THE TEXT YOU ARE VIEWING IS A COMPUTER-GENERATED OR RETYPED VERSION OF A
PAPER PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORIGINAL. ALTHOUGH CONSIDERABLE EFFORT HAS BEEN
EXPENDED TO QUALITY ASSURE THE CONVERSION, IT MAY CONTAIN TYPOGRAPHICAL
ERRORS. TO OBTAIN A LEGAL COPY OF THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT, AS IT
CURRENTLY EXISTS, THE READER SHOULD CONTACT THE OFFICE THAT ORIGINATED
THE CORRESPONDENCE OR PROVIDED THE RESPONSE.
3.10
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
March 16, 1979
MEMORANDUM
----------
SUBJECT: Definition of Source
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
This is in response to Howard Bergman's memo of January 9, 1979,
requesting a determination as to whether the International Paper Company's
paper mill and the Arizona Chemical Company's Plant, both located on the
same piece of property in Springhill, Louisiana, constitute a single source
or two separate Sources. The Arizona Chemical Company is a joint venture
half owned by the International Paper Company and half owned by the American
Cyanamid Company. The piece of property on which both plants are located is
owned by International Paper.
The PSD regulations define "source" as,
any structure, building, facility, equipment, installation, or
operation (or combination thereof) which is located on one or more
contiguous or adjacent properties and which is owned or operated by the
same person (or by persons under common control)." (43 FR 26404, June
19, 1978.)
The PSD regulations offer no guidance on what is meant by "common
control". However, the newly amended Interpretative Ruling states on page
3279 that for purposes of both the Interpretative Ruling and PSD, the
guidelines for determining common control are as follows:
"For the time being, determinations of what entities control, are
controlled by, or are under common control with, the applicant will be made
on a case-by-case basis. However, to save time and resources of both
applicants and decision makers, EPA Proposes to establish criteria for
determining issues of common control. For example, any person
with a ten percent voting interest in an entity, or with the power to make
or veto decisions by the entity to implement major emission control
measures, might be deemed to control the entity. Such criteria would also
be used for determining whether facilities are part of the same source..."
(44 FR 3279, January 16, 1979.)
We must decide this issue case-by-case until EPA has completed review
of the public comments submitted in regard to the amended Interpretative
Ruling, and has taken final action on it. It is my feeling that a person
who has as much as 50% voting interest in an entity should be considered to
control the entity. Therefore, until the Agency responds to the public on
this issue, a person with 50% voting interest in an entity will be
considered to have control.
If the International Paper Company has 50% voting interest in the
Arizona Chemical Company, it can be considered "in control" for PSD (and IR)
purposes, and the International Paper mill and Arizona Chemical plant, both
located at the Springhill, Louisiana complex, can be considered as a single
source.
I will inform you immediately of any EPA response to any public comment
on this issue. The period of public comment on this issue will end March
19, 1979.
Should you have any further questions, please contact Libby Scopino at
FTS 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Mike James, OGC
Paul Traina, Region IV
Kent Berry, OAQPS
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: January 9, 1979
SUBJECT: PSD Determination - Definition of Source
FROM: Howard G. Bergman
Director
Enforcement Division (6AE)
TO: Edward E. Reich
Director, Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement (EN-340)
We have been contacted by the International Paper Company (IP) concerning
proposed construction at their Springhill, Louisiana, paper mill complex.
The pulp and paper plant is being shut down. The container plant and
finishing and shipping operations will continue. IP proposes to construct a
wood products plant at the complex. IP plans to apply for a PSD permit for
the wood products plant. Because there will be a net decrease in emissions,
IP will be exempt from the air quality analysis and the monitoring
requirement.
At the complex on IP's land, Arizona Chemical Company makes a product from
black liquor soap produced at other IP pulp and paper mills. Arizona
Chemical is a joint venture, half owned by IP. Arizona Chemical is
independently managed from IP. An IP steam boiler has supplied steam to
Arizona Chemical but this boiler will be shut down. Arizona Chemical plans
to build its own boiler. This boiler will be subject to the PSD regulations
by itself.
IP claims that the Springhill mill complex should be treated as one source -
that Arizona Chemical is part of the Springhill mill. This would allow IP
and Arizona Chemical to make one PSD application and receive one permit and,
more importantly, use the decrease in emissions of the old boiler against
the new boiler so that the new boiler would also be exempt from air quality
analysis and monitoring. This will make a difference of several months in
when the PSD permit(s) would be issued.
It appears that the issue turns on the interpretation of "source" in the PSD
regulations: are there two sources here or only one? Attached is the
information provided by IP.
We have learned that Region 4 has an almost identical situation with IP and
Arizona Chemical. Therefore, we believe that your office should be involved
in the determination. If you have any questions, please contact Jim Veach
of my staff at 729-2760.
cc: EPA - Region 4
Phaff (4AAH-AP) |