Environmental Administrative Decisions: Decisions of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Volume 13U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2006 |
From inside the book
Results 1-5 of 100
Page 2
... argument that IEPA erred as a matter of law when it found that Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ( " IGCC " ) is a potentially appli- cable process alternative for controlling SO2 and NOx , but nevertheless excluded IGCC at step 2 ...
... argument that IEPA erred as a matter of law when it found that Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle ( " IGCC " ) is a potentially appli- cable process alternative for controlling SO2 and NOx , but nevertheless excluded IGCC at step 2 ...
Page 20
... arguments on the use of low - sulfur coal are not sufficient to establish clear error and thus to require re- mand ... argument is summarized above in footnote 15 . 18 Petitioners observe that the dictionary defines the term process as ...
... arguments on the use of low - sulfur coal are not sufficient to establish clear error and thus to require re- mand ... argument is summarized above in footnote 15 . 18 Petitioners observe that the dictionary defines the term process as ...
Page 37
... arguments fails to recognize that , under the NSR Manual's guidance , a detailed financial im- pacts analysis is not ... argument that IEPA's finding regarding the comparable con- trol - effectiveness of IGCC " alone would be sufficient ...
... arguments fails to recognize that , under the NSR Manual's guidance , a detailed financial im- pacts analysis is not ... argument that IEPA's finding regarding the comparable con- trol - effectiveness of IGCC " alone would be sufficient ...
Page 41
... argument regarding significant pollutant removal before combustion cannot be directly translated into similar reduction in emissions after application of the post - combustion controls . Accordingly , Petitioners ' argument is not ...
... argument regarding significant pollutant removal before combustion cannot be directly translated into similar reduction in emissions after application of the post - combustion controls . Accordingly , Petitioners ' argument is not ...
Page 43
... arguments , however , do not establish grounds for review and therefore must fail . We reject Petitioners ' argument that the limited authorization for burning off - site washed coal during periods of extended interruption in the mine ...
... arguments , however , do not establish grounds for review and therefore must fail . We reject Petitioners ' argument that the limited authorization for burning off - site washed coal during periods of extended interruption in the mine ...
Other editions - View all
Common terms and phrases
administrative Agency Agency's air quality ALJ's alleged appeal application argument asbestos BACT analysis BACT limits Board Brief capacitors Christian County citing clear error coal compliance schedule concluded ConocoPhillips considered count D.C. Cir determination draft permit effluent limits emissions limits enforcement Environmental EPA's EPS's Euclid explained failed federal FIFRA filed Final Permit hazardous waste Howmet IEPA IEPA's IEPA's response impacts Indeck Init Initial Decision issue LTCP major stationary source Martex ment monitoring NAAQS NPDES NPDES permit NSR Manual OCS source PCB waste Penalty Policy permit decision permit issuer pesticide Petition Petitioners argue pollutant Prairie State's proposed Facility protection PSD permit public comment period RCRA record Region regulatory remand requirements Response to Comments Sierra Club SMRO specifically spent material tion U.S. EPA violations WASA water quality standards