Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
Please see www.epa.gov/nsr for the latest information on EPA's New Source Review program.
June 7, 1990 PSD Appeal No. 88-4 8.46
THE TEXT YOU ARE VIEWING IS A COMPUTER-GENERATED OR RETYPED VERSION OF A
PAPER PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL. ALTHOUGH CONSIDERABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN
EXPENDED TO QUALITY ASSURE THE CONVERSION, IT MAY CONTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERRORS. TO OBTAIN A LEGAL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, AS IT
CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE READER SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE THAT ORIGINATED
THE CORRESPONDENCE OR PROVIDED THE RESPONSE.
8.46 *** NOTE: The following text does NOT contain the footnotes that appear in the original text. These footenotes are necessary for a comprehensive understanding of basis for the denial. Please contact your Regional NSR contact if you wish a complete copy of the order. ***
Although IEPA concluded that World Color Press had met all applicable requirements of the federal PSD regulations (as well as applicable State requirements), it appears that IEPA determined, incorrectly, that an alleged absence of significant photochemical reactivity of the facilities' VOC emissions was an "environmental impact" that would justify less stringent emission limitations, particularly in view of the added monetary costs associated with more stringent control technologies. I rejected similar reasoning in a subsequent case, Columbia Gulf Transmission Company, PSD Appeal No. 88-11 (June 21, 1989), where I held that negligible impacts of NOx emissions on ambient air quality did not, by themselves, justify using less than the most effective control technology available. As explained in the decision:
Senate Debate on S.252 (June 8, 1977), reprinted in 3 Senate Committee on Environment And Public Works, A Legislative History of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 at 729 (Comm. Print August 1978) (Congressional Research Service, Serial No. 95-16). In other words, the collateral impacts clause operates primarily as a safety valve whenever unusual circumstances specific to the facility make it appropriate to use less than the most effective technology. The permit applicant must install the most effective technology if it fails to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permit issuer that such unusual circumstances exist. Id. at 4-6 (footnotes omitted). The permit issuer in Columbia Gulf was the Kentucky Department of Air Quality, which had determined that the modelled negligible impact of the proposed facility on air quality was an environmental impact that could be factored into the BACT analysis to justify using less than the most effective technology to control NOx emissions. The Department reasoned that the negligible benefits to ambient air quality were outweighed by the additional economic costs associated with NOx control, estimated at $2,121.00 for each additional ton of NOx removed. This argument was rejected as being without merit:
In the present case, the Department and the applicant have not demonstrated the existence of any environmental impacts that would constrain or even remotely circumscribe the applicant's ability to use the most effective technology. The negligible air quality impact of the proposed NOx emissions is clearly not a constraint on implementing the most effective technology. Because it is not a constraint, the modelled impact of the proposed facility's NOx emissions on air quality should not be considered for purposes of making the BACT determination. Id. at 7-8 (footnotes omitted). It was further explained in Columbia Gulf that the structure of the Clean Air Act supports the foregoing interpretation. Specifically, the PSD provisions of the Act make regulatory distinctions between air quality impact analyses and technology analyses, and a permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of both categories to obtain a permit.
Id. at 8-9 (footnote omitted). In the present instance, it appears that World Color Press and IEPA are attempting to justify the use of less than the most effective technology for control of VOC emissions by employing the same faulty reasoning that the permit applicant and the permit issuer used in Columbia Gulf. Accordingly, in setting this case for briefing, World Color Press and IEPA shall address the issue raised by the Columbia Gulf decision, and shall show cause why the permit determination should not be remanded to IEPA for revision of the BACT determination in accordance with Columbia Gulf. World Color Press and IEPA shall file their briefs within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. As directed by 40 CFR 124.10, IEPA shall give public notice of the May 5th order and of the instant notice, making provision for the submission of comments (or briefs) by the public within thirty (30) days of publication of notice. See Notice of Decision to Review Permits at 3 (May 5, 1988); also 40 CFR 124.19(c) and 124.10(a)(1)(iv). So ordered.
Dated: June 7, 1990
I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing Designation of Issues in the matter of World Color Press, PSD Appeal No. 88-4, were sent by First Class Mail to the following persons:
Dr. Richard J. Carlson, Director
Michael Hayes, Manager
William Rogers
David Kee, Director
Valdas V. Adamkus
J. Bennett Clark
Dated: June 8, 1990
|