p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 51 ) ll-K- 8 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 51 of 142- ; __

I

- * ' . '

BEFOR E TH E ADMINISTRATOR U.S . ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENC Y

WASHINGTON , D.C .

I n th e Matte r of : Huntingto n Mass-Bur n Incinerato r

Applican t PS D Appea l No . 89- 2

ORDE RDENYIN

GREVIE W Bylette r date d Jul y9 , 1989 , Citizen s fo r a Livabl e Environmen t an

d Recycling , Inc . requeste d revie wo f a n amende d Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t tha t author

ize s constructio no f a mass-bur nmunicipa l wast e incinerato r fo r th e Town o f Huntington , Ne wYork . Th e Ne wYor k Stat e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservatio n(DEC ) issue d th e amende d permi t on Jun e 9 , 1989 , pursuan t t o a delegatio no f authorit yfro mEP A Regio n II , Ne wYork , Ne wYork . Becaus e o f th e delegation , DEC' S permi t determinatio n i s subjec t t o th e revie wprovision s o f 4 0 CF R§124.19 , and an ypermi t i t issue s wil l b e a nEPA-issue d permi t fo r purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CF R§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 3 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Petitione r object s t o th e issuanc e o f th e permi t becaus e i t believe s th e permi t i s deficien t i n severa l respects . Petitione r claims , inte r alia , tha t th e permi t wil l allo wth e facilit yt o emi t excessiv e quantitie s o f NO x ; tha t i t fail s t o requir e th e facilit yt o us e th e bes t availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) fo r contro l o f NO xemissions ; an d tha t th e BAC T analysi s i s deficien tf 

### I - Y 2 becaus e i t doe s no t contai na comparativ e analysi s o f recycling and mass-bur n incineration . Unde r th e rule s governin g thi s proceeding , ther e i s n o appea l a s o f righ t fromth e permi t determination . Ordinarily , a petitio n fo r revie wo f a PS D permi t determinatio ni s no t grante d unles s i t i s base d o n a clearl yerroneou s finding o f fac t o r conclusio no f law , o r involve s a nimportan 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 [state ] leve l * * *. " 4 5 Fed . Reg : 33,41 2 (Ma

y19 , 1980) . Th e burde no f demonstrating tha t th e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewe d i s therefor e o nth e peti

tioner . Petitione r ha s no t me t it s burden . Petitioner' s claim s wit hrespec t t o N0 Xemission s ar e groundles s and ar e base d o na misunderstanding o f th e applicabl e lega l requirements . I nclaiming tha t predicte d emission s o f NO x (56 5 ton s pe r year , according t o petitioner ) wil l excee d federa l requirements , petitione r ha s confuse d th e actua l requirement s (fo r whic hther e ar e n o specifi c tonnag e limitations ) wit ha "d e minimis " emission s rat e —4 0 ton s pe r yea r —whic hdetermine s whethe r a facility' s NO xemission s ar e "significant " and there

for e subjec t t o BAC T an d othe r PS D requirements . Se e 4 0 CF R §§52.21(b)(23)(i ) and 52.21(j)(2) . Becaus e th e facility' s predicte d NO xemission s wil l excee d tha t threshol d rate , a BAC T analysi s wa s performe d fo r th e propose d facility , wit hDE C

## 1 ^

f 3 determining BAC T t o b e "selectiv e noncatalyti c reduction. " DEC' S BAC T determinatio ni s reflecte d i nth e permit , and petitione r ha s no t showni t t o b e erroneou s i nan yrespect . Wit hrespec t t o recycling , Petitioner' s assertion s tha t th e BAC T analysi s i s deficien t ar e unconvincing becaus e petitione r ha s no t shown , a s i t must , tha t recycling i s a n"available " technology , whic h~ i n combinatio n wit hemissio ncontro l equipmen t alread ypropose d fo r th e facilit y—wil l demonstrabl yreduc e emission s o f regulate d pollutant s suc ha s NO xo r wil l otherwis e represen t BACT . withou t suc ha showing , th e petitio n fail s t o establis hground s fo r including recycling i n th e BAC T analysis . Se e Spokan e Regiona l Waste-to-EnergvProiect . PS D Appea l No . 88-1 2 a t 2 2 (EP AJun e 9 , 1989) . Accordingly , reviewo f DEC' S permi t determinatio n i s denied . S o ordered .

Dat 

## e d : AU

G 2 1989, MJdPjL• WilliamK . Reil l Administrato rP. 5

CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Orde r Denying Review , PS D Appea l No . 89-2 , wer e maile d t o th e following i nth e manne r indicated . Firs t Clas s Mai l Postag e Prepaid : WilliamJ . Muszynsk i Actin g Regiona l Administrato r U.S . EPA , Regio n I I 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne wYork , N

Y1027 8 Stev e Riva U.S . EPA , Regio nI I 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne wYork , N

Y1027 8 Conra d Simon , Directo r Ai r & Wast e Managemen t Divisio n U.S . EPA , Regio n I I 2 6 Federa l Plaz a . Ne wYork , N

Y1027 8 Davi d DeRidde r Deput yRegiona l Permi t Admin . Newar k Stat e Departmen t o f Environmenta l Conservatio n Building 4 0 - SUN Y Ston yBrook , N

Y1179 4 Doroth yGibson , Presiden t CLEA R 2 1 Piat t Place , Huntington , N

Y11743-352 7 Gordo n Gibson , Executiv e Directo r CLEA R 2 1 Piat t Place , Huntington , N

Y11743-352 7 Mik e Levi n Nixon , Hargrave , Devan s & Doyl e 1 Thoma s Circle , NW Suit e 80 0 Washington , D C 2000 5



### Dated : fljg

_ 2

### | 98 

### 9 Brend aH
. Selden , Secretar y t o th eChie f

Judicia lOffice r