p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 53 ) ll-K-1 0
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

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

BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATO R U.S . ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENCY , WASHINGTON , D.C . 

# W25 S &o 

## ;« \
I n th e Matte r of : Worl d Colo r Pres s

Applican t IEP AI D NOS . PSD-1988-IL-1 , 2 , & 3 5 <•£•»•. A .-.- j j.»j/^-, <ri . ^ J ..-* '
•xtHtmxxJhx^mx.1 .i n. xmmx. PS D Appea l Ho . 88- 4



# J Z-AT-' *
DESIGNATIONO F ISSUE S B yorde r date d May5 , 1988 , an d pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R §124.19(b) , notic e wa s give n o f th e Agency' s decisio n t o revie w
severa l preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t determination s mad e byth e Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(IEPA ) fo r Worl d Colo r Press . Thes e permi t determination s woul d authoriz e Worl d Colo r Pres s t o construc t si x heatse t we b offse t printin g presse s a t thre e location s i n Illinois
. Th e Agency' s notic e observe d tha t th e bes t availabl e contro l technology(BACT ) ^determination s fo r thes e permit s appeare d t o



### 1 / Th e complet e tex t o f th e statutorydefinitio n o f BAC T states :

Th e term"bes t availabl e contro l technology " mean s an emissio n limitatio n base d o n th e maximu mdegre e o f reductio n o f eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio n unde r thi s chapte r emitte d fromo r whic hresult s fro m an ymajo r emittin g facility , whic hth e permittin g authority , o n a case-by-cas e basis , takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs , determine s i s achievabl e fo r suc hfacilit ythroughapplicatio n o f productio n proces se s an d availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , includ

in g fue l cleanin g o r treatmen t o r innovativ e fue l combustio n technique s fo r contro l o f eac hsuc hpollutant
. I n n o even t shal l applicatio n o f "bes t availabl e contro l technology " resul t i n emission s o f an ypollutant s whic hwil l excee d th e (continued..

. )P. 3

*
b e flawed
. N o issue s fo r revie wwer e designate d i n th e Ma y5t h order ; instead , a separat e reques t fo r informatio n wa s mad e informally , t o ai d i n decidin g wha t cours e o f actio n t o follo wi n exercisin g th e Agency' s revie wauthorit yunde r 4 0 CF R §124.19(b)
. -' I amno wformall ydesignatin g th e issue s t o b e briefe d o n revie w
o f IEPA' s permi t determinations
. Althoug hIEP Aconclude d tha t Worl d Colo r Pres s ha d me t al l applicabl e requirement s o f th e federa l PS D regulation s (a s wel l
a s applicabl e Stat e requirements) , i t appear s tha t IEPA determined , incorrectly , tha t a n allege d absenc e o f significan t photochemica l reactivit yo f th e facilities ' VO C emission s wa s an "environmenta l impact " tha t woul d justif yles s stringen t emissio n limitations , particularl yi n vie wo f th e adde d monetar ycost s associate d wit hmor e stringen t contro l technologies
. I rejecte d simila r reasonin g i n a subsequen t case , Columbi a Gul f Transmissio n Company . PS D Appea l No . 88-1 1 (June 21 , 1989 ) , wher e I hel d tha t negligibl e impact s o f NO xemission s o n ambien t ai r qualit ydi d not , bythemselves , justif yusin g les s tha n th e mos t

V (...continued) emission s allowe d b yan yapplicabl e standar d establishe d pursuan t t o sectio n 741 1 [newsourc e standards ] o r 741 2 [hazardou s pollutan t standards ] o f thi s title
. 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3)
. 2 7 Se e lette r date d February7 , 1989 , fro mth e Agency' s Chie f Judicia l Office r t o th e Director , Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(IEPA) ; Respons e o f IEPA , date d Marc h23 , 1989 ; Respons e o f Worl d Colo r Press , date d Apri l 14 , 1989
. *P. 4

effective contro l technolog y available . A s explainedinth e decision : BAC T i s definedinthe CleanAi r Ac t a s a n"emissio

n limitation " se t b

y the permi t issuer , basedo n the "maximu m degre e o f reduction " tha t canbe achievedfo r eachregulated pollutant , o

na cas e b

y cas e basis , afte r "takin g int o accoun t energy , environmental , an deconomi c impact s and othe r costs. " 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) . The latte r claus e i s i n th e BAC T definitiont o tempe r th e stringenc

y o f the technolog

y requirement s wheneve r on e or mor e o f the specified"collateral " impact s — energy , environmental , o r economi c —

render s us e o f the mos t effectiv e technolog

y in appropriate . A s explainedb y Senator Edmund S . Muskie , th e principa l architec t o f the Clea nAi r Ac t amendment s o f 1977 : One objectionwhichha s bee nraise dt o requirin

g th e us e o f the bes t availabl e pollutio ncontro l technology i s tha t a technolog y demonstratedt o be applicabl e i n one are a o f the countr y i s no t applicabl e a t a ne w facility

inanothe r area becaus e o f differenc e [sic ] i n feedstoc kmaterial , plan t configuratio no r othe r reasons . For thi s an dother reasons , the committe e votedt o permi t emissio nlimit s base d o n bes t availabl e technologyo n a case-by-cas e judgmen t a t th e Stat e level . Thi s flexibilit yshoul d allo wsuc hdifference s t o b e accommodate d an dstil l maximiz e th e us e o f improve dtechnology . Senat e Debat e o

nS.25 2 (Jun

e 8 , 1977) , reprinte d i n 3 Senat e Committe e o

nEnvironmen t An

dPubli c Works , A

Legislativ e Histor y o f the Clea

nAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 197 7 a t 72 9 (Comm . Prin t Augus t 1978 ) (Congressiona l Researc hService , Seria l No . 95-16) 1 Inothe r words , th e collatera l impact s claus e operate s primaril ya s a safet yvalv e wheneve r unusua l circumstance s specifi c t o the facilit ymak e i t appropriat e t o us e les s thanth e mos t effectiv e technology
. Th e permi t applican t mus t instal l th e mos t effectiv e technologyi f i t fail s t o demonstrat e t o the satisfactio n o f th e permi t issue r tha t suchunusua l circumstance s exist
. Id . a t 4- 6 (footnote s omitted) . Th e permi t issue r inColumbi a Gul f wa s th e Kentucky Departmen t o f Ai r Quality , whic hha ddetermine d tha t the modelle d negligibl e impac t o f the proposedfacilit y o nai r qualit y

wa s a n environmenta l impac t tha t coul dbe factore dint o th e BAC TP. 5

analysi s t o justif yusin g les s tha n th e mos t effectiv e technolog y t o contro l NO xemissions
. Th e Departmen t reasone d tha t th e negligibl e benefit s t o ambien t ai r qualit ywer e outweighe d b ythe additiona l economi c cost s associate d wit hN0 Xcontrol , estimate d
a t $2,121.0 0 fo r eac hadditiona l to n o f NO xremoved
. Thi s argumen t wa s rejecte d a s bein g withou t merit : I t give s n o effec t t o th e primarypurpos e o f th e collatera l impact s clause , which , a s th e legislativ e historyindicates , i s t o focu s o n loca l impact s tha t constrai n th e sourc e fro m usin g th e mos t effectiv e technology
. Fo r example , i f th e mos t effectiv e technologywoul d impos e exceptiona l demand s o n loca l wate r resources , s o tha t us e o f th e technology woul d hav e advers e impact s o n th e environment , then , unde r thos e circumstances , th e applican t woul d hav e a sound basi s fo r foregoin g us e o f th e mos t effectiv e technologyi n favo r o f som e les s water-intensiv e technology
. Thi s woul d b e a "wate r resources " equivalen t o f a "feedstock " o r "plan t configuration " constrain t referre d t o bySenato r Muskie
. I n th e presen t case , th e Departmen t an d th e applican t hav e no t demonstrate d th e existenc e o f an yenvironmenta l impact s tha t woul d constrai n o r eve n remotel ycircumscrib e th e applicant' s abilit yt o us e th e mos t effectiv e technology
. Th e negligibl e ai r qualit yimpac t o f th e propose d NO xemission s i s clearl yno t a constrain t o n implementin g th e mos t effectiv e technology
. Becaus e i t i s no t a constraint , th e modelle d impac t o f th e propose d facility' s NO xemission s o n ai r qualit yshoul d no t b e considere d fo r purpose s o f makin g th e BAC T determination
. Id
. a t 7- 8 (footnote s omitted)
. I t wa s furthe r explaine d i n Columbi a Gul f tha t th e structur e
o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t support s th e foregoing interpretation
. Specifically , th e PS D provision s o f th e Ac t mak e regulator y distinction s betwee n ai r qualit yimpac t analyse s an d technology analyses , and a permi t applican t mus t satisf yth e requirement s o f bot hcategorie s t o obtai n a permit
. Sectio n 165(a)(3 ) o f th e Act , 4 2 US C §7475(a)(3) , addresse s th e direc t impac t o f regulate d pollutant s o n ambien t ai rP. 6

qualit y b y requirin

g a napplican t for a PS Dpermi t t o demonstrat e tha t the proposedfacilit ywil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violationo f nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s o r PS Dincrements , wherea s sectio n 165(a)(4 ) o f the Act , 4 2 US C §7475(a)(4) , i s concerne d exclusivel ywit h BACT , whic hi s principall y a technology- forcin g measur e tha t i s intende d t o foste r rapi d adoptio n o f improvement s i n contro l technology . Bot ho f thes e provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t mus t b e satisfie d b ya n applican t seeking a PS D permit , an

dcomplianc e wit hon e provisio n doe s no t reliev e o r lesse n a n applicant' s burde n o f complyin g full ywit hth e other . Thus , eventhoughColumbi a Gulf' s N0 Xemission s wil l no t caus e a violatio n o f ambien t ai r qualit ystandard s i n contraventio n o f sectio n 165(a)(3 ) o f th e Act , i t mus t stil l satisf ythe BAC T technolog yrequirement s impose d b ysectio n 165(a)(4) . Id
. a t 8- 9 (footnot e omitted)
. I n th e presen t instance , i t appear s tha t Worl d Colo r Pres s
an d IEP Aar e attemptin g t o justif yth e us e o f les s tha n th e mos t effectiv e technologyfo r contro l o f VO C emission s b yemployin g th e sam e fault yreasonin g tha t th e permi t applican t an d th e permi t issue r use d i n Columbi a Gulf
. Accordingly , i n settin g thi s cas e fo r briefing , Worl d Colo r Pres s an d IEPAshal l addres s th e issu e raise d b yth e Columbi a Gul f decision , an d shal l sho w
caus e wh

yth e permi t determinatio n shoul d no t b e remande d t o IEP A fo r revisio n o f th e BAC T determinatio n i n accordanc e wit h Columbi a Gulf
. Worl d Colo r Pres s an d IEP Ashal l fil e thei r brief s withi n thirt y(30 ) day s o f th e dat e o f thi s order
. A s directe d b

y4 0 CF R §124.10 , IEP Ashal l giv e publi c notic e
o f th e May

5t horde r an

d o f th e instan t notice , makin g provisio n fo r th e submissio n o f comment s (or briefs ) b yth e publi c withi nP. 7

6 thirt y (30 ) day s o f publicationo f notice . ^ Se e Notic e o f Decisiont o Revie

w Permit s a t 3 (Ma

y 5 , 1988) ; als o 4 0 CFR §§124.19(c ) an

d124.10(a)(1)(iv) . S o ordered . 

# l#Lu^# ^ Willia m K.'Reiily^T " Administrato r Dated : ^7' "

^ IEPA

mad e it s determinationpursuan t t o a delegationo f authorit y

fro m the U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , Region V , Chicago , Illinois . Becaus e o f the delegation , IEPA' s authorit y

t o issue PS Dpermit s i s subjec t t o the revie w provision s o f the applicabl e EP A regulations , 4 0 CFR§124.1 9 (1989) , an

dan y permi t i t issue s wil l b e a nEPA-issuedpermi t fo r purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CFR§124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 3341 3 (Ma y 19 , 1980) .P. 8

> CERTIFICAT E 0 7 SERVICE

I hereb ycertif ytha t copie s o f th e foregoing Designatio n o f Issue s i n th e matte r o f Worl d Colo r Press , PS D Appea l No . 88-4 , wer e sen t byFirs t Clas s Mai l t o th e following persons : Dr . Richar d J . Carlson , Directo r Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 220 0 Churchil l Roa d Springfield , I L 6270 6 Michae l Hayes , Manage r Divisio n o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l Illinoi s Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y 220 0 Churchil l Roa d Springfield , I L 6270 6 WilliamRoger s Worl d Colo r Pres s P.O . Bo x 124 8 Effingham , I L 6240 1 Davi d Kee , Directo r Ai r & Radiatio n Divisio n U.S . EPA , Regio n V 23 0 Sout hDearbor n Stree t Chicago , I L 6060 4 Valda s V . Adamku s Regiona l Administrato r U.S . EPA , Regio n V 23 0 Sout hDearbor n Stree t Chicago , I L 6060 4 J . Bennet t Clar k Gallop , Johnso n & Neuma n Interc o Corporat e Tower

10 1 Sout hHanle y St . Louis , Missour i 6310 5



### Dated : Z^J^-* - 

# «?,»i? ° Brend a H . Selden , Secretar y t o th e Chie f Judicia l Office r