p. 1



# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 81 ) ll-C-3 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 10:22:20 AM

Sheet 81 of 147P. 2

* > ".* osr «> . 5 ^K 4 1 L. NITE D STATES ENVIRONiMF.NTA LPROTECTIO

NAGENC

Y^' \4W.» ; WASHINGTON" , O.C
. 2046 0lf-i " ? ^

" t <*0 ^ 

### JU L 1 2 199 0 VP f

: 

### Mr . Michae l c . Farra r Vic e Presiden t i \.' \-. 7 America nPape r institute/Nationa l :» . ,i ; AIRANO»*OIATIO> . 

### Fores t Product s Associatio n 125 0 Connecticu t Avenue , N.W. , Suit e 21 0 Washington , D.C . 2003 6 j f 

## 125SS2 : ¥

Dea r Mr . Farrar : Thi s i s i n respons e t o you r Ma y21 , 199 0 lette r settin g fort hth e concern s tha t th e America nPape r Institute/Nationa l Fores t Product s Associatio n(API/NFPA ) expresse dverball ya t ou r meetin g o n Ma y4 . You r lette r assert s tha t th e Bivironmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA ) i s actin g illegall yi n it s us e o f guidanc e t o interpre t EP Aregulations . Yo u refe r specificall yt o fou r area s unde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA ) i n whic hAPI/NFP A maintain s tha t EP Aha s acte dimproperl yi n it s us e o f guidanoe : top-dow nbes t availabl e contro l technolog y(BACT ) guidanc e unde r th e CAA' s preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) provisions , Stat e implementatio npla n(SIP ) interpretation , ne wscuro e performanc e standar d(NSPS ) applicabilit y determinations , an d th e Wisconsi nElectri c Powe r Oarapan y(WEPCO ) decision . A t th e cutset , I Trus t tak e issu e wit hth e suggestio ni n you r lette r tha t EP Ai s attemptin g t o revis e dul ypromulgate d regulation s b y"interna l memorandum. " I oanpletel yagre e tha t EP Amus t us e establishe dinforma l rulemakin g procedures , includin g Federa l Registe r notic e an d th e opportunit y fo r publi c ocnment , t o revis e regulations . However , EP Aals o ha s th e authorit yan d th e obligatio nt o provid e clarificatio nan d guidanc e unde r th e regulation s i t ha s alreadypromulgate dan d t o appl ythos e regulation s t o specifi c cases . I ackncwledg e tha t th e distinctio nbetwee nne wregulation s andinterpretatio no f existin g regulation s i s no t alway s clea r cut . Th e Agenc ybelieves , hcwever , tha t i t properl ylimit s th e us e o f thes e devioe s t o interpretation s o f existin g statutor yan d regulator ylaw . i nparticular , a s discusse d belcw , th e Agenc ybelieve s i t acte dappropriatel yi n th e fou r case s cite di n you r letter . lft eERA' S Too-Dcw nBAC TPolic y 

### Wit hrespec t t o th e top-dcwn BAC T 

### process , EP Asee s r » cccpellin g reaso nt o depar t fra nth e positio ntake ni n th e letter s o f Ma y12 , 1989 , fra n Willia mK . Reill yt o you , an d Jun e 13 , 1989 , fra nJoh nCalcagn i t o you r counsel , Michae l K . Glenn , respondin g t o API/NFPA' s petitio nrequestin g tha t EP Arescin dit s top-dcwnpolicy . Neithe r th e Decembe r l , 198 7 roenorandumfro m forme r Assistan t Administrato r J . Crai g Fotte r tha t yo u mentione d i n ou r meetin g no r an yothe r EP Adocument s implementin g th e top-downBAC T analysi s charg e existin g regulations . I n particular , th e Potte r memorandumsinpl y direct s EP ARegiona l Offices , a s a matte r o f Agenc ypolicy , t o follo wth e top-dcwnapproac hi n administerin g th e curren t PS D regulations. Tha t memorandumwa s issue dfollowin g a n adjudicativ e decisio no f th e Administrato r interpretin g th e statutor yan d regulator ydefinitio no f BACT , [se e Honolul uP. 3

Resourc e Recover yFacility , PS D Appea l No . 86- 8 (reman d order , Jun e 22 , 1987 ) ("H-Fwer" ) ] , an d t o facilitat e consistenc yi n th e BAC T determinatio n process . I n essence , th e Administrator' s H-Powe r decisio n interprete d th e statutor y BAC T analysi s requiremen t a s containin g tw o cor e criteria : consideratio n o f al l availabl e pollutio n oontro l technologies , an d a reasone d explanatio n base d o n consideratio n o f energy , environmental , an d economi c ircpact s o f an y decisio n no t t o requir e us e o f th e mos t stringen t contro l technologie s a s BACT . [Th e Administrato r ha s affirme d thi s vie wi n othe r decision s a s well , se e Pennsauke n County , Ne wJerse yResourc e Recover yFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88* 8 (remand order , Nov . 10 , 1988). ] Th e EPA' s view s regarding thes e cor e criteri a ar e no t new . Indeed , the yar e reflecte d i n th e Agency' s earlies t BAC T guidanc e documen t [se e Guideline s fo r Determinin g Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y(OAQPS , Dec . 1978) , pp . 5-6] . Thus , th e Potte r memorandumreflect s EPA' s judgmen t that , i n general , th e top-dcwn prooes s i s th e bes t approac ht o fulfillin g th e BAC T requirements tha t ar e se t fort hi n th e statut e an d correspondin g regulations . Th e EP Ashare s you r concer n ove r inconsistencie s i n BAC T determinations . A s note d above , EP Aadopte d th e top-down BAC T approac hi n par t t o addres s prio r inconsistencie s i n th e states ' implementatio n o f thi s importan t CAA requirement . Th e Agenc yi s developin g detaile d guidanc e t o assis t th e State s and EP ARegiona l Office s i n usin g th e top-down approach . Mr . Glen n ha s bee n furnishe d a cop yo f th e mos t recen t draf t o f thi s guidance . I n ou r meeting , yo u indicate d tha t permi t applicant s hav e claime d tha t th e tcp-dcw n approac hgenerall yresult s i n mor e stringen t BAC T determination s tha n thos e mad e i n th e past . Th e EP Aha s no t conducte d an yquantitativ e analyse s t o confir mo r rebu t suc hclaims . However , i f thi s conclusio n i s indee d true , i t woul d simpl yb e a reflection o f mor e thoroug hBAC T determination s bein g mad e consisten t wit hCAArequirements . I t woul d no t resul t fro man yne wsubstantiv e o r procedura l requiremen t associate d wit hth e top-dcwn approac hbecaus e ther e i s none . Th e SI P Interpretatio n Th e EP Aha s recentlyacte d t o satisf yyou r concer n wit hSI P interpretatio n whic happear s t o focu s o n EPA' S 198 9 approva l o f Kentucky' s PS D program . A s yo u ma yb e aware , o n Jun e ll , 1990 , EP Apublishe d a notic e i n th e Federa l Registe r (5 5 F R 23547 ) clarifyin g th e Agency' s positio n o n SI P interpretatio n i n th e KentuckySI P action . I enclos e a cop yfo r you r reference . Thi s notic e make s i t clea r tha t IPA' s guidanc e an d policie s hav e n o bindin g regulator yeffec t o f thei r own . A t th e sam e time , als o a s state d i n th e notiae , EP Amaintain s tha t th e ififaianoc . o f ne wsourc e revie wpermit s and othe r action s b ya Stat e i n th e administratio n o f th e Federa l CAAnus t confor mt o th e requirement s o f th e CA Aan d th e SIP . I n makin g judgment s a s t o wha t constitute s carpiianc e wit hth e CAAan d regulations issue d thereunder , E P Alook s t o (among othe r sources ) it s polic ystatement s an d interpretativ e rulings . Congres s assigne d EP Ath e dut yt o overse e prope r implementatio n o f th e Federa l CAA , an d th e approac hdescribe d i n th e enclose d clarificatio n notic e i s a n appropriate , an d certainl ylegal , wa yfo r th e Agenc yt o mee t tha t obligation .P. 4

Main e NSP S Determinatio n Base d o n ou r meeting , i t appear s tha t you r concer n abou t NSP S applicabilit ydetermination s resulte d fra n a misunderstandin g concernin g a n applicabilit ydeterminatio n tha t EPA' s stationar ySourc e Conplianc e Divisio n mad e fo r a recover yboile r i n Maine . Mr . Seitz , Directo r o f tha t division , i s workin g wit hyo u t o provid e a clarificatio n o f thi s determinatio n whic hshoul d resolv e th e problem . Th e EPA' s WEPO O Decisio n Th e EP Adisagree s wit hyou r assertio n tha t th e Agency' s initia l WEPO O decisio n represent s a chang e i n th e wa yEP Amake s applicabilit ydetermination s unde r th e PS D an d NSP S programs . Th e EP Adi d no t alte r an yregulation s i n makin g thi s applicabilit ydetermination , no r di d i t expan d th e scop e o f thes e ne wsourc e programs . Rather , a s wit hal l PS D an d NSP S applicabilit y determinations , EP Aapplie d existin g regulations t o th e fact s o f a particula r cas e throug ha n informa l adjudicativ e proceeding . Th e EP Aha s reoentl yissue d a ne wdecisio n regardin g th e on e issu e remande d t o th e Agenc yb yth e court . A cop yo f tha t revise d determinatio n i s enclosed . Applicabilit ydeterminations , suc ha s thos e involvin g WEPOO , decid e onl y th e specifi c matte r befor e th e Agency . A t th e sam e time , suc hdetermination s ma yserv e a s usefu l guidepost s fo r bot hEF Aan d th e regulate d oaimunit y regardin g futur e case s tha t ma yinvolv e simila r factua l an d lega l issues . T agre e tha t EP Ashoul d striv e t o iirprov e it s communication s effort s i n thi s area 1

. W e woul d b e happ yt o discus s th e detail s o f th e WEPC O determination s wit h yo u a t a mutuall yconvenien t time . Pleas e contac t Mr . Gar yMcCutche n a t th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlannin g an d Standard s i n Durham , Nort hCarolina , (919-541-5592) , t o arrang e fo r a meetin g o n thi s issue , an d t o discus s acces s t o EPA' s ne wsourc e revie welectroni c bulleti n boar d whic hi s no wavailabl e t o th e public . I hop e thi s lette r clarifie s ou r positio n o n th e issue s yo u hav e raised . Although , a s note d above , th e Agenc ycontinue s t o disagre e wit hyou r positio n a n a numbe r i f issues , I appreciat e th e opportunit yt o mee t wit hycu . I hop e tha t w e ca n continu e t o hav e fruitfu l dialogu e o n Clea n Ai r Ac t issue s i n th e month s ahead . Sinoerel yyours ,
Michae l H . Shapir o Deput yAssistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiatio n Enclosure s

### For

enclosureto docket

itemII-C-11 , July 12 , 1990 letter fro mMichael Shapiro to Michael Farrar , se edocket

itemindicated
. II-J- 1 Clarificatio nnotic eonpublicatio no f Kentuck y PS D rule s i

nJun e11 , 1990 Federal Register

(5 5 F R23547)
.