P.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

37) ll-B-12 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:53 AM Sheet 37 of 276 
P.2 

i. *'jf ^ 

J

 1M c~ cn i ^-'..: I.: 

tn\ n r ism 

II-B-12 

rrx_\A 

NOTE: A signed copy of this item was not available. 
P.3 

A -?<?-<?6 

NOTE: Parts of this item are not legible. 
2.1 0 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

P.4 

SEP J 6/980 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: NSPS Applicability Determination for Eabylon #2 

• Incinerator 

FRCM: Director 

T»i ;.* r..i. ».-

ii-.-. . 1 w . W*iliiai.4 x\, lawyer, At^^uu; 

General Enforcement Branch, Region II 

This memorandum is a follow-up to the August 8, 198C PSD 

determination issued by DSSE and the August 14, 1980 telephone 

conversation between Richard Biondi of my staff and Walter Mucdan. 

The issue involved in these communications was the Babylon Incinerator #2 in Hew York State* • This is a municipal incinerator 

capable of charging over 50 tons per day of solid waste. It is a 

facility which commenced construction before August 18, 1971, but 

was shut down in 1975 and now wishes to reopen. This raises the 

question of whether such a recpening will subject the incinerator 

to NSPS. 

Consistent with the earlier USPS determinartion A-2, dated 

February 14, 1973 (copy attached), a source in- existence prior to 

the effective data of an USPS would not be subject to that NSPS if 

it shuts down and then resumes operations after the effective 

date. Babylon Incinerator #2 is an existing source rather than a 

new one, within the meaning of Section 111 of the Clean-Air Act, 

and would not be subject to 40 CFR 60, Subpart E, upon 

re-startup. 

Under fill(a)(2), a new source is "any stationary source, the 

construction or modification of which is commenced after the 

publication of regulations (or, if earlier, proposed regulations) 

prescribing a standard of performance under this section which 

will be applicable to such source". It is thus necessary to 

determine if the resumption of operations, and changes this 

entails, represent construction (or reconstruction) or 

modification. 

ICES 

xA 
P.5 

/ .;• emissions ,over they source's previous, operating^, emissions i'*'/'••'.••-!• 

re-startup are-.the addition of a haffle wall..andy thei rebricking.'of ;'. J 

y^K:'-..tion, .erection or installation of an1- affected.'-facilityV^*-^ 

3&T5;/ case the source owner or operation .is merely^*aXing- 'those?&mpu^X^&i 

•^i^JLji*'ces»a*y to return the plant to its" former....operating•condi£lcn7^.;1^';': 

-.-•••- - • ........ . v .^^.i # n .-

^V-v"'7 'J. • ' *hil« v« recognize" that the treatment.'of ''this^source for" I]UiiB;7; y*:

:'«&;•?,•'purposes of BSPS and PSD appear, to be inconsistent,v we feelVthat4^4.1^ ^ 

:

 ,^**'-;:,th8 technology aspects of NSPS versus the air. quality cbhsidera^:u:^:^«f 

*^T* ^".-tlons of PSD warrant this distinction. 

A 

versus the air quality considerar^iM--^ c* 

Lnction/rV • ~ .*>••••-'V « ''^' ^^^&v£ r; * * 

;T*""'-'v* " ' MThis response was prepared with the concurrence.'of ttte/'OjCfi&e^V;.-..; 

^

;:'^;* j?f Gene'-'»l Counsel.; Should you have any additional£quVstibns\or^ 

•v^x/commen--:, please contact Robert Myers of my staff r^t^FTS .755-2564..*:£?.Z. 

•3*«*V-'. ^**V - ,v V.sv'**i** .:.Vfc:.rii<i.r5>^-.,,.»,.. .. •••.-.5. 

. ? 

•c^u^-Attachraent 

,•*./' f-.cct ".Earl Salo