# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 59 ) ll-K-1 6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 59of 142 P. 1

# W- P. 2

BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATO

R U.S . ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C .

I nth e Matte r of : Mecklenbur g Cogeneratio n Limite d Partnershi p Clarksville , V

A 

### Applican t 

## < 5 re

PS D Appea l N o .-

. 90~ 7 t;*

=

ORDE RDENYIN

GREVIE W I na petitio n date d Jun e 15 , 1990 , th e Southsid e Concerne d Citizens , Inc . o f Halifax , Virgini a requeste d reviewo f a Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) permi t issue d t o Mecklenbur g Cogeneratio n Limite d Partnership , Inc . fo r th e constructio n o f a 24 0 megawat t cogeneratio n plan t i nMecklenbur g County , Virginia . Th e facilitywil l compris e four pulverize d coal-fire d boiler s capabl e o f generating electricit yfo r Virgini a Power , a n electri c utilit ycompany , an d stea mfo r Burlingto n Industries , a textil e manufacturer . Th e permi t determinatio nwa s mad e b yth e Departmen t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l (DAPC ) o f th e Stat e o f Virgini a o n May18 , 1990 , pursuan t t o a delegatio no f authorit yfro

m th e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Regio n III , Philadelphia , Pennsylvania . Becaus e o f th e delegation , DAPC' s authorit yt o issu e PS D permit s i s subjec t t o th e revie w provision s o f th e applicabl e EPAregulations , 4 0 CFR§124.1 9 (1989) , an

d an ypermi t i t issue s wil l b e anEPA-issue d permi t fo r_ ^ p ^ W - T "**••**•-

purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CF R§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 3 (Ma y 19 , 1980) . Unde r th e rule s governing thi s proceeding , ther e i s n o appea l a s o f righ t fromth e permi t decision . Ordinarily , a petitio nfo 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 na clearl yerroneou s finding o f fac t o r conclusio no f law , o r involve s a n importan t matte r o f polic yo r exercis e o f discretio n tha 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 demonstrating tha t th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e o nth e petitioner . Petitione r ha s no t satisfie d tha t burde ni nthi s in

stance . Petitione r object s t o th e emission s limitation s i nth e permi t fo r th e pollutant s N0 Xan d S0 2 , contending tha t th e limitation s d o no t reflec t applicatio no f "bes t availabl e contro l technology " (BACT ) fo r emission s control . Accordin g t o petitione r th e BAC T analysis , althoughpurporting t o follo wthi s Agency' s "top-down " policy, 1 nevertheles s di d no t provid e 

# if

1 Se e Pennsauke n CountyResourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88-8 , p. 5 (Nov . 10 , 1988 ) (unde r th e "top-down " method , th e mos t stringen t contro l technologyi s evaluate d first , an d i s presume d t o b e BAC T unles s th e permi t applican t demonstrate s tha t ther e ar e technica l o r othe r collatera l impact s whic hmak e i t infeasible , unreasonabl e o r otherwis e no t "achievable " fo r tha t facility , i nwhic hcas e th e nex t mos t stringen t contro l alternative , i s evaluate d a s BACT , an d s o forth) .

# w P. 4

3 adequat e documentatio n fo r rejecting (i ) selectiv e catalyti c reductio n (SCR ) fo r contro l o f NO , emission s an d (ii ) magnesiu

m oxid e promote d we t scrubbing fo r contro l o f S0 2 emissions . Applicatio no f thes e technologies , according t o petitioner , woul d hav e resulte d i n mor e stringen t emissio nlimitation s bein g se t fo r thes e pollutants . Applicatio no f th e latte r woul d als o mea n th e facilit ywoul d hav e les s o f a n impac t o n th e Nationa l Ambien t Ai r Qualit yStandar d (NAAQS ) fo r S0 2 i n th e surrounding geographica l area. 2 Thes e objection s d o no t persuad e m e t o reviewth e permit . I t i s undispute d tha t DAP C analyze d th e permi t applicatio nb y employing EPA' s top-dow npolicy . Tha t polic ycall s fo r th e applican t t o identif yth e mos t stringen t technolog yfo r controlling emission s o f particula r pollutant s suc ha s NO , an d S0 2 . I f th e applican t doe s no t inten d t o us e tha t technology , i t
mus t poin t t o appropriat e statutor yconsideration s fo r rejecting

2 Afte r th e time fo r filin g a n appea l had expired , petitione r submitte d additiona l materials , prepare d b yth e Nationa l Par k Service , regarding.allege d advers e impact s o nai r qualit yrelate d value s i n th e ShenandoahNationa l Park , whic hth e Park Servic e believe s woul d resul t fro mth e operatio no f an yo f approximatel y1 5 coal-fire d facilitie s currentl ypropose d fo r constructio n i n Virginia . Th e Mecklenbur g facilit yi s on e o f the 1 5 facilities . Neithe r th e Park Servic e no r th e petitione r raise d thi s issu e whe n th e cas e wa s pending befor e DAPC ; moreover , th e Par k Service' s determinatio no f advers e impac t i s preliminary , no t final . I conclude , therefore , tha t th e issu e i s no t appropriat e fo r consideratio n o n appeal : i t wa s no t raise d i na prope r an

d timel ymanner , an d petitione r ha s no t otherwis e show ncaus e fo r considering th e issu e ou t o f time . Se e 4 0 CF R §124.1 3 (al l reasonabl yascertainabl e issue s mus t b e raise d firs t wit hth e permi t issuer) ; 4 0 CFR§124.19(a ) (appeal s mus t b e accompanie d b

ya statemen t o f reason s an d filed withi n3 0 day s afte r issuanc e o f th e permi t issuer' s decision) .f 4 it , suc ha s overriding economic , environmental , o r energ y concerns . Afai r reading o f th e recor d demonstrate s tha t al l o f thes e step s wer e i n fac t followe d i nthi s particula r instance . Simpl ybecaus e th e permi t issue r ma yno t hav e identified , documented , o r consulte d everysingl e potentia l sourc e o f informatio nabou t th e technologie s i n questio n doe s no t mean , a s petitione r implies , tha t th e resultin g permi t determinatio ni s defective , o r tha t th e rejectio no f th e tw o technologie s i n questio nwa s no t adequatel yjustified. 3 I t i s enoughi f th e * P. 5

3 I ncommenting o nth e appeal , EPARegio nII I suggeste d tha t th e permi t determinatio n shoul d b e remande d t o DAP C fo r supplementatio no f th e administrativ e record , citing instance s wher e th e record faile d t o revea l whethe r DAP C considere d informatio nan

d source s pertinen t t o th e BAC T analysis . Memorandu

mfro m Thoma s J . Maslany , Director , Air , Toxic s an d Radiatio n Managemen t Division , Regio n III , t o Ronal d L . McCallum , Chie f Judicia l Officer , Offic e o f th e Administrato r (Septembe r 28 , 1990) . Thes e citation s b ythemselves , however , d o no t warran t th e conclusio ntha t th e permi t determinatio n require s supplementation . A t mos t theymerel ydemonstrat e tha t certai n source s wer e no t consulte d or , i f the ywere , wer e no t adequatel y documente d b

yDAPC . Fo r a remand , ther e mus t b e a compelling reaso nt o believ e tha t th e omission s led t o a nerroneou s permi t determination—i n othe r words , tha t theymateriall yaffecte d th e qualit yo f th e permi t determination . Here , however , th e recor d disclose s tha t DAP C considere d al l th e relevan t aspect s o f th e "top " NO , an

d S0 2 contro l technologies . Rejectio no f thes e technologie s wa s no t an impetuou s act ; i t wa s don e afte r carefu l deliberatio nan

d consideratio no f credibl e sources . I t i s wort hnoting tha t neithe r technologyha s eve r bee n employe d domesticall ywit ha facilit yan d fue l sourc e th e same a s th e applicant's . Compar e Pennsauke nCount yResourc e Recovery Facility , PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 (Nov . 10 , 1988) , pp . 8- 9 (permi t determinatio n remande d wher e rejecte d technologywa s i nus e domesticall yi n th e same typ e o f facilit ybu t th e BAC T determinatio nlacke d th e "detai l an d analysis " necessaryt o show tha t th e rejecte d technolog ywa s technicall yo r economicall y unachievable) . Althougha permi t issue r mus t conside r availabl e technologie s fro

mothe r type s o f facilitie s i f th e technologie s ar e transferrable , se e Spokan e Regiona l Wast e t o Energ yFacility , (continued... )

# *T P. 6

5
record a s a whol e reflect s a reasone d analysi s o f curren t informatio n abou t potentiall yavailabl e technologies . DAP C clearl ygav e appropriat e scrutin yt o th e technologie s i nquestio n and explaine d it s reason s fo r rejecting thema s BAC T fo r thi s project . See , e.g. f Virgini a Ai r Pollutio nContro l Board , Agend a ItemNo . 4 (Ma y3 , 1990 ) (Documen t No . 2 1 an d accompanying audi o tape) ; DAP C Respons e t o Petitio nfo r Revie w (Augus t 1 , 1990) . DAP C conclude d tha t th e emissio ncontrol s propose d a s bes t availabl e contro l technolog y(BACT ) fo r th e facilit y(dr

yinjectio n o f hydrate d lime—so-calle d "spra y drying"—usin g a n averag e annua l coa l sulfur conten t o f 1. 0 percen t (maximu

mo f 1. 3 percen t a t an ysingl e time ) fo r contro l
o f S0 2 emission s (rated a t 9 2 percen t S0 2 removal) ; an d advance d overfir e ai r fo r contro l o f NO , emission s a t level s comparabl e t o thos e achieve d wit htherma l de-NO , i nrelate d applications ) woul d

3 (...continued ) PS D Appea l No . 88-1 2 (June 9 , 1989) , p . 18 , n . 2 4 ( " [technolog y transfe r fromon e sourc e categoryt o anothe r i s appropriat e fo r BAC T purposes") , a permi t issue r doe s no t commi t clea r erro r i f i t carefull yconsider s th e potentiall ytransferrabl e technologie s i nth e contex t o f a particula r project , a s wa s don e here , bu t it s leve l o f consideratio n o r documentatio nnonetheles s fall s shor t o f matchin g th e leve l tha t woul d b e expected , fo r example , i f th e permi t issue r wer e rejecting a top technolog ywit ha prove ntrac k record i n th e same sourc e category . Arul e o f reaso n proportionat e t o th e technology' s trac k record necessaril y govern s ho wmuc hdetai l an d documentatio nmus t g o int o consideratio n o f a particula r technology . Thus , althoughloos e documentatio nalway s carrie s wit hi t th e potentia l fo r delaying implementatio no f a n otherwis e soun d permi t determinatio n (or possibl yeve n resulting i nit s reversal) , I a mno t persuade d tha t DAPC' s consideratio n o f th e top technologie s i n th e contex t o f the sit e specifi c consideration s relevan t t o th e BAC T determinatio nfo r thi s projec t woul d b e measurabl yenhance d b y furthe r supplementatio n o f th e record .* P. 7

b e among th e mos t effectiv e fo r reducin g emissions , afte r giving effec t t o legitimat e cos t an d feasibilit yconsideration s applicabl e t o thi s facilit ya t thi s site . Th e purpos e o f th e top-downpolic yi s t o ensur e tha t a give n BAC T determinatio n complie s wit hstatutoryrequirements . EPAha s interprete d th e BAC T definitio na s containing tw o cor e criteria : consideratio n o f th e mos t stringen t contro l technologie s available , and a reasone d justificatio n o f an ydecisio n t o requir e les s tha n th e "maximu mdegre e o f reduction " i nemissions , afte r considering "energy , environmenta l an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs. " Se e Guideline s fo r Determining Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technology (OAQPS , Dec . 1978) , pp . 5-6 . DAP C complie d wit hthes e requirements . Fo r th e reason s state d above , i t i s m yconclusio ntha t revie wo f DAPC' s permi t determinatio ni s no t warranted . I t meet s al l necessaryrequirement s o f federa l law . Therefore , th e petitio nfo r revie wi s denied . I naccordanc e wit h4 0 CF R 124.19(f)(2) , th e Regiona l Administrato r o f EPARegio n II I o r hi s delegate e shal l publis hnotic e o f thi s fina l actio ni n th e Federa l Register . S o ordered .



## Dated : DE C2 1 199 0 

# jl^L&L^^KJ WilliamK Administrate )

# • P. 8

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r Denying Review , i n th e matte r o f Mecklenbur g Cogeneratio nLimite d Partnership , PS D Appea l No . 90-7 , wer e sen t t o th e following person s i nth e manne r indicated : B y1s t clas s mail , Thoma s J . Maslany , Directo r postag e prepaid : Air , Toxic s & Radiatio n Managemen t Divisio n U . S . EPA , Regio nII I 84 1 Chestnu t Building Philadelphia , PA1910 7 Wallac e Davi s Commonwealt ho f Virgini a Virgini a Departmen t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l 9t hStree t Offic e BIdg. , Room80 1 P . O . Bo x1008 9 Richmond , V

A2324 0 Victo r Shellhorse , Presiden t Mecklenbur g Cogenco , Inc . AGenera l Partnershi p Mecklenbur g Cogeneratio n Ltd . Wachovi a Cente r 181 2 40 0 Sout hTryo nStree t Charlotte , NC 2820 2 John G . Aldwort h Southsid e Concerne d Citizen s P . 0 . Bo x78 4 Halifax , V

A2455 8 Elizabet hH . Haskel l Secretaryo f Natura l Resource s Commonwealt ho f Virgini a 9t hStree t Offic e Building Richmond , V

A2321 9



### Dated : DE C2 7 199 0 Brenda H . Selde n Lega l Staf f Assistan t