The two General Motors facilities without question meet the criteria of
common ownership and same industrial grouping. The remaining test is one of
adjacency. Based on the unique set-up of these facilities as described
above and previous EPA determinations, (see attached) this office agrees
that the two facilities can be considered adjacent, and therefore, may be
treated as one source for the purpose of PSD review.
Since the two segments of the source are located in a non-attainment
area, I would like to emphasize that the use of this determination is
contingent upon the adoption of the PSD definition of "source" for non-
attainment review.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please contact
Janet Farella of my staff at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Peter Wyckoff (OGC)
Mike Trutna (OAQPS)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
DATE: JUN 8, 1981
SUBJECT: Defining Two Separate Plants as One Source
FROM: Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air Programs Branch
TO: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Enforcement Division, (E341)
Region V has been asked by the State of Michigan and the General Motors
Corporation to make a determination as to whether or not two plants on
different sites constitute a single source. The purpose of this memo is to
describe the circumstances related to this request and seek your counsel
before we respond to the State and GM. We request your recommendation on
our tentative position by June 12, 1981 at which time we will be responding
to the State.
During the assembly of some vehicles in Lansing, Michigan, auto bodies are
made in the Fisher Body plant and then are transported by truck to an
Oldsmobile plant one mile away. At the Olds plant the bodies are placed on
frames and the fenders and hoods are attached. At the present time the
bodies are painted at the first location and the fenders and hoods are
painted at the second location. GM is proposing to move the painting
operations to one of the locations.
Under the present definition of source in nonattainment areas, GM would have
to meet the Part D new source review requirements. However, under the March
12, 1981 proposed definition of source, the curtailment of painting at one
place in a source could be used to offset additional painting elsewhere in
the source and thus the source would avoid the Federal new source review
requirements. The issue of concern for GM is whether or not these two
plants which are separated by approximately 4,500 feet can be considered as
one source.
Our investigation has revealed that both plants come under the same SIC
code. Additionally, the two plants are the only facilities served by a
special spur of the C&O Railroad for raw material delivery and in the future
the spur will be used to move unpainted parts from one plant to another when
the painting is done at one location. Furthermore, at other locations in
the State where vehicles are assembled in this two step body/frame fashion,
the two plants are under one roof or are connected by a conveyor for
transporting the bodies.
It is our opinion that these Lansing plants are functionally equivalent to a
source and that U.S. EPA has the flexibility to arrive at that conclusion.
The Federal Register of August 7, 1980 on page 52695 states the following
when discussing proximity of PSD activities "EPA is unable to say precisely
at this point how far apart activities must be in order to be treated
separately. The Agency can answer that question only through case-by-case
determinations." With the distance between the two plants less than one
mile and the plants being connected by a railroad used only for GM, we
believe that the plants meet the requirement of being adjacent and therefore
can be considered one source.
Such an interpretation appears to be consistent with U.S. EPA's position
which appears in the March Federal Register on page 16281. This position as
stated, when supporting the change in "source" definition, is "even outside
of these 'construction moratorium' areas under the present regulatory
scheme, the
2
August 7 definition can act as a disincentive to new investment and
modernization by discouraging modifications to existing facilities."
We have concluded that should the March 12, 1981 proposed definition of
source become final, the State under the existing SIP though a variance from
the Commission will be able to issue a State permit to GM. The State will
also require a phased in LAER by 1986. Thus, the environmental costs of
this interpretation will be negligible.
Please contact Ronald J. Van Mersbergen at FTS 886-6056 for further
information.
cc: E. Smith
M. Trutna
![[logo] US EPA](../gif/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}