# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 57 ) ll-K-1 4 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7 •£•1- 1

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 57 of 142P. 2 BEFORE TH E ADMINISTRATOR U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO NAGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C .

I n th e Matte r of : Unio n Count yResourc e Recovery Facilit y Permi t Applicatio n No . [pending ] 

## :,l2 5 'IV ' 

# M

... . •.• ! ~~s~jyrk.2. . , -, *\ PS D Appea lNo-.-'90-1 ' '•• ) -Jr-

. -• - ../* , J - 

# fr-10'3'1

ORDE RDENYIN

GREVIE W On Februar

y2 , 1990 , th e Rutger s Environmenta l LawClini c filed a join t petitio n o n behal f o f Concerne d Citizen s fo r th e Environment , a civi c associatio no f citizen s residing i n Unio n County , Ne wJersey ; An n Parke r an d Davi d Brown , member s o f th e civi c association ; and Nei l Seidman , Ph.D . Petitioner s see k reviewo f a permi t determinatio nmad e b yth e Ne wJersey Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n(DEP ) tha t authorize s th e Unio n Count yUtilitie s Authorit yt o construc t a resourc e recover y facilityi n Rahway , Ne wJersey , consisting o f thre e 48 0 ton-per daymunicipa l soli d wast e incinerator s an d associate d structure s an d equipment . vPetitioner s contes t DEP' s determinatio ntha t a semi-dr yscrubbe r an

d fabri c filte r represen t th e bes t availabl e

yDE P mad e it s determinatio n pursuan t t o a delegatio n o f authorit yfro

mth e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio n II , NewYork , Ne wYor k unde r 4 0 CF R§52.21(u) . Becaus e o f th e delegation , DEP' s authorit yt o issu e PS D permit s i s subjec t t o th e reviewprovision s o f th e applicabl e EPAregulations , 4 0 CFR §124.1 9 (1989) , an

d an ypermi t i t issue s wil l b e anEPA-issue d permi t fo r purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CFR§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 3 (Ma

y19 , 1980) .P. 3 2 contro l technology(BACT ) yfo r contro l o f mercuryemission s a t \ til e propose d facility . Th e revie wprovision s o f EPA' s regulation s authoriz e m e t o revie wPS D permi t determination s upo nreceip t o f a petition , if , among othe r things , certai n eligibilit yo r "standing " requirement s hav e bee n me t b yth e petitioner , 4 0 CFR§124.19(a) . Amon g the m

i s th e requiremen t tha t th e petitio n mus t contai na statemen t demonstrating "tha t an yissue s being raise d wer e raise d during th e publi c commen t perio d (includin g an ypubli c hearing ) t o th e exten t require d bythes e regulation s * * *. " Id . Th e latter , i n turn , requir e participant s i nth e permi t proceeding s t o "rais e al l reasonabl yascertainabl e issue s an d submi t al l reasonabl yavailabl e argument s supporting thei r positio nb yth e clos e o f th e publi c commen t perio d * * *. " 4 0 CFR§124.13 . Collectively , th e purpos e o f thes e regulation s i s t o ensur e tha t al l matter s ar e firs t raise d wit hth e permi t issuer . I nthi s manner , th e permi t issue r can mak e timel yan d appropriat e adjustment s t o th e permi t determination , or , i f n o adjustment s ar e made , th e permi t issue r caninclud e an explanatio no f wh y

2 7 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 CleanAi r Ac t a s a n "emissio n limitation " reflecting th e "maximu m degre e o f reduc

tion " o f "eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r th e Act, " whic hth e permitting authorit ydetermine s i s achievabl e afte r "taking int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs. " 4 2 USCA§7479(3) . Achievemen t o f anemissio n limitatio n mayb e secure d "throughapplicatio no f productio n processe s an

d availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , includ

in g fue l cleaning o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n technique s fo r contro l o f eac hsuc hpollutant. " Id .P. 4 3 non e ar e necessary . A s explaine d i nth e preambl e t o th e regulations , "[t]he late r stage s [o f th e permi t proceedings ] ar e appellat e i n natur e an d ne wissue s shoul d no t b e raise d o n appeal. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 1 (discussing §124.13) . An examinatio n o f petitioners ' appea l disclose s tha t i t doe s no t contai n th e requisit e statemen t o nstanding ; no r doe s i t purpor t t o establish , muc hles s claim , tha t th e issue s o nappea l wer e no t reasonabl yascertainabl e whe n th e permi t wa s pending befor e DEP . I n thi s latte r respect , DEP , i nit s respons e t o th e petitio n fo r review(submitted a t th e reques t o f EPA' s Chie f Judicia l Officer) , ^represent s tha t non e o f petitioners ' argument s wer e raise d whe n th e permi t wa s pending befor e DEP . ^ DE P Respons e a t 2 . Sinc e ther e i s nothing i npetitioners ' submission s t o th e contrary , I conclud e tha t th e petitio nfo r revie wi s procedurall ydefectiv e fo r failing t o demonstrat e complianc e wit hth e standing requirements . v

vDEP' s respons e i s date d Apri l 5 , 1990 , an d th e Chie f Judicia l Officer' s reques t i s date d February12 , 1990 . 1 7 On e commen t submitte d t o DE P during th e publi c commen t perio d erroneousl yasserte d tha t th e impac t o f some priorit ypollutant s suc ha s mercurywa s overlooked . Se e Hearing Officer' s Repor t fo r th e Applicatio n b

yUnio n Count yUtilitie s Authorit yt o Construc t an d Operat e a Soli d Wast e Resourc e RecoveryFacilit ya t 10 5 (Dec . 29 , 1989 ) (Commen t #69) . Thi s referenc e t o mercury , however , i s fa r remove d fro

m th e argumen t (se e discussio n i n text ) petitioner s ar e raising o n appeal . I nan yevent , a s discusse d above , th e regulation s plac e th e burde n on petitioner s t o demonstrat e i n thei r petitio ntha t th e issue s being raise d wer e raise d during th e publi c commen t period . Petitioner s hav e no t me t tha t burden . yPetitioner s submitte d a reply , date d May15 , 1990 , t o New Jersey' s respons e t o th e petitio n fo r review . Nothing i n (continued... )P. 5 4 Eve n i f petitioner s mee t th e requirement s fo r standing , they hav e no t persuade d m e tha t DEP' s permi t determinatio n require s review . Petitioner s argu e tha t th e permi t determinatio n i s defectiv e becaus e th e BAC T analysi s o n whic hi t i s base d di d no t conformt o EPA' s "top-down " policy . Tha t polic yrequire s th e applican t t o identif yth e mos t stringen t technologyfo r controllin g emission s o f particula r pollutant s suc ha s mercury . I f th e applican t doe s no t inten d t o us e tha t technology , i t mus t poin t t o appropriat e statutoryconsideration s fo r rejecting such technology , suc ha s overriding economic , environmental , o r energ y concerns . ySe e Petitio n a t 2-4 . 5 7 (.. . continued ) petitioners ' repl ychange s th e analysi s above , no r coul d i t retroactivel ycur e petitioners ' failur e t o demonstrat e tha t th e issu e i t wishe s t o rais e o n appea l wa s raise d i nth e recor d o f th e proceeding s pendin g befor e DEP . vFo r a discussio n o f th e top-dow n approac ht o BAC T analysis , se e generall yI n th e Matte r o f Spokan e Regiona l Waste-to-Energy , PS D Appea l No . 88-1 2 (Dec . o f th e Administrator , Jun e 9 , 1989) , quoting th e following excerp t fro m a guidanc e memorandu mb yEPA' s Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiation : Th e firs t step 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 an

d similarl yevaluated . Thi s proces s continue s unti l th e BAC T leve l unde r consideratio ncanno t b e eliminat

ed b yan 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 ywh yth e propose d sourc e i s unabl e t o appl yth e bes t technology available . I t als o differ s fro mothe r processe s i ntha t i t require s th e applican t t o analyz e a contro l technolog yonl 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 (continued... )P. 6 5 I n th e BAC T analysi s a t issu e here , th e applican t considere d thre e alternative s fo r controlling mercuryemissions : 1 ) a semi-dryscrubbe r followe d b ya fabri c filter ; (2 ) a semi-dr y scrubbe r followe d b ya n electrostati c precipitato r (ESP) ; an d (3 ) a n ES P followe d b

ya we t scrubber . Th e applican t cite d technica l dat a showing tha t th e remova l efficienc yo f a give n mercury remova l technolog

yi s relate d t o th e temperatur e o f th e flu e ga s i n th e device . Whe n th e flu e ga s temperatur e drop s belo wa certai n point , th e remova l efficienc yrise s dramatically , suggesting tha t ther e i s an optima l temperatur e rang e fo r mercury remova l technologies . Th e applican t the ncompare d th e efficiency o f th e thre e technologies , operating withi n thi s optima l temperatur e range , an d conclude d that , o f th e three , th e semi

dr yscrubbe r followe d b ya fabri c filte r wa s th e mos t effectiv e i n controlling mercuryemissions . Becaus e th e applican t propose d t o us e th e mos t stringen t technolog y(i.e. . a semi-dryscrubbe r followe d b

ya fabri c filter) , th e applican t conclude d tha t i t wa s "no t necessaryt o conside r othe r technolog yoption s unde r th e •top-down ' BAC T approach. " Se e Soli d Wast e Facilit yPermi t Applicatio n fo r th e Unio n Count yResourc e RecoveryProject , Top Dow n BAC T Analyses , Addendu m IV , Volum e 3 , pp . a9-al 2 (Decembe r 1988 ) .

v (.. .continued) level s o f contro l abov e th e baselin e case . Memorandu

mfro mCrai g Potter , Assistan t Administrator , t o Regiona l Administrator s (Region s I-X) , a t 4 (Dec . 1 , 1987) .P. 7

Petitioner s contend tha t a semi-dryscrubbe r followe d b ya fabri c filte r i s no t th e mos t effectiv e technolog yfo r controlling mercuryemissions . Petitioner s believ e tha t a technologyusing a we t scrubbe r (eithe r a we t scrubbe r followe d b ya fabri c filte r o r a n ES P followe d b ya we t scrubber ) i s mor e effectiv e becaus e a we t scrubbe r wil l typicall yhav e a lowe r flu e ga s temperatur e tha n a semi-dr yscrubber . Petitioner s argue , therefore , tha t unde r EPA' s top-dow npolic yth e applican t wa s require d eithe r t o selec t a technolog yusing a we t scrubbe r o r t o identif ylegitimat e statutoryreason s fo r rejecting suc h technology . Fo r th e following reasons , I conclud e tha t DE P wa s no t clearl yerroneou s i n concluding tha t th e technologyselecte d b yth e applican t i s th e mos t effective . Petitioners ' argumen t take s th e for mo f th e following syllogism . Mercuryremova l efficiencyincrease s a s flu e ga s temperatur e decreases . We t scrubber s typicall yhav e lowe r flu e ga s temperature s tha n semi-dr yscrubbers . Therefore , we t scrubber s ar e mor e effectiv e a t removing mercuryemissions . Th e problemwit hthi s argumen t i s it s majo r premise . Whil e bot h side s agre e tha t mercuryremova l efficienc yrise s dramaticall y whe n th e flu e ga s temperatur e drop s belo wa certai n point , i t doe s no t necessaril yfollowtha t remova l efficienc ycontinue s t o ris e a s th e temperatur e drop s eve nfurther . Th e graph correlating remova l efficiencyan d temperature , relie d o nb y petitioners , provide s an illustratio no f thi s point . Se e Petitioner' s Repl yBrief , Appendi xa t 21a . Th e graphsuggest sP. 8

tha t ther e i s an optima l temperatur e rang e an d tha t withi ntha t rang e a differenc e i n temperatur e doe s no t resul t i n an appreciabl e differenc e i n remova l efficiency. ' I n othe r words , whe n th e temperatur e fall s belo wa certai n point , remova l efficiencyrise s dramatically , bu t afte r tha t point , a s temperature s dro p eve n further , remova l efficienc yremain s abou t th e same . Thus , th e technica l dat a relie d o n b ypetitioner s doe s no t suppor t th e argumen t tha t we t scrubber s ar e mor e effectiv e than semi-dryscrubbers . Petitioner s als o cit e variou s technica l article s whic hstat e o r sugges t tha t we t scrubber s ar e mor e effectiv e tha nsemi-dry scrubbers . Thes e article s d o indicat e tha t scientist s familia r wit hthi s issu e hav e no t reache d a consensu s o nth e mos t effectiv e technolog yfo r removing mercuryemissions . The yd o no t show , however , tha t DE P wa s clearl yerroneou s i n concluding tha t th e applican t selecte d th e mos t effectiv e technology . Unde r th e top-dow n policy , i f a n applican t select s th e mos t effectiv e technology , i t i s no t require d t o justif yit s rejectio no f an y othe r les s effectiv e technologies . I t appears , therefore , tha t DEP' s BAC T determinatio n wa s consisten t wit hth e top-dow n approach . I n an yevent , th e purpos e o f th e top-dow n polic yi s t o ensur e tha t a give n BAC T determinatio ncomplie s wit hth e statutoryBAC T requirements . I t i s clea r fro mth e record tha t DEP' s BAC T determinatio n meet s thos e requirements . Sinc e th e inceptio n o f th e PS D program , EPAha s interprete d th e statutoryP. 9 8 BAC T definitio n a s containing tw o cor e criteria : consideratio n o f th e mos t stringen t contro l technologie s available , and a reasone d justificatio n o f an ydecisio n t o requir e les s tha nth e "maximu mdegre e o f reduction " i nemissions , afte r considering "energy , environmenta l an d economi c impact s and othe r costs. " Thi s definitio n and approac har e reflecte d i nth e Guideline s fo r Determining Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y(OAQPS , Dec . 1978) , pp . 5-6 . I n th e instan t case , DE P satisfie d thes e cor e criteri a whe n i t foun

d tha t th e permi t applicant' s propose d technology— a semi-dryscrubbe r followe d b ya fabri c filte r —wa s th e mos t stringen t contro l availabl e fo r mercury . I naddition , th e facilit ywil l b e implementing a sourc e separatio n programfo r mercur ybatteries . 1J Thus , unde r th e BAC T procedur e prescribe d

2 7 O n Novembe r 30 , 1989 , I approve d a proposa l unde r sectio n 111(b ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act , 4 2 USCA§7411(b) , t o issu e standard s o f performanc e that , contain , among othe r things , a material s separatio n requiremen t an d a progra

mt o remov e househol d batteries . I n broa d outline , th e proposa l wil l requir e municipa l wast e combustor s t o separat e fo r recovery(i.e. , fo r "recycling" ) 25 % o f th e municipa l soli d wast e b yweight . I f adopte d i n fina l form , th e proposa l wil l b e applicabl e t o ne w municipa l wast e combustor s tha t "commenc e construction " withi n th e meanin g o f 4 0 CF R§60. 2 following publicatio no f th e proposa l i n th e Federa l Register . Th e proposa l appear s a t 5 4 Fed . Reg . 5225 1 (Decembe r 20 , 1989) . O n Novembe r 30 , 1989 , I als o approve d propose d emissio n guide

line s an

d complianc e schedule s unde r sectio n 111(d ) o f th e Act , 4 2 USC A§7411(d) , fo r existing municipa l wast e combustors . Thes e guidelines , whic hwil l initiat e stat e actio n t o develop regulation s controlling emission s fro m existing facilities , contai n th e same sourc e separatio n provision s a s th e regulation s propose d unde r sectio n 111(b) , excep t tha t th e date s fo r complianc e ar e farthe r i n th e future . Th e existing sourc e guideline s ar e applicabl e t o facilitie s tha t hav e "commence d construction " prio r t o th e dat e o f Federa l Registe r publication . Th e propose d guideline s appea r a t 5 4 Fed . Reg . 5220 9 (Decembe r 20 , 1989) .P.1 0 9 i n th e statute , th e applican t wa s no t require d t o justif yit s rejectio n o f othe r technologies , sinc e th e technologyselecte d wa s th e mos t stringent . Fo r th e reason s stated , petitioner s lac k standing t o obtai n revie wo f DEP' s permi t determination . Furthermore , eve ni f they had me t th e standing requirement , theystil l di d no t mee t thei r burde n o f demonstrating tha t th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewed . ^

Accordingly , I a mdenying th e appeal . S o ordered .

Dated : NO

V28 I99 0 lXJU~Asv>~-^ Willia mK . Administrato r

2 7 Unde r th e rule s governing thi s proceeding , ther e i s n o appea l a s o f righ t fro

mth e permi t decision . Se e 4 0 CF R§124.19(a)(1 ) an d (2) . Th e preambl e t o th e regulatio nstates , "thi s powe r o f reviewshoul d b e onl ysparingl yexercised, " an d "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 n o f demonstrating tha t th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e on petitioners .P.1 1 CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r Denying Review , PS D Appea l No . 90-1 , wer e maile d t o th e following b y firs t clas s mail , postag e prepaid . Constantin e Sidamon-Eristof f Regiona l Administrato r U.S . EPA , Regio n I I 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne wYork , N

Y 1027 8 Margare t M . Hayde n Edwar d Lloy

d Rutger s Environmenta l Law Clini c Universit yHeight s 1 5 Washingto nStree t Newark , N

J 07102-319 2 Michae l S . Car o Deput yAttorne yGenera l Ne wJerseyDepartmen t o f Lawan d Safet y Richar d J : Hughe s Justic e Comple x—C N11 2 Trenton , N

J 0862 5 Dr . Icia l Atay , Actin g Chie f Burea u o f Engineering & Regulatory Developmen t Divisio n o f Environmenta l Qualit y Ne wJerse yDep't . o f Environmenta l Protectio n 40 1 Eas t Stat e Street , CN-02 7 Trenton , N

J 0862 5

Dated : 

# i i1-3*796Tra&

V \X°^^g ^ Brenda H . Selden , Secretary t o th e Chie f Judicia l Office r