# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 44 ) ll-K- 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:20AM Sheet 44 of 142 p. 1P. 2



### " 1 ) BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATOR U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIO NAGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C .

I n th e Matte r of : Nort hCount yResourc e Recover yAssociate s Applican t PS D Appea l No . 85- 2 

# .A,<fO'$l

ii.!'., ' JA M 2 5" ^ l\

; 

## :. REMAND

I n petition s file d pursuan t t o 40 • cTXTTM-4vt9--{~L9.8,5J„ , Donal d J . Wakefiel d an d John R . Leac hJr. , jointly , an d Stephe n Isaa c and..Richar

d D . Sauerheb.er , individually , requeste d revie w of . a Prevention-o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t < determinatio n tha t wil l authoriz e Nort hCount yResourc e Recover y Associate s (NCRR ) t o construc t a 3 3 megawatt , 100 0 ton pe r da y resourc e recover

yfacilit yin Sa n Marcos , California . Th e determinatio n t o issu e the permi t wa s mad e o n Marc h22 , 1985 , b yth e Director , Ai r Managemen t Division , U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n Agency , Regio n IX , Sa n Francisco , California . Petition s fo r revie wo f PS D permit s ar e no t usuall ygrante d unles s th e permi t determinatio n i s clearl yerroneou s o r involve s an exercis e o f discretio n o r polic ytha t i s importan t an d there

for e shoul d be reviewe d a s a discretionarymatter , 4 0 CF R S124.19(a ) (1 ) an

d (2') . Th e preambl e t o the regulation s containin g thi s standar d state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie wshoul d b e onl y sparingl yexercise d (and ] . . . mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall ydetermine d a t the Reqiona l level . ... " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 2 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Th e burde n o f demonstratin g tha tP. 3

-2

- th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e o n the petitioners . Among the reason s th e petitioner s presen t fo r arantin c re vie wi s Regio n IX' s allege d failur e t o establis hemissio n limi

tation s fo r al l pollutants , includin g hazardou s pollutants , tha t wil l o r coul d possibl ybe emitte d fromth e facility ; th e allege d inadequac yo f Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology(BACT ) determinations ; th e allege d us e of-unrepresentativ e meteorolo

gical , data ; the contentio n tha t th e Comple xI ai r dispersio n mode l fo r predictin g pollutio n level s i s inappropriate ; an d miscellaneou s matter s suc ha s th e contentio n tha t the impac t o f •emission s o n vegetatio n wa s no t properl yevaluated . Wit hon e exception , Regio n IXha s addresse d eac ho f petitioners ' allega

tion s an

d ha s provide d rationa l explanation s fo r no t makin g an y alteration s in it s permi t determination . Th e exceptio n concern s Regio n IX' s assertio n tha t EP Alack s the authorit yt o "consider " pollutant s no t regulate d b yth e Clea n Ai r Ac t whe n makin g a PS D determination . Thi s assertio n i s correc t onl yi f i t i s read narrowl yt o mea n EPAlack s the authorit yt o impos e limitation s o r othe r restriction s directl yo n th e emissio n o f unregulate d pollutants . EP

Aclearl yha s n o suc hauthorit yove r emission s o f unregulate d pollutants . Recio n IX' s assertio n i s overl ybroad , however , i f i t i s mean t a s a limitatio n on EPA' s authorit yt o evaluate , fo r example , th e environmenta l impac t o f unregulate d pollutant s in the cours e o f makin g a BAC T determinatio n fo r the regulate d pollutants . EPA' s authorit yin tha t respec t i s clear . 

### V- "P. 4

• ^ -3

- r v . Unde r 5165(a)(4 ) o f the Clea n Ai r Ac t an d the relevan t regulation s a propose d facilit yi s subjec t t o the "bes t avail

abl e contro l technology " (BACT ) fo r eac hpollutan t tha t i s regulate d b

ythe Ac t tha t i s emitte d from , o r whic hresult s from , suc hfacilit yin significan t amounts , 4 2 US C §7475(a)(4) ; 4 0 CFR S52.21(i)(1985) . A s define d in §169(3 ) the ter m BAC T refer s t o a n "emissio n limitation " tha t i s se t o n a case-by-cas e basi s fo r regulate d pollutants , "taking int o accoun t energy , environmental , an

d economi c impact s an d othe r costs " associate d wit hth e particula r emissio n contro l system tha t i s selecte d t o achiev e th

e BAC T emissio n limitation . 4 2 US C §7479(3 ) (emphasi s added) ; 4 0 CFR §52.21(b)(12) . Hence , i f applicatio n o f a contro l syste m

result s directl yi n th e releas e (or removal ) o f pollutant s tha t ar e no t currentl yregulate d unde r th e Act , th e ne t environmenta l impac t o f suc hemission s i s eligibl e fo r consideratio n in makin o the BAC T determination . Th e analysi s maytak e the for

mo f comparing the incrementa l environmenta l impac t o f alternativ e emission"contro l system s wit hthe contro l syste mpropose d a s BACT ; however , a s in an yBAC T determination , the exac t for

mo f the analysi s an d the leve l o f detai l reguire d wil l depend upo n the fact s o f the individua l case . Dependin g rpo n wha t weigh t i s assigne d t o the environmenta l impac t o f a particula r contro l system , th e contro l syste mpropose d a s BAC T mayhav e t o be modifie d o r b e reiecte d in favo r o f anothe r sys tem . I n othe r words , EP Ama yultimatel ychoos e mor e stringen t emissio n limitation s for a regulate d pollutan t tha n i t woul dP. 5 

### -4

- otherwis e hav e chose n i f setting suc hlimitation s woul d hav e th e incidenta l benefit ' o f restrictin g a hazardou s but , a s yet , 1 / unregulate d pollutant . Afte r reviewin g Regio n IX' s response s t o petitioners ' comment s an

d t o thei r petition s fo r review , i t i s unclea r t o m e whethe r Regio n I Xha s give n appropriat e consideratio n t o the matter s jus t described . Petitioner s hav e expresse d under

standabl e frustratio n a t being told , withou t more , tha t "EP A doe s no t hav e the authorit yt o conside r dioxi n o r mos t othe r toxi c ai r contaminant s fo r th e purpos e o f issuin g a PS D permit. ' Accordingly , I a

mremanding th e permi t determinatio n t o Regio n I Xfo r reconsideratio n an d fo r actio n consisten t wit hth e fore

goin a interpretatio n o f EPA' s authorit yt o conside r unregulate d pollutant s whe n makin g PS D determinations . I n th e meantim e a ruling o n th e pendin g petition s fo r revie wwil l b e hel d i n abeyance . S o ordered . s , 

# V



# r \ ^4^ —

# V

Le e M . Thoma s Administrato r Dated : 

# 3 IT H W Industryengineer s woul d remai n free , o f course , t o exercis e thei r ow

n independen t judgmen t i n devisin g way s t o mee t an y suc hmor e strinaen t emissio n limitations , provide d the eneray , environmenta l an

d economi c impact s associate d wit hthe chose n contro l syste mar e no t Inconsisten t wit hth e correspondin g im

pact s associate d wit hthe mor e stringen t emissio n limitations . Se e I n the Matte r o f CertainTee d Corporatio n a t 5-8 , PS D Appea l No . 81- 2 (Decisio n o f the Administrator , Decembe r 21,

- 1982) .P. 6 

# 7 i CERTIFICAT E O F . ' ERVIC E

I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f the foregoin qRemand i n the matte r o f Nort hCount yResourc e RecoveryProject , PS D Appea l No . 85-2 , wer e serve d o n th e following : B y1s t clas s mail , David-P . Howekam p postag e prepaid : Directo r Ai r Managemen t Divisio n U.S . EPA , Regio n IX 21 5 Fremon t Stree t Sa n Francisco , C

A9410 5 Donal d J . Wakefiel d John R . Leach , Jr . 741 2 Carlin a Stree t Carlsbad , C

A9200 8 Stephe n Issac , Ph.D . Presiden t Th e Christwar d Ministry 2056 0 Questhave n Roa d Escondido , CA9202 5 Richar d D . Sauerhebe r Rees-Steal yResearc hFoundatio n 200 1 Fourt hAvenu e Sa n Diego , CA9210 1

, ' Ms . Lorrain e Pearso n Regiona l Hearing Cler k U.S . EPA , Regio n IX 21 5 Fremon t Stree t Sa n Francisco , C

A9410 5 Richar d L . Hopkin s Projec t Directo r Nort hCount yResourc e Recover yAssociate s 163 5 S . Ranch o Santa-F e Roa d Sa n Marcos , CA9206 9

Eilee n J . Barnhard t Secretaryt o the Chie f Judicia l Office r 

### Dated : JU

N " 5 198 6