43 



Document E and memo from Assistant Chief of Air Quality Division 

 to Associate Director of Natural Resources, May 21, 1992, 

 Attachment 3, Document B at 2 and attachment C thereto. In 

 response to a Freedom of Information Act Request, we received 

 extensive documentation setting forth why the Park Service and 

 Forest Service should appeal the Hadson permit. However, we 

 received virtually no documentation supporting a decision not to 

 appeal. The only document received was an informal response to 

 the press which stated, "The National Park Service has appealed 

 similar state decisions in the past and has been overturned by 

 EPA." Unfortunately, that statement is categorically wrong. The 

 only permit the Park Service ever appealed (Multitrade) was 

 settled and EPA issued no decision. 



The Forest Service supervisor and Regional Forester also 

 sought to appeal the permit due to the plant's impacts on the 

 wilderness area. The Forest Service had calculated that this 

 plant alone would increase acid deposition at the wilderness area 

 by 2 or 3 percent. Streams at the wilderness area are already 

 suffering acid levels below a pH of 6.0. The Forest Service 

 prepared lengthy documents supporting the filing of an appeal. 

 See Attachment 3, Document F. Based on a review of the documents 

 provided by the Forest Service and the events that occurred, it 

 is our understanding that political appointees in the Department 

 of Agriculture prohibited the Forest Service from filing a 

 petition for review. 



The Southern Environmental Law Center, however, on behalf of 

 a coalition of environmental groups, did file an appeal of the 

 Hadson-Buena Vista permit on May 13. Fortunately, that appeal 

 was successful and the permit was remanded to the state of 

 Virginia to fully reconsider the findings of adverse impact made 

 by the Forest Service and Park Service. We believe that one of 

 the reasons the appeal was successful, was that EPA had 

 restructured its appeal review process so that decisions were 

 rendered by an environmental appeals board, rather than the 

 Administrator. Hopefully, this has better insulated the 

 decisionmakers from interference from political appointees above 

 them. As a result of our victory in the appeal, the applicant 

 has withdrawn the application and announced the plant will not be 

 pursued . 



The Hadson decision is helpful in that it makes clear that a 

 state must consider the merits of a specific quantified adverse 

 impact determination by a federal land manager. However, the 

 Hadson decision does not correct Virginia's faulty policy of not 

 requiring sources beyond 100 kilometers to be considered in the 

 increment analysis. The appeals board found that the Virginia 

 policy of excluding sources beyond 100 kilometers did not 

 contravene current agency policy, but reiterated the 

 Administrator's suggestion in the ODEC decision that Virginia re- 

 examine its current policy. It also urged EPA to move 



