p.1 

• 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

62) ll-K-19 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

. . 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:20 AM Sheet 62 of 142 
X* 

P.2 

(Slip Opinion) 

NOTICE; This opinion is subject to formal revision before 

publication. Readers arc requested to notify the Environmental 

Appeals Board, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 

D.C. 20460, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that 

corrections may be made before publication. 

u-

\r-) 'JaW' 

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL APPEALS BOARD 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

In the Matter of: 

Hawaiian Commercial & 

Sugar Company 

Permit No. HI 89-01 

PSD Appeal No. 92-1 

[Decided July 20, 1992] 

ORDER DENYING REVIEW 

Before Environmental Appeals Judges Ronald L McCallum and 

Edward E. Reicb. 
P.3 

HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGaAR COMPANY 

PSD Appeal No. 92-1 

ORDER DENYING REVIEW 

Decided July 20, 1992 

Syllabus 

Petitioner, a private citizen, is appealing the issuance of a Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company by 

the State of Hawaii. The permit relates to construction of a new 50 MW Circulating 

Fluidized Bed Boiler to be located at the Puunene Mill Facility on the island of Maui. 

The petition sets forth six bases for seeking review. These relate to ash disposal, 

coal stockpiles, the fuel oil to be burned, SO, and NO, emission limits, air quality 

modeling, and waiver of performance tests. 

Held: While Petitioner urges the State to go beyond the applicable Federal PSD 

requirements, the petition does not identify any deficiency in the permit relative to those 

requirements. The petition for review is therefore denied because it fails to identify any 

factual or legal errors or any policy considerations or exercises of discretion that warrant 

review. 

Before Environmental Appealsjudges Ronald L. McCallum 

and Edward JS. Reich. 

Opinion of tbe Board by Judge Reich: 

Petitioner James V. Williamson, a private citizen, has filed this 

appeal of the issuance of a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

permit to the Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company (HC&S) by the 

State of Hawaii. The State, acting pursuant to a delegation from the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and with its concurrence, 

issued the permit, styled "Approval to Construct/Modify a Stationary 

Source (HI 89-01)." The permit covers construction of a 30 MW 

Circulating Fluidized Bed (CFB) Boiler to be located at the Puunene 

Mill Facility, Puunene, Maui. The Boiler is being designed to burn 

three different types of fuels for maximum flexibility. These are coal, 

fuel oil, and bagasse (the part of sugarcane remaining after the sugar is 

squeezed out). It will provide additional electricity to the Mill, as well 

as providing electricity which HC&S is proposing to sell to Maui Electric 

Company to meet the island's demands. 

Mr. Williamson's petition raises six issues. At the request of diis 

Board, the State of Hawaii Department of Health submitted a copy of 

the administrative record for the permit and a response to the petition. 

The record shows that the issues raised in this appeal had previously 
P.4 

2 HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 

been raised by Mr. Williamson in his comments on the draft permit, and 

thus were preserved for review under 40 CFR §124.19. * 

Under the rules that govern this proceeding, a PSD permit 

ordinarily will not be reviewed unless It is based on a clearly erroneous 

finding of fact or conclusion of law, or Involves an important matter of 

policy or exercise of discretion that warrants review. See 40 CFR 

§124.19; 45 Fed. Reg. 33412 (May 19, 1980). The preamble to the 

Federal Register notice in which Section 124.19 was promulgated states 

that "this power of review should be only sparingly exercised," and that 

"most permit conditions should be finally determined at the Regional 

level * * *." Id. The burden of demonstrating that review is warranted 

is on the petitioner. For the reasons set forth below, -we conclude tbat 

Petitioner has failed to show that review of the permit is warranted 

under 40 CFR §124.19, and therefore review is denied. 

Asb Disposal: The first issue raised by Petitioner relates to 

disposal of the fly ash (and bottom ash) from the operation of the 

boiler. Petitioner expresses the -view that HC&S has no definite plans 

for disposal of the ash and doesn't even know if it is hazardous. 

Petitioner believes the ash should already have been tested and the 

disposal problem investigated since HC&S has been using small 

quantities of the same coal for some time. 

The State, in its response to the petition, identifies several 

options HC&S has explored for ash disposal including selling it to local 

cement manufacturers for use as a component of cement, using it as a 

soil amendment in the sugar cane fields, or using it as a surfacing 

material for cane haul roads. All these potential uses presuppose a 

determination that the ash is non-hazardous. If it proves to be 

hazardous, the ash will be disposed of in a manner consistent with all 

1

 40 CER §124.19 provides for appeal of PSD permits by persons who filed 

comments on the draft permit or participated in the public hearing. Any person who 

failed to file comments or failed to participate in the public hearing may petition for 

review only to the extent of changes from the draft to final decision. 
P.5 

HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 3 

applicable Federal and State laws.

 2 Based on the testing of ash 

resulting from coal combustion at an existing boiler at the HC&S 

facility, HC&S does not expect the ash to be hazardous. However, a 

disposal method cannot be finally identified until the ash actually 

produced by the new boiler is tested once it comes on line. 

The Ambient Air Quality Impact Report which accompanied the 

final permit discusses the anticipated impacts of ash handling in Section 

IV.F. at page 6. There is no discussion in that Report of plans for the 

ultimate disposition of the ash. However, it is apparent from the record 

that the Permittee has given considerable thought to the ash disposal 

issue although it is not yet In a position to make a final decision.5 

While consideration of the nature of the fly ash could be relevant to a 

consideration of collateral environmental effects as part of an analysis 

of best available control technology (BACT), * Petitioner's concerns 

here are speculative. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the 

BACT determination for any pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Aa 

would be affected by the absence of a definitive plan for the disposal 

of the fly ash.J Petitioner has not identified any violation of PSD 

2

 Although not discussed in the State's response or in the comments of HC&S In the 

administrative record, we note that 40 CFR §26l.4(b)(4) excludes fly ash waste and 

bottom ash waste resulting from the combustion of fossil fuels from the definition of solid 

waste, and thus from Federal regulation as a hazardous waste. 

3

 For example, Sierra Research, on behalf of the Permittee, sent a letter to 

Mr. Williamson on September 9, 1991, responding to questions he raised at the public 

hearing. Enclosed with this letter is a Summary of Comments and Responses which 

discusses alternatives for fly ash disposal on pages 3-4. 

* 40 CFR §52.21Q)(3) requires a new major stationary source to apply best available 

control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation that it would have the potential 

to emit in significant amounts. Best available control technology is defined at 40 CFR 

§52.21(b)(12). 

5

 "While collateral environmental impacts are relevant to the BACT determination, 

their relevance is generally couched in terms of discussing which available technology, 

among several, produces less adverse collateral effects, and, if it does, whether that 

justifies its utilization even if the technology is otherwise less stringent." In re Old 

Dominion Electric Cooperative, PSD Appeal 91-39 at p. 23 (January 29, 1992). See also 

North County Resource Recovery Associates, PSD Appeal No. 85-2 (Remand, June 3,1986) 

(continued...) 
P.6 

4 HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 

regulations in the lack of greater specificity on plans for disposal of the 

flyash. Thus, Petitioner has not carried his burden of identifying either 

a clear factual or legal error or an important policy consideration or 

exercise of discretion that should be reviewed. Review of this issue is 

therefore denied. 

Coal Stockpiles: Petitioner questions what the size of the 

stockpile will be, bow HC&S will prevent fugitive dust due to winds, 

and how HC&S will get rid of coal dust. The State, in its response to 

the petition, describes the stockpiles and indicates that it does not 

expect significant air pollution problems from fugitive dust because the 

coal will be washed and has an extremely low silt content (4.23%) - The 

State also cites assurances from HC&S that fugitive dust will not 

produce visible emissions beyond the property boundary. 

• The permit addresses fugitive dust controls in Section K.D.6. 

This provision requires: 

Fugitive dust controls, including the use of enclosures 

and wet suppression to prevent particulate matter from 

becoming airborne to the extent practical, during all 

material handling operations of coal, sorbent, and ash. 

All coal conveyors shall be enclosed and the coal 

pulverizer shall be vented to the coal storage bin to 

control fugitive emissions. Hawaiian Commercial & 

Sugar Company shall design and construct the boiler 

ash handling and disposal system in a manner that will 

minimize particulate emissions from ash handling and 

disposal. Ash conveyors shall be pneumatic or shall 

handle wet ash and all conveyors and transfer points 

shall be covered or sealed. In no case shall Hawaiian 

Commercial & Sugar Company cause or permit the 

discharge of visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond 

the permittee's property boundary. 

'(...continued) 

(environmental impact of pollutants not regulated under the CleanAir Act may necessitate 

a more stringent emission limit for regulated pollutants undergoing BACT review). 
P.7 

HAWAIIAN COMMERCLVL & SUGAR COMPANY 5 

Relative to disposal of coal dust, the State's response to the petition 

indicates that "the disposal of the coal dust will be minimal" and will be 

conducted in accordance with all applicable federal and state 

regulations. Response at 2. 

The .Ambient Air Quality Impaa Report projects negligible 

fugitive particulate emissions associated with fuel handling due to the 

nature of the coal to be used and the faa that all coal conveyers will be 

enclosed. Petitioner has not pointed to any data or other evidence in 

the record to challenge this conclusion. In addition, the permit 

limitation on visible emissions of fugitive dust beyond the property line 

provides an enforceable mechanism to deal with any problem should 

one arise. Petitioner has not carried his burden of identifying either a 

clear factual or legal error or an important policy consideration or 

exercise of discretion that should be reviewed and review is accordingly 

denied. 

Petitioner also indicates that he is adamantly opposed to any 

additional coal fired boilers on Maui, suggesting that HC&S should 

instead install a combined cycle facility fueled with low sulfur distillate 

or residual oil and equipped with a selective catalytic reduction unit for 

NOx control.

 6 The State, in its response to the petition, indicates that 

it does not have the authority to define the boiler type to be used.7 

Instead, it evaluated the anticipated impacts of the facility with the type 

of boiler proposed and found them to be acceptable under the PSD 

regulations. 

The State did evaluate the relative merits of selective catalytic reduction (SCR) and 

selective non-catalytic reduction (SNCR) in the context of its best available control 

technology analysis for NO, and found selective non-catalytic reduction to be preferable. 

It cited the lack of experience with SCR systems on CFB boilers, significant problems with 

plugging and poisoning of the catalyst by fly ash in crushed coal-fired boilers, increased 

costs, and other considerations in rejecting SCR. Ambient Air Quality Impact Report at 

pp. 19-20. Petitioner has not shown that the State's BACT analysis is deficient, and thus 

has not met his burden under 40 CFR §124.19. 

7

 The State indicates that it "does not have authority to require facilities to use a 

specific equipment, fuel or air pollution control device." Response at p. 2. However, we 

note that the definition of BACT includes consideration of both clean fuels and use of air 

pollution control devices. 
P.8 

6 HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 

EPA's PSD permit conditions regulations .do not mandate that 

the permitting authority redefine the source in order to reduce 

emissions.

 8 The U.S. Environmental Protection .Agency's Air Quality 

Management Division discussed the application of this principle in a 

draft New Source Review Workshop Manual issued in Oaober 1990. 

This document was developed for use in conjunction with new source 

review workshops and training, and to guide permitting officials. As 

such, it has been widely circulated and represents the Office of Air 

Program's current thinking in this regard. 

On page B.13 of that Manual, it provides: 

Historically, EPA has not considered the BACT 

requirement as a means to redefine the design of the 

source when considering available control alternatives. 

- For example, applicants proposing to construa a coalfired electric generator, have not been required by EPA 

as part of a BACT analysis to consider building a 

natural gas-fired electric turbine although the turbine 

may be inherently less polluting per unit produa (in 

this case electricity). However, this is an aspea of the 

PSD permitting process In which states have the 

discretion to engage in a broader analysis if they so 

desire. Thus, a gas turbine normally would not be 

included in the list of control alternatives for a coalfired boiler. ' 

8

 "Although imposition of the conditions may, among other things, have a profound 

effect on the viability of the proposed facility as conceived by the applicant, the conditions 

themselves are not intended to redefine the source •••."/ « re Pennsauken County, New 

Jersey Resource Recovery Facility, PSD Appeal No. 88-8 at p. 11 (November 10, 1988). 

' This situation was presented in In re Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PSD 

Appeal 91-39 (January 29,1992). In that instance, the State determined that requiring a 

coal-fired steam electric generating station to use natural gas as an altemative fuel would 

redefine the source. It further concluded that it was not empowered to do this unless the 

facility as proposed would not meet all Federal and State air emission limitations or would 

result in a violation of a national ambient air quality standard. While the Administrator 

of EPA found no clear error in the State's handling of the matter, he stated that "EPA 

construes the 1990 Amendments as conferring discretion on the permit issuer to consider 

fuels other than those proposed by the permit applicant." Id. at p. 25. 
P.9 

HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 7 

Petitioner's preference as to the type of boiler and fuel to be 

used in this instance would in effect redefine the source. The cited 

draft guidance makes clear that the permitting authority is entitled to 

wide latitude in how broad a BACT analysis it wishes to condua in this 

regard. Petitioner has provided no good reason for curtailing this 

discretion here nor has he shown that the State abused this discretion. 

Thus, review of this issue is also denied.

 10 

Fuel Oil: Petitioner states that the Hawaii Department of 

Health should urge local refineries to install desulfurization equipment 

or require the electric company to purchase low sulfur (0.1% S) fuel oil 

or (0.05% S) #2 distillate oil from outside the State. Petitioner further 

indicates that while this would result In higher fuel costs, "the majority 

of Hawaiians would willingly agree to a reasonable increase in power 

rates if it means improving the air quality in these beautiful islands." 

Petition at 2. More specifically, Petitioner would like to see the HC&S 

permit reflea S02 and NOx limits "much more stringent than BACT as 

defined in the Federal regulations," following the practice of some .Air 

Quality Management Districts in California. 

The State, in its response to the petition, confirms the relative 

unavailability of very low sulfur fuels ln Hawaii due to inadequate 

desulfurization capacity at local refineries. Such fuel oil would have to 

be imported. Relative to the HC&S permit, the State responds that 

BACT was not required for S02 because the facility's emissions (after 

crediting emissions reductions from three existing boilers) will not 

exceed the significance levels for S02 which would trigger a BACT 

review. " However, though not compelled by the PSD rules, the 

controls to be used at the facility are what the State characterizes as 

"BACT pollution controls," and will reduce S02 emissions to those 

equivalent to 0.1% sulfur fuel oil. The Sate further indicates that it did 

10

 The State may not view its authority under State law as being extensive enough 

to take advanuge of the flexibility afforded under the Federal PSD regulations. Soc note 

7 supra. 

11

 PSD review is required for SO, emissions if the net increase in SO, emissions is 

40 tons per year or greater. See 40 CFR §52.21(b)(23)(i). The calculation of the "net 

increase" (actually a decrease) for SO, is discussed in the Ambient Air Quality Impact 

Report at pages 8-14. 
P.10 

8 HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 

require BACT for any pollutant subjea to PS.D review, including 

NOx.

 I2 

General issues relative to desulfurization at refineries or 

requirements to purchase low sulfur oil by the electric company are not 

cognizable in the challenge to the HC&S permit. The fuel to be used 

at the Puunene facility is relevant ln the context of a determination of 

BACT (where applicable) and in analyzing the air quality impacts of the 

project. There is no obligation to adopt a definition of BACT more 

stringent than that required by Federal law. Petitioner's belief that the 

State should have adopted a standard more stringent than that required 

by Federal regulations has no legal relevance. 

.As previously noted, the Puunene 30 MW CFB Boiler is being 

designed to burn coal, fuel oil, and bagasse. In the case of fuel oil, a 

sorbent injection system is being installed to allow the use of number 

6' fuel oil with a 2.0% sulfur content with the sorbent system then 

reducing emissions by 95%. This would be equivalent to the use of 

0.1% S oil, which the State has determined to be BACT, even though 

BACT is not required for S02 under the PSD regulations. The State's 

determination that this level is equivalent to BACT is not subjea to 

challenge since, as noted previously, the BACT requirement does not 

apply to S02 since the significance level will not be exceeded. 

In the case of NOj, Petitioner states that use of lower sulfur fuel 

will also reduce NOx emissions. We note that this does not necessarily 

follow. There is no direa relationship between fuel sulfur content and 

NOx emissions. However, in this case, what Petitioner suggests is the 

use ofa distillate (#2) oil rather than the residual oil (#6) as proposed 

by HC&S. "Because residual oils are produced from the residue after 

lighter fractions (gasoline, kerosene and distillate oils) have been 

removed from the crude oil, they contain significant quantities of ash, 

BACT for NO, was determined to be staged combustion and a selective noncatalytic reduction system using urea injection. Ambient Air Quality Impact Report at p. 

20. See footnote 6 supra. 
P.11 

HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 9 

nitrogen and sulfur."

 13

 Nitrogen oxides emissions from residual oil 

combustion in industrial and commercial boilers are strongly related to 

fuel nitrogen content.

 u A switch from residual to distillate oil, 

without controls, would result in a lower emission faaor for nitrogen 

oxide (55 IbAO5 gal for residual oil versus 20 IbAO3 gal for distillate 

oil).

 15

 Thus, while unrelated to the sulfur content of the fuel, the 

switch Petitioner suggests could have consequences in terms of NOx 

levels if the fuel were burned uncontrolled. 

Of course, HC&S is not proposing to burn the fuel without 

controls for NO,. The facility is required to apply BACT for NO,, and 

NOz emissions will be substantially addressed through the use of 

combustion modification (staged combustion) and post-combustion 

controls (SNCR).

 l€ 

Petitioner has cited nothing in the administrative record which 

would lead us to conclude that the State's BACT analysis and its BACT 

determination in this case are deficient. Petitioner cites no data in the 

record about the effea on NOx emissions of the use of the NOx control 

technologies in combination with distillate fuel to suggest that this 

combination should have been considered in the BACT analysis. " 

Petitioner has not identified any error, policy consideration or exercise 

of discretion appropriate for review and review of this issue is 

accordingly denied. 

a

 Compilation of Air Pollution Emission Factors, Third Edition AP-42 (Updated 

1986) at p. 1.3-1. This document is EPA's basic reference document for air pollution 

emission factors and we hereby take official notice of it 

14 Id., note J at 1.3-2, and 1.3-3. 

15

 Id. at 1.3-2. 

Ambient Air Quality Impaa Report at pp. 16-20. 

17

 See In re Spokane Regional Waste-to-Energy, PSD Appeal No. 88-12 at p. 17 0une 

9, 1989). ("A technology is obviously not available in any meaningful sense if knowledge 

about its effect on emissions, in the particular configuration in which it would be 

employed, is so incomplete as to be unusable.") This decision was upheld by the Court 

of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 959 F.2d 839 (9th Cir. 1992). 
P.12 

10 HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 

S02 and NOt Emission Limits: Petitioner .questions why HC&S 

has emission limits of approximately 42 lb/hr each for S02 and NO, 

whereas California has limits of 16 lb/hr for S02 and 6 lb/hr for NOr 

The Sate explains the difference as relating to the type of fuel to be 

burned. The California limits are possible mainly because new power 

plants there burn natural gas. In contrast, natural gas will not be used 

at the HC&S facility; HC&S will burn coal, fuel oil, and bagasse. The 

limits imposed on HC&S are typical for California power plants burning 

biomass or solid fuels. In addition, as previously discussed, the SOz 

limit is equivalent to a BACT level of 0.1% S. While the Petitioner 

acknowledges these distinctions, he reasserts his position that low 

sulfur (0.05%) distillate fuel oil is available and reduced NOz levels can 

be achieved with new and better turbines and installation ofa selective 

catalytic reduction unit. 

• This issue largely overlaps the previous issue. The State has 

provided a plausible explanation for the difference in emissions limits 

between the HC&S permit and those used in Southern California. 

More significantly, Petitioner has failed to identify how the permit limits 

are in any way deficient under applicable PSD regulations and thus 

review is denied. 

Air Quality Modeling: Petitioner asks bow well the verification 

process has been carried out for the air quality models used in 

evaluating the HC&S project, asserting that he believes those models to 

be flawed. Petitioner further asserts that meteorological data from 

Kahului Airport are not representative of the proposed facility. The 

State responds that U.S. EPA-approved flat terrain and complex terrain 

air quality models were used to predia maximum anticipated ambient 

air quality. Such models are designed to over-predia worst-case 

estimates of impacts to be protective of ambient air quality. In 

addition, Kahului Airport was determined to be representative of the 

meteorological conditions at Puunene by both State and U.S.E.PA. 

meteorologists since it is in close proximity (2 miles) with no 

intervening terrain changes which significantly affea the meteorological 

data. 

The air quality impacts of this projea are discussed at some 

length in Section VII of the Ambient Air Quality Impaa Report, 

beginning at page 26. This section outlines in detail the approach used 
P.13 

HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 11 

and the results obtained in the modeling analysis. Air quality model 

selection is discussed in paragraph B (page 29) and data selection in 

paragraph A (pages 27-28). The models used were U.S.E.P.A.-approved 

UNAMAP-6 series guideline models and data selection were determined 

to be acceptable by U.SE.P-A.'s Regional meteorologist. 

In his petition, Petitioner merely asserts that modeling is inexaa 

in Maui's topographic and cllmatological environment and that the 

modeling procedure was flawed. He points to no technical data in the 

record showing that either the model selection or the data utilized were 

flawed, only unsubstantiated anecdotal reports and observations of air 

circulation patterns by Maul residents. When viewed against the 

modeling analysis done to support the permit, this falls far short of 

meeting Petitioner's burden of showing clear error or any other basis 

which would justify review, and review is thus denied. 

Waivers of Performance Tests: The permit provides for 

performance testing on existing Boilers 1, 2 and 3 after Installation of 

air pollution controls on those boilers but prior to startup of the new 

30 MWCFB boiler. Permit at 8. The permit provides for testing on the 

new 30 MW CFB boiler after initial startup, and thereafter on an annual 

basis or at such other times as may be specified by the Department of 

Health. Permit at 9-10. Waiver of performance testing is provided for 

in accordance with the following provision: 

The Hawaii Department of Health may waive a specific 

performance test upon prior written request of 

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company. Such a 

request would need to be justified on the grounds that 

prior tests had shown compliance by a wide margin, 

and that adequate alternative means exist to show 

continuing compliance. 

Permit at 10. The initial performance test cannot be waived, only the 

subsequent tests. 

Petitioner states that waivers of performance tests for the boiler 

and fugitive emissions should not be provided. The State, however, 

points out that performance tests were incorporated primarily to 

demonstrate compliance upon completion of construction, and that 
P.14 

12 HAWAIIAN COMMERCIAL & SUGAR COMPANY 

continuous emissions monitoring (which the permit requires) is a better 

indicator of ongoing performance. 

In discussing the waiver provision, the State notes the 

considerable Department of Health staff time which oversight of a 

performance test requires and the cost to the permittee. In this 

context, the State's response to the petition indicates at page 4 that 

"[t]he Department believes that the provisions for waiving specific 

source tests will not compromise source emissions compliance while 

maximizing its personnel resources." 

The State's position on this issue reflects a perfectly rational 

approach given the costs to both the State and the permittee associated 

with performance testing and the primary reliance on continuous 

emissions monitoring systems. While the Petitioner has stated that 

"[t]here is absolutely no reason to allow a waiver of these very 

important tests" (Petition at 4), this is merely a statement of his 

opinion. No applicable PSD requirement which would preclude 

inclusion of the waiver provision is cited. Petitioner has not carried his 

burden of identifying either a clear factual or legal error or an 

important policy consideration or exercise of disaetion appropriate for 

review. Review of this issue is therefore denied. 

In summary, none of the bases set forth in the petition for 

review meets the threshold level for granting review, and the petition 

is accordingly denied. 

So ordered. 
P.15 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the forgoing Order Denying Review in the matter of 

Hawaiian Commercial & Sugar Company, PSD Appeal No. 92-1, were sent to the 

following persons in the manner indicated: 

First Class Mail, 

Postage Prepaid: James V. Williamson 

672 Kumulani Drive 

Kihei, HI 96753 

John C. Lewin, MD 

Director 

State of Hawaii 

Department of Health 

P.O. Box 3378 

Honolulu, HI 96801 

David P. Howekamp, Director 

Air & Toxics Division 

U.S. EPA, Region LX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

By Hand-delivery: Ms. Bessie Hammiel 

Headquarters Hearing Clerk 

Room 3708, A-110 

Dated: JUL 2 I 1992 

Brenda H. Selden 

Legal Staff Specialist