p. 1



# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 73 ) ll-C-3 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19AM

Sheet 73 of 147| 2E- ! UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y

"Xofio^ 0WASHINGTON

. D.C

. 2046 0 MA YI 2 1989 

# fill c 

# /o- ~C P. 2 

## •2.7

- 

## i/

TH E ADMINISTRATO R

Mr . Michae l C . Farrar , Vic e Presiden t > , Environmenta l _

Healt hProgra m' !J ^ 2. t ) America nPape r Institut e 125 0 Connecticu t Avenue , N.W . Washington , D.C . 2003 6 '.U 0^u<iOb U Dea r Mr . Farrar : Thi s i s i nrespons e t o you r Marc h29 , 198 9 letter , an d th e Apri l 11 , 198 9 lette r fro myou r counse l Mr . Michae l Glenn , regardin g th e "top-down " proces s fo r determinin g bes t availabl e contro l technolog y(BACT ) unde r th e preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) provision s o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Yo u requeste d tha t th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA ) immediatel yrescin d it s polic yregardin g th e top-dow nproces s an d tak e certai nothe r administrativ e actions . Th e EP Aha s carefull yreviewe d th e argument s presente d i n you r petition . However , I d o no t agre e tha t EPA' s implementatio n o f a top-dow nBAC T proces s i s eithe r a t varianc e wit hth e statutor ydefinitio n o r constitute s a revisio nt o th e PS D regulations . Rather , EPA' s top-dow npolic yi s jus t that— a statemen t o f policy , reflectin g a lawfu l an d appropriat e exercis e o f congressionally-delegate d authorit yt o interpre t an d administe r th e Clea nAi r Ac t an d regulation s issue d thereunder . Neithe r th e Decembe r 1 , 198 7 memorandu mfro mforme r Assistan t Administrato r J . Crai g Potte r no r an yo f th e othe r EP A document s cite d i nyou r petitio npurpor t t o chang e existin g regulations , no r d o the yhav e tha t effect . Th e ke yprovision s o f EPA' s polic yregardin g th e top-dow nproces s ar e consideratio no f th e mos t effectiv e contro l technologie s available , an d a demonstration , throug hobjectiv e indicia , tha t suc htechnologie s ar e no t achievabl e du e t o case-specifi c energy , environmental , o r economi c impacts . Thes e cor e criteri a ar e consisten t wit hEPA' s prio r BAC T guidance . Thus , th e top-dow npolic yrepresent s EPA' s judgmen t tha t existin g BAC T requirement s ca nbes t b e accomplishe d throug ha particula r analytica l methodology . A s you r petitio nnotes , th e Potte r memorandu m(insofa r a s i t addresse d BAC T determinations ) i npar t implement s a nearlie r adjudicativ e decisio no f th e Administrato r interpretin g th e " statutor yan d regulator ydefinitio no f BACT . [Honolul u Resourc eP. 3

RecoveryFacilit y("H-Power") , PS D Appea l No . 86- 8 (reman d order , Jun e 22 , 1987)] . Th e EPAbelieve s that , lik e th e othe r document s yo u cite , bot hH-Powe r an d th e late r adjudicativ e decisio n i n Pennsauke nCounty , Ne wJerse yResourc e RecoveryFacility , PS D Appea l No . 88- 8 (reman d order , Nov . 10 , 1988) , d o no t chang e th e law , bu t rathe r interpre t existing law . I t i s clea r tha t EPA , lik e othe r regulatoryagencies , ha s authorit yt o creat e bindin g preceden t throughadjudicatio n [see , e.g. , NLR B v . Wyman-Gorda n Company , 39 4 U.S . 75 9 (1969)] . I t i s als o clea r that , absen t a n explici t statutoryconstraint , EPAha s broad discretio nt o emplo y thos e procedure s and method s i t feel s ar e bes t suite d t o discharging it s numerou s an d varie d dutie s [see , e.g. , Vermon t Yanke e Nuclea r Powe r Corp . v . NRDC . 43 5 U.S . 519 , 54 3 (1978)] . I nsummary # i n calling fo r th e us e o f th e top-dow n approach , EPAdi d no t alte r th e BAC T requirement . Th e definitio no f BAC T i nth e statute , EPAregulations , and Stat e implementatio nplan s ha s no t changed . I n addition , EPAdoe s no t believ e tha t it s polic yview s o n th e top-dow nproces s creat e an yne wlega l right s o r dutie s whic hmus t b e implemente d throughrulemaking . I believ e i t i s appropriat e a t thi s tim e fo r EP At o continu e implementing it s BAC T policie s throughpolic ystatement s and an y relevan t adjudicativ e decisions . Thi s i s th e rout e take n b yEP A sinc e passag e o f th e PS D progra mand promulgatio n o f BAC T regulations . Consequently , I mus t den yyou r petition . A s yo u ar e aware , EPAi s i n th e proces s o f developin g guidanc e materia l fo r th e implementatio no f top-dow n BACT . I believ e tha t th e "forthcomin g materia l wil l serv e t o addres s many o f th e concern s expresse d i nyou r petitio nregarding th e implementatio n o f th e top-dow n proces s an

d it s plac e unde r th e overal l statutoryscheme o f th e Clea n Ai r Act . Acopyo f th e informatio n wil l b e mad e availabl e t o yo u whe n i t i s issue d i n fina l form . Sincerel yyours , Willia mK . Reill y WilliamK . Reill y

cc : Michae l K . Glenn Michae l G . Dow

d