p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 48 ) ll-K-5
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 48of 142y|

. .• P. 2

• » » 

### W - » V .. .
BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATO R

U.S
. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y

WASHINGTON , D.C
.

I n th e Matte r of : Spokan e Regiona l Waste-to-Energy

Applican t 

# ft ^ S

P S D Appeal•sN6'."f-8"8;-1 2 -—•-»

'..• : -'.Jj|

. 

## Ji2§j99 5 ^ '

5 IK*? 

### ORDE RDENYIN GREVIE W J R7. A

/ Y^^^- S I n a join t petitio n file d pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R §124.1 9 (1988) , Citizen s fo r Clea n Ai r an d Counci l fo r Lan

d Car e an

d Plannin g ("Petitioners" ) requeste d revie w o f a Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t issue d t o th e Spokan e Regiona l Wast e T o EnergyProjec t ("Spokane" ) fo r constructio n o f a n 800-ton-per

daymunicipa l wast e incinerato r a t a n existing landfil l wes t o f th e Cit yo f Spokane
. Th e permi t determinatio n wa s mad e b yth e Washingto n Stat e Departmen t o f Ecolog y("Ecology" ) pursuan t t o a delegatio n o f authorit yfro mEP ARegio n X , Seattle , Washington
. Becaus e o f th e delegation , Ecology' s permi t determinatio n i s subjec t t o th e revie w provision s o f 4 0 CF R §124.19 , an d an y permi t i t issue s wil l b e a n EPA-issue d permi t fo r purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CF R §124.41 ; 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 33,41 3 (Ma y19 , 1980)
. Petitioner s objec t t o th e issuanc e o f th e permi t becaus e the ybeliev e i t i s deficien t i n severa l respects
. I n particular , the yclai mth e permi t doe s no t mee t "bes t availabl e contro l 

### 1 /

^Al l reference s t o th e Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (CFR ) ar e t o th e 198 8 edition
.P. 3

.' « 2

technology " (BACT ) requirement s fo r emission s o f nitrogenoxide s (N0 X ) an d for emission s o f "trac e [sic ] metal s an d toxi c pol lutant s suc

ha s dioxin s an

d furans. " ^ Petitio na t 2 . I n makin g a BAC T determinatio nfo r N0 X , Petitioner s claim tha t 

### "therma l de-NO x 

### , " no t combustio ncontrols , i s BACT . Fo r th e othe r pollutants , Petitioner s allege tha t Ecolog y di d no t giv

e adequat e consideratio nt o "fue l cleanin

g an d separation " an

d di d
no t conside r economic , environmental , an d othe r cost s associated wit hth e incineratio

no f "recyclabl e materials. " Id . a t 2-3 . Ecolog y respond s b

y arguin g tha t th

e N0 Xissu

e i s no w moo t becaus e th

e City ha s subsequentl y

agree d t o modif y

the facility t o incorporat e N0 Xcontrol s employin g therma l de-NO xor a nequiv alen t technology . Wit hrespec t t o fue l cleanin g an d separation , Ecolog y argue s tha t thes e practice s nee d mor e stud

y — t o gathe r informatio

nabou t cost s an

d impact s —

befor e Ecolog

y woul d b

e abl e t o determine whethe r the y represen t a bette r emission s

& I t i s no t clea r wha t Petitioner s meanb y trac e metals ; however , I assum

e the y ar e referrin

g t o smal l quantitie s o f "heav y metals " suc

ha s lea

d an d mercury . Cf . note s 8 an d 28 . Petitioner s asser t thre e othe r ground s for review : (1 ) emissionlevel s for PM 1 0 shoul d be se t inaccordanc e wit ha LAE R standard , no t BACT ; (2 ) th e assessmen t o f th

e impac t o f C

O emission s o

nnearb y area s i s inadequate ; an d (3 ) Ecolog

y erre d i n no t settin

g emissio

nlevel s fo

r dioxins , furans , an d chloroform . Ther e i s n

o meri t t o thes e allegations . A s noted b y RegionXi

n it s respons e t o th

e Petition , BACT , no t LAER , i s th e correc t standard t o b e applied t o PM. 0 ; Ecolog y correctl y

followed EP

A guidanc e an

d conclude

d tha t ther e woul d b e n o advers e effec t o

n nearb y C O non-attainmen t areas ; an d EP A ha s n o authority

unde r the CleanAi r Ac t t o prescrib e emissio

nlimitation s for unregu late d pollutant s (cf . not e 8 , infra ) suc ha s dioxins , furans , an d chloroform . Se e EP

A Respons e at 8 .P. 4

3 contro l metho

d thanthe control s currentl y propose

d for the facility . " Spokane likewis e argue s tha t fue l cleanin g an d separatio

nar e no t BACT , an

d i t point s out tha t thes e an d othe r simila r practice s have undergone thoroug hevaluatio

ni nconnec tionwit hSpokane' s overal l wast e managemen t strategy , whic h call s for recycling , wast e reduction , th e proposed "waste-to energ y facility, " an

d on e or mor e ne

w regiona l landfill s desig nated for non-recyclabl e an d residua l waste s only . Unde r the rule s governin g thi s proceeding , ther e i s no appea l a s o f right fro m th e permi t decision . Ordinarily , a petitionfor revie

w o f a PS D permi t determinatio ni s no t granted unles s i t i s based o na clearl y

erroneou s findin

g o f fac t o r conclusiono f law , o r involve s a nimportant matte r o f policy or exercis e o f discretio ntha t warrant s review . Th e preambl e t o th

e regulatio

nstates , "thi s powe r o f revie w shoul d b e onl y

sparingl y exercised, " an

d "mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall y deter mined a t th

e Regiona l [State ] leve l * * * . " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma y 19 , 1980) . The burde no f demonstratin

g tha t th

e permi t condition s shoul d be reviewe d i s therefor e o

nPetitioners . In thi s cas e I hav

e determined tha t Petitioner s hav e me t thei r burdenwit hrespec t t o th e N0 Xissu

e but no t wit hrespec t t o heav y metal s an

d toxi c pollutants .

2 / Ecolog

y Fac t Shee t a t 3 (Decembe r 7 , 1988) .P. 5

Discussio

n Befor e addressin

g th e issue s presente

d b y the appeal , I believ e i t woul d be worthwhil e t o stat e firs t wha t the cas e i s
no t about . I t i s no t about the desirability o f recyclin

g fo r municipalitie s plannin g t o buil d soli d wast e incinerators . I conside r recyclin

g i nit s variou s manifestations , includin g off sit e (curbside ) separatio no f newspapers , bottles , an d aluminu

m containers , an

d on-sit e mechanica l separatio nprocesses , a s a

n essentia l par t o f intelligent plannin g fo r th e soli d wast e disposa l predicamen t tha t mor e an d mor e o f our Nation' s citie s
ar e facing . ^ No r i s thi s cas e about th e desirability

o f recyc lin g for Spokane inparticular . The Spokane waste-to-energ y projec t ^ call s for extensiv e recycling , includin g a central ized , curbside recyclin g progra

m t o b e implemente

d b y Januar y 30 , 1991 . The City' s plan s als o includ e thre e drop-of f center s i n differen t location s inth e Spokane area . The center s wil l contai nfacilitie s for citizen s t o leav e recyclabl e materials , whichar e designate d initiall y

a s newspaper , hig

hgrade paper ,

V Se e generall y

U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Offic e o f Soli d Waste , "Th e Soli d Wast e Dilemma : A nAgenda fo

r Action " at 1 (Februar

y 1989 ) (Fina l Repor t o f th e Municipa l Soli d Wast e Tas k Force ) ("[M]or e tha none thir

d o f the nation' s landfill s wil l be fui l withi nthe next fe w year s an

d man y citie s ar e unabl e t o fin d enoug hacceptabl e site s for ne w landfill s or ne

w combus tors" ) .
^ Accordin

g t o the Fina l [State ] Environmenta l Impac t State men t (FEIS ) for the project , stea m generate

d i nthe boiler s wil l b e used b

y a condensin

g turbine t o generat e electricity . The powe r outpu t o f th

e turbine wil l b

e approximatel y

22,00 0 kilo watts . FEI S a t 14 .P. 6

5 corrugate d paper , aluminum , thre e color s o f sorte d glass , scrap metals , an

d ti n cans . ^I n addition , a "reusables " are a fo r miscellaneou s item s —smal l appliances , bab yfurniture , books , toys , etc
. —i s als o planned
. Accordin g t o EP ARegio n X , Spokan e expect s t o obtai n a recyclin g leve l o f 31 % b yth e yea r 2008
. EP ARespons e a t 6
. Recyclin g i s indee d a n issu e i n thi s case , bu t i n a signif

icantl ynarrowe r contex t tha n jus t described
. Th e focu s her e i s
o n whethe r Ecolog

yerre d i n it s BAC T determinatio n b yno t givin g in-dept h consideratio n t o "fue l cleaning an d separation " i n combinatio n wit h th e conventional , state-of-the-ar t pollutio n contro l equipmen t alread yrequire d b

yth e Spokan e permit , fo r contro l o f heav

ymeta l an

d toxi c pollutan t emissions
. - ; I n othe r words , i f fue l cleaning an d separatio n i n thi s particula r technologica l configuratio n woul d allo w Ecolog yt o se t emissio n

6 7 Spokane' s Respons e t o Petitio n fo r Review , Attachmen t 5 (Gran t Amendmen t No
. 1 —Amende d Projec t Description , Condition s B , C , an

d D)
. 1J Traditionally , EPAha s no t require d a PS D applican t t o chang e th e -fundamenta l scop e o f it s project
. Se e Pennsauke n Resourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No
. 88- 8 a t 1 1 (EP A Novembe r 10 , 1988 ) (Orde r Denyin g Review ) (BAC T permi t condition s "ar e no t intende d t o redefin e th e source")
. Therefore , t o giv e Petitioner s th e benefi t o f th e doubt , I wil l no t constru e thei r petitio n a s advocatin g a redefinitio n o f th e Spokan e projec t b y proposin g fue l cleanin g an d separatio n a s a substitut e fo r conventional , state-of-the-ar t pollutio n contro l technology
. Rather , I wil l assum e Petitioner s ar e advocatin g th e additio n o f fue l cleanin g an

d separatio n t o th e control s alread ypropose d fo r th e facility
.P. 7

6 level s for regulate d ai r pollutant s & tha t are demonstrabl y lowe r tha

nth e level s achievabl e usin g th e propose

d contro l equipment , thenEcolog y woul d hav

e erre d init s BAC T determina tio nb y no t analyzin

g fue l cleanin

g an d separatio

nsufficiently . -' The secon

d majo r issue presented b y th e appeal , unrelated t o th e

^ Petitioner s do no t identify th e specifi c regulate d ai r pollutant s tha t supposedl y d o no t mee t BACT requirements . Thi s omissio ncontribute s t o th e seriou s lac

k o f specificity

i nth e petition , discussed elsewher e i nth e tex t o f thi s decision , for no t al l pollutant s ar e regulate d pollutants , wherea s onl y regu late d pollutant s ar e subjec t t o BACT . Similarly , no t al l heav y metal s an

d toxi c pollutant s — i.e. , th

e one s o f specifi c concer n t o Petitioner s —

ar e regulate

d pollutants , an

d thu s no t al l o f the m ar e subjec t t o BACT . The lis t of regulate d pollutant s include som

e heav y metal s bu t no t toxi c pollutant s suc ha s dioxin s an

d furans . Th

e regulate

d pollutant s include : arsenic , asbestos , benzene , beryllium , carbo nmonoxide , fluorides , hydro carbons , hydrogensulfide , lead , mercury , nitroge noxides , ozone , particulat e matter , radionuclides , radon-222 , reduced sulfur compounds , sulfur dioxide , sulfuri c aci d mist , tota l reduced sulfur , viny l chloride an d volatil e organi c compounds . Se e 4 0 CF R§52.21(b ) (23 ) (preventio no f significan

t deterioratio

no f ai r quality ) ; 4 0 CF

RPar t 6 1 (Nationa l Emissio nStandard s for Hazar dou s Ai r Pollutants) . 2 7 The focu s o f a BAC T determinatio ni s no t alway s o

nregulate

d pollutants . I nsom e circumstances , a

nalternativ

e technolog

y fo r controllin

g a regulate

d pollutan t ma

y b e deeme d BAC T i

nprefer enc e t o anothe r technology , eve nthoug happlicatio

no f the forme r doe s no t resul t i nlowe r emissio nlevel s tha

nthe latter . Thi s circumstanc e occurs , for example , whenever a nanalysi s o f the overal l environmenta l impact s o f the tw o technologie s demon strate s tha t one wil l hav e lowe r advers e impact s tha nthe other . W e ar e no t confronted wit hthi s issu e i nthi s cas e because , a s explained i nthe text , Petitioner s hav e no t established , a s a threshol d matter , tha t fue l cleanin g an d separation , whenuse d i n combinatio

nwit hconventional , state-of-the-ar t pollutio ncontro l equipment , ar e "available " contro l technologie s for contro l o f regulated pollutants . Unles s thi s advocate d additiona l contro l technolog

y i s availabl e for the primar y purpos e o f controllin g emission s o f regulate d pollutants , th

e permi t issue r i s no t re quired t o includ

e tha t contro l technolog y inthe BAC T analysi s or consider , a s a secondar y matter , the effec t o f tha t technolog y o n unregulated pollutant s or it s othe r collatera l environmenta l impacts .P. 8

7 recyclin g issue , i s whethe r Ecolog yals o erre d i n it s BAC T determinatio n b

yno t requiring therma l de-NO xfo r contro l o f N0 X emissions
. Resolutio n o f thes e issue s necessaril ybegin s wit h a n examinatio n o f th e proces s o f makin g th e BAC T selectio n fro m
amon g competin g technologies
. Th e statutoryphras e "bes t availabl e contro l technology " o r BACT , a s i t i s customaril yabbreviated , refer s t o a technologica l standar d tha t applie s t o facilitie s subjec t t o PS D requirements
. I t i s define d i n sectio n 169(3 ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t — ' a s a n "emissio n limitation " ^reflecting th e "maximu m degre e o f

— ; Th e complet e tex t o f th e BAC T definitio n states :

Th e term"bes t availabl e contro l technology " mean s a n emissio n limitatio n base d o n th e maximu m degre e o f reductio n o f eac h pollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r thi s chapte r emitte d from

o r whic h result s fro man ymajo r emittin g facility , whic h th e permittin g 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 h facilit ythrough applicatio n o f productio n proces se s an d availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , includ

ing fue l cleanin g o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n technique s fo r contro l o f eac h suc h pollutant
. 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 h wil l excee d th e emission s allowe d b yan yapplicabl e standar d establishe d pursuan t t o sectio n 741 1 [ne w sourc e standards ] o r 741 2 [hazardou s pollutan t standards ] o f thi s title
.

^Th e ter

m "emissio n limitation " i s define d i n sectio n 302(k ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t a s follows : Sec
. 302
. Whe n use d i n thi s Ac t — * * * (k ) Th e term s "emissio n limitation " an d "emissio n standard " mea n a requiremen t establishe d b yth e Stat e o r th e Administrato r whic h limit s th e quantity , rate , o r concentra

tio n o f emission s o f ai r pollutant s o n a continuou s basis , including an

yrequiremen t relating t o th e operatio n o r (continued... )P. 9

8 reduction " o f "eac

hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th

e Act, " whic hthe permittin g authority

determine s i s achievabl e afte r "takin

g int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an

d othe r costs. " 4 2 USC A §7479(3) . Achievemen t o f a n emissio nlimitatio

nma y b e secure

d "throug

happlicatio

no f productio

nprocesse s an

d availabl e methods , systems , an d techni ques , includin

g fue l cleanin

g o r treatment o r innovativ e fue l combustio

ntechnique s fo

r contro l o f eac

hsuc hpollutant. " Id . Recen t EP

A guidanc e describe s th e proces s o f selectin g BAC T fo r individua l facilities . Th e proces s i s based o na recognitio

n tha t th e statutor

y definitio

no f BAC T impose s a responsibility o n th e permi t applican t t o identify th e particula r "available " technolog

y tha t wil l produc e th e maximu

m degre e o f reductio no f
eac hregulate

d pollutan t t o be emitte d fro m th e propose

d facil ity . I f th

e applican t wishe s t o us e som e les s effectiv

e contro l technology , the applican t mus t "demonstratee ] tha t significan t technica l defects , or substantia l loca l economic , energy , o r environmenta l factor s or other cost s warran t a contro l technolog y les s efficien t tha

n[th e mos t stringent availabl e technology]. "

^(...continued ) maintenanc e o f a sourc e t o assur e continuou s emissio nreduc tion . 4 2 U.S.C . §7602(k) . The regulator y definitio

no f BAC T provide s that , t o th

e exten t technologica l or economi c limitation s in measuremen t methodologie s woul d rende r a nemission s standar d infeasible , th

e Administrator ma

y instea d prescribe a design , equipment , work practice , operationa l standard , or combinatio n thereof , fiee, e.g. . 4 0 CF R§52.21(b)(12) .P.1 0

Honolul u Resourc e Recover y Facility . PS D Appea l No . 86-8 , at 7 (EP A Jun e 22 , 1987 ) (reman d o f decisio

nrespectin

g S0 2 control s fo r a municipa l wast e incinerator) . Inguidanc e issue d b y EPA' s Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an

d Radiatio

no nDecembe r 1 , 1987 , W

the proces s o f selectin g BAC T —

know na s the "top-down " approacht o BAC T analysi s — i s describe

d a s follows : The firs t ste

p inthi s approac

hi s t o determine , fo r th e emissio nsourc e inquestion , th e mos t stringen t contro l availabl e fo

r a similar or identica l sourc e or sourc e category . I f i t ca nbe show

ntha t thi s leve l o f contro l i s technicall y

or economicall y

infeasibl e fo

r th e sourc e i

n question , thenth

e next mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l i s determine

d an d similarl y

evaluated . Thi s proces s continue s unti l the BAC T leve l unde r consideratio ncanno t be eliminat e d b y an y substantia l or unique technical , environmenta l or economi c objections . Thus , the "top-down " approachshift s th e burde no f proo f t o th

e applican t t o justify wh y th e proposed sourc e i s unabl e t o appl y the bes t technolog y available . I t als o differ s fro m othe r processe s i

ntha t i t require s th

e applicant t o analyz e a contro l technolog y only 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 baseline case . ^

—'Memorandu

m fro m Crai g Potter , Assistan t Administrator , t o Regiona l Administrator s (Regions I-X ) (Dec . 1 , 1987) . Se e als o Memorandu

m fro m Geral d Emison , Director , EP A Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin

g an d Standard s (OAQPS ) t o EP A Regiona l Ai r Offic e Director s (Jun

e 26 , 1987) , enclosin g "Operationa l Guidanc e o n Contro l Technolog

y fo r Ne w an d Modified Municipa l Wast e Combus tor s . "

— 'Memorandu

m fro m Crai g Potter , Assistan t Administrator , t o Regiona l Administrator s (Regions I-X) , a t 4 (Dec . 1 , 1987) . Th e "baseline case " an

d it s relationshi p t o the BAC T selectio n proces s appear s i nanEP A guidanc e manua l issue d i nOctobe r 1980 . Se e EP A (Office o f Ai r Quality , Planning , an d Standards) , Preven tio no f Significan t Deterioratio nWorksho

p Manual , a t II-B- 1 e t

___. , EPA-450/2-80-08 1 (Octobe r 1980) . The selectio nproces s a s outlined inthe guidanc e manua l wa s no t inconsisten t wit hth e dictate s o f th

e statute ; however , i npractice , the proces s developed int o wha t coul d be describe d a s th e "botto

m up " approach , i

nwhichth

e permi t applican t coul d selec t virtuall y (continued... )P.1 1

1 0 Applyin g the top-dow

napproacht o Spokane , the issu e i s whethe r the alternativ e control s advocate d b y the Petitioner s — therma l de-NO xfor NO

xemissions , an

d fue l cleanin

g an d separa tio nfor heav

y meta l an

d toxi c pollutant emission s — represen t the mos t effectiv

e or "top " technologie s for contro l o f regulate d pollutants , or whethe r the y represent som

e lesse r leve l o f control . I f the

y represen t the former , the BAC T analysi s per forme d b y Spokane an

d approve

d b y Ecolog y shoul d hav

e contained (bu t di d not ) a

nin-depthdiscussio no f eac

halternativ

e contro l technolog

y t o justif y

rejectin

g i t a s BACT . If , o nthe othe r hand , Petitioners ' alternative s d o no t represen t th

e to p tech nologies , n

o detailed discussio no f the

m i s require

d inthe BAC T analysis , unles s ther e i s evidenc e t o sho w tha t th

e alternative s
ar e availabl e for the primar y purpos e o f controllin g regulated pollutant s and , despit e no t bein g th e to p technology , the

y ar e nevertheles s BAC T afte r givin g appropriat e weigh t t o thei r collatera l environmenta l (o r energy ) impacts . ^ Absen t suc h

^ (...continued) whateve r technolog

y i t deeme

d desirabl e fro

m a busines s or utilitarianperspectiv e — th e so-calle

d "baselin

e case " —

an d then , i na formidabl e challenge t o th e applicant' s power s o f objectivity , the applican t wa s expecte d t o presen t a ful l an d fai r analysi s o f alternativ e technologies , includin g potentiall y mor e effectiv

e technologies . Thi s approac hpresented to o man y opportunitie s for abuse , sinc e i t provide d littl e or no incentiv e for the applican t t o selec t th e mos t effectiv

e technology , par ticularl y

whe nthe mos t effectiv e technolog

y — a s i s oftenthe cas e — wa s als o th

e mos t expensiv

e technology .
^ See , e.g. . not e 9 . I f th e applicant an

d th e permittin

g authority

agre e tha t the to

p technolog

y fo r contro l o f regulate d pollutant s shoul d be selecte d a s BACT , economi c impact s tha t i n (continued... )P.1 2

1 1 evidence , n

o detailed discussio no f th e alternative s i s require d sinc e the analysi s woul d only satisfy

academi c concern s an d woul d have no effec t o

nthe outcom

e o f th e permi t determination . An y failur e o

nth e par t o f th

e permi t issuer t o conside r suc ha technolog

y woul d amoun t t o harmles s error , a t most . Di d Ecolog

y miscategoriz e eithe r o f the tw o type s o f tech nolog y wheni t rejected the m an d conclude

d tha t neithe r required additiona l analysis ? Thi s questio ni s no w moo t for the therma l de-NO

xissue ; Spokane' s subsequent decisio nt o instal l a

napprop riat e N0 Xemissio

ncontro l syste

m employin

g eithe r therma l de-NO x or a nequivalen t technolog y effectivel y

decide s the issue . Al l tha t remain s t o b e done no w i s fo r Ecolog

y t o se t numerica l emissio nlimitation s for th e N0 Xemission s usin g the agreed-t o technology , an

d t o prescrib

e monitorin

g requirement s an

d operat in g restriction s a s deeme d necessar

y o r appropriate . ^ The questio

ni s no t a s easil y

answere

d inthe cas e o f fue l cleanin g an d separation . T o answe r it , w e firs t nee

d t o ascer tai nthe permi t issuer' s responsibilitie s wheneve r deficiencie s ina proposed permi t determinatio nare alleged . For instance , d o th e rule s requir e the permi t issue r t o conduc t a full-scal e BAC T

&(. ..continued) theor y coul d justif y

selectio

no f les s effectiv

e technologie s ar e presumabl y

no t a t issue .
^ Ecolog

y an d Spokane wil l wan t t o conside r th e optimizatio

n provision s discusse d inth e recent permi t decisio nfor the Pennsaukenwaste-to-energ y facilit

y i nNe w Jersey . Se e PennsaukenResourc e Recover y Facility , PS D Permi t No . 88- 8 (EP A Apri l 20 , 1989 ) (Orde r Denyin

g Review) .P.1 3

1 2 analysi s o f eac

halternativ

e propose

d b y a commenter , regardles s
o f the proposal' s merit , or i s i t permissibl e for the permi t issue r t o tailo r it s respons e i nproportio nt o the substantiv e merit s o f th

e proposal ? I nothe r words , i f the comment i s clearl y withou t meri t or i s vagu e an d lack s sufficien t support , ca nthe permi t issue r dismis s the comment summarily or mus t i t prov e the comment' s lack o f substanc e by , for example , requirin g the permi t applican t t o submi t studies , tests , an d comparison s demonstratin

g tha t th

e commenter' s propose d alternativ

e tech nolog y i s unworkabl e o

r otherwis e unsuitable ? The applicabl e rule s an d cas e la

w fortunatel y

adop t a rul e
o f reaso

ninanswe r t o thes e questions , an d thu s d

o no t requir e the permi t issuer t o respon d indetai l t o al l comment s irrespec tiv e o f thei r merit . Specifically , th e permi t issue r nee d onl y "describ

e an d respon

d t o al l significant comment s o nth e draf t permit. " 4 0 CF

R§124.17(a)(2 ) (emphasi s added) . Th e permi t issuer' s respons e ca nb e i nproportio

nt o th e substantiv

e meri t
o f the comments . [T]h e "dialogue " betwee nadministrativ

e agencie s an

d th e publi c "i s a two-wa y street. " Hom

e Bo xOffice . 56 7 F.2 d at 35 . Jus t a s "th

e opportunity

t o comment i s meaningles s unles s th

e agenc y respond s t o significan t point s raise d b y the public, " id . at 35-3 6 (footnot e omitted) , s o to o i s th e agency' s opportunity t o respon

d t o thos e comment s meaning les s unles s th

e intereste

d party clearl y

state s it s posi tion . Se e Wisconsi nElectri c Powe r Co . v . Costle . 71 5 F.2 d 323 , 32 6 (7t

hCir . 1983 ) ("th

e rule s o f administrativ e la w appl y acros s th

e board , t o agencie s an d intereste

d partie s alike") . > Northside Sanitar

y Landfill . Inc . v . Le e M . Thomas . 84 9 F.2 d 1516 , 152 0 (D.C . Cir . 1988 ) (interpretin g the phras e "significan tP.1 4

1 3 comments " i n th e rulemaking provision s o f th e Administrativ e Procedur e Act)
. Th e Suprem e Cour t ha s als o hel d tha t a permi t issue r ma yadop t a threshol d tes t fo r determinin g ho w i t respond s t o a commen t o r proposal
. Vermon t Yanke e Nuclea r Powe r Corp
. v . NRDC
. 43 5 U.S
. 519 , 551-555 , 5 5 L.Ed
. 2 d 460 , 9 8 S.Ct
. 1197 , 1215-121 7 (1978)
. Th e petitioner s i n Vermon t Yanke e ha d accuse d th e Atomi c Energ

yCommissio n o f no t givin g adequat e consideratio n t o "energ

yconservation " a s a n alternativ e t o licensing th e constructio n o f a nuclea r powe r plant
. Th e Commissio n hel d tha t i t woul d onl yconside r energ yalternative s tha t wer e reasonabl y available , woul d curtai l deman d t o th e poin t wher e th e powe r plan t woul d no t b e necessary , an d wer e susceptibl e o f a reason abl e degre e o f proof
. Th e Commissio n conclude d tha t petitioner s ha d no t me t thi s threshol d tes t because , inte r alia , the yha d faile d t o "tak e int o accoun t tha t energ yconservatio n i s a nove l

and evolvin g concept. " Vermon t Yanke e 9 8 S.Ct
. a t 1207
. Th e Commissio n adde d tha t i n vie w o f "thi s emergen t stag e o f energ y conservatio n principles, " i t i s incumben t o n th e petitioner s t o stat e "clea r an

d reasonabl yspecifi c energ yconservatio n conten

tions. " J&. Th e Cour t o f Appeal s hel d tha t th e Commission' s threshol d tes t wa s arbitraryan d capricious , bu t th e Suprem e Cour t overturne d th e appellat e court , holdin g tha t th e Commis

sion' s decisio n ha d t o b e judge d i n ligh t o f th e informatio n the n availabl e t o it
. Significantly , th e Suprem e Cour t note d tha t th e petitioners ' responsibilit yt o presen t it s positio n an d conten

tion s effectivel ywa s especiall yheav ywhe n th e Commissio n i sP.1 5

1 4 bein g aske d t o "embar k upo n a n exploratio n o f uncharte d ter

ritory , a s wa s th e questio n o f energ yconservatio n i n th e lat e 1960« s and earl y1970's. " Id
. 9 8 S.Ct
. a t 1216
. I n th e cas e o f th e instan t petition , a s i n Vermon t Yankee , historica l perspectiv e i s a n essentia l ingredien t o f an ythres

hol d test , fo r fue l cleaning an d separatio n ar e als o ne w an d evolvin g concept s insofa r a s ai r pollutio n contro l a t municipa l wast e incinerator s i s concerned
. Although arguabl ymuc h i s know n abou t recyclin g i n term s o f ho w an d wha t t o recycl e t o achiev e wast e reduction , n o har d dat a ar e presentl yavailabl e t o judg e whethe r supplementin g conventional , state-of-the-ar t pollutio n contro l equipmen t suc h a s baghouse s an d scrubber s wit h fue l cleanin g an

d separatio n woul d caus e reduction s o r increase s o f regulate d pollutan t emissions
. Accordin g t o a n EP AMunicipa l Wast e Tas k Forc e Repor t jus t release d i n February1989 , informa

tio n o n reducin g emission s fro mmunicipa l wast e incinerator s throug h eliminatio n o f specifi c material s fromth e combusto r — fo r example , throug h separatio n an d recycling —i s no t wel l known : "[D]at a ar e currentl yinadequat e t o determin e precisel y th e effec t o n ai r emission s an d as h o f eliminatin g specifi c material s fro

m th e wast e strea

mprio r t o combustion. " ^ Thi s curren t paucit yo f knowledg e i s illustrate d b yth e petitio n fo r review
. Petitioner s ar e unabl e t o poin t t o a singl e stud yo r instanc e i n whic h th e additio n o f fue l cleanin g an d

— ' "Th e Soli d Wast e Dilemma : An Agend a fo r Action, " supr a not e 4 , a t 63
.P.1 6

1 5 separatio

nresult s i nan

y emission s reduction s ove r thos e obtain e d b y the us e o f the highl y effectiv

e conventiona l equipmen t an d operatin

g practice s alread

y require

d b y th e Spokane permit . Petitioner s cit e a stud y don e b y Nationa l Recover

y Technologies , Inc . (NRT ) fo

r the propositio

ntha t remova l o f aluminum , steel , glass , an

d dir t fro

m municipa l wast e wil l resul t i n" a 3 0 t o 7 5 percen t reductio

no f ai r emissions" ; & however , a nexaminatio

n
o f thi s stud

y fail s t o suppor t Petitioners ' statement , a t leas t
no t i nth e manne r intende

d b y Petitioners . The stud y actuall y show s tha t thes e reduction s represent comparison s o f emission s fro m th e separat e burnin

g o f treate

d (cleaned ) an

d untreated wastes , respectively , "prio r t o emission s contro l equipmen t an d
are no t direc t ai r releases. " NRT Stud y at 4 (emphasi s added) . I nothe r words , the stud y doe s no t sho

w tha t ther e woul d b e a reductio

ni npollutan t emission s ha d conventiona l pollutio n contro l device s beeni noperation . Thi s omissio ni s significant , becaus e i t i s impossibl e t o conclude fro m the stud

y whethe r emission s woul d hav e increased , decreased , o r staye d the sam

e i f conventiona l equipmen t ha d beeninoperation , ^ fo r i t i s wel l

m Petitio

na t 3 .
^ I disagre e wit hRegio nX , whichtake s the position , Respons e at 6 (undated) , tha t th e result s o f th

e stud y "imply " tha t recyc ling , incombinatio nwit hth

e curren t combustio nan d post-combus tio ncontrol s proposed , woul d constitut e th e mos t effectiv

e metho d o f reducin

g heav y meta l emissions . An y suc himplicatio

n at thi s tim

e i s prematur e an

d speculative ; th

e dat a warrant , a t most , furthe r investigatio ni nth e for m o f additiona l studies . Hence , i t wa s no t clea r error for Ecolog y t o no t accep t thi s implication . Fo r muchth e sam e reasons , I attachn o specia l weigh t t o Ecology' s "assumption, " pointe d out b y Petitioners , (continued... )P.1 7

1 6 know n tha t th e conventional , state-of-the-ar t equipmen t require d b yth e Spokan e permi t i s highl yeffectiv e i n reducing emission s
o f heav ymetal s an

d mos t othe r pollutants , a s wel l a s reducin g th e specifi c pollutant s fo r whic h th e equipmen t i s designe d t o contro l —principall yS0 2 an d particulat e matter
. ^ Petitioner s als o mak e referenc e t o a BAC T analysi s performe d b yEP ARegio n IX , Sa n Francisco , California , fo r a municipa l wast e incinerato r t o b e buil t i n Sa n Marcos , California
. Thi s BAC T analysi s include d sourc e separatio n a s a contro l option
. — ' Regio n I X concluded , however , tha t BAC T fo r th e incinerato r wa s a lim e slurryspra

ydrye r system(dr

yscrubber ) wit h a baghous e fo r th e contro l o f sulfu r dioxid e (S0 2 ) , aci d gas , an d particulat e emissions
. Regio n I X specificall yfoun d tha t sourc e separatio n provide s poo r contro l o f heav ymetal s an

d fai r contro l o f dioxin s

— ; (...continued ) tha t removin g heav

ymetal s fro

mth e fue l befor e combustio n woul d reduc e thei r emissions
.

—' See , e.g. . Memorandum , date d Jun e 27 , 1987 , fro mGeral d Emison , Director , EP AOffic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Stan

dard s (OAQPS ) t o EP ARegiona l Ai r Offic e Directors , enclosin g "Operationa l Guidanc e o n Contro l Technolog yfo r Ne w an

d Modifie d Municipa l Wast e Combustors " ("EP Atodayals o draw s upo n th e technica l dat a reference d below , an d it s experienc e i n issuing , reviewing , an

d enforcing PS D permit s fo r [municipa l wast e combus

tors ] MWCs
. Recen t emissio n tes t dat a hav e demonstrate d tha t particulat e matte r (PM) , S0 2 , an d othe r ai r pollutant s (including [toxic ] organics , heav ymetals , an

d aci d gases ) ca n b e controlle d effectivel yb

yaci d ga s scrubbing device s (dr yscrubbers ) equippe d wit h efficien t particulat e collectors " —pag e 4)
. 22 7 Lette r fro

mJea n M
. Mischel , attorne yfo r Petitioners , t o Ja yWillenberg , Ai r Program , Washingto n Departmen t o f Ecology , date d Novembe r 2 , 198 8 (commentin g o n Ecology' s preliminary approva l o f th e permit)
.P.1 8

1 7
an d furans . Accordin g t o th e Region , th

e lim e slurr y spra y dryer , incontrast , provide s excellent contro l o f bot hheav y metal s an

d dioxin s an

d furans . ^ Inshort , RegionIX' s con sideratio

nan d rejectio

no f sourc e separatio ni nthi s one in stanc e obviousl y

furnishe s n

o basi s fo

r sayin g Ecolog

y erred b

y
no t includin

g i t inth

e Spokan

e BACT analysis . The absenc e o f studie s or actua l operatin g result s i s especiall y

fata l unde r th

e Clea nAi r Act , fo

r the statutor

y definitiono f BAC T require s a technolog y t o be "available " for i t t o b e considere

d a s BACT . 22

/ The permi t applicant' s burde no f showin

g tha t a mor e stringen t technolog y i s no t BAC T obviousl y doe s no t com

e int o existenc e unles s th e so-calle

d "more stringent " tech nolog y i s available . I f th e technolog

y i s no t available , th e permi t applicant i s unde r n o duty t o conside r i t i nth e BAC T analysis . PennsaukenResourc e Recover y Facility . PS D Appea l No . 88-8 , at 7 (EP A Novembe r 10 , 1988 ) (Reman d Order) . A

technolog

y i s obvious ly no t availabl e i nan y meaningfu l sens e i f knowledg e abou t it s effec t o

nemissions , i

nth e particula r configuratio ninwhichi t woul d be employed , i s s o incomplet e a s t o be unusable . Moreover , giventhe Clea

nAi r Act' s emphasi s o ngrantin

g or denyin

g com 

### 21 / Id . (enclosure) . 22 7 A s wit hthe NR T study , th e Regio nIXBAC T analysi s doe s no t explor e wha t level s o f emissio nreduction s migh t b e achieve

d b y usin g sourc e separatio

nan d conventiona l pollutio ncontro l equipmen t i ncombinatio nwit heachother . The reaso ni t wa s no t done , I suspect , ca nb e attribute

d t o th e sam e lack o f essentia l dat a tha t i s als o apparent i nthi s case .P.1 9

1 8 plete d PS D permi t application s withi n on e yea r o f filing , ^ i t woul d b e unreasonabl e t o read th e ter m "available " a s imposing a dut yo n th e permi t applican t t o conduc t time-consumin g origina l

researc h b

ygeneratin g ne w dat a fo r th e purpos e o f discoverin g whethe r a potential , bu t unproven , technolog ymigh t possibl y prov e successful
. & Perhap s mor e importantly , withou t th e requisit e knowledg e abou t th e technology' s effect s o n emissions , th e technolog

yals o canno t b e regarde d a s th e "best " technology
. Therefore , I conclud e tha t Petitioner s hav e no t show n tha t fue l cleanin g an

d separation , i n combinatio n wit h conventional , state

of-the-ar t pollutio n contro l equipment , constitut e availabl e technologie s fo r purpose s o f th e BAC T determination
.

2 ^ Th e on e yea r limitatio n appear s i n sectio n 165(c ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act :

An ycomplete d permi t applicatio n unde r sectio n 741 0 o f thi s titl e fo r a majo r emitting facilit yi n an yare a t o whic h thi s par t applie s shal l b e grante d o r denie d no t late r tha n on e yea r afte r th e dat e o f filing o f suc h complete d application
. 4 2 USC A§7475(c)
. Th e limitatio n i s "directiv e i n nature " no t jurisdictional
. Hancoc k Count yv . EPA , No
. 83-3108 , sli p op . (6th Cir
. Aug
. 14 , 1984) , 2 2 Env't
. Rep
. Cas
. 1714 , 171 9 (BNA)
. 2 ^ Thi s doe s no t impl ytha t a technolog ynee d hav e a prove n applicatio n for th e sourc e categoryunde r consideratio n befor e i t ca n b e deeme

d "available. " Technolog ytransfe r fro

mon e sourc e categoryt o anothe r i s appropriat e fo r BAC T purposes . Thus , a technologytha t i s i n actua l us e fo r controllin g a regulate d pollutan t i n on e sourc e category—an d thu s i s clearl yavailabl e

—ma yb e require d fo r contro l o f tha t same pollutan t i n anothe r sourc e category , provide d sufficien t dat a ca n b e readil ygener ate d t o establis h transferability
. However , tha t issu e i s no t presente d i n thi s case . Here , ther e ar e n o know n facilitie s usin g th e advocate d technolog y(fue l cleanin g an d separatio n i n combinatio n wit h conventional , state-of-the-ar t pollutio n equip

ment ) fo r contro l o f regulate d pollutants
.P.2 0

1 9 Apar t fro

m the absenc e o f studie s or operatin g result s t o suppor t the petition , the petitio ni s als o flawe

d ina t leas t on

e othe r seriou s respect . Specifically , giventhe embryoni c stat e
o f ou r knowledg e abou t recyclin g inth e presen t context , Petitio ner s als o hav

e a responsibility

t o satisfy

a reasonabl e threshol d
o f clarity

an d precisio

ninthei r demand s o f the permi t issuer . The y hav e no t done s o i

nthi s case . For example , Petitioner s
neve r stat e exactl y wha t the

y meanb y fue l cleanin

g an d separa tion . The omissio

ni s problemati c becaus e ther e i s n o unifor

m definitio

no f fue l cleanin

g an d separation , an

d Petitioner s hav

e
no t sought t o clarif y thei r intention s b y supplyin

g thei r ow

n definition . Bothterm s i nth e context o f th

e petitio

nca nb e interprete

d a s referrin

g simply

t o remova l (separation ) o f object s suc

ha s ca r batteries , tires , glas s bottles , an d large meta l appliances , so-calle d whit e goods , fro

m th e wast e fue l befor e incineration . I nfact , Petitioner s identify "remova l o f aluminum , steel , glass , an d dirt " a s example s o f separatio n possibilities . Petitio nat 3 . However , Petitioner s late r expan d thei r concep t o f separatio nt o encompas s us e o f refuse-derived fue l (RDF) , whic hthe y refe r t o a s a

nexampl e o f "mechanical "P.2 1

2 0 separation
. 25 / Petitioner s als o us e th e ter m"sourc e separation " i n apparen t referenc e t o curbsid e separatio n o f wast e b yhome

owners , bu t withou t specifying ho w th e wast e shoul d b e separated
. — ;
Becaus e o f th e uncertaint yan d confusio n i n thei r terminology , i t i s difficul t t o determin e precisel ywha t Petitioner s ar e alleging Ecologyfaile d t o conside r i n it s BAC T analysis
. 22 / Th e possib

ilitie s appea r limitless
. Unde r thes e circumstances , i t i s unreasonabl e t o expec t th e permi t issue r o r th e permi t applican t t o sor t through al l th e possibilitie s i n th e hop e o f identifying
som e feasibl e practic e tha t migh t satisf yPetitioners ' expecta

2- / Significantly , however , RD F facilitie s ar e usuall yas sociate d wit h a differen t combusto r design an d fee d mechanis m tha n th e design s employe d i n mass-bur n incinerator s suc h a s th e on e propose d fo r Spokane
. A s note d previously , EPAha s no t require d PS D applicant s t o redefin e th e fundamenta l scop e o f thei r projects
. Se e not e 7 , supra . Fo r example , a n applican t proposin g t o buil d a coal-fire d boile r ha s no t bee n ordere d t o buil d a gas-fire d turbin e although th e latte r i s inherentl yles s polluting
. 2 ^ Althoug h th e Clea n Ai r Ac t easil ycontemplate s objec t remova l b

v th e permitte e a s a potentia l contro l technolog y("fue l cleanin g an

d treatment") , i t i s no t a t al l clea r tha t th e permi t issue r ca n requir e curbsid e separatio n b v homeowner s a s a condi

1 tio n o f a PS D permit , an d tha t issu e i s no t decide d here
. Moreover , eve

nwher e th e requeste d conditio n i s phrase d a s a limitatio n o n th e kind s o f wast e t o b e accepte d b yth e permittee , i f th e requeste d limitation s ar e extensiv e th e proposa l migh t J j borde r o n a n imprope r reques t t o redefin e th e source , i.e. , t o

alte r th e fundamenta l scop e o f th e project
. Se e not e 25 , supra .
wI not e tha t Spokane , Ecology , an d EPARegio n X , i n thei r response s t o th e petition , cop e wit h th e imprecisio n b yglossin g ove r i t an

d providing , i n effect , thei r ow n definition s o f wha t the ythink Petitioner s meant
. N o suc h power s o f clairvoyanc y shoul d b e necessaryt o respon d appropriatel yt o a petition
.P.2 2

2 1 tions . I therefor e conclud e tha t th

e ill-define

d scope o f th

e petitio nalon e i s ground s fo

r it s dismissal . 25

/ Conclusio

n Petitioner s hav

e no t made a

nadequat e cas e fo

r reviewin

g the permi t o

nthe "fue l cleanin g an d separation " issue . A s dis cussed , the petitio nfail s t o demonstrat e tha t Ecolog y committe

d clea r erro r inno t requirin g th e permi t applican t t o develo p mor e informatio

no nthes e practices . I sa y thi s becaus e Petitioner s
ar e requestin

g Ecolog

y t o ventur e int o territor y tha t i s no t wel l charted , wher e the possibl e recyclin g an d separatio

nstrategie s tha t Spokane coul d adopt ar e virtuall y limitles s an

d the result s
ar e unknow

nan d no t presentl y

predictable . Therefore , i t i s no t enoug hfo r Petitioner s t o sa y tha t benefit s ca

nb e derived fro

m thes e practice s whenou r knowledge about the m inth e specifi c context o f ai r pollutan t emission s fro m municipa l wast e incinera tio ni s i nth e formativ

e stages . T o hav

e warranted in-depth

25 7 Se e als o not e 8 supra . The vaguenes s resultin g fro m lack o f definitio

ncanno t b

e dismisse

d a s harmles s error . For ex ample , EPA' s failur e t o define "recycling " i nClea nWate r Ac t regulation s tha t establishe d separat e requirement s fo r discharge s o f wastewate r fro

m crushe d ston e minin g operations , dependin g upo nwhethe r th

e operator recycle

d th e mine' s wastewaters , prompted a reviewin g cour t t o expres s doubt s about th e validity o f th e regulations :

The fac t tha t th

e regulation s d

o no t define recyclin g ma y wel l mak e the

m voi d fo

r vaguenes s unde r ou r decisio

ni n duPont . a t p . 1033 , wher e w e se t aside a

nEP A regulatio

n becaus e w

e wer e "not sure wha t i t mean s inth e context in whichi t i s used. " Nationa l Crushe

d Ston e Ass' nv . E.P.A. , 60 1 F.2d 111 , 12 0 (4t h Cir . 1979 ) (remandin g th e regulation s o

nothe r grounds) .P.2 3

2 2 consideratio n i n th e BAC T analysis , Petitioner s shoul d hav e establishe d a s a threshol d matte r tha t thes e practice s ar e "available " t o th e applicant , e.g. , tha t ther e ar e sufficien t dat a indicating (bu t no t necessaril yproving ) tha t thei r addi

tiona l contro l technologies , i n conjunctio n wit h th e conven tional , state-of-the-ar t control s considere d i n th e Spokan e BAC T analysis , wil l lea d t o a demonstrabl e reductio n i n emission s o f regulate d pollutant s o r wil l otherwis e represen t BACT
. 22 / The y hav e no t don e s o i n thi s instance
. Petitioner s hav e no t pointe d t o a singl e facilit yanywher e (or eve n a study ) tha t satisfie s thes e threshol d requirements
. Therefore , thi s aspec t o f th e petitio n i s dismissed
. I t i s clea r tha t mor e an d mor e communitie s wil l b e usin g recyclin g i n conjunctio n wit h incineratio n t o addres s thei r municipa l wast e problems
. A s mor e informatio n become s availabl e fromthes e communities , i t mayovercome th e deficiencie s i n th e petitio n presente d i n thi s case , an d i f so , i t maydetermin e th e potentia l o f recyclin g practice s fo r controllin g regulate d pollutan t emission s unde r th e PS D provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Act
. Th e Agenc yexpect s futur e permi t applicant s t o conside r thi s informatio n a s i t become s availabl e an d t o asses s it s potentia l fo r inclusio n i n thei r analyse s o f BACT
. Th e rat e a t whic h thi s informatio n become s availabl e i s als o likel yt o increas e rapidl yi n th e nea r future
. I n lat e Januar y1989 , EP A

— 7 Cf
. not e 9 , supra .P.2 4

2 3 established a ne

w Offic e o f Pollutio nPrevention , whichwil l include the stud

y an d developmen t o f environmentall y soun d recyclin

g practice s a s par t o f it s mission . 5 4 Fed . Reg . 384 5 (Januar y 26 , 1989) . I naddition , th e Agency' s Februar

y 198 9 Municipa l Wast e Tas k Forc e Repor t describe s th e man y recent effort s t o develo

p informatio

nan d t o effec t positiv e change s in the wa y we dea l wit hthe problem s o f increasin

g wast e generatio

n
an d decreasin

g wast e managemen t capacity . Currently , however , no t enoug

htechnica l dat a are availabl e t o determin e th e ai r quality benefit s o f requirin g fue l cleanin

g an d sourc e separatio

n i ncombinatio

nwit hstate-of-the-ar t ai r pollutio nequipment . A s a fina l matter , I a m als o dismissin

g a s moo t th

e petitio

n insofar a s i t concern s th e N0 Xemissio

nlimitatio

nan d therma l de-NO

xtechnology . I a

m doin g thi s no t becaus e th e petitio

n lack s meri t bu t becaus e Spokan e ha s agree

d t o instal l the re quisit e technolog

y an d t o hav

e th e permi t revise

d t o reflec t thi s change i

nth e facility . Accordingly , I a m remandin

g th e permi t t o Ecolog

y t o revis e th

e permi t alon

g thes e lines . Followin g reissuanc e o f the revise d permit , Petitioner s shal l b e giventh e opportunity , inaccordanc e wit h4 0 CF R§124.19 , t o appea l an y determinatio

nEcolog

y make s wit hrespec t t o th e revise

d N OP.2 5

2 4 limitation . An

y suc happea l shal l b

e strictl y

limite d t o th e scope o f the revision s inthe N0 Xlimitation . S o ordered . *2

/



### Dated : JU

N 9 1969 t^£v^~v— ' Willia m K . Rei l Administrato r

52 7 Al l pendin

g request s t o submi t further comment s or response s ar e denied .



# JP.2 6



### 2 5 CERTIFICAT E O

F SERVICE I hereb y certif y

tha t copie s o f th

e foregoin

g Orde r Denyin

g Review , PS D appea l No . 88-12 , wer e maile d t o the followin

g b y Firs t clas s mail , postag e prepaid . Lauri e Siller s Halvorso n Assistan t Attorne

y Genera l Ecolog y Divisio

n— M/ S PV-l l 7thFloo r Highway s License s Buildin g Olympia , W

A 98504-871 1 St u Clark Wash . Stat e Dep't . o f Ecolog y Mai l Stop PV-l l Olympia , W

A 98504-871 1

Davi d M . Brickli n JeanMische l Brickli n& Gendle r Fourt h& Pike Buildin g 142 4 FourthAvenue , Suit e 101 5 Seattle , W

A 9810 1 Gar y O'Nea l Ai r an d Toxic s Divisio

n U.S . EPA , Regio

nX 120 0 Sixt hAvenue Seattle , W

A 9810 1 Ja y Willenberg Wash . Stat e Dep't . o f Ecolog y Mai l Sto

p PV-l l Olympia , W

A 98504-871 1

Crai g Truebloo

d Preston , Thorgrimson , Elli s & Holma n Suit e 140 0 W . 60 1 Riverside Avenue Spokane , W

A 9920 1 Davi d Birk s Spokan e Regiona l Waste-to Energ y Projec t Wes t 80 8 Spokane Fall s Blvd . Spokane , W

A 9920 1

Debora hHilsma

n Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l U.S . EPA , Regio

nX 120 0 SixthAvenue Seattle , W

A 9810 1

Dated : JU

N - 9 198 9 

# >1& A ll&flfe^ Brend a H . Selden , Secretar y t o th e Chie f Judicia l Office r