Opinion ID: 6352827
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Department Letters

Text: ¶55 As the majority acknowledges, multiple potential permitting options cover the contaminants at issue; they are outlined in Wis. Admin. Code chs. NR 405, 406, and 407. CLCM argues its facility should be covered by permitting requirements under chapters NR 406 and 407, which apply to natural minor and synthetic minor sources, as opposed to the more burdensome PSD permitting requirements under chapter NR 405, which apply to major sources. Accordingly, CLCM frames its case as resting on which of the possible permitting regimes the Department determines governs——one of which is more costly and protracted. ¶56 CLCM's St. Francis facility was permitted as a minor source since 2015; in 2018, however, the Department told CLCM 2 No. 2019AP1007.rgb this permitting classification had been made in error. CLCM submitted a pre-construction air pollution permit application in February 2018 to install a Regenerative Thermal Oxidizer (RTO) for purposes of reducing air emissions, which the Department authorized the next month under an exemption provided in Wis. Admin. Code § NR 406.04(2).3 On June 7, CLCM submitted a revised air pollution permit application in addition to a commence construction waiver request related to a different project. ¶57 The Department's June 26 letter addressed both applications. The letter denied the commence construction waiver because the Department deemed the facility a major source under Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 405, which does not allow such waivers. The letter gave notice of the right to appeal this decision. The letter also declared the revised permit application incomplete and requested additional information. ¶58 Among four requests in the June 26 letter, the Department sought information to aid its assessment of whether the facility could be permitted as a synthetic minor source under Wis. Admin. Code ch. NR 407. That request explained: The revised construction permit application indicates the facility would like to be a synthetic minor for VOC emissions under ch. NR 407, Wis. Adm. Code. The facility is currently proposing an emission limitation equivalent to 99.5 tons per year. The department is 3This section does not provide an exemption from construction permit requirements for a source that is required to obtain a permit under ch. NR 405 [governing Prevention of Significant Deterioration] or 408 [governing construction permits for direct major sources in nonattainment areas] or s. NR 446.03(2)(a) [governing mercury emission limits]. Wis. Admin. Code § NR 406.04. 3 No. 2019AP1007.rgb concerned that the nature of the operations at the facility do not allow for practical enforceability of this proposed limitation. Please explain how the facility can demonstrate compliance with this limitation, given that a significant portion of VOC emissions from the facility are considered fugitive. The Department expressed concern[] that this emissions limitation related to the synthetic minor designation could not be enforced, but requested an explanation on how the facility could comply. Logically, the framing of the Department's inquiry establishes it had not yet determined whether CLCM could obtain the synthetic minor permitting designation; the June 26 letter left that possibility open. ¶59 In response to the June 26 letter, CLCM prepared and submitted additional analyses to the Department on August 9 and September 24, 2018, to show the facility was not a major source. On October 18 and November 12, 2018, the Department met with CLCM regarding the 18-RAB-029 construction permit, during which meeting the Department suggested it could consider as a possible permitting approach . . . a facility-wide cap on VOC emissions of 40 tons per year (TPY) . . . as a PSD-avoidance limit for the proposed capacity increase for the scrubbercontrolled wash processes. CLCM submitted a revised permit application on November 28, seeking approval as a synthetic minor source. ¶60 In contrast to the June 26 letter, the December 14 letter terminated the inquiry into whether the possible permitting approach discussed during [the November 12, 2018] meeting . . . could be considered as a PSD-avoidance limit for the proposed capacity increase for the scrubber-controlled wash 4 No. 2019AP1007.rgb processes. The letter states, [u]pon further consideration, the department has determined that such a permitting approach is not approvable in an after-the-fact PSD situation. The Department explained it could not approve this permitting approach because it cannot issue a construction permit for existing equipment for which a facility failed to obtain a PSD permit without placing BACT or BACT-equivalent controls on the equipment in question. The Department concluded [t]he scrubber-controlled wash processes were clearly modified by construction permit 14-RSG-142 and therefore require BACT or BACT-equivalent controls.4 In other words, the Department 4 That portion of the letter provided, in full: On November 12, 2018, DNR staff and representatives of CLCM held a meeting to discuss CLCM's application for construction permit 18-RAB-029. One possible permitting approach discussed during that meeting was whether a facility-wide cap on VOC emissions of 40 tons per year (TPY) could be considered as a PSD- avoidance limit for the proposed capacity increase for the scrubber-controlled wash processes. During this meeting, DNR cautioned CLCM that such a plan was complicated by the unresolved concerns over PSD status of the 2014 project. Upon further consideration, the department has determined that such a permitting approach is not approvable in an after-the-fact PSD situation. In accordance with long-standing US EPA and department policy, DNR cannot issue a construction permit for existing equipment for which a facility failed to obtain a PSD permit without placing BACT or BACT-equivalent controls on the equipment in question. The scrubber-controlled wash processes were clearly modified by construction permit 14-RSG-142 and therefore require BACT or BACT-equivalent controls. 5 No. 2019AP1007.rgb concluded CLCM needed to install BACT or BACT-equivalent controls to conduct its refurbishing business. Under these facts, the majority's decision to foreclose statutorily prescribed judicial review is in error.