two specific issues regarding DOH's analysis of naphtha's availability and cost effectiveness, the general reference to the KCP project, which was stated as a background explanation showing how Waimana developed its knowledge regarding the specific issues, was not sufficient to apprise DOH that Waimana believed that the KCP permit had already determined. that naphtha is available and cost effective." In addition, the specific issue regarding naphtha's cost effectiveness raised in Waimana's comments was not the same issue it now argues should be reviewed on appeal. In particular, the objection stated in the Comment Letter was based on the estimated increase in annualized cost for inter-island barging. Comment Letter at 2. However, DOH's estimated increase in annualized cost of inter-island barging was separately itemized from the estimate of the increase in annualized cost for "fuel terminalling." AAQ Report at 18." There was no suggestion in the comments that Waimana objected that DOH's estimate of the costs for terminals or fuel facilities was too high or that the estimate was inconsistent with the analysis underlying the KCP permit. Thus, Waimana's comments did not raise the issue regarding the costs for fuel facilities that it now seeks to have reviewed on appeal. Moreover, it deserves repeating that, although the comments quoted above did raise the general issue of whether naphtha is available from fuel suppliers, which Waimana also requests that we review on appeal and which we discuss in the following part of this opinion, Waimana's comments did not contain any suggestion that the KCP permit had already determined that naphtha is available; nor was there any suggestion that any such determination made in the KCP permit should be followed in this case. The general background reference to the KCP 1 Contrary to Waimana's argument, DOH decided in the KCP case “not to select naphtha as BACT because of concerns for long-term availability and cost of the fuel on the island.” Kawaihae, 7 E.A.D. at 131 (noting that KCP had offered to burn low sulfur fuel for the first two years, but that naphtha was not determined to be BACT). 12 The AAQ Report estimated the increase in annualized cost of inter-island barging at $1.816,525 and the cost of fuel terminalling at $992,543. AAQ Report at 18. "In the Order on Motion to Dismiss, it was noted that the Comment Letter questioned the methods proposed in the draft permit for controlling sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide[s]," Order on Motion to Dismiss at 11, and that the central allegation in the Petition regarding consistency was expressed as a concern in the Comment Letter. Id. at 10. Those observations, however, were made based upon a general review of the Petition and the Comment Letter looking to whether KCP and Waimana had a joint interest. Those observations did not purport to reflect the specific issue-by-issue analysis required by the Continued project was not sufficient to raise these issues." Because these issues were not raised during the public comment period, they will not be considered as a basis for review of the Permit now on appeal. 15 Waimana also cites the Howekamp Letter for the proposition that the Region allegedly has stated that naphtha is “available,” Petition at 3 and n.2, thereby seeking review of DOH's finding that naphtha has an uncertain long-term availability. We reject Waimana's reliance on the Howekamp Letter because Waimana made no reference to the Howekamp Letter in its comments regarding BACT for control of SO, emissions. See Comment Letter at 2. Although Waimana made reference in its comments regarding DOH'S NO, analysis to a letter dated February 6, 1996 from the Region to DOH, which we assume was intended to refer to the Howekamp Letter, this reference in the discussion of BACT for NOx was not sufficient to raise issues with respect to the SO, BACT determination discussed in a separate section of Waimana's Comment Letter. Accordingly, we also will not consider Waimana's argument that the Howekamp Letter shows that DOH committed clear error in its findings regarding BACT for controlling SO, emissions. Next, we consider Waimana's arguments that were raised both during the public comment period and in its Petition. regulations and our prior opinions for determining whether each issue was properly preserved for review on appeal. Thus, notwithstanding any contrary suggestion in the Order on Motion to Dismiss, we have determined that Waimana did not raise in its comments the issue of consistency between the KCP permit's conditions for controlling SO, emissions and the conditions of the Permit issued to MECO, nor did Waimana raise any issue regarding DOH's analysis of the cost for fuel facilities to handle naphtha. "This case presents an example supporting the requirement that the permit issuer should have an opportunity, prior to review on appeal, to respond to comments by either modifying the permit or explaining why a modification is not appropriate. See, e.g., Essex County, 5 E.A.D. at 224. In its response to the Petition, DOH has replied to Waimana's arguments regarding the KCP permit by stating that "MECO's source-specific cost parameters were higher than KCP's due to the inherent infrastructure differences between the two sites," DOH's Response at 8, and DOH has attached to its Response supporting evidence from the record of KCP's case. See generally, id. at 5–9. DOH also provides extensive documentation and argument showing that its analysis in this case is not inconsistent with its analysis of similar issues in the KCP case. Id. No doubt DOH would have provided such material in its Response to Comments had these issues been raised during the public comment period. However, because the issues were not raised by Waimana during the public comment period, we will not consider them on appeal and need not consider the adequacy of DOH's reply provided in DOH's Response to the Petition. 15 Likewise, we will not consider Waimana's arguments regarding the application by Enserch Development Corporation for a PSD permit as such arguments were not raised during the public comment period. 2. Waimana Has Not Sustained Its Burden of Showing Clear Error in DOH's Analysis of Naphtha's Availability Waimana argued generally during the public comment period, and now in its Petition, that naphtha fuel is "available and technically feasible" as BACT for controlling SO, emissions. Petition at 3. Waimana cites DOH's own BACT analysis set forth in the AAQ Report as showing that naphtha is available and technically feasible. However, we deny review because Waimana has not sustained its burden of showing that DOH's responses to the comments regarding the issues of availability and technical feasibility contain clear error. 16 Waimana argues that because the AAQ Report concluded that naphtha is technically feasible, DOH erred in rejecting naphtha as BACT for controlling SO, emissions. Waimana is correct that the AAQ Report did conclude that naphtha is technically feasible. Specifically, the AAQ Report states as follows: The use of naphtha fuel in combustion turbine generators, AAQ Report at 19. However, it is important to note that DOH concluded that naphtha is technically feasible because DOH determined that "the required revisions to the facility do not appear unreasonable." Id. at 17. Both this determination regarding the reasonableness of the required revisions to the facility and the facts regarding the issue of availability were discussed under the heading of “Technical Feasibility.” Id. at 17–18. Thus, in the sense of whether naphtha can be used in the same type of combustion turbines, the AAQ report did conclude that naphtha is technically feasible, although it also discussed questions regarding the longterm availability of naphtha under the same general heading of "Technical Feasibility." The Draft Manual's guidelines for step two of the BACT analysis recognize that it may be feasible from a technical perspective to install a technology on a facility, but that the technology may still be rejected on the grounds that it is not available. The guidelines for step two generally As noted above, Waimana stated in its comments that fuel suppliers ship a large amount of naphtha overseas for consumption. Comment Letter at 2. DOH made a similar observation in the AAQ Report at 17 regarding the potential availability of naphtha. look to whether the technology is both "available” and “applicable." Draft Manual at B.17." To determine whether a control technology is “applicable," the permit issuer considers the question of whether the technology "may reasonably be deployed on or applicable to the source type under consideration." Draft Manual at B.18. In the present case, as noted above, DOH answered this question in the affirmative by stating that naphtha can be burned in the type of combustion generators to be used by MECO. AAQ Report at 17. Thus, Waimana is correct that DOH determined that naphtha is technically feasible, but only in the sense that it is “applicable." This determination, however, does not complete the analysis of feasibility under step two because the Draft Manual's guidance directs that the permit issuer should also consider the question of “availability.” Draft Manual at B.17. Thus, the fact that DOH concluded that naphtha is technically feasible does not show that DOH erred by eliminating naphtha out of concern regarding its long-term availability. Waimana, however, also contends that the AAQ Report shows that DOH clearly erred in its determination regarding naphtha's availability. We reject this contention because we do not find any clear error in the AAQ Report's conclusions, or DOH's responses to comments, regarding naphtha's availability. The term "available" is used in step two of the Draft Manual's guidelines to refer to whether the technology "can be obtained by the applicant through commercial channels or is otherwise available within the common sense meaning of the term.” Draft Manual at B.17. In an early PSD permit case, the Administrator stated that “[t]he question of availability for purposes of BACT is a practical, fact determination, using conventional notions of whether the technology can be put into use." In re Pennsauken County, New Jersey, Resource Recovery Facility, 2 E.A.D. 667, 671-672 (Adm'r 1988). In that case, the Administrator cited to Webster's dictionary definition of "available" as "that which can be 'used,' or is 'usable,' or can be ‘got, had, or reached; accessible." Id. at 672 n.13 (citing Webster's New World Dictionary of the American Language 96 (2d College ed. 1972)). In the present case, although the AAQ Report does state that local refineries have reported sufficient inventories of naphtha to support a Although DOH does not expressly state that it eliminated naphtha from further consideration under the guidelines for step two of the top-down analysis, we note that the Draft Manual describes step two as considering "technical feasibility" of the potentially available control options, and the substance of DOH's analysis was set forth under the heading "Technical Feasibility.” Thus, it appears that DOH intended to eliminate naphtha under step two of the guidelines. project of Units M17 & M19's size, the AAQ Report also identified other information showing that the available inventory actually fluctuates from year to year and is not sufficient in some years. AAQ Report at 17. Specifically, DOH noted that the State Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (the "DOB") reported that for the years 1991 to 1995, naphtha production was between 950,000 to 2,100,000 barrels per year with excess or exported naphtha inventories of approximately 160,000 to 1,300,000 barrels per year. Id. Noting further that MECO's proposed project would require approximately 980,000 barrels per year, DOH concluded that "naphtha inventories for some years are insufficient to support the [MECO] project." Id. In its response to comments, DOH reiterated that the "[r]esearch showed that naphtha's island-wide inventory fluctuated from year to year, where inventories for certain years were insufficient to support the MECO M17 & M19 project." Response to Comments at 9. We reject Waimana's reliance on the AAQ Report because Waimana has not shown in its Petition that DOH's response to comments is not adequate. See, e.g., In re Commonwealth Chesapeake Corp., 6 E.A.D. 764, 780 (EAB 1997) (petitioner failed to explain "why the State's response is clearly erroneous."); In re Envotech, L.P., 6 E.A.D. 260, 268-269 (EAB 1996) (holding that the petitioner must demonstrate why the permit issuer's response to objections is clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review). Waimana's Petition merely argues that the AAQ Report shows that "DOH has concluded *** that local refineries have indicated suppliers ship a large amount of naphtha overseas for consumption." Petition at 3-4 (citing AAQ Report at 19). Waimana does not discuss DOH's response that it relied upon the contrary information set forth in the report prepared by the DOB, and Waimana fails to explain why it was clear error for DOH to rely upon the DOB report. We have explained that "where an alternative control option has been evaluated and rejected, those favoring the option must show that the evidence 'for' the control option clearly outweighs the evidence 'against' its application." In re Inter-Power of New York, Inc., 5 E.A.D. 130, 144 (EAB 1994) (emphasis in original). Here, DOH's analysis shows that DOH evaluated naphtha as a potential control option and rejected it based on questions regarding the long-term availability of naphtha in the local market. The AAQ Report analyzes both the information supporting DOH's conclusion and the contrary information referred to by Waimana, and DOH's Response to Comments states that DOH relied upon the DOB report in reaching its conclusion. Because Waimana has not attempted to demonstrate in its Petition why the information upon which it seeks to rely clearly outweighs the information reported by the DOB, Waimana has |