p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 232)11-1-1 2 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:02 AM

Sheet 232 of 276P. 2 EL(2

II-I-12

NOTE : Part s o f thi s ite m ar e no t legible .P. 3 03/30^9 0 16:4 1 POLICY . PLANNIN G AN D ANALYSI S 

### 00 2



### Departmen t o

f Energ y Washington , O C 2058 5 MA R 3 • 199 0 

### MEMORANDU M TO :

FROM :

DAT E Dr . Roge r B . Porte r

Assistan t t o th e Presiden t fo r Economi c an d Domesti c Polic y Lind a G . Stunt z Us Deput y Unde r Secretar y Policy , Plannin g an d Analysi s Marc h 30 , 199 0
Enclose d ar e tw o alternative s fo r dealin g wit h th e Johnsto n Amendmen t a s w e discusse d thi s morning. Th e firs t keep s th e potential-to-potentia l tes t i n place , a s Johnsto n proposed . Th e secon d attempt s t o buil d ot f th e actual-to-actua l tes t preferre d b y EPA . Enclosure s cc : C . Boyde n Gra y Counse l t o th e Presiden t Teres a Gorma n Associat e Directo r fo r Environment , Energ y an d Natura l Resource s Offic e o f Polic y Developmen t Howar d Gruenspech t Davi d Rifki nP. 4

_03/30/9 0 16:4 1 POLICY . PLANNIN G AN D ANALYSI S 00 3



## WEPC O LANGUAG

E - POTENTIA L

Languag e Modif y Johnston' s amendmen twit h provision s t o ensure protectio n o f environmenta l values : O n pag e 446 , beginnin g o n lin e 3 , strike th e entiret y o f subsectio n (d ) throug

h lin e 2 o n pag e 447 . On pag e 449 , followin g lin e 3 , redesignat e subsectio n (c ) a s ne

w subsectio n (d) . O n page . 449 , followin g lin e 19 , inser tth e followin g ne w sectio n 416 : "APPLICABILIT Y O F NEW SOURC E REQUIREMENT S SEC . 416 . N o existin g stea m electri c utilit

y generatin g unitsubjectt o thi s titl e shal l b e subjec

tt o an y standard unde r sectio n 111(b ) o r b e require d t o obtai n a permitunde r sectio n 16 5 o r sectio n 17

3 a s a resulto f

any physical o r operationa l chang e tha toccur s a tsuch uni tafter th e date o f enactmen to f

thi s titl e provide d tha tan y such chang e doc s not : (a ) increas e th e maximu m potentia l capacit

y o f th e uni tt o emi tcriteri a pollutant s under it s physica l an d operationa l design ; (b ) caus e o r exacerbat e th e exceedenc e o f

an v national ambien tair qualit

y standar d promulgate d pursuan tt o sectio n 109 ; o r (c ) caus e th e exceedenc e o f

an v PS D incremen

to r visibilit

y protectio n limitatio n promulgate d pursuan tt

u Par tC . Pro s ) Us e o f

th e "potential-to-potcntial " les ti s clearl y understandabl e t o all parties . Th e concep ti s extremel y simpl e an d woul d no tinvit e litigation . 2 Environmenta

l objective s ar

c protecte d b y explici tprovision s whic h preclud e applicatio n o f

th e exemptio n t o an y facilit y creatin g a

n environmental problem . 3 Utilitie s ar

c permitte d t o conductbusines s i n any manne r the y wish , a s lon g a s environmental goal s ar c met . 4 Th e practica

l effecto f thi s provisio n is tha ti twoul d allow , i n som e cases , smal l increase s in emission s fro m plant s improvin g operationa l efficiency throug h intensiv e maintenanc e an d refurbishment .P. 5



### Con s 03/30/9 0 16:4 2 POLICY . PLANNIN G AN D ANALYSI S 00 4

Whatcvci emission s increase s migh tresul tar c already permitte

d b y existin g rules , i

f achieve d withou ta physical chang e a tth e facility , or i f th e physical chang e i s routine . Th e differenc e i s tha ta "non-routine " chang e woul d b e extende d th e sam e prerogative . Th e polic y wil l permitutilitie s t o pursu e man y change s whic h ar c acceptabl e unde r currentpolicy , bu twhich utilitie s ar c reluctan tt o implemen tbecaus e o f

fear , uncertainty , and dread , an d becaus e o f

thei r perceptio n o f

th e aggressiv e manne r i

n which EP

A has interpreted th e statute . Althoug h environmenta

l goal s ar c explicitl y protecte d b y th e limitation s adde d t o Johnston' s amendment , som e may argu e tha tth e proposa

l woul d permi

tadditiona l atmospheri c loadin g an d that , i n itself , i s undesirable . Settin g th e desirabilit y issu e aside , iti s probabl e tha t emission s woul d b e allowe d t o increas e somewha tunde r thi s provisio n (butno tmor

e tha n the y coul d otherwise , b y alternativ e avenues) . Moreover , atmospheri c loadin g o f S0 2 is already limited under the CA A b y th e S0 2 cap . Loadin g o f NO x i s diminishe d b

y th e requiremen

tfo r lo w NO x burner

s (ICF' s modellin g o f

NO x assume

d tha tal l powerplanL

s woul d operat

e a tmaximu

m practica

l capacit y factors) . Loading o f particulate matte r i s limite d b y curren tparticulate matte r regulation s (SIP's) , bu

twoul d likel y b e further limite d b y a universa

l minima l performance requiremen tfo r ESP's , dictate d b y Titl e I H o f th e amendment

s (ai r toxics) . Th e change s ar

e surgical . Th e traditional PS D progra m for ne w source s an d for al l existin g source s othe r than electri c utilitie s i s preserve d intact .

Thi s syste m will no trequir e som e activitie s t o resulti n applicatio n o f 'Bes tAvailabl e Contro l Technologies " (BACT) , a s woul d tb e curren tse t o f rules . Th e optic s ar

c poor . Som e peopl e wil l perceive a majo

r retrea ti n environmental protectio n policy . Th e chang e present s a convenien ttarge

t fo r advocate s o f

extremel y stringen tenvironmenta l polic y t o focu s upo

n in thei r advocac y arguments . Specifi c anecdotal example s o f majo r increase s i

n emission s ca

n b e cite d i n a n effor tt o impl y that

, thi s i s ba

d environmenta

l policy .P. 6
03/30/9 0 16:4 2 POLICY . PLANNIN G AN D ANALYSI S 00 5



## ALTERNATIV

E # 2

"APPLICABILIT Y Q F NE W SOURC E REQUIREMENT S SEC . 416 . N o existin g stea m electri c utilit

y generatin g uni tsubjec tt o thi s titl e shal l b e subjectt o an y standar d unde r sectio n 111(b ) o r b e required t o obtai n a permi tunde r sectio n 16. 5 o r sectio n 17

3 a s a resulto f

an y physica l o r operationa l chang e tha toccur s n tsuc h uni tafte r tha tdate o f enactmen to f

thi s titlej>rovidc d tha tan

y such chang e doc s not

L (a ) increas e th e maximu m hourl y emission s o f

an v criteri a ai r pollutant , base d on th e mos trecent1 0 year s o f

operation ; (b ) caus e o r exacerbat e th e exceedenc e o f

an v national ambien tai r Qualit y standard promulgate d pursuan tt o sectio n 109 ; o r (c ) caus e th e exceedenc e o f an v PS D incremen

to r visibiiit v protectio n limitatio n promulgate d pursuantt o Par tC . Pros & Con s Basicall y th e sam e a s primar y alternative , excep tth e optic s ar e better , sinc e th e wor d "potential " i s notused . PS D modification s woul d b e treated i n a manne r ver y simila r t o th e manne r i n whic h NSP S modification s ar e no w treated (effectively , b y emissio n rate , no tannua l tonnage) .