tional impact analyses assessing the impact of air, ground, and water pollution on soils, vegetation, and visibility caused by any increase in emissions from the proposed facility. Id. at § 52.21(0). We discuss each of these requirements in more detail below. a. Air Quality Analysis The main purpose of the air quality impacts analysis is to "demonstrate that the new emissions emitted from a proposed major stationary source * * *, in conjunction with other applicable emissions from existing sources * * * will not cause or contribute to a violation of any applicable NAAQS or PSD increment." U.S. EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, New Source Review Workshop Manual at C.1 (Draft Oct. 1990) (hereinafter referred to as "NSR Manual"); 40 C.F.R. § 52.21 (k). The NAAQS, as noted earlier, 12 are "maximum concentration 'ceilings' measured in terms of the total concentration of a pollutant in the atmosphere.” NSR Manual at C.3. PSD increments are maximum allowable increases in pollutant concentration over baseline concentrations. Id. In conducting air quality analyses, applicants for PSD permits ordinarily employ air quality models to predict the impacts on ambient air of pollutants subject to PSD review. In re South Shore Power, L.L.C., PSD Appeal No. 03-03, at 3 (EAB June 4, 2003) (Unpub. Order); see also 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(7)(1) (“[a]ll estimates of ambient concentrations required under this paragraph shall be based on applicable air quality models, data bases, and other requirements specified in Ap pendix W of part 51"). Air quality models ordinarily take into account such factors as a proposed facility's geographical, topographical, and meteorological setting in order to predict impacts on ambient air quality. See generally 40 C.F.R. pt. 50, App.; 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(k)(1). b. Best Available Control Technology As noted above, any major stationary source subject to PSD requirements must conduct a BACT analysis for each regulated pollutant. See CAA § 165(a)(4), 42 U.S.C. § 7475(a)(4). The CAA defines BACT as: [A]n emission limitation based on the maximum degree of CAA § 169(3), 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3); see also 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(12). The determination of BACT is one of the central features of the PSD program. See In re Knauf Fiber Glass, GmbH, 8 E.A.D. 121, 123-124 (EAB 1999) ("Knauf I"). EPA's NSR Manual recommends a standardized "top-down" process for BACT determinations, consisting of five basic steps.13 In re Inter-Power of N.Y., Inc., 5 E.A.D. 130, 135 (EAB 1994). The "top-down" process begins with the identification of all available emission control options.14 NSR Manual at B.5; Knauf I at 129-130. Control options are processes, methods, systems, and techniques for reducing emissions, including, among other things, clean fuels and innovative fuel combustion techniques. See CAA § 169(3); 42 U.S.C. § 7479(3). The second step involves consideration of the technical feasibility of the available 13 While the NSR Manual is not accorded the same weight as a binding Agency regulation, the Board has looked to it in construing BACT because it reflects the Agency's thinking on certain PSD issues. See Ala. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation v. EPA, 540 U.S. 461, 476 n.7 (2004); see also In re Inter-Power of N.Y., Inc., 5 E.A.D. 130, 135 n.8 (EAB 1994); In re Milford Power Plant, 8 E.A.D. 670, 672 n.1 (EAB 1999). 14 The term "available" in this first step refers to "those air pollution control technologies or techniques with a practical potential for application to the emissions unit and the regulated pollutant under evaluation." See RockGen Energy Ctr., 8 E.A.D. 536, 542 n.11 (EAB 1999). options, and elimination of those controls that are not available15 and applicable. NSR Manual at B.7; see also Knauf I at 130. A technology is applicable if it can be "reasonably installed and operated on the source type under consideration,” in light of how the particular control option has been used in the past and how that past use compares to the proposed project. NSR Manual at B.17; see Knauf I at 130. A control option is presumed to be applicable if it has been used on the same or similar type of source in the past. Knauf I at 130. At the third step of the BACT analysis, the control options not eliminated based on infeasibility are listed in order of stringency (i.e., from the most to the least effective in terms of emission reduction potential). NSR Manual at B.7, B.22. Next, step four introduces the consideration of collateral energy, environmental, and economic impacts, to either confirm the most stringent remaining control option as BACT, or to identify a less stringent option as BACT, if appropriate, based on concerns regarding one or more of these factors. Knauf I at 131, NSR Manual at B.26. The final step consists of the selection of BACT. NSR Manual at B.6. Basically, the most stringent control option not eliminated during steps one through four is BACT for the proposed source. NSR Manual at B.53. Because the BACT analysis is so critical to the PSD permitting process, it should be well documented in the record, and any decision to eliminate a control option should be adequately explained and justified. Knauf I at 131. c. Additional Impact Analysis Finally, as noted above, PSD permit applicants must conduct additional impact analyses for each regulated pollutant under the Act that will be emitted from the proposed facility. 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(0); see also NSR Manual at D.1. The additional impact analysis assesses the impacts of air, ground and water pollution on soils, vegetation and visibility resulting from the proposed emissions and the growth associated with the proposed facility. Id. Specifically, the PSD regulations require the owner or operator of a proposed source to: "[P]rovide an analysis of the impairment to visibility, soils and vegetation that would occur as a result of the source *** and other growth associated with the source ***. The owner or operator need not provide an analysis of the impact on vegetation having no significant commercial or recreational value." 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(o)(1); see In re Kawaihae Cogeneration Project, 7 E.A.D. 107, 130 (EAB 1997). Generally the additional impact analysis consists of four parts: (1) impairment to visibility; (2) soils and vegetation impacts; (3) ambient air quality impact; and (4) growth expected as result of the source or modification. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(0). 15 In this second step, "available" refers to commercial availability. See RockGen, 8 E.A.D. at 542 n.11. B. Factual Background & Project Description On March 21, 2002, Indeck submitted a PSD permit application regarding the planned construction of a 660-megawatt coal-fired steam electric generating station to be located in the Deer Run Industrial Park, in Elwood, Illinois.16 See Resp❜t Ex. B at 2-5.17 The City of Elwood is located in Will County, in an area designated as attainment for PM, SO2, NOx, and CO. Thus, the PSD requirements apply to these pollutants. 18 On April 7, 2003, IEPA released for public comment a draft PSD permit for Indeck's proposed facility, and on May 22, 2003, IEPA conducted a public hearing in Elwood, Illinois. Petitioners participated in the public hearings and submitted comments on the draft permit.19 On October 10, 2003, IEPA issued Indeck's PSD permit, approving construction of the planned 660-megawatt coal-fired steam electric generating station. Pet'rs Ex. A ("Permit").20 The proposed power plant would utilize two circulating fluidized bed ("CFB") boilers,21 each with a maximum rated capacity of 2900 million British thermal units per hour ("MBTU/hr"). See Permit at 3. According to the description of the project, the CFB boilers would burn coal as the primary fuel, petroleum coke and coal tailings as secondary fuel (up to 20%), and would use natural gas as a start-up fuel.22 Id; see also Pet'rs Ex. C ("Project Summary") at 2. The proposed 16 The proposed facility meets the definition of "electric utility steam generating unit" in the PSD regulations. See 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(31). 17 For purpose of this decision, all exhibits submitted with the Response to Amended Petition will be referred to as "Respondent's Exhibit" or "Resp't Ex." along with the appropriate designation. 18 The facility, however, will be located in an area that is in nonattainment for ozone. Resp't Ex. A at 1-3. Therefore, it is subject to the nonattainment area new source review ("Nonattainment NSR") requirements for VOCs, and not the PSD requirements. See In re Metcalf Energy Ctr., PSD Appeal Nos. 01-07 & 01-08, at 6 n.4 (Aug. 10, 2001). The facility is subject to both PSD and nonattainment NSR for NOx. See, e.g., In re Three Mountain Power, LLC, 10 E.A.D. 39, 48 (EAB 2001). 19 In order to challenge a PSD permit, the petitioner must have participated during the public comment period by testifying at public hearings or by submitting written comments. 40 C.F.R. § 124.19(a). The Petitioners in this case have satisfied this requirement. 20 For purpose of this decision, all exhibits submitted with the Amended Petition will be referred to as "Petitioners' Exhibit" or "Petr's Ex." along with the appropriate designation. 21 A CFB boiler burns fuel on a "floating" bed. That is, air pressure beneath the bed floats the bed within the combustion chamber, allowing the bed to behave like a fluid. See Pet'rs Ex. C ("Project Summary") at 2. 22 The facility plans to burn primarily Illinois bituminous coal, which has a typical pre-washed sulfur content of 3.51 percent by weight and a Higher Heating Value of 9,965 BTU per pound. Permit at 3. According to IEPA's permit approval, this is equivalent to an uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of 7.0 pounds per MBTU (“lb/MBTU") unwashed, or approximately 4.7 lb/MBTU washed. Id. Coal washing involves processing the coal with water in jigs or tables to separate impurities from the coal, Continued facility would be a major stationary source under the PSD program because it has the potential to emit greater than 100 tons each of PM, SO2, NOx and CO annually.23 Permit at 3. Also, the proposed facility would have the potential to emit various amounts of fluorides, sulfuric acid mist, and beryllium.24 Id. The proposed facility would utilize several measures to control emissions. First, Indeck's CFB boilers will, by their design, achieve some degree of emission controls. The uniform temperatures across the fuel bed in a CFB boiler results in more efficient combustion and consequently lower NOx emissions. See Resp't Ex. B at 2-1. Expected temperature and residence time in the combustion chamber would help keep CO and volatile organic material emissions at low levels. Project Summary at 2. Additionally, Indeck's CFB boilers would be routinely injected with crushed limestone into the fuel bed to absorb SO2. Resp't Ex. B at 2-1. Indeck's CFB boilers would also utilize hot cyclones to remove limestone particulate from the exhaust stream and return it to the fuel bed for additional SO2 removal. Project Summary at 2. Finally, the boilers would employ selective (continued) based upon relative density, as coal is less dense than the impurities. This process reduces the sulfur content of the coal fuel as some sulfur is contained in the impurities rather than in the coal itself. See In re Prairie State Generating Co., 13 E.A.D. 1, 38-39 (EAB 2006). 23 See supra note 11 (identifying threshold levels for PSD regulated pollutants). 24 The potential emissions for the proposed boilers, assuming continuous operation at maximum load, are as follows (asterisks indicate potential emissions exceeding regulatory significance levels under the PSD program, see 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(23)(i)): Permit Attachments, tbl. I. According to IEPA, actual emissions should be less, since the plant likely will not always operate under maximum load. Project Summary at 3. Smaller amounts of PM, NOx, CO and VOM will also be emitted by other emission units at the facility, such as the auxiliary boiler, the area for storage and handling of coal, ash, and limestone and certain bulk materials preparation operations involving gas combustion dryer. Id. |