P. 1



# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 45 ) ll-C- 3
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19AM

Sheet 45of 147P. 2

jC' 0ST

t r . 

# las ; UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENC Y Offic e o fAi rQualit yPlannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 

## IE-C- 3

Ms
. Christin e Shave r Environmenta l Defens e Fun d 140 5 Arapaho e Avenu e Boulder , C O 8030 2 Dea r Ms

. Shaver : 

# jj ) 

# B B E m I ?
OC TI3199 3 

# H)
EP AAI R DOCKE T

• mii.m'.i.j'tT . „itut^",V,, l !r 4 {Tfc.ii'* , •Lin n•gr vrtiniMfc-jiXTrrri I wan t t o thank yo u fo r you r participatio ni nth e firs t meetin g o f th e Ne wSourc e Revie w(NSR ) Subcommitte e o n , Jul y21-22 , 1993
. A s yo u recall , w e agree d a t th e meetin g t o for msi xsubgroup s t o focu s dialogu e o n specifi c area s regarding Clas s I are a impact s an d th e bes t availabl e contro l technology analysis
. A s wa s discusse d a t th e NS RReformmeeting , th e charg e o f eac hsubgroup i s t o formulat e draf t recommendation s o n thei r respectiv e topic s fo r th e ful l subcommitte e t o revie wa t th e nex t NS RReformmeeting , currentl yschedule d fo r Septembe r 2 7 and 28
. Enclose d i s a lis t o f th e subgrou p member s an

d th e charg e t o eac h o f th e subgroups , setting fort hth e goal s o f eac hsubgrou p and th e question s w e woul d lik e themt o consider
. Th e charge s a s outline d ar e derive d fro mth e discussion s a t th e Jul ymeetin g an d ar e no t intende d t o represen t a n Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y (EPA ) positio n o n th e issue s presented
. Th e subgroup s are , o f course , fre e t o addres s an d offe r draf t recommendation s o n an y additiona l issue s tha t aris e durin g thei r discussions
. A s discusse d a t th e Jul ymeeting , w e woul d lik e eac h subgrou p t o submi t a brie f interi mrepor t t o EPAb yAugus t 30
. W e woul d lik e th e subgroups ' draf t recommendations , an ysummary o f th e groups 7 discussions , an d an ydissentin g view s t o b e submitte d b

ySeptembe r 17
. Thi s wil l allo wEPAt o distribut e th e report s t o al l subcommitte e member s abou t a wee k befor e th e ful l subcommitte e meeting
. Th e subgroups ' interi m an d fina l report s shoul d b e sen t t o Davi d Solomon , Chief , Ne wSourc e Revie w Section
. David' s staf f wil l handl e th e coordinatio n an d distributio n o f al l subgrou p material s t o th e ful l subcommitte e prio r t o th e nex t meeting
. I f yo u hav e an yquestion s concerning th e enclose d materials , pleas e contac t hi ma t (919 ) 541-5375
.P. 3

I appreciat e you r willingnes s t o devot e tim e t o thi s subgrou p effort
. Pleas e fee l fre e t o cal l m e i f yo u hav e an y question s concernin g th e subcommitte e activities
. Sincerely ,
Lydi a N
. Wegma n Deput yDirecto r Offic e o f Ai r Qualit yPlanning

an d Standard s Enclosure sP. 4

SUBCOMMITTE E MEMBER S

Nam e Affiliatio n Davi d Aldorfe r Pravee n Ama r Barbar a Bankof f Michae l Bar r Andre a Bea r Fiel d WilliamBecke r WilliamBumper s Mar k Carne y Davi d Car r Pamel a Fagger t Davi d Hawkin s Jame s Jewet t Chuc k Knaus s WilliamLewi s Davi d McAvo y Vivia n Mclntir e RayMenebroke r John Pau l WilliamPederse n Patric k Rahe r Lesli e Ritt s Ernes t Rosenber g Christin e Shave r Wend ySim s Donal d Thiele r Josep hWilliam s Richar d Zbur Genera l Motor s NESCAU M Siemen s Corporatio n Pillsbury , Madiso n& Sutro/Nationa l Associatio no f Manufacturer s Hunto n & Williams/Util
. Ai r Reg
. Grp
. STAPPA/ALAPC O Howery& Simon/Clas s o f '8 5 Utilitie s Electri c Generatio nAssoc
. Souther nEnvironmenta l LawCente r V ADepartmen t o f Ai r Pollutio n Contro l * Natura l Resource s Defens e Counci l Inte l Corporatio n Swindle r & Berli n Morgan , Lewi s & Bockiu s El i Lill y Eastma nChemica l Compan y C AAi r Resource s Boar d Regiona l Ai r Pollutio nContro l Agenc y Perkin s Coie/Counci l fo r Clea n Ai r Implement
. Hoga n & Hartso n Chadbourn e & Parke/NEDA-CAR P Occidenta l Petroleum/Chemica l Manuf
. Assoc
. Environmenta l Defens e Fund ORDepartmen t o f Environmenta l Qualit y W I Departmen t o f Natura l Resource s W ADepartmen t o f Ecology Latha m& Watkin s
Invite d Federa l Participant s

Nam e Affiliatio n John Bunya k Richar d Fishe r Lynn e Hamjia n Marci a Spink Bruc e Mille r Davi d Ke e Davi d Bray Bil l Tyndal l Gre g Foot e Chri s Knope s Nationa l Par k Servic e USD AFores t Servic e EPARegio nI EPARegio nII I EPARegio nIV EPARegio nV EPARegio n X EPAOPA R EPAOGC EPAOPP EClea n Ai rAc tAdvisor yCommitte e

NS R PERMITTIN G NEA R CLAS S I AREA S PROCEDURE S AN D COORDINATION : Lesli e Ritts , Chadborn e an d Par k (Leader) Davi d Hawkins , NRD C Debbi e Potter , USD AForestServic e De e Morse , NP S State/local representativ e t o b e name d Dan deRoeck, EPA, NSRS Vickie Patton, EPA, OGC

DETERMINATIO N O FADVERS E IMPACTS , INCLUDIN G INCREMENTS
. AN D AQRVs : Ric h Fisher , USD AFores tServic e (Leader) Andre a Bea rField , Hunto n an d William s Davi d Carr , Souther n Environmenta l La wCente r Vivia n Mclntire , Eastma n Chemica l Compan y Willia m Pedersen , Perkin s Coi e Tonni e Maniero , NP S State/loca l representativ e t o be name d Dennis Crumpler, EPA, NSRS Dan deRoeck, EPA, NSRS Vickie Patton, EPA, OGC Bruce Pofkowsky, EPA, ASB MITIGATIO N O FSOURC E IMPACTS : Mar k Carney , EGA/U.S
. Generatin g Co
. (Leader) S
. Willia m Becker , STAPPA/ALAPC O (tenative ) Pamel a Faggert , Virgini a AP C Chri s Shaver , EO F Joh n Bunyak , NP S State/local representativ e t o be name d USD AFores tServic e representativ e t o be name d Mark Kataoka, EPA, OGC Dan deRoeck, EPA, NSRS Bill Tyndall, EPA, OPAR Ne wSourc e Revie wRefor m Subcommitte e Subgroup s BACT/LAE R DETERMINATION S BACT/LAE R CLEARINGHOUS E AN D PRESUMPTIV E BACT : Davi d McAvoy , El i Lill y(Leader) Mar k Carney , EGA/U.S
. Generatin g Davi d Car r(o rsubstitute) , Souther n Environmenta l La wCente r Vivia n Mclntire , Eastma n Chemica l Compan y Ra yMenebroker , Californi a Ai rResources Board Joh n Paul , Regiona l Ai rPollutio n Contro l Agenc y(ALAPCO ) Patric k Raher , Hoga n &Hartso n Jo n Notar , NP S Dennis Crumpler, EPA, NSRS Robert Blaszczak, EPA, ESD Mark Kataoka, EPA, OGC BACT/LAE R CRITERIA : Willia m Bumpers , Hower y&Simo n (Leader ) Pravee n Amar , NESCAU M Andre a Bea rField , Hunto n an d William s Davi d Hawkins , NRD C Chuc k Knauss , Swindle r&Berli n Lesli e Ritts , Chadborn e an d Park e Donal d Theiler , Wisconsi n Departmen tofNatura l Resource s Joh n Bunyak , NP S Vickie Patton, EPA, OGC Ron Van Mersbergen, EPA, Region V David Solomon, EPA, NSRS Clara Poffenberger, EPA, SSCD INNOVATIV E CONTRO L TECHNOLOGIE S AN D POLLUTIO N PREVENTION : Barbara Bankoff , Siemen s (Leader) Davi d Aldorfer , Genera l Motor s Michae l Barr , Pillsbury , Madiso n &Sutro (NAM ) Ji m Jewett , Inte l Corporatio n To m Mica i (tenative) , NJDEP E Chri s Shaver , ED F Richard Zbur , Latha m &Watkin s Larry Elmore, EPA, NSRS Mark Kataoka, EPA, OGC Bill Tyndall, EPA, OPARP. 6

NS RReformSubGroup s

• Permitting Source s Wit hClas s I Impact s

- Procedure s and Coordinatio n

- Determinatio n o f Advers e Impact s (Increment s & AQRVs )

- Mitigatio n o f Sourc e Impact s

• BACT/LAE RDetermination s

- BACT/LAE RClearinghous e an d "Presumptive " BAC T

- BACT/LAE RCriteri a

- Innovativ e Contro l Technologie s an d Pollutio n Preventio nP. 7

Permittin

gSource s Wit hClas s I Impacts : Procedure s an d Coordination Description : Propose d source s whic hmay , o r actuall ydo , hav e a n advers e impac t o n Clas s I area s sometime s experienc e delay s i n receip t o f a fina l permi t determination
. Identifyin g step s tha t ca n b e take n t o ensur e earl yan d continue d involvemen t b yth e Federa l Land Manager' s (FLM's ) and th e publi c durin g th e preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) permi t revie w proces s ma yhel p avoi d suc hdelays
. Also , existin g PS D regulation s mayno t adequatel yaddres s th e importan t interrelationshi p betwee n th e FLMand th e permit-grantin g authorit yconcerning th e analysi s p f possibl e advers e impact s o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s an d th e ultimat e determinatio naf e t o whethe r suc himpact s warran t denia l of , o r condition s in , a PS D permit
. Goals : Provid e propose d recommendation s regardin g change s (regulatoryan

d other ) tha t wil l improv e th e overal l coordinatio n betwee n FLM's , peraitting authorities , permi t applicant s an d th e publi c t o ensur e Clas s I impac t issue s ar e raise d and addresse d i n a timel yan

d appropriat e manner . Questions : 1
. What

steps can be taken to reduce permitting delays resulting fromseparate FLM and permitting authority reviews? Also, howcan the administrative burden for determining whether an adverse impact mayoccur

in a Class I area be fairlydistributed among the involved parties? 2
. Pre-applicatio n meeting s betwee n th e applicant , permittin g authorit yan

d FLM' s a s wel l a s advance d FL Mnotificatio no f th e propose d projec t promot e earl ydiscussio no f Clas s I concern s an

d ca n reduc e "lat e hits " o n a projec t during th e public commen

t period
. Howcan FLM notification and

input (in advance of

the publiccomment period) be formalized within the PSDreviewprocess? In addition, howcan public input and concerns be addressed earlyin the PSDreview process for

a source with potential Class J

area impacts? 3
. What

can be done to ensure that FLM's have adequate opportunityto assess impacts of proposed

sources (or projects) and

to ensure that

adequate consideration is given to the FLM's adverse impact determinations? 4
. What

alternative means are available for resolving disagreements between the permitting authority, the FLM, applicant, and

publicover

a finding of

adverse impacts before a final

permit

is issued?R.fi ^

Permittin

gSource s withClas s I Impacts : Determinatio no f Advers e Impact s Description : Congres s establishe d th e Clas s I increment s a s wel l a s th e concep t o f ai r qualit yrelate d value s (AQRVs ) a s th e measure s fo r assessing whethe r propose d emissio n increase s ca n b e allowe d nea r Clas s I areas . I f n o incremen t violatio ni s predicted , th e FLM' s mus t demonstrat e t o th e satisfactio no f th e Stat e tha t a n advers e AQR V impac t wil l occur . If , however , a n incremen t violatio n i s predicted , the nth e sourc e mus t demonstrat e t o th e satisfactio n o f th e FLMtha t n o advers e AQR V impac t wil l resul t fromth e source' s emissions
. Th e identificatio n o f specifi c AQRV s fo r eac hClas s I area , and th e definitio n o f dat a an d criteri a neede d t o analyz e adequatel yth e potentia l impact s o f th e propose d sourc e woul d bot hb e usefu l i n accelerating th e revie wprocess . Severa l subcommitte e member s suggeste d tha t d e minimi s threshold s woul d b e appropriat e fo r determining impact s o n bot hth e increment s an

d AQRVs ; however , EPAha s no t issue d nationall y applicabl e thresholds
. I n addition , member s suggeste d tha t som e assessmen t o f cumulativ e impact s i s necessaryt o accoun t fo r th e ne t impact s o n AQRVs
. Goals : Propos e recommendation s fo r establishing th e necessary procedure s an

d criteri a fo r performing an d evaluating advers e impac t determinations
. Questions : 1
. Permi t applicant s an d permitting authoritie s nee d mor e specifi c informatio n concerning th e particula r AQRV s associate d wit hindividua l Clas s I area s t o analyz e Clas s I impacts
. What

kindsof

information and

common criteria related to AQFV'sand

effectsare available, or can be made available, to industry, the permitting authoritiesand the publicto improve the AQRV analysesand

evaluation of

the analyses(e.g., FLM screening values)? 2. What

isthe extent

of the distance or

areaover

which existing source emissionsshould be considered

in aClassI analysis? What

criteriashould

be used

to determine which existing source emissionsare included in the ClassI

impact analysis?P. 9

3
. Clas s I increment s d o no t exis t fo r tropospheri c ozone . I n th e absenc e o f modeling technique s fo r predictin g ambien t ozon e levels , a PS D incremen t woul d b e meaningless
. Ye t hig hozon e level s i n man yClas s I area s hav e bee n identified
. What

alternatives to a numerical PSDincrement for ozone are available to protect Class I

areas? Should EPA consider

emissions densityzoning or other nonincrement measures under

the Clean Air

Act § 166? 4
. Ther e ar e ofte n disagreement s a s t o wha t distanc e froma Clas s I are a a ne wsourc e mus t locat e i n orde r t o avoi d a Clas s I analysis
. Th e EPA' s curren t polic yi s tha t source s withi n 10 0 k

mb e addressed , wit hcase-by-cas e consideratio n o f mor e distan

t sources . What

changes or

clarifications to this existing guidance on when a Class I analysis is required

would improve the current system? 5
. Th e EPAuse s significanc e level s fo r determinin g significan t ambien t impact s o n th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s (NAAQS ) an d PS D increments
. Ar e national significance levels for Class I

increments appropriate where there are existing violations and howwould

such levels be set (e.g., Virginia and National

Park Service significance levels)? Conceivably , significanc e level s coul d allo wne w source s t o continu e t o b e constructe d an d potentiall y exacerbat e violation s o f th e incremen t indefinitel y(i.e. , th e overflowing cu p analogy)
. Should

the use of significance levels be restricted in such circumstances? What objective criteria, e.g., significance levels, can be developed

for determining adverse impacts on AQRV rs? Should significance levels be developed specificallyfor

each AQRV and howwould

such levels be set? Should newsources be banned in anyarea experiencing increment violations unless the impacts of

the newsource are mitigated and the existing increment

violation cured? Should EPA issue SIPcalls to cure increment

violations? 6
. If de minimis criteria for adverse impacts are developed, what opportunityduring the permitting process can be made available to rebut

presumptions concerning impacts less than and greater

than a de minimis level and what would be the criteria bywhich these presumptions could be rebutted? 7
. Should

a standard

analytical

approach (and

evaluation criteria) be prescribed for determining a finding of adverse impacts (e.g., rules of thumb, such as distance and pollutant

relationships resulting in adverse impacts on Class I areas)?P.1 0

8
. A n AQRV

Clearinghous e i s bein g considere d a s a mean s o f bette r informing applicant s and permittin g authoritie s o f th e AQRV s o f interes t o r concer n fo r a particula r Clas s I ' area . What

type of

information would be the most

useful for such a clearinghouse to contain and what mechanisms exist

to ensure that

the information is submitted? 9 . What

criteria should

be met

by the State/FLM

in rejecting a finding of

adverse impact/no adverse impact? Pas t permitting dispute s hav e expose d th e absenc e o f standard s fo r State s t o us e i n justifying rejectio n o f a n FLM' s advers e impac t finding
. Conversely , standard s ma yb e usefu l fo r guidin g a n FLM' s decisio no n whethe r t o rejec t a findin g o f n o advers e impact
.p.1 1

Permittin

gSource s wit hClas s I Impacts : Mitigationo f Sourc e Impac t Description : Onc e i t ha s bee ndemonstrate d tha t a propose d sourc e wil l adversel yimpac t a Clas s I area , th e sourc e ha s a n opportunit yt o mitigat e it s advers e impac t i n orde r t o receiv e it s PS D permit
. Adevic e tha t ha s bee n use d t o mitigat e advers e impact s i s t o requir e emission s offset s a s a conditio nfo r granting th e permit
. Goals : Propos e recommendation s a s t o th e rang e o f measure s tha t shoul d b e considere d fo r ne wmajo r source s t o mitigat e thei r ow n Clas s I advers e impacts
. Questions : 1
. What

specificcriteria can be developed for determining appropriate offsets to mitigate Class I area impacts of

new sources? 2
. What

specificmitigation measures (e.g., offsets, LAER) should be considered

for sources locating in the vicinityof Class I areas alreadyexperiencing, or projected

to experience, adverse impacts on AQRV's? Should the measure be shown to be directlyrelated to the particular

impact? 3
. What

role can pre-construction or post-construction monitoring serve in areas where projected adverse impact fromthe proposed

source is of

concern?P.1 2

BACT/LAERDeterminations : BACT/LAE RClearinghous e an d "Presumptive " BAC T Description : Currentl yther e i s n o singl e comprehensiv e repositoryo f BACT/LAE Rtechnolog yinformatio nwhic hpermittin g agencies , applicant s an d th e publi c ca nacces s t o provid e a commo n basi s fo r selecting an d comparing BACT/LAE Rtechnologies
. Thi s lead s t o uncertaint yregarding th e contro l option s whic har e availabl e t o th e sources . I n addition , regulate d partie s hav e expresse d th e nee d fo r update s t o th e informatio ni n th e clearinghous e s o tha t al l partie s ar e awar e o f whethe r th e sourc e ha s actuall ybee n constructe d an d ho weffectiv e and costl yth e contro l technologyi s i n practice
. Consideratio n o f ne wo r improve d BAC T (an

d LAER ) technologie s whic hmaybecom e availabl e onl yafte r a permi t applicatio n ha s bee nsubmitte d ca n creat e additiona l uncertaint yi n th e technologyreview
. Curren t polic y require s consideratio n o f ne wtechnologie s fo r BAC T and LAE R unti l th e permi t issuanc e date , an d som e subcommitte e member s hav e asserte d tha t thi s cause s delay s i nth e issuanc e o f some permit s and hav e als o expresse d concer n abou t th e consideratio n o f technologyfrom othe r countries , becaus e o f differin g environmenta l regulation s an d potentiall yunprove nperformanc e o f technology
. Balancin g thes e concerns , environmenta l group s an d th e publi c hav e expresse d interes t i n greate r opportunit yt o revie w an d commen t o n contro l technolog ydete:rminations
. Ofte nth e publi c firs t learn s o f th e propose d technologyfo r a sourc e shortl ybefor e o r during th e publi c commen t perio d o n a propose d permit
. Th e BAC T analysi s i s a sourc e specific , case-by-cas e analysis
. Som e member s o f th e subcommitte e hav e show n interes t i n th e developmen t o f a nationa l "presumptive " BAC T fo r individua l sourc e categorie s fo r th e purpos e o f bot hstreamlinin g an d adding mor e certaint yt o th e BAC T selectio n process . Goals : Propos e recommendation s fo r improvement s i n collecting , characterizing an

d disseminating contro l technologyinformatio n including ho wth e informatio nclearinghous e ca nb e kep t current
. Evaluat e th e feasibility , including th e impac t o nth e BAC T process , o f presumptiv e BAC T fo r individua l sourc e categories
. Questions : 

### 1
. What

revisionsand

improvementsto the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLCH) can be implemented to ensure a comprehensive, all-inclusive database and what mechanisms exist to ensure the RBLCH iscurrent

withrespect

to available technologiesand the costsand

performance of technologiesonce theyare in operation?P.1 3

8 2 . How would

a presumptive BACT/LAER be established and how would the development

of new orimproved

control technologies be factored into a presumptive BACT/LAER to ensure it

remained

current? 3 . Is there a way to reconcile the case-by-case andtechnologyforcing nature of

BACT with a "presumptive- orguideline control technology determination fora category of sources? Should EPA simply identify what is currently the most stringent

technology and

identify that

as presumptive BACT? 4 . What

additional

mechanisms exist to involve the public early in the control

technology review? 5 . How should

technology demonstrated outside of

the U.S. be considered

for BACT orLAER purposes?P.1 4

BACT/LAE

RDeterminations : BACT/LAE RCriteri a Description : I n brief , EPAcurren t guidanc e o n BAC T provide s tha t al l availabl e contro l technologie s b e ranke d i n descendin g orde r o f contro l effectiveness
. Th e PS D applican t firs t examine s th e mos t stringent—o r "top"—alternative
. Tha t alternativ e i s establishe d a s BAC T unles s th e applican t demonstrates , and th e permitting authorit yagrees , tha t technica l considerations , o r energy , environmental , o r economi c impact s justif ya conclusio n tha t th e mos t stringen t technologyi s no t "achievable " i n tha t case . I f th e mos t stringen t technolog yi s eliminate d i n thi s fashion , the n th e nex t mos t stringen t alternativ e i s considered , an d s o on . Th e LAE Ri s th e mos t stringen t emissio nlimitatio nderive d from : 1 ) th e mos t stringen t limitatio ncontaine d i n th e implementatio n pla n o f an yStat e fo r suc hclas s o r categoryo f source ; o r 2 ) th e mos t stringen t emissio nlimitatio nachieve d i n practic e b

ysuc hclas s o r categoryo f source . Whil e th e existing procedure s fo r consideratio no f technologie s (starting wit hth e mos t stringent ) appea r t o b e relativel ystraightforward , ther e ar e difference s o f opinio n a s t o th e appropriat e factor s t o b e considere d i n determining wha t constitute s BAC T an d i n some case s LAER
. Goals : T o identify , withi nth e framewor k o f EPA' s curren t BAC T an d LAE Rpolicies , propose d clarification s o r additiona l specifi c guidanc e tha t woul d add mor e certaint yt o an d streamlin e th e BAC T an d LAE Ranalyses
. Questions : 1
. Is it

appropriate for

the financial

condition or

competitive position of

a companyto playa role in the BACT or LAER analysis? If

yes, how? 2
. What

criteria are appropriate for determining if

an otherwise demonstrated technologyis a candidate for technologytransfer? 3. In terms of

EPA involvement

in the BACT

analysis, what

type of practice should

EPA implement

regarding when a technology is or is not available for

BACT consideration purposes? How should a cutoff

date be implemented for the purpose of limiting what

is an available control technologyfor consideration in the BACT processes? 4
. What

additional

specificguidance on environmental, energy and economicimpacts would add more certaintyto, or otherwise improve, the BACT analysis process, while still promoting the use of state-of-the-art

controls technologies?P.1 5

1 0 5 . To what

extent is it appropriate forthe BACT analysis to require the source to considerotheralternatives to the source configuration that are eitherinherently less polluting (e.g., alternative fuels orprocesses) orprovide an overall

environmental

benefit? 6 . What

improvements can be made to the LAER requirement to provide applicants with more flexibility in achieving or otherwise complying with state-of-the-art emission levels?P.1 6

1 1 BACT/LAE

RDeterminations : Innovativ e Contro l Technolog y an d Pollutio

nPrevention Description : Some member s o f th e subcommitte e identifie d th e nee d fo r additiona l guidanc e o n ho winnovativ e contro l technology an d pollutio n preventio n coul d b e incorporate d int o ne wsourc e revie w(NSR)
. Th e NS Rrules , 4 0 CF R51.16 6 (s ) and 4 0 CF R52.2 1 (v) , provid e a mechanis mfo r permitting a n innovativ e contro l technology
. T o obtai n approva l fo r a n innovativ e contro l technology , th e owne r o r operato r o f a propose d majo r stationary sourc e o r majo r modificatio nmus t petitio n EPA' s Administrato r i n writin g befor e th e clos e o f th e publi c commen t period
. The * owner/operato r mus t agre e t o achiev e a leve l o f continuou s emission s reductio n equivalen t t o tha t whic hwoul d b e require d i f BAC T wa s installed
. Additiona l requirement s ar e outline d i n thes e tw o portion s o f th e NS Rrules
. T o date , request s fo r innovativ e contro l technolog ywaiver s hav e bee n limited
. Th e Pollutio n Preventio nAc t o f 199 0 define d pollutio n preventio n a s "an

ypractic e whic hreduce s th e amoun t o f an y hazardou s substance , pollutan t o r contaminan t entering an ywast e strea mo r otherwis e release d int o th e environment. " I n a memorandu

mdate d Jun e 15 , 1993 , Caro l Browner , EPAAdministrator , outline d th e Agency' s positio n o n pollutio nprevention
. I n thi s memorandum , Ms
. Browne r committe d EPAt o integrating pollutio n preventio n int o everyEPAactivity , program , an d operation
. Goals : Propos e recommendation s fo r improving th e utilizatio n o f th e innovativ e contro l technolog ywaive r an

d incorporating consideratio n o f pollutio n preventio nproject s i n evaluatio no f wha t constitute s BAC T o r LAER
. Questions : 1
. What

changes to the current PSDinnovative control waiver, if any, can be made to encourage development of innovative controls and

strategies? 2
. Howcan pollution prevention and the benefits theyoffer be recognized

and encouraged

in BACT/LAER determinations? 3
. What

special considerations, if any, can be provided for innovative control

technologies when applied as LAER?