p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 61 ) ll-K-1 8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 61 of 142P. 2 

# H ml^ m ^ i ^ BEFOR E TH E -ADMINISTRATOR U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y

WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# ft I nth e Matte r of : \ ^Brookly

n •Navy.*.Yard . Resourc e Recoveryfacilit y Applican t 

# K~' *

PS D Appea l No . 88-1 0 (consolidating Appea l Nos . 88-10 , 90-10 , 90-11 , 90-12 )

REMAND ORDE R"

O nSeptembe r 7 , 1990 , EPARegio n I I issue d t o SE S Brooklyn . Compan y(SES ) a fina l preventio no f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t fo r th e constructio nand operatio n o f a ne w3000

- tons-per-daymunicipa l wast e incinerator . Th e projec t wil l b e locate d a t th e Brookly nNav yYar d i n Brooklyn , Ne wYork . Seve n petition s fo r revie whav e bee n file d challengin g th e permit . Th e permi t ha s bee n amende d thre e times , an d som e petition s challeng e earlie r version s o f th e permit , whil e other s challeng e th e lates t version . Fo r th e reason s state d below , revie wo f al l bu t on e o f thes e petition s i s denied . Th e remaining petitio nha s merit , however . Accordingly , th e permi t i s remande d t o Regio nI I fo r th e ver ylimite d purpos e o f considerin g th e viabilit yo f a reasonabl e material s separatio n programfo r nitrogen-containin g materials .P. 3

....•.•.•;.:•: ) I . BACKGROUN D 'iiiiiit' 1 ' Th e fina l permi t wa s firs t issue d o n Augus t 26 , 1988 . Dr . Bernar d Fryshman , Ph.D . an d th e Environmenta l Defens e Fund (EDF ) bot hpetitione d fo r revie wo f th e Region' s decision . O n Septembe r 28 , 1988 , th e Regio n formall yamende d th e bes t availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) determination s i nth e permi t fo r sulfuri c aci d mist , sulfu r dioxid e an d hydroge nfluorides . Th e administrativ e appea l period , whic hha d begu n o nAugus t 27 , 198 8 fo r appeal s relating t o th e origina l .version o f th e fina l permit , wa s extende d anothe r 3 0 day s fo r appeal s relatin g t o th e amendments . Dr . Fryshma nfile d a second petitio ni n respons e t o thes e permi t amendments . Later , o nOctobe r 11 , 1989 , th e Regio n issue d a revise d draf t permi t wit hamendment s t o th e NO xand PM 1 0 limitations . Th e Regio nreceive d publi c commen t o n thes e amendment s betwee nOctobe r 23 , 198 9 an d Februar y22 , 199 0 an d hel d a publi c hearin g o n themo nFebruary15 , 1990 . I n it s publi c notic e announcing th e commen t perio d and th e publi c hearing , th e Regio n mad e i t clea r tha t th e commen t perio d an d publi c hearing wer e limite d t o comment s o n th e ne wlimitation s fo r NO xan

d PM-10 . Afte r th e publi c commen t period , th e Regio n change d th e contro l technologyfo r NO xan d th e limitation s fo r NOx , ammoni a slip , and sulfu r dioxide , withou t subjectin g thes e change s t o publi c comment , an d o n Septembe r 7 , 1990 , th e Regio n issue d a modifie d final/permi t incorporating thes e lates t changes . Dr . Fryshman , th e Ne wYor k Publi c Interes t Researc h Group (NYPIRG) , an d Samue l Bisho p al l file d petition s fo r revie w challenging th e Septembe r 7t hissuanc e o f th e fina l permit . 

# 2P. 4



# 2

t 3

II . DISCUSSION Unde r th e rule s governin g thi s proceeding , ther e i s h o appea l a s o f righ t fro m th e permi t decision . Ordinarily , a petitio n fo r revie wo f a PS D permi t determinatio n i s no t grante d unles s i t i s base d o n a clearl yerroneou s findin g o f fac t o r conclusio n o f law , o r involve s a n importan t matte r o f polic yo r exercis e o f discretio ntha t warrant s review . Th e preambl e t o th e regulation s state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie wshoul d b e onl y sparingl yexercised, " an d tha t "mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall ydetermine d a t th e Regiona l leve l * * *. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Th e burde n o f demonstratin g tha t th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e o nth e petitioner . A . Environmenta l Defens e Fund' s Petitio n Regio nI I issue d a fina l permi t t o SE S o nAugus t 26 , 1988 . Sectio n 124.1 9 o f th e Consolidate d Rule s provide s tha t a petitio n fo r revie wmus t b e file d withi n 3 0 day s afte r a PS D fina l permi t decision . 4 0 CF R§124.1 9 (1990) . Sectio n 124.20 , governin g computatio n o f time , provide s tha t "[a]n ytim e perio d schedule d t o begi n o n th e occurrenc e o f a nac t o r even t shal l begi n o nth e da yafte r th e ac t o r event. " 4 0 CF R§124.2 0 (1990) . Sectio n 124.2 0 als o provide s tha t "[w]heneve r a part yo r intereste d perso nha s th e righ t o r i s require d t o ac t withi na prescribe d perio d afte r th e servic e o f notic e o r othe r pape r upo n hi mo r he r b ymail , 3 day s shal l b e adde d t o th e prescribe d time. " Id . Thus , th e perio d fo r filing a petitio n challengin g th e permi tP. 5

''tiiliii F bega no n Augus t 27 , 1988 , an d ende d o n Septembe r 28 , 198 8 (3 3 days) . Th e Environmenta l Defens e Fund (EDF ) file d it s Petitio n fo r Revie wo n Septembe r 30 , 1988 , tw o day s late . Accordingly , th e petitio ni s untimely , an d revie wi s denied . B . Dr . Bernar d Fryshman' s Petition s I hav e carefull yreviewe d Dr . Fryshman' s thre e petition s an d th e Region' s response s t o them . - 7 I a msatisfie d tha t th e Regio nha s give n th e petition s du e consideration . Ther e i s nothin g i nthos e petition s tha t lead s m e t o believ e tha t th e Regio nha s committe d clea r erro r i nit s BrooklynNav yYar d permi t determination . No r i s ther e anything t o sugges t tha t th e 

# 1

J yDr . Fryshma n sen t a lette r t o thi s offic e date d Februar y6 , 1991 , complaining tha t EP ARegio nI I had no t provide d a meaningfu l opportunit yfo r publi c inpu t durin g th e permittin g proces s fo r th e propose d Brookly n Nav yYar d facility . I nhi s February6t hletter , Dr . Fryshma npresent s hi s complain t abou t restriction s o npubli c inpu t a s a n anothe r petitio nfo r review . H e states : I nadditio n t o th e factua l item s place d befor e yo u i n m yearlie r brief s * * * , ther e i s no wa nimportan t POLIC YCONSIDERATIONwhic hmus t b e brough t befor e th e Administrato r fo r review : MA YREGIONI I S O RESTRIC T PUBLI C INPUT A S T O DEN YCONGRESSIONAL INTENT REGARDING FUL L PARTICIPATIONBYCITIZENS? . s Th e deadlin e fo r filing petition s fo r revie w(Septembe r 28 , 1988 ) passe d wel l befor e Dr . Fryshma nfile d thi s lates t petition . Accordingly , th e petitio n i s untimely , an d revie wi s denied . Eve ni f th e petitio n ha d bee nfile d i na timel yfashion , however , I woul d hav e denie d review . B yal l accounts , Regio n I I provide d Dr . Fryshma n wit heveryopportunit yt o participat e tha t h e wa s entitle d t o unde r the.rules . Dr . Fryshman' s rea l quarre l i s wit h th e rule s governin g publi c participation , no t wit hth e wa yRegio n I I applie d thos e rules . Sectio n 124.19 , whic hgovern s thi s appeal , authorize s m e t o revie wconteste d permi t conditions , an d i s no t intende d t o provid e a foru mfo r entertainin g challenge s t o th e validit yo f th e procedura l rule s governin g th e permittin g process .P. 6

''i.i.i.jiiiii '



# J. Region' s decisio n involve s a n exercis e o f discretio no r a publi c polic yissu e tha t shoul d b e reviewe d a s a discretionar ymatter . Revie wo f th e issue s raise d i n Dr . Fryshman' s petition s i s therefor e denied .

C . Samue l Bishop' s Petitio n A s discusse d above , th e mos t recen t publi c commen t perio d i n th e BrooklynNav

yYar d permitting proces s wa s limite d i nscop e t o change s i n th e permi t limitation s fo r PM-1 0 and NOx . Afte r tha t commen t period , th e Regio nmad e severa l ne wchange s i nth e permi t relatin g t o th e NO xcontro l technologyand t o th e permi t limitation s fo r NOx , ammoni a slip , an d sulfu r dioxide . Accordingly , wit hrespec t t o th e petition s fo r revie wfile d afte r Septembe r 7 , 1990 , thi s offic e wil l revie wonl ythos e issue s relatin g t o th e change s tha t prompte d th e openin g o f th e publi c commen t perio d (i.e. . change s i n th e NOxan d PM-1 0 limitations ) o r th e change s tha t wer e mad e afte r th e publi c commen t perio d ende d (i.e. , change s i n th e contro l technologyfo r NO xan d th e ne wlimitation s fo r NOx , ammoni a slip , an d sulfu r dioxide) . Th e issue s i n Mr . Bishop' s petitio n relat e t o th e ai r qualit ymode l use d t o determin e ho wemission s fromth e propose d facilit ywil l affec t ai r qualit yi n th e surrounding area . Thes e ai r qualit y modelin g issue s ar e distinc t fromth e contro l technologyissue s tha t ar e subjec t t o revie wi n thi s phas e o f th e permittin g process . Se e Worl d Colo r Press . Inc. , PS D Appea l No . 88-4 , a t 4 (Dec . 13 , 1990 ) ("[A ] PS D permi t applican t mus t demonstrat e tha tP. 7

'i-ijiiiii ^

" )

y 6 emission s fro

mth e operatio n o f th e facilit ywil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o ai r pollutio ni n exces s o f th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s ("NAAQS") . 4 2 U.S.C . §7475(a)(3) . Thi s ai r qualit yrequiremen t i s independen t from th e technology(i.e. , BACT ) requirement." ) (footnot e omitted) . Mr . Bishop' s petitio n say s absolutel ynothing abou t th e bes t availabl e technologyfo r controlling emission s o f NO xan d PM-10 . Th e ai r qualit ymodelin g issue s raise d b

yMr . Bishop wer e reasonabl yascertainabl e i n198 8 whe nth e fina l permi t fo r Brookly n Nav yYar d wa s firs t issue d an d shoul d hav e bee nraise d then . Mr . Bisho p i s preclude d from raisin g them

now . ; Eve n i f Mr . Bisho p coul d rais e thes e modelin g issue s now , the ywoul d no t warran t review . Afte r carefu l and thorough consideratio n o f Mr . Bishop' s arguments , I amno t convince d tha t th e Region' s modelin g determination s ar e clearl yerroneous . Nothin g i n Mr . Bishop' s tw o brief s persuade s m e tha t th e modelin g use d i n thi s cas e wil l significantl yunderpredic t th e impac t tha t emission s fromth e propose d facilit ywil l hav e o n th e affecte d area . D . NYPIRG' s Petitio n NYPIRGbelieve s tha t th e bes t availabl e contro l technology (BACT ) fo r nitroge n oxid e emission s i s a combinatio no f th e combustio n an

d add-o n contro l technologie s prescribe d i nth e fina l permi t plu s material s separatio n(i.e. . remova l o f nitrogen-containing material s fromth e wast e stream) , whic hwa s no t prescribe d i n th e permit . NYPIRGcontend s tha t SES' s BAC TP. 8

7 '$&&'' analysi s wa s defectiv e becaus e i t di d no t includ e consideratio n o f material s separation . Fo r th e reason s se t ou t below , I agree . Th e viabilit yo f a material s separatio nprogramtargete d a t nitroge n containin g waste s shoul d b e considere d b yth e permittin g authorit yi n th e BAC T analysi s fo r th e BrooklynNav yYar d facility . 1 . Background "Bes t availabl e contro l technology " o r BAC T i s define d i n th e regulation s a s a n "emission s limitation " whic hreflect s th e "maximu mdegre e o f reduction " o f "eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r [the ] Act, " whic hth e Administrato r determines " i s "achievable " afte r "taking int o accoun t energy , environmental , j an d economi c impact s and othe r costs. " Clea n Ai r Ac t sectio n 169(3) , 4 2 U.S.C . § 7479(3) ; 4 0 CF R§52.2 1 (b ) (12 ) (1990) . 2 /

-' Th e ful l regulatorydefinitio no f "bes t availabl e contro l technology " i s a s follows : Bes t availabl e contro l technologymean s a n emission s limitatio n (including a visibl e emissio nstandard ) base d o n th e maximumdegre e o f reductio n fo r eac h pollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r [the ] Ac t whic h woul d b e emitte d froman ypropose d majo r stationary sourc e o r majo r modificatio nwhic hth e Administrator , o n a case-by-cas e basis , takin g "int o accoun t energy , environmental , and economi c impact s an d othe r costs , determine s i s achievabl e fo r suc hsourc e o r modificatio n throug happlicatio n o f productio n processe s o r availabl e methods , systems , and techniques , including fue l cleaning o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio ntechnique s fo r contro l o f suc hpollutant . I n n o even t shal l applicatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technologyresul t i nemission s o f any pollutan t whic hwoul d excee d th e emission s allowe d b y an yapplicabl e standar d unde r 4 0 CFRpart s 6 0 an d 61 . " . I f th e Administrato r determine s tha t technologica l o r ) economi c limitation s o n th e applicatio n o f measuremen t ^(continued ,P. 9

8 •lili P Achievemen t o f a n emissio nlimitatio n mayb e secure d "throug h applicatio n o f productio n processe s o r availabl e methods , systems , an

d techniques , including fue l cleanin g o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio ntechnique s fo r contro l o f suc h pollutant. " Ld . Th e term"emission s limitation " i s define d i n th e Clea n Ai r Ac t a s a requiremen t establishe d b yth e Stat e o r th e Administrato r whic hlimit s th e quantity , rate , o r concentratio no f emission s o f ai r pollutant s o na continuou s basis , including an yrequiremen t relatin g t o th e operatio n o r maintenanc e o f a sourc e t o assur e continuou s emissio n reduction . CA A§302 , 4 2 U.S.C . §7602 . Th e regulatoryBAC T definitio n provide s tha t [i] f th e Administrato r determine s tha t technologica l o r economi c limitation s o nth e applicatio n o f measuremen t methodologyt o a particula r emission s uni t woul d mak e th e impositio n o f a nemission s standar d infeasible , a design , equipment , wor k practice , operationa l standard , o r combinatio n thereof , mayb e prescribe d instea d t o satisf yth e requiremen t fo r th e applicatio n o f th e bes t availabl e contro l technology . 4 0 CF R§52.21(b)(12 ) (1990) . -'(...continued ) methodologyt o a particula r emission s uni t woul d mak e th e impositio n o f a nemission s standar d infeasible , a design , equipment , wor k practice , operationa l standard , o r combinatio n thereof , mayb e prescribe d instea d t o satisf yth e requiremen t fo r th e applicatio n o f bes t availabl e contro l technology . Suc htechnologyshall , t o th e degre e possible , se t fort hth e emission s reductio n achievabl e b yimplementatio n o f suc hdesign , equipment , wor k practic e o r operation , and shal l provid e fo r complianc e b ymean s whic hachiev e equivalen t results . \ 4 0 CF R§52.21(b)(12 ) (1990) . 

### JP.1 0



# 2

y 9

I n thi s case , NYPIRGcontend s tha t SES' s BAC T analysi s shoul d hav e include d consideratio no f a requiremen t t o remov e 'nitrogen-containing wast e fromth e wast e streamcombine d wit hth e combustio nan

d add-o n control s prescribe d i nth e permit . NYPIRG argue s tha t thi s combinatio ni s th e mos t stringen t availabl e technology . Eve ni f i t i s no t th e mos t stringen t technology , NYPIR Gbelieve s i t i s nevertheles s th e "best " technologybecaus e o f th e environmental , energy , and economi c benefit s i t woul d produce . Th e issu e o f whethe r material s separatio nshoul d b e considere d i n a BAC T analysi s wa s firs t addresse d i nSpokan e Regiona l Waste-to-EnergyProject . PS D Appea l No . 88- 2 (Jun e 9 , 1989) . I nSpokane , th e petitioner s requeste d revie wo f a PS D permi t fo r constructio no f a n800-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 nwa s mad e b yth e Washingto n Stat e Departmen t o f Ecology("Ecology") . Petitioners-contende d tha t Ecologyhad erre d i n it s BAC T determinatio nfo r contro l o f heav y meta l an

d toxi c pollutan t emission s b yno t givin g in-dept h consideratio nt o "fue l cleaning an d separation " i n combinatio n wit hth e conventional , state-of-the-ar t pollutio n contro l equipmen t alread

yrequire d b

yth e Spokan e permit . I rejecte d thi s contention , pointin g ou t tha t petitioner s wer e unabl e t o provid e evidenc e tha t th e additio no f fue l cleanin g and separatio n had resulte d i n bette r emission s reduction s tha n thos e achieve d b

yth e highl yeffectiv e conventiona l equipmen t andP.1 1



# 2

) 1 0 operatin g practice s alread yrequire d b

yth e Spokan e permit . Id . a t 14-15 . I state d that , whil e muc hwa s knownabou t ho wan d wha t t o recycl e t o achiev e wast e reduction , n o har d dat a wer e availabl e t o judg e whethe r supplementing conventional , state-of

the-ar t pollutio n contro l equipmen t suc ha s baghouse s an d scrubber s wit hfue l cleaning and separatio nwoul d caus e reduction s o r increase s o f regulate d pollutan t emissions . Id . a t 14 . I observe d tha t a technologyi s obviousl yno t availabl e i n anymeaningfu l sens e o f knowledg e abou t it s effec t o nemissions , i nth e particula r configuratio ni nwhic hi t woul d b e employed , i s s o incomplet e a s t o b e unusable . Id . a t 17 . I held , therefore , tha t petitioner s ha d no t show n tha t fue l cleanin g and separation , i ncombinatio n wit hconventional , 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 . I n conclusion , I suggeste d that , a s mor e communitie s adop t recycling i n conjunctio n wit h incineration , mor e informatio n abou t thi s combinatio no f technologie s wil l becom e available , and tha t a t som e point , futur e permi t applicant s mayb e require d t o includ e consideratio n o f recycling i n thei r BAC T determinations . Id. , a t 22 . Tha t poin t ha s no warrived , becaus e availabl e informatio nindicate s tha t reducing certai n constituent s o f th e wast e stream ca nreduc e pollutan t emissions . O n Decembe r 20 , 1989 , afte r th e Spokan e decision , th e Agenc y publishe d a propose d rul e setting ne wsourc e performanc eP.1 2

: i..i!.fiiif ' 1 1 W standard s fo r MWCs . -' I n th e propose d rule , th e Agenc y propose d a material s separatio n requiremen t a s a componen t o f "bes t demonstrate d technology " fo r MWCs . Se e 5 4 Fed . Reg . 5225 1 (Dec . 20 , 1989) . Th e propose d standard s woul d hav e require d al l MWC s t o reduc e th e amoun t o f soli d wast e t o b e processe d b ya t leas t 25 % b

yremoving fro

m th e wast e streamth e ^followin g type s o f waste : pape r an d paperboard ; ferrou s metals ; nonferrou s metals ; glass ; plastic ; househol d batteries ; and yar d wastes . Id . a t 52254 . Th e propose d standard s als o woul d hav e prohibite d MWC s fromburnin g househol d batterie s an d lead-aci d vehicl e batterie s weighin g mor e tha n1 1 pounds . Id . a t 52254-55 . Thes e material s separatio nrequirement s wer e t o b e satisfie d b yon-sit e separation , off-sit e communit ysourc e reductio no r materia l 

# 3

J -' Ne wsourc e performanc e standard s ar e promulgate d i n accordanc e wit hSectio n 11 1 o f th e Act , whic hauthorize s th e Administrato r t o identif yan ycategoryo f source s tha t "causes , o r contribute s significantl yto , ai r pollutio nwhic hma y reasonabl yb e anticipate d t o endange r publi c healt ho r welfare. " CA A§lll(b)(1)(A) , 4 2 U.S.C . §7411(b)(1)(A) . Onc e thi s category ha s bee n identified , th e Administrato r mus t the n se t emission s standard s fo r ne wfacilitie s falling withi n th e identifie d category . CA

A§lll(b)(1)(B) , 4 2 U.S.C . §7411(b)(l)(B) . Th e standard s mus t reflec t th e "degre e o f emissio nlimitatio n achievabl e throughth e applicatio no f th e bes t systemo f emissio n reductio n which.(takin g int o accoun t th e cos t o f achievin g suc h reductio n an

d an ynonai r qualit yhealt hand environmenta l impac t and energ

yrequirements ) th e Administrato r determine s ha s bee n adequatel ydemonstrate d [bes t demonstrate d technology]. " CA A §lll(a)(l) , 4 2 U.S.C . §7411(a)(l) . Th e "bes t demonstrate d technology " i na ne wsourc e performanc e standar d fo r a give n pollutan t i s no t necessaril yBAC T fo r tha t pollutant . Bu t BAC T mus t alway s b e a t leas t a s effectiv e a s th e technologyrequire d b yth e newsourc e performanc e standard . Se e CA A§169(3) , 4 2 U.S.C . §7479 .P.1 3

1 2 separatio n (recycling) , o r a combinatio no f th e two . Th e Agenc y explaine d tha t material s separation , use d i n conjunctio nwit hgoo d combustio npractices , and add-o n controls , wil l resul t i nfurthe r reduction s o f emission s fromMWCs . I t i s simpl ycommo n sense , an d th e Agency' s expectation , tha t reduction s i n th e amoun t o f pollutio ngeneratin g material s combuste d i n a n MW C wil l reduc e th e amoun t o f pollutant s i n it s ai r emissions .

Id . a t 52281 . Th e Agenc ynoted , however r tha t whil e [t]he propose d requirement s fo r material s separatio n woul d reduc e * * * overal l MW C emission s * * * , th e amoun t o f emission s reductio ncanno t b e accuratel y predicte d sinc e ther e ar e littl e dat a relatin g material s separatio n t o MW C emission s whe nmaterial s separatio n occur s i nconjunctio nwit hat-the-stac k ai r pollutio n control . ^*\ Id . a t 52257 .

Whe n EPAissue d fina l sourc e performanc e standard s fo r MWCs , i t decline d a t tha t tim e t o requir e sourc e separatio n o na nationa l basis , an d di d no t includ e th e propose d material s separatio nrequirement s i nth e fina l rule . Se e 5 6 Fed . Reg . 549 6 (February11 , 1991) . Th e Agenc yha d conclude d tha t material s separation , i n conjunctio nwit hconventiona l emission s contro l technologies , wa s no t th e bes t demonstrate d technologyfo r MWC s a s a sourc e category - I n reachin g thi s conclusion , EPAdi d no t alte r it s finding s i n th e propose d rul e regardin g th e potentia l fo r reduction s i nMW C emission s throughth e us e o f sourc e separation . Rather , th e Agenc yrelie d primaril yo nuncertaint y a s t o whethe r energy , economic , an d nonai r qualit yenvironmenta l

• J impact s woul d resul t i n a ne t benefi t ona nationa l basis . Se eP.1 4

[ 

### W



# 1

y 1 3 id . a t 5496-97 . Instead o f adopting a uniformnationwid e rule , EPAdecide d t o addres s th e sourc e separatio nissu e throug hth e PS D process . Thus , EPAstate d i n th e preambl e t o th e fina l NSP S tha t "[t]h e issu e whethe r a nemissio n reductio nrequiremen t base d o na sourc e separatio n i s appropriat e fo r a specifi c incinerato r projec t maycontinu e t o b e raise d o na case-by-cas e basi s i n individua l BAC T determination s unde r CA Asectio n169(3). " Id . a t 549 6 n.4 . Consisten t wit hpreviou s determinations , th e threshol d questio n i n thi s cas e i s whethe r ther e i s sufficien t indicatio n tha t a separatio n program woul d reduc e emission s beyond th e level s achieve d b

yth e conventiona l contro l technologies , alread y include d i nth e permit . Se e Spokan e discussion , supra . Here , th e recor d indicate s tha t th e type s o f material s separatio n program s being propose d b yth e petitione r migh t ver ywel l bring abou t some reductio n i n NO xemissions . First , despit e it s failur e t o conside r sourc e separatio n a s a full-fledge d componen t o f th e BAC T determinatio nfo r NOx , a s par t o f it s BAC T determinatio n Regio n I I di d includ e i nth e permi t certai n material s separatio n requirement s tha t woul d appl yi f emissio n limit s fo r NOx , lead , an d othe r pollutant s wer e exceeded . Se e 199 0 Permi t Modification , Attachmen t II , a t 5 . Thi s determinatio nshow s tha t th e permittin g authorit yimplicitl y agree s tha t certai nseparatio n program s ar e likel yt o reduc e NOx emissions . I n addition , th e Hahnstud ycite d b

yth e petitione r appear s t o confirmtha t ther e i s a relationshi p betwee n th eP.1 5

: i.iiii.i ^ 1 4

amoun t o f nitrogen-containing wast e goin g int o a nincinerato r an d th e amoun t o f nitroge noxid e emission s coming ou t o f it . (NYPIR G Petition , Appendi x5 ) .-/ Base d o n th e record o f thi s case , I hav e conclude d tha t Regio nII' s failur e t o conside r th e viabilit yo f variou s measure s presente d b

yth e petitione r a s a mean s t o reduce . NO xemission s fromth e Brookly

nfacilit yi s inconsisten t wit hth e case-by-cas e approac ht o sourc e separatio n adopte d b yth e Agenc yi nth e fina l NSP S fo r incinerators . Therefore , th e permi t i s remande d fo r suc hconsideration . I n deciding t o remand thi s matter , however , I tak e grea t cautio nt o not e th e limite d natur e o f th e remand an d th e fundamenta l differenc e whic hexist s betwee nth e kind o f material s separatio n programpetitione r seek s i nthi s cas e —a programtargete d a t nitrogen-containing wast e —an d th e mor e genera l ne wsourc e performanc e standards . Accordingly , o n remand , th e inquiryshoul d b e strictl ylimite d t o measure s tha t migh t reduc e th e NO xemission s fromthi s facility , an d shoul d no t extend t o a mor e genera l analysi s o f material s separatio n program s no t presente d b yth e petitioner.^ 7 Thi s i s no t mean t

y ^I t i s als o noteworthy , wit hrespec t t o emission s o f lead , tha t Regio n I I di d includ e i nit s BAC T determinatio na n emissio n contro l requiremen t tha t moto r vehicl e batterie s b e separate d fromth e wast e prio r t o incineration . Se e 199 0 Permi t Modification , Attachmen t II , a t 4 ; se e als o 198 8 Permit , Attachmen t IV

a t 22 ; NYPIRGPetition , Attachmen t 4 , a t 9 .

^ O f course , consisten t wit hm ydecisio n i nNort hCount y Resourc e RecoveryAssociates . PS D Appea l No . 86- 2 (Reman d Orde r Jun e 3 , 1986) , consideratio no f sourc e separatio nmeasure s fo r th e purpos e o f reducing NO xemission s shoul d includ e th e collatera l impact s o f suc hmeasure s o n emission s o f othe r (continued... )P.1 6

: 

### ii j 1 5 t o suggest , however , tha t futur e permi t application s nee d no t conside r potentiall yviabl e separatio nprogram s durin g th e cours e o f a BAC T analysi s jus t a s an yothe r availabl e contro l metho d o r practic e shoul d b e considere d i n suc hananalysis . AlthoughRegio n I I mus t conside r sourc e separatio na s par t o f it s BAC T determinatio n fo r NOx , i t doe s no t follo wtha t th e Regio nmus t ultimatel yreguir e sourc e separatio ni n thi s case . BAC T require s th e "maximu mdegre e o f reductio n o f eac hpollutan t

. . . throug happlicatio no f productio nprocesse s and availabl e methods , system s and techniques , including fue l cleaning , clea n fuels , o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n techniques. " 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) ; se e als o 4 0 CF R§52.21(b)(12 ) (1990) . I n conductin g th e case-by-cas e BAC T analysi s require d unde r th e Act , th e permittin g authorit yshal l tak e int o accoun t "energy , environmenta l and economi c impact s an d othe r costs " i n determinin g th e maximu mreductio ni nemission s tha t i s achievabl e fo r a particula r facility . Thus , eve ni f th e method s propose d b y petitione r ca n reduc e NO xemissions , i t doe s no t mea n tha t thes e requirement s mus t b e impose d a s BAC T i nthi s case . Rather ,

y 5/(. . .continued ) pollutants . Normally , sucha Nort hCount yinquirywoul d b e limite d t o consideratio n o f impact s o n emission s o f pollutant s tha t ar e unregulate d fo r purpose s o f th e PS D program , becaus e the BAC T determinatio n fo r eac hothe r regulate d pollutan t woul d " directl yconside r th e effect s o f th e BAC T determinatio nfo r NOx . Du e t o th e postur e o f thi s case , however , furthe r plenar y consideratio n o f BAC T fo r regulate d pollutant s othe r tha nNO xi s foreclosed . Accordingly , i n considering revision s t o th e BAC T determinatio n fo r NOx , Regio nI I shoul d evaluat e th e impact s o f sourc e separatio n measure s directe d t o NOxo nemission s o f othe r regulate d pollutant s a s well .P.1 7

''•iii i



# 2 1 6

consideratio no f energy , environmenta l an d economi c factor s may dictat e a differen t result . A s note d i n th e fina l rul e establishing NSP S limit s fo r incinerators , th e viabilit yo f a particula r separatio nprogram i s dependen t o na numbe r o f critica l factors . Als o a s note d i nth e fina l rule , th e critica l factor s varysignificantl yfromlocatio nt o location . 5 6 Fed . Reg . a t 5497 . A s th e petitione r point s out , ther e ar e a wid e variet yo f waste s tha t contai n som e nitrogen . Som e o f thes e ar e mor e susceptibl e tha n other s t o cost-effectiv e separatio n fromth e wastestreamprio r t o incineration . Ther e nee d no t b e a consideratio n o f everydetai l o f everyconceivabl e separatio nan d collectio n programfo r everyindividua l nitrogen-containin g componen t o f th e wast e strea mfo r th e BAC T analysi s requirement s t o b e satisfied . Rather , o n remand th e inquiryshoul d loo k a t readil ydiscernibl e component s o f th e wast e streamtha t contai n nitroge nan

d that , i f incinerated , maycontribut e t o NO x emission s —e.g . yar d wast e —an d examin e realisti c separatio n program s t o determin e thei r viabilit yi n thi s locale . I t may wel l b e tha t th e practica l difficultie s an d th e cost s associate d wit himplementing a separatio nprogramfo r nitrogen-containin g wast e i n th e Ne wYor k Cit yare a woul d lead th e Regio nt o conclud e that.thes e program s d o no t constitut e BAC T whe nth e cos t and othe r environmenta l impact s ar e considered. ^ \ & Some o f th e neede d analysi s mayhav e alread ybee nundertake n jb yNe wYork Cit ywhe ni t develope d it s soli d wast e recyclin g ^(continued... )P.1 8 

# w* 1 1 7

SE S argue s tha t NYPIRG' s proposa l woul d requir e SE S t o redefin e th e purpos e o f it s propose d facility : [T]he Agency' s ow

n figure s (5 4 Fed . Reg . 52,278 ) sho w tha t approximatel y8 0 percen t b yweigh t o f al l MS Wi s mad e up o f th e pape r an d paperboard , yar d wastes , foo d wastes , rubber , textile s and woo d tha t NYPIRGpropose s t o hav e remove d fromth e wast e strea m goin g t o municipa l wast e combustors . Consequently , i nth e guis e o f a BAC T review , NYPIRGwoul d see k t o compe l th e remova l o f mor e tha nthre e time s a s muc hmateria l a s th e overal l 2 5 percen t reductio n tha t [wa s propose d for ] th e NSP S rules . I n essence , unde r NYPIRG' s fue l cleaning proposal , th e onl ything s tha t coul d b e burne d a t th e BNYRR P woul d b e cans , bottle s and plastic s and al l thre e o f thos e type s o f MS Wwil l b e subjec t t o possibl e sourc e separatio n unde r * * * Loca l Law19 . Th e BNYRR P canno t b e redefine d int o a compostin g hea p th e siz e o f th e Fres hKill s landfil l i n th e guis e o f a BAC T review . (SE S Memorandu

mi n Oppositio nt o Petition s fo r Review , a t 31. ) NYPIRGcontend s tha t i t i s merel yasking SE S t o engag e i n "fue l cleaning, " wit hmunicipa l soli d wast e a s th e fue l and nitrogen

containin g item s a s th e pollution-causing impurit yt o b e cleane d ou t o f th e fuel . "Fue l cleaning " i s on e o f th e contro l technologie s specificall ymentione d i n th e definitio no f BACT . CA A§169(3) , 4 0 CF R§ 52.21(b)(12) . I d o no t constru e NYPIRG' s petitio n a s seeking a 10 0 percen t remova l o f nitrogen-containin g wastes . Se e NYPIRGSupplementa l y (...continued) programunde r Loca l La w19 . I encourag e Regio nI I t o rel yupo n tha t program(an

d an yrelate d document s tha t mayb e available ) a s appropriat e fo r th e purpose s o f identifying availabl e method s an d level s o f separation , an d o f identifying correspondin g energy , environmental , a n economi c impacts . I n addition , th e Regio n may giv e appropriat e weigh t t o th e experiences , finding s an d conclusion s o f th e Cit yi n conducting th e BAC T analysis . O f course , th e Regio n mayno t simpl yassume tha t an yprio r analyse s ar e adequat e fo r BAC T purposes , an d mus t exercis e independen t judgmen t i nmakin g it s ow n determinations .P.1 9

<$_&



# D 1 8 Comments , Feb . 4 , 1991 , a t 7 . I n an yevent , NYPIR Gno w specificall yconcede s tha t i t i s appropriat e fo r th e permittin g authorit yt o determin e an appropriat e leve l o f separation , i f any , considering cost s an d othe r relevan t factors . Se e NYPIR G Petitio n a t 30 . Thi s i s consisten t wit hth e norma l conduc t o f a BAC T analysis . Accordingly , I d o no t read NYPIRG' s petitio na s seekin g t o redefin e th e source , no r wil l consideratio n o f sourc e separatio n rende r th e facilit ynonviable . Consequently , I agre e wit hNYPIRGtha t sourc e separatio nwoul d constitut e fue l cleanin g o r treatmen t withi n th e meanin g o f sectio n169(3 ) o f th e Ac t an d th e PS D regulations . O n remand th e potentia l separatio nprogram shoul d b e include d a s par t o f th e BAC T analysis . I nthi s case , I conside r th e relevan t cos t criteri a t o includ e generall yth e factor s considere d b yEPAi nth e developmen t o f th e NSP S fo r municipa l wast e combustors . Amon g thes e ar e th e cos t o f a separat e collectio nprogram , th e cos t o f trucks , worke r wag e rates , citize n participatio nrates , an d othe r factor s tha t affec t th e overal l cost-effectivenes s o f separat e collection . Suc h othe r cost s woul d includ e material s processin g costs , includin g material s recoveryfacilitie s o r centralize d compostin g program s an d an yadministrativ e cost s o f suc ha program . O nth e othe r sid e o f th e ledger, , th e permittin g authorit yshoul d conside r th e avoide d disposa l costs , an d cost s o f avoide d landfal l disposa l froman yservic e are a expansion . Als o include d woul d b e th e revenu e fro

m an yprojecte d sale s o f recovere d materials , an d th e J avoide d cos t o f regula r tras hcollectio n tha t ma yresul t fromaP.2 0

u

### m

j£^**K 1 9

separat e collectio nprogram . Othe r benefit s coul d includ e an y reductio n i n emission s fro mavoide d landfil l emission s fo r material s (fro

man expande d servic e area ) tha t woul d otherwis e hav e bee nlandfilled . Se e generall yBackground Informatio n Document , EPA450/3-90-021 , "Municipa l Wast e Combustion : Background Informatio nFo r Material s Separation" ^ (January1991) . A s note d above , th e regulatorydefinitio no f BAC T provide s tha t wor k practic e standard s and th e lik e ma yb e employe d t o th e exten t tha t technologica l o r economi c limitation s o nth e us e o f measuremen t methodologie s woul d mak e a nemission s standar d infeasible . I t i s commo n fo r PS D permit s t o includ e a combinatio n o f emission s standard s an d wor k practic e standard s i n th e emissio n limitatio n fo r a give npollutant . Thi s ha s bee n don e b yRegio n I I i n thi s permit , fo r example , b yspecifyin g a n emissio n limi t fo r lea d t o b e me t throughth e us e o f a baghouse , a s wel l a s a requiremen t fo r separatio n o f moto r vehicl e batterie s fromth e wast e strea mprio r t o combustion . Se e supr a not e 4 . I n th e cas e o f NOx , whil e i t appear s tha t a program o f sourc e separatio n ma ywel l resul t i nsome reductio ni nNO x emissions , i t als o appear s fro mth e recor d tha t th e amoun t o f suc hreduction s canno t b e accuratel ypredicted . Consequently , if , o n remand , Regio n I I determine s tha t som e programo f sourc e separatio n shoul d b e include d i n th e "BACT determinatio nfo r NOx ,P.2 1

:f<'.i!ij..i ; '



# 1

) 2 0 i t woul d b e appropriat e t o includ e tha t requiremen t i na manne r consisten t wit hothe r simila r requirements.

- '

III . CONCLUSION I hav e considere d th e seve n petition s fo r revie wtha t hav e bee nfile d i n thi s proceeding . EDF' s petitio n and on e o f Dr . Fryshman' s petitio n wer e no t file d withi n th e applicabl e appea l periods . Mr . Bishop' s petitio nan d Mr . Fryshman' s othe r thre e petition s hav e faile d t o persuad e m e tha t th e Regiona l Administrato r wa s clearl yerroneou s i nissuing th e fina l permi t o r tha t hi s decisio ninvolve s a nexercis e o f discretio n o r a n importan t polic yissu e tha t shoul d b e reviewe d a s a discretionary matter . Accordingly , revie wo f thes e si xpetition s i s hereb y

- 7 A s indicate d above , m ydecisio nt o remand thi s permi t fo r consideratio n o f sourc e separatio n fo r NOxcontro l i s no t intende d t o resul t i n an yreconfiguratio n o f th e Brooklyn facilit yo r significan t chang e i n it s planne d usage . Controversie s ma yremai ni n quantifying th e efficac yo f sourc e separatio n a s a mean s o f reducin g emission s o f ai r pollutant s fromMWC s o n a per-ton-burne d basis . I t shoul d b e noted , however , tha t consideratio n o f sourc e separatio nb ythos e plannin g t o construc t MWC s i n th e futur e —a s par t o f a BAC T analysi s o r otherwis e —maylead themt o conclud e tha t th e bes t cours e woul d b e t o pla n fo r constructio no f a smalle r facilit yo r t o expand th e MW C servic e are a beyond wha t i t migh t hav e bee ni n th e absence.o f sourc e separation . T o th e exten t tha t municipalitie s reduc e th e aggregat e amoun t o f wast e incineratio n b ya shif t i n soli d wast e strategie s toward s sourc e separatio n an d recycling , i t i s simpl ycommo n sens e tha t ther e wil l b e a corresponding reductio n i n th e aggregat e amoun t o f ai r pollutio n emitte d b

yMWC s a s a whole . ' Se e 5 4 Fed . Reg . 52281 . Thes e result s woul d no t b e compelle d b yth e BAC T requirement . Shoul d the yoccur , however , suc hresult s woul d certainl yb e consisten t wit hth e ai r qualit yplannin g and pollutio npreventio npurpose s o f th e PS D program : minimizin g emission s fromindividua l ne w source s s o a s t o conserv e clea n ai r resource s and maximiz e opportunitie s fo r futur e economi c growth . Se e Clea n Ai r Ac t sectio n 160(1) , (3 ) and (5) , 4 2 U.S.C . 7470(1) , (3 ) and (5) .P.2 2

•y*

.-. / 2 1 denied . However , NYPIRG' s petitio ndoe s rais e a n issu e worth y o f consideratio ni n th e BAC T analysis . Accordingly , I a m remandin g thi s permi t t o Regio nI I fo r th e ver ylimite d purpos e o f considerin g th e viabilit yo f reasonabl yavailabl e materia l separatio nprogram s t o reduc e th e NO xemission s from th e Brookly

n facility . S o ordered . 

# JIL^. WILLIA MK . REILL Y

Dated : 

# •JU^

3-8, tf?2-



# JP.2 3

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E ..ijjjji ^ i hereb

ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoin g Remand Orde r i nth e matte r o f Brookly n Nav yYar d Resourc e Recover yFacility , PS D Appea l Nos . 88-10 , 90-10 , 90-11 , 90-12 , wer e sen t t o th e followin g person s i n th e manne r indicated . Firs t Clas s Mail , Postag e Prepaid : Roge r Anderso n Wheelabrato r Technologies , Inc . Libert yLan e Hampton , Ne wHampshir e 0 3 84 2 Conra d Simon, . Directo r . . Ai r an d Wast e Managemen t Divisio n EPA- Regio nI I 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne wYork , Ne wYor k 1027 8 Bernar d Fryshman , Ph.D . 101 6 Eas t Second Stree t Brooklyn, . Ne wYor k 112 3 0 Samue l A . Bisho p Bisho p & Schriffen , Consultant s 44 0 Eas t 20t hStree t Ne wYork , Ne wYor k 1000 9 LarryShapir o Ne wYor k Publi c Interes t Researc h Group , Inc . 9 MurrayStree t Ne wYork , Ne wYor k 10007-227 2 Alexandr a Callam Assistan t Regiona l Counse l Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l EPA- Regio nI I 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne wYork , Ne wYor k 1027 8 B yHand : Bessi e Hammie l Headquarter s Hearin g Cler k Room 370 8 ^A-110 ) 

## /4^-x* - y . V^-'-A- J Dian e L . Week s Branc hSecretary Dated : Marc h5 , 199 2

;