# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 46 ) ll-K-3

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:20 AM Sheet 46 of 142 p. 1* ' P. 2 ,

BEFOR E TH S ADMINISTRATO

R U.S . ENVIRONMENTA

L PROTECTIO

N AGENC Y WASHINGTON , D.C .

I nth e Matte r of : PennsaukenCounty , Ne w Jerse y Resourc e Recover

y Facility 

# a - 

# V- $1

PS D Appeal No ; isepa n fvi r>



# 25/99 5 nK
REMAN D PRPB R~«V , ;-.--'^^7— « • I nseparat e petition s file d pursuan t t o 4 0 CFR §124. 0 " (1987) , V

the Townshi p o f Cinnaainso n
__ai . v an

d Rober t Filipczak requeste

d revie w o f a Preventio

no f Significan t Deteri oratio n(PSD ) permi t issue d t o th

e Pennsauken Soli d Wast e Manage men t Authorit y

fo r constructio

no f a municipa l wast e combustor . The permi t determinatio n wa s mad e b

y the Ne w Jersey Departmen t o f Environmenta l Protectio n (NJDEP ) pursuan t t o a delegatio n o f authority

fro m EP A Regio nII , Ne

w York , Ne

w York . Becaus e o f the delegation , NJDEP 1 s permi t determinatio ni s subjec t t o th e revie w provision s o f 4 0 CF R §124.19 , an

d an y permi t i t issue s wil l be a n EPA-issued permi t for purpose s o f federa l law . 4 0 CFR §124.41 ; 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 3 (Ma y 19 , 1980) .



### V Al l reference s t o th e Code o f Federa l Regulation s ar e t o th e 198 7 edition .

2 7 Th e Townshi p o f Cinnaminso n i s joine

d i n the petitio

n b y th e Boroug ho f Palmyra an

d th e Boroug

ho f Riverton , whichar e munici palitie s locate

d i n Burlingto

n County , Ne

w Jersey , an

d b y Allie d Citizen s Opposin

g Pollutio

n (ACOP) , a civi c association .P. 3

2 Unde r th

e rule s governin

g thi s proceeding , ther e i s n o appea l a s o f righ

t fro m th e permi t decision . Ordinarily , a petitionfo

r revie w o f a PS D permi t determinationi s no t grante d unles s i t i s base

d o n a clearly

erroneou s findin

g o f fac t o

r conclusiono f law , or involve s a nimportan t matte r o f polic y or exercis e o f discretio ntha t warrant s review . Th e preambl e t o th e regulation s state s tha t "thi s powe r o f revie w shoul d b e only sparingl y

exercised, " an

d tha t "mos t permi t condition s shoul d b e finall y determined at th

e Regio n leve l * * *. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . 33,41 2 (Ma

y 19 , 1980) . Th

e burdeno f demonstratin g tha t th

e permi t condition s shoul d b e reviewed i s therefor e o nthe petitioners . Discussio n Cinnaminson
____. objec t t o issuanc e o f the permi t becaus e the y believe NJDEP' s determinatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technolog

y (BACT ) i s deficient . v Accordin g t o thes e petition ers , NJDE P di d no t giv e adequat e considerationt o therma l de-N O

V T o obtai na PS D permit , th e applican t mus t demonstrat e tha t the proposed facilit y wil l emplo

y BAC T for eac hregulated pol lutant . Sectio

n16 9 o f th

e Clean Ai r Ac t define s BAC T a s a n "emissio

nlimitatio

nreflectin

g th e maximu

m degre e o f reduction " tha t th 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 "achievable. " 4 2 U.S.C . §7479(3) . Becaus e BAC T i s determine d o n a case-by-cas e basi s an d take s int o accoun t energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an d othe r costs , whic hma

y var y fro m locatio

nt o location , a BAC T deter minationfo

r a municipa l wast e combusto r a t on e sit e ma y diffe r fro m one reache

d at anothe r site , eve n thoug hth e technolog

y employe d ma y b e identical . I nothe r words , th e emissio nlimita tion s fo

r th e site s ca

ndiffer .P. 4

3 technolog

y inperformin

g th e BACT analysis . Petitioner s argu e tha t NJDEP*f i determinatio n no t t o se t a

n emissio

n limitatio

n base d o ntherma l de-NO xtechnolog

y wa s based o

na n inadequat e record , resultin

g i npar t fro

m NJDE P havin

g mad e it s BAC T deter minatio nprio r t o th

e tim e o f permi t issuance . Petitioner s als o argue tha t th e BAC T analysi s submitte d b y the permi t applican t di d no t adequatel y

justify

us e o f combustio

ncontrol s (th

e mean s chosenb

y the applicant fo

r controllin

g N0 Xemission s fro m th e proposed facility ) instea d of therma l de-NO xtechnology , NJDE P responded t o thes e contention s b y arguin g tha t the recor

d actual l y disclose s tha t th

e BACT determinatio nwa s mad e a t the tim e o f permi t issuance ; tha t th e permi t applicants ' BAC T evaluatio n fully evaluate s alternativ e contro l technologies , includin g therma l de-NO xtechnology ; an

d that"therma l de-NO xtechnolog

y i s

no t ye t "available " withi n th e meanin

g o f the statutor

y defini tio no f BACT . Regardin g th e las t point , NJDE P state d tha t ther e

wa s jus t on e facilit y i nth e United State s (th e Commerc e facility i nWhittier , California ) employin g therma l de«-NO xtechnology , an

d tha t i t had beeni

noperatio

nonly on e year ; tha t ther e i s jus t

on e facility

currentl y

under constructio

n(i n Modesto , California) ; an

d tha t a thir

d (i n Lon g Beach , California ) began operation s afte r th e Pennsauke

npermi t wa s issue d an d therefor e coul d no t have been considere d a t the tim

e o f permi t issuance . Wit hrespec t t o thes e facilities , NJDE P say s the y wer e reviewe

dP. 5



### unde r lega l standard s ^ an dN0 X

### contro l strategie s ^ no t perti nen t t o th e Pennsauke nfacility . A nexaminatio no f th e material s identifie db y NJDE P a s representin g th e NO x

### BAC T analysi s ^ generall y bear s ou t peti tioners ' contentio ntha t th e BAC T analysi s o nwhic hNJDE P relie d i s inadequate . Specifically , th e recor dfail s t o disclos e tha t th e applican t ne t it s burde no f showin g tha t a nemissio nlimita tio nbase do ncombustio ncontrol s alon e represent s BACT . Th e basi c attribute s o f tha t burde nar e se t ou t i nHonolul uResourc e Recover y Facilit y

( "H-Power"). PS D Appea l No . 86- 8 (Jun e 22 , 1987) , wher e I interprete dth e statutor y definitio no f BAC T a s placin g th e burde no nth e applican t o f "demonstratin g tha t signi V NJDE P po.lnt s ou t tha t th e Sout hCoas t Ai r Qualit y Managemen t Distric t i nCaliforni a (SCAQMD ) treat s NO x

### a s a non-attainmen t pollutan t requirin g lowes t achievabl e emissio nrat e (LAER) . I n poin t o f fact , however , on e o f th e thre e facilitie s (Modesto ) i s locate di na nare a tha t i s attainmen t fo r NO x 

### , andEP A issue da PS D permi t fo r i t wit ha BAC T limitatio nbase do ntherma l de-N0 4 

### . EPA Regio nI Xissue dth e permi t o nAugus t 1 1 1986 . Telephon e conversation s betwee nRonal dL . McCallum , EP A Chie f Judicia l Officer , andBobBaker , EP A Regio nI X(Octobe r 5 andNovembe r 11 , 1988) . V Accordin g t o NJDEP , th e Commerc e facilit y wa s permitte dunde r Californi a rule s a s innovativ e technology , an dal l o f th e facilitie s ar e i nlocation s wher e N O emission s fal l unde r th e Sout hCoas t Ai r Qualit y Managemen t District' s (SCAQMD 1 

### s ) contro l strategy fo r ozone . Conversely , New Jerse y focuse s o nvolatil e organi c compound s (VOCs ) fo r it s ozon e contro l strategy .

^ Se e Fina l Environmenta l an dHealt hImpac t Statemen t ("FEHIS") , Volum e I , a t 5-3 6 throug h5-5 6 (Jan . 1987) ; FEHI S Respons e t o Comments , Volume I a t 211-21 3 (Jun e 1987) ? Hearin g Officer' s Repor t a t 22 6 (Jun e 30 , 1988) .P. 6

fleant technica l defects , or substantia l loca l economic , energy ,
or environmenta l factor s o r othe r cost s warran t a contro l tech nolog y les s efficient tha n (th e mos t stringen t availabl e techno logy]. " l_. at 7 , 6 n.9 . Thi s interpretatio nwa s disseminated i noperationa l guidanc e fo r municipa l wast e combustor s o n June 26 , 1987 , v an

d wa s furthe r refine d in genera l guidanc e issue d b y EPA' s Assistan t Administrato r for Ai r an d Radiation on December 1 , 1987 . The latte r guidanc e refer s t o the applicant' s burdena s the "top-down " approacht o BAC T analysis : Th e firs t ste

p i nthi s approach , i s t o determine , fo r th e emissio nsourc e in question , th e mos t stringen t contro l availabl e fo

r a simila r o r Identica l sourc e o r sourc e category . I f i t canb e show ntha t thi s leve l o f contro l i s technicall y

o r economicall y

infeasibl e for th e sourc e i n question , the

nth e next mos t stringen t leve l o f contro l i s determined an

d similarl y

evaluated . Thi s proces s continue s unti l the BAC T leve l unde r consideratio n canno t b e eliminat e d b y an y substantia l o r uniqu e technical , environmenta l o r economi c objections . Thus , th e "top-down " approachshift s th e burdeno f proo f t o th e applican t t o justif y wh y th e propose d sourc e i s unabl e t o appl y th e bes t technolog

y available . I t als o differ s fro m othe r processe s i n tha t i t require s th

e applican t t o analyz e a contro l technolog y onl y i f the applicant oppose s tha t leve l o f control ; the othe r processe s require

d a ful l analysi s o f al l possibl e type s an d level s o f contro l abov e the baseline case . The "top-down " approachi s essentiall y required for munici pa l wast e combustor s pursuan t t o th e Jun e 22 , 1987 , Administrator' s reman d t o Region IXo f th e H-Powe r BAC T decisio nan d th e OAQP S June 26 , 1987 , "Operationa l Guidanc e o nContro l Technolog y fo r Ne w an d Modified Municipa l Wast e Combustor s (MWC's). " I t i s als o currentl y bein g successful ly implemente

d b y man y permittin

g agencie s an

d som e o f th e

V Memorandu

m fro m Geral d Emison , Director , EP A Offic e o f Ai r Quality Plannin

g an d Standard s (OAQPS ) t o EP A Regiona l Ai r offic e Directors , enclosin g "Operationa l Guidanc e o nContro l Technolog y fo r Ne w an d Modifie

d Municipa l Wast e Combustors. "P. 7

Regiona l Office s fo r al l sources . I hav e therefor e determine

d i t shoul d b

e adopted acros s th e board . ^ The H-Powe r decision , th e operationa l guidanc e fo r municipa l
wast e combustors , ^ an d th e "top-down " guidanc e ar e al l ap plicabl e t o th

e Pennsauken permi t determination . H-Powe r wa s m y direc t administrativ e interpretatio

no f th e statutor

y BAC T requirement ; the subsequen t operationa l guidanc e an d "top-down " guidanc e implement H-Powe r throug hstatement s o f Agency policy . Al l thre e document s antedat e issuanc e o f th e permit . ^ Thes e

V' Memorandu

m fro m J . Crai g Potter , Assistan t Administrator , t o Regiona l Administrator s (Region s I-X ) a t 4 (Dec . 1 , 1987 ) (th e Potte r Memorandum) .

v Th e Operationa l Guidanc e expressl y state s tha t i t applie s t o al l PS D permit s issue d throug

hStat e an

d loca l agencie s pursuan t t o delegatio

nagreement s mad e unde r 4 0 CFR§52.21(u) , excep t wher e a fina l permi t wa s issue d an d administrativ

e appeal s unde r 4 0 CF R Par t 12 4 wer e exhausted prio r t o Jun e 26 , 1987 . Operationa l Guidanc e a t 7 ; se e als o 5 2 Fed . Reg . 25399 , 2540 6 (Jul y 7 , 1987) ; 5 2 Fed . Reg . 4782 6 (December 16 , 1987) . The j "top-down " guidanc e contain s statement s t o th e sam e effect . 

### Potte r Memorandu

m 4 .
XV Th e chronolog

y o f the Pennsauken permi t i s a s follows : the permi t applicatio

nwa s file

d in Januar

y 1987 ; i t wa s supplemented j wit ha BAC T analysi s for N0 XinJun e 198 7 (includin g a n j evaluatio no f therma l de-N0 xtechnology) ; NJDE P completed it s BAC T assessmen t inDecembe r 1987 ; hearing s wer e hel d an d publi c comment wa s solicite d i nJanuary-Februar

y 1988 , i

nwhic h commenter s questione d th e absenc e o f anNOxemissio n limitation base d o n applicatio

n o f therma l de-NO xtechnology ; an

d lastly , th e permi t wa s issue

d i nJul y 1988 , specificall y rejectin

g therma l de-NO, , a s representin g BAC T for thi s facility .P. 8

7 interpretation s an

d polic y statement s wer e therefor e availabl e to th e applican t an

d NJDE P fo

r th e Pennsauken permit . ^ Th e permi t applicant' s burdeno f showin g tha t a mor e strin gen t technolog

y i s no t BACT obviousl y doe s no t com

e int o exis tenc e unles s the so-calle d "more stringent " technolog y i s available . I f the technolog y i s no t available , th e permi t ap plican t i s unde r n o dut y t o conside r i t i nthe BAC T analysis . Here , NJDE P contend s tha t therma l de-NO xtechnolog

y i s no t avail able ; however , ther e i s nothin g o f substanc e i nth e applicant' s BAC T analysi s t o bea r ou t thi s contention . I f anything , i t i s

^ A s a practica l matter , BAC T determination s wil l ordinaril y b e mad e a t som

e tim e prior t o actua l issuanc e o f th e permit , for ther e i s alway s a la g betwee

n closur e o f the administrativ e recor d (usually

the clos e o f the publi c commen t period ) an d th e tim e whe nthe permi t determinatio n i s announced . A s note d in Vermon t Yanke e Nuclea r Power Corp . v . NRDC , 43 5 U.S . 51 9 (1978) , quotin g ICC v . Jerse

y City , 33 2 U.S . 50 3 (1944) : Administrativ

e consideratio

no f evidenc e * * * alway s create s a ga

p betwee

n th e tim e the recor

d i s closed an

d the tim e th e administrativ

e decisio

n i s promulgated [and , w e migh t add , th

e tim e th e decisioni s judiciall y reviewed ] * * * . I f upo n the comin

g dow no f th e orde r litigant s migh t deman d rehearing s a s a matte r o f la w becaus e som

e ne w circumstanc e ha s arisen , som e ne w tren d ha s beenobserved , o r som e ne w fac t discovered , ther e woul d b

e littl e hope tha t th e administrativ

e proces s coul d ever b e consummated l na norde r tha t woul d no t be subjec t t o reopening . 43 5 U.S . at 554-55 ; s__Nanc e v . EPA , 64 5 F.2 d 70 1 (9t hCir . 1981 ) (quotin

g Vermon t Yanke e supra) . Absen t unusua l dela y between th

e clos e o f th

e publi c comment perio d an d the dat e o f permi t issuance , or th e presenc e of othe r extraordinar

y circumstances , th

e clos e o f th

e publi c comment perio d ca nbe use

d a a th e referenc e b

y whic hth

e adequac

y of th e administrativ

e recor d i s judged .^ 9 ^

8 refute d b y referenc e t o th

e Commerc e facility , whic hwa s i n existenc e an

d operatin

g durin g NJDEP' s revie

w o f th e permi t application , an

d b y refereno e t o the eviden t willingnes s o f the Modest o an

d Lon g Beachapplicant s t o commenc e constructiono f thei r municipa l wast e combustor s durin g th e sam

e perio d o f consideration . Th e fac t tha t thes e project s wer e undertakent o compl y wit hallegedl y

differen t lega l requirement s (LAE R o r Californi a rules ) an d differen t contro l strategie s i s no t especiall y

materia l t o the issu e o f availability . ^ Th e questio no f availability

for purpose s o f BAC T i s a practical , factua l determination , usin g conventiona l notion s o f whethe r the technolog

y canb e pu t int o use . & The record her e raise s a stron g presumptio

ni n favor o f concludin g tha t therma l de-NO x technolog

y i s availabl e i

nth e sens e jus t described . Th e opera tiona l guidance , issue d June 26 , 1987 , als o treat s therma l de-NO x technolog

y a s a navailabl e technolog y tha t "shoul d b e considered b y permittin

g authoritie s inmakin g BAC T determinations. " Opera tiona l Guidanc e a t 6 . I n short , the applicant' s BAC T analysi s

mus t evaluat e therma l de-NO xa s a n availabl e technology . Th e applicant' s BAC T analysis , however , doe s no t contai n th e leve l o f detai l an

d analysi s necessar y t o satisf y

the applicant' s

W Se e note s 4 an

d 5 supra .

^ The dictionar

y define s th

e word "available " a s tha t whichca n b e "used, " o r i s "usable, " or ca nb e "got , had , o r reached ; * * * accessible. " Web3ter' B Ne w Worl d Dictionar

y o f the America

n Language 9 6 (2

d Colleg e ed . 1972) .P.1 0

9 burden , a s previousl y described , o f showin g tha t therma l de-NO ^ technolog

y i s technicall y

or economicall y

unachievabl e fo

r thi s

source . The applicant' s assertion s tha t th e technolog y ha s no t ye t bee ndemonstrate

d t o be efficient , ^ reliable , an d cos t effectiv

e i n controllin

g N0 Xar e merel y

conclusory . & Moreover , they.wer e mad e i na Januar y 198 7 submissio

n an d ar e undoubtedl y out-of-dat e i nvie

w o f the rapi d development s inthe applicatio n

o f thi s technology . Althoug hthe BAC T analysi s shows contro l cost s i nthe rang e o f $1300-150 0 pe r to n o f NOxremoved , & ther e i s n o seriou s discussio n o f cos t effectiveness . For example , th e applican t estimate

d annua l cost s o f removin g NO xa t $200,00 0 t o $250,00 0 using therma l de-NO xtechnology . FEHI S (Respons e t o Comments ) a t 21 2 (Tabl e 16.1-1) . However , ther e i s n o discussio

n tha t eve

n purport s t o sho

w tha t thes e cost s ar e unusuall y high . Greate r effort s mus t be mad e b y the applican t t o sho w tha t .^ therma l de-NO xi a economicall y

infeasibl e o r otherwis e no t achievabl e i n thi s case . Thi s might b e done , fo r example , b

y

W Th e applicant' s ow

nsubmission s refut e thi s contention . Accordin

g t o the applicant , N0 Xemission s fo r th e proposed fa cilit y woul d b e 88. 9 lb/h r usin g combustio

n control s compare d wit h35. 6 t o 62. 2 lb/h r usin g therma l de-NO xtechnology . FEHI S Respons e t o comment s 211-21 2 (Tabl e 16.1- 1 (Jun e 1987) . Pol lutant reduction s o f thi s magnitude ar e clearl y significant . li / _Q_FEHI S a t 5-48 . & Whe n operate

d at th e peak fue l fee

d rat e o f 50 0 ton s pe r day , fo r 36 5 day s pe r year , th e tota l annua l emission s o f NO xa t th e propose d facilit

y ar e estimate

d at 389. 3 tons . FEHI S a t 5-3 7 (Tabl e 5.3-3) ,P.1 1

1 0 obtainin

g an d analyzin

g operatin

g dat a an

d othe r informatio nfro m the Commerc e facilit y — an d perhap s als o fro m th e Lon g Beac h facility , whic hrecentl y commenced operations . H-Powe r an d EPA' s guidanc e implementin g tha t decisio

ncontemplat e a muchmor e thoroug hexplanation , based on consideration o f objectiv e techni ca l an d economi c data , t o substantiat e th e contentiontha t therma l de-NO xi s a n experimental , unproven technology . Insum , th e BAC T analysi s doe s no t contai n sufficien t justification , specifi c t o the proposed facility , t o justif y th e leve l o f
contro l proposed i nth e permit . Mor e detai l an d analysi s i s required . Petitione r Rober t Filipczak' s fundamenta l objection s t o th e Pennsaukenpermi t are no t withth e contro l technology , bu t rather , wit hth

e municipa l wast e combusto r Itself . H e urge s rejectiono f the combusto r i n favo r o f co-firing a mixtur e o f 20 % refus e derived fue l an d 80 % coa l a t existin g powe r plants . Thes e objection s ar e beyon d th e scop e o f thi s proceedin g an d therefor e

ar e no t reviewabl e unde r 4 0 CF R §124.19 , whic hrestrict s revie w t o "conditions " inth e permit . Permi t condition s ar e impose d fo r the purpos e o f ensurin g tha t the proposed sourc e o f pollutan t emission s —

here , a municipa l wast e combusto r — use s emissio

n contro l systems tha t represent BACT , thereb y reducin

g the emission s t o th

e maximu

m degre e possible . Thes e contro l systems ,
a s stated inth

e definitio

no f BACT , ma

y requir e applicatio no f "productio

nprocesse s an

d availabl e methods , systems , an d techniques , includin g fue l cleanin

g a s treatmen t o

r innovativ

eP.1 2

1 1 fue l combustio n techniques " t o contro l th e emissions

. 4 2 U.S.C.A

. §7479(3)

. Th e permi t condition s tha t define thes e system s ar e impose

d o n th e sourc e a s th

e applican t ha s define d it

. Althoug

himpositio

no f th e condition s may , amon g othe r things , hav

e a profoun

d effec t o

n th e viabilit y

o f th e proposed facility

a s conceive

d b y th e applicant , th

e condition s themselve s

ar e no t intende

d to redefin

e th e source , a s petitione r Filipczak woul d hav

e the m do . I nother words , th e sourc e itsel f i s no t a conditio

no f th e permit . Therefore , petitioner' s objection s t o th e permi t ar e no t withi n th e scope o f thi s proceeding . Othe r matter s raise

d b y petitione r tha t ar e arguabl y withi nthe scope

o f th e proceeding , fo

r example , the adequac y o f the BAC T analysi s

a s i t relate s t o mercuryemission s an d remova l o f metal s a s a fue l cleanin

g procedure , hav

e no t beenpresented ina manne r t o convinc e m

e tha t NJDE P committe d clea r erro r o r tha t a nimportan t issu e warrantin

g revie w ha s bee

n raise d a t thi s time

. Therefore , th e petitio

ni s denied . 

### conclusio n Th e deficiencie s in th e BAC T analysi s leav e tw o course s o f actio nope na t thi s junctur e o f th e proceedings , on e i s t o gran t revie w o f th e permi t an d ente r int o th e briefin g phas e contemplate d b

y4 0 CF R §124.19(c)

. However , th e deficiencie s i n th e recor d ca n no t b e rectifie d throug h th e submissio n o f briefs ,
an d an yensuing decisio n woul d likel yconclud e tha t th e permi t shoul d b e denie d (becaus e o f th e deficiencies ) o r tha t i t shoul d b e remande d t o th e permit-issuing authorit yt o allo w th e ap -«

1 2 plican t t o supplemen t th e BACT analysis . Consideration s o f tim e favor remandin

g th e permi t i

n the firs t instance . Therefore , rathe r thanreceivin g additiona l brief s o n appeal , I a

m remandin

g th e cas e t o NJDE P for further consideratio no f the BAC T analysis , solel y a s i t relate s t o N0 Xemissions . Thi s reman d shoul d no t b

e viewed a s prejudgin g th e issue . NJDE P i s simpl y directed t o reopenth e permi t proceedin g for the limite

d purpos e o f allowin g the applican t t o supplemen t it s origina l BAC T analysi s i naccor danc e wit hth

e guidanc e describe d i n thi s decision . If , afte r a ful l revie

w o f the dat a NJDE P determine s tha t N0 Xemissio nlevel s obtained fro

m combustio

n control s alon

e represen t BACT , i t ma y reissue th e permi t a s written . I t may , o f course , revis e the limitation s an

d othe r condition s o f th e permi t a s appropriate . Afte r making the determination, " NJDE P shoul d reopenth e publi c commen t perio d t o receiv

e an y supplementa l comment s fro m petitioner s Cinnaminso n e__},. o

nth e issu e o f th e N0 Xlimita tions-i n th e permit . NJDEP' s determinatio no n reman d wil l b

e subjec t t o revie

w unde r 4 0 CF

R §124.19 , an

d appea l o f it s decisio no nreman d wil l b e require

d t o exhaus t administrativ e remedie s unde r sectio n 124.19(f)(l ) (iii) . S o ordered .



# Dated: £ W * I *

> \ W P.1 3

M

Le e M . Thoma s Administrato rP.1 4

CERTIFICAT E O

F SHRVIC 2

I hereb y certif y

tha t copie s o f th

e foregoin

g Orde r o

n Petition s for Revie w inth e matte r o f PennsaukenCounty , Ne w Jersey , Resourc e Recover y Facility , PS D Appea l no . 88-8 , wa s mai l t o the followin

g b y firs t clas s mail , postag e prepaid .
Michae l S . Car o Deputy Attorne

y Genera l Departmen t o f La

w & Publi c Safet y Divisio n o f Law , C

N 11 2 Environmenta l Protectio n Sectio

n Richar d J . Hughe s Justic e Comple x Trenton , N

J 0862 5 Willia m J . Muszynsk i Actin g Regiona l Administrator U.S . EPA , Regio

n I I 2 6 Federa l Plaz a Ne w York , N

Y1027 8 Thoma s J . Genuine 1 9 Marke t Stree t Morristown , N

J 0796 0 Rober t Filipczak 40 2 Dahli a Stree t Northfield , N

J 0822 5 Rober t P . Bedel l Myerson , Kuh

n an d sterret t 133 0 Connecticu t Avenue , N W Washington , D

C 2003 6



### Dated : MoUeftJoA r10,| W jTfW M P. St f An J Brend a H . selden , Secret a r y t o the Chie f Judicia l Office r