P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 208 ) ll-E- 4
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:16

PM Sheet 208 of 250P. 2 

# A-^o-3 1

Februar y 22 , 200 0

NOT E
SUBJECT : Missin g Documen t II-E- 4
FROM : Pamel aJ

. Smith(A-90-3 7 Docke t Manager )
TO : Ai r

Docke t Attache di s wha t

w e believ e t o b e missin g documen t II-E- 4 i n Docke t

A-90-37

. Du e t o unknow n reason s at

tha t time , th e documen t

wa s pulle dan dwa s neve r replaced

. Th e origina l docke t entry cove r

memo , th e dat e ofth e entry , an dothe r document s relate dt o th e subjec t matte r tha t wer e entere do n tha t

sam e dat e suggest s tha t

th e attache di s th e missin g memorandu mo f meetin g withDavi dHawkins , NRDC , wit hattachments

. Consequently , base do n thi s evidence , w e ar e re-enterin g thi s documen t at II-E-4

. Attachment s_££

_ 02/11/0 0 FR I 07:4 1 FA X20 2 56 4 154 3 Uf'lU'V U1£;0 0 I'O A <U£4U19UO U E?k OA ROAQP S D C 111-f l AJ KJJUUIVC X IfiJOO Z 1100 3

-** T f .i > i 3
•5a« c NOT E UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

Offic e o f Ai rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park

. Nort h Carolin a 2771 1

DATE : l-ZO-qf SUBJECT : Docke t

Numbe r A-90-3 7 FROM :

TO : Larr

y Elmor e New Sourc e Review Section (MD-15 ) Air Docket

Enclose dar

e item s t o b e inserte dint

o th e above mentioneddocket

an dapropose dupdat

e t o the docket

index fo r thi s docket

. I

f yo u have an y question s concernin g thi s submittal , pleas e call Susa n Murchie , TR C Environmental , a t (919 ) 419-7500 o

r m e a t (91*9 ) 541-5433

.



# 2

_^ 4

_



## • 

## 3- NOTE S FO R DOCKE T / 10/20/9 2 Meeting—Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog yRulemakin r Atten d Davi d Hawkins , Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l Michae l Shapiro , EP AOffic e o f Ai r & Radiatio n Lydi a Wegman , EP Aoffic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g & standard s John Calcagni , EP AOffic e o f Ai r Qualit yplannin g & Standard s Gre g Foote , EP AOffic e o f Genera l Counse l Jeffre yRenton , EP AOffic e o f Genera l Counse l Janic e Wagner , EP AOffic e o f Ai r & Radiatio n \ Mr
. Hawkin s asked , Wha t i s th e proble mw e ar e tryin g t o solv e wit h thi s proposal ? I s i t tha t th e state s ough t t o hav e mor e flexibility ? I T so , wit h thi s rul e EP A i s pre-emptin g th e stat e discretio n tha t Congres s ha d intended

. Mr
. Hawkin s sai d tha t ther e woul d b e a "vigorous , detaile d analytica l assault " o n th e rul e and tha t i t i s a "piec e o f trash. " Mr
. Shapir o sai d tha t EPA' s inten t i s tha t th e state s loo k carefull ya t a ful l rang e o f contro l technology , whethe r throug h - a screenin g proces s o r b ylookin g a t eac h technologyindividuall y i n th e BAC T analysis

. Mr , Hawkin s wa s concerne d abou t th e reduce d availabilit yo t informatio n t o th e public , makin g i t mor e difficul t fo r th e publi c t o determin e whya compan yi s choosin g les s stringen t technology
. Mr
. Hawkin s sai d tha t th e "proces s stinks, " notin g tha t industr y ha d a chanc e t o commen t o n th e proposa l befor e i t i s publishe d bu t th e publi c ha d not
. H e fel t th e rulemakin g proces s ha d bee n abused
. Mr
. Hawkin s wa s concerne d abou t th e docket , an d wante d t o b e sur e tha t EP Awa s "honest " abou t wha t materia l shoul d b e i n th e docket
. Mr
. Hawkin s sai d tha t EP Awa s "shortsighte d t o accep t th e proces s an d the n tr yt o pu t th e bes t fac e o n it. " Mr , Hawkin s fel t tha t th e ambien t incremen t analysi s require d b y th e rul e woul d obscur e th e difference s i n contro l technologies , an d showe d a n "indifferenc e t o ai r qualit yi n nationa l parks. " Mr
. Hawkin s note d tha t EP Aha d a n obligatio n t o publis h a rulemaking , bu t i t didn' t hav e t o b e th e curren t proposal
. H e recommende d a proposa l tha t containe d a descriptio n o f th e top

dow n process , positiv e and negativ e comment s o n th e curren t process , alternat e policie s and thei r pro s an d cons , and a solicitatio n o f comment
. 

# 3

### 'iNKD t .was ningto n. U L

### \tL-zvz-(>i^-o^i(' NOV K



### yzIZ:\DH

INO.UI I Y

,UZ



### Natural Resources Defense Council.

1350New York

A\K.. N.W. lV 1 **-|iit;.\*l t ni

. L X

IOOO? :.o: x*o • :si\ • f.n.v : oo**-o : Memorandu

m

To : F . Henr

y Habich t I I Willia m G . Rosenberg From : Davi d Hawkins , NRDC \^yT
Date : Novembe r 16 , 199 2 Re : To p Dow

nBAC T

I ndiscussing th e "top-down " BAC T issu e wit hinterested person s outsid e EPA , I have provided a packag e o f material s highlighting th e substantive an d procedura l issue s inth e rulemaking . Enclose d ar e a se t o f thes e material s for your information , as follows : A . One-pag e highlight s memo . B . Four-pag e summar y o f th e issue . C . Lis t o f Selecte d EP A documents . D . Copie s o f Selected EP A documents .

JlV'* . Ov.*...| M ...v./.-

. . 1 /'aa-ia' a 40Wrj./ 20lh Street New York. Nno York

10011 212 727-2700
l ,.• 1 1 **

• - - a- : t

- -•>;• 7

7 Simmon Sheet

I Si mItiWiiHP. CA 9410 5 •10 5 7-7-0220 l.... 1 : r. H.T* . i.i . a. . 1*17 Saulh Olin Slree-I l.o> AwlefrCA MflU 21.-^^2-1500

f . . •» 1 "•.*.*> . 1 Z !»..• . . 212\U'ili.ottSt..Smt,20 ihn.<'.iilu /•/••••••i n Wl? .-V S 5.-X---JiT* i ; .,..;-, : ,. k , . .

### PJ5

_ 'NKDL „was ningto n. U L I L L 

### -z-jz-di^-^^i < INO V



### \< yz iz-\z>a No.ui i K.u a

SECRE T ADMINISTRATIO N AI RPOLLUTIO N

PLA N THREATEN S NATIONA L PARK S

* Official s i n th e Bus hAdministratio nar e pressin g EP A t o gu t a ke y rul e protectin g ai r qualit y o f Nationa l Parks . Thes e official s hop e t o ge t EP A t o rus hthroug ha fina l rul e b y inauguratio nda y

i f Clinto ni s elected .
* Th e ne w

rul e woul drepudiat e EPA' s curren t Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y

(BACT ) requirement s s o tha t larg e ne w industrie s coul dbuil dnea r Nationa l Park s withou t applyin g bes t ai r pollutio ncontrol s t o minimiz e thei r emissions . * Th e ne w

rul e wa s writte ni n a back-roo m proces s unde r th e directio no f Whit e Hous e official s ove r th e objection s o f numerou s EP A

offices . * Whil e Dept . o f Energ y an dpul p& pape r an delectri c utilit y industrie s wer e priv y t o th e back-roo m

draftin g process , th e Nationa l Par k Servic e an dth e Fores t Servic e (th e manager s o f Park s an dWildernes s Areas ) wer e no t consulted .
* Draft s fro m

th e Whit e Hous e proces s wer e share dwit hindustry ; o n e industr y

trad e group , th e Electri c Generatio nAssociation , actuall y

submitte d a draf t wit hWhit e Hous e revision s bac k t o EP A 

### a s th e industry' s ow ncomments .
* Th e EP A

office s responsibl e fo r carryin g ou t th e curren t BAC T progra m al l hav e objecte dtha t th e ne w rul e woul dworse nai r pollution , increas e burden s o n stat e agencies , an dcaus e dela y i n issuin g permit s fo r ne w industria l plants .



# 5INKUL , was n ingto n i U L P. 7 IL L */UZ-fSO-O^i ( INO V i r yz i^:.b

yN o .u n Y

,\j-\

SUMMARY O F "TOP-DOWN " BAC T ISSU E Th e Bus h Administratio n ha s plan s t o issu e a sweepin g relaxatio n o f a ke yclea n ai r rul e tha t i s designe d t o protec t Nationa l Parks , Wildernes s Areas , an d othe r unpollute d locale s fromai r pollutio n emitte d b yne w industria l sources . EP Aha s bee n tol d byWhit e Hous e official s t o releas e th e relaxe d rul e fo r "publi c comment " righ t afte r th e electio n and t o adop t th e relaxatio n i n fina l for mb yinauguratio n da

yi f Bil l Clinto n i s elected
. Workin g behin d th e scene s fo r th e las t on e an d one-hal f years , Whit e Hous e officials , wit h suppor t from industr yhav e rewritte n a n EP Arul e requirin g ne w factorie s and powe r plant s t o us e "bes t availabl e contro l technology " (BACT ) t o limi t thei r ai r pollutio n emissions

. Th e Whit e Hous e rewrit e wil l allo w ne w source s t o b e buil t wit h mediocre , minima l pollutio n control s tha t wil l mea n muc h greate r pollutio n impact s o n Nationa l Park s an d othe r clea n ai r areas . Whil e th e relaxe d BAC T rul e wil l b e issue d byEPA , i t ha s bee n drafte d i n a back-roo mproces s dominate d b ymostl yanonymou s Whit e Hous e staf f fromth e Counci l o f Economi c Advisors , th e Whit e Hous e Counsel' s Office , th e Counci l o n Competitivenes s an d OMB
. Th e Nationa l Par k Servic e an d th e U.S
. Fores t Servic e wer e exclude d fro mth e Whit e Hous e draftin g process . A t leas t on e draf t o f th e rule s sen t t o th e Whit e Hous e woun d u p i n industr y hands , wit h on e trad e associatio n actuall ysubmittin g th e draf t bac k t o EPA , complet e wit h th e Whit e Hous e reviewer' s edit s (whic h th e industryclaime d a s it s ow n comments)
.
Th e BAC T Rule : Th e curren t BAC T progra mrequire s companie s t o appl yfo r a permi t befor e buildin g a ne w ai r pollutio n sourc e (e.g. , coal

fire d powe r plant , oi l refinery , chemica l plant , wast e incinerator , etc. ) and agre e t o instal l pollutio n control s tha t achiev e th e maximu mdegre e o f pollutio n reduction

. Thi s requiremen t fo r us e o f th e bes t o r "top " contro l syste mi s critica l t o minimiz e th e impact s o f economi c developmen t o n clea n ai r i n nearbypark s and wildernes s areas . EPA' s curren t rule s allo w a ne w sourc e t o us e a contro l syste mtha t i s les s effectiv e tha n th e "top " syste mi n us e elsewhere , onl yi f th e compan ypresent s a thoroug h analysi s o f th e to p syste m

and demonstrate s wit h specifi c factua l informatio n wh yth e to p syste mi s no t achievabl e fo r th e particula r propose d project

. I f th e best , o r to p syste m i s show

n t o b e unachieveable , th e compan ymus t analyz e th e nex t bes t technology , an d adop t i t o r sho w specificall ywh yi t i s no t achievable

. Thes e showing s mus t b e defende d i n a proces s wit h ful l publi c participation

. Thi s "top-down " proces s ha s bee n widel ypraise d



# b JP. 8 TaNKUL.^as

n ington , U L I L L :Z-JZ-^ 6 -^ 1 , N0 V u y 2 ^ : u u NQ ^ n K ^

b y EP A an d Nationa l Park Servic e official s a s resultin g i nth e constructiono f less-pollutin g source s inclea

nai r regions . Th e relaxed rul e woul d overturnthi s approach , allowing companie s t o selec t minima l contro l system s an d submi t les s rigorou s claims tha t bette r contro l system s ar e to o expensive o r no t wort hth e extr a cost . EP A staf f comment s o

nth e relaxe d rul e conclud e tha t i t wil l lea d t o weake r control s o nne w plants , b

y placing th e burdeno nagencie s wit hlimite d resource s t o demonstrat e tha t bette r technologie s are available , an d b y concealin

g fro m th e publi c the ful l fact s abou t bette r technologies . Th e relaxed rul e als o woul d allo w companie s t o us e compute r modeling studie s t o argue tha t the differenc e i nai r qualit y resultin

g fro m the us e o f bette r technolog y i s no t "worth " th e extr a cost s o f bette r control . Thi s approachallows a Park' s ai r qualit y t o b e destroyed , littl e b y little , sourc e b

y source , wit h the cumulativ

e effec t o f man

y ne w industries , eachwit hwea k pollutio ncontrols , revealed onl y afte r th

e plant s ar e operating . Background : EPA' s "top-down " BAC T proces s wa s adopte d b y th e Agenc y

i n 198 7 afte r a revie

w o f earlier , case-by-cas e BAC T decision s showed tha t ne

w plant s had beenallowe d t o be buil t wit h inadequat e pollutioncontrol s tha t di d no t reflec t bes t contro l technology . A

fe w month s afte r the Bus hAdministrationtoo k office , the pul p an d pape r industr

y an d th e electri c utilit y industr y bega na campaig

nt o overtur

nEPA' s BAC T requirements . EP A initiall y

resisted the industry' s demand s an d th e Administration di d no t addres s the issu e inth e President' s Clean Ai r Ac t proposal . However , i nfina l negotiation s wit hth e Whit e Hous e ove r whethe r the Presiden t shoul d sig nthe 199 0 Amendment s passe d b

y Congress , EP

A Administrato r Reill y tol d CE

A Chai r Michae l Boski ni nanOctobe r 199 0 lette r tha t EP A woul d conside r revision s t o accep t publi c comment s o nth e "top-down " BAC T requirement .
Th e secre t Whit e Hous e Editin g Process : Whil e EP

A rule s ar e normall y drafte d b y anEP A workin g grou

p befor e bein

g circulated t o othe r agencie s for review , th e BAC T relaxationrul e wa s submitted firs t t o Whit e Hous e reviewer s i n Apri l 199 1 an

d wa s progressivel y strippe

d o f provision s tha t woul d requir e the us e o f genuine "best " technology . Onl y i n Augus t 1992 , afte r sixteendraft s (an d sixteenmonths) , whe nth e Whit e Hous e reviewer s ha d weakened th

e rul e t o thei r satisfaction , wa s th e draf t circulate d t o member s o f th e EPA working grou

p for comment . 

# 7NKUL ; was run g to n > U L P. 9 \tL-Z3Z-C>i6-^l( NO V If VZ 15.U

l N0.U1 1 K.U

b

I nearl y

1991 , EP

A begancirculatin

g draft s o f a revise d BAC T rul e t o Whit e Hous e office s for review . EPA' s initia l draf t o f Apri l 4 , 1991 , woul d hav e provided industr

y wit hsom

e additiona l flexibility bu t woul d hav

e retained th e cor e requirement s tha t the "top " contro l syste m (maximu

m degre e o f emission s reduction ) b e fully considere

d an d tha t selectiono f an y les s effective pollutio ncontro l syste

m b e specificall y justifie d b

y a showin

g tha t the bette r technologie s ha d unacceptabl e technical , economi c or environmenta l consequences . EPA' s draf t wa s no t acceptabl e t o Whit e Hous e reviewers . O n Apri l 19 , 1991 , EP A received a rewrit e o f it s draft , deleting th e requiremen t fo r ananalysi s o f th e maximu

m emissionreduction syste m an d allowing rejectio no f bette r contro l system s b y using stacked assumption s o f cost s an d benefits . Lik e al l correspondenc e fro m the Whit e Hous e o nEPA' s drafts , th e Apri l 199 1 comment s cam e bac k o

nplai npape r wit hno identificationo f the author . Thi s secre t editin g proces s wa s employed i nanapparen t attemp t t o evade disclosur e o f th e Whit e Hous e rol e i nweakenin g EPA' s rule. 1 However , interna l EP A circulationcove r sheet s indicat e th e nam e or offic e o f the Whit e Hous e reviewer . (I nth e cas e o f the Apri l 199 1 comments , th e EP A staf f cove r shee t presume s th e comment s cam

e fro m "CEA. " EP A staf f draft s i nthe summer o f 199 1 continue d t o propos e requirement s for explici t consideratio no f the bes t contro l technolog

y an d anadequat e rational e fo r no t adopting th e bes t a s th e "cor e criteria " fo r a nacceptabl e BAC T process . However , i n the fal l o f 1991 , Whit e Hous e Counse l official , Jef f Holmstead , sen t EPA

a one-pag e dictat e listin g change s tha t wer e t o b e mad e i nEPA' s draft . Holmstea d directed EP A t o do the following :

* n o longe r requir e a nadequat e analysi s o f th e bes t technology ; instea d the bes t an

d bette r control s coul d b e screened ou t withou t analysis ; onl y weake r control s surviving the screenin g woul d hav

e t o b e analyzed ;

1 The CleanAi r Ac t require s EP A t o establis ha publi c docke t fo r it s rule s an

d t o include i nth e docket , al l draft s o f rule s submitte d t o OM

B fo r interagenc

y revie w an d al l writte ncomment s o nsuchdraft s b

y othe r agencies . B y routing , it s draft s t o CE A staf f rathe r thant o OMB , EP A appear s t o hav

e bee ncooperating i n aneffor t t o concea l the exten t o f the Whit e Hous e contro l o f th e rulemakin

g process . A s o f now , EP A ha s no t establishe d th e docke t for it s BAC T rul e rewrite , an d w e do no t kno

w wha t document s i t wil l plac e i nthe docke t whe nth e rul e i s proposed .

%P.1 0 

### -iNKUL..uJ : 

### asnington , U L I L L *^-r«o-^ i < No v

i r vz it>:3Z N0.U1 1 Y.ur

* companie s woul d have t o explai nwh y the y chos e thei r preferre d contro l syste m bu t no t hav

e t o explai nwh

y they di d no t choos e bette r contro l systems ;

* EP A mus t "repudiate " al l prio r decision s endorsing th e top-dow napproach ;

* a sourc e canrejec t bette r control s base d solel y on incrementa l cos t difference s betweenbette r an d weake r controls , eveni f the bette r control s ha d bee nused on othe r simila r sources ;

* a sourc e als o ca nrejec t bette r control s base d o nclaims o f smal l difference s i nai r quality

impac t fro

m th e individua l sourc e i f equippe d wit hmor e polluting systems , eveni f the cumulativ e effec t o f suc

hweake r control s a t severa l source s woul d damage ai r quality . Throughou t 1992 , Whit e Hous e reviewer s rewrot e subsequen t . EP A draft s t o include the fiv e Holmstea

d weakening directives . EPA' s Februar

y 199 2 draf t wa s heavil y edite d b y CE A t o includ e •

' thes e changes . Thi s draft , complet e wit hth e CE A editin g notations , wa s thensubmitte d t o EP A i nJul y 199 2 b y anindustr

y trade grou

p (Th e Electri c Generatio nAssociation ) wit ha cove r lette r claimin

g tha t the change s wer e th e industry' s comments 1 I nlat e Augus t 1992 , EP A draf t numbe r 17 , incorporatin g al l o f th e change s demanded b y th e Whit e Hous e an

d industry , wa s circulated t o othe r EP A wor k grou

p member s for a ten-da y review . Al l o f th e EP

A Regiona l Office s tha t reviewe d th e draf t wer e highl y critical ; pointin g out tha t th

e draf t wa s a sweepin g reversa l o f a successfu l program ; tha t i t woul d lea d t o weake r pollutioncontro l decisions ; tha t i t woul d unfairl y burde nstat e permittin

g agencie s an

d concea l important informationfro m th e public ; an

d tha t the draf t rul e wa s dishones t i nno t clearl y discussin

g wha t a significan t weakenin g chang e wa s being proposed . Tw

o o f the Regiona l Office s eve ntoo k th e highl y unusua l ste

p o f refusin

g t o concur inth

e draf t proposal . O nOctobe r 2 , 1992 , EP A headquarter s "officially " submitte d the draf t t o OM

B for interagenc

y review , withou t modifying i t t o tak e an y o f th e Regiona l Offic e objection s int o account . Th e draf t remain s a t OM B an d additiona l weakenin g change s ar e reportedl y

being added .



# 9muL .;. u,aillll| y iui " u ^ •'" 'ci.:^^-Vo' J " - J 3 i r„ u v. , 3 ^ io;u o N0>Ui l K-u y

"Top-dow

nBACT " Lis t o f Selecte

d EP A Document s 1 . EPA' s Initia l Draf t t o Whit e Hous e reviewers ; Apri l 4 , 199 1 (Ke y point s are : EPA' s cor e criteri a retai nrequiremen t t o thoroughl y

discus s control s providin g maximu

m degre e o f emissio nreduction ; rejectio no f bette r control s mus t b e full y explained ; n o disavowa l o f prio r EP A rulings) . 2 . CE A rewrit e (4/19/91 ) o f EPA' s initia l draft . (Wit h4/25/9 1 EP

A cove r note) . (CE A demand s cor e criteri a tha t do no t requir e ful l discussion o f bes t contro l syste m no r ful l explanationfo r rejectio no f superio r controls) . 3 . EP A draf t#7 —Jun e 20 , 1991 . (Note , th e handwrittenedit s wer e entered onth e draf t i n Octobe r 1991 . The y wer e mad e b

y EP A staf f base d o nora l an d writte n(see ite

m 4 ) comment s receive d fro m Whit e Hous e staff) . 4 . One-pag e "Proposed BAC T Language " specs . Undated . Provide d t o EP A b y Whit e Hous e Counsel' s O f I f ic e staffer , Jef f Holmstead , i n Octobe r 1991 . 4A . Dec . 30 , 199 1 Not e t o Mik e Shapir o fro m CE A staff . (Not e imperiou s tone : "violat e pledges; " "Recan t o f prior...decisions; " "w e mus t insist; " "disappointe d wit hth e lac k o f progress." ) 5 . CE A markup o f EP

A draf t # 15 ; dat e o f EP A draf t i s Feb . 92 . (Thi s markup wa s provided t o industr y b y unknow

nsources , presumabl y

Whit e Hous e staff . Se e ite m 6) . 6 . Industr

y comment s o f 7/14/9 2 w / EP A respons e o f 8/3/92 . (Thi s documen t i s important becaus e th e draf t rul e o n whic hindustr

y marked it s comment s i s th e sam e versio n tha t contain s CEA' s mark-up s (ite m 5 above) . Whil e th e industr y cove r lette r implie s tha t al l margina l note s ar e th e industry's , i nfac t mos t notation s ar e CEA's . Condui t proble

m here. ) 7 . Draf t actionmem o for Admin . Reill y w / cove r not e 8/17/9 2 8 . Curren t draf t (Augus t 92 , draf t #17 )



# IDjNKUL.^dsrungxon , u c , L L

. zuz - rco-o* i rINO vi r^ io:u 4 N0.U1 1 K.U y P.1 2

I

(Thi s i s the draf t sent t o EP A wor k grou

p members . Wit h th e exceptio no f mino r edit s an d typo corrections , i t i s th e sam e a s sen t t o OM

B fo r interagenc

y revie w o nOctobe r 2 , 1992) . 9 . Seve nMemorand a fro m EP A Regiona l Office s critica l o f Draf t Proposed rul e —

Aug . & Sept . '92 . (Th e Regiona l Offices , whichar e responsibl e for oversigh t o f BAC T decisions , uniforml y criticized the proposa l a s leadin g t o weake r BAC T decisions , increasin g the burde no

ncontro l agencies , creatin

g uncertainty . Fo r example , Regio n1 0 stated tha t th e rule' s preambl e misrepresented th e proposal' s purpose . I nRegio

n10' s view , th

e purpos e o f th e proposa l i s no t t o improv

e the effectivenes s o f the curren t progra m bu t rathe r t o provid e broa d flexibilt

y fo r futur e BAC T decisions , whic hwil l lea

d t o "inconsisten t BAC T determinations , thereb y servin g t o weaken , no t improve , th e effectiveness " o f th e program . "Whethe r EP

A choose s t o acknowledg e i t i nwriting , w e al l recogniz e tha t th

e effec t o f thi s rulemakin g wil l b e t o forc e permitting authoritie s t o mak e les s stringen t BAC T determinations. " Regio n1 0 concluded. ) - 10 . Mem

o summarizin

g EP A Offic e Criticism s o f Draf t Proposa l (9/9/92 ) (Not e tha t Offic e o f Genera l Counse l (OGC ) i s reported a s "raisin g seriou s polic

y concerns " abou t th e proposal , includin

g the "lack o f justification " for EPA' s movin g awa y fro m th e "top-down " BAC T approach) .



# 1 /3

3 O

D

> O

c o

•*- > O J C c

_ ) 3 * . 02a , .a.>.haa~ M vo.»*Ht ^ • W x .. . 1\nm*9»4\. (JobberJL% if?* in c *»*aiiM.t«*» *W> T 

# Administration Consider

s Weake rProtection s fo rUnpollute d

-Byk^alW-Maip f 

# 1 3 | Aaa d a barrag

e o f wuiMiiienla l I bofoi e th e rlrataoa, th e a*jaVini3tr ^ j ti M i aojaeo y pasaimg t o weake n a j ke y pnwiaa B o f th e satioa' s ck-a

n ai r ! law s alterth e presidentia

l contest a

•aooordk^i o officials
. I Tb e psao . whic

h wni areUx t ! -regulatio

n designe d t o p-reserv

e air j t-joalit y m ta-ipolhite

d areas , wa s fi-

• oasaed tw o week s ag o b y Ugb-raok - | ing official

ao f th e Eovirounental ; 1 Pirotecho

o Agency aa

d Offic e o f

. Managemen

tan d Budgetwh o de - > *dde d t o dela y aavounoemeii C o

f th e 5 pnc^ose d chang e unti

l afterth e 1 electio n t o uel d Bush frocn-probj abl e aMcis m by eannwrnentiBsts . • offkiab said . • A s th e regulation stand s today , 1 indastr y mus tinstall state-of-the
I ar tcontrol s on new plant

s whos e a*canssk>n

s pos e a threatt o th e ai r jqaaKt y o f ia*4nlh*te

d areas . Th e J change s tha

tth e adrnkiistiation i s j naMtin g l o propos e woul

d permi t i companie

s t o nata l chotprraad 1 let s effecbtv

e devices . 1 jXMsUn

tEP A Atteunistrator «WSiaa
- G . Rosenberg , a politica l {appointe e an

d clos e frien

d o f Bosh 1 qmpaig n chainna

n Rober tM. Tee -
• ter . agree d t o th e pla n despite S warning s by hi s staf

f thati twould
" 5 endangerairquality , complicat e ' itguUbo n an

d ange renvirooinen
-
, talkta , aoo-iaa-din

g t o officials . ; Roaenber

g did no tconsultEP

A AdministratorWHtao. K . Reill y be fore reachin g .-agreemen twit h th e Whit e House ; officials arid . Reill y mos tsig n th e proposa

l befor e i t become s puhlic . Nomal y h e ap prove * reconiaMadations o f hi s as sistants . Bu

tiafonne d o

f th e pla n thatRoaenber

g agree d to , ReiD

y issue d abrie

f statemen tyHsaterday

, sayin g tha

th e intend s "t

o loo kmy sel f atth e options. " . Rosenberg , th e EPA' s airpoHution chief , ha s helped orchestrate a Whit e Hous e strateg y thi s wee kt o strengthe n Bush' s errri-rooinenta l credential s b y is*uing long-ddayed regulations mandate

d b y tb e re vised'Clean a*ti

rAc t Rosenber g denied thatpolitics wa s th e reason fordelaying plan s fb rth e ne w technology standards . H e sai d h e wante

d t o issu e mor

e importan tregulations first . Butaccordin

g t o anothe radmin

istration officia

l involved i n the matter . Thi s i s on e that' s bee n contro versial . Obviousl

y we'r e i n a

n elec tio n period . ao

d on e thinks o

f thoae things. * : A tstak e i s a provision o f a15
- year-old law—designed t o protec t clea n a k i awipdlate d area s o f th e

. country , such a s nationa l parka . Th e b w requires industr

y t o instal

l "bestavailable * t*rc*hnolog y o n new source s o f emission s in thos e areas , excep twhen th e cost s o

f thos e coo troU are excessive . I n 1987 . th e EP

A stiffene d that requirementb

y imposin g a "top
down * standar

d t o determine the

* beatcontrol _^^^^^-^JP T -. bes tavailabl e MMMM y a t pose d t o b e tala-af-je t.tastin g poai t forany ae w aolan W aaurcea . I f companie s ca n damoaatrat e that the y raannta*ntaRate>beatia rtob-aaical o r.xoanmi c raaanaa , the y an a the n permitte d t o g o t o th e lowe rleve l of

stringency . Bu tande rth e Hauici l meats , rwnptnir* . would no thav e t o conside rstatae-of-the-ar ttechnol og y as astartin g point. Rather , the y coul d conside rdevice s Itprewnt atw e o f th e range " of

tedatttogies , !*a**hji*af tt o interpretation o

f perant * tin g authorities . An d instead of

hivin g t o justif

y wh y th e bes twa s no tselected , the y would only have t o sho w tha tthei r atrhnifl

f o f ove ro rlea s effectiv e de wit h legal re Ojaireoienta

. Although EP

A officials sough t **** l if | * y t o ictaa i eaaentia

l elenient s o f th e im^emrapproach , the y •Jp^M-m*. taajfo^b y th e Whit e Haute coaaacTe , office an d th e Coisatao f

Frntrtma * Advisera , ^InTptptso'daar^^* ^ Ba rt o thos e advocated b y som e pulpao d paperoompameaand elec tri c ttiKtirt

aThe y vgae^'thatth e cra*tea* trale i taMreaaoa4N

y stric t

and tha ti tcoiapicate s pbimmg for en*|usjanen

tpurcs^aae

n becaus e state of-tfae-ar tte/hnnfogy i^consuntl y *evoh*mg « lOa i o f dotar s pe rpha tar e a t l athe'cas e of

utStiea , for th e "top-dowa * approac

h ha s le d t o ireajuirement s thatne w powe rphot s i n Virginiainsta l de VaapjEa} , caanu e o f

semjg-gua g a p t o 9 0 at th e ni>*-*otce

aoade a nraa asmftkrstacka . Th e rat e o f moa ttirtiwlng y uaem-Mpe-rcetat . Th e cos tof

th e curren ttarate ai s abou t$40 0 forever y to o o f poBu- $2,70 0 pe rte ar tmoved b y th e new , mor e effectiv e devices , aadu ^ tr y statistics show . hv'sn inteiview , a\**n*enbcr g oe fende d th e change s a s "makin g fora mor e rationa

l det-anoa, " instea d o f aatomaticaDy •-.•'quirin

g tha tth e t o

"WhetherEP

A dmoae tt o 1 edg e i ti n writing , w e a l 1 ma tth e effec to f

thi s i t o force [state ] utsaitiin t-Mhor t ibe at o mak e lea s sbk^u- tJtectv j nology l determinatiaaa, " wrot e Jta i McOjrfluck , directo ro f th e noo d Northwest' s ai rand toxicao^nraaon. ' 1 I,

c

oP.1 4

i' -4

. - . . NOU-17-199 2 03:2 7 FRO M T O b y iy*a i :**.--,

* i-.va.- :
* 1 ft'. /tmrZMJm. t1 I H • I***** * mei'si<i ] »*••• • — 

# S W

Novembe r13 , 199 2 Malimri Restmirfs 'V/ivwCi'M/if/

/

•* . '... . .U , *.;••.,VtV

, •O-a*.'..*.-.-. * T'O/iS'l? "

X .

. «.*» •

- • *..*; r

Honor-abl e Wil l ia

w H. lie-ill y Adainistrato r V.6 . Bi*vir*oruncnt*»' l P*cot*actio n Agency 40 1 H St. , S.W . Washington , 0 c . 2046 0

nea r Kr . KeilIy : I n conin g dayi s yo u wil l o e asKo a t o decid e mi ls-su**- * Uiat - &<»•* . receive d littl e publi c attentio n bu t i s centra l t o protectio n o f ou r country' s remaining clea n ai r resources . Fo r fiftee n year s federa l la w hue* , nough tt o *oinin>ic c pollutio n fi-o * no w industria l si r pollutio n source s b y requiring thas « :»uurces t o instal l bes t availabl e contro l technology (BACT ) . You wil l b » aslce d i f yo u wic hto ac t t u undermin e thi s cor e clean ai r prot<action . Tlie-Claa

n Ai l Act' s BAC T requiremen t Harmonize s goal s o f environaenta l yualit y an d economi c growt hb y insurin

g tha t ne w economi c activit y I s no t buil t wit hinefficien t pollutio n control s tha t woul d squande r limite d claa n ai r resource s an d ultimatal y

liai t th

e aaoun t o

t growt htha t a clea n ai r are a coul d abeora. Tn e SAtl ' recjuirenent als o ha s helpe d protec t ou r nation' s specia l treasures , nationa l ParX s an d wild-arii-sB

a Areas , fro m excessiv e pollutio n a e ne w industr

y i s buil t nearby . Th e BAC T ro-quiiomont i** - no w unde r attac k —

b y short-sighte d industria l interest s wh o appea r simpl y t o van t t o minimiz e thei r r>A« r tftr n complianc e coct e withou t regard t o broade r considaration s an d b y a determine d group u f whit e Hous e an d Departacn t o f Energ y etaf f who , i n dealing wit hyou r staf f ove r th e pas t tw o year s o n thi s issue , bav e relied o n dictate , rathe r tha n reaso n t o pur-siit i thei r objective . Tha t objec t iv * i s t o forc e EP A

t o issu e an instruction t o th e Stat e agencie s wh o aoX e BAC T decision* * tha t futur e decision s shoul d favo r l«3 s effectiv e pollutio n contro l option s prorrere d b y inoustria l applicants . Whil e suc hdirec t an d hones t languag e i s avoide d in th o draf t propose d rul e tha t you t staf f ha s prepare d pursui t t o Whit e Sftms e directive*. , i L i~* th a indic*putabl< a in*ton* to € th o proposal , a s yo u wil l se e wiic n you as k fo r a comparison o f th e ke y feature s o f th e curren t liACi " proces s wit htha t advocate d i n th e propos«« d draft .



# 3 > Eh a curren t BAC I proces s i s a aode l o f wna t you nav e advowdUi d a s , Adaixiitttrato r—

- jjio^e-s s tha tleave s decision s t o th e Stat.©* , , permit s flexibilit y i n outcome , bu ti s mad e accountaui e mrough . v^ji^wiv
- . , ; . ; . :: \!,nl,ii!lSi..5xto2Ce -a**---
- *..

. •.••••ii'i
- •-.,;..:.•.! Lnt.-y <>rrfiii

. • •;
. .. > *.i

- •.*.* » .*
. •0 J : :'*v'•.!-€.y>>il. NOU-17-199 2 03:2 9 Tc : SB-E1S B FRO M rfrm: rton
. T O byiy^>ai^T.w y aa«l*MJ*uw

, P.1 5

ful l disclosur e ot the basi s fo r decisions . Th e curren t BAC T proces s enable s informe d publi c participatio ni ndecision s tha t affec t thei r ai r qualit y b y requiring applicant s t o full y discus s those technologie s tha t provid a sa*imu a reduction s i npollutants . EPA' s requirement s d o no t requir e tl»a t th e Kaxiwuni reductio n(or "top" ) technolog y

automaticall y

be selected . Rather , the curren t BAC T proces s require s tha t a decisio nt o us e a ninferio r technolog y

b o mad e i nth e sunshine . R y requirin g industrie s t o provide an wUetjuat e Justificatio n u f th e reason s tha t th o "top " technolog y

i a no t achievabl e fo r a particula r project , the BAC T proces s ha s use d successfull y th e sunligh t o f hones t disclosur e o f rolovan t fact s t o roo t nut- npiirir.ii,*- . clai-a s o f "infeasibility. "
I t i s th e opo n an d balance d natur « o f th e curren t BAC T approac h tha t ha s resulte d i naccelerate d us e e f lee s pollutin g industria l prococco s i nroccn t years? . Thi s opennes s an d balanc e ar e vna t i s unde r attac k i nLli e deal t proposa l tha t you r staf f ha s bea n presse d t o develop . Thus , th e draf t woul d allo w industria l applicant s t o avoi d ful l disclosur e o f th a "top " tocbnolo^y , b y authorizin g tha t technology t o b e screene d ou t base d o nanalyse s an d rule s o t thum

btha t fal l shor t o f th e adequat e discussio n tha t i s new

racjuJrod . Similarly , tha draf t woul d pres s State s t o us e -abstract , analytico l decisio nrule s t o eliminat e bette r technologies , ©va n whe nthos e technologie s hav e bee nprove n effecLiv

w an d affordabl e a t othe r sivilar * sources . A t Whit e Hc-usa Bt^-f f tntasiRtc-tncA , th e draf t presse s fo r tool s suc ha s margina l incrementa l cos t analysi s an d incrementa l ambien t ai r mialit y

impac t an*lysi s t o b e use d wit hdispositiv e effec t t o justif y

a choic e o f more pollutin g technologies . A s you r staf f ca ndiscus s wit hyou , th e purpos e o f insisting o nthes e analytica l metLod t ia t o stac k the dec k agains t bette r technolo g ies . Larg e pollutio ncnn^pqimnce s woul d atten d a weakenin g o f the BAC X px-egraia . Th « ne w lav' s aci d rai nprogra m wil l no t serv e a s a substitut e fo r fch*> protection s o f th e BAC T requirement , whil e the aci d rai nprovision s ca p nationa l sulfu r dioxide emissions , the y d o no t limi t loca l emissio n increase s fro m ne v plant s tha t ca nddv«rs«l y

affec t clea nai r resources , suc ha s ha s occurre d i n th e Shenandoa hNationa l Park - U s you know , th e aci d rai nprogra m doe s no t contai nan y cap s o nothe r importan t pollutant* , suc ha s nitroge noxide* * (»0 J an d hydrocarbons . Tn e curren t BAC T progra a ha s succeede d i nreducin g M0 f emission s fro a ne v permitte d source s b y

a facto r o f fou r ove r th e pas t f iva yaara . RAO T decision s als o Ha w cut . UjfUiuw4iliuii .Mi-aiiio n rat-e « i nhalf . Withou t a stron g BAC T progra m n<? w source s wil l b e buil t wit h weaXe r control s an d thu s ad d t u regiona l an d nationa l problem * *S*IUE<M 3 Jo y thoc o pollutants . Whil e SOB S aa y

clai m the propose d draf t seek s onl y t o restor e States ' discretion , th e opposit e i s true . The curren t BAC T progra a give s th e State s discretio na s a nintegra l par t o f a n



# I VP.1 6

NOU-17-199 2 03:2 9 FRO M T O

... . ,__,,. , . - uyiy^-ait.'M-j y p.id< a Ifl ! ye n 313 3 IIMII
. .'•MV**- ' -**t»«n»i***.««H ^ •> * • w ~ "

ope n an

d aocountaiJl y

process . Th « propose d draf t woul d simpl y •mak e i t mor e difficul t for .State s t o requir e th e us e O f bes t technologie s b

y shifting the burde no f justifyin g BAC T decision s fro m pollutio nsource s t o Stat e agencies . Unde r th £ propose d araft , applicant s woul d h-xt encourage d t o submi t incomplet e discussion s o f bes t control s an d t o rel y

o nconciusor y

decisio n rule s t o suppor t a choic e o f lea s effective controls . Th e effect s o f suc hchange s woul d b e plac e liirg e burden s o nagencie s uia t ha d reaso nt u gues t io n a*p*pll<=ants ' unstippor-haa d claim s an

d h n disenfranchis e th e publi c b y concealing inforsatio n o nth e availabilit y

u f superio r technologies . Ironically , th e oontrovorcio t t-h-* * thrts e chanae s woul d undoubtedl y generat e woul d prolon g .yenulttin g decision s an

d uncertaint y

fo r Industria l applicants . Fo r thes e reason s anong others , you r Regiona l Office s and State * tha t hav e beeninformed o f the propose d draf t hav e bee nuniforml y critica l ot th e change s i t woul d lm-jose . Finally , son * hav e argue d tha t "thi s i s onl y a proposal, " a s i f t o sugges t tha t despit e it s obviou s lacKo f merit , yo u coul d issue * th a proposa l a s one o f your las t act s an d d u llltl e ham . Thi s clai m

i s els o wrong . Issuanc e o f thi s proposa l woul d serv e onl y on e purpose : t o pu t SP A n nrecord a s repudiaV.i;u j a polic y tha t ha s worke d t o produc e sound , protectiv e BAC T decisions , replacin g curren t polic y wit hon e intended t o encourag e stor e pollutin g choices . I t woul d affec t iaaediatel y and adversely , th a conduc t o f BAC T analyse s onpermi t application s now befor e Stat e agencies . Futur e rcvcrca l o f the ne w statu s qu o create d b y issuanc e o f th e propose d drar t woul d occur , i t a t all , onl y afte r months , perhap s years , o f controvers y an d delay . I Xno w you r nex t week s wil l b e ver y bus y one s bu t 1 roguos t a n •jjjpuitunit

y t o mee t briefl y

wit a yo u t o discus s thi s loporL<ui t issu e befor e yo u mak e you r decision .
Sincerely ,

Davi d G . Hawkin s



# 5