p. 1

• 

# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 62 ) ll-K-1 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7 . .

Printed 10/29/200810:46:20AM Sheet 62 of 142X * P. 2

(Slip Opinion ) NOTICE ; Thi s opinio n i s subjec t t o forma

l revisio n befor e publication
. Reader s ar c requeste dt o notif y th e Environmenta l Appeal s Board , U.S
. Environmental Protectio n Agency , Washington , D.C
. 20460 , o f

an y typographical o r

othe r forma l errors , i n orde r

tha t correction s ma

y b e mad e before publication
. 

# u - \r-) 'JaW '

BEFOR E TH E ENVIRONMENTA L APPEAL S BOAR D UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C .

I n th e Matte r

of : Hawaiia n Commercia l & Suga r Compan y Permi t No
. H I 89-0 1 PS D Appea l No
. 92- 1

[Decide dJul y 20 , 1992 ]

ORDER DENYINGREVIEW
Before Environmental

Appeals Judges Ronald

L McCallum and Edward E. Reicb.P. 3

HAWAIIA N COMMERCIA

L & SUGaA

RCOMPAN

Y

PSD Appea l No
. 92- 1 ORDE RDENYIN

G REVIE W

Decide dJul y 20 , 199 2
Syllabu s Petitioner , a privat

e citizen , i s appealin g th e issuance o f a Preventio n o f Significan tDeterioratio n (PSD

) permitt o th e Hawaiia

n Commercia

l & Suga rCompan y b y th e Stat e o f Hawaii . The permi

trelates t o constructio n o f a ne w 5 0 M

W Circulatin

g Fluidize d Bed Boile rt o b e located a tth e Puunen e Mil

l Facilit y o n th e island o f

Maui. The petitio n set s fort

h six base s forseekin g review. Thes e relat e t o ash disposal , coa l stockpiles , th e fuel oi l t o b e burned , SO , an d NO , emissio n limits , ai rqualit y modeling , and waivero f

performanc

e tests . Held : While Petitione rurges th e Stat e t o g o beyond th e applicabl e Federa l PS D requirements , th e petitio n doe s no tidentif y an y deficienc

y i n th e permitrelative t o thos e requirements . The petitio n fo rrevie w i s therefor

e denie d becaus e itfails t o identif y an y factua l o rlega l error s o ran y polic y consideration s o rexercise s o f discretio n tha

twarran t review . Before Environmental Appealsjudges Ronald L. McCallum and Edward JS
. Reich. Opinion of

tbe Board

by Judge Reich: Petitione r Jame s V
. Williamson , aprivat e citizen , ha s file dthi s appea l o f th e issuanc e o f

aPreventio n o f

Significan t Deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t t o th e Hawaiian Commercial & Suga r Compan y (HC&S ) by th e Stat e o f Hawaii
. Th e State , actin g pursuan t t o adelegatio n fromth e U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) an dwith it s concurrence , issue dth e permit , style d"Approva l t o Construct/Modif

y aStationary Sourc e (H I 89-01). " Th e permi t cover s constructio n of a3 0 M W Circulatin g Fluidize dBe d(CFB ) Boile r t o b e locate da t

th e Puunen e Mil l Facility , Puunene , Maui
. Th e Boile r i s bein g designe dt o bur n thre e different

type s of fuel s for maximu mflexibility. Thes e ar e coal , fue l oil , an dbagass e (th e par t o f sugarcan e remainin g after th e suga r

i s squeeze dout)
. I t

wil l provid e additiona l electricit y t o th e Mill , a s wel l a s providin g electricit

y whic h HC&S i s proposin g t o sel l t o Mau i Electri c Compan y t o mee t

th e island' s demands
. Mr
. Williamson' s petitio n raise s six issues
. A t th e reques t

of dii s Board , th e State o f

Hawai i Departmen t

o f Healt h submitte dacop y o

f th e administrativ e recor dfo r th e permi t

an darespons e t o th e petition
. Th e recor dshow s tha t

th e issue s raise di n thi s appea l ha dpreviousl yP. 4

2 HAWAIIA

N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y bee n raise db y Mr
. Williamso n i n hi s comment s o n th e draf t permit , an d thu s wer e preserve dfor

revie w unde r

4 0 CF R§124.19
. * Unde r th e rule s tha t

gover n thi s proceeding , aPS D permi t ordinaril y wil l no t

b e reviewe dunles s I

t i s base do n aclearl y erroneou s finding o f fact o r conclusio n o f

law , o r Involve s a n importan t

matte r o f polic y o r exercis e o f

discretio n tha t

warrant s review
. See 4 0 CF R §124.19 ; 4 5 Fed
. Reg
. 3341 2 (Ma y 19 , 1980)
. Th e preambl e t o th e Federa l Registe r

notic e i n whic h Sectio n 124.1 9 wa s promulgate dstate s tha t "thi s powe r

o f revie w shoul db e onl y sparingl y exercised, " an dtha t "mos t permi t condition s shoul db e finally determine da t th e Regional leve l * * *. " Id. Th e burde n o f demonstratin g tha t

revie w i s warrante d i s o n th e petitioner
. Fo r

th e reason s se t

fort h below , -w

e conclud e tba t Petitione r ha s failedt o sho w tha t revie w o f

th e permi t

i s warrante d unde r 4 0 CF R§124.19 , an dtherefor e revie w i s denied
. Asb Disposal: Th e first issu e raise db y Petitione r relate s t o disposa l o f

th e fly as h (an dbotto mash ) fromth e operatio n o f th e boiler
. Petitione r

expresse s th e -vie

w tha t HC&S ha s n o definit e plan s fo r disposa l o f

th e as h an ddoesn' t

eve n kno w if

i t i s hazardous
. Petitione r believe s th e as h shoul dalread y hav e bee n teste dan dth e disposa l proble minvestigate dsinc e HC& S ha s bee n usin g smal l quantitie s o f

th e sam e coal for

som e time
. Th e State , i n it s respons e t o th e petition , identifie s several option s HC& S ha s explore dfor as h disposa l includin g sellin g i t t o loca l cemen t manufacturer s for

us e a s acomponen t

o f cement , usin g i t

a s a soi l amendmen t

i n th e sugar

can e fields, o r

usin g i t a s asurfacin g materia l fo r

can e hau l roads
. Al

l thes e potentia l use s presuppos e a determinatio n tha t

th e as h i s non-hazardous
. If i t prove s t o b e hazardous , th e as h wil l b e dispose do f i n amanne r

consisten t

with al l

1 4 0 CE R§124.1 9 provides fo rappeal o f PS D permit s b y person s wh o filed comments o n th e draf

tpermito rparticipated i n th e publi c hearing . An y perso n wh o faile d t o file comment

s o rfailed t o participat

e i n th e public hearin g ma y petitio n fo r review onl y t o th e exten to f changes from th e draf

tto final decision .P. 5

HAWAIIA N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y 3 applicabl e Federa l an dStat e laws
. 2 Base do n th e testin g o f as h resultin g fromcoa l combustio n a t a n existin g boile r

a t th e HC& S facility, HC& S doe s no t

expec t th e as h t o b e hazardous
. However , a disposa l metho dcanno t b e finally identifie dunti l th e as h actuall y produce db y th e ne w boile r i s teste donc e i t

come s o n line
. Th e Ambien t

Ai r Qualit y Impac t Report whic h accompanie dth e final permi t

discusse s th e anticipate dimpact s of as h handlin g i n Sectio n IV.F
. a t pag e 6
. Ther e i s n o discussio n i n tha t Repor t o f plan s fo r th e ultimat e dispositio n o f

th e ash
. However , i t

i s apparen t

fromth e recor d tha t th e Permitte e ha s give n considerabl e though t t o th e as h disposa l issu e althoug h i t

i s no t ye t I n apositio n t o mak e afinal decision. 5 Whil e consideratio n o f

th e natur e o f

th e fly as h coul db e relevan t t o a consideratio n o f

collatera l environmenta l effects a s par t o f a n analysi s o f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y (BACT) , *Petitioner' s concern s her e ar e speculative
. Ther e i s nothin g i n th e recor dt o sugges t tha t th e BAC T determinatio n for

an y pollutan t

regulate dunde r

th e Clea n Ai

r A a woul db e affecte db y th e absenc e o f adefinitiv e pla n fo r

th e disposa l o f th e fly ash. J Petitione r ha s no t identifie dan y violatio n of PS D

2 Although no tdiscusse d i n th e State' s respons e o ri n th e comments o f HC& S I n th e administrativ

e record , w e not e that4 0 CF R§26l.4(b)(4 ) exclude s fly as h waste an d botto m as h waste resultin g from th e combustio n o f fossi l fuels fro

m th e definitio n o f

soli d waste , and thu s from Federa l regulatio n a

s a hazardou

s waste . 3 Forexample , Sierr

a Research , o n behal

f o f th e Permittee , sen ta lette rto Mr . Williamson o n Septembe r9 , 1991 , respondin g t o question s h e raised a tth e publi c hearing . Enclose d wit

h this lette ri s a Summar y o f Comment

s and Response s which discusse s alternatives fo rfly ash disposal o n page s 3-4 .
* 4 0 CF R§52.21Q)(3 ) require

s a ne w majo

rstationar y sourc e t o appl y bes tavailabl e contro l technolog y fo reach pollutantsubjectt o regulatio n tha titwoul d hav

e th e potential to emi ti n significantamounts . Bes tavailable control technology i s define d a t4 0 CF R §52.21(b)(12) . 5 "Whil e collatera l environmenta

l impact s ar e relevan tto th e BAC

T determination , thei rrelevance i s generally couche d i n terms o f discussin g which available technology , amon g several , produce s les s advers e collatera l effects , and , if

itdoes , whethe rtha

t justifies it

s utilizatio n eve n i

f th e technolog y i s otherwis e les s stringent. " In re Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PS D Appea l 91-3 9 a tp . 23 (Januar

y 29 , 1992) . See also North County Resource Recovery Associates, PS D Appea l No . 85- 2 (Remand , Jun e 3, 1986 ) (continued... )P. 6

4 HAWAIIA

N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y regulation s i n th e lac k

o f greate r specificit y o n plan s for

disposa l o f

th e flyash
. Thus , Petitione r

ha s no t carrie dhi s burde n o f

identifyin g eithe r aclear factual o r

lega l erro r

o r a n importan t

polic y consideratio n o r exercis e o f

discretio n tha t

shoul db e reviewed
. Review o f thi s issu e i s therefor e denied
. Coal Stockpiles: Petitione r

question s wha t

th e siz e o f

th e stockpil e wil l be , bo w HC& S wil l preven t fugitive dus t

du e t o winds , an dho w HC& S wil l ge t

ri do f coa l dust
. Th e State , i n it s respons e t o th e petition , describe s th e stockpile s an dindicate s tha t i t doe s no t expec t significan t

ai r pollutio n problem s fromfugitive dus t becaus e th e coa l wil l b e washe dan dha s a n extremel y lo w sil t conten t (4.23% ) - Th e Stat e als o cite s assurance s fromHC& S tha t fugitiv e dus t

wil l no t produc e visibl e emission s beyon dth e propert y boundary
.

• Th e permi t

addresse s fugitiv e dus t

control s i n Sectio n K.D.6
. Thi s provisio n requires : Fugitiv e dus t

controls , includin g th e us e of enclosure s an dwe t suppressio n t o preven t

particulat e matte r

from becomin g airborn e t o th e exten t practical , durin g al l materia l handlin g operation s o f coal , sorbent , an dash
. Al l coa l conveyor s shal l b e enclose dan dth e coa l pulverize r

shal l b e vente dt o th e coal storag e bi n t o contro l fugitiv e emissions
. Hawaiian Commercia l & Sugar Compan y shal l desig n an dconstruc t th e boile r as h handlin g an ddisposa l syste mi n amanne r tha t wil l minimiz e particulat e emission s fromas h handlin g an d disposal
. As h conveyor s shal l b e pneumati c o r shal l handl e we t

as h an dal l conveyor s an dtransfe r point s shal l b e covere do r

sealed
. I n n o cas e shal l Hawaiian Commercia l & Suga

r Compan y caus e o r

permi t th e discharg e o f

visibl e emission s o f

fugitive dus t

beyon d th e permittee' s propert y boundary
.

'(...continued ) (environmental impac

to f pollutant s no tregulated unde rthe CleanAir Ac tma y necessitate a mor e stringentemissio n limi tforregulated pollutant

s undergoin g BAC

T review) .P. 7

HAWAIIA N COMMERCLV

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y 5 Relativ e t o disposa l o f

coal dust , th e State' s respons e t o th e petitio n indicate s tha t

"th e disposa l o f

th e coa l dus t

wil l b e minimal " an dwil l b e conducte di n accordanc e wit h al l applicabl e federa l an dstat e regulations
. Respons e a t 2
. Th e .Ambien

t Ai r Quality Impa aRepor t

project s negligibl e fugitiv e particulat e emission s associate dwith fuel handlin g du e t o th e natur e o f th e coa l t o b e use dan dth e faatha t al l coa l conveyer s wil l b e enclosed
. Petitione r

ha s no t pointe dt o an y dat ao r

othe r evidenc e i n th e recor dt o challeng e thi s conclusion
. I n addition , th e permi t limitatio n o n visibl e emission s o f fugitiv e dus t

beyon dth e propert y lin e provide s a n enforceabl e mechanis mt o dea l with an y proble mshoul d on e arise
. Petitione r

ha s no t carrie dhi s burde n o f

identifyin g eithe r

a clear factual o r

lega l erro r

o r a n importan t

polic y consideratio n o r exercis e o f

discretio n tha t

shoul db e reviewe dan drevie w i s accordingl y denied
. Petitione r

als o indicate s tha t

h e i s adamantl y oppose dt o an y additiona l coa l firedboiler s o n Maui , suggestin g tha t HC& S shoul d instea dinstal l acombine dcycl e facility fuele dwit h lo w sulfu r distillat e o r residua l oi l an dequippe dwith aselectiv e catalyti c reductio n uni t for NO x control
. 6

Th e State , i n it s respons e t o th e petition , indicate s tha t i t doe s no t hav e th e authorit y t o defin e th e boile r typ e t o b e used. 7 Instead , i t

evaluate dth e anticipate dimpact s o f th e facility wit h th e typ e o f boile r propose dan dfoun dthe mt o b e acceptabl e unde r th e PS D regulations
.

Th e Stat e di d evaluat

e th e relative merit

s o f selectiv e catalyti

c reductio n (SCR

) an d selectiv e non-catalytic reductio n (SNCR ) i n th e contex to f

it s bes tavailable contro l technolog y analysis fo rNO , and foun d selectiv e non-catalyti c reductio n t o b e preferable . I tcite d th e lac

k o f experienc e wit

h SC Rsystem s o n CF

B boilers , significan

tproblem s wit

h pluggin g and poisonin g o f th e catalystby fl

y as h i n crushed coal-fire

d boilers , increased costs , and othe rconsideration s i n rejectin g SCR . Ambien tAi r Qualit y Impac tRepor ta t pp . 19-20 . Petitione rha

s no tshow n tha

tth e State' s BAC

T analysis i s deficient , an d thu s ha s no tme thi s burde n unde r4 0 CF R§124.19 .
7 Th e Stat

e indicates tha

tit"doe s no thav e authorit y t o require facilitie s t o us e a specifi c equipment , fue l o rairpollutio n contro l device. " Respons e a tp . 2 . However , w e not e tha tth e definitio n o f

BAC T include s consideratio n o f both clea n fuel s and us e o f ai r pollutio n contro l devices .P. 8

6 HAWAIIA

N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y EPA' s PS D permi t

condition s regulation s .d o no t mandat e tha t th e permittin g authorit y redefin e th e sourc e i n orde r t o reduc e emissions
. 8 Th e U.S
. Environmenta l Protectio n .Agency' s Ai r Quality Managemen t

Divisio n discusse dth e applicatio n o f thi s principl e i n a draf t Ne w Sourc e Revie w Worksho p Manua l issue di n Oaobe r 1990
. Thi s documen t

wa s develope dfor

us e i n conjunctio n wit h ne w sourc e revie w workshop s an dtraining , an dt o guid e permittin g officials
. As such , i t ha s bee n widel y circulate dan drepresent s th e Office o f Ai r Program' s curren t

thinkin g i n thi s regard
. O n pag e B.1 3 o f

tha t Manual , i t

provides : Historically , EP

A ha s no t

considere dth e BAC T requiremen t

a s amean s t o redefin e th e desig n o f th e sourc e whe n considering availabl e contro l alternatives
.

- Fo r example , applicant s proposin g t o constru aacoal

firedelectri c generator , hav e no t bee n require db y EP

A a s par t o f aBAC T analysi s t o conside r

buildin g a natura l gas-fire delectri c turbin e althoug h th e turbin e ma y b e inherentl y les s pollutin g pe r uni t produ a(i n thi s cas e electricity)
. However , thi s i s a n aspe ao f th e PS D permittin g proces s In whic h state s hav e th e discretio n t o engag e i n abroade r analysi s i

f the y s o desire
. Thus , aga s turbin e normall y woul dno t b e include di n th e lis t

o f contro l alternative s fo r

acoal

fire dboiler
. '

8 "Althoug

h impositio n o f

th e condition s may

, amon g othe rthings , have a profound effec to n th e viabilit

y o f th e propose d facilit

y a s conceive d b

y th e applicant, th e condition s themselve s are no tintende d t o redefine th e sourc e •••."/ « re Pennsauken County, New Jersey Resource Recovery Facility, PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 a

tp . 1 1 (Novembe r10 , 1988) .

' Thi s situatio n was presente d i n In re Old Dominion Electric Cooperative, PS D Appeal 91-3 9 (Januar

y 29,1992) . In tha

tinstance , th e Stat

e determine d tha

trequiring a coal-fire d stea m electri c generating statio n t o us e natura l ga s a s a n altemativ e fue l woul d redefin e th e source . I

tfurthe rconclude d tha

titwas no tempowered t o d o this unles s th e facilit y a s propose d woul d no tmee tal l Federa l an d Stat e ai remissio n limitation s o rwoul d resul ti n a violatio n o f

a nationa l ambientai

rqualit y standard . While th e Administrator o f EP A foun d n o clea rerro ri n th e State' s handlin g o f th e matter, h e state d tha t"EP A construe s th e 199 0 Amendment s a s conferring discretio n o n th e permitissue rt o conside r fuel s othe rtha

n thos e propose d b

y th e permitapplicant. " Id. a tp . 25 .P. 9

HAWAIIA N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y 7 Petitioner' s preferenc e a s t o th e typ e of boile r an dfue l t o b e use di n thi s instanc e woul di n effect redefin e th e source . Th e cite d draf t guidanc e make s clear

tha t th e permittin g authorit y i s entitle dt o wid e latitud e i n ho w broa daBAC T analysi s i t

wishe s t o condu ai n thi s regard
. Petitione r

ha s provide dn o goo dreaso n fo r curtailin g thi s discretio n her e no r

ha s h e show n tha t

th e State abuse dthi s discretion
. Thus , revie w o f

thi s issu e i s als o denied
. 1 0 Fuel Oil: Petitione r

state s tha t

th e Hawai i Departmen t o f Healt h shoul durg e loca l refinerie s t o instal l desulfurizatio n equipmen t o r requir e th e electri c compan y t o purchas e lo w sulfu r (0.1 % S ) fue l oi l o r (0.05 % S ) # 2 distillat e oi l fromoutsid e th e State
. Petitione r furthe r indicate s tha t

whil e thi s woul dresul t

In highe r fue l costs , "th e majority o f Hawaiian s woul dwillingl y agre e t o areasonabl e increas e i n powe r rate s i f i t mean s improvin g th e ai r quality i n thes e beautifu l islands. " Petitio n a t

2
. Mor e specifically , Petitione r woul dlik e t o se e th e HC& S permi t refle aS0 2 an dNO x limit s "muc h mor e stringen t tha n BAC

T a s define di n th e Federa l regulations, " followin g th e practic e o f som e .Ai r Quality Managemen t

District s i n California
. Th e State , i n it s respons e t o th e petition , confirm s th e relativ e unavailability o f

ver y lo w sulfu r

fuel s l n Hawai i du e t o inadequat e desulfurizatio n capacit

y a t loca l refineries
. Suc h fue l oi l woul dhav e t o b e imported
. Relativ e t o th e HC& S permit , th e Stat e respond s tha t BAC T wa s no t require dfor

S0 2 becaus e th e facility's emission s (after creditin g emission s reduction s fromthre e existin g boilers ) wil l no t excee dth e significanc e level s for S0 2 whic h woul dtrigge r aBAC T review
. " However , thoug h no t compelle db y th e PS D rules , th e control s t o b e use da t

th e facility ar e wha t

th e Stat e characterize s a s "BAC T pollutio n controls," an dwil l reduc e S0 2 emission s t o thos e equivalen t

t o 0.1 % sulfur

fuel oil
. Th e Sat e furthe r indicate s tha t

i t di d

1 0 Th e Stat e ma y no tvie w it

s authorit y unde rStat

e la w a s bein g extensiv e enoug h t o tak e advanug e o f

th e flexibility afforde

d unde r th e Federa

l PS D regulations . Soc not e 7 supra.
1 1 PS D review i s require

d fo rSO , emission s i

f th e ne tincreas e i n SO , emission s i s 4 0 ton s pe ryearo rgreater . See 40 CF R§52.21(b)(23)(i) . Th

e calculatio n o f

th e "ne t increase " (actuall

y a decrease ) fo rSO , i s discusse d i n th e AmbientAi rQualit y Impac t Repor ta tpage s 8-14 .P.1 0

8 HAWAIIA

N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y requir e BAC

T for an y pollutan t

subje at o PS.

D review , includin g NO x . I 2 Genera l issue s relativ e t o desulfurizatio n a t refinerie s o r requirement s t o purchas e lo w sulfu r oi l b y th e electri c compan y ar e no t cognizabl e i n th e challeng e t o th e HC& S permit
. Th e fue l t o b e use d a t th e Puunen e facility i s relevan t l n th e contex t

o f adeterminatio n o f BAC T (wher e applicable ) an di n analyzin g th e ai r quality impact s o f

th e project
. Ther e i s n o obligatio n t o adop t adefinitio n o f

BAC T mor e stringen t tha n tha t

require db y Federa l law
. Petitioner' s belie f tha t th e Stat e shoul dhav e adopte dastandar dmor e stringen t tha n tha t require d b y Federa l regulation s ha s n o lega l relevance
. .A s previousl y noted , th e Puunen e 3 0 M W CF B Boile r i s bein g designe dt o bur n coal , fuel oil , an dbagasse
. I n th e cas e o f fuel oil , a sorben t injectio n syste mi s bein g installe dt o allo w th e us e o f numbe r 6 ' fue l oi l wit h a2.0 % sulfur conten t with th e sorben t

syste mthe n reducin g emission s b y 95%
. Thi s woul db e equivalen t t o th e us e o f 0.1 % S oil , whic h th e State ha s determine dt o b e BACT, eve n thoug h BAC T i s no t require dfor

S0 2 unde r

th e PS D regulations
. Th e State' s determinatio n tha t

thi s leve l i s equivalen t

t o BAC T i s no t subje at o challeng e since , a s note dpreviously , th e BAC T requiremen t

doe s no t appl y t o S0 2 sinc e th e significanc e leve l wil l no t b e exceeded
. I n th e cas e o f

NOj , Petitione r

state s tha t

us e o f lowe r sulfu r fue l wil l als o reduc e NO x emissions
. We not e tha t thi s doe s no t

necessaril y follow
. Ther e i s n o dire arelationshi p betwee n fuel sulfu r conten t an d NO x emissions
. However , i n thi s case , wha t Petitione r

suggest s i s th e us e of adistillat e (#2 ) oi l rathe r tha n th e residua l oi l (#6 ) a s propose d b y HC&S
. "Becaus e residua l oil s ar e produce dfromth e residu e after lighte r fractions (gasoline , kerosen e an ddistillat e oils ) hav e bee n remove dfromth e crud e oil , the y contai n significant quantitie s of

ash ,

BAC T fo rNO , wa s determine d t o b e stage d combustio n an d a selectiv e non catalyti c reductio n system usin g urea injection . Ambien tAi rQualit y Impac tRepor ta tp . 20 . See footnot e 6

supra.P.1 1

HAWAIIA N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y 9 nitroge n an dsulfur. " 1 3 Nitroge n oxide s emission s fromresidua l oi l combustio n i n industria l an dcommercia l boiler s ar e strongl y relate dt o fuel nitroge n content . u A switc h fromresidua l t o distillat e oil , withou t controls , woul dresul t

i n alowe r

emissio n faaor

for nitroge n oxid e (5 5 IbAO 5 gal for

residua l oi l versu s 2 0 IbAO 3 ga l for distillat e oil)
. 1 5 Thus , whil e unrelate dt o th e sulfu r conten t o f th e fuel , th e switc h Petitione r

suggest s coul dhav e consequence s i n term s o f NO x level s i f th e fue l wer e burne duncontrolled
. O f course , HC& S i s no t

proposin g t o bur n th e fue l withou t control s for

NO,
. Th e facility i s require dt o appl y BAC T fo r NO, , an d NO z emission s wil l b e substantiall y addresse dthroug h th e us e of combustio n modificatio n (stage dcombustion ) an dpost-combustio n control s (SNCR)
. l€ Petitione r ha s cite dnothin g i n th e administrativ e recor dwhic h woul dlea du s t o conclud e tha t th e State' s BAC

T analysi s an dit s BAC

T determinatio n i n thi s cas e ar e deficient
. Petitione r cite s n o dat ai n th e recor dabou t

th e effe ao n NO x emission s o f th e us e o f

th e NO x contro l technologie s i n combinatio n with distillat e fuel t o sugges t tha t thi s combinatio n shoul dhav e bee n considere di n th e BAC T analysis
. " Petitione rha s no tidentifie d an y error , polic y consideratio n o rexercis e o f discretio n appropriat e for revie w an drevie w o f thi s issu e i s accordingl y denied
.

a Compilatio n o f

Ai r Pollutio n Emissio n Factors , Thir d Editio n AP-4

2 (Update

d 1986 ) a tp . 1.3-1 . Thi

s documen ti s EPA'

s basi c reference documen tfo rairpollutio n emissio n factor

s and w e hereb y tak

e officia l notic e o f

i t
14 Id., not e J a

t1.3-2 , and 1.3-3 . 1 5 Id. a t1.3-2 . Ambien tAi r Qualit y Impa a Repor

ta tpp . 16-20 .
1 7 See In re Spokane Regional Waste-to-Energy, PS

D Appea l No . 88-1 2 a

tp . 1 7 0un e 9 , 1989) . ("

A technolog y i s obviously no tavailable i n an y meaningful sens e i

f knowledg e abou tit s effec to n emissions , i n th e particula rconfiguration i n whic h i twoul d b e employed , i s s o incomplete a s t o b e unusable." ) Thi

s decisio n was uphel d b y th e Cour t o f Appeals fo

rth e Nint

h Circuit . 95 9 F.2 d 83 9 (9t h Cir . 1992) .P.1 2

1 0 HAWAIIA

N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y S0 2 and NO t Emission Limits: Petitione r .question s wh y HC& S ha s emissio n limit s o f

approximatel y 4 2 lb/h r

eac h fo r S0 2 an dNO , wherea s Californi aha s limit s o f 1 6 lb/h r for S0 2 an d6 lb/h r

for NO r Th e Sat e explain s th e differenc e a s relatin g t o th e typ e o f fue l t o b e burned
. Th e Californi alimit s ar e possibl e mainl y becaus e ne w powe r plant s ther e bur n natura l gas . I n contrast , natura l ga s wil l no t b e use d a t th e HC& S facility; HC&S wil l bur n coal , fuel oil , an dbagasse
. Th e limit s impose do n HC& S ar e typical fo r Californi apowe r

plant s burnin g biomas s o r

soli dfuels
. I n addition , a s previousl y discussed , th e SO z limi t i s equivalen t

t o aBAC

T leve l o f 0.1 % S
. Whil e th e Petitione r acknowledge s thes e distinctions , h e reassert s hi s positio n tha t lo w sulfu r (0.05% ) distillat e fuel oi l i s availabl e an dreduce dNO z level s ca n b e achieve dwit h ne w an dbette r turbine s an dinstallatio n of aselectiv e catalyti c reductio n unit
.

• Thi s issu e largel y overlap s th e previou s issue
. Th e Stat e ha s provide daplausibl e explanatio n for th e differenc e i n emission s limit s betwee n th e HC& S permi t an dthos e use di n Souther n California
. Mor e significantly , Petitione r ha s failedt o identif

y ho w th e permi t

limit s ar e i n an y wa y deficien t

unde r applicabl e PS D regulation s an dthu s revie w i s denied
. Air Quality Modeling: Petitione r ask s bo w well th e verificatio n proces s ha s bee n carrie dou t fo r th e ai r quality model s use di n evaluatin g th e HC& S project , assertin g tha t h e believe s thos e model s t o b e flawed
. Petitione r

furthe r assert s tha t

meteorologica l dat afrom Kahulu i Airport

ar e no t representativ e of

th e propose dfacility. Th e Stat e respond s tha t

U.S
. EPA-approve dflat

terrai n an dcomple x terrai n ai r quality model s wer e use dt o predi amaximu manticipate dambien t ai r quality
. Suc h model s ar e designe dt o over-predi aworst-cas e estimates o f

impact s t o b e protectiv e o f ambien t ai r quality
. I n addition , Kahulu i Airport wa s determine dt o b e representativ e o f th e meteorologica l condition s a t Puunen e by bot h Stat e an dU.S.E.PA
. meteorologist s sinc e i t

i s i n clos e proximity ( 2 miles ) with n o intervenin g terrai n change s whic h significantl y affe ath e meteorologica l data
. Th e ai r

quality impact s o f

thi s proje aar e discusse da t som e lengt h i n Sectio n VI

I o f th e Ambien t

Ai r Qualit y Impa aReport , beginnin g a t

pag e 26
. Thi s sectio n outline s i n detai l th e approac h use dP.1 3

HAWAIIA N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y 1 1
an dth e result s obtaine di n th e modelin g analysis
. Ai r quality mode l selectio n i s discusse di n paragrap h B (pag e 29 ) an ddat aselectio n i n paragrap h A (page s 27-28)
. Th e model s use dwer e U.S.E.P.A.-approve d UNAMAP-

6 serie s guidelin e model s an ddat aselectio n wer e determine d t o b e acceptabl e b y U.SE.P-A.' s Regional meteorologist
. I n hi s petition , Petitione r

merel y assert s tha t

modelin g i s inexa a i n Maui' s topographi c an dcllmatological environmen t an dtha t

th e modelin g procedur e wa s flawed. H e point s t o n o technica l dat ai n th e recor dshowin g tha t

eithe r th e mode l selectio n o r

th e dat autilize dwer e flawed, onl y unsubstantiate danecdota l report s an dobservation s o f ai r circulatio n pattern s b y Mau l residents
. Whe n viewe dagains t th e modelin g analysi s don e t o suppor t th e permit , thi s falls far shor t o f meetin g Petitioner' s burde n o f showin g clea

r erro r o r an y othe r

basi s whic h woul djustif

y review , an drevie w i s thu s denied
. Waivers of

Performance Tests: Th e permi t provide s for performanc e testin g o n existin g Boiler s 1 , 2 an d3 after Installation o f ai r pollutio n control s o n thos e boiler s bu t prio r t o startu p o f

th e ne w 3 0 MWCF

B boiler
. Permi t

a t 8
. Th e permi t

provide s fo r

testin g o n th e ne w 3 0 M W CF B boile r afte r initial startup , an dthereafte r o n a n annua l basi s o r a t suc h othe r

time s a s ma

y b e specifie db y th e Departmen t o f Health
. Permi t

a t 9-10
. Waive

r o f performanc e testin g i s provide dfor i n accordanc e with th e followin g provision : Th e Hawai i Departmen t

o f Health ma

y waiv e aspecifi c performanc e tes t

upo n prio r

writte n reques t

o f Hawaiia n Commercia l & Suga r Company
. Suc h a reques t woul dnee dt o b e justifie do n th e ground s tha t prio r test s ha dshow n complianc e by awid e margin , an dtha t adequat e alternativ e mean s exis t t o sho w continuin g compliance
. Permi t a t 10
. Th e initial performanc e tes t canno t b e waived , onl y th e subsequen t

tests . Petitione r state s tha t

waiver s o f

performanc e test s fo r

th e boile r an dfugitiv e emission s shoul dno t b e provided
. Th e State , however , point s ou t

tha t performanc e test s wer e incorporate dprimaril y t o demonstrat e complianc e upo n completio n o f construction , an dtha tP.1 4

1 2 HAWAIIA

N COMMERCIA

L & SUGA

RCOMPAN

Y continuou s emission s monitorin g (whic h th e permi t requires ) i s abette r indicato r o f ongoin g performance
. I n discussin g th e waive r provision , th e Stat e note s th e considerabl e Departmen t o f Healt h staf

f time whic h oversigh t

o f a performanc e tes t

require s an dth e cos t

t o th e permittee
. I n thi s context , th e State' s respons e t o th e petitio n indicate s a t pag e 4 tha t "[t]h e Departmen t

believe s tha t

th e provision s for

waivin g specifi c sourc e test s wil l no t

compromis e sourc e emission s complianc e whil e maximizin g it s personne l resources. " Th e State' s positio n o n thi s issu e reflect s aperfectl y rationa l approac h give n th e cost s t o bot h th e Stat e an dth e permitte e associate d with performanc e testin g an dth e primar y relianc e o n continuou s emission s monitorin g systems . Whil e th e Petitione r ha s state dtha t "[t]her e i s absolutel y n o reaso n t o allo w awaive r o f thes e ver

y importan t tests " (Petitio n a t

4) , thi s i s merel y astatemen t o f hi s opinion
. N o applicabl e PS D requiremen t whic h woul dpreclud e inclusio n o f

th e waive r

provisio n i s cited
. Petitione r ha s no t carrie dhi s burde n o f

identifyin g eithe r

aclear factual o r

lega l erro r

o r a n importan t polic y consideratio n o r

exercis e o f

disaetio n appropriat e for review
. Revie w o f

thi s issu e i s therefor e denied
. I n summary , non e o f

th e base s se t

fort h i n th e petitio n for revie w meet s th e threshol dleve l for grantin g review , an dth e petitio n i s accordingl y denied
. S o ordered
.P.1 5



### CERTIFICAT

E O FSERVIC

E I hereb y certif

y tha t copie s o f th e forgoin g Orde r

Denyin g Revie w i n th e matte r of Hawaiia n Commercia l & Sugar Company , PS D Appea l No
. 92-1 , wer e sen t t o th e followin g person s i n th e manne r indicated : Firs t Clas s Mail , Postag e Prepaid : Jame s V
. Williamso n 67 2 Kumulan i Driv e Kihei , H I 9675 3 Joh n C
. Lewin , M

D Directo r Stat e o f Hawai i Departmen t

o f Healt h P.O
. Bo x 337 8 Honolulu , H I 9680 1 Davi dP
. Howekamp , Directo r Ai r & Toxic s Divisio n U.S
. EPA , Regio n L

X 7 5 Hawthorn e Stree t Sa n Francisco , C

A 9410 5 B y Hand-delivery : Ms
. Bessi e Hammie l Headquarter s Hearin g Cler k Roo m3708 , A-11 0

Dated : JU

L 2 I 199 2 Brend aH
. Selde n Lega l Staf f Specialis t