , Spart a and Sale mplants . ^ Thes e presse s ar e majo r source s o f volatil e organi c compound s ("VOCs") , a precurso r o f ozone . Operatio no f thes e presse s woul d resul t i n a n increas e i n VO C emission s fro meac hplant . ^Th e principa l

2 7 During th e perio d betwee nMay4 , 198 8 and Jun e 7 , 1990 , U.S . EPAobtaine d background informatio n fromWC P and IEPAt o ai d i n designatin g th e issue s fo r review . Se e Februar y7 , 198 9 lette r fro mChie f Judicia l Office r t o Director , IEPA ; Marc h23 , 198 9 lette r fromManager , IEPADivisio no f Ai r Pollutio nContro l t o Chie f Judicia l Officer ; Apri l 14 , 198 9 lette r fromcounse l fo r WC P t o Chie f Judicia l Officer . Muc ho f thi s background informatio n pertaine d t o wha t extent , i f any , th e reactivit yo f th e volatil e organi c compound (VOC ) emission s a t issu e i n thi s permi t shoul d b e considere d i n a BAC T analysi s fo r VO C emissio n contro l technology . Ther e i s n o nee d t o addres s thi s issu e here , however , becaus e regardles s o f th e reactivit yo f WCP' s VO C emissions , IEPAmisapplie d th e statutoryBAC T definitio n whe n determinin g WCP' s permi t conditions . 11 Som e o f th e presse s a t th e Salemplan t alread yhad PS D permits , and WC P requeste d a modificatio n o f thos e permits . ^Th e ne t increas e i n VO C emission s a t eac hplan t exceed s 4 0 ton s pe r yea r ("tpy" ) an d i s thereb

y"significant " pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R§52.21(b)(23)(i) . Becaus e th e printin g presse s woul d produc e a significan t incr^-s e i n emission s o f a regulate d pollutant , theywoul d b e "ra; . . modifications " unde r 4 0 CF R§52.21(b ) (2 ) (i). . Majo r modificatia , mus t appl yBAC T fo r eac hregulate d pollutan t emitte d whic hresult s i n a significan t ne t emission s increas e a t th e source . 4 0 CF R§52.21(j)(3) . Alternatively , th e printin g presse s woul d produc e VO C emission s a t eac hplan t i nexces s o f 25 0 tpy , thu s makin g eac hplan t a majo r stationar ysourc e (continued... )P. 4

3 source s o f VO C emission s i n heatse t we boffse t printing ar e the solvent s i nth e ink an d the wetting agent s commonl yuse d i n the fountai n solution . vPrio r t o submitting it s PS D permi t applications , WC P ha d substantiall yreduce d it s VO C emission s b y usin g lo wvolatilit ywetting agent s an d ink s wit hlowe r solven t concentrations . ^ APS D permi t fo r a majo r emitting facilit yo r a majo r modificatio n mus t contai n BAC T fo r eac hregulate d pollutant , including VOCs , emitte d i n significan t amount s b yth e facility . 4 2 U.S.C . §7475(a)(4) ; 4 0 CFR§52.21(j)(2 ) an d (3) . BAC T i s statutoril ydefine d a s

[A] n emissio n limitatio nbase d o nth e maximu mdegre e o f reductio no f [the ] pollutan t * * * whic hth e permitting authority , o n a case-by-cas e basis , takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs , determine s i s achievabl e fo r suc hfacilit y throughapplicatio no f productio nprocesse s an d availabl e methods , system s an d technique s * * * fo r contro l o f [the ] pollutant .

1 7 (.. . continued ) pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R§52.21(b)(1)(i)(b) . Amajo r statutorysourc e mus t appl yBAC T fo r eachregulate d pollutan t i t ha s th e potentia l t o emi t i nsignifican t amounts . 4 0 CFR§52.21(j)(2) . Therefore , i n eithe r event , a BAC T determinatio ni s require d fo r thes e VO C emissions . yTh e ink an

d fountai n solution s ar e applie d t o th e "web " (th e pape r bein g printed) , makj- . : • th e we bwet . A s th e we bi s drie d b y passin g throughheaters , v. . •.- * ar e release d throug hvent s int o th e atmosphere . Add-o n pollu . .u n control s reduc e thes e emissions . yFo r example , thes e effort s resulte d i na 43 % reductio no f emission s a t th e Salemplant . IEPAProjec t Summaryfo r Operating Permit s fo r Worl d Colo r Pres s SalemGravur e Divisio nfo r Heatse t We bOffse t Presses , p. 7 (Nov . 5 , 1987) .P. 5

4 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) . vI n othe r words , th e PS D permit s fo r eac h WC P facilit ymus t contai n a nemissio nlimitatio nfo r VOC s tha t reflect s BAC T fo r VOCs , i.e. , th e availabl e contro l technology tha t result s i n th e maximu mdegre e o f VO C emissio nreductio n an d tha t i s achievabl e a t th e facilit yi n ligh t o f it s environmental , energyan

d economi c impact s an d othe r costs . I n addition , a PS D permi t applican t mus t demonstrat e tha t emission s fro

mth e operatio no f th e facilit ywil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o ai r pollutio ni n exces s o f th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s ("NAAQS") . 4 2 U.S.C . §7475(a)(3) . vThi s ai r qualit yrequiremen t i s independen t fromth e technology(i.e. , BACT ) requirement . "Bot ho f thes e provision s o f th e Clea nAi r Act7mus t be.satisfie d b ya napplican t seeking a PS D permit , an d complianc e wit hon e provisio n doe s no t reliev e o r lesse na n applicant' s burde no f complying full ywit hth e other. " Columbi a Gulf , p.9 . WC P identifie d thre e VO C emissio n contro l technologie s a s potentia l BAC T candidates : catalyti c incineration , therma l incineration , an

d electrostati c precipitation . WC P conclude d tha t th e "excessiv e cost s associated " wit heac ho f thes e technologie s mad e al l o f themunachievable , and tha t it s presen t

7J Se e als o 4 0 CF R§52.21(b ) (12 ) . 2 7 Se e als o 4 0 CF R§52.21(k ) (1 ) .P. 6

5 metho d o f controlling , VO C emission s throughlo wvolatilit y wetting agent s an

d lowsolven t ink s wa s BACT . y IEPAissued WCP' s PS D permit s i nApri l 1988 . A s require d b y 4 2 U.S.C . §7475(a)(3) , IEPAevaluate d WCP' s ai r qualit yanalysi s t o determin e i f th e propose d emission s woul d violat e th e NAAQS . IEPAconclude d tha t eve n withou t contro l equipment , i t wa s unlikel ytha t th e propose d VO C emission s woul d hav e an y measurabl e effec t o n th e ozon e i n th e regio ngive n th e lo w reactivit yo f th e emission s an d th e limite d presenc e o f othe r ozon e precursors . w IEPAals o conducte d a BAC T analysi s a s require d b y4 2 U.S. C §7475(a)(4) . IEPAconclude d tha t th e thre e alternativ e contro l technologie s

[P]ose[d ] additiona l cos t impact s bu t ar e no t accompanie d b

yreductio no f ozon e ai r qualit y impact s s o a s t o warran t thos e costs . Thi s occur s becaus e eve n thoughth e contro l device s reduc e emission s o f ozon e precursor s t o th e atmosphere , a corresponding improvemen t i n ozon e ai r qualit y doe s no t result . Thi s i s du e t o th e limite d reactivit y o f thes e materials , th e characte r o f th e are a i nwhic h thes e ar e released , an d distanc e fromarea s whic har e conduciv e t o an

d ar e experiencing excessiv e level s o f ambien t ozon e ai r quality . Respons e t o Comments , p.21 . wConsequently , IEPAdetermine d 2 / se e "Demonstratio n o f Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n t o Ambien t Ai r Quality, " p.48 , submitte d b yWC P i n suppor t o f it s PS D permi t applications . ^"IEPARespons e t o Comments : Worl d Col e 7 -ress , Heatse t Offse t Printing a t Mt . Vernon , Salemand'S" b urta " pp.4- 5 (March 31 , 1988 ) (hereinafte r "Respons e t o Comments") . ^IEPAals o note d tha t ther e wer e n o othe r environmenta l benefits , e.g. , eliminatio no f nuisanc e odo r and smoke , whic h (continued... )P. 7

6 tha t WCP' s presen t contro l strategyo f usin g lo wsolven t ink s an d wettin g agent s constitute d BACT . O n May4 , 1988 , I grante d revie wo f thes e PS D permit s o nth e ground tha t th e permit s lacke d VO C emissio n limitation s representing BACT . Specifically , a s explaine d i nth e Designatio n o f Issue s order , i t appeare d tha t IEPAincorrectl ydetermine d tha t "an allege d absenc e o f significan t photochemica l reactivit y o f th e facilities ' VO C emission s wa s a n'environmenta l impact ' tha t woul d justif yles s stringen t emissio n limitations , particularl yi n vie wo f th e adde d monetarycost s associate d wit h mor e stringen t contro l technologies. " Designatio no f Issues , p.2 . Alik e applicatio no f th e statutoryBAC T definitio n wa s subsequentl yrejecte d i nColumbi a Gulf , and o n Jun e 7 , 1990 , I requeste d tha t WC P an d IEPAsho wcaus e wh yth e permit s shoul d no t b e remande d fo r revisio ni naccordanc e wit hth e principle s state d i n Columbi a Gulf . IEPAdecline d t o submi t a brie f o nthi s issue . wWC P filed it s brie f o n Jul y27 , 1990 . WC P argue s tha t th e negligibl e impac t o f th e VO C emission s o nai r qualit ywa s no t IEPA' s sol e justificatio n fo r rejecting th e mor e stringen t technologies . WC P als o argue s tha t th e Columbi a Gul f decisio nshoul d no t b e applie d retroactivel yan

d tha t th e BAC T analysi s use d i nColumbi a Gul f

11 7 (.. . continued ) ,\ justifie d th e cost s o f th e alternativ e contro l tec ' -logies . Respons e t o Comments , p.22 . ^Se e lette r date d Jul y23 , 1990 , fro m IEPAAssistan t Counsel , Divisio no f Ai r Pollutio n Control , t o U.S . EPA' s Chie f Judicia l Officer .P. 8

7 wa s flawe d becaus e i t involve d th e "top-down " approac hwhic hWC P maintain s i s a substantiv e rul e adopte d b yth e Agenc ywithou t notic e an

d comment . ANALYSI S A s discusse d above , BAC T i s a n emissio n limitatio n base d upo n th e us e o f availabl e contro l technologytha t wil l resul t i n th e maximu

m reductio no f a regulate d pollutan t an d tha t i s achievabl e a t a specifi c facilit yi n ligh t o f th e technology' s "energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s o r othe r costs. " 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) .

Th e latte r claus e i s i n th e BAC T definitio nt o tempe r th e stringencyo f th e technologyrequirement s wheneve r on e o r mor e o f th e specifie d "collateral " impact s —energy , environmenta l o r energ y—render s us e o f th e mos t effectiv e technolog yinappropriate . Columbi a Gulf , p.5 . BACT , whic hstatutoril ymus t b e decide d o na cas e b ycas e basis , 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) , wa s define d thi s wayt o allo wflexibilit yi n BAC T determination s base d upo n source specifi c factor s whil e stil l maximizing th e us e o f improve d contro l technology . ^Thus ,

[T]he collatera l impact s claus e operate s primaril ya s a safet yvalv e whenever ' unusua l circumstance s specifi c t o th e facilit ymak e i t appropriat e t o us e les s than th e mos t effectiv e technology . Columbi a Gulf , p.6 . I n othe r words , the collatera l impact s claus e focuse s upo n specifi c loca l impact s whic hconstrai n a

^Senat e Debat e o n S.25 2 (June 8 , 1977 ) reprinte d i n3 Senat e Committe e o n Environmen t an d Publi c Works , ALegislativ e History o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t Amendment s o f 1977 , p.729 .P. 9

8 particula r sourc e fro musin g th e mos t effectiv e contro l technology . Id . a t p.7 . I n Columbi a Gulf , a BAC T determinatio nwa s require d fo r th e facility' s NO , emissions . According t o modellin g results , th e mos t effectiv e availabl e NO , contro l technologywoul d reduc e ambien t concentration s o f NO , b yonl ya negligibl e amount . Id. . a t p.3 . Th e permittin g authorit yrejecte d th e technologya s BAC T becaus e o f it s negligibl e impac t o nambien t concentration s o f NO, . Th e permittin g authorit yargue d tha t th e modelle d negligibl e impac t o f th e propose d facilit yo noveral l ai r qualit y wa s a n 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 contro l NO , emissions . Id . a t pp.6-7 . I rejecte d thi s interpretatio n o f th e statutoryBAC T definition , an

d hel d tha t th e mor e efficien t technology' s projecte d negligibl e impac t o n ambien t NO , ai r qualit ywa s not , b yitself , a nenvironmenta l impac t justifyin g rejectio n o f tha t technologya s BACT . ^Th e permitting authority' s decisio n faile d t o giv e effec t t o th e primarypurpos e o f th e collatera l impact s clause , whic hi s t o allo wus e o f a les s effectiv e contro l

^WC P maintain s tha t Columbi a Gul f hel d tha t a facility' s negligibl e environmenta l impac t canno t b e considere d i na BAC T analysis , an

d tha t thi s holding i s incorrect . WC P apparentl y misunderstand s th e holdin g i nColumbi a Gulf , whic hdoe s no t preclud e a permittin g authorit yfro mconsiderin g a facility' s environmenta l impac t whe ndetermining BACT . Columbi a Gul f hel d onl ytha t a n appropriat e environmenta l impac t doe s no t includ e th e impac t o n ai r qualit ystandard s fo r a regulate d pollutan t whic hwoul d b e produce d b ya propose d contro l technologyfo r tha t pollutant .P.1 0

9 technolog

yonl ywhe n source-specifi c energy , environmenta l o r economi c impact s o r othe r cost s constrai na sourc e fro musin g a mor e effectiv e technology . Becaus e th e negligibl e ai r qualit y impac t o f th e propose d contro l technolog ydi d no t constrai n th e sourc e fro

musing th e technology , i t wa s no t a nenvironmenta l impac t t o b e considere d i n th e BAC T determination . ^Thi s interpretatio n o f th e BAC T definitio ni s confirme d b yth e term s o f 4 2 U.S.C . §7475(a)(3 ) an d (4) , whic himpos e tw o distinc t requirement s fo r a PS D permit , eac ho f whic hmus t b e satisfied : ai r qualit yan

d technolog

y(i.e. , BACT ) requirements . WC P ha s faile d t o showan ydifference s betwee nthi s cas e an d Columbi a Gul f sufficien t t o justif ya decisio n no t t o remand thes e permit s fo r correctio n o f IEPA' s misapplicatio n o f th e collatera l impact s clause . Th e permitting authorities ' reasoning i n bot hcase s suffer s fro mth e sam e defect . I nbot hcases , th e permitting authoritie s conclude d tha t th e mor e effectiv e technology' s negligibl e impac t o n improving ambien t pollutio n level s o f th e subjec t pollutan t wa s anenvironmenta l impac t justifying th e rejectio no f tha t .technolog ya s BACT . wFo r th e reason s stated i nColumbi a Gulf . IEPAmisinterprete d th e statutoryBAC T definition . 111 An exceptiona l demand o nwate r resource s i s a nexampl e o f a n environmenta l impac t associate d wit ha technologytha t woul d constrai n a sourc e fro musing tha t technologyi n favo r o f a les s stringent*. , les s water-intensiv e technology . Se e Columbi a Gulf , p.7 . wTh e erro r i s especiall yegregiou s i nthi s case , however , a s th e IEPAuse d thi s fault yreasoning t o rejec t thre e mor e stringen t alternativ e contro l technologies .P.1 1

1 0 WC P contend s tha t "the minima l environmenta l impac t o f th e VOC s emitte d a t th e Worl d Colo r facilitie s wa s b yn o mean s th e sol e o r exclusiv e justification " fo r rejectin g th e mor e stringen t technologie s a s BACT . WC P Brie f i nRespons e t o Designatio no f Issues , p.1 5 (hereinafte r "WC P Brief") . WC P fail s t o demonstrat e an yothe r "justification " use d b yIEPA . Moreover , WCP' s contentio n i s no t supporte d b yth e record . WC P di d no t presen t energyimpact s i n it s permi t application s and IEPAdi d no t conside r any . ^

AlthoughWC P presente d som e informatio n abou t th e economi c impact s o f th e alternativ e contro l technologies , IEPAexpressl ystate d tha t "[t]h e basi s fo r th e IEPA' s BAC T determinatio n i s no t costs , whic har e no t unreasonabl e i n compariso n wit hcost s expende d elsewher e fo r VO C contro l systems. " Respons e t o Comments , p.1 0 (emphasi s added) . ^IEPA

wFo r example , i f th e mos t stringen t technologyrequire s th e us e o f a locall yscarc e fuel , i.e. , on e whic hi s i n shor t suppl y locally , th e permittin g authorit ycoul d determin e tha t a les s effectiv e technologytha t use d a n availabl e fue l wa s BACT . wIEPAstate d tha t th e alternativ e contro l technologies ' increase d cost s wer e no t offse t b ya correspondin g benefi t t o ai r quality , and wer e therefor e unwarranted . Thi s reasoning , whic h wa s als o use d b

yth e permitting authorit yi n Columbi a Gulf , blur s th e statutorydistinctio n betwee n technologyan d ai r quality . A s explaine d i n Columbi a Gulf . BAC T i s a technologyconsideratio n (whichallow s consideratio no f "costs " —a measur e o f economi c impact ) an

d i s t o b e analyze d separatel yfromai r qualit y considerations . N o suc hblurrin g o f statutorydistinction s woul d hav e occurre d ha d IEPAconcluded , fo r example , tha t th e alternativ e technologies • increase d cost s wer e no t warrante d becaus e the y lacke d a correspondin g benefi t i nemission s reduction . Thi s conclusio ni s consisten t wit hth e statutor ydistinction , becaus e th e concept s employe d —costs , technologyand emission s (continued... )P.1 2

1 1 conclude d tha t "th e environmenta l impac t analysi s appear s t o b e th e critica l analysis " i n th e BAC T determination , Respons e t o Comments , p.8 , an

d relie d exclusivel yupo n thi s facto r i n rejecting th e alternativ e contro l technologies . w WC P furthe r argue s tha t Columbi a Gul f shoul d no t b e applie d retroactively . WC P Brief , pp.18-19 . WCP' s assertio ntha t th e Agenc yi s attempting t o hol d i t t o a standar d whic hdi d no t exis t whe n IEPAissue d th e permit s i s withou t merit . Th e resul t i n Columbi a Gul f i s strictl yth e produc t o f m yinterpretatio no f 4 2 U.S.C . §§747 5 an

d 7479 , whos e languag e an d legislativ e history hav e no t change d sinc e WC P applie d fo r th e PS D permits . Th e resul t i nthi s cas e i s dictate d b ytha t sam e languag e an d history . Thus , eve n i f Columbi a Gul f ha d neve r bee ndecided , ^(...continued ) reductio n —ar e al l confine d t o BACT . Acos t compariso no f two o r mor e technologie s relativ e t o thei r respectiv e emission s reductio nefficiencie s represent s a legitimat e us e o f th e economi c impac t facto r i n BACT . Fo r example , i f a particula r technolog

yha s a cos t tha t i s exceptionall yhighrelativ e t o anothe r technology , bu t ha s onl ya negligibl yhighe r emission s reductio n efficiency , it s greate r cos t (economi c impact ) migh t justif yrejecting i t a s BACT . According t o WCP' s permi t applications , th e propose d incineratio n technologie s woul d reduc e VO C emission s b y47-49 % a t a cos t i n th e rang e o f $l,256-$3,42 4 pe r ton , depending o nth e facility . Th e propose d electrostati c precipitatio ntechnolog y woul d reduc e VO C emission s b y17-19 % a t a cos t i nthe rang e o f $3,811-$10,43 7 pe r ton , depending o n th e facility . & WC P als o argue s tha t ther e ar e "significan t energ yan d economi c constraints " associate d wit hth e alternativ e contro l technologie s whic hjustif ythei r rejectio na s BACT . WC P Brief , p.17 . WC P present s thes e cost s i na n affidavi t attache d t o it s brief . Thi s informatio n wa s no t presente d t o IEPAduring th e permitting process , an d therefor e shoul d no t b e use d t o determin e i f IEPAerroneousl ygrante d a permit . I nthi s case , thi s informatio n i s bes t lef t fo r consideratio n o nremand .P.1 3

1 2 remand woul d b e necessaryt o correc t thi s misapplicatio n o f th e collatera l impact s clause . Moreover , decision s o f agenc y adjudication s appl yretroactivel yunles s manifes t injustic e woul d result . Clark-Cowlit z Join t Operating Agenc yv . Federa l Energy Regulator yCommission . 82 6 F.2 d 1074 , 108 1 (D.C . Cir . 1987) , cert , denied . 48 5 U.S . 91 3 (1988) . WC P ha s faile d t o demonstrat e an ysuc hinjustice . Lastly , WC P argue s tha t th e BAC T analysi s use d i n Columbi a Gul f wa s flawe d and canno t b e applie d her e becaus e i t wa s base d o n th e "top-down " metho d o f determining BACT , whic hWC P maintain s i s a substantiv e rul e adopte d withou t notic e and commen t a s require d b

y5 U.S.C . §553 . - ^ Th e issu e i n Columbi a Gul f an d i n thi s cas e i s whethe r a contro l technology' s projecte d negligibl e impac t o n improving ambien t pollutio n level s o f a particula r pollutan t subjec t t o BAC T wa s a n environmenta l impac t tha t justifie d rejectio n o f tha t contro l technologya s BAC T fo r tha t pollutant . I n bot hcases , I hav e interprete d th e relevan t statutoryterm s bydecidin g tha t th e negligibl e impac t unde r th e circumstance s i s no t th e sor t o f .environmenta l impac t tha t woul d justif yth e rejectio n o f tha t technologya s BACT . Th e decisio n i n Columbi a Gul f wa s no t dependen t o n th e us e o f th e "top-down "

— ' ..a , Pennsauke n Count yResourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appeal , Ny . \. :_8

- P- 5 (Nov . io , 1988 ) (unde r th e "top-down " method' , th e mbi -J'

: stringen t contro l technologyi s evaluate d first , and i s presume d t o b e BAC T unles s th e permi t applican t demonstrate s tha t ther e ar e technica l o r othe r collatera l impact s whic hmak e i t infeasible , unreasonabl e o r otherwis e no t "achievable " fo r tha t facility , i n whic hcas e th e nex t mos t stringen t contro l alternativ e i s evaluate d a s BACT , an d s o forth) .P.1 4

1 3 methodology ; ^ rathe r i t reflecte d m yinterpretatio no f th e legislativ e inten t i n adopting th e environmenta l impact s claus e o f th e BAC T definition . WC P an d IEPAwer e directe d t o addres s thi s issu e b

yth e Designatio n o f Issue s order , an d WCP' s argumen t concernin g th e top-down metho d i s simpl yno t relevan t t o thi s review . CONCLUSIO N IEPA' s rejectio n o f al l mor e stringen t VO C emissio ncontro l technologie s propose d a s BAC T becaus e o f thei r projecte d negligibl e impac t o n improving ambien t ozon e level s i s a clearl y erroneou s applicatio no f th e CleanAi r Act . Becaus e "permi t condition s shoul d b e finall ydetermine d a t th e Regiona l [State ] level, " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma y19 , 1980) , i t i s appropriat e t o remand thes e permit s t o IEP Afo r a correc t BAC T analysis . IEP A i s directe d t o reope nth e permi t proceeding s fo r th e limite d purpos e o f determining BAC T fo r th e VO C emission s i na manne r consisten t wit hthi s opinion . IEP Ama yreissu e th e permit s a s writte n i f i t concludes , afte r a ful l review , tha t lowvolatilit y wettin g agent s an

d lowsolven t ink s constitut e BACT , o r i t may revis e th e permi t i f i t conclude s tha t mor e stringen t contro l technologie s constitut e BACT .

22 7 Fo r tht : r arpose s o f th e issu e i nColumbi a Gulf , namel y whethe r th e collatera l impact s claus e wa s properl yapplied , i t di d no t matte r whethe r th e rejecte d technolog ywa s th e mos t stringent . I nfact , i nColumbi a Gul f th e partie s agree d tha t the mos t stringen t technologywa s no t achievabl e du e t o technologica l problems . Columbi a Gulf , p. 4 n.2 .P.1 5

1 4 Afte r makin g it s preliminaryBAC T determination , IEPAshal l reope n th e publi c commen t perio d t o allo wcomment s o nth e propose d BAC T b

yWCP , Regio n V , an d an yothe r intereste d party . IEPA' s fina l permi t upo n remand i s subjec t t o revie wpursuan t t o 4 0 CF R§124.19 , and an yappea l fromit s fina l permi t i s subjec t t o th e exhaustio n o f administrativ e remedie s requiremen t i n4 0 CF R§124.19(f)(1)(iii) . S o ordered .

WilliamK.^R^ill y Administrato j Dated : 

## OE C 

## 1 3 1990P.1 6

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Remand Orde r i n th e matte r o f Worl d Colo r Press , PS D Appea l No . 88-4 , wer e sen t b yFirs t Clas s Mai l t o th e following persons : Dr . Richar d J . Carlson , Directo r Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 220 0 Churchil l Roa d Springfield , I L 6270 6 Michae l Hayes , Manage r Divisio n o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y 220 0 Churchil l Roa d Springfield , I L 6270 6 WilliamRoger s Worl d Colo r Pres s P.O . Bo x124 8 Effingham , I L 6240 1 Davi d Kee , Directo r Ai r & Radiatio n Divisio n U.S . EPA , Regio n V 2 3 0 Sout hDearbor nStree t Chicago , I L 6060 4 Valda s V . Adamku s Regiona l Administrato r U.S . EPA , Regio n V 2 3 0 Sout hDearbor n Stree t Chicago , I L 6060 4 J . Bennet t Clar k Gallop , Johnso n & Neuma n Interc o Corporat e Towe r 10 1 Sout hHanle y St . Louis , Missour i 6310 5

ji^Brend a H . Selde n Lega l Staf f Assistan t Dated : 

### DEC 1 7

### 1990