Bill,
sorry
,
I
got
your
email
address
backwards.
Of
course,
EPA
has
your
email
name
backwards!

Robert
J.
Martineau,
Jr.
Waller
Lansden
Dortch
&
Davis,
PLLC
511
Union
Street,
Suite
2700
Nashville,
TN
37219
Phone:
(
615)
850­
8910
Cell:
(
615)
491­
7901
Fax:
(
615)
244­
6804
E­
mail:
rmartineau@
wallerlaw.
com
Website:
http://
www.
wallerlaw.
com
>
­­­­­
Original
Message­­­­­
>
From:
Bob
Martineau
>
Sent:
Friday,
July
15,
2005
4:
45
PM
>
To:
William
Wehrum
(
E­
mail)
>
Cc:
'
bill.
harnett@
epa.
gov'
>
Subject:
Legislative
History
Question
­
ethanol
plants
>
>
>
Bill­
>
>
I
have
been
looking
to
track
down
the
information
you
requested
re
the
77
amendments
and
the
list
of
28
categories
that
are
PSD
at
100
tpy.
The
categories
came
out
of
the
Senate
bill.
In
looking
at
the
history
I
did
see
statements
suggesting
the
list
was
pared
down
from
a
longer
list
presented
by
EPA
(
see
95
Cong.
Misc
Docs.
1977,
CAA
77
Legis
Hist.
36
at
page
27.
(
Senate
Comm.
Report
,
Section
by
Section
Analysis
of
S.
252
and
S.
253))
I
have
not
found
the
actual
longer
EPA
list
in
a
committee
report
.
I
spoke
with
Gary
Mc
Cutchen
,
however,
and
he
confirmed
what
I
understood,
that
the
28
category
list
was
largely
based
on
source
category
list
developed
for
NSPS
purposes
and
that
it
was
carried
over
to
the
PSD
provisions.
I
have
located
an
EPA
document
from
77
which
indicates
they
were
looking
at
200
source
categories
for
NSPS
standards.
There
is
a
discussion
and
breakdown
of
the
types
of
sources
in
the
"
chemical
processing
industry".
It
is
clear
from
that
document,
that
corn
based
ethanol
fuel
production
was
not
in
any
way
contemplated
in
the
definition
of
"
chemical
process
plant"
back
in
1977.
Attached
is
an
excerpt
from
that
EPA
report.
See,
pages
iii,
and
36­
38.
>
>
In
further
support,
I
spoke
with
an
engineer
involved
with
ethanol
production
since
its
inception.
He
said
the
first
fuel
ethanol
production
facility
did
not
even
begin
to
make
ethanol
fuel
until
November
1978.
(
There
were
some
beverage
ones
prior
to
that
time
of
course
)
It
was
an
ADM
facility
in
Decatur,
Illinois.
The
engineer
indicated
ADM
made
ethanol
after
request
from
then
President
Carter
in
response
to
the
energy
crisis
occurring
at
that
time.
Thus,
as
a
practical
matter,
as
there
were
no
plants
in
existence
at
the
time
Congress
considered
the
list
it
would
be
fair
to
conclude
that
Congress
could
not
have
intended
that
type
of
plant
to
be
among
the
type
of
source
intended
to
be
covered
at
the
lower
100tpy
threshold
because
of
their
significance
and
impact.
>
>
I
hope
this
information
is
of
assistance.
If
you
need
additional
information,
I
can
dig
further
to
see
if
I
can
track
down
the
actual
list
given
to
Congress.
>
>
Again
,
many
thanks
for
your
assistance
on
this
issue.
>
>
>
<<
Impact
of
NSR
Standards>>
>
>
>
>
Robert
J.
Martineau,
Jr.
>
Waller
Lansden
Dortch
&
Davis,
PLLC
>
511
Union
Street,
Suite
2700
>
Nashville,
TN
37219
>
Phone:
(
615)
850­
8910
>
Cell:
(
615)
491­
7901
>
Fax:
(
615)
244­
6804
>
E­
mail:
rmartineau@
wallerlaw.
com
>
Website:
http://
www.
wallerlaw.
com
>

***********************************************************
WE
ARE
REQUIRED
BY
IRS
CIRCULAR
230
TO
INFORM
YOU
THAT
ANY
STATEMENTS
CONTAINED
HEREIN
ARE
NOT
INTENDED
OR
WRITTEN
TO
BE
USED,
AND
CANNOT
BE
USED,
BY
YOU
OR
ANY
OTHER
TAXPAYER,
FOR
THE
PURPOSE
OF
AVOIDING
ANY
PENALTIES
THAT
MAY
BE
IMPOSED
BY
FEDERAL
TAX
LAW.
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
­
The
information
contained
in
this
message
and
any
attachments
is
intended
only
for
the
use
of
the
individual
or
entity
to
which
it
is
addressed,
and
may
contain
information
that
is
privileged,
confidential
and
exempt
from
disclosure
under
applicable
law.
If
you
have
received
this
message
in
error,
you
are
prohibited
from
copying,
distributing,
or
using
the
information.
Please
contact
the
sender
immediately
by
return
e­
mail
and
delete
the
original
message.
