p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

112) IV-C-26 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 112 of 142 
P.2 

'4 

/ * A % UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY A" / D ' 2 1 

I ^R Z ? RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 IST ~ C - 2. (p 

*U PBO^° 

/ 

AUG 1 8 1999 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

AND STANDARDS 

Ms. Maida 0. Lerner 

Mr. James D. Elliot 

Hunton & Williams 

1900 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20006-1109 

Dear Ms. Lerner and Mr. Elliot: 

This letter is in reference to your July 6,1999 request pursuant to the Freedom of 

Information Act. Your request was assigned the number HQ-RIN-2805-99. The requested 

documents pertained to: 

1) Information describing the content and scope of EPA's "debottlenecking policy"; 

2) Information on the scope of the requirement for application of best available control 

technology "BACT'; 

3) Information on the scope and content of EPA's exemption for routine maintenance, 

repair, and replacement activities; and 

4) Information on the scope of EPA's hours of operation/production rate exemption. 

As agreed on during the conference call of August 4 between your office and EPA, we 

polled our Headquarters and Regional Offices to estimate the amount of time that would be 

needed to retrieve either final documents or all documents (mail messages, internal notes, etc.) 

pertaining to the above information. The offices' estimates are as follows: 

Headquarters staff: 53 hours for final documents and 750 hours for all documents and, 

Regional Offices: 2,026 hours for final documents and 2,266 hours for all documents. 

Please be advised that these numbers are rough estimates and the actual hours required may be 

significantly different. Please refer to 40 C.F.R. §2.120 for detailed information regarding the 

costs of performing the search. 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OD Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 
P.3 

At your convenience, please let us know, based on this information, how you wish us to 

proceed on your request. If you have any questions, you may contact Dan deRoeck of my office 

at (919) 541-5593, or Jon Devine of the Office of General Counsel at (202) 564-5576. I 

appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust this information if helpful to you. 

Sincerely, 

w^4-

William T. Harnett 

Acting Director 

Information Transfer and Program 

Integration Division 

2 
P.4 

w 

FOIA COST WORKSHEET 

Effective October 1,1998 

This chart is for computing the actual cost to process FOIA requests. This chart 

must be completed if 15 minutes or more are spent responding to the request, 

EVEN if no charges are billed to the requester. (If processing time is less than 

15 minutes, please report that time and indicate No Charge (N/C) in the Total 

Actual Cost column.) Upon completion of this chart, please submit to the FOIA 

Office with a copy of the FOIA reply. 

NOTE: This cost is different from the fees billed to the requester which are 

included in the Fee Schedule section of our FOIA regulations. 

HQ-RIN-_2805-99_ DATE 8/18/99 

Name Pam Smith Program ITPID_ 

Position 

Clerical Support 

Personnel 

Subject/Matter 

Expert/Responder 

Managerial 

Personnel 

Legal Personnel 

Combined Total 

Actual Cost 

Hourly Salary 

Rate 

$14.66 

33. °° 

32.25 

27.29 

XXXXXXXXXXXX 

XXXXXXXXXXXX 

Time worked on 

FOIA 

1 hour 

3 hours 

1 1/2 hours 

4 hours 

XXXXXXXXXXXX 

XXXXXXXXXXXX 

Total Actual Cost 

$ 14.66 

im.#o 

$48.38 

109.16 

•^Sb.* 0 

Example: ($28.00 hr. X 30 minutes = $14.00) 

$28.00 - Hourly salary rate 

30 minutes - Time spent on FOIA (increment of 15 minutes) = 

$14.00 - Total Actual Cost 

3 
P.5 

, U 

BRUSSELS. BELGIUM 

WARSAW. POLAND 

HONG KONG. CHINA 

BANGKOK. THAILAND 

NEW YORK. NEW YORK 

ATLANTA. GEORGIA 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS 

lOOO K STREET. N.W. 

WASHINGTON. DC. soooe-lio e 

TELEPHONE <202) 955-150 0 

FACSIMILE (202) 778-2201 

JAMES D. ELLIOTT 

E-MAIL: JELUOTT@HUNTON.COM 

RICHMOND. VIRGINIA 

MCLEAN. VIRGINIA 

NORFOLK. VIRGINIA 

RALEIGH. NORTH CAROLINA 

CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 

KNOXVILLE. TENNESSEE 

FILE NO.: 2533Z000088 

DIRECT DIAL: (202)955-1577 

July 6,1999 

BY CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Freedom of Information Officer 

A-101 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I 

O 

W 

This is a request for documents and records1 pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act, 

5 U.S.C. § 552, and 40 C.F.R. Part 2, Subpart A. Specifically, we request the following 

information relevant to an understanding of EPA's new source review ("NSR") permitting 

program and the specific activities that are exempt from EPA's NSR rules: 

1. Information describing the content and scope of EPA's "debottlenecking policy." A 

March 14,1997 letter from Region IV to the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control2 discusses the "issue of debottlenecking" in evaluating whether projects 

are subject to - or exempt from - new source review. We request a copy of all other EPA 

documents and records (including but not limited to headquarters and regional office internal 

guidance documents), describing the content and scope of the Agency's debottlenecking policy. 

1

 £eg 40 C.F.R. § 2.100(b) for a definition of the range of documents and records covered by this 

request. 

2

 The letter - entitled "Request for Guidance on Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

Applicability Determinations for Boiler Emissions" - is from R. Douglas Neeley, Chief of 

Region IV's Air & Radiation Technology Section, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division. It was sent to Rhonda Banks Thompson, Manager, Clean Air Act Implementation 

Section, Bureau of Air Quality, South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental 

Control. 

4--
P.6 

u 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS 

Freedom of Information Officer - U.S. EPA 

July 6,1999 

Page 2 

2. Information on the scope of the requirement for application of best available control 

technology f BACT"). A July 28,1983 memorandum from EPA's Edward Reich to Michael 

Johnston states that BACT is not to be applied to a boiler at which an emission increase occurs 

due to changes to separate downstream or upstream process units (in that case, the separate 

process units were a bleaching plant and a digester). A March 18,1998 memorandum from 

EPA's Bruce Buckheit to Judith Katz and Robert Smolski, however, concludes that a boiler 

should be subject to BACT review because of changes at upstream digesters. We request a copy 

of all other EPA documents and records (including but not limited to headquarters and regional 

office internal guidance documents), describing the content and scope of the Agency's policy 

governing instances in which BACT will or will not apply to emission units that have not 

themselves undergone physical or operational changes. 

3. Information on the scope and content of EPA's exemption for routine maintenance. 

repair, and replacement activities. EPA's new source review rules (at 40 C.F.R. 

§ 52.21 (bX2)(iii)) and new source performance standards (at 40 C.F.R. § 60.14(e)(1)) provide 

that the Agency's new source review rules and new source performance standards ("NSPS") 

shall not apply to routine maintenance, repair, and replacement activities. We request a copy of 

all EPA documents and records (including but not limited to headquarters and regional office 

internal guidance documents) describing the content and scope of the Agency's regulations 

exempting routine repair/maintenance/replacement activities from new source review and from 

NSPS review. 

4. Information on the scope of EPA's hours of operation/production rate exemption. EPA's 

new source review rules (at 40 C.F.R. § 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f)) and NSPS (at 40 C.F.R. § 60.14(e)(2) 

- (3)) provide that the Agency's new source review rules do not apply to facility changes that are 

increases in the production rate of an existing facility or increases in the hours of operation of an 

existing facility. We request a copy of all EPA documents and records (including but not limited 

to headquarters and regional office internal guidance documents) describing the content and 

scope of the Agency's rules exempting hours-of-operation increases and production-rate 

increases from new source review and NSPS review. 

If any of the requested documents or records are publicly available or are located on an 

EPA electronic bulletin board or web-site, a specific description of and specific citation to each 

such document will be adequate. 

If EPA withholds any document or record that is responsive to this request, we request 

that EPA list and identify the document, the author(s) of the document, its general contents, the 

exemption upon which EPA relies for refusing to release the document or record, and a detailed 

explanation of why the Agency believes the exemption is applicable. Moreover, pursuant to 40 

h 
P.7 

I 

HUNTO N 6C WILLIAM S 

Freedom of Information Officer - U.S. EPA 

July 6,1999 

Page 3 

C.F.R. § 2.100, we request that any nonexempt material in any such document or record be 

disclosed. 

We are willing to pay any appropriate fees attributable to this request and to make 

whatever arrangements to pay that are necessai^. Moreover, no prior notice of the amount of 

these fees is required unless thev exceed^SiP..If estimated copying and search fees exceed 

$250, please call one of us before proceeding. 

We request an Agency response as required in 40 C.F.R. § 2.112 within 10 days after the 

receipt of this request. If an extension of the 10 day period is requested by the relevant EPA 

office, we request written notification explaining the reasons for the extension, as required 

pursuant to 40 C.F.R. § 2.112(e). 

If there are any questions relating to this request, please call Maida Lemer at 202/955-

1590 or Jim Elliott at 202/955-1577. 

Very truly yours, 

]>.m^ 

Maida O. Lerner 

James D. Elliott 

\o