# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 50 ) ll-K-7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet SO of 142 P. 1*•*••- * P. 2

BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATOR U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO NAGENCY WASHINGTON , D.C .

I nth e Matte r o f Hibbin g Taconit e Company , Petitione r 

# A.10'51

PSD APPEA

L NO . 87-3", ' 

# m^

ORDE RO NPETITIONFO

RREVIE W I na petitio ndate d Jul y30 , 1987 , U.S . EPARegio nV seek s revie wo f a Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) permi t determinatio ntha t authorize s th e Hibbing Taconit e Compan y (Hibbing ) t o modif yit s furnace s t o bur npetroleu mcok e a s a fuel . Afina l decisio nt o issu e th e permi t wa s mad e o nJul y2 , 1987 , b yth e Minnesot a Pollutio nContro l Agenc y(MPCA ) , " pursuan t t o a delegatio no f authorit yfromRegio nV . -' MPCA' s actio ni n issuing th e permi t i s subjec t t o th e revie wprovision s o f 4 0 CFR §124.1 9 becaus e th e permi t i s deeme d t o b e anEPA-issue d permi t unde r EP Arules . 4 0 CF R§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 3 (Ma y19 , 1980) . I nit s petitio n fo r review , Regio nV raise s seve nissues : (1 ) whethe r Hibbing' s analysi s o f Bes t Availabl e Contro l Tech

nology(BACT ) fo r sulfu r dioxid e (S0 2 ) i s erroneous ; (2 ) whethe r in:--—' - -_r*».^. v



### 1 / Th e PS D programwa s delegate d t o th e Stat e o f Minnesot a o n Octobe r 15 , 1980 , unde r th e authorit yo f 4 0 CF R§52.21(u) . * Se e Lette r fromJohnMcGuire , Regiona l Administrator , EPARegio nV , t o TerryHoffman , Executiv e Director , MPCA(Octobe r 15 , 1980) .P. 3

* '* '

Hibbin g faile d t o perfor ma collatera l impact s analysi s o n unregulate d pollutant s a s require d b yNort hCount yResourc e Recover yAssociates . PS D Appea l No . 85- 2 (June 3 , 1986) ; (3 ) whethe r th e permi t violate s sectio n16 5 o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (CA A o r Act ) b

yallowin g Hibbin g t o modif yit s facilit yand operat e fo r nin e month s withou t a prescribe d emissio nlimi t fo r SO- ; (4 ) whethe r th e permi t limi t o f 0.02 4 grain s pe r drystandar d cubi c foo t (gr/dscf ) represent s BAC T fo r particulat e matte r (PM) ; (5 ) whethe r Hibbin g improperl yexclude d it s propert yfromth e ambien t ai r qualit ymodeling ; (6 ) whethe r analysi s o f alternativ e contro l technologie s i s require d fo r carbo nmonoxid e (CO ) emission s an d whethe r th e permi t mus t contai noperating requirement s fo r combustio no f CO ; an d (7 ) whethe r Hibbing improperl yrelie d o n existin g dat a fromdistan t monitor s t o mee t th e preconstructio n monitorin g requirement s unde r 4 0 CFR§52.21(m)(1) . y Fo r th e reason s se t fort hbelo wand pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R §124.19 , revie wo f issue s (2) , (6) , an d (7 ) i s denied . Issue s (1) , (3) , (4) , and (5 ) ar e remande d t o MPCAt o conduc t additiona l BAC T analyse s and t o determin e th e portio no f th e Hibbin g pro -

- l Bot hHibbin g and MPC Ahav e file d response s t o th e Region' s Petitio nfo r Review . Se e Comment s o f Hibbing Taconit e Compan yo n th e EP ARegio nV

Petitio nfo r Revie wo f Minnesot a Permi t No . 541

- 87-OT- l (PSD Appea l No . 87-3)(Decembe r 30,1987) ; Minnesot a Pollutio n Contro l Agency , Divisio no f Ai r Quality , Respons e t o U.S . EP ARegio nV s Petitio nfo r Revie wo f Permi t No . 541-87-OT- l Issue d t o Hibbin g Taconit e Co . (Septembe r 28 , 1987) . Hibbing' s attorne ysen t a lette r date d January5 , 1988 , concernin g a curtailmen t o f natura l ga s t o th e Hibbing plant . Fo r purpose s o f decidin g th e issue s o nappeal , ther e i s n o nee d t o conside r th e matter s raise d i ntha t letter .P. 4

3 pert y(i f any ) tha t shoul d b e exclude d fro mth e ambien t ai r determination , consisten t wit hthi s opinion . Background Hibbing* s plan t crushe s taconit e ore , concentrate s th e iron i nth e resulting powder , an d form s i t int o pellet s fo r shipmen t t o a primarystee l plant . Th e taconit e plan t equipmen t include s or e crushers , concentrating proces s lines , an d pelletizing furnaces . Th e plan t currentl yuse s ventur i ro d scrubber s a s a pollutio ncontro l technology . Unti l recentl yth e furnace s burne d onl ynatura l ga s an d fue l oil . No wHibbing plan s t o switc ht o petroleu

mcok e a s a fuel , thu s requiring a physica l modificatio n o f th e plant . Th e modificatio nwil l brin g Hibbing unde r th e purvie wo f th e CAA' s PS D requirement s fo r th e firs t time . ^ Hibbin g ha s submitte d a PS D applicabilit yanalysi a tha t show s th e propose d modificatio ni s subjec t t o PS D requirement s fo r emission s o f S0 2 , CO , an d PM . ^

- ; Th e Hibbing facilit ywa s constructe d betwee n197 3 an d 1977 . Th e PS D requirement s o f th e CA Aappl yonl yt o facilitie s o n whic h constructio nwa s commence d afte r Augus t 7 , 1977 . 4 2 U.S.C . §7475 .

- 1 Befor e a nexistin g majo r emitting facilit ylocate d i na nare a tha t i s meetin g th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s (NAAQS ) ca nundertak e a majo r modification , i.e. , on e whic hwoul d resul t i n a significan t ne t emission s increas e o f a regulate d pollutant , th e owne r mus t obtai na PS D permit . 4 0 CF R §52.21(b)(2)(i) . Hibbin g i s locate d i na nare a designate d a s bein g i nattainmen t o f th e NAAQ S fo r S0 2 , CO , an d TS P —al l regulate d pollutants . 4 0 CF R§81.324 . Hibbing' s analysi s show s tha t ther e woul d b e a significan t ne t emission s increas e fo r eac h o f thes e pollutants .P. 5

4 Discussio n Administrativ e revie wo f PS D permi t decision s i s no t usuall y grante d unles s th e permi t decisio ni s clearl yerroneou s o r involve s a nexercis e o f discretio no r polic ytha t i s importan t and therefor e shoul d b e reviewe d b yth e Administrato r a s a discretionar ymatter . 4 0 CF R§124.19 . "Thi s powe r o f revie w shoul d b e onl ysparingl yexercise d * * *. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma y19 , 1980) . Th e regulation s envisio ntha t dispute d permi t condition s wil l b e resolve d fo r th e mos t par t a t th e regiona l level . Id, . Th e burde no f demonstratin g tha t revie wshoul d b e grante d i s therefor e o nth e petitioner . Issu e m : BAC T fo r SO : Th e CA Amake s permi t issuanc e contingen t o na showin g tha t th e propose d facilit ywil l emplo yth e Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology(BACT ) fo r eac hregulate d pollutan t emitte d fromi t i n significan t amounts . 4 2 U.S.C . §7475 . Sectio n169(3 ) o f th e CA A define s BAC T a s a n"emissio nlimitation " reflecting th e "maximu m degre e o f reduction " tha t i s "achievable " o na "case-by-cas e basis , takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s and othe r costs. " 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) . Thi s case-by-cas e approac hprovide s a mechanis mfo r determining an d applyin g th e appropriat e technologyi neac hsituation . Th e Regio n argue s tha t th e BAC T analysi s fo r S0 2 i s erron eou s becaus e Hibbin g faile d t o us e th e burnin g o f natura l ga s a sP. 6

5 it s "base " case ; ^ i t di d no t facto r i nth e cos t saving s fro m th e fue l switch ; i t di d no t justif yrejecting th e burnin g o f natura l ga s a s a viabl e contro l strategy ; an d i t di d no t presen t a nengineerin g analysi s demonstrating ho wth e propose d 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUlimitatio nfo r S0 2 emission s woul d b e achieve d o r explainin g wh

ythi s limitatio nrepresent s BACT . ^Accordin g t o th e Region , th e firs t tw o argument s presen t th e following ques tion : "Whe neconomi c problem s fac e a facility , t o wha t degre e mus t tha t facilit yus e cos t saving s t o minimiz e environmenta l degradatio ni f th e facilit yswitche s t o a mor e polluting fue l tha t reduce s operating costs? " ^ Becaus e PS D guidanc e fo r BAC T doe s no t directl yaddres s thi s issue , th e Regio nassert s tha t i t i s appropriat e fo r revie wb yth e Administrator . Neithe r th e PS D regulation s no r th e PS D guidanc e differ

entiat e betwee nBAC T analyse s fo r plan t modification s and BAC T analyse s fo r th e constructio no f ne wplants . Nevertheless , th e Regio ncontend s that , becaus e Hibbing ha s bee nabl e t o continu e

5 7 Us e o f th e bas e cas e i nperforming a BAC T analysi s i s des

cribe d i nth e EPAPreventio no f Significan t Deterioratio nWork

shop Manua l a t I-B- 7 (Octobe r 1980) . Fo r a definitio no f th e bas e case , se e tex t infr a a t 6-7 . Cf . not e 1 0 infra . ^Th e Regio nals o argue s tha t Hibbing failed t o conside r othe r technologie s commonl yuse d t o contro l S0 2 ga s streams . Although thi s argumen t mayhav e bee ntru e wit hregard t o th e origina l BAC T analysis , Hibbin g remedie d thi s deficienc ywit hit s supplementa l BAC T analysi s and it s 9/24/8 7 BAC T suppor t study , conducte d b y Blac k and Veatch . Se e Lette r fro mCharle s B . Hoffma nt o Davi d Beil , MPCAStaf f Enginee r (June 17 , 1987) ; MPCARespons e a t 9-1 1 an d Attachmen t l . -' Se e Respons e o f U.S . EPA , Regio nV , t o Comment s o f Hibbin g Taconit e Compan

ya t 4 (March14 , 1988) .P. 7

6 t o operat e burnin g natura l gas , i t mus t us e natura l ga s a s th e bas e case . I disagree . Hibbing' s us e o f th e cok e burnin g plan t wit hexistin g pollutio ncontrol s a s th e bas e cas e clearl ycom plie d wit hth e criteri a fo r choosin g a bas e cas e i nEPA' s guid

anc e document . EPA' s Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n Worksho p Manua l (Octobe r 1980 ) define s th e bas e cas e as : [T]h e contro l strategythat , i nth e absenc e o f BAC T decisionmaking , woul d normall yhav e bee napplied . Th e choic e o f th e bas e cas e mayb e dictate d b yothe r existin g regulation s and/o r bycompan ypractic e stand

ard s o r choices , i f the yprovid e a greate r degre e o f emissio nreductio ntha ntha t require d b yexisting regu lation s (suc ha s ne wsourc e performanc e standards , nationa l emissio n standard s fo r hazardou s ai r pol

lutant s , etc.) . v Id . a t p . I-B-7 . Th e bas e cas e chose nher e meet s th e require

ment s o f Minnesota' s stat e permittin g regulations , ^ and thu s i s consisten t wit hthi s definition . Moreover , Hibbing' s choic e o f th e bas e cas e i s consisten t wit hth e practice s o f othe r taconit e plant s i nMinnesota . ^ Nothin g i nth e definitio nrequire s th e

^Minnesot a taconit e plant s operat e unde r permit s specifyin g th e SO , emissio nlimit s base d o nMinnesot a Rule s par t 7005.2770 . Thes e limit s ar e 2. 0 lbs/MMBTUwhe nburnin g a liqui d fue l an d 4. C lbs/MMBTUwhe nburnin g a soli d fuel . Se e MPC ARespons e a t 7 . Th e limi t i nth e bas e cas e chose nb yHibbing i s 4. 0 lbs/MMBTU whe nburnin g petroleum coke . Bu t se e not e 1 5 infra . -' O f th e thre e taconit e plant s i nMinnesot a tha t ar e equippe d and permitte d t o bur na combinatio no f soli d fuel , fue l oi l an d natura l ga s i nth e pelle t productio nprocess , tw o plant s produc e a substantia l portio no f thei r productio nusin g a soli d fuel . Se e MPC ARespons e a t 6 . Hibbin g i s th e firs t taconit e plan t i n th e Unite d State s t o becom e subjec t t o PS D revie weithe r fo r origina l constructio no r fo r modification . Id . a t 7 .P. 8

7 bas e cas e t o b e th e unmodifie d plant . ^Th e Regio nha s no t show nan ycompellin g reaso nwh ya permi t applican t seekin g t o modif ya nexisting plan t shoul d b e subjec t t o a differen t se t o f criteri a fo r choosin g a bas e cas e tha na newpermi t applicant . Furthermore , I disagre e wit hth e Region' s argumen t tha t Hibbin g faile d t o tak e int o accoun t th e cos t saving s froa th e fue l switch . An importan t purpos e o f an yBAC T analysi s i s t o provid e a compariso no f th e cost s associate d wit heac halter

nativ e contro l technology . Thi s compariso nnecessaril ytake s int o accoun t th e cost-saving s associate d wit hles s expensive contro l technologies , a s wel l a s th e increase d cost s associate d wit hth e mor e expensiv e alternatives . Onc e a prope r bas e cas e i s chose nand alternative s ar e compared , n o additiona l cos t saving s analysi s i s necessary . Th e Regio nha s no t me t it s burdeno f showing tha t th e BAC T analysi s wa s clearl yerroneou s o r otherwis e warrant s revie wwit hrespec t t o th e firs t tw o issues . TKus , revie wi s denie d o nthi s aspec t o f th e S0 2 BAC T issue . Th e Region' s thir d argumen t i s tha t Hibbing faile d t o just

ifyit s rejectio no f burning natura l ga s a s a viabl e contro l

— ; Recognizin g th e nee d fo r a mor e consisten t BAC T process , EPA recentl ybega ndevelopin g specifi c guideline s o nth e us e o f th e "top-down " approach , whic hrequire s anapplican t t o justifywh y i t canno t us e th e mos t effectiv e pollutan t contro l available . Se e Memorandu

m fromJ . Crai g Potter , Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r and Radiation , t o EPARegiona l Administrator ' s (Decembe r 1 , 1987 ) . Th e top-downapproach , however , wa s no t applicabl e her e becaus e th e permi t determinatio nwa s mad e prio r t o th e issuanc e o f thi s memorandum . Se e I nth e Matte r o f Pennsauke nCounty , Ne w Jers_ yResourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 a t 6- 7 (Novembe r 10 , 1988) .P. 9

8 strategy . I agree . Hibbin g contend s tha t althoughnatura l ga s wa s onc e a financiall yviabl e alternative , du e t o th e depresse d economi c situatio n i n th e stee l industry , natura l ga s i s no wto o costly . Nevertheless , Hibbin g ha s bee nabl e t o continu e t o operat e usin g natura l gas . I nm yview , Hibbing' s abilit yt o continu e t o operat e usin g natura l ga s create s a presumptio ntha t natura l ga s i s a financiall yachievabl e alternative . O f cours e thi s presumptio n ca nb e rebutted , bu t t o d o so , Hibbin g mus t provid e a detaile d consideratio no f objectiv e economi c data . Mer e generalization s abou t th e economi c woe s o f th e stee l in

dustr yar e no t enough . Hibbing' s BAC T analysi s doe s no t contai n th e leve l o f detai l and analysi s necessaryt o overcom e th e pre sumptio ntha t th e natura l ga s alternativ e i s economicall yachiev

able . Th e BAC T analysi s show s th e cos t o f burnin g natura l ga s i s $1310/to no f SO

- removed , however , ther e i s n o seriou s discussio n o f cos t effectiveness . Greate r effort s mus t b e mad e byth e applican t t o sho wtha t th e natura l ga s alternativ e i s no t econom icall yfeasible . Thi s migh t b e done , fo r example , bycomparin g th e cost s o f burnin g natura l ga s wit hth e cost s associate d wit h S0 2 control s use d i nothe r simila r type s o f facilitie s tha t hav e gon e throug hPS D review . ^Thus , o n remand , MPCAmus t ensur e tha t th e BAC T analysi s contain s a mor e detaile d economi c just

ificatio nfo r rejectin g th e natura l ga s alternative .

^ I nit s petition , th e Regio nstate s tha t a contro l cos t o f $130 0 pe r to n i s withi n th e cos t rang e foun d fo r BAC T deter

minations , and therefore , i s reasonable .P.1 0

9 Althoughth e partie s hav e no t raise d it , on e argumen t tha t coul d b e mad e i s tha t th e Region , b yrequiring th e burning o f natura l ga s t o b e a nalternativ e t o b e considere d i nth e BAC T analysis , i s seeking t o "redefin e th e source. " Traditionally , EPAha s no t require d a PS D applican t t o redefin e th e fundamenta l scop e o f it s project . ^ However , thi s argumen t ha s no t bee n made , and i nan

yevent , th e argumen t ha s n o meri t i n thi s case . EP Aregulation s defin e majo r stationarysource s b ythei r produc t o r purpos e (e.g. , "stee l mill, " "municipa l incinerator, " "taconit e or e processin g plant, " etc.) , no t b yfue l choice . ^S Here , Hibbing wil l continu e t o manufactur e th e same produc t (i.e. , taconit e pellets ) regardles s o f whethe r i t burn s natura l ga s o r petroleu

m coke . Likewise , th e PS D guideline s stat e tha t i nchoosing alternative s t o b e considere d i na BAC T analysis , th e

— ' Se e I n th e Matte r o f Pennsauke nCounty , Ne wJerse yResourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 a t 1 1 (Novembe r 10 , 1988)(BAC T permi t condition s "ar e no t intende d t o redefin e th e source") . Severa l importan t distinctions , however , ca nb e draw n betwee nPennsauke n an d th e fact s here . I nPennsauken . th e petitione r wa s urgin g EPAt o rejec t th e propose d sourc e ( a municipa l wast e combustor ) i nfavo r o f using existing powe r plant s t o co-fir e a mixtur e o f 20 % refus e derive d fue l and 80 % coal . I nothe r words , th e petitione r wa s seeking t o substitut e powe r plant s (having a s a fundamenta l purpos e th e generatio n o f electricity ) fo r a municipa l wast e combusto r (havin g a s a fundamenta l purpos e th e disposa l o f municipa l waste) . Moreover , th e petitione r wa s no t merel yseeking t o "condition " th e permit ; instead , i t wa s urgin g EPA , i neffect , t o den yth e permi t fo r constructio n o f th e propose d sourc e i nfavo r o f using existing powe r plants . Th e Hibbing situation , however , i s quit e distinct . Here , th e petitione r (th e Region ) i s merel yurging th e continue d burnin g o f natura l ga s a t th e same sourc e —analternativ e tha t wil l no t requir e an yfundamenta l chang e t o Hibbing' s product , purpose , o r equipment . 

### 11 / Se e 4 0 CFR52.21(b)(1) .P.1 1

1 0 applican t mus t loo k t o wha t type s o f pollutio ncontrol s othe r facilitie s i n th e industryar e using . Th e recor d her e indicate s tha t ther e ar e othe r taconit e plant s tha t bur nnatura l gas , o r a combinatio no f natura l ga s an d othe r fuels . Thus , i t i s reason abl e fo r Hibbin g t o conside r natura l ga s a s a nalternativ e i nit s BAC T analysis . Moreover , becaus e Hibbing i s alread yequippe d t o bur nnatura l gas , thi s alternativ e woul d no t requir e a funda

menta l chang e t o th e facility . Th e Region' s las t argumen t wit hrespec t t o th e BAC T analysi s fo r SO

- i s tha t Hibbin g faile d t o presen t a nengineerin g analysi s demonstratin g ho wth e 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUlimitatio nfo r SO

- emission s woul d b e achieve d o r explaining wh ythi s leve l represent s BACT . I agree . Althoug hBAC T i s define d a s a n"emissio nlimitation, " i t i s also , a s it s nam e implies , keye d t o a specifi c contro l technology . I n a previou s PS D permi t decisio ninvolvin g th e issu e o f whethe r EP Aha s th e authorit yt o prescrib e technologica l proces s and productio nrequirements , th e Administrato r stated :

PS D permit s an

d BAC T determination s ar e tailor

mad e fo r eac hpollutan t emitting facility . Conse

quently , th e "case-by-case " evaluatio no f economi c cost s and energyan d environmenta l impact s tha t ha s t o b e performe d a s par t o f a BAC T determinatio ni s inex

tricabl ytie d t o a specifi c se t o f assumption s regard

ing th e typ e o f pollutio ncontro l technologytha t wil l b e i nplac e a t eac hfacility . An ychang e i nth e con tro l technologywoul d requir e a reevaluatio no f thos e impact s and costs , which , i nturn , migh t necessitat e a chang e i nth e emissio nleve l (lowe r o r highe r tha n th e previou s one) . Therefore , unles s th e typ e o f contro l technologytha t wil l b e use d t o achiev e a particula r emissio nlimitatio ni s identifie d an d adhere d t o b

yth e Applicant , th e BAC T determinatio ni s meaningless . Ac cordingly , a nemissio nlimitatio ni na PS D permi t canno t b e establishe d withou t als o relating i t t o th eP.1 2

1 1 specifi c typ e o f contro l technologytha t wil l b e use d t o achiev e th e limitation . & Moreover , EPAregulation s requir e PS D permi t applicant s t o submi t

" a detaile d descriptio na s t o wha t systemo f continuou s emissio n reductio ni s planne d . . . , emissio nestimates , an d an yothe r informatio nnecessaryt o determin e tha t bes t availabl e contro l technologywoul d b e applied. " 4 0 CFR§52.21(n)(1)(iii)(emphasi s added) . Here , th e recor d befor e m e fail s t o clearl yidentif yth e contro l technologytha t represent s BAC T an d t o explai nho wMPCA arrive d a t th e 1. 2 lbs/MMBTU^figur e o r whethe r Hibbing wil l b e

& '• I n th e Matte r o f CertainTee d Corp. , PS D Appea l No . 81- 2 a t 5

- 6 (Decembe r 21 , 1982)(footnot e omitted) .

a > ^Th e entir e proces s b ywhic hth e emissio nlimitatio no f 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUwa s chose ni s confusing . I nit s initia l BAC T analysis , Hibbin g propose d burnin g petroleu mcok e a s BACT , usin g it s existing contro l technology(ventur i ro d scrubbers) . Se e Lette r fromCharle s B . Hoffman,t o Davi d Beil , MPCAStaf f Enginee r (Ma y 20 , 1987) . I n a technica l documen t base d o nHibbing' s BAC T analysis , MPCAconcurre d wit hHibbing . Se e Reques t fo r Author

izatio nt o Issu e Ai r Emissio n Facilit yPermi t No . 541-87-OT- l fo r a Taconit e Or e Processing Plan t and Ai r Pollutio nContro l Equip

men t t o Hibbin g Taconit e Company , MPCA , Divisio no f Ai r Quality , RegulatoryComplianc e Sectio na t 4- 5 (June 23 , 1987) . However , MPCAdi d no t specif ya nemissio nlimitatio nfo r S0 2 i ntha t document . I nth e draf t permi t subjec t t o publi c notice , MPCAse t th e BAC T emissio n limi t fo r S0 2 a t 2. 0 lbs/MMBTU . Subsequently , i nrespons e t o EP Acomment s o nth e permit , MPCAissue d th e permi t wit ha n emissio n limitatio no f 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUfo r SO- . I nit s brief , MPC Asummaril ystate d tha t th e 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUlimi t "i s economicall yjustified. " Th e Blac k & Veatc hsuppor t study , whic h wa s complete d afte r MPCAissued th e permi t wit hth e 1. 2 limit , als o found th e existing technolog yan d petroleu

mcok e t o b e BACT . Base d o nthi s stud yMPCAdetermine d tha t 1. 8 lbs/MMBTUwa s BACT . Th e Blac k & Veatc hstud yindicate s tha t th e onl ycontro l tech

nologytha t woul d lowe r emission s t o 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUi s th e ad

ditio no f a we t limeston e scrubber . However , MPCAneve r deter

mine d tha t we t limeston e scrubber s represen t BACT .P.1 3

1 2 abl e t o mee t th e limi t usin g th e existing contro l technology . ^ MPCA' s failur e t o requir e Hibbin g t o provid e a detaile d descrip

tio no f th e contro l technologytha t represent s BACT , including dat a quantifyin g it s remova l efficiency , i s clea r lega l error . Accordingly , o n remand , MPCAmus t ensur e tha t th e recor d iden

tifie s th e contro l technologytha t represent s BAC T and MPC Amus t propos e a n emissio nlimi t base d o nth e BAC T analysis . I f MPCA determine s tha t 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUi s BACT , th e recor d mus t specif y th e contro l technologyupo nwhic hth e limitatio ni s base d and sho wtha t suc htechnologywil l enabl e Hibbin g t o mee t th e 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUlimit . Issu e (2) : Unregulate d Pollutant s Regio nV

argue s tha t MPCA' s permi t revie wi s deficien t becaus e ther e wa s n o consideratio no f unregulate d pollutant s a s require d byNort hCount yResourc e RecoveryAssociates , PS D Appea l No . 85- 2 (June 3 , 1986) . I nresponse , MPCAincorrectl yargue s tha t Nort hCount yonl yapplie s t o PS D permi t proceeding s fo r municipa l wast e combustors . Nort hCount yinterpret s a nexpres s statutor yrequiremen t applicabl e t o al l PS D permits , and thu s require s th e permittin g authorit yt o tak e int o accoun t th e con tro l technology' s impac t o nunregulate d pollutant s i nevery permi t proceeding . However , MPC Aals o respond s tha t i t di d requir e Hibbin g t o analyz e petroleu m cok e fo r unregulate d trac e

^Hibbin g contend s tha t i t "canno t mee t th e 1. 2 lb . limi t i n an yfinanciall yviabl e way. " Se e Hibbing' s Comment s (Decembe r 30 , 1987) .P.1 4

1 3 element s o f concern . ^I nit s response , Regio nV di d no t dis

put e th e adequac yo f th e trac e elemen t analysis . Thus , th e Regio nha s no t me t it s burde no f showing tha t Hibbing' s analysi s o f unregulate d pollutant s i s clearl yerroneou s o r otherwis e warrant s review . Issu e (3) : CAA' s requiremen t fo r prescribe d emissio nlimit s Regio nV

argue s tha t MPCAerre d i nissuing a PS D permi t tha t doe s no t prescrib e a n emissio nlimitatio nfo r SO

- fo r th e firs t nin e month s o f operatio nunde r th e permit . Th e permi t mus t se t fort hemissio nlimitation s fo r eac hregulate d pollutan t tha t th e facilit ywil l emi t i n significan t amounts . Sectio n165(a)(1) , 4 2 U.S.C . §7475(a)(l) . AlthoughHibbing' s permi t establishe s a 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUemissio nlimitatio nfo r S0 2 , Par t V.D . o f th e permi t allow s Hibbin g t o operat e it s facilit yfo r nin e month s afte r modificatio nwhil e i t design s a pla nt o achiev e an d compl ywit h thi s limit . I f afte r nin e month s Hibbing canno t achiev e th e 1. 2 lbs/MMBTUlimit , i t mus t submi t a napplicatio nfo r a revise d emissio nlimit . A s a result , th e permi t ha s n o emissio nlimi t prescribe d fo r S0 2 fo r a t leas t th e firs t nin e months . Las t yea r i n anothe r PS D permi t decisio n(involving th e threshol d questio no f whethe r th e Administrato r shoul d revie wth e permit) , th e Administrato r stated : [T]he permi t contain s a provisio nallowing a reopening o f th e BAC T determinatio nafte r constructio n o f th e

^Hibbin g analyze d a larg e numbe r o f trac e element s i nit s Applicabilit yAnalysis . Se e MPC ARespons e a t 18-1 9 and Attach

men t 6 (Septembe r 28 , 1987) .P.1 5

1 4 facilit yha s commenced . Thi s provisio nappear s t o contraven e §165(a)(1 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA) , whic h forbid s constructio no f a facilit ybefor e th e emissio n limitation s i n th e permi t hav e bee nestablished . (CA A §169(3 ) define s BAC T a s a n "emissio nlimitation." ) & Similarly , i n th e instan t case , Par t V.D . o f th e permi t con travene s sectio n165(a)(1 ) o f th e CAA . Thus , Regio nV ha s mad e a showin g o f clea r erro r and , o n remand , MPCAmus t ensur e tha t th e permi t contain s a n emissio nlimitatio nfo r S0 2 , base d o n BACT , fo r th e entir e lif e o f th e permit . Issu e (41 : BAC T fo r (PM , Regio nV

contend s tha t MPC Aerre d i n setting 0.02 4 gr/dsc f a s BAC T fo r P Mbecaus e th e technica l documen t supportin g th e permi t state s tha t th e existing scrubber s use d byHibbin g "hav e consistentl yshowna n outle t dus t loading o f 0.0 1 gr/dsc f whe n teste d byEP AMethod s 1-5. " ^ Nowher e i n thi s documen t i s th e 0.02 4 gr/dsc f limi t mentioned . MPCA' s respons e t o th e Regio ni s tha t manyBAC T and .Lowes t Achievabl e Emissio nRat e (LAER ) determination s hav e bee nmad e i n th e rang e o f 0.0 2 t o 0.0 5 gr/dscf . Sinc e 0.02 4 i s a t th e lo wen d o f thi s range , MPC Aconsidere d i t acceptable . MPCA' s argumen t i s unresponsiv e t o th e informatio ncontaine d i n th e technica l doc

-

^I n th e Matte r o f Virgini a Powe r (Chesterfiel d Generatin g Station) , PS D Appea l No . 88- 2 a t 2- 3 (Februar y1 , 1988)(footnot e omitted) .

— f Se e Reques t fo r Authorizatio nt o Issu e Ai r Emissio nFacilit y Permi t No . 541-87-OT- l fo r a Taconit e Or e Processing Plan t an d Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Equipmen t t o Hibbing Taconit e Company , Minnesot a Pollutio n Contro l Agency , Divisio no f Ai r Quality , RegulatoryComplianc e Sectio na t 5 (June 23 , 1987) .P.1 6

1 5 umen t an

d i t ignore s th e site-specifi c natur e o f BAC T determin

ations . Th e argumen t tha t man yBAC T an

d LAE Rdetermination s hav e bee nmad e i nth e rang e o f 0.0 2 t o 0.0 5 gr/dsc f shoul d not , b y itself , b e use d t o justif ya les s stringen t PMlimi t tha ni s otherwis e achievable , taking int o accoun t th e necessaryenergy , economic , an

d environmenta l impacts . ^ Therefore , o nremand , MPCAmus t provid e a detaile d justificatio nfo r no t adopting th e 0.0 1 gr/dsc f limitatio n i f anothe r les s stringen t limitatio ni s chosen . Issu e 4 : Ambien t Ai r Th e Regio nargue s tha t Hibbin g improperl yexclude d approx imatel y14,00 0 acre s o f it s propert yfro mambien t ai r qualit y monitoring . A

nEP Ascreening analysi s conducte d wit hreceptor s locate d insid e th e exclude d are a indicate s tha t th e PMan d S0 2 PS D increment s and th e S0 2 NAAQ S wil l b e exceeded . ^ T o obtai n

— ; A s MPCApointe d ou t i nit s response , EPAguideline s o nBAC T stat e tha t th e analysi s o f alternativ e strategie s i s no t require d i na BAC T analysi s i f th e applican t demonstrate s tha t th e chose n bas e cas e provide s th e highes t degre e o f emissio nreductio n available . Thus , MPCAmayus e th e 0.0 1 gr/dsc f limi t i nth e permi t withou t considering alternative s i f i t ca nshow , a s i t represente d i nit s technica l document , tha t 0.0 1 gr/dsc f repre sent s th e highes t degre e o f emissio nreductio navailable.-Se e id . MPCAals o cite s EPA' s BAC T guidelines , whic hstat e tha t th e analysi s shoul d onl yb e a s extensiv e a s th e quantit yo f pol

lutant s emitte d and th e ambien t ai r impact . MPCAi s correc t that , unde r thi s guideline , i t nee d no t necessaril yexpand th e scop e o f contro l technologyalternative s beyond thos e previousl y considered . Nevertheless , MPCAmus t stil l explai nit s reason s fo r rejecting th e 0.0 1 gr/dsc f limit . 11/ a n th e requiremen t fo r pre-constructio nmonitoring dat a fo r TSP . —Furthermore , th e analyse. . suggest s PMconcentration s i n thi s are a mayexcee d th e d e minimi s leve l o f 1 0 /xg/m 3 , thu s triggeringP.1 7

1 6 a PS D permit , a n applican t mus t demonstrat e tha t emissio nin

crease s fromth e propose d sourc e o r modificatio nwil l no t excee d primar yo r secondaryNAAQ S o r PS D increments . ^ I nambien t ai r qualit ymonitoring , mathematica l model s ar e use d t o predic t pollutan t concentration s a t specifi c locations . T o obtai na permit , th e model s nee d sho wonl ytha t th e NAAQ S an d PS D increment s wil l no t b e exceede d i nth e "ambien t air. " ^ Th e rule s defin e ambien t ai r a s "tha t portio no f th e atmosphere , externa l t o buildings , t o whic hth e genera l publi c ha s access. " 4 0 CF R§50.1(e) . Thus , emission s tha t excee d th e NAAQ S o r PS D increment s o ncompan ypropert yt o whic hth e publi c does.no t hav e acces s ar e no t a nimpedimen t t o permi t issuance . EP Apolic yha s allowe d exclusio ni f publi c acces s i s barre d b yfenc e o r othe r physica l barrier . ^ AMemorandu mo f Lawissue d b

ythe

- EPA Offic e o f Genera l Counse l interpret s th e definitio no f "ambient " i nsectio n50.1(e ) a s follows : Tha t definition , i nou r view , limit s th e standards ' applicabilit yt o th e atmospher e outsid e th e fenc e line , sinc e "access " i s th e abilit yt o enter . I nothe r words , area s o f privat e propert yt o whic hth e owne r o r

^ Se e 4 0 CF R§52.21(c)(increase s i npollutan t concentration s ove r baselin e limite d t o specifi c PS D increments) ; id . §52.21(d)(n o pollutan t concentratio n shal l excee d th e primar yo r secondar yNAAQS) ; se e als o 4 0 CF R§52.21(k)(2 ) (the applican t mus t demonstrat e th e propose d sourc e o r modificatio nwil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o ai r pollutio ni nviolatio no f an yPSD . incremen t o r NAAQS) .

^ Bot hth e PS D increment s and th e NAAQ S onl yappl yi narea s meetin g th e definitio no f ambien t air . Se e 4 2 U.S.C . §§740 9 & 7470-7473 . & See , e.g. . Lette r fro mDougla s M . Costle , EPAAdministrator , t o Senato r Jenning s Randolp h(Decembe r 19 , 1980) .P.1 8

1 7 lesse e ha s no t restricte d acces s b yphysica l mean s suc h a s a fence , wall , o r othe r barrie r canb e trespasse d upo nb ymember s o f th e communit ya t large . Suc hper sons , whethe r the yar e knowin g o r innocen t trespassers , wil l b e expose d t o an d breath e th e ai r abov e th e pro perty . - ' MPC Aargue s tha t i t inspecte d th e are a an d foun d tha t effec

tiv e physica l barrier s preclud e publi c access . ^ I nsuppor t o f thi s argument , MPC Aha s submitte d photograph s tha t showacces s road s blocke d b

ygate s an

d othe r physica l barriers . Hibbing correctl yargue s tha t th e tes t fo r ambien t ai r exclusio ndoe s no t requir e a continuou s fenc e around th e perimete r o f th e property . Othe r type s o f physica l barrier s ca neffectivel ypreclud e access . However , base d o n photograph s submitte d b yEPA , ther e appear s t o b e a t leas t three , ^ possibl yfour , ^ location s wher e physica l

— ' Memorandu

mfromMichae l A . James , EPAAi r Qualit yan d Radiatio nDivision , t o Jac k R . Farmer , EPAPlan s Managemen t Branc h(Septembe r 28 , 1972)(citatio nomitted)(emphasi s added) .

— ' MPC Acite s a Federa l Registe r notic e i nwhic hEPAfoun d th e operato r o f th e Kennecot t smelte r i nMagma , Uta hha d effectivel y preclude d publi c acces s fro mit s propert yb

ya serie s o f n o trespassin g signs , rugge d terrain , an d securit ypatrols . Se e 5 0 Fed . Reg . 705 7 (Februar y20 , 1985) . A s Regio nV point s ou t i n it s response , however , th e tw o situation s ar e no t analogous . Th e Kennecot t propert ywa s extremel yrugge d an d mountainous . Thus , th e physica l terrai nitsel f helpe d t o creat e a neffectiv e bar

rier . Iel . Hibbing' s property , a s describe d byHibbin g itself , consist s o f "fla t lowland wit hoccasiona l rolling hills. " Se e Hibbing' s Comment s a t 16 . Furthermore , Kennecot t apparentl ydi d no t involv e th e sam e typ e o f right s o f waya s doe s th e Hibbin g property .

— ; Th e thre e location s no t havin g an yapparen t physica l barrier s ar e th e mai n plan t entrance , th e rai l line int o th e plant , an d th e powe r lin e int o th e plant .

^ I t i s difficul t t o ascertai nwhethe r th e bermaround th e tailing s pond i s a n effectiv e physica l barrie r fromth e photo

graph s submitted .P.1 9

1 8 barriers , natura l o r otherwise , d o no t exis t alon g th e perimete r o f th e 14,00 0 acres . I a mremandin g thi s issu e t o MPC At o recon side r whethe r publi c acces s i s effectivel ypreclude d a t th e four location s i nquestion . I f MPC Adoe s no t fin d effectiv e barrier s t o publi c acces s a t th e four identifie d (or an yother ) locations , MPC Amus t impos e requirement s i nth e permi t tha t woul d forc e Hibbin g t o erec t appropriat e barrier s o r t o tak e othe r measure s tha t woul d effectivel ypreclud e publi c access . Alternatively , MPC Ama yidentif ya differen t portio n(presumabl ysmaller ) o f Hibbing' s property , fromwhic hacces s i s effectivel ybarred . ^ Th e factua l issu e o f th e exac t are a t o whic hpubli c acces s i s preclude d ma yb e rip e fo r a negotiate d settlement . Issu e 6 : BAC T fo r C O Regio nV

argue s tha t th e BAC T analysi s fo r C O i s erroneou s becaus e i t di d no t contai na nanalysi s o f alternativ e control s and di d no t includ e an yoperationa l requirement s fo r combustio n o f CO . I disagree . Th e Regio nacknowledge s tha t alternativ e control s fo r C O ar e limite d t o combustio n wit hexces s ai r and temperatur e control . Nevertheless , th e Regio nargue s tha t th e BAC T analysi s mus t includ e consideratio n o f alternativ e combin

ation s o f thes e tw o variables . Bot hHibbing and MPC Ahav e pro -

— ; Regio nV

ha s indicate d tha t ther e mayb e a smalle r are a tha t woul d properl yb e exclude d fromth e ambien t air .P.2 0

1 9 vide d reason s wh

yth e chose ncombinatio no f temperatur e an d exces s ai r wa s th e onl yacceptabl e one . ^ Th e Regio nals o asserts , withou t citation , tha t onc e th e combinatio no f temperatur e an d exces s ai r tha t represent s BAC T i s established , i t shoul d b e specifie d i nth e permit . Neithe r th e CA Ano r EP Aregulation s absolutel yreguir e th e permi t t o specif y operationa l requirement s i nadditio nt o a numerica l emissio n limitation . ^ Bot hth e CA Aan d EPAregulation s defin e BAC T a s an"emissio nlimitation. " ^ Hibbing' s permi t contain s thi s require d emissio nlimitatio nan d therefor e omissio no f operation

a l requirement s wa s no t clea r error . ^ Nevertheless , Hibbin g mus t adher e t o th e contro l technolog yidentifie d a s representing BAC T i n it s BAC T analysis . ^- / Revie wi s denie d o nthi s issue .

— ; T o produc e a hig hstrengt habrasio nresistan t taconit e pellet , th e pellet s mus t b e heate d to , an d maintaine d at , a temperatur e o f 2450 ° F. . , Th e amoun t o f exces s ai r tha t ca nb e use d i s limite d b

yth e nee d t o achiev e a highenoughtemperatur e i nth e combustio ngase s t o rais e th e temperatur e o f th e pelle t t o th e require d level . Althoughincreasing th e temperatur e woul d resul t i na reductio no f C O emissions , i t woul d als o resul t i n pellet s o f unacceptabl e quality . Thus , th e chose ncombinatio no f temperatur e an

d exces s ai r appear s t o b e th e onl yacceptabl e combination . Th e Regio nha s no t show n tha t Hibbing' s justifi

catio no f thi s combinatio ni s clearl yerroneous .

^ Furthermore , MPCArepresent s tha t combustio ncontro l i s automati c an

d no t dependen t o noperato r attention . W 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) ; 4 0 CF R§52.21(b)(12) .

^ Moreover , ther e i s nothing i nth e record t o indicat e tha t specifying th e combinatio no f temperatur e an d exces s ai r i s essentia l t o monito r complianc e wit hth e emissio nlimitation . & Se e I nth e Matte r o f CertainTee d Corp. , PS D Appea l No . 81- 2 a t 5 (Decembe r 21 , 1982) .P.2 1

2 0 Issu e 7 : Preconstructio n Monitorin g Regio nV

argue s tha t th e dat a use d b yHibbin g d o no t mee t th e preconstructio n monitorin g requirement s o f 4 0 CF R§52.2l(m ) and EPA' s Guideline s o nAmbien t Monitoring . ^ Sectio n 52.21(m)(1)(iii ) o f th e rule s require s applicant s t o submi t continuou s ai r qualit ymonitorin g dat a t o determin e i f emission s o f a pollutan t woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a NAAQ S o r a nincrement . Th e dat a mus t b e gathere d ove r a perio d o f a t leas t a yea r and mus t represen t a t leas t th e yea r preceding receip t o f th e application . EP Aallow s substitutio no f existing representativ e ai r qualit ydat a i nlie u o f havin g th e sourc e generat e it s ownpreconstructio nmonitorin g data , provide d thes e dat a mee t th e criteri a i nth e "Ambien t Monitorin g Guideline s fo r Preventio no f significan t Deterioration " (July , 1980) . ^ Th e guideline s requir e existin g monitorin g dat a t o b e rep resentativ e o f area s o f (1 ) maximumexisting pollutan t concentrations , (2 ) maximu mconcentratio nincrease s from th e propose d sourc e o r modification , and (3 ) maximu mcombine d impac t fromexistin g and propose d sources . I f ther e ar e n o existin g monitor s i n suc harea s th e guideline s allo wmonitor s locate d elsewher e t o b e use d o na case-by-cas e basis . Th e guideline s provid e example s o f case s i nwhic hi t woul d b e appropriat e t o us e

5 ^ Base d o n Hibbing' s modelin g results , preconstructio nmonitor

ing dat a i s require d onl yfo r S0 2 . However , i nligh t o f th e remand o nth e ambien t ai r issue , preconstructio nmonitorin g may als o b e require d fo r PM . Se e supr a not e 1 7 & accompanyin g text . 36 / Se e 4 5 Fed . Reg . 5267 6 (Augus t 7 , 1980) .P.2 2

2 1 existin g monitor s tha t ar e locate d outsid e th e thre e area s liste d above . Id . a t 6-8 . I non e example , th e propose d sourc e i s i n an are a tha t i s generall yfre e fromth e impac t o f othe r poin t sour ces . Id . a t 6 . Th e guidelin e state s tha t representativ e dat a mayb e obtaine d from a "regional " site , a sit e tha t i s charac

teristi c o f ai r qualit yacros s a broa d region . Id, . Th e us e o f regiona l site s shoul d b e limite d t o relativel yremot e area s an d shoul d no t b e use d i narea s o f multisourc e emission s o r area s o f comple xterrain . Id . Hibbin g maintain s tha t i t properl yuse d representativ e dat a froma monitorin g sit e tha t fit s th e descriptio ni nthi s example . Bot hHibbin g an

d th e monitoring sit e ar e locate d i na nare a tha t i s generall yflat , sparsel ypopulated , an d contain s on e plan t (the ClayBoswel l plant ) tha t account s fo r 70 % t o 81 % of* th e tota l S0 2 emissions . Hibbing contend s tha t becaus e thi s moni

toring sit e i s close r t o th e ClayBoswel l plan t tha ni s th e Hibbin g property , i t probabl yha s highe r pollutan t concentration s tha nth e Hibbin g property . Nevertheless , th e Regio nassert s tha t i t i s "no t convince d tha t Hibbing qualifie s fo r th e us e o f reg iona l monitorin g data. " Th e Regio nmaintain s tha t ther e ar e eleve nS O source s withi n6 5 kilometer s o f Hibbing , an d thu s i t i s a "multisource " area . Th e Regio nals o contend s tha t becaus e th e ClayBoswel l plan t ha s two verytal l stacks , i t i s no t expecte d t o caus e hig hground-leve l concentrations , an d thu s th e moni

torin g dat a mayno t reflec t pollutan t level s a s higha s thCs e i n th e are a close r t o th e Hibbing plant .P.2 3

2 2 I nm yview , th e Regio nha s no t me t it s burde no f showing tha t MPC Acommitte d clea r lega l erro r i ninterpreting o r applying exampl e numbe r on e o f th e guidelines . Th e guideline s ar e very broa d and leav e muc ht o th e discretio no f th e permittin g auth

ority . Moreover , th e example s provide d i nth e guideline s ar e no t intende d t o b e a n exhaustiv e listing o f everyconceivabl e situ

atio ni nwhic hth e us e o f representativ e dat a i s appropriate . ^ Th e Regio ni s no t abl e t o poin t t o an yspecifi c misinterpretatio n o r misapplicatio no f th e guidelines . Th e mer e existenc e o f some othe r source s i nth e are a and th e ClayBoswel l plant' s tal l stacks , withou t more , i s no t sufficien t t o sho wtha t MPCA' s characterizatio n o f th e are a a s non-multisourc e wa s clearl y erroneous . Moreover , th e Regio nha s no t show ntha t MPC Acommitte d a factua l erro r i nevaluatin g th e condition s i nth e vicinit yo f the

^ Th e guideline s stat e "some example s ar e include d t o demonstr

at e overal l intent. " Ambien t Monitorin g Guideline s fo r Preven tio no f Significan t Deterioratio na t 6 (July , 1980) . Th e Regio n als o argue s tha t th e guideline s requir e existing representativ e dat a t o b e collecte d i nth e thre e yea r perio d precedin g th e permi t application . Hibbin g use d dat a fro m1980-1983 , whic h clearl ywa s no t withi n thre e year s o f th e 198 7 permi t appli

cation . Th e guideline s merel ystate , however , tha t "generally " preconstructio ndat a mus t hav e bee ncollecte d withi nthre e year s prio r t o th e dat e o f permi t application . Here , i t appear s tha t i t woul d b e impossibl e t o d o thi s becaus e MPCAha d alread y permitte d Hibbin g t o d o a tes t bur no f petroleu mcok e durin g 198 5 and 1986 . Se e Citizen s Agains t th e Refinery' s Effects , Inc . v . Unite d Stat e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , 64 3 F.2 d 173 , 18 1 (4t hCir . 1981)(PS D permi t applican t mayproperl yus e on e yea r o f weathe r dat a i nit s ai r dispersio nmode l instead o f th e fiv e year s recommende d byEPAguideline s becaus e th e gtiideline s wer e onl yrecommendation s an d onl yon e yea r o f dat a wa s locall y obtainabl e an

d compatibl e wit hth e mode l used) .P.2 4

2 3 Hibbing sit e an

d monitoring site . Regio nV ha s no t conteste d Hibbing' s factua l assertion s tha t th e Cla yBoswel l plan t account s fo r th e majorit yo f S0 2 emission s i nth e are a o r tha t th e othe r plant s i n th e are a accoun t fo r verysmal l percentage s (n o sourc e accountin g fo r mor e tha n3.6% ) o f overal l emissions . I nsum , fa r fromdemonstratin g tha t MPCAcommitte d clea r erro r b yallowing Hibbin g t o us e th e regiona l data , Regio nV ha s show

nnothing mor e tha ni t i s "no t convinced " tha t Hibbing' s us e o f th e regiona l monitorin g dat a wa s appropriate . ^ Revie wi s denie d o nthi s issue . Conclusio n : Th e deficiencie s i nth e BAC T analysi s leav e tw o course s o f actio nope na t thi s junctur e o f th e proceedings . On e i s t o gran t revie wo f th e permi t an d ente r int o th e briefing phas e con template d b

y4 0 CF R§124.19(c) . However , th e deficiencie s i nth e recor d canno t b e rectifie d throughth e submissio n o f briefs , an d an yensuin g decisio nwoul d likel yconclud e tha t th e permi t shoul d b e denie d (becaus e o f th e deficiencies ) o r tha t i t shoul d b e remande d t o th e permit-issuing authorit yt o allo wth e applican t t o supplemen t th e BAC T analysis . Consideration s o f tim e favo r remanding th e permi t i n th e firs t instance . Therefore , rathe r tha nreceiving additiona l brief s o nappeal , I a mremanding th e cas e t o MPCAto : includ e i nth e permi t anemissio nlimitatio nfo r

— / Moreover , MPCAha s include d i nth e permi t a requiremen t tha t Hibbin g design , install , an d operat e a n ambien t ai r monitorin g systemfo r S02 .2 4

SO

- base d o nBACT , fo r th e lif e o f th e permit ; t o provid e a detaile d economi c analysi s sufficien t t o justif yrejectio no f th e natura l ga s alternative ; t o identif yth e contro l technologytha t th e S0 2 limitatio ni s base d o nand demonstrat e tha t suc htech

nologywil l enabl e Hibbin g t o mee t th e prescribe d permi t limit

ation ; and t o eithe r se t th e BAC T limitatio nfo r P Ma t 0.0 1 gr/dsc f o r explai nwhyi t rejecte d thi s limitation . O nremand , MPC Amus t als o determin e whethe r publi c acces s i s effectivel y preclude d from

th e fou r location s identifie d i n thi s order , an d i f not , MPC Amus t eithe r impos e condition s i nth e permi t tha t woul d requir e Hibbin g t o erec t appropriat e barrier s a t thes e location s o r identif ya smalle r are a o f it s propert yfrom whic h publi c acces s i s effectivel yprecluded . MPCA' s determinatio no nremand wil l b e subjec t t o "revie w unde r 4 0 CF R§124.19 , ^ an d appea l o f it s decisio no nremand

^ Th e Regio n maintain s tha t MPC Ashoul d b e require d t o obtai n th e Region' s concurrenc e o nth e permi t befor e issuing th e permit . I find n o basi s fo r thi s argument . Regarding th e procedure s fo r issuanc e o f PS D permits , th e delegatio nagreemen t betwee nEPAan d MPC Arequire s MPC Aonl yt o forwar d preliminarydetermination s t o gran t o r den

ya PS D permi t t o EP Afo r commen t and t o send copie s o f it s fina l actio n o nPS D permit s t o EPA . I ncontrast , I nth e Matte r o f Honolul u Resourc e Recover yFacility , PS D Appea l No . 86

- 8 (Jun e 22 , 1987) , th e delegatio nagreemen t require d EP ARegio n I Xand th e Hawai i Departmen t o f Healt h(HDOH ) concurrenc e o nBAC T determination s o nth e firs t fiv e permit s issue d byHDOH . Nevertheless , MPC Aan d th e Regio nshoul d communicat e durin g th e cours e o f PS D permi t proceeding s an d attemp t t o reac ha consensu s o nmatter s o f disagreement . Moreover , a s previousl y noted , MPCA' s actio n i nissuing th e permi t i s subjec t t o revie w provision s o f 4 0 CF R§124.1 9 becaus e th e permi t i s deeme d t o b e a nEPA-issue d permi t unde r EP Arules . 4 0 CF R5124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 3 (Ma

y19 , 1980) .P.2 6

2 5 wil l b e require d t o exhaus t administrativ e remedie s unde r sectio n 124.19(f)(1)(iii) . S o Ordered .

Dated : 

## JUL 

## I 9 158 9 WilliamK . Reiri^ y Administrato rP.2 7 ">.-»-. •

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I herebycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r o n Petitio nfo r Revie wi n th e matte r o f Hibbin g Taconit e Company , PS D Appea l No . 87-3 , wer e sen t b yFirs t Clas s Mai l t o th e fol

lowin g persons : Davi d Ke e Director , Ai r & Radiatio n Service s Divisio n U.S . EPA , Regio n V 23 0 Sout hDearbor nStree t Chicago , I L 6060 4 Sebastia nPatt i U.S . EPA , Regio n V 23 0 Sout hDearbor n Stree t Chicago , I L 6060 4 Geral d L . Willet , Commissione r Minnesot a Pollutio nContro l Agenc y 52 0 Lafayett e Roa d St. , Paul , MN5515 5 Thoma s J . Kalitowski , Executiv e Directo r Minnesot a Pollutio nContro l Agenc y 52 0 Lafayett e Road . St . Paul , MN5515 5 Charle s B . Hoffman , Esq . Pickand s Mathe r & Co . 20 0 W . Superio r St . - Suit e 81 1 Duluth , MN5580 3 WilliamPedersen , Jr. , Esq . Perkin s Coi e 111 0 Vermon t Ave , NW Washington , D C 2000 5



### Dated : JJ

_2 0198

9 \T&JLkAi\ I -'^uSiM^ Brend aH . Selden , Secretar y t o th eChie f

Judicia lOffice r