P. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 45 ) ll-K-2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 45of 142P. 2

V . ,,'. ,

BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATO R

U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y

WASHINGTON , D.C . I n th e Matte r of : Honolul u Resourc e RecoveryFacility , Applican t PS D Appea l No . 86- 8

V *i

# I REMAN D

### . ;•

' -'"' • J/ii V25199 5 ill'' ' Sierr a Club , Conservatio n Counci l fo r Hawaii,, ; AmerieiOrEun g Associatio n o f Hawaii , Lif e o f th e Land , and Josep h-Slin g eV~4Peti

tioners ) jointl yreques t reviewo f a Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t determinatio n tha t wil l authoriz e th e Cit yan

d Count yo f Honolul u t o construc t th e Honolul u Resourc e 

# y RecoveryFacilit y(H-Power) , a municipa l wast e burner . A fina l decisio n t o issu e a permi t wa s mad e o n Novembe r 17 , 1986 , byth e Hawai i Departmen t o f Healt h(HDOH) , wit hEPARegio n IX' s concurrence , pursuan t t o a delegatio n agreemen t betwee n Regio n I Xan d HDOH . HDOH' s actio n i n issuin g th e permi t i s subjec t 

## 1 / t o th e revie wprovision s o f 4 0 CF R§124.19 , becaus e th e 1 / Hiroj i Ab e als o submitte d a petitio n fo r revie wdate d Decembe r 20 , 1986 , whic hthi s offic e receive d o n Decembe r 30 , 1986 . Th e rule s requir e tha t petition s fo r revie wo f a permi t determinatio n b e file d withi n 3 0 day s o f issuanc e (plu s mailin g time) . 4 0 CF R§§124.1 9 an d 124.20 . I n thi s cas e a petitio n ha d t o b e postmarke d b yDecembe r 20 , 1986 . Th e recor d contain s n o evidenc e o f whe n Mr . Ab e maile d th e petition , bu t th e fac t tha t th e petitio n wa s no t receive d unti l Decembe r 3 0 lead s t o a conclusio n tha t th e petitio n i s untimely . Accordingly , th e petitio n i s dismissed . Additionally , I not e tha t Mr . Ab e doe s no t rais e an

yissue s no t encompasse d b yPetitioner' s petitio n fo r review . 2 / Al l reference s t o th e Cod e o f Federa l Regulation s (CFR ) ar e t o th e 198 6 edition .P. 3

- 2

- • • permi t i s deeme d t o b e an EPA-issue d permi t unde r EP Arules . 4 0 CF R§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 3 (Ma y19 , 1980) . Unti l revie w i s complete d th e H-Powe r facilit yi s withou t aneffectiv e permi t an d therefor e i s no t authorize d t o begi nconstruction . Petitioner s protes t issuanc e o f th e permi t becaus e the ybe

lieve i t doe s no t require , a s i t i s suppos e to , us e o f th e bes t 

## 1 / availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) fo r sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) an d becaus e the ybeliev e th e permittin g authorit ydi d no t evaluat e th e impac t o f th e SO 2 contro l technologyo n unregulate d pollutants , a s require d byNort hCount yResourc e RecoveryAssociates , PS D Appea l No . 85- 2 (June 3 , 1986) . I nrespons e t o th e petitio n fo r review , Regio nI Xstate s tha t i t ha s reevaluate d th e recor d an d considere d ne winformatio no nmunicipa l wast e incineration , an d nowconclude s tha t th e BAC T determinatio nfo r H-Powe r ma y no t b e appropriate . I nvie wo f th e Region' s respons e an d afte r considering th e petitio n fo r revie wan d th e variou s responses , I agre e wit hth e Regio ntha t HDOH' s BAC T determinatio nfo r SO 2 mayb e inappropriate . Also , th e analysi s require d b yNort h Count yo f th e impac t o f control s o nemission s o f unregulate d pollutant s appear s t o b e inadequate . Therefore , I a mremandin g th e concurrenc e t o th e Regio nfo r reconsideration .

3 / Althoug hPetitioner s als o declar e tha t th e BAC T determinatio n fo r particulat e matte r and hydrochlori c aci d i s unlawful , thei r petitio n onl yaddresse s th e BAC T determinatio nfo r SO 2 and fail s t o provid e an ysupportin g argument s fo r thes e othe r claims . Fo r thi s reason , th e Regio nand HDOH . direc t thei r response s t o th e SO 2 BAC T determi

natio nan

d thi s remand concern s onl yth e SO 2 BAC T determination .P. 4

V . , -3

- Discusaio n Befor e a majo r newfacilit yca nb e constructe d i nanare a 

## 1 / tha t i s meeting the Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandard s (NAAQS) , th e owne r mus t obtai na PS D permi t t o construc t an d operat e th e fa

cility . 4 2 U.S.C . §§7470-79 . Th e Clea nAi r Ac t condition s permi t issuanc e o na showing tha t th e propose d facilit ywil l employBAC T fo r eac hregulate d pollutan t emitte d fro m i t i nsignifican t amounts . 4 2 U.S.C . §7475 . Sectio n16 9 o f th e Ac t define s BAC T a s a n "emissio n limitatio nreflectin g th e maximu mdegre e o f reduction " tha t th e "permitting authority, " 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 " determine s i s "achievable. " 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) . EP ARegio nI Xdelegate d it s authorit yt o issu e PS D permit s t o HDO H i n1983 , subjec t t o th e Region' s concurrenc e o nBAC T determination s fo r th e firs t fiv e permits . 4 8 Fed . Reg . 51,68 2 (Novembe r 10 , 1983) . H-Power,. a resourc e recoveryfacilit ytha t wil l bur nmunici

pa l soli d wast e an d generat e electricit yfromthi s process , i s th e firs t sourc e t o receiv e a permi t determinatio nfromHDO H unde r th e delegation . HDO H mad e a fina l decisio nt o issu e a permi t fo r H-Powe r o nNovembe r 14 , 1986 , and EPAsigne d th e permi t t o concu r i nth e BAC T determinatio no nNovembe r 17 , 1986 . Pursuan t t o §124.15 , a fina l permi t decisio n become s effectiv e 3 0 day s afte r servic e o f

4 / H-Powe r wil l b e locate d i na nare a designate d a s bein g i n attainmen t o f th e SO 2 NAAQS . 4 0 CF R§81.312 .P. 5

-4

- notic e o f th e decisio nunles s revie wi s requeste d unde r §124.19 . 5 / Petitioner a requeste d revie wunde r §124.1 9 i na timel ymanner ; thu s th e permi t decisio ni s no t effective . Th e event s leading t o th e HDO H permi t decisio nnee d no t b e detaile d here ; th e highlight s wil l suffice . Initially , HDO H issue d a draf t permi t containin g SO 2 limit s o f 19 1 part s pe r millio n(ppm ) an d 34 9 lbs/hr (3-hou r average ) bu t requiring nothin g i nterm s o f technologica l emissio ncontrol s fo r SO2 . Regio nI Xexpresse d it s disapproval , takin g th e positio ntha t BAC T fo r a municipa l wast e burne r suc ha s H-Powe r call s fo r us e o f a dryscrubber , sinc e i t woul d enabl e th e facilit yt o achiev e SO 2 emissio nlimit s o f 3 0 pp m (approximatel y 80 % remova l efficiency) . HDO H persisted , however , reiteratin g it s positio ntha t loca l environmental , economic , and energy impact s suppor t a conclusio ntha t scrubber s ar e no t require d fo r H-Power . I nth e en d th e Regio nan

d HDO H reache d a compromis e

5 / HDO H argue s tha t th e petitio nshoul d b e dismisse d unde r §124.1 9 fo r failur e t o includ e a "demonstration " tha t th e issue s bein g raise d i nth e petitio n wer e raise d during th e publi c commen t period . Th e Regio nagree s tha t th e petitio n doe s no t includ e a statemen t t o thi s effect , bu t point s ou t tha t th e exhibit s submitte d wit hHDOH' s respons e sho wtha t th e issue s wer e indee d raise d durin g Jth

e publi c commen t period . So , th e Regio nsuggest s tha t th e Petitioners ' failur e t o compl ywit hthi s "technical " requiremen t i s harmles s error . I amincline d t o agre e wit hth e Region . Th e purpos e o f th e requiremen t i s t o inform th e Admini

strato r whethe r a petitio nfo r revie wmeet s th e prerequisite s fo r consideration , i.e. , tha t th e permi t issue r ha d a nopportunit y t o addres s th e issu e durin g the publi c commen t perio d prio r t o issuin g th e permit . 4 0 CF R§124.13 . Sinc e th e exhibit s supple

mentin g th e response s b yth e partie s indicat e tha t Petitioner s di d rais e th e issue s below , I se e n o har m cause d byPetitioners ' omission .P. 6

-5

- i na fina l permi t decisio ntha t set s SO 2 limit s a t 14 3 ppmand 34 9 lbs/hr o n a 3-hour averag e (onl ya 25 % reductio naccording t o



# i / th eRegion ) t o b eme t withou t scrubbers , byremovin g high-sulfu r bearin g material s prio r t o combustio no f

th ewaste . I naddition , th epermi t

provide s fo r

th elate r

additio no f

adr ysorben t injectio nsyste mi f

necessar yt o meet

th eemission s limit s i n th epermit
. Base d o na reevaluatio no f th e recor d an d newinformatio n 7 / o nmunicipa l wast e incineration , the Regio nnowbelieve s tha t HDOH' s BAC T determinatio nma yno t b e appropriate . Th e Regio n point s ou t tha t 1 7 o f 2 1 municipa l wast e burner s i nthe Regio n wil l hav e scrubber s an d o f th e remaining four , thre e wil l achiev e

8 / S02 : contro l o f ove r 90 % efficiency . Considering th e differenc e i ncontro l efficienc ybetwee nH-Powe r and thes e othe r resourc e recover yprojects , th e Regio nconclude s tha t HDO H ha s no t presente d a compelling cas e tha t loca l factor s ar e sufficien t t o warran t allowin g a les s effectiv e contro l technologyfo r

6 / HDO H assert s tha t 57 % reductio no f SO 2 emission s wil l resul t fro mth e 14 3 pp mrate . l_l Accordin g t o EPARegio nIX , th e newinformatio ninclude s pre sentation s a t thre e recen t conference s 1 ) th e America nPollutio n Contro l Associatio n Conferenc e entitle d "Burning Ou r Garbage : Issue s and Alternatives, " Octobe r 30-31 , 198 6 i nSa nFrancisco ; 2 ) AnEPAworksho p o nmunicipa l wast e combustion , Decembe r 9-10 , 198 6 i nNort hCarolina ; an d 3 ) th e "Firs t Nationa l Regulatory Agenc yResourc e RecoveryWorkshop " sponsore d b yth e Californi a Ai r Pollutio nContro l Officer s Associatio nan d Northeas t State s fo r Coordinate d Ai r Us e Management , Januar y15-17 , 198 7 i nLo s Angeles . 8 / Th e las t projec t i s smal l an d wil l hav e SO 2 emission s o f 4 5 ppm .P. 7

-6

- 

## 2 / H-Power . Furthermore , the Regio nassert s tha t HDO H faile d t o analyz e th e impac t o f th e propose d control s o nunregulate d pollutant s a s require d b yNort hCounty . Fo r thes e reasons , th e Regio nrequest s th e Administrato r t o gran t revie wo nth e BAC T determination . 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 wshoul d b e onl ysparingl y exercise 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 . I_d . Thi s i s 9_ / Simpl ybecaus e mos t o f th e municipa l wast e burner s i nth e Regio nwil l emplo yscrubber s fo r SO 2 contro l doe s not , a s a matte r o f law , compe l a conclusio ntha t H-Powe r mus t hav e scrubbers . Se e Norther nPlain s Resourc e Counci l v . U.S . EPA , 64 5 F.2 d 134 9 (9t h Cir . 1981) ; I nth e Matte r o f Ne wYor k Powe r Authority , PS D Appea l No . 82- 4 (Dec . 6 , 1983) . However , th e fac t tha t essentiall yal l municipa l wast e burner s wil l hav e scrubber s and becaus e thes e scrubber s ar e effectiv e i ncontrollin g emission s o f potentiall y toxi c organi c and heav ymeta l pollutants , and aci d gase s othe r tha nSO2 , demonstrate s tha t th e technologyi s available . Accord

ingl ysubstantia l and uniqu e loca l factor s mus t b e shownt o justif ya les s efficien t contro l technology . 10 / HDO H doe s no t clai mtha t it s BAC T determinatio ninclude d a n evaluatio no f th e impac t o f th e SO 2 control s o nunregulate d pol

lutants ; rathe r i t argue s tha t i nth e proces s o f makin g a fina l permi t decision , i t evaluate d th e potentia l impac t o f unregulate d pollutant s emitte d fromH-powe r an d revise d th e permi t t o "buffe r thes e impacts " b

yincludin g a requiremen t fo r highe r combustio n temperature s and longe r retentio ntim e i nth e boilers . HDO H als o adde d a ter mtha t require s complianc e wit han yadditiona l guidanc e develope d a s a resul t o f th e Nort hCount yremand . HDO H claim s thi s satisfie s th e requirement s o f Nort hCounty .P. 8

-7

- particularl ytru e fo r BAC T determination s becaus e theyinvolv e individualise d consideratio no f th e fact s o f eachcase . Se e I nth e matte r o f CertainTee d Corporation , PS D Appea l No . 81- 2 (Decembe r 21 , 1982) . Give nth e limited purpos e o f thi s revie w and th e fac t tha t BAC T determination s shoul d b e made , a t leas t i nth e firs t instance , a t th e regiona l o r loca l level , I am remandin g th e concurrenc e t o th e Regio n fo r reconsideration . Sinc e th e Regio n nowexpresse s doub t abou t it s concurrenc e o n th e BACT , I conclud e tha t th e prope r cours e o f actio ni s fo r th e Regio nt o reconside r it s decisio nan d eithe r find tha t th e evidenc e support s it s initia l decisio nt o concu r or , i f not , t o 

## ii / mak e wha t i t consider s th e correc t determination . Th e Regio n wil l hav e t o determin e whethe r th e applican t ha s me t it s burde n o f demonstratin g tha t significan t technica l defects , o r substantia l loca l economic , energy , o r environmenta l factor s o r othe r cost s warran t a contro l technologyles s efficien t thanscrubbers . I nreconsiderin g it s concurrenc e th e Regio nshoul d consul t wit hnationa l o r othe r regiona l leve l EPAprogramofficials , and ma yobtai nmor e informatio nfromHDOH o r H-Power , perfor m additiona l analysis , o r otherwis e wor k wit hHDOH , a s appropriate .

11 / HDO H point s t o th e Region' s officia l concurrenc e i nth e BAC T determinatio nand argue s tha t th e Region' s curren t positio n i s inconsisten t wit hth e delegatio nagreement . I nmakin g thi s argument , HDO H ignore s th e natur e o f th e delegatio nagreemen t and th e fac t tha t i t i s subjec t t o the permitting procedure s i n Par t 124 . Th e delegatio nagreemen t i s no t a privat e bon d indentur e o r lease ; i t i s a ninstrumen t fo r implementing a la w enacte d i nth e publi c interest . A s state d a decad e ag o i na n EP Apermi t proceeding : (Footnot e continued )P. 9

• , -8

- Afte r suc hreconsideration , the Regio n i s t o issu e a ful l repor t t o th e Administrato r an d th e partie s o nit s decisio nan d th e supportin g reasons . Whateve r th e Regio n decide s mus t b e adequatel ysupporte d b yth e existing administrativ e recor d 

## ii / and an ysupplement s thereto . I f th e Regio ndecide s t o with

dra wit s concurrence , i t mus t se t ou t it s ow nBAC T determinatio n and includ e a discussio no f wh yth e loca l factor s raise d byHDO H ar e no t sufficien t t o justif ythe initia l BAC T determination . (Footnot e 1 1 continued ) Th e Agenc yi s th e representativ e o f th e publi c interes t and i s no t "anumpir e blandl ycalling ball s and strike s fo r adversarie s appearing befor e it ; th e righ t o f th e publi c mus t receiv e active , and affirmativ e protection " a t th e hand s o f th e Agency . [Sceni c Hudso nPreservatio n Conferenc e v . FPC , 35 4 F.2 d 608 , 62 0 (2d Cir . 1965 ) cert . denie d 38 4 U.S . 94 1 (1966). ] Th e court s hav e mad e clea r tha t th e Agenc ymus t tak e affirmativ e step s t o obtai nth e informatio nnecessaryt o sound decision s unde r th e statute s i t administers , eve na t th e cos t o f dela y... . I nr e Publi c Servic e Compan yo f Ne wHampshire , et . al . (Seabroo k Station , Unit s 1 an d 2) , 1 0 ERC 1257 , 126 3 (1977T . Th e instan t cas e represent s a situatio nwher e th e Regio nretaine d authorit y i nth e delegatio n agreemen t t o revie wan d concu r i nBAC T deter

mination s and no wth e Regio nexpresse s second thought s abou t it s concurrence . A s Justic e Frankfurte r stated , "Wisdo mto o ofte nneve r comes , an d s o on e ough t no t t o rejec t i t merel y becaus e i t come s late. " Hensle e v . Unio nPlanter s Nat . Ban k & Trus t Co. , 33 5 U.S . 595 , 600 , 6 9 S . Ct . 290 , 293 , 9 3 L E d 25 9 (1948) . Certainly , th e Administrator , wit hhi s statutor y responsibilit yt o protec t the environment , shoul d loo k a t th e Region' s concern s or , i f appropriate , direc t th e Regio nt o reconside r it s decisio nt o concur . Th e permit , afte r all , i s no t ye t effective . 12 / I nit s respons e t o th e petition , HDO H argue s tha t 4 0 CF R§124.1 3 prohibit s consideratio n o f newinformatio nbecaus e thi s informatio n i s no t par t o f th e administrativ e record . I disagree . Sectio n 124.1 3 direct s partie s objecting t o an ycondition s o f th e draf t permi t t o submi t thei r comment s durin g th e publi c commen t period . (Footnot e continued )P.1 0

t -9

-

Afte r reviewing th e Region' s decisio no nremand and an y response s b

ythe parties , I wil l issu e a ruling o nth e petitio n fo r review . I n th e meantime , th e pending petitio nfo r revie w wil l b e hel d i nabeyance . During th e time th e Regio ni s reconsidering it s concurrence , th e Regio nand HDO H maychoos e t o negotiat e revision s t o th e H-Powe r BAC T determinatio nan d issu e a newpermi t decision . I f so , an yrevise d permi t decision , unles s appealed , wil l becom e fina l withi n3 0 day s o f servic e o f notic e t o th e Petitioners , th e permi t applicant , an d an yothe r partie s previousl yentitle d t o notic e unde r 4 0 CF R§124.15 . S o ordered .

Dated : T-~ l 

## ; 

# l°!<? 7 Lee M . Thoma s Administrato r

(Footnot e 1 2 continued ) I t doe s no t appl yt o th e permittin g authorit yor , i n thi s case , t o Regio nI Xbecaus e o f the Region' s relationshi p t o th e permit

tin g authorit yunde r th e delegatio nagreement . No r doe s §124.1 3 prohibi t th e Administrato r fromconsiderin g newinformation . I n vie wo f th e Administrator' s broa d authorit yt o revie wpermi t decisions , includin g th e righ t t o remand unde r §124.19 , th e Administrato r ha s th e powe r t o direc t th e Regiona l Administrato r o r HDO H t o conside r ne winformatio nan d t o seek furthe r evidenc e o nrelevan t points . Se e I nth e matte r o f 17 0 Alask a Place r Miners , Mor e o r Less , NPDE S Appea l No . 79- 1 (Mar . .10 , 1980) ; I n r e Publi c Servic e Compan yo f Ne wHampshire , et . al . (Seabroo k Station , Unit s 1 and 2) , 1 0 ER C 125 7 (Decisio no f th e Administrator , 1977) .P.1 1

» »

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t th e copie s o f th e foregoin g Remand i nth e Matte r o f Honolul u Resourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 86-8 , wer e serve d upo nth e following person s b y1s t clas s mail , postag e prepaid : Joh nC . Lewin , M.D . Departmen t o f Healt h Stat e o f Hawai i P.O . Bo x337 8 Honolulu , Hawai i 9680 1 Judit hE . Ayre s Regiona l Administrato r U.S . EPA , Regio nI X 21 5 Fremon t Stree t Sa nFrancisco , CA9410 5 Josep hJ . Brecher , Esq . 50 6 15t hStree t Oakland , CA9461 2 Jerem yHarri s Managin g Directo r Cit yan d Count yo f Honolul u Honolulu , Hawai i 9681 3 Josep hA . Cannon , Esq . Suit e 110 0 166 7 K Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2000 6 Joh nC . Wis e Deput yRegiona l Administrato r U.S . EPA , Regio nI X 21 5 Fremon t Stree t Sa nFrancisco , CA9410 5 Davi d P . Howekamp , Directo r Ai r Managemen t Divisio n U.S . EPA , Regio nI X 21 5 Fremon t Stree t Sa nFrancisco , C A9410 5 Hiroj i Ab e P.O . Bo x428 5 Honolulu , Hawai i 96812-428 5

Brend a H . Selde n Dated : JU

M2 3 OT Secretaryt o th e Chie f i>fl^ **+ •

» 1 sy^^i•*«» •