p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

53) ll-K-10 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:20 AM Sheet 53 of 142 
P.2 

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

W25S &o ;«\ 

In the Matter of: 

World Color Press 

Applicant 

IEPA ID NOS. PSD-1988-IL-1, 2, & 3 

5 <•£•»•. A .-.-j j.»j/^-, <ri . ^ J ..-* ' 

•xtHtmxxJhx^mx.1 .in . xmmx. 

PSD Appeal Ho. 88-4 

JZ -AT-' * 

DESIGNATION OF ISSUES 

By order dated May 5, 1988, and pursuant to 40 CFR 

§124.19(b), notice was given of the Agency's decision to review 

several prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit 

determinations made by the Illinois Environmental Protection 

Agency (IEPA) for World Color Press. These permit determinations 

would authorize World Color Press to construct six heatset web 

offset printing presses at three locations in Illinois. The 

Agency's notice observed that the best available control 

technology (BACT) ^ determinations for these permits appeared to 

1/ The complete text of the statutory definition of BACT states: 

The term "best available control technology" means an 

emission limitation based on the maximum degree of reduction 

of each pollutant subject to regulation under this chapter 

emitted from or which results from any major emitting 

facility, which the permitting authority, on a case-by-case 

basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and 

economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable 

for such facility through application of production processes and available methods, systems, and techniques, including fuel cleaning or treatment or innovative fuel combustion 

techniques for control of each such pollutant. In no event 

shall application of "best available control technology" 

result in emissions of any pollutants which will exceed the 

(continued...) 
P.3 

* 

be flawed. No issues for review were designated in the May 5th 

order; instead, a separate request for information was made 

informally, to aid in deciding what course of action to follow in 

exercising the Agency's review authority under 40 CFR §124.19(b). -' 

I am now formally designating the issues to be briefed on review 

of IEPA's permit determinations. 

Although IEPA concluded that World Color Press had met all 

applicable requirements of the federal PSD regulations (as well 

as applicable State requirements), it appears that IEPA 

determined, incorrectly, that an alleged absence of significant 

photochemical reactivity of the facilities' VOC emissions was an 

"environmental impact" that would justify less stringent emission 

limitations, particularly in view of the added monetary costs 

associated with more stringent control technologies. I rejected 

similar reasoning in a subsequent case, Columbia Gulf 

Transmission Company. PSD Appeal No. 88-11 (June 21, 1989) , where 

I held that negligible impacts of NOx emissions on ambient air 

quality did not, by themselves, justify using less than the most 

V(...continued) 

emissions allowed by any applicable standard established 

pursuant to section 7411 [new source standards] or 7412 

[hazardous pollutant standards] of this title. 

42 U.S.C. §7479(3). 

27 See letter dated February 7, 1989, from the Agency's Chief 

Judicial Officer to the Director, Illinois Environmental 

Protection Agency (IEPA); Response of IEPA, dated March 23, 1989; 

Response of World Color Press, dated April 14, 1989. 

* 
P.4 

effective control technology available. As explained in the 

decision: 

BACT is defined in the Clean Air Act as an "emission 

limitation" set by the permit issuer, based on the "maximum 

degree of reduction" that can be achieved for each regulated 

pollutant, on a case by case basis, after "taking into 

account energy, environmental, and economic impacts and 

other costs." 42 U.S.C. §7479(3). The latter clause is in 

the BACT definition to temper the stringency of the 

technology requirements whenever one or more of the 

specified "collateral" impacts — energy, environmental, or 

economic — renders use of the most effective technology inappropriate. As explained by Senator Edmund S. Muskie, the 

principal architect of the Clean Air Act amendments of 1977: 

One objection which has been raised to requiring the 

use of the best available pollution control technology 

is that a technology demonstrated to be applicable in 

one area of the country is not applicable at a new 

facility in another area because of difference [sic] in 

feedstock material, plant configuration or other 

reasons. For this and other reasons, the committee 

voted to permit emission limits based on best available 

technology on a case-by-case judgment at the State 

level. This flexibility should allow such differences 

to be accommodated and still maximize the use of 

improved technology. 

Senate Debate on S.252 (June 8, 1977), reprinted in 3 Senate 

Committee on Environment And Public Works, A Legislative 

History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 at 729 

(Comm. Print August 1978) (Congressional Research Service, 

Serial No. 95-16)1 In other words, the collateral impacts 

clause operates primarily as a safety valve whenever unusual 

circumstances specific to the facility make it appropriate 

to use less than the most effective technology. The permit 

applicant must install the most effective technology if it 

fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permit 

issuer that such unusual circumstances exist. 

Id. at 4-6 (footnotes omitted). 

The permit issuer in Columbia Gulf was the Kentucky 

Department of Air Quality, which had determined that the modelled 

negligible impact of the proposed facility on air quality was an 

environmental impact that could be factored into the BACT 
P.5 

analysis to justify using less than the most effective technology 

to control NOx emissions. The Department reasoned that the 

negligible benefits to ambient air quality were outweighed by the 

additional economic costs associated with N0X control, estimated 

at $2,121.00 for each additional ton of NOx removed. This 

argument was rejected as being without merit: 

It gives no effect to the primary purpose of the collateral 

impacts clause, which, as the legislative history indicates, 

is to focus on local impacts that constrain the source from 

using the most effective technology. For example, if the 

most effective technology would impose exceptional demands 

on local water resources, so that use of the technology 

would have adverse impacts on the environment, then, under 

those circumstances, the applicant would have a sound basis 

for foregoing use of the most effective technology in favor 

of some less water-intensive technology. This would be a 

"water resources" equivalent of a "feedstock" or "plant 

configuration" constraint referred to by Senator Muskie. 

In the present case, the Department and the applicant 

have not demonstrated the existence of any environmental 

impacts that would constrain or even remotely circumscribe 

the applicant's ability to use the most effective 

technology. The negligible air quality impact of the 

proposed NOx emissions is clearly not a constraint on 

implementing the most effective technology. Because it is 

not a constraint, the modelled impact of the proposed 

facility's NOx emissions on air quality should not be 

considered for purposes of making the BACT determination. 

Id. at 7-8 (footnotes omitted). 

It was further explained in Columbia Gulf that the structure 

of the Clean Air Act supports the foregoing interpretation. 

Specifically, the PSD provisions of the Act make regulatory 

distinctions between air quality impact analyses and technology 

analyses, and a permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of 

both categories to obtain a permit. 

Section 165(a)(3) of the Act, 42 USC §7475(a)(3), addresses 

the direct impact of regulated pollutants on ambient air 
P.6 

quality by requiring an applicant for a PSD permit to 

demonstrate that the proposed facility will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of national ambient air quality 

standards or PSD increments, whereas section 165(a)(4) of 

the Act, 42 USC §7475(a)(4), is concerned exclusively with 

BACT, which is principally a technology-forcing measure that 

is intended to foster rapid adoption of improvements in 

control technology. Both of these provisions of the Clean 

Air Act must be satisfied by an applicant seeking a PSD 

permit, and compliance with one provision does not relieve 

or lessen an applicant's burden of complying fully with the 

other. Thus, even though Columbia Gulf's N0X emissions will 

not cause a violation of ambient air quality standards in 

contravention of section 165(a)(3) of the Act, it must still 

satisfy the BACT technology requirements imposed by section 

165(a)(4). 

Id. at 8-9 (footnote omitted). 

In the present instance, it appears that World Color Press 

and IEPA are attempting to justify the use of less than the most 

effective technology for control of VOC emissions by employing 

the same faulty reasoning that the permit applicant and the 

permit issuer used in Columbia Gulf. Accordingly, in setting 

this case for briefing, World Color Press and IEPA shall address 

the issue raised by the Columbia Gulf decision, and shall show 

cause why the permit determination should not be remanded to IEPA 

for revision of the BACT determination in accordance with 

Columbia Gulf. World Color Press and IEPA shall file their 

briefs within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. 

As directed by 40 CFR §124.10, IEPA shall give public notice 

of the May 5th order and of the instant notice, making provision 

for the submission of comments (or briefs) by the public within 
P.7 

6 

thirty (30) days of publication of notice. ^ See Notice of 

Decision to Review Permits at 3 (May 5, 1988); also 40 CFR 

§§124.19(c) and 124.10(a)(1)(iv). 

So ordered. 

l#Lu^#^ 

William K.'Reiily^T" 

Administrator 

Dated: ^7' " 

^ IEPA made its determination pursuant to a delegation of 

authority from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 

V, Chicago, Illinois. Because of the delegation, IEPA's 

authority to issue PSD permits is subject to the review 

provisions of the applicable EPA regulations, 40 CFR §124.19 

(1989), and any permit it issues will be an EPA-issued permit for 

purposes of federal law. 40 CFR §124.41; 45 Fed. Reg. 33413 

(May 19, 1980). 
P.8 

> 

CERTIFICATE 07 SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Designation of 

Issues in the matter of World Color Press, PSD Appeal No. 88-4, 

were sent by First Class Mail to the following persons: 

Dr. Richard J. Carlson, Director 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

2200 Churchill Road 

Springfield, IL 62706 

Michael Hayes, Manager 

Division of Air Pollution Control 

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 

2200 Churchill Road 

Springfield, IL 62706 

William Rogers 

World Color Press 

P.O. Box 1248 

Effingham, IL 62401 

David Kee, Director 

Air & Radiation Division 

U.S. EPA, Region V 

230 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, IL 60604 

Valdas V. Adamkus 

Regional Administrator 

U.S. EPA, Region V 

230 South Dearborn Street 

Chicago, IL 60604 

J. Bennett Clark 

Gallop, Johnson & Neuman 

Interco Corporate Tower101 South Hanley 

St. Louis, Missouri 63105 

Dated: Z^J^-*-«?,»i?° 

Brenda H. Selden, Secretary 

to the Chief Judicial Officer