P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

226) ll-F-15 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17 PM Sheet 226 of 250 
P.2 

{ 

0 3 /lS*'9 5 19:3S ©20 2 20S 1620 

/ 

•USO XR.'AQ NPS .-.- AQMD-PPB ]003.'031 

u

 ' uf7*f/>KFor the reasons aet forth in the preamble, part 51 of chapter I -^/7 

of title AO of the Code of Federal Regulations le amended aa sBf&.M' 

follows: - **•*•/ 

PART 51-REQOIREMENTB POR PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND gOBKITTAt OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

1. The authority citation for part 51 is revised to read as 

follovet 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1), 7410, 7411, 7470-7479, 7491, 

7501-7508, 7601 and 7602, as amended by the 1990 .Amendments, Pub. 

L. NO. 101-549, 104 Stat.2399 (Kov. IS, 1990); 402, 409, 415 of 

the CAA as amended, 104 Stat. 2399, unless otherwise noted. • 

2. section 51.166 is amended as follows: 

S 51.166 Prevention of significant deterioration of air quality. 

(b) * * * 

(2)(i) * * * 

(iii) A physical change or change in the method of 

operation, for the purposes of assessing a major modification, 

shall not include: 

(H) Tho addition, replacement or use of a pollution control 

project at an existing emissions unit provided: 

(X) The project is determined by the permitting authority 

to be environmentally beneficial, and 

(2) The pro j eat does not include the replacement or 

reconstruction of an emissions unit. 

, (I) The installation, operation, cessation, or removal of a 

/ __gm_ogary Aclean coal technology or other temporary demonstration 

*• project, provided that the project complies with: 

* * 

v 

(L) Any activity or project undertaken at an emiosionc unit 

for which a Federally enforceable emissions limit has been 

established under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.160-

166, provided that: 

THIS DOCUMENT 18 A PRBLIXINARY 6TAFP WORKING DRAFT AND DOES MOT 

REPRESENT OPPICIAL EPA POLICY ON THE ISSUES DI8CUSSSD 

*•* November li, 1994 — ffilename 5i_l66^l.l(date la No-.)] ••• 

CO 0 01 

R5 v?i n 

, , i v VMV 104 io :io 

3

 :U 

0 XVJ 09*0 0 3111 Se/TZ/'ZO 
P.3 

03'15'9 3 19:3 9 ©20 2 20S 1620 •>ASO NRo-VQ NPS AQMD-PPB _001/03 1 

t ft S^ 

(1) The activity or project will not increase the maximum 

emissions rate, in pounds or kilograms per hour over the baseline 

emissions rate actually emitted by the emission unit at any time 

during th« 180 consecutive days which precede the date of the 

activity or project and the emissions increase is determined by: 

(1) Material balances, continuous emission monitoring' data, 

or manual emission tests using EPA-approved procedures, where 

available, and conducted under such conditions as the permitting 

authority vill specify to the owner or operator based on 

representative performance of the eaission units affected by the 

activity or project including at least three valid test runs 

conducted berore and at least three valid test runs conducted 

after the activity or project with all operating parameters which 

may affect emissions held constant to the maximum feasible degree 

for all such test runs, or 

(ii) Emission factors as specified in the latest iceu© of 

"Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission factors," EPA Publication 

No. AP-42, or other emission factors determined by the 

pennitting authority to be superior to AP-42 emission factors, in 

such cases where use of emission factors demonstrates that the 

emission level resulting from the activity or project will 

clearly not increase emissions and the permitting authority 

determines that emissions testing is not feasible; 

(2) The activity or project would not require a revision to, 

or cause an exceedance of, any Federally enforceable limit or 

condition in a permit issued under 40 CPR 52.21 or regulations 

approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.160-166; 

(3) The activity or. project does not inolude the replacement 

or reconstruction of an emissions unit, and 

L 

ALTERNATIVE"!^ 

(4) The Federally enforceable emissions Uni t at the time of 

the change is at least as stringent as the emission limit in tho 

permit most recently issued under regulations approved pursuant 

to 40 CFR Sl.l6L»(iiJ (a) of Sl.i66(j) for emission units of the 

same class or source category. 

ALTERNATIVE 2 N 

(4) The Federally enforceable emissions limit at the time of 

the change is at least as stringent as the average emisaion limit 

established in the permits issued under regulations approved 

pursuant to 40 CPR 51.165(a)(2) or 51.l66(j) during the preceding 

THIS DOCUXENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF VORJtINQ DRAFT 'AND DOSS NOT 

REPRE8ENT OPPICIAL EPA POLICY ON TEB ISSUES DISCUSSED 

eee UovembftT 11, 1994 — (filename 51 166 1.1 (date ia Nov.)] ••• 

ioo PI V.MV 10J JO ZJ0 ft W J ft c • ft ft rjtt T 
P.4 

3 years for emission units of the same class or source category. 

ALTERNATIVE O A 

(4) The Federally enforceable emissions limit at the time of 

the change is not more than 10 percent less stringent than the 

emission limit in the permit most recently issued under 

regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(2) or 5l.l66(j) 

for an emissions unit of the same class or source category. 

ALTERNATIVE 3B 

(4) The Federally enforceable emissions limit at the time of 

the change is not more than 10 percent less stringent than the 

average emission limit ln the permits issued under regulations 

approved pursuant to 40 CF.R 51.165(a)(2) or 51.l66(j) during the 

preceding 3 years for emissions units of the same class or source 

category. 

(5) The permitting authority may presume that a source 

satisfies paragraph (b) (2) (iii) (L) (4) of this section if: 

(i) The activity or project would occur no later than 120 

consecutive months from the date of issuance of the permit issued 

under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165, 51.166 or 

under 52.21 which established the currently applicable emission 

limit for the emissions unit, 

(ii) The activity or project would ocour no later than 12 0 

consecutive months from the date of issuance of the permit issued 

under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.160*164 which 

established the currently applicable emission limit for the 

emissions unit provided that the permit was issued under 

regulations that were determined by EPA to provide for permits 

that contain federally enforceable emission limitations that 

satisfy paragraph (b) (2) (iii) (L) (4) or this section, or 

(iii) The activity or project would occur no later than 60 

consecutive months from the date that the permitting authority 

made a determination, with public notice and opportunity for 

public comment and EPA disapproval, that the emissions unit 

satisfied paragraph (b) (2) (iii) (L) (4) of this section. 

(M) Any activity or project undertaken at an existing nonemitting unit at a source provided; 

,5^ (l) The operation of the non-emitting unit at maximum rated 

0

fO-,T capdeitv would not result in -an emissions unit at the source to 

n -A 

\ '~T X.SIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

VjJ REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TBS ISSUES DX60U86ED 

j)'J- *** November 11, 1994 — [filename Si 166 l.Kdate in Nov.)] **e 

^ '""• . 

V

3 

3C&: 

too Pi WV 1QA Af) ZAQ~ 0 _VJ TC'OO 3l U .(t/lS/ZO 
_T__ *___ 

03'15/9 5 19:1 0 O20220 S 1620 »'ASO NR/AQ NPS —»-. AQMD-PPB @)006.'031 

exceed any Federally.enforceable permit limit on source 

operations or emissions, 

(2) A change to an existing non-emitting unit would not 

increase the maximum rated capacity of the non-emitting unit, 

' (3) Tho activity or project will neither cause an existing 

non-emitting unit to begin emitting nor replace an existing nonemitting; unit with an emissions unit, and 

(4) The addition of a new non-emitting unit provided that 

any increase in emissions from an emissions unit resuicing-frora 

increase utilization to accommodate the new unit' will be 

determined as the actual emissions increase expected when the new 

non-emitting unit is operated at maximum rated capacity. 

* » * * * 

(19) Undemonstrated technology/application (UT/A) means any 

system, process, material, or treataent technology that has not 

been adequately demonstrated in practice, but would have a 

substantial likelihood£to operate effectively. and/to aohieve 

either equal or greater continuous reductions ofnair pollutant 

emissions than any demonstrated system, or comparable emission 

reductions at lower cost, lower energy input, or with lesser nonair environmental impacts. 

**** * » 

*~? ) • • t-.•rr-.'-**" 

(21) (i) * * * i*>7^f

 pf^ " 

(ii) Aetual emissions shall be calculated using the unit's 

actual operating Jioura, production rates, and types of materials 

processed, stored, or combusted during any 12 consecutive months 

during the 120/aonsecutive months which precede the commencement 

Ot construction ef a proposed physical or operational change at 

^th r smiTi-;.; tyn4 any current, federally enforceable limitation on 

C gmleeionc^ as required by the Act, including, but not limited to, 

best available^, technology, lowest achievable emissions rate, 

reasonably available control technology or maximum achievable / 

control technology. /vf-*-

***** tc*Jtv4 

(22) Complete means, in reference to an application for a 

permit required under this section, that the application has been 

deemed by the.permitting authority to contain all the information 

necessary for processing the application in accordance witn the 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY 8TAPP WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TEE ISSUES DXSCU8SED 

eee November 11, 1994 — [filename 51_l6fi_l. Mdet e ia Nov.)] **• 

sooPi V*S!V leu jo ?io o rvj TJ-OO" im se/xz/zo 
P.6 

03'l5/9 5 19:10 ©20 2 20S 1620 WASO NR.'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB _|007 '031 

I r> '% 

criteria contained in paragraph (n) of thio section. Designating 

an application complete for purposes of permit processing does 

not preclude the permitting authority from requesting"or 

accepting additional information. ) ,•,,,-,.,.-

-<*&•%*..-7••••.•- ?7 •-•% .o*^,,^, I r " / 

|23)(i) * *'* ^"WtJej/ ftM 

***** * 

(iv) (SignirIcantmeans, with respect to the predicted 

ambient impact Lhat tfie emissions from a new source or 

modification will have for purposes of determining compliance 

with th£ national ambient air quality standards, concentrations 

in excess of the following: 

•vt* 

k, 

Ce* ''K IS" Ft7w fo Vc^ex^K. C~*e3s 

#£W cPpN\*U C/\rfY n_CU -h. 

rf 

/> C^<2^wjA — U 7WA3if.i OAJCx^ OJ_JLJ_0 c-J^a. 

V 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY 8TAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES MOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TBE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

**• November 11, 1994 — [filename 51 166 1.1 (date in Nov.)] *** 

300l?i VM>' ~]Q_ JO UO "~ o YVJ"s'e*oo •JUT 0B/T7/sfi 
P.7 

03/15/05 19:11 ®202 208 1620 *ASO .NR.'AO NPS —AQMD-PPB _00S/031 

..- {,sdw>/i&4~ 

" ttufi 

Pollutant 

NO, 

Pb 

Averaging Time 

Annual 

Quarterl y Mean - . 

Significan t Impac t 

l . 0 Mg/mJ 

5 . 0 ug/o J 

2S. 0 •wg/m3 

1.0 .ug/m5 

5 . 0 ug/m1 

l . o jig/m* 

o.6 mg/a1 

2 . 0 mg/m1 

o.oi ug/m* 

• # 

(v) significant means, with respeet to the predicted ambient 

impact that emissions from, a nev source or modification will have 

for purposes of determining compliance with the maximum allowable 

increases in pollutant concentrations contained in paragraph (c) 

of this section, concentrations in excess of any of the 

following: 

Class I Class II Class III n 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

Significant 

Impact 

Significant 

Impact 

significant 

Impact 

so, Annual 

24-Hour 

3-Hour 

PM-10 Annual 

24-Hour 

o.l yg/m* 

0.2 nq/mr 

1.0 .ug/m5 

l.o fig/a? 

5 ug/m* 

25 Mg/m1 

l.o /jg/m1 

b •ug/m, 

25 ti-q/m? 

0.2 Mg/a3 

0.3 ug/m' 

1.0 ug/m3 

2 ug/m* 

1.0 (tg/xo?. 

3 /_g/mJ 

NO, Annual 0.1 Mg/m l.o ug/o' 1.0 *ug/mJ 

(24) Federal Land Manager means, with respect to any lands 

owned by the United States, the Secretary of the department with 

thority over such lands 

\ff tr 

****** * 

/ 

(31) Pollution control project means: 

(i) Any activity or project undertaken at an existing 

emissions unit which reduces emissions from such unit provided 

THIS DOCUMENT 18 A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TB8 ISSUES DISCUSSED 

• tt November 11, 1094 — [filename 51_i66_l.l(date in Nov.)] *** 

.00P1 YtfV lf\A -JO ZJ0 A W T ~ O ? « n •»>*» *• 
03U5'9 5 19:1 1 *£?202 20S 1620 »AS0 NR.'AQ NPS — - AQMD-PPB _009'03 1 

that» 

(A) Such activities or projects are limited to: 

(1) The installation of conventional and advanced flue gas 

desulfurization and sorbent injection for SO,; 

(2) Electrostatic precipitators, baghouses, high efficiency 

multielones, and scrubbers for particulate or other pollutants; 

(J) Flue gas recirculation, low-NO, burners, selective noncatalytic reduction and selective catalytic reduction for NO,; 

(4) Regenerative thermal oxidizers (RTO), catalytic 

oxidizers, condensers, thermal incinerators, flares and carbon 

adsorbers for volatile organic compounds (VOCc) and hazardous^!*. 

pollutants; ' ,^ , / ,. 

(5) Activities-jir_pro4_ctfi__und^rta)ren to accommodate -

1-4

 L''V''° " 

switching to an (nfiorently ^sspoilutlKgr^uel, including but not *'. 

limited to natural gae or cT>al Peburnina,, or the cofiring of 

natural gas and other inherently less polluting fuels for tho 

purpose of controlling emissions, andVfncluding any activity thar ; 

is necessary to accommodate switching to an inherently less xfc. ttr^-u 

polluting fuel; and •/*•//-/ J ,r n ^i^'hS-' 

(6) Pollution prevention projects, as defined in this 

subpart, Where the pollution control aspects of the project are 

clearly evident and the project will result in substantial -

emissions reductions per unit of output for one or more j /(/.& • 70 

Pollutant|*<an*^ fy oW ^ enrir**ni*JJl jiufif- J~^ ^ ^ 

(B) Such activity or project does not include the ^awS^Va^* 

replacement of an existing emissions unit with a newer or

 ts^+***e%f 

different one or the reconstruction of an existing emissions /*_%y_2»_-/ 

unit. -_, jr** 

(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph ,(i) of this • 

section, any activity or project at an existing electric utility "ar^<M, 

steam generating unit reducing emissions from such unit, provided ^ '. 

that such activities or projects are limited to; 7*<f\ 

**** * ?*£w-

(34) clean coal technology or other demonstration project fyPG^f 

means a pollution control demonstration project, for which the / 

Federal contribution is at least 20 percent of the total cost of **^-*V£b ;->••••. 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT ~ 

BBFRE8ENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY ON TSS I8SUE8 DISCUSSED 

*•• November 11, 1994 — "filename 5l_16f> 1.1 (date in Nov.)] **>* 

S00l?| VNiV lOi ADZ.- "'"' ' 0 VVJ 2 9 = 0 0 3*1T Q«/Tf,*.fi 
P.9 

03**15'95 19: i: *3*202 20S 1620 »ASO NR'AQ NPS AQMD-PPB _010/031 

7 

the demonstration project, using funds appropriated: 

(i) For "Department of Energy-clean Coal Technology" 

projects for commercial demonstration of Clean coal technology, 

(ii) For tho Environmental Protection Agency, or 

(iii)' For any other Department, Agency or component of the 

Federal government, provided projects plans and results are 

provided to the permitting authority and the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(35) Temporary clean coal technology or other temporary 

demonstration project means a clean coal technology or other 

demonstration project that io operated for a period of 5 years or 

less, and which complies with the state Implementation Plan for 

the State in which the project is located and other requirements 

necessary to attain and maintain the national ambient air quality 

standards during the project and after the project is terminated. 

* at * * * 

(38) Federal Class I Area means any lands owned by the 

United States which were designated by CongrcGs as mandatory 

Class I areas, or have been redesignated as Class I areas 

pursuant to the provisions of paragraph (g) of this section or 

40 CFR 52.21(g). 

u/nsl 

1

 r 

(39) Mandatory Class J Area means any area designated by 

Congress as a Class I area pursuant to §162(a) of the Act, and 

which aay not be redesignated, 

(40) Air Quality Related Value means, for purposes of this 

seetion, visibility or any scenic, cultural, physical, 

biological, or recreational resource, ae defined by the Federal 

Land Manager of a Federal Class I Area,- that ^ay be adversely 

• afT._Uid by air pollutl-eH-n^-p-H^-^^—^*v-*<;aayi.vSHJL4<^V^tyK 

(41) Adverse Impact on an Air Quality Related value means, 

for purposes of this section, a deleterious effect resulting in 

whole or in part from emissions from a proposed nev or modified 

cource, causing pollution concentrations which interfere with the 

management, protection, preservation, or enjoyment of a specific 

.^b--*ff« 

Z^H&Ha sp_CTY 

air quality related vaiuey ^ (. . ^ .yfyadvr. aj. ^ci'^W •*? e, 

(42) Demonstrated in practice beans for the purposes of this / 

subpart, that an air pollution control technology has been &&Slf3'** . 

installed and operating at a minimum of 50 percent Of its 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF ffORXING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

ABPBBSBMT OPPICIAL BPA POLICY ON TEE ISSUES DI8CUS8ED 

• •• xovesaber n , 1994 — t filename si i«< l.i (date in Nov.)] *•»• 

6001?) VNV 10d JO 2i0 0 W J trO-nTy •J.H- O O <T*» '*" > 
P.10 

03'15'9 5 19:12 ©202 20S 1620 »ASO NR'AQ NPS -—AQMD-PPB _011/031 

~3SS§. 

i ^^r-***'- -_> ' 

nameplate .capacity for 6 months, and its performance, in(terms of 'AJ"\7(7 

pollution reducing efficiency, has been verified with a ' M«? r--

performanee tost, or performance data collected when operating / ' ., v 

at 90 percent of its nameplate capacity. (n@^jw 

(43) (i) Environmentally beneficial, for the purpose of -J. 

evaluating a pollution control project, shall not include any 

activity or projcot which will result in, according to the / 

provisions of this subsection: 

(A) A (signifioant increaso i-fi emissions of any pollutant 

that will cause or- -contribute tp a violation of a NAAQS or,PSD 

J I J I increment, or .adversely impact/y-tgYbilTEy" *^~>ffi-**TT..QRVj i-qr-eZ\' ^M"

J

 "°* oFS"

f

 a***-*"-V fy teatT£n 7 ^su&Mm. 

m\qS*A>1L' (B) **• unacceptable increased riak due to the releas e of UuLj3 

, #JA ha2&rdoue ai r pollutants. **l 

^" >7^>.m. 

if -( (ii) (A) If the pollution control project vill not increase •>/•••>,. 

-TU*.'' utilization, the post modification emissions are calculated as t ^'7fa<j 

the new emissions rate multiplied by the existing utilization O-ttJ^ ^J 

rate; ^^/j, . 

(6) If the project will increase utilization, the associated 

emissions increases are- calculated as the post-modification 

potential to emit of the unit considering the application of the 

proposed controls. 

(iii)(A) The permitting authority may presume that a 

pollution control project listed in 40 CFR 51.166(31)(i)(a)(1)-

(5) will not increase the utilization of the eouroe. 

(B) The permitting authority shall reject this presumption 

where there is reason to believe that the project would result in 

debottlenecking, loadshifting to taXe advantage of the control 

equipment, or other meaningful increase in the use of the unit 

above current levels. 

(iv) (A) The permitting authority ma^^r-esum^that a 

pollution control project listed in 40 CFR ^1^*6131) (i) (A) (1)-

(5) is environmentally beneficial. 

(B) The permitting authority shall reject this presumption 

where there is reason to believe that: 

(1) The controls will not be designed, operated or 

maintained in a manner consistent with standard and reasonable 

practices; or 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TNE I88UE6 DX80U86ED 

*•* November 11, 1994 -- t-tilenaae si I66_i.i(data in Nov.)] ••• 

0I0*ft W I0d i . JiU 0 XVI f"S:00 3itt fiS/TZ/:o 
P.11 

03'13'95 19:13 ©20 2 20S 1620 *VASO NR'AQ NPS -.— AQMD-PPB _012/031 

10 

(2) Collateral emissions Increases have not been adequately 

addressed the safeguards of (v) through (vi) below. 

(v) For any pollution control project which would result in 

an increase in non-targeted pollutants, the collateral emissions 

increase shall be reasonably minimized and demonstrated not to 

result in environmental hnrm. 

_ (vi^ For any pollution control project which would result in 

a Csiqniflcaj_E> increase in emissions where that increased level 

has not been previously analyzed for its air quality impact, the 

permitting authority may require the source to provide an air 

quality analysis sufficient to demonstrate the impact of the 

project, including any potential NAAQS or increment violation or 

adverse impact on an AQRV or visibility. 

i 2^\ certain "in-process recycling" practices), energy recovery, 

0^ treatment, or dispoeal, 

udJA^ (45) Planttflde applicability limit (PAL) means a federally C 

,17 

(44) Pollution prevention means any activity that through 

iLA"" process changes, product reformulation or redesign, or 

[/-^ nJ/'SubstitUtion of less polltiting raw materials, eliminates or 

(^3y reduces the release of air pollutants and other pollutants to the 

lb environment (including fugitive emissions) prior to recycling, 

\\)j&, treatment, or disposal; it does not moan recycling (other than 

<j* 

"" I enforceable emission limitation established for a stationary 

j^- source to limit the potential to emit of a source to a level such 

,, that major nev source review is not required for changes under 

[(bv the PAL. The emissions lavel must be established in a federally 

<3TM' enforceable permit that includes all conditions needed to make 

,jl^W2*^ the emission limitation practically enforceable. ^ / 

x

'^Si~ (46) W««Jor stationary PAL source means, injaddition to the J 

Ml'Trh requirements of (b) (1) (A)-(C) of this section, any physical

 crc 

Change that would occur at a stationary source not qualifying 

under paragraph (b) (1) (A) (I) of this section, as a major 

stationary 6ouroe, if the change would result ln an emissions 

increase over a PAL limit that would constitute a major 

stationary source by itself. 

(47) (1) Major PAL modification means, notwithstanding the 

requirements of (b) (2) of this section, any change that would 

result in an increase over the plantwide applicability limit. 

(ii) Any emissions increase of volatile organic compounds 

shall be considered major for ozone. L 

favtt . ^ 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRJtFT AND .DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON THE I8SUES DISCtTSSBD 

tee November il, 1994 ~ [filename 51_l66_l.l(date in Nov.)] •*»•> 

noi?! v\v nod i o :J O O xvi frS*oo 3ilL .B/TZ/Z'O" 
P.12 

03'1S'95 19:13 ©20 2 208 1620 *AS0 NR'AQNPS -.-.- AQMD-PPB ' _013'031 

11 

(48) PAL Modification means any change that would result in 

different emissions levels allowed under the plantwide 

applicability liait [such as emissions trades which require 

changes to permit conditions and any change that requires 

additional permit conditions to adequately limit the potential to 

emi'tj. 

***** * 

(j) * * • 

(2) A new major stationary source shall apply boot available 

control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under 

the Act that it would have the potential to emit Tn significant 

amounts. Best available control technology shall be determined 

according to the methodology described in paragraph (j) (5) of 

this section. 

(3) A source that undergoes a major modification as defined 

in this section ehall apply best available control technology for , 

each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act for which _*h*a5,>*-X;v/ 

«^j*-r modification would result in a p^jjnpffi>Q?tftt_nejDemlaslons />"" 

Increase at the source. This requirement' applies-tb~ each 

proposed emissions unit at which a net emissions increase in the 

pollutant would occur as a result of a physical change or change 

in the method of operation in the unit. Best available control 

technology shall be determined according to the methodology 

described in paragraph (j)(5) of this section. i / 

•KkVt ^-—<* • . . A^J- • 

(4) For phased con6t.r uet lory-projects, the determination .or 

best available eontrol technology shall be reviewed and modified . j£: 

as appropriate at the(3i%ast: reasonaBTe-vtime which occurs T»O later fg*' 

than 18 months prior to commencement* x>r construction of each 

independent phase of the project. At such time, tho owner or 

operator of the applicable stationary source may be required to 

demonstrate the adequacy of any previous determination Of best 

available control technology for the eouroe. Best available 

control technology shall be determined according to the 

methodology described in paragraph (j)(5) of this section. 

(S)(i) In determining beet available control technology, all 

control technology alternatives identified pursuant to (j)(5)(ii) 

of this section shall be ranked and evaluated in descending order 

of control effectiveness. The most stringent alternative 

providing the maximum degree of emissions reduction shall be 

established as best available control technology unlese it is 

demonstrated that technical considerations, or energy, 

environmental, and economic impacts and other costs establish 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL SPA POLICY ON TES ISSUES | DISCUSSED 

*** November il# 1994 — (.filename 5i_l«.S_l.l(date ia Nov.)] ***•> 

3I0S>1 VMT ICJd iV ZmO n VV4 tre-nn -HIT e«/T»/"*r 
P.13 

03'15'9 S 19:1 1 ©20 2 20S 1620 WASO NR.'AQ NPS —.AQMD-PPB _) 01 i.' 0 31 

12 

that the most stringent control technology is not achievable in 

Lh-al- case. The next most stringent control technologies shall 

then be considered in the same manner in descending order of 

control effectiveness. If tne most stringent technology is 

chosen, the requirement to analyze or evaluate less effective 

control technology may be waived. 

(ii) The control technology alternatives considered in 

paragraph (j) (5) (i) of this section shall be based upon — 

(A) control technologies and methods for same and similar 

souree categories, i.e., those eategoriea including sources that 

have similar emissions stream characteristics, which as of the 

date of completed application, have been listed in or required by 

the following: 

(1) EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse; 

(2) Federally-approved state, Tribal and local programs and 

regulations, including major source construction permits issued 

under them, but excluding operating permits issued by programs 

approved under Title v of the CAA; 

(3) Federal permits and Federal standards developed under 

sections ill and 112 of the Act; 

(4) Alternative Control Technology Documents and Control 

Techniques Guidelines that have been issued by EPA; and 

(B) Other control alternatives that even though not 

represented in paragraph (j)(5)(ii)(A) of this section, have been 

demonstrated in practice, pursuant to paragraph(b) (42) of this 

section, the demonstration of which, concluded no less than 90 

days prior to the date on which a permit application is complete 

(iii) The plan-^a^rcquirc the source to evaluate eontrol 

technology alternatives identified after a permit had been — 

1 deteimined -coffipTete, based on infonnation derived independently 

'fir r(' bv t*

le pez-it^ing authority or eubmitted by public commenters. 

The permitting authority may require that all control technology 

»-, - alternatives identified subsequent to the date of complete 

-^ I-,/application meet the specificity criteria for public comments set 

Uj\*^v forth in paragraph (q) (3) of this section. 

A mVtmrifo k 

<y (iv) The plan/ttay allow for a cut-off date on or subsequent 

fr A to the date that an application is complete pursuant to 

-A 51.16S(n), but no ilstec than^the close of the final public notice 

* and comment periodf, after which the souree is not obligated, -

except *ts required pursuant to Vj ) (S) (iii) of this section, to 

evaluate any technology for bcetSavailable control technology 

other than those identified pursuant to paragraph (j)(5)(ii) of 

THIS DOCUMENT 18 A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOBS NOT 

REPRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TEB ISSUES DISCUSSED 

**•» November 11, 1994 — [filename 51_lt56_l.i(date in Nov.)] •*• 

i7 

'A 

CTO01 V.MV 10J JO !i0 0 XVi !S:00 3IU ,8/XZ/Z-
____ P.14 

03'15'9 5 19:1 1 *S*202 20S 1620 "7-VSO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _015/03 1 

13 

this section . 

(X) Source impact analysis. The plan shall provide tha t the 

owner or operator^of any proposed source or modification shal l 

demonstrate that allowable emission increases from the proposed 

source or modification, in conjunction with al l other applicabl e 

emissions increases or reductions (including secondary emissions) 

would not cause or significantly contribute to ai r pollution in 

violatio n of: 

* * • * y . V> 

<•> ... yV^3f_$7?y 

(2) Where an air quality model specified ip the Appendix W 

or this part ("Guideline on Air Quality Models' (Revised) •• (1986), 

supplement A (1987) and supplement B (1993)) /is inappropriate, 

the model may bo modified or another model substituted. Such a . 

modification or substitution of a model mav be made on a 

case-by-case basis or, where appxopriate^bn a generic basis for 

•**. specific state program. •^rTEten^pjgroval^-nPf the Administrator 

must be obtained for any modiffoationoTsubStitUtion. In 

addition, use ef a modified or substituted model must be subject 

to notice and opportunity forptihl ir comment under procedures set 

fortR in S51.102. " 

(_) • e * \m// 

(1) * * * 

(vi) The plan shall provide that with respect to any air 

quality related value of a Federal Class I area, the analysis 

shall contain such monitoring data as the permitting authority, 

in consultation with the Federal Land Manager, determines is 

necessary for determining whether emissions from the new source 

or modification would have an adverse impact on the air quality 

related value. 

/ 

(2) -gpst-construction monltorlnyT^The plan shall provide 

that the owner or operator of a major stationary source or major 

-modification shall, after construction of the stationary souree 

,pr modification, conduct such monitoring as the permitting 

authority),determines is necessary to determine the effect 

amissions/from the stationary source or modification may have, or 

are havir/g, on air quality in any area, or on air quality related 

values ih any Federal Class I area. * 

- 1 J "~ 4&-

* * * . _^.,Vi cJYtkJM'^ toty -fa jQjj- iM^-if^f^ 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOE8 NOT 

REPRESENT OPPICIAL EPA POLICY ON TBE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

»tt November 11, 1994 -• [filename 5l_l66_l.l(date in Nov..)] t*e 

no Pi VJN-V 104 jo zio o xvi ss:oo a u S6/ 
03'15'9 5 19:15 S20 2 20S 1620 >>AS0 NR'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB 

P.15 

1016/031 

14 

_ *• 

(n) Complete Application Criteria. 

(2) The plan chall provide that such information shall 

include: , 

(iv) The owner or operator shall present evidence that the 

analysis performed to select the best system of continuous 

emission reduction has been conducted pursuant tar the 

aph (j)(5)(i) and (ii) oit/this £..,«.«._... 

•7 // , •*- Oi-aH.-M' ^ 

\ requirements of paragraph (j) (5) (i) and (ii)/ o f//this section. 

• ' / j / La>^A \*)/4n.t\ve a Federal Land i%j.naye/r'alleges^hat th e emissions. 

*> • -iMJ&3>-v*'' ^JZ^' r l&V. 

\" *^:(\- /^) f^o.»*^lpi^po8ed source or modifi\atiB*___»y--i_auBe or contribute to 

lt£_v^ a/change ih air quality in a Federal class I area, the owner or 

'*^ op^£j__a*r'shall include infonnation on .the-aAr-qua-1 ity impact? of '•' I 

the source or modification on the^^-fected area/-including "" •**•» t.£fiJ.' 

sufficient information for the pemitting authority in 

consultation with the affected Federal Land Manager, to determine 

whether the applicable emissions will cause or contribute to a 

v\olation_oC any ciaea I increment. ...-

2fcfe (S) The plan shall provide that an application shall not be 

considered complete unless the application has been registered on 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency New Source Review 

Bulletin Board in accordance with paragraph (qi(1) of this 

section. To register, at a minimum, the following must be 

provided: 

(i) Name and type of source, 

(ii) Nature of proposed project, i.e., new facility or 

modification; 

(iii) Products to be made and design production capacity; 

(iv) source location (including UTM coordinates) and the 

distance between each source and each Class I area within 

500 kilometers, 

(v) Anticipated emission rate, or increase in emission rate, 

for each affected air pollutant regulated under the Clean Air 

Act. 

(vi) Source mailing address and telephone number, and 

TEI8 DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY ON TBE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

• •e no-ember 11, X994 — [filename SI 166 1.1 (date in Nov.)] tte 

9*0 C?| VMV 10d JO ZJO 0 Wl 98:0 0 30 1 S6/TI/Z0 
P.16 

03'1S'95 19:16 ©20 2 20S 1620 »ASO NR'AQ NPS AQMD-PPB _01Sy031 

att 

16 

t ime - -v«th"in>t h_-^ja-ixid7- _-!-£ 

rev-iev afte r a^coriafideriij^

 a 

impacts on a Federal Clasc I area . The permittin g authorit y may 

issu e a determination tha t the application is cornplete\ a t any ^ 

-a-Hx-red-for^%he--Pederal Land Msxtffger' s y*ff1 rv 

iny. comments from th e Federa l Land f<4&^r{ 

Manager. <CTMW^*S-v- 3n\dii be Y\JVL C^*A<IL.$$£.-J 

(iv) When the permitting authority receives advance 

notification (e.g., early consultation with the source prior to 

submission of the application or notification of intent to 

monitor under paragraph (m) of this section) of a permit £Uro 

application for a proposed new source or modification within ><ro 

kilometers of a Federal Class I area,, the permitting authority 

shall: I no... 

or- /V ^ Tt*>-' !/S/L

)

 Qfi<r'-e± 

(A) notify the Federal Land Manager within 3 0 days of 

receipt of such advance notification, and ^<raW*6c . 

(B) provide the Federal Land Manager witty then opportunity to 

participate Aa any pre-application meetings with the source. 

-v^if) Tei_4raJ Land Manager—Responsibility. (_£ The Federal /"'MiL v*&~ 

Land Manager charged with direct responsibility for management/ ^y^J_i__i, 

of a Federal Class I area shall have an affirmative ' •^^m.^p^s 

responsibility to identify and protect the air quality related / •_ / 

values (including visibilityv of any such area. —£ ^7^3, *» 

(ii) The Federal Land Manager shall provide relevant

 N ^_^^- < 

-, f ^^information'to t*h^ permitting authority whose Territory, State o\}%Jy/\L, Tt> 

^C***^ local area eontainV one or more Federal Class I areas. Entry of pftt-x^i 

i he following information in the U.S. Environmental Protection /4•"*•-' 

•H- CXgcne wCy Bulleti Bulletin Boards-hal Boards-hall satisfy this requirement requirement:: -r>«u-t- «»ft*^ 

\ 3 . \ t>s]> "fv 

current listing,\Xor each affected Federal Class I '_ / 55 r «< (A) A _ 

area, of the air quality related values which have been 

identified to date, sensitive receptors to specified air 

pollutants, and critical pollutants loadings for such air quality 

related values and sensitive receptors; and 

(B) Copies of all findings of adverse impact either 

independent of, or in conjunction with, consideration of permits 

issued pursuant to the requirements of this section or any or the 

following regulations: S 51.307, or SS 52.21, 3^.27, or 52.28 of 

9

 this chapter; and V 

•fit, } s 

v \ (C) Other information concerning *__^Cnb*_n air polit y 

related values, including such values that may be understudy . 

(i*4*) The Federal Land Manager, upon advance notification 3) \ . 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES^O »\» T 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON THE ISSUES DI8CU88ED \^ 

•*••• November n » 1994 - - (filename si I66_i.i(dat e im Nov.)] ••• 

iio a V.MV lOi 10 ZJO 0 YVi is-nn HlU Sl'U/7.0 
P.17L 

03'15/9 5 19:1 6 S20 2 20S 1620 •*ASO NR/AQ NPS --.-. AQMD-PPB _O19.'031 

17 7 

Mm-e&t 

naJce j " * 

J i) <t%7 Federal Land 

impact. The plan shall rei 

••., consider any Uea.ui._U a 

m frnm the 

•33 

LW r-wi;t|U_v-<0--dAjt 

,^-n^_t^rminod th 

JJEI<IS*W''. 

cU 

the permitting authority to <^e^j<rr).J7 

submitted by the Federal Land Manager y 

te on which the peraititting authority—-^ <&Za.<&)<a 

•e p<>rmit application tr. ha cf^nplete, that shows that ^it*? /. 

onarv source or maior modification wi n have an 3TM <7<-\ 

pursuant to paragraph (p) (l) (ii) of this section, ot dire; 

notification by a prospective permit applicap-fcr""3hall 

available to such applicant, whose emiss>oTfs may affecy'such 

Federal Class I area, the information required in paragraph 

(p)(2)(ii) of thl6 section concerning the air qualit/ related 

values, *i»e>lu_-iftg- any cuirently under study.-* 

(if) The Federal Land Manager tlfiall consider/ in 

consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed source or 

. If modification would have an adverse impact on any air quality 

»wtf' related values which the Federal Land Manager UBS identified 

f pursuant to paragraph (p) (2) (i •W48 ifchie sec> ion . 

ager—'/NifBCvuj-bracion of adverse 

i r e 

a major stationary source or major modification will have an 

v^K. 

*u wujv i gvaak^wnaij oum « wi. uojv/t uiuuij.y—aiiwn ti n nav e an .4 

adverse impact on an air quality related/value in a Federal Class "<-vC 

area. The permitting authority shall/ at a minimum, provide a 

••Ov-V 

'written evaluation of the Federal uand^nanager's demonstration, tbisuf-.^,J 

C «;»>,Azrand include the evaluation in the public record accompanying the •+ 

^ "^preliminary determination required under paragraph (q)(3) of this 

9t ' ir{ ^section. The written evaluation shall address the following: 

(A) Tftu aelhuUs~and procedures by which tha FuJuial Liiml 

W.-*.p.**,gew i At.m-H * i m A •+***—» 4-~* rp-m I , fry T u I.«t* af, v « 1 n r, fh » unrl.r l y **. n rj 

iinpr,*-*-nmmm iinH H +-. j.,**.,**. *.*jr ^M . i •; **-y rnlftt'-fl v-ilur. the nature 

of the alleged adverse impact, and an explanation of any 

conclusions the permitting authority reaches about the air 

I fa 

quality related value that are inconsistent with those reached by f^a/p 

tht hee FLM F1.M:; Cr 

s»A 

/ 

(B) 

Land Nana 

\\ questio n 

e value, 

ed tp^ 

ofth e a l 

which e Fed^-a l J Q . 

relate d 

vv . _/' ~ ~ \^y 

Vcf ^ / (C) The technica l data and analyse s performed i n 

^^/demonstratin g th e adverse impact and th e basis fo r th e permittin g 

^

/ :

 (authority's disagreement with any data or analyses; and 

•*, JWI rt&mJj 

n> {D)Jfio\y meacu\cG undertaken t o mitigat e th e -potentia l 

JV 

V adverse impacts of proposed emissions increases, including the 

estimated effect of oq^.mitigation. 

authority finds that the analysis 

Manager in accordance with 

(ii) Where the perm 

.submitted by the Federal 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A FRELIHUiARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFIOIHAL BPA POLICY ON TBE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

• •• November 11, 1994 — [filename 51 166 i.i(date ia Nov.)] *** 

STo3*l vjaiv-iod JO :JO o xvj is*oo am ee/Tz/jo 
P.18 

03'15'9 5 19:17 ®20 2 208 1620 WASO NR.'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB , _020/03 1 

ii 

•\" yJ '"'' y ' e-\ •••-' *"(- ^-- C. U , fL <:' ^ ^ 

\ 7-- ' ' .] ,7\ fun —wo 7 - yjj3:QJ7yt ' . r 

\

 7 ..' • ' I"./* • : <l\ o .' • -•/• . 

paragraph (p) (3) (i) of thiaXsection does not demohstrate the 

satisfaction of the permitting authority that an adverse impact 

on an air quality related value will result in the Federal class 

I area, the permitting authority shall in the public record 

accompanying the preliminary determination provide a complete 

explanation of the decision to reject the Federal Land Manger's 

demonstration. , <7 ,TW 7 6~'.1[.'V}. 9 

flSL(Y&**j *• ^ • • ' V . . 

(4) Denial—•impact\on air quality related values. The plan 

shall provide a mechanism whereby a Federal Land Ma/nager of--eny L* 

•such-Federal ciasa 1-areA may present to the permitting (~' 

authority, prior to any preliminary determination\rft-q_jred...under .(7_ 

Ih'acX-ordancelTign paragraph.Jq7\.)Jot this V's-g 

section, a"deumui*.tHf*atinn_that the emissions from the"proposed

 r**

; 

) 

procedures 'developed" Tn" "acxiordancelrign paragraph ^fq) (.}Jot this

 NX^ 

~3-^-~\%~e&7m~aT77~a7deiii-OTis^ati-oJLthat the emissions from the^foposed 

Jj2Jd''i*-.K*--aourcc or modification would\have an adverse impact on the ai r .. "h 

l',trx quality related values (incl 

f3!fy 

J, „ quality related values (including visibility) of any Federal 

^

l Class I area, notwithatandingvthat the change in air quality 

. resulting from emissions from such source or modification would 

not cause or contribute to concentrations which would exceed the 

maximum allowable increases forV Class I area. If the 

permitting authority concurs with, such^Jegtofistiation, the 

permitting authority shall not issue the^permiXT.~'""-^Wer^ 'mojkon 

(5) Mitigation of adverse impacts. The permitting authority 

'' may issue a permit to a proposed source that would otherwise be 

\, denied a permit under paragraph (p) (4) of this section, if the 

.„,,' permitting authority determines,Jthat the source has mitigated its 

o .. v adverse impact on, or its contribution to, an air quality related 

. value. For—example-, sources may J mitigate an adverse impact by 

•f ,;.- obtaining enforceable^and permanent emissions reductions of 

•' sufficient amount and in such location that the reductions will 

\ x offset the ohange in air quality in the Federal Class I area that 

..v; ) would have resulted from emissions from the proposed source. 

fparagraph (p)f') redesignated as (^t))<Y^^ ^^r.^<7^\3rn C*i ~fv\ -ri^ 

(7) sulfur dioxide variance by Governor with Federal Land 

Manager's concurrence. The plan may provide that— 

(i) The owner or operator ef a proposed source or 

modification which eanaot be approved under procedures developed 

pursuant te paragraph (p)(S) ef this section may demonstrate te 

the Governor that the source or modification cannot be 

ooastruoted by reason ef any maximum allowable increase for 

sulfur dioxide for periods of twenty-four hours or less 

applicable to any Class I area and, In tbe case of Federal 

TBIS DOCUMENT 18 A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TBB ISSUES DISCUSSED 

• et November 11, 1994 •• [filename 51_16« i.l(date in Nov.)] **• 

6XoE>! VMV 10 J 10 ZAO 0 Vii 8S-0 0 3llL S6/TC/20 
P.19 

03'13'95 19:13 ©20 2 20S 1620 »AS0 NR.'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB _021'031 

19 

mandatory class I areas, that a varlanea uhder this clause would 

net advorsely affect the air quality related values of tbe area 

(including visibility); 

e • • • * 

(iii) If such variance is granted, the permitting authority 

may issue a permit to sueh souree or modification in accordance 

with provisions developed pursuant to paragraph (p) (7) of this 

see tion) Provided/ That the applicable requirements of the plan 

are otherwise met. 

(7) • • • 

(i) • • • 

(ii) • • • 

(iii) If sueh a variance is approved,, the permitting 

authority may issue a permit in accordance with provisions 

developed pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (p) (8) ef 

this section: Provided, That tbe applicable requirements of the 

plan are otherwise met. 

(8) Eaission limitations for Presidential or gubernatorial 

variance. The plan shall provide that ln the case of a permit 

issued under preocdurco developed pursuant to paragraph (p)(6) or 

(P)(7) of this section, the source or modification shall comply 

with emission limitations as may be necessary to assure that, 

emissions of sulfur dioxide from the souroe or modification would 

not (during any day on which the otherwise applicable maximum 

allowable increases are exceeded) cause or contribute to 

concentrations which would exceed the following maximum allowable 

increases over the baseline concentration and.to assure that such 

emissions would not cause or contribute to concentrations which 

exceed the otherwise applicable maximum allowable increases for 

periods of exposure of 24 hours or less for more than ia days, 

not necessarily consecutive, during any annual period; 

Maximum Allowable Increase 

(Micrograms per cubic meter] 

Terrain areas 

Period of exposure 

Low High 

24-hr maximum 36 62 

3-hr maximum 130 221 

THI8 DOCUMENT 18 A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY ON THE (ISSUES DISCUSSED 

*••* November 11/ 1994 — (filename 51 166 1.1 (date in Nov.)] •»•»* 

ObO® V-4V 10J iO SiO 0 XVJ 98 = 00 301 SS/TI/Zn 
P.20 

03-*15'95 1 9: IS 020 : 20S 1620 «ASO NR'AQ NPS AQMD-PPB _022/03 1 

.7% 

/ 2 0 

A** ' 

__5____r?iy. 

C^raifc^__^_ 

(l) The permittihg authority_5^1 transmit to/the ~fi<. fc^f. 

Administrator _a__^py Tut udLhyt5ompleteSpcrmit application relating ' 

LmA to a major--5Tationary sourceSji—aa iui-^modif icationAfld provide 

t/T noX_«_t _l.t_getoo th e Administrato Administratoro r off ever y ac7tioi___6_at_*v action r±"\*i-dfff >n 4-he, 

, i-'. ^dnsideration of BUB A ber_It-T The permitting authority sha 11 

' ,S/ v_rity tnat information concerning each application has been 

posted on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Nev Souroe 

Review Bulletin Board. ^3^-

(2) The permitting authority shall notify all applicants 

within a specified time period as to the completeness of the 

application or any deficiency in the application or information 

submitted. In the event of such a deficiency, the date of receipt 

of the complete application shall be the. date on which the 

permitting authority, received all required information. 

(3) The plan way set forth criteria for accepting or 

rejecting recommendations for control technology alternatives 

from publio eommenters that are received after the date an 

application is determined to be complete. Those criteria may 

require: 

(i) reasonably available information regarding the type of 

control technology; location, size and product or function of the 

source in which it is installed; and its performance to be 

submitted with the recommendations; or 

(ii) In the event the above information is not readily 

available, the inquiring party shall document and present 

evidence to the permitting authority of all reasonable attempts 

to ascertain such information, including records of questions 

that are aeXed and respective responses from company officials, 

trade associations, environmental organizations, government 

agencies and technical consultants that might have qualifying 

information regarding the alleged technology. 

(4) The plan shall provide that after any cut-off date 

established pursuant to (j)(5)(iv) the permitting authority shall 

notify a permit applicant within 10 working days upon receiving a 

recommendation by a public commenter for another technology to be 

considered and the technology qualifies under the plan'6 criteria 

as being a candidate for further consideration as BACT by the 

permit applicant. 

T8I8 DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORXZNO DRAFT A-ND DOBS NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON THE I8BUEB DISCU8SBD 

•** November 11, 1994 — [filename 5i_i66_l.l(dato in Nov.)] •*-

UoG*i v>IV 10J iO !i 0 n YV.-T 6S:00 30L ../U/ZO 
P.21 

03 ' 1S/95 19:19 O202 209 1620 WASO NR.'AQ NPS "-. AQMD-PPB _023/031 

r 

W x 

21 

(5) The *plan shall provide that the permitting authority 

shall publish the results of evaluating each control technology 

alternative recommended by public coamenters after the date an 

application is complete^ and make available in the public record 

all information that was submitted and considered in evaluating 

each control technology alternative. 

(6) Witnin one year after receipt of a complete application, 

the permitting authority shalli " * 

(i) Make a preliminary determination whether construction 

should be approved, approved with conditions, or disapproved. 

(ii) For any proposed rjouree-'or modification whose 

application is provided for review by the Federal Land Manager in 

accordance with either paragraph (n) (6) or (p) (1) of this 

section, address whether And to what extent notification was 

provided to any applicable Federal T.and Manager; the Federal Land 

Manager's involvement/in the review of the permit application; 

and a summary ef the/specific concerns raised by the Federal Land 

Iii Manager and how euch concerns have been addressed by the 

Cy***tj\\ permitting authority. 

(iii) Make available in at leatft one location in each region UJ 

1 kV in which the proposed source would/be constructed a copy of all ' 

/\t jf\-^materials the applicant sub)Ditfced,J a copy of the preliminary 

\ ^determination, and a copy oir summary of other materials, if any, 

m/T considered in making the preliminary determination. _ 

IP '<W s-rfMu^^ fy JU.FLS4S^ rr*tyt*m#mj 

•kj, A / < •» ! klA-S * 4 -mP-m* •*_>_>*, -iik l *1 M WI S — •—' —- 4 «-* A- m »<—••»- ••! '•»•. n —k_>«_*_-L«-«_. n-a.A« * -m- */* 

f MmAM &4 

v (7 \ general 

0 \ -w would b 

rf 

(iv) Notify the public, by 

circulation in each re 

be constructed, of thr? a 

f \ determination, the degree of 

' . expected from the souree or 

"" Age-*! an air quality related valu 

7y\ A at a public hearing as well 

vertisement in a newspaper of 

n ih whieh the proposed source 

ieatinn, the preliminary 

ncrement consumption that is 

Edification, any adverse impact on 

and of the opportunity for comment 

s written public comment. 

(v) Send a copy of the notice of public comment to the 

applicant, the Administrator and to officials and agencies having 

cognizance over the looation where the proposed construction 

would occur as follows: any other state or local air pollution 

control agencies, the chief executives of the city and county 

where the eouroc would be located; any comprehensive regional 

land use planning agency, and any State, Federal Land Manager, or 

Indian Governing body whose lands may be affected by emissions 

from the source or modification. 

[Renumber (q)(2)(v) to (q)(«)(vi) 

TBIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY ON TBS ISSUES DISCUSSED 

**e November 11, 1994 •• [filename Bi 166 1.1(date in Nov.)] *•* 

•0(9, v„v log jo :io 0 xvj fis-.nn .mi. 96/u/zo 
P.22 

03>15'» 5 19:1 9 ®20 2 20S 1620 »ASO NR/AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB _021.'03 1 

22 

(7) The plan shall provide that tho permitting authority: . 

[Renumber (q)(2)(vi) to (q)(7)(i)] 

[Renumber (q)(2)(vii) to (q)(7)(ii)* 

[Renumber (q)(2)(viii) to (q)(7)(ill)] 

*. * * ** * 

(s) Undemonstrated Technology/Application ; 

(1) The plan may provide that an owner or operator of a 

proposed major stationary cource or major modification may 

request the permitting authority to approve an undemonstrated 

technology/application. The request shall be submitted in 

writing along with the source's permit application. 

(2) The plan shall provide that the permitting authority 

may, with the consent of the governor(s) of other affected 

state(s), determine that the source or modification may employ an 

undemonstrated technology /application, if: 

***** * 

(ii) The owner or operator agrees to achieve a level of 

continuous emissions reduction equivalent to that which would 

have been required under paragraph (j)(2) of this section, by a 

date specified by the permitting authority, such date shall not 

be later than 2 years from the time of startup or 5 years from 

permit issuance; 

(iii) The source or modification would meet the requirements 

equivalent to those in paragraphs (j) and (x) of this section, 

based on the emissions rate that the stationary source employing 

the undemonstrated technology/application would be required to 

meet on the date specified by the permitting authority; 

**** * 

(vii) The owner or operator addresses, ae a minimum, the 

following issues in the waiver application: 

(A) Identification of potential failure modcG for the system 

of undemonstrated technology/application; 

(B) Projections of corresponding amissions increases 

THIS DOCUMENT IB A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOE8 NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY OM THE IS8UE8 DI8CU88BD 

*"• November 11, 1994 — [filename Si I66_i.i(date in Nov.)) *•* 

C!0C*i v\-v -[Qi JQ JJO (1 XV.-? 00:i0 3(11 S6/TZ/J0 
P.23 

03'15'9 5 19:5 0 ©20 2 208 1620 »ASO NR.'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _025.'03 1 

23 

resulting (rom the potential failure modes identified in (A); 

(C) Characterization of emissions increases identified in 

(5) as either marginal or groes failure, a6 defined by the 

permitting authority; 

(D) Identification of potential contingency measures, both 

interim and long term, to reduce emission increases resulting 

from the potential failure modes identified in (A). 

(3) The plan shall provide that the permitting authority 

shall withdraw any approval to employ an undemonstrated 

technology/application made under this section, if: 

(i) The proposed system fails by the specified date to — s £>t—, 

achieve the required continuous emissions reduction rate sueh S 

xnat it qu>iti^f,tvgy~aTr*groo8 failure; or ^ 

• * * * * 

(4) The plan shall provide that the permitting authority 

shall include, as a minimum, the following information in each 

undemonstrated technology/application permit; 

(i) The undemonstrated technology/application'6 emission 

control performance objective and the applicable reference best 

available control technology emission limit. Both emission 

limits shall be express as an emission rate (e.g., pounds per 

hour) and a mass emission limit (e.g., pounds per million British 

thermal units); 

(ii) The definition of marginal and gross failure as defined 

by the permitting authority on a case-by-case basis and each term 

shall be expressed as both an emission rate (e.g., pounds per 

hour) and a mass emission limit (e.g., pounds per million British 

thermal units); 

(iii) The gross failure emission limits shall be considered 

enforceable which: 

(A) The owner or operator of the undemonstrated 

technology/application shall not exceed during the term of the 

waiver; 

and 

.--(B) Protects public health, ambient air quality standards 

air quality related valuce*;] 

/" (iv) Information require-pursuant to (2) (vii) of this 

/THI S DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STA>F WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT (fyfi 

/ REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON TBB ISSUBS DISCUSSED X 

/ eee November 11, 1994 — [filename SI ICC l.i (date la Nov.)] see (7^1 

^3^33f.733^ &L% M~ 3U -shekx 7f&rt cn**!**** ^*„7 r 

•KOlft ' VMY IQ-l i n 7J0 0 YVJ 00-TO 3111 i'bVlZ/2U 
P.24 

03'15'95 19:50 ®202 208 1620 «AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _026.'031 

/ 

section. 

n 

([J , flfh sw-c^ 

(5) The plan shall provide that if by the date established 

in (2)(ii) of this section, the undemonstrated 

technology/application does not achieve the permitted emission 

limit, but actual emissions are equal to or less than the best 

available control technology emission limit rafara-iaed in the 

undemonstrated technology/application permit under subsection 

(4)(i) the permitting authority shall: 

(i) issue a final permit with the emission limit equal to 

undemonstrated technology/application's consistency achieved 

actual emission rate; 

(ii) Consider the undemonstrated technology/application to 

be demonstrated and not eligible for an additional undemonstrated 

technology/application waiver; 

(iii) Report the final permit limits to EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse. 

(6) The plan shall provide that if, by the date established 

in (2)(ii) of this section, actual emissions from the 

undemonstrated technology/application constitutes marginal 

failure: 

(i) The owner/operator may petition the permitting authority 

to permit the undemonstrated technology/application to operate at 

its aotual emission limit; 

(ii) The petition shall address the energy, economic and 

environmental benefits derived from using the undemonstrated 

technology/application; and 

(iii) The permitting authority shall upon approval of the 

petition: 

(A) Issue a final permit with the emission limit equal to 

the actual emission rate consistently achieved by the 

undemonstrated technology/application; 

(B) consider the undemonstrated technology/application to be 

demonstrated and not eligible for an additional undemonstrated 

teehnology/applieation waiver; 

(C) Report the final permit limits to EPA's RACT/BACT/LAER 

Clearinghouse; and 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

RBPRE6ENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

ee* November 11, 1994 — (filename Si 166 l.Kdate in Nov.)] *•* 

OJ0P; VtfV 10J JO no 0 XVi T0 = TO am ce/Tj/zo 
P.25 

03'15/95 19:51 ©202 20S 1620 WASO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _027'031 

25

 ^n-

(iv) The permitting aut_iori*_^shall, either failing to > 

receive or approve a petitions/terminate the waiver and establish 

a schedule, not to exceed ^vvonths, by which the owner or 

operator shall achieve a level of continuous emissions reduction 

equivalent to that whioh would have been required under paragraph 

(2)(ii) of this section. 

(7) The plan 6hall provide that if at any time prior to or 

on the date established in (2) (ii) of this section, actual 

emissions from the undemonstrated technology/application 

constitutes gross failure: 

(i) The/permitting authority shall expeditiously terminate 

the waiver and issue a permit containing a schedule, not to /' 

exceed J**/months, by which the owner or operator shall achieve a 7 

level of continuous emission© reduotion equivalent to that which 

would have, been required under paragraph (j)(2) Of thl6 section; 

and 

(ii) The owner or operator shall mitigate all emission 

increases above the emission limit equivalent to that whioh would 

have been required under paragraph (j)(2) of this section by 

reducing actual emissions. 

(8) The plan fihall provide that the permitting authority: 

(i) Shall not approve an undemonstrated 

technology/application waiver for a technology/application that 

the Administrator considers to be demonstrated; and 

(ii) Shall submit to the Administrator a copy of the 

undemonstrated technology /application waiver within 30 days of 

ite approval. 

(9) The plan shall provide that the number of waivers 

granted by the permitting authority shall not exceed such number 

as necessary to ascertain whether or not such system will achieve 

the following conditions: 

(i) The proposed system or systems will operate effectively 

and there is a substantial likelihood that such system or systems 

will achieve equal or greater continuous emission reduction than 

that required to be achieved under the applicable control 

technology requirements; and j^^-^*C*(_->, _- <-j4_. 

'7 

(ii) The owner or operator of the proposed source has r .* s 

demonstrated that the proposed eyetem will not cauuti -or ItHtf^rjm 

*zonfc*=*teute to—an raTTgcacoriapre^aftgK-to public health, welfare , or A n . **, 

C — — -r- r "* • ' TT rfJQ /T-Ur, 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT XHD DOES NOT

 y 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

«»* November 11, 1994 — [filename Sl_l6t_l.i(dat e in Nov.)] ***** 

8ZO01 VMV 10J JO ZAO 0 XVi TO: TO __. S6/TC/S0 
P.26 

03'15'95 19:51 ©20 2 20S 1620 w.\S0 NR.'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _02S/031 

26 

s^fp.ty in its operation, function, or malfunction. 

(t) Disputed permits or redesignatlan's. The plan Shall 

provide that if the State is affected by the redesignation of an 

area by an Indian Governing Body, or any Indian Governing Body of 

a tribe affected by the redesignation of an area by the State, 

disagrees with such redesignation, or if a permit is proposed to 

be issued for any major stationary source or major modification 

proposed for construction tne State which the Governor or Indian 

Governing Body of an .affected tribe determines will cause or 

contribute to a cumulative change in air quality in excess of 

that allowed in this part within the State or Indian Reservation, 

the Governor or Indian Governing body may request the 

Administrator to enter into negotiations with the parties 

involved to resolve such dispute, if requested by any state or 

Indian Governing Body involved, the Administrator shall make a 

recommendation to resolve the dispute and protect the air quality 

related values of the lands involved. If the parties involved do 

not reach agreement, the Administrator shall resolve the dispute 

and the Administrator's determination, or the results of 

agreements reached through other means, shall become part of the 

applicable State implementation plan and shall be enforceable as 

part of such plan, in resolving such disputes relating to area 

redesignation, the Administrator shall consider the extent to -

which the lands involved are of sufficient size to allow 

effective air quality management or have air quality related 

values* ^——7*^ C^toMeA** **'#> 

(u) PAL Applicability^—The"j>xovisions of this section shall

 (K*V 

, apply to a major stationary source for any one or more pollutants f_rf, 

a**/subject to this apction for which the permitting authority has .^rTear&f 

/approved a PAL^/for the source provided Mat : C/J17 

^ (l) The PAL has been established-jcor each subject pollutant: 

(i) For an oxisting source: 

(A) Based on actual emissions representative of normal 

operation, or 

(B) Based on allowable emissions where allowable emissions 

are less than actual eralsfiionfi; 

(ii) For a new source, based on the limits established as a 

result of NSR required under the Act and based on application of 

applicable control requirements and projected operating 

conditions, 

THIS DOCUMENT 18 A PRELIMINARY 8TAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES MOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

••• November 11, 1994 — [filename SI 1(6 1.1 (date in Nov.)] a** 

i;o0i VMV in,? At) ZAO 0 Wi 10 - 10 dill i'6/12/50 
03'15'95 19:52 ©20 2 20S 1620 «AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB 

P.27 

———————————————_—__________*• 

]029.'031 

27 

(2) Emission limits established are achi-vable through 

application'of production processes or available methods, 

systems, and techniques including, but not limited to emit-.e-.ions 

control equipment, fuel cleaning or treatment, fuel combustion, 

techniques, substitution ef lees polluting materials; or limits 

on production that represent normal source operations, 

(3) Conditions neoeseary to assure enforceability are 

included in the federally enforceable mechanism (e.g., permit, 

order, consent agreement, rule], and 

(4) The emissions levels and conditions established for PAL 

purposes do not relieve a souree from continuous compliance with 

otherwise applicable unit-specific requirements (such as NSPS, 

BACT., LAER, RACT, KACT, or other unit-specific federal, SIP or 

state requirements]. A PAL permit must continue to require 

compliance with these limits. ^ ^^jjjfr^ ^ ^y ^/U, 

(v) (l) PAL Modifications. Notwithstanding the requirements f~-L/tf 

of (b) (23) of this section, modifications at major stationery -** 

sources with FALs 6hall be evaluated-)!for ambient air quality 

impacts of any change in emissions [e.g., SO,, CO, Pb, 

particulates and NC*,] where the PAL is not exceeded, if 

(i) the locations of emissions from units which would be 

modified are not located within the same immediate vicinity 

[e.g., within 250 meters of each other]; 

(ii) an increase occurs from an emissions unit with a lower 

effective plume height, as determined by EPA's Guidelines on Air 

Quality Modeling, than that ot the emissions unit decreasing . 

emissions; 

(iii) there is complex terrain within the area of 

significant impact of the increase or so kilometers, whichever is 

less ; 

(iv) stacks for emission units with emission increases are 

not sufficiently tall to avoid possible downwash situations, as 

determined by the formula described at §51.100(ii); or 

(v) the changes in emissions involve fugitive emissions. 

(w) (1) PAL Permit reevaluation. In-addition to the 

requirements of this section, the PAT. emission levels shall be 

evaluated every 5 years, and the state may reduce permitted levels 

or otherwise adjust, but not increase, permit levels to refleet: 

THI J DO0UM8NT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKIN-3DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY ON TBE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

• •• November 11, 1994 — (filename Sl_l64_l.l(date in Nov.)]. eee 

ft'OOl V\Y 10d 40 11.0 0 XVi 20 = T0 HlU Sfl'TJ/SO 
P.28 

28 

(i) actual emissions representative of normal operations; 

(ii) air quality concerns arising since the last 

reevaluation of the issuance of the PAL; or 

(iii) permanent shutdowns or curtailments that are no longer 

creditable for emissions trading. 

(2) PAL levels shall be adjusted to reflect compliance with 

federal or State applicable requirements as they become 

applicable to PAL permitted sources. 

(3) FAL levels shall be adjusted to address technical error 

in emissions calculations and other permit deficiencies when 

discovered by either the souree owner or operator or the 

permitting authority. 

(X) PAL Control technology review. In addition to the 

requirements of (j) of this section, the plan Bhall provide 

that: 

(1) A major stationary source or major modification shall 

meet each applicable emissions limitation under the applicable 

implementation plan and each applicable emissions standard of 

performance under parts 60, 61, and 63 of this chapter. 

(2) A now major stationary source shall apply the BACT for 

each pollutant subject to the provisions ef this section that it 

would have the potential to emit in major amounts. This 

provision applies to each new emissions unit at which emissions 

would occur above a FAL. 

(3) A major modification shall apply the BACT for each 

pollutant subject to the requirements of this section for which 

it would result in an emissions increase at the source. This 

requirement applies to each proposed emissions unit at a source 

for which an emissions increase in the pollutant would occur 

above a PAL. ,_ 

/a-

(4) For phased construction projects, the determination of sthe BACT shall be reviewed and modified as appropriate at the 

latest reasonable time which occurs no later than >fflmonths prior 

to commencement of construction of each independent phase of the 

project. At cueh time, the owner or operator of the applicable 

stationary source may be required to demonstrate the adequacy of 

7 u^ny Previous determination -of tha lowest achievable emission rate 

/ for the source. " 

THiS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOES NOT 

REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON THE I8SUB8 DISCUSSED 

*e* November 11, 1994 —> [filename 51_l66_l.l(date in Nov.)] • ** 

6-**'*^ V-VY 10i JO ZiO . o'r*"i ZO-TO am SO/TCSO 
, P.29 

03'15'95 19:53 ©202 208 1620 wAS0 NR.'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB _031'031 

2 9 

(5) The permitting authority shall, ror each new major 

source and"major modification subject to the provisions of this 

section, submit to the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse within 60 

days of issuance of tne permit, all relevant information on the 

emissions prevention or oontrol technology for the new major 

source er major modification. 

(6) For the air pollution control requirements applicable to 

this section, the source will monitor, Xeep records, and provide 

reports necessary to determine compliance with and deviations 

from the applicable requirements and meet the monitoring 

requirements of part 64 of this chapter. 

**** * 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT AND DOGS BOT 

REPRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY ON THE ISSUES DISCUSSED 

• •* November il, 1994 — [filename 51 166 1.1 (date in Nov.)] *•* 

OcoPl *N» 104 iO SiO 0 XVi CO-10 am. sfi/tr./zo 
P.30 

— — ' ! ~^- " _ 

03'15'9 5 20:0 2 ©20 2 20S 1620 *vAS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _002'02 2 

o 

, MA f°f^ ^--f 

'•(I 

/ ' 26b 

- / 

s 

between tne location of a proposed source and a Class I area 

should be, beyond which the permitting authority would be 

required to send the Fact Sheet to the FLM for 

consideration. The full Subcommittee could not agree on a 

cut-off distance. 

The Subcommittee also considered an alternative ... 

approach whereby selected source information, similar to the 

information suggested for the Fact Sheet, from all PSD 

permit applications could be entered on an electronic 

bulletin board developed and maintained by the EPA. Once on 

the bulletin board, the FLM could review the preliminary 

information and determine whether to request the entire 

application to analyze potential impacts on a class I area. 

Under this alternative approach, the completeness 

determination for any particular permit application could be 

contingent upon entry of information on the bulletin board. 

C. Permitting authorities should advise PSD permit 

applicants within 100 kilometers of a Claaa I area to 

consult with <fo^opr\i_te' FLM. The subcommittee qenerally 

agreed that proposed new and modified sources located within 

f -f^-Hyi-f 

at least 100 kilometers of a Class I area should be / 'rw 

scrutinized for potential Claco I area impacts. The 

3SUrCe.}> 

potential impacts of such sources warrants early discussions 

between the applicant and the FLM to determine whether it 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * D0E8 NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_l.H6] •>**• 
P.31 

_003.'022 

03/13/9 5 20: °3

 ©20 2 20S 1620 .vAso NR'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB 

Cjosf7 «• -r- "^^Tj+tZT^^ 

nay be necessary for the FLM to receive a complete copy of 

the permit application and other relevant information. 

-Bgaeg-afl mejiberfl of the subcommittee, including PLM's, took 

-th C&em7f 

the position that thio distance should be expanded to 200 

kilometers. 

d. Permitting authorities should adopt formal or 

informal procedures for the coordination, orlor to public 

notification of the draft PSD permit, of the FLM's input on 

psn permit applications. The Subcommittee indicated that 

ouch procedures should provide for (1) the review of the 

application by the FLM, to identify potential Class I area 

issues, during the State's normal review period for * v-o«$ 

completeness, (2) an opportunity for the FLM to request-. 

additional information before the application is ruled 

complete, and (3) a dispute resolution mechanism, if a FLM's 

.# 

request for additional information is rejected by the 

\ applicant or the permitting authority. The Subcommittee 0tfT.uii*± 

•j^' JiXW(/CO &^m\*- U' 

..'*.'] 

\ applicant or th« 

1

 <* could nnt reaitilh ijoneeaauB ion Um amount of tia e th___should ••••'%•• 

1

';. .Ti. be provided during''th , th« e State's, completeness review for-t he , _ 

FLM to7u)-rt.alll CTd oyneirV>r infermeteien related t o Cluus T rH a<_r3si^ 

^___ i t^V^3^ , _ •••- •• -

f

^ -

*"

 nl> l *MBPT • W>IIII M

 - ,, the subcommitteeNindieated that , (he-

*'' • _j______F*v?*'i 

pcrmiti|fPK*uthority should extend the review period* for at 

least 30 additional days if the FLM submits a writtaw/r 

request for additional information. During the 30-day > 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MAJOGBXENX'_VD 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOBS SOT-RBPRB8BNT OFFICIAL.BEA POLICY* 

*** November IS, 1994 — [filename FRSAM l.lll] ••• ' 

'•:•••[ 7* -

-IS 
P.32 

03'15'95 20:03 ~20 2 208 1620 "ASONR'AQNPS —-AQMD-PPB l_001'022 

267 

extension to consider the FLM's request for additional 

information, a dispute resolution procedure oould be 

implemented for negotiations between the applicant, the FLM, 

and the permitting authority to decide whether the requested 

information is relevant, and how the information eould be 

obtained. 

e. Tha public notice of availability of the draft 

permit should proyj.de a concise statement of unw-eierwdf iecmfc - J 

issues raised by the FLM during the Sta+.r*' x no-plateness 

review, and how such issues were rccolved. The Subcommittee 

was especially concerned about situations where a FLM 

submits a request for additional information, but the 

permitting authority issues a preliminary determination for 

public review without responding to the request. 

Two additional issues were discussed but were not 

resolved in the Subcommittee's deliberations. The first was 

whether there should be early public notification of 

projects within a certain distance of Class I areas. This 

would include notification by the permitting authority that 

it has received an application, publication of the "tact 

Sheet" by the permitting authority when the application is 

received, and FLM publication of any preliminary 

determination of adverse impact. The second unreaulved 

issue was whether the EPA should articulate specific 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PRE.nM_l.llC] •** 
P.33 

03'15'9 5 20:01 ®20 2 20S 1620 «ASO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _005'02 2 

268 -^ 

criteria (e.g., scientific basis, ota»ue ef existing AQRVs) ^ 

that must be oonsidered by the permitting authority in 

determining whether to accept or rejeot the FLM's finding of 

adverse impact. 

2. Determination of Adverse impacts. 

The CAAAC set forth four recommendations aimed at 

assisting the EPA in the establishment of procedures and 

_- Slif (j2_ 

criteria for performing and evaluating a FLM's_ — . / . 

demonstration that a proposed source^x?p*-ntodification will rcfT- J. 

have an adverse impact on the AQR*>-HS of a Class I area. The ^j^ 

Subcommittee also considered a number of pertinent issues fkciP 

for wnlch no consensus fur recommendations could be reached 

a. FT.Ms should be responsible for specifvinu AQRVs 'yTf^Ce^ 

for the Class I areas which thev manage. The CAAAC's '/*7r'tfVH/ 

recommendation acknowledges the FLMs' principal role in 

identifying the ttmSr^me AQRVs associated with the individual 

Class I areas which they are .hargedytoy statuLB with 

protecting. There were significant debates, however, 

r\-j/.-i-v*4'r^^'spcct^K<!_, ; ^-^w-/__fc;<-^ e-r~x •Arfi'Z.US 

concerning key eleaents nf thio insue .whioh -wore nover 

resolvea auring the subcommittee's deliberation. One key 

concern was the amount of i nformation that n*sa*ds to be 

available for a given AQRV before it^rfan be considered to be 

fully defined. That is, §bo-ld sensitive receptors, 

critical pollutant^t-adings associated with deleterious 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT RBPRBSBNT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_l.H6] ••» 
03'15'9S 20:0 1 g20 2 20S 1620 «ASO_NR'AQ_NPS _ — AQMD-PPB ®006'022 

269 / 

effects, and other parameters be determirjedTbefore a source 

, is required to consider its potential adverse impacts? 

Another key question that was not resolved was whether the 

i^ identification of each AO"**"/ should be subjected to full peer 

review and public comment before an applicant is required to 

liirf" 

3 

t 

Iff 

0 KM -

address it in a plass I area impact analysis. Finally, the 

.Subcommittee/deliberated about , but could not resolve, 

e# 

__*« * 

Nl whether only those AQRVs clearly identified at the time the 

"N P3D oermitting process begins for a particular source must 

V \ &e considered in assessing Class I area impacts . 

h. Significance levels should be adopted for Class I 

increments and AQRVs. While many members of the 

Subcommittee clearly supported the adoption of separate 

significance levels for the Class I increments and for any 

AQRVs identified by the FLM, no consensus could be reached 

ac to the appropriate values. Significance levels for Class 

I increments have been previously identified by the National 

Park Service and the virqinia Division of Air Pollution 

Control. However, the Subcommittee could not reach 

agreement on a cingle set of values to present to the CAAAC. 

The Subcommittee acknowledged that several isGUCG 

pertaining to significance levels needed further resolution. 

U fM\ 

io*. /mriiv^h ?C4'iSmf\r\'<m, c**ih'tOt-mmi'^, 

HV-f ^Federal! Land Managers and envii 

representative s state d tJ<Ta-^y_y"l_HL tha t each evaluatio n nf 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•»•• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM1.H6] *** 
P.35 

03 '15 ' 03 20:0 5 g20 2 20S 1620 "ASONR'AQ NPS -—AQMD-PPB l_007'02 2 

f\ V 

270 

the potential effect of a new source should be performed on 

a case-by-case basis using the best air quality dispersion 

model available,* Bfcqause efforts to prescribe specific 

source si2e or distance criteria foj"'identifying proposed 

sources to be automatically sjiato^ect to a Class I area 

analysis invariably will^-Toad to the Ih-a-apjropriate indl'ucion 

of come source and the inappropriate exclusion^ST—ethers. 

Industry representatives, on the other hand, tJulufc-j. UUL—3XSitsi<iH 

that the fLPiti' yusitiuii oi case-by-case assessments T.-nnlrt 

leave'too much uncertainty for most applicants. 

c. The EPA should actively begin to address numerical 

E3D increments, or some alternative measure, for ozone. The 

subcommittee recognized the technical difficulties 

'.L yJft^> associated with developing increments or other alternative 

. , -^ moacures under section 1^-6 of the Act for the pollutant 

T

r

 sfs^t'yozone. Nevertheless, the need for some means of limiting 

if: ^"*< x- - v 

m.r^'.^/\ future increases in ambient^ ozonexlevels—particularly in 

. flA&j^' ~~~ ~—'"' ^- ^ 

. r /.uF class I areas--was recognized-<TB heocseasy. 

'"'" d. An interactive bulletin board-based Class I area 

information clearinghouse should be established. The 

Subcommittee indicated that certain types of relevant 

information should be maintained and updated in such a 

clearinghouse for each Class I area, including: size 

(acres), boundaries and location, AQKV's defined by the MJ-i, 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

DUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY 

e*« November 16, 1994 — [filename FREAK 1.116] •** 
03 '13 93 20:0 3 ®20 2 20S 1620 WASO NR'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB l_008'02 2 

271 / "eTTJl+c^ 

I _&y 

screening levels (if any), current pollutant loadings (where 

available) , emissions inventories for the surrounding area "*-._ (or where to obtain them), documented adverse impacts!, on 

AQRVs, the point of contact for Tfiotification o*-ia^S^ and 

NU I Tiraiiijig addresses for appropriate ^Tjf^s ftnd c-^ii^-n-H-i-rtg who 

M.T(M<f I — ^ ^^ _ ' 

s J have worked ofT3p>pag£Xcular issue concerning a Class I. area 

y., rJL\ (e.g.^^ro obtain documents about theair^?*grsouro-6-J.ssues). 

, . L.-l-t r s,J. Significant debate was held on several important issues 

A f P^fffa-'-(-related to adverse impact determinations; however, the 

/ t*3L(7Lr • Jr? 

i, . 7J Subcommittee was unable to reach consensus on these issues. tt*J*tr .. . 

No recommendations were made concerning (l) specific 

pfctys i. ' distance criteria for automatically requiring a source to 

{/yi. '^^ conduct a Class 1 area impact analysis, (2) criteria for the 

Tr/V-L^l ' re*

D-**tal by a permitting authority of a FLM's determination 

/ that a proposed source or modification will have an adverse 

v impact on the AQRVs of a Class I area, and (3) the need for 

, a standard analytical approach for evaluating potential 

•>•' adverse impacts on AQRVs. 

Finally, two issiiss which were discussed but failed to 

,"m , ••^pTjS-'receive a£ much attention^ as the aforementioned issues 

include (1) FLM recourse when the permitting authority 

rejects a finding of adverse impact on an AQRV, and (2) PSD 

provisions for special protect von of Federal Class II areas. 

o* 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT POR OFFIOE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**« wovember 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM1.116] •*• 
P.37 

03'15'95 20:05 _»202 203 1620 »ASO NR AQ NPS --»•» AQMD-PPB _009'022 

272 

3. Mitigation of Class 1 Area Souree Impacts 

The CAAAC'c third series of recommendations concerned 

the range of measures that Bhould be considered for new or 

modified major sources to mitigate their own adverse impacts 

on the AQRVs of a Class I area. 

a. All new sources which cause or -sirui.ifiiaiiLly-— </ 

contribute to an adverse impact on the AQRVs of a class I 

area should be required to provide offsets. The 

Subcommittee's recommendation for offsets contained two 

distinct components: first, where the proposed emission 

offset ratio for a source is less than 1:1 (emission 

reductions will be less than tne emissions from the proposed 

source or modification), a net air quality benefit analysis 

should be required to ensure the mitigative effects of the 

offset; second, .Cor proposed emission offset ratios greater 

than 1:1, a standardized emissions/distance adjustment 

factor for determining the appropriate offset ratio should 

be applied without imposing a requirement for a net air 

quality benefit demonstration. The subcommittee was unable 

to reacn consensus on a standardised emissions/distance 

ratio or the question of what constitutes* a cource'o 

"significant" contribution to an adverse impact. 

^•A-Tra'Dut--"^ -f ^ 

b. Sources-havin g a slr-nifiranr *TfflrTfiTri-*-o*-P- an existin g 

adverse impact should hp subject to more stringent BACT 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PRE AM 1.116] *** 
P.38 

03 '13 '95 20:06 "3*202 203 1620 "ASO NR'AQ NPS —AQMD-PP B _010'022 

273 

conaiderations. The Subcommittee recommended that sources 

contributing to an existing adverse impact on AQRVs in a 

Class I area should be required to consider control 

technology options that might otherwise be rejected as BACT 

(based on the top-down BACT approach) where existing adverse 

impacts un a Class I area are not an issue. That is, the 

costs associated with applying such controls would be 

considered justifiable costs in the BACT analysis, although 

such costs may be considered economically unjustified under 

different circurasLances. 

There was also debate concerning the need for imposing 

a greater degree of stringency to the requirements on a new 

or modified PSD source once existing problems with AQRVs 

have been identified. The imposition of requirements 

applicable to sources locating in a designated nonattainment 

area were considered but no consensus could be reached. 

c. Establish- criteria__f or monitoring: AQRV 3. The 

Subcommittee addressed the need to monitor for air quality 

related values in the same way that air quality monitoring 

is already required under the PSD requirements to collect 

ambient data for criteria pollutants to determine whether a 

source will cause or contribute to a violation of a national 

ambient air quality standard. The Subcommittee's objective 

was to encourage the FLM's, in conjunction with the EPA and 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•*•* November 16, 1994 — [filename PRE.AM_1.116] *•* 
P.39 

03'15'95 20:06 g20 2 208 1620 »AS0 NF_AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _Oil'02 2 

274 

State air pollution control agencies, to develop explicit 

guidance which explains the use of both preconstruction and 

post-construction monitoring.to gather data concerning 

effects on AQRVs . Tn*is recommendation was made amidst some 

skepticism that ambient monitoring for PSD purposes often 

was of little value to the pe'rmlt review and tended to delay 

the permitting process. 

4. Addressing the Impact of Existing Sources on Class 

I .-Ureas. 

The CAAACS NSR Reform subcommittee discussed and 

identified different options for major initiatives to 

address impactG on AQRV s attributable to existing sources 

located near Federal Class I areas. Whi-re the subcdttfflitttSEA 

hrf-'Hi'"1 i •" ii-rm,i,n

flnrl <Tpf>ri1f1'* •"P-rpiltaitr-?ry •?hflr*rf?'aR. the options 

that it explored were directed at three major existing 

source problems in Clace I areas: (1) regional visibility 

impairment, (2) acid deposition, and (3) ozone damage. 

a. Regional visibility impairment. The subcommittee 

identified two options for addressing this problem: 

voluntary initiatives and a national rulemaking. Voluntary 

reqional haze initiatives included allowing States, FLMs, 

and other stakeholders to work together to address 

visibility (and possibly other Class I area problems) by 

examining regional emissionc reduction strategies, rather 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY 

••• November 16, 1994 «— [filename PREAM_1.H0] **•• 
P.40 

03 ' 13 '93 20:0 6 ©20 2 20S 1620 «ASO NR'AQ NPS - - - AQMD-PPB _ 012 '022 

275 

than focusing on the emissions from a single State. A 

voluntary initiative would not be based on Aot requirements 

and therefore would not be subject to statutory mandates or 

deadlines. One voluntary regional initiative is _irsady in flux: 

' pja-iopr. the Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative.33 

As noted previously, the Act provides for -similari/rti'b'lfti t/^ AiimXcLL:>&£. 

interstate initiatives*, The interstate visibility transport 

regions and associated commissions established under the Act 

are subject to statutory deadlines for reporting 

recommendations to the EPA. An EPA-establiohcd Grand Canyon 

Visibility Transport commission is developing 

recommendations on approaches for a regional haze protection 

strategy, with a focus on the issues of the Colorado 

Plateau, if The Subcommittee identified a national regional 

haze rulemaking that includes consideration of the Grand 

Canyon visibility Transport Commission recommendations as 

another option to addrccc existing source impacts. 

33 The Southern Appalachian Mountains Initiative was formed 

cooperatively by the eight States surrounding the Southern 

Appalachian Mountains (i.e., Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, North 

Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West 

Virginia), the EPA, the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest 

Service to identify meaeuree to remedy existing, and to prevent 

future, adverse impacts from air pollution on the air quality 

relates' values of primarily the Class I areas in the Southern 

Appalachians. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOE8 NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 -- [filename PREAM_1.11«) *** 
— _ _ P.41 

°

3/13 '9 3

.

 20:07

. - ®?°2. 20S.

l 6 2 ° "ASO NR'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB ®013'022 

576 

Tr """National regional haze regulations could require States 

to develop coordinated long-term strategiec that show 

"reasonable progress" toward no man-made impairment in 

mandatory Class I areas. Such strategies would Include a 

monitoring regime to determine man-made components 61 

visibility impairment, use of regional emissions inventories 

and air quality models to estimate future man-made impacts, 

and a periodic assessment of the need for reductions in 

A 

pollutants from identified sources in light of other air . , 

quality programs.<

 L*I => ^ ^i ^ * -—- f T_\\,J 

b. &c.id deposition. The Subcommittee examined 

regional acid deposition initiatives where the EPA would „ 

identify, in conjunction with FLM's, Class T areas with 

excessive acid deposition levels. Through euch regional _i , 

initiatives, the EPA would set standards for loadings and ^^*i*"4sr 

monitor compliance with loading levels. The Subcommittee 

also discussed whether"Che -EPA should explore adjustments to • 

*H£ 

<K aCA*-Ca** *&*> 

tne acid rain program to ensure that the program does not 

result in shifts of emissions tnat exacerbate impacts on ^ ^ «\\ 

Class I areac. /T~~" 

c. ozone damage. The Subcommittee identified several 

options for addressinq ozone damage in Class I areas: 

revisions to the NAAQS and increments and a requirement for 

states to develop control strategies lor Class I areas with 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AMD 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

e«a November 16 , 1994 — [filenam e PREAM_1.116] ** • 
P.42 

03'15'9 5 20:0 7 O20 2 20S 1620 »AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _011'02 2 

277 

ozone damage. In particular, the Subcommittee discussed 

the question of whether the EPA should study setting \ 

ceoondary NAAQS to protect Class I areas impacted by oeone 

fTr ^7fn>Y^ O^djLi 7 

and establishing PSD increments for oeonc to ensure proper 

protection of class I areas. As to State strategies, the 

Subcommittee explored whether states should develop special 

ozone aontrol programs, requiring periodic measures of 

progress in Class I areas with ozone damage, using methoc 

similar to those used in the urban ozone control programs 

required under title I ol tne Act for ozone nonattainmenj! 

areas. Specific control methods discussed by the 

Subcommittee included emissions offsets, pcroentage 

reductions for emissions inventor it**-,, and extended 

inspection and maintenance programs tor motor vehicles. 

The Subcommittee also identified interim mechanisms tio 

address, in the short term, adverse impacts in Class I areas 

caused by existing sources. These interim mechanisms 

include (l) enforcing existing regulations which require/ 

revisions to State implementation plans in cases where PSD 

increment violations have been documented, and (2) amending 

existing PSD regulations to call for revisions to State 

implementation plans when the AQRVs of a Class X area are 

being adversely affected. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 -- [filename PRE.AM_1.116] ••• 
P.43 

03 15'95 20:08 g20 2 20S 1620 »AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _015'022 

27o 

C. The EPA Proposal 

As described below, the EPA is today providing guidance 

and proposing a number of revisions to the PSD regulations 

at s bi.166 and si 52.21 to address the protection of air 

quality in Class I areas. In many instances, where the EPA 

determined appropriate, the EPA ie taking action consistent 

with, or [iim*il_r to, the CAAAC's recommendations. 

in general, the EPA is proposing several changes to 

better facilitate State notification and coordination with 

the FLM'e and to provide the States, permit applicants and 

FLM's with clearer guidance about their relative roles and 

responsibilities. The EPA is proposing "significance 

levels" for Class I increments that would exclude sources 

with dc minimis ambient impacts from a Clas6 I increment 

analysis. The EPA is also establishing a general policy, 

and proposing regulatory language, allowing the use of 

offsets to mitigate adverse impacts on air quality related 

values (AQRVs) in Class I arcae-* whioh^v-ill provide a 

reasonable way to allow the perjailfting of sources that would 

otherwise face permitdenial because of their adverse impact 

on a Class I as_a. The EPA is also proposing several 

clarifications to its PSD regulations where confusion about 

a requirement has created controversy or impeded more 

expeditious permit review. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• November 16, 1994 -- [filename PREAM1.116] *** 
03'13 93 20:OS g20 2 20S 1620 «AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _016'022 

279 

1. Improving FLM/Permitting Authority Coordination 

The EPA ic proposing several improvements to State and 

FLM coordination. The CAAAC recommendations reflected 

general agreement that better state and FLM coordination is 

integral to avoiding delays and controversies during the PSD 

permitting process. The earlier FLM6 are informed about a 

permit application the sooner they will be able to determine 

whether class I area impacts are likely to be of concern, 

and the earlier all parties involved in the permit process 

may examine and resolve such concerns. 

v\ The more difficult task is improving coordination in a 

reasonable way. The likelihood that a proposed source may . 

*dve^ely impact a Class T area varies depending on the 

particular Clacc I area, the amount and type of pollutants 

emitted by a proposed source, the source's location, 

meteorological ancx topographical conditions, and the 

emissions released by\other sources. The. FPA has attempted 

to strike a reasonable balance by proposing some minimal 

notification requirements for^ll proposed sources and 

proposing some additional coordination requirements for 

sources proposing to locate within a certain proximity of a 

Class I area, whose emissions are more likely to affcot 

Federal Class I areas. However, the EPA recobfljizes that any 

scheme to improve coordination may be over- and underPRELIMINARY 8TAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT^AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_l.li6] »*• 
^^___ P.45 

92_7l3_93_ 20:0S ©20 2 209 1620 "ASP XR'AQ NPS -- - AQMD-PPB _017'022 

s-A '& 

^, ^ «*-«&" **•% u-A« <*V\ 

\ 

inclusive by failing\to provide heightened coordination 

\ 

where proposed sources^ay in fact adversely impact Class I 

; \ 

areas and by establishing some coordination requirements 

| that apply where sources may not in ract adversely impact a 

j Class I area. 

a. Tre-application Coordination 

The EPA is proposing to facilitate pre-application 

coordination with FLMs by providing for early notification 

of a pending permit application and an opportunity for 

participation in pre-application meetings with the 

prospective source. This proposal makes revisions to 

section si.166 and section 52.21 to require that the permit 

permitting authority provide pre-application coordination 

with the FLM, regardless of State boundaries, within 30 days 

of being informed that a prospective source is planning 

JA<3Tconstruction within ^LatT km of a Federal Class i area, see 

proposed section SI.166(p) (1)(ii) and 

section 52.21(p)(1)(ii). 

The EPA recognizes that the type of early notification 

that a prospective applicant may provide to the permitting 

authority will vary from one situation to another. Thus, 

the type of notification provided by the permitting 

authority should be commensurate with the type of 

inrormation which is received, tor example, a short letter 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKINO DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOE8 NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.46 

03 '13 '93 20:09 g20 2 20S 1620 "ASP NR-AQ NPS -.-.-. AQMD-PPB (_01S'022 

281 

or phone call from the permitting authority to the FLM may 

be appropriate where the information about the potential 

project is only very preliminary. 

These proposed revisions are similar to the existing 

pre-application notification requirement at 

section 52.21(p)(l) which calls for the Administrator to 

notify the FLM within 3 0 days of receipt of any advance 

notification of a PSD permit application for a proposed 

source, "the emissions from which may affect a Class I 

area." Dy contrast, section 51.ICC currently contains no 

requirement for the permitting authority to provide preapplication notification to FLM's. Accordingly, the EPA is 

proposing to establish an entirely new pre-application 

notification requirement for State PSD programs, and is 

proposinq to clarify the existing notification procedures 

under the Federal PSD regulations by stipulating that the 

mandatory notification must apply to any advance 

notification involving a source that would construct within 

100 kilometers of a Federal class I area. The permitting 

authority—either the EPA or the applicable State, or loral 

agency—will be required to notify any affected FLM within 

3 0 days of receipt of any such advance notification of a PSD 

permit application, .see proposed 

RP.r.t.inn 51.166 (p) (1 ) (iv) (A) and section 52.21 (p) (1) ( iv) (A) . 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PRBAM_l.li6] •** 
___^ _ P.47 

03'15'95 20:09 g20 2 20S 1620 «AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _019.'022 

282 

Thus, the EPA's proposed revisions would establish 

aoneistency between the PSD regulations contained in 

parts 51 and 52. 

The EPA requests public comments on all aspects of 

these proposed regulatory revisions addressing advance 

notification, including the appropriate type of 

notification, the mandatory notification within 

JtcO kilometers of a Federal Class I area, and the adequacy 

of a 3 0-day timeframe for making such notification to the 

FLM. The EPA is interested in the public's views about, the 

need for these changes in light of the other regulatory 

revisions, described below, that the EPA is proposing in 

order to improve FLM coordination, including the proposed 

requirement that formal permit applications for all PSD 

sources proposing to locate within 100 kilometers of a 

Federal Class I area be transmitted to the FLMs. 

The CAAAC recommendations underscored the importance of 

inoluding FLMs in pre-application meetings and recommended 

that the EPA encourage permitting authorities to coordinate 

with t'LMS in this way. Pre-application meetings are an 

important forum for the permitting authority and prospective 

permit applioant to discuss source location and design as 

well as PSD requirements and other air quality-related 

considerations. Therefore, in conjunction with the proposed 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BODGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] ••*• 
P.48 

03'15'9 5 20:0 9 ®20 2 20S 1620 "ASP NR'AQ NPS —.- AQMD-PPB _020'02 2 

283 

early notification requirement, the EPA is proposing to 

nCjiS6-N^_£c. 

require that permitting authorities provide an opportunity 

for FLM's to participate in pre-application meetings with 

prospective PSD applicants that would locate within^i&o 

kilometers of a Federal Class I area. See proposed 

section 51.166(p)(l)(iv) (B) and eection 52.21(p)(l)(iv)(B). 

Early involvement will help enable the FLM to identify 

specific concerns related to affected Federal class I areas, 

and to inform the permitting authority and permit applicant 

about AQRVs that may ba affected by the proposed project. 

The prospective permit applicant can then consider FLM ... 

concerns in the early staqes of proiect planningA Further, o^-zi-. 

itvT_5y be possible for the FLM to determine at this juncture 

whether the^&ourco's emissions would potentially affect any 

Federal Class I areas^od^oncern. Conceivably, the FLM 

could conclude at this early staqe that the proposed source 

would not. affect any Federal Class T a>ea, and no further 

analysis of impaots in Class I areas would be^Ti-tceeeary. 

While today's proposal only requires the permitting 

authority to provide the FLM with advance notice of 

prospective sources and modifications located within 

.2100 kilometers of a Federal Claee I area, the EPA believes 

that in certain instances it would be prudent for the 

permitting authority to notify the FLM of prospective 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *•* 
P.49 

03 '15 '05 20:10 g20 2 20S 1620 "ASQNR'AQNPS —AQMD-PPB 12)021 '022 

284 

sources that would be located more than JJX) kilometers from 

a Class I area. In particular, when the permitting 

authority has reason to believe that a prospective source or 

modification located more than ^6*0 kilometers from a Class I 

area may adversely affect that area, the early involvement 

of the FLM would enable the applicant to better understand 

what specific Class I issues need to be addressed in the FSU 

permit application. The proposed mandatory advance 

notification of the FLM for prospective sources within 

T/do kilometers of a Federal Class I area does not 

necessarily exempt a source proposing to locate more than 

1-00 kilometers from such area from a potential review for 

class I area impacts, but only from the propoccd mandatory 

pre-application notification (including the opportunity for 

FLM attendance at pre-application meetings) and the proposed 

requirement (discussed below) to automatically provide the 

formal permit application to the FLM. 

b. Improving coordination During Permit Application 

Review 

Several of the CAAAC recommendations addressed 

improvements to coordination between the FLM's and 

permitting authority once a permit application has been 

received. Similar to the recommendations for preapplication coordination addressed previously, these 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFIOE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 —- [filename PREAM1.116] *** 
P.50 

03'13'9 3 20:1 0 ©20 2 205 1620 "ASP NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB ®022'02 2 

285 

measures to promote early coordination may avoid disputes 

and delays later in the permit review process. 

(1) FLM Notification 

The EPA is proposing to establish two independent 

notification requirements that apply when the permitting 

authority receives a permit application. First, the EPA ie 

proposing to require that each of the EPA-approved State PSD 

programs include procedures ensuring that the FLM be 

notified of each source or modification proposing to locate 

within 2^0 kilometers of a Federal class I area, and 

provided with a copy of the application and other pertinent 

information related to the source. See proposed 

section 51.166(p)(1)(i) and section 52.21(p)(1)(i). 

currently, the PSD regulations under part 51, which apply to 

State PSD programs, contain no requirement for a permitting 

authority to notify FLMs when a PSD application potentially 

affecting a Class I area is received. The Federal PSD 

regulations at section 52.21 require the Administrator to 

provide written notification to the FLM of a P3D permit 

application within 30 days of receipt and at least 60 days 

prior to any public hearing on the application. see 

section 52.21(p)(l). Accordingly, the EPA is proposing 

changes to both sets of PSD regulations to implement the 

notification procedures described above. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY 

**• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *•*»• 
P.51 

03'13'95 20:11 ©20 2 20S 1 620 "ASP NR'AQ NPS — - AQMD-PPB _002.'022 

s 

u*' 

4w M* 

286 

It is not the EPA's intent herein to mandate that the 

permitting authority be the one to actually*send each 

affected permit application to the FLM. Instead, the State 

may elect to require each PSD applicant to directly transmit 

a copy of its application to the FLM. In either case, the 

EPA recommends that the application be sent promptly so as 

not to unnecessarily delay the permit process. 

The ErA i6 also proposing to revise paragraph (p)(1) in 

^both sets of PSD regulations by requiring that the FLM be 

given at least 271 days to review the relevant portions of 

the application prior to any determination of eomplete.ness 

being issued by the permitting authority. See proposed 

section 51.166(p)(1)(iii) and section 52.21(p)(l)(iii). The 

EPA is proposing this revision in order to give the FLM 

adequate time to review permit applications and identify any 

concerns, including the need ror additional information. 

However, the proposed provision is not intended to require 

the permitting authority to wait the full Jk days to make a 

completeness determination if the FLM responds within a 

shorter period of time, and the FLM's comments are 

considered. 

Finally, the EPA is addressing the issue about what 

constitutes a complete application with respect to 

information relevant to Class I areas. The EPA is proposing 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * D0E8 NOT RBPRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•* November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] ••• 
^ P.52 

03'15'9 5 20:1 5 S20 2 20S 1620 »ASQ NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _003'02 2 

287 

that, when a FI.M alleges that a proposed source's emissions 

may affeot the air quality in a Federal Clas6 I area, at a 

minimum, each permit application must include information on 

the air quality impacts (ambient pollutant concentrations 

for affected pollutants) and must contain'sufficient 

A. 

information to determine whether the proposed source's 

emissions will cause or contribute to a violation of any 

Class I increment. See proposed section 5i.i66(n)(4) and 

section 52.21(n)(4). Elsewhere in this preamble the EPA is 

alco proposing new eignifioance levels for Class I 

increments. These significance levels may be used to show 

that the ambient concentrations from a source's emissions 

are insignificant in the Class T area and will, therefore, 

not contribute to a violation of any Class I increment. If 

a proposed source's emissions will result in a significant 

air quality change in the class I area, then a full 

increment analysis would be needed. 

AB explaineUin section V.C.2., "Determining and 

Documenting Adverse^Impacts.in Class I Areas," the status of 

the Class I incrementsNestablishes the burden of proof in 

terms of who (the FLM or \he applicant) must demonstrate 

whether the source's emissions will oauee any adverse 

impacts to air quality related xalues identified in the 

Class I area. It the applicant beaxs the burden of 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 —> [filename PREAM_l.ll6] *•»* 
P.53 

J0205_'95 20:15 _©202_20J_1620 "ASP NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB L_001'022 

288 

demonstrating to the FLK that the source will not cause any 

adverse impacts, then the^PA anticipates that the applicant 

generally will provide such ohmonstration in the application 

submitted to the permitting authority. 

The EPA does not intend ror the lack of such 

demonetra€_qn by the applicant to result in an application 

being ruled incbqtplete, however, 6ince this is something 

that will need to beN^oordinated with the FLM over a period 

of time in order for the permit to be issued. Other aspects 

\ 

of the permit application can\certainly undergo review by 

-he permitting authority while th^e demonstration is being 

prepared and negotiated with the FLMo\ 

With regard.to the existing notiric^-fcion provision at 

section 51.166(p)(1), the EPA proposes to relocate this 

provision which is subject to misinterpretation in its 

current location. This provision requires that the 

permitting authority transmit to the Administrator a copy of 

each PSD permit application received. Tn its present form, 

the notification requirement could be interpreted to apply 

only to proposed sources and modifications whose emissions 

affect a Federal Class I area, out the existing provision 

does not require notification of the FLM. The Act actually 

intends that this notification requirement apply with 

respect to all PSD permit applications—not just those 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRBSBNT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• November 16, 1994 -- [filename PREAM_l.ll6) ••• 
03'15'9 5 20:1 3 ©20220 S 1620 _ «ASO XR'AQ NPS -- - AQMD-PPB _005'02 2 

289 

affecting Federal Class I areas. The Aot, 

section 165(d)(1). See proposed section 51.166(q)(l). m 

moving the existing provision to its new location in the 

Part 51 regulations, its coverage of all PS D permit 

applications will be clarified. 

The scope of the^ second proposed notification 

requirement is broader \n one respect, yet narrower in 

another. The EPA recognia.es that the FLM's may have an 

interest in reviewing the potential air quality related 

effeotc associated with sources proposing to locate more 

than 100 kilometers from a Class\I area. However, a general 

requirement to transmit copies of \ll permit applications'to 

the FLM's would ba quite burdensome and overly inclusive. 

Aoco-dingly, the- EPA is developing a special electronic 

database and proposing to require that a summary of each PSD 

permit application be entered into this database. See 

proposed section 51.166(n)(5) and section 52.21(n)(5). 

Under the PSD regulations in part Si, the proposed 

requirement does not specify whether the applicant or the 

permitting authority is to enter the data summary. The EPA 

believe& that it is appropriate in this cituation to allow 

permitting authorities to exercise their discretion in 

determining what specific procedures they will adopt and 

implement to ensure that the data is entered .into the P.PA's 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] **» 
P.55 

03'15'9 5 20:1 6 g20 2 20S 1620 «ASQ NR'AQ NPS — - AQMD-PPB l_006'02 2 

290 

electronic data base. In the oaec of the Part 52 Federal 

PSD program, however, the proposal provides that the EPA 

will ensure that the appropriate source information is 

entered into the database. The proposed changes are 

generally consistent with the CAAACs recommendation that, 

to facilitate early FLM involvement, the FLM'-s be given a 

"fact sheet" containing key information about all proposed 

PSD sources. The proposed informational requirements 

include the name and type of source, the nature of the 

project, products and design production capacity, source 

location and proximity to class i areas, the proposed 

emission rates (or emissions increases) of air pollutants to 

be emitted by the source, and key mailing addresses. The 

FLMs, as well as the general public, will have reasonable 

access to this information. The proposed information 

SkcuJlfff 

summary to be stored in the EPA's electronic data base wiil 

function as a helpful screening tool for FLM's to identify 

their concerns early in the permit review process. If an 

FLM determines that more information about a proposed source 

is needed, the FLM 6hould seek the necessary information ' 

from, or through, the appropriate permitting authority^. • 

The administration of this electronic database is addressed 

in more detail in section V.C.7., "Information 

Clearinghouse." 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOE8 NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 -- [filename PREAMi.116] *•« 
____ P.56 

03'15'9 5 20:1 6 -g20 2 20S 1620 "ASPNRAQNP S —AQMD-PPB ®007'02 2 

291 

The EPA i6 also proposing that the FLM will be afforded 

at least 7 days to review the information contained in the 

database and to request the full permit application if so 

desired. See proposed section 51.166(p)(1)(ii) and 

section 52.21(p)(1)(ii)- The proposed revisions include the 

stipulation that the permitting authority may prooccd to 

issue a determination that the application is complete any 

time after the^-day period for FLM review, if the FLM fails 

to request additional information relevant to impacts in the 

Class I area. 

For any permit application which the FLM requests 

jn 

within the proposed Sf-day period, the EPA is proposing that 

the FLM be allowed A" 2m days, from the date of receipt, to 

review the information pertaining to impacts in the Claee I 

area, to identify any concerns, and tu request additional 

relevant information before a formal completeness 

determination may be made by the permitting authority. See 

proposed section 51.166(p)(1)(iii) and 

section t)i.i66(p) (1) (iii) . The permitting authority may 

issue its completeness determination any time (either before 

J" 

or after the J-i-day period has ended) after the FLM's 

comments have been received and considered. 

As described above, the application should contain 

sufficient information to determine whether the proposed 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_l.ll6] *** 
P.57 

_<__15'95 20:16 ®20 2 208 1620 WASP NR'AQ NPS -mm AQMD-PPB I_008.'022 

292 

source's emissions will cause or contribut**-*to a violation of 

any Class I increment. Many sources located at distances 

greater than 100 kilometers from a Class I area wiil not 

significantly affect such area. Nevertheless, the FLM, upon 

reviewing the source information available, may request that 

an increment analysis be completed as a prerequisite for the 

permitting authority's decision to consider the application 

complete. The EPA believes that it would be in the best 

interest of the applicant to estimate its ambient pollutant 

concentrations in the Class I area if there is any doubt as 

to the source's potential impacts. 

The EPA requests public comments on its proposed 

requirements to improve the notification procedures which 

inform FLM's about incoming permit applications, and changes 

which clarify what constitutes a complete application 

relative to Class I area impacts. In particular, the EPA 

requests public comments addressing the proposed requirement 

to transmit permit applications to the FLM's for any Federal 

Class T area within 'ieo kilometers of the proposed source or 

modification. The appropriate distance cutoff was actively 

debated during the Subcommittee's deliberations and there 

was much discussion about the relative merits of a 240-

kilometer versus a 200-kilometer cutoff point. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 *-- [filename PREAM1.116] *•* 
03'15'95 20:17_ ®2_2_2 08 ______ "ASP_NR'AQ NPS -—AQMD-PPB _009'022 

V 293 

\ The proposed ^00-kilometer cutoff for both the less 

formal^ pre-application notification (disoucccd in 

section VxC.l.a., above) and the mandatory transmittal of 

permit applications to the FLM is consistent with current 

policy by the EPnV.concerning the modeling of Class I 

impacts14. That policy recommends that major couroc 

\ 

emissions within 100 Kile-meters of a Class I area should be 

\ 

routinely considered when assessing pollutant impacts on the 

Class I area. Thus, the EPA believes that it is appropriate 

\ 

to require that the applicable FLM\bc notified of any PSD 

applicant planning to construct within\100 kilometers of a 

Class I area. It the FLM is given an opportunity to 

consider the impacts of potential sources pn'-sr to t.he 

actual submittal of a PSD application, then earl^*x 

identification and resolution of potential problems ^e 

likely to occur. Also, sources possibly may be excluded\ 

from conducting further Class I area analyses at that time 

"in an October 19, 1992 memorandum from John S. Seitz, 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards to EPA 

Regional offices, FPA clarified its guidance tor modeling class 1 

area impacts under the PSD program. The policy statement advised, 

Regional Office personnel that it was appropriate to routinely 

consider the ambient impacts resulting from PSD sources proposing 

to locate within 100 kilometers of a Class I area. Such guidanoe 

was not, however, to be taken to preclude the consideration of 

source emissions occurrinq at distances greater Uian 100 kilometers 

from lr.rge sources if there ic reason to believe that such eoureee 

could affect the air quality in the Class I area. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOE8 NOT REPRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] *** 
P.59 

_03'15'95 20:17 ®202 208 1620 «AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB ]010'022 

\ 294 

if the FLM, during early^involvement, concludes that no 

adverse impacts will occur^Iroo the prospective source. 

The _FA recognizes that larqe sources could potentially 

have adverse impacts at distances beyond 3^0 kilometers. It 

emphatically ie not the EPA's intention to allow such 

sources to be atrp<QBietiid<_l_y^exempted from further impadt 

analyses for Federal Class I areas. Rather, theNEPA 

believes that the proposed requirement that basic source 

information from all proposed PSD sources be entered into 

the EPA electronic data base will serve as a reasonable 

surrogate to a general requirement to transmit full permit 

applications for all sources located beyond '"Wo kilometers. 

Conversely, the location of a proposed source within 

7,1(30 kilometers of a Federal Class I area, and ascooiated 

proposed notification procedures for permit applications, 

does not in any manner mean that such a source in fact has 

an adverse impact on the AQRV6 in the area. Notification 

is simply a means to facilitate FLM judgment about adverse 

impacts and to help FLM's fulfill their responsibilities to 

protect Federal Class I areas. Moreover, where the FLM 

raises concerns about the impact of a proposed source on a 

Federal Class I area, improved notification will facilitate 

t.Hp. FT.M'S involvement early in the pennitting process, when 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BODGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•"»* November 16, 1994 — [filename PRBAM_1.116] *** 
P.60 

03'15'95 20:17 -2F202 20S 1620 »AS0 NR'AQ NPS —* AQMD-PPB _011'022 

295 

it may be substantially less burdensome and costly to 

resolve Class I area concerns. 

In the final analysis, the EPA is proposing to engage 

in difficult, but necessary, line-drawing. The Act squarely 

places on the Administrator the responsibility to provide 

FLM's with notice of permit applications for proposed,* 

facilities that may affect a Federal Class I area. The Act, 

section 163(d)(2)(A) ("[t]he Administrator shall provide 

notice or the permit application to the Federal Land 

Manager. . . of any lands within a class I area which may be 

afected by emissions from the proposed facility.") See 

also, the Act, section 165(d)(1) {"[ejach State snail 

transmit to the Administrator a copy of each permit 

application relating to a major emitting facility received 

by such State and provide notice to the Administrator of 

every action related to the consideration of such permit."). 

The EPA is proposing to establish requirements that will 

ensure that in virtually all instances the FLM's will have 

access to some relevant information about proposed PSD 

sources. 

(2) FLM/Permitting Authority Consultation 

The CAAAC recommendations also addressed the importance 

of broader coordination between permittinq authorities and 

FLM's, after receipt ot a permit application and prior to a 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.61 

03'15'95 20:18 -g202 208 1620 _AS0 NR'AQ NPS —-AQMD-PPB (_012'022 

» .'a* 

-X 

296 

completeness determination. Therefore, in addition to 

improved notification, the EPA is recommending that 

permitting authorities take steps to ensure early and 

effective consultation with FLMs. 

Where the VLR identifies speciric informational 

deficiencies that hinder the FLM's ability to assess a" 

proposed source's impact on a Federal Class I area, the 

permitting authority should make all reasonable efforts to 

help the FLM obtain that information from the applicant. 

Permitting authorities generally should not announce that an 

application is complete where an FLM indicates that the 

Class I increments have not been satisfactorily addressed or 

A 

estimates of ambient concentrations are absent for 

pollutants which may affect the Class I area. Looking^ 

- '$ ^ beyond the completeness determination, tlje^p_rmitting 

V V \y ---— 

*

 v> 0 -\7 authority should also act in ^^--cooperative manner to help 

ensure that adequaiefinformation is subsequently available 

to enabjje-'the FLM to make any determinations concerning 

adverse impacts on AQRVs. 

The CAAAC recommended that the EFA consider 

establishing a formal dispute resolution process as a part 

of the completeness review. Acoording to this 

recommendation, if the cooperation and coordination with the 

FLM has been inadequate, the FLM would be authorized to 

PRELIMINARY 8TAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•*•** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] **• 
P.62 

03'15'93 20:18 O20 2 208 1620 "ASP NR'AQ NPS —-. AQMD-PPB _013.'022 

297 

invoke a compulsory 30-day dispute resolution period prior 

to a completeness determination. The 3 0-day period would 

allow additional time to address the FLM's concerns. 

The EPA has decided not to propose any specific 

requirements, beyond those described for notification 

purposes, for consultation with FLMs during the completeness 

review period. Instead, the EPA prefers that the permitting 

authorities and the FLM's retain discretion to determine the 

nature of consultation that is appropriate. The FPA 

believes that most permitting authorities and permit 

applicants recognize the merits of early consultation with 

the FLM's and that all affected parties will work in a 

cooperative manner. 

In lieu of imposing specific consultation requirements, 

the EPA is proposing to require that permitting authorities 

address their efforts to consult with FLM's as part of the 

preliminary determination regarding the PSD permit, and in 

the materials in the publio record aeeooiatcd with the 

particular permit application. Specifically, the EPA is 

proposing to require that, for any permit application for a 

potential source which may affect a Federal Class I area, 

the permitting authority muet addrcee in the preliminary 

determination for a permit for such source: whether, and to 

what extent notification was provided to the *'_M; the FLM's 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

<*-*>* November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] *** 
P.63 

03 '15 '05 20:19 Q202 208 J_620 »ASO NR'AQ NPS —m AQMD-PPB _011/022 

37~ 

298 

involvement in the review of the permit application; and a 

;J/jf summary of any concerns raised by the FLM, including how the 

/ 4 concerns have been addressed by the permitting authority. 

^

a • / / 

s ,J[ ilAt/ See proposed section 51.166 (q) (6) (ii) and 

i A*' 

(\0^^section 52. 21(q) (6) (ii) . 

The proposed approach was discussed in the 

Subcommittee's deliberations. The EPA believes that this 

provision should apply to any preliminary determination for 

sources and modifications located within J«0 kilometers of a 

Federal Class I area (for which automatic transmittal of the 

permit application to the FLM is required), and for sources 

and modifications whose permit applications are requested 

for review by the FLM (based on the FLM'e review of the 

summary information required to be entered into the 

electronic database described previously) in accordance with 

proposed paragraph (n)(fi) In both sets of PSD regulations. 

In this way, the permitting authority ie obligated to 

identify for the public record the nature and extent of any 

consultation which may have taken place with the FLM in 

consideration of a potential source's impacts on a Federal 

Class I area. 

Again, the EPA is proposing this particular approach 

because it represents a more flexible and less intrusive way 

to encourage coordination between permitting authorities and 

PRELIMINARY STAFP WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM1.116] *<*•• 
P.64 

03'15'95 20:19 g20 2 208 1620 »ASQ NR'AQ NPS —AQMD-PPB ®015'022 

299 

FLM's. Moreover, instead of dictating specific consultation 

requirements that may or may not make sense in particular 

circumstances, public disclosure of a permitting authority's 

consultation With FLMs will promote public accountability 

and create incentives for appropriate coordination. 

2. Determining and Documenting Adverse Impacts in 

Class I Areas 

As noted, the FLMs have an "affirmative responsibility" 

to protect the AQRVs (including visibility) associated with 

Federal ClaGC I areas. The Act, section 165(d)(2)(B). In 

so doing, FLM's are directed to coneider, in consultation 

with the EPA, whether proposed PSD sources will have an 

adverse impact on AQRVs. Td. if the FLM concludes that an 

adverse impact will occur, the FLM may need to demonstrate 

such adverse impact to the satisfaction of the permitting 

authority in order to prevent the permit from being iceued. 

The burden of demonstrating the presence or absence of an 

adverse impact on the AQRV6 of a Federal Class I area 

depends upon compliance with the Class I inoremente. That 

is, if the proposed source or modification will not cause or 

contribute to a violation of an increment in a Federal 

Class I area, the FLM has the burden of demonstrating to the 

satisfaction of the permitting authority that a proposed 

source will have an adverse Impact and, if so demonstrated, 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND , 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** Novomber 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] ••• 
03'15'9 5 20:1 9 ©20 2 208 1620 <OVSO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _016,'02 2 

300 

the permit "shall not be issued." Conversely, if a proposed 

source or modification causes or contributes to an increment 

violation in a Federal Class I area, the permit may be 

issued if the owner or operator demonstrates to the 

satisfaction or the FLM that the proposed source will have 

no adverse impact and the FLM so certifies. See the Act, 

section 165(d)(2)(C)(ii) and (iii). 

Nevertheless, the Act and the existing PSD regulations 

are silent in explaining what an AQRV (other than 

visibility) is, what procedures should be followed for 

defining an AQRV, and what criteria should be used for"" / 

is 

3e-txng~criticai-~pollutant "luddings for determining when an 

adverse impact on an AQRV would occur. The _PA is 

addressing these issues below. 

In general, the EPA explicitly recognizes that FLM's 

have special expertise and knowledge about the Federal Class 

they manage and that identifying AQRV S is the 

V «p_> «~ •-• *T> '*. Sfo L , 

I areas which 

"V^_> *m -.•• rt> is. syfr- ^ 

domain of the FLM's. Further, the EPA believes the FLMs' 

expertise is entitled to reasonable deference when the FLMs 

raise concerns about the potential impacts of a proposed 

source on a Federal Class I aren. To ensure that 

appropriate consideration is given to the FLM6' judgment, 

the EPA proposes to establish criteria that should inform a 

PRELIMINARY 8TAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

-*• November 16, 1994 -- [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.66 

03'15'95 20:20 ©20 2 208. 1620 'OASQ NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _017'022 

301 

permitting authority's assessment of the FLM's adverse 

impact determination. 

a. Defining AQRVs 

The EPA agrees with the CAAAC s recommendation that the 

FLMs should be expressly recognized as having the primary 

responsibility for the identification of s^-acif-ic AQRVs. ' 

The FLM's have the necessary knowledge of their respective 

Class I areae, and have the expertise for identifying the 

unique and important resources that are afrected by air 

pollutant concentrations. 

The EPA believes that a logical adjunct of the 

responsibility for identifying AQRVs is the responsibility 

to provide relevant information to parties involved in tne 

permitting process. Permitting authorities and permit 

applicants should have access to any information concerning 

AQRVc which the FLM's have specificai-ly defined for those 

Federal Class I areas that may be affected by a proposed 

source or modification. To address this concern, the EPA is 

proposing that the FLM be required to provide pertinent 

information, where available, to permitting authorities and 

PSD permit applicants upon request. 

Specifically, the proposal would apply to (1) 

permitting authorities whose jurisdiction includes a Federal 

Class I area, and (2) any prospective applicant for which 

PRELIMINARY 8TAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT ANO 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

• •• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
03'15'95 20:20 g20 2 208 1620 "ASP NR'AQ NPS -—AQMD-PPB _01S'022 

302 

the FLM receives advance notification from the permitting 

authority, or who directly requests that such information be 

provided. gee proposed section 51.1-6 (p) (_ J (n) , (iiij aHa-

-soctiwi 52.21(-p>H2^ (ill-/_^iii^'. The piopooal t-tlpulat-u 

that the FLM shall provide the affected permitting authority 

and prospective applicant a current listing of the AQRVs 

and other relevant information, inoluding ccncitivc 

receptors and critical pollutant loadings, for the affected 

class i areas. The FLM vo_±d also be required fee* provide 

copies of all previous findings of adverse impact on AQRVs 

that have been made for other PSD permit rcvicwa, _•**." 

The propooal alco previdoo that, in lieu of providing 

this information directly to the arrected permitting 

authorities, the information may instead be entered into the 

EPA data base for publio availability. Thic database ic 

described in section V.c.7 of this preamble. 

uuiffii-i-, the EPA is not proposing regulations that 

dictate how the FLMs' identify AQRVs and associated 

critical pollutant loadings or make adverse impact 

determinations. The EPA believes that these 

responsibilities are closely tied to the role of the k'Lt. 

mandated by the Act, and are also integral to the management 

of those AQRVs under the mandates of other statutes as well 

(e.g., Wilderness Act and organic Act). Furthermore, 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDCET REVIEW * D0E8 NOT RBPR8SENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY 

•»*• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] ••• 
P.68 

03'15'95 20:20 *6**202 208 1620 _AS0 NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _019'022 

, 6<f cw&~ yU 

W ~> .13 / 

because of the wide variety of Federal ClasX**s I areas, 

* ' Myy 

AQRVs, sensitivities of critical receptors, and the 

inavailability of data in many caseB,(the EPA believes that 

the FLMs must have sufficient latitude to address these 

issues on an area-by-area, as well as a permit-by-permit, 

basis as the need arises. At the same time, the EPA 

/ 

encourages FLMs to identify AQRVs on a regional or national 

• _ • 

basis where appropriate, and to establish general procedures 

for identifying AQRV(js. AS noted below, FLM's have already 

accomplished this latter goal in part. 

"> 

[Y \j \ The EPA agrees with the concern expressed by some 

-3-X g member*** of the CAAAC s NSR Reform subcommittee that the FT .Ms 

Should beXencuurayea Lo provide ample opportunity for public 

\x 'S7 input in th*^*. identification and protection of AQRVs. In 

.**- fact, the FLM'a\(iave addressed this concern in procedures 

•7-^ already published.N to o identify and protect certain AQRVs. 

These procedures were \he result of a public procese or 

expressly provide for public input. See, e.g., U.S. 

Department of Agriculture "Screening Procedure to Evaluate 

Effects of Air Pollution on Eastern Region Wildernesses 

Cited as Class I Air Quality AreasV' Northeastern Forcet 

Experiment Station, U.S. Forest Servic vioe e General Technical 

\ 

Report NE-151, (September 1991); U.S. Department of 

Agriculture "Guidelines for Measuring the Physical, and 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — [filename PRE.AM_1.116] *** 
___^ _ P.69 

03'15'95 20:21 ®202__0S _____ HASP NR'AQ NPS -*-.-. AQMD-PPB ®020.'022 

<•- . 

' • _ 

'•-j-'* 

J 

. " / i1 > 

/ 

/ 

I ' 

304 

biological condition of wilderness Ecosystems," Rocky 

Mountain Forest and tange Experiment Station, General 

^-Technical Report RM-146 (Nov. 1987); U.S. Department of 

Interior "Internal Procedures for Determinations of Adverse 

Impact Under section issXd) (2) (C) (ii) and (Hi) of the Clean 

Air Act" (47 FR .10226, .Tul^ 12, 1982). 

The EPA anticipates that FLM's will continue to make 

every reasonable effort to provide for public participation 

in identifying AQRVs, sensitive receptors, and the 

associated critical pollutant loadings, and, if possible, to 

do this in advance of particular PSD permit proceedings. 

The identification of AQRVs during the course of a permit 

proceedinq, while sometimes necessary and appropriate, 

precludes a permit applicant from talcing AQRVs into account 

in facility planning and design, and can delay the normal 

permit process in some instances. However, given resource 

constraints and the relatively new emphasis that FLMs have 

placed on determining these values, considerable time will 

elapse before a comprehensive listing for all Federal 

Class I areas will be developed. 

Further, the FLM's noted in discussions that the 

identification of AQRVs is evolutionary and certain values 

are likely to change as air quality related conditions 

change, science progresses, and new and better information 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORXING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REFRE8ENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

••• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM_I.II6] ••• 
03'15'95 20:21 ©20 2 208 1620 "ASP NR'AQ NPS AQMD-PPB _021'022 

& 

305 

becomes available. Thus, while the EPA encourages FLMs to 

identify AQRVs early and with public involvement, the EPA 

recognizes that the public notice and comment process 

^ associated with the issuance of individual PSD permits can 

^Ts provide for public participation as an alternative to prior 

j7 ,-H. y._ identification and public review of AQRVs. In all 

% 

instances, the final decision on identification of air 

quality related values remains within the discretion of the 

FLM. 

b. Scope and timing of the FLM's demonstration 

While not specifically addressed by the CAAACs 

recommendations, the EPA ia proposing revisions to the 

existing PSD regulations to improve (1) the provisions which 

limit the scope of the FLM's demonstration of adverse 

impacts, and (2) the timing for submitting the FLM's 

demonstration to the permitting authority for consideration 

prior to issuing or denyinq a PSD permit. The existing 

Federal PSD regulations at section 52.21(p)(3) are 

inadequate because they only require the Administrator to 

consider the FLM's demonstration of the visibility impacts 

of a proposed source, and therefore do not contemplate 

consideration of other AQRVs. Further, the FT.M is given 

only 30 day6 from receipt of a notice from the Administrator 

(that a PSD application has been submitted) to provide its 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

••• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] ••• 
P.71 

03 '15 '95 20:21 O202 208 1620 «AS0 NR'AQ NPS ->-*- AQMD-PPB _022/022 

3 0 6 

demonstration. This time constraint places the FLM's in a 

dilemma. The FLM's are expected to provide well-doaunented, 

reasoned demonstrations of the impacts that proposed sources 

will have in Class I areas, but the FLM'B are generally 

given an abbreviated time to complete the task. 

In contrast to the relevant Part 52 PSD xequiremcri-, 

the PSD regulations at section 5l.l66(p)(3) require that the 

State PSD program must include a mechanism whereby the FLM 

may present a demonstration of adverse impact to the 

permitting authority after the preliminary determination hac 

been made. This existing requirement does not contemplate 

that the FLM's demonstration may be addressed as part Of the 

preliminary determination and made available for public 

notice and comment, unless the preliminary determination ie 

delayed and amended following consideration of the FLM's 

findings. 

The EPA believes that 3 0 days is generally not 

sufficient time for the FLM to complete a demonstration 

adverse impacts. Instead, the EPA proposes that 60 days be 

allowed for the demonstration to be completed and submitted 

to the Administrator or the appropriate permitting authority 

for consideration and incorporation into the preliminary 

determination. See proposed revisions to 

eeotion 5l.l66(p)(3) and section 52.21(p)(3). The EPA 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•*•*•• November 16, 1994 — [filename PREAM 1.116] ***> 
P.72 

03'15'9 5 

03/08/93 

20:37 ©20 2 208 1620 

17.OI ©30 3 909 2822 

"ASO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _007'020 

WlSO DENVER —- AQD D.C. 12(004/022 

fiuA. l*il

()WV ' J i_ 18 

concerning the air quality related values, including any 

currently under study. 

[iv] The Federal Land Manager 6hall consider, in 

consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed 

source er modification would have an adverse impact on any 

air quality related values which the Federal Land Manager 

has identified pursuant to paragraph (p)(2) £-5 [A) of this 

section. 

)C-1(A) 

W 

* 

^ 

tf 

(3)(i) Federal T.arid Manager—Demonstration of adverse 

insaC-.. The plan shall require the permitting authority to 

-cons-i_^_ any de^ttta-satlon, submitted by the Federal Land 

Manager wl*fch±«^S0days) f rom the date on which the permitting 

,*A*~. authority determjTTed~"the permit application to bo oomplete, 

.(L4' , \that shows that a major stationary source or major 

x-x. ^cWmodifieation will have an adverse impact on an air quality 

^jJL P*l<L.**» --i3 ^-^ value in a Federal Class I area. The permitting 

*i i.j-f'^fl authority chall, at a minimum, provide a writjten evaluation 

of the Federal Land Manager's demonstration, jand include the 

X(* /r.P- evaluation in the public record accompanying the preliminary 

" determination required under paragraph (q)(3) of this 

section. The written evaluation shall address the 

•\_4mif following: 

3 

hy 

\ ^xl- ^ (A) The methods and procedures by which the Federal 

/.-A1. MA'A Land Manager identified the air quality related value, the 

J° -A, (\u underlying importance ascribed to the air quality related 

(JO 'X !•**' value, the nature of the alleged adverse impact, and an 

Ca .•jfp.-hi*. 

C>5 0 > 

explanation ef any conclusions the permitting authority 

•Veaches about the air quality related value that arc 

tlyinconsistent with those reached by the FLM; 

(B) All substantive values of importance which the 

Federal Land Manager has ascribed to the air quality related 

value(s) in question and the.nature of the alleged adverse 

impact; 

(C) The technical data and analyses performed in 

demonstrating the adverse impact and the basis for the 

permitting authority's disagreement with any data or 

analyses; and 

(D) Any measures undertaken to mitigate the potential 

adverse impacts of proposed emissions increases, including 

the estimated effect of any mitigation. 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*#* November 16* 1994 — [filename 51166 1.116] ••*•• 
P.73 

03'15'95 20:38 O202 208 1620 

03/09/95 17:06 ©303 969 2S22 

»AS0 NR'AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

— * AQMD-PPB 

•-»- AQD D.C. 

_009.'020 

\@OiO/Q'i'. 

^ 

19 

X 

(ii) Where the pennitting authority finds that the 

analysis submitted by the Federal Land Manager in accordance 

with paragraph (p) (3) (i) of this section does not 

demonstratexthe satisfaction of tho permitting authority 

that an adverse impact on an air quality related value will 

result in the Federal Class I area, the permitting authority 

shall in the public reoord accompanying the preliminary 

determination provide a complete explanation of the decision 

to reject the Federal Land Manger's demonstration. 

(4} Denial—Impact on air quality related valuea. The 

plan shall provide a mechanism whereby a Federal Land 

, Manager of any sueh Federal Class I area may present to the 

tilaM *^r P-S-rai-tinU authority, pii-i Lu any HIT 1 iin 1 nng" JL^'"I"S~*>- . 

W ^ ., j7euuitMd under piuuidu.-- develumud in Accordance with 

w i ijv*-^ pa-rayiAph (q) (P) af tiii_ __&_i_n, la doaono-rartten that the • u. 

rj emissions from the proposed source or modification would -^HiA/ 

r>>'\ \ have an adverce impact on the air quality related values 

Ao.(,,l5 <?* (including visibility) or any Federal Class I area, 

«i (a * 

a^tf1 

G * ^ \ ^i 

* t\.^ -

notwithstanding that the change in air quality resulting 

from emissions from such source er modification would not 

cause or contribute to concentrations which would exceed the 

maximum allowable increases for a Class I area. If the 

permitting authority concurs with such demonstration, the 

permitting authority shall not issue the permit. 

(5) Mitigation of adverse Impacts. The permitting 

authority may issue a permit to a proposed cource that would 

otherwise be denied a permit under paragraph (p) (4) of this 

section, if the permitting authority determine.? that the 

source has mitigated its adverse impact on,<§rit£, 

~^ntribution~,Eo7> an air quality related valueTTo r example, 

sources may fflTClgate an adverse impact by obtaining 

enforceable and permanent cmiseions reductions ef sufficient 

amount and in such location that the reductions will offset 

the change in air quality in the Federal Class I area that 

would have resulted from emissions from the proposed source. 

[paragraph (p)(4) redesignated as (p)(6)] 

(7) Sulfur dio_iae variance by Governor with Federal 

Land Manager's concurrence. The plan may provide that— 

(i) The owner or operator of a proposed source or 

modification which cannot be approved under procedures 

developed pursuant to paragraph (P) (5) of thi- -section may 

• demonstrate to the Governor that the souroe or modification 

cannot be constructed by reason of any maximum allowable 

TSIS DOCUMENT IB A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•«• November 16/ 1994 — [filename SI_166_I.I_« ] *-* 
P.74 

03'15'9 5 20:39 ®202 208 1620 ».\SO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB _010'020 

U3/08/95 17:07 ©30 3 909 2828 «ASO DENVER — AQD D C 1_011/022 

LikJ: ihrJ? "Y«^ t/"'^«A. fa ffitU /oc*Utl fc/,77.,K 

the applicable State implementation plan and shall be 

enforceable as part of sueh plan. In resolving suoh 

disputes relating to area redesignation, the Administrator 

chall ooneider the extent to which the lands involved are of 

sufficient size to allow effective air quality management or 

have air quality related values. 

0 PAL Applicability. The provisions of this section 

shall apply to a major stationary source for any one or more 

pollutants subject to this section for which the permitting 

authority has approved a PAL for the source provided that: 

(1) The PAL has been established for each subject 

pollutant: 

(i) For an existing source: 

(A) Based on actual emissions representative of normal 

operation, or 

(D) Based on allowable emissions where allowable 

emissions are less than actual emissions; 

(ii) For a new source, based on the limits established 

as a result of NSR required under the Act and based on 

application of applicable control requirements and projected 

operating conditions, 

(2) Emission limits established are achievable through 

application of production processes or available methods, 

systems, and techniques including, but not limited ro 

emissions control equipment, fuel cleaning or treatment, 

fuel combustion techniques, substitution of less polluting 

materials; or limits on production that represent normal 

source operations, 

(3) Conditions necessary to assure enforceability act. 

included in the federally enforceable mechanism [e.g., 

permit, order, consent agreement, rule], and 

(4) The emissions levels and conditions established 

for PAL purposes do not relieve a source from continuous 

compliance with otherwise applicable unit-specific 

requirements [sueh as NSPS, BACT, LAER, RACT, MACT, or other 

unit-specific federal, SIP or State requirements]. A PAL 

permit must continue to require compliance with these 

limits. 

THIS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 -- [filename S1_166_1.116] *•• 
P.75 

03'15'95 20:10 ©20 2 208 1620 

UJ/U3/95 17:07 "3303 989 2822 

,7l a 

t..7 

{7 

WASO NR'AQ NPS mmm AQMD-PPB _Oil'02 0 

W.\SO DENVER — AQD DC. _012/022 

38 

LUJdJLL.llli 111- UT/A WdiVfc!.!. LU I. hg iigli-C t.-ilUU.Ul N3R 

proa--df~technol6gi-Qs. 

~ A-uu-diua LU Luday'a yiwposal, \j\sL\jitr a ?3D UT/A 

y_tv_i -dii b . eridiiLeil LU a suiirra.The EPA is proposing to 

ren,_np. the existin g innovative control technology (ICT) 

waiver in che Fe--__1 Laml Manutj.i—(TLM) -huul- b -

cunbulusd,—rf—impat.cs uu Claaa I „„-a a qualiLy u_. di i 

u.u_liLy"l'elai:yd vdlm-jb lAWVhl d-fc, pigje-L.- Imm ill- UT/A 

•FOttrcePSD regulations t o "UT/A" and t o extend the UT/A 

waivor to the nonattainment NSR program.— 

T he EPA i s xequtibLiu j LUi'.uiitjiL uii -Juhe'.ljBi—LhiTS 

wotitiL-Liuu _huul- D- i •**imuiit!Llprnposi ng several new 

provisions for <- umidLLaiiuiuirl. ajL_a NSRan UT/A waiver 

icijucr-t. 

AS proposed, a UT/A waiver request must identif y 

potentia l fflilur-s T-nodes, projprt-ed emissi**iT*i.s increase s from 

failur e modes, potentia l contingency meaeuree, and an upper 

bound on mass emissions chac could be accommcd-Led in Lh*_ 

are a of che UT/A source. These would be incorporated in tne 

permit. The EPA is als o proposing Lhat ueiubidw-aLiuii u£ 

uuuLluij-ui-^ mtddjiu-.*, foi a ..u.rBtt-iiiiuguL ai. d NSRincentives 

for .better than expected UT/A w_iv_i feliualU ualy iuuludti 

enviraiini-iiL'al njiiL..tiis and uuL manyy aner bf-uji'-jtui-iz 

PRELIMINARY STAfF WORXXNO DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AIJD 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•*• March 8, 1995 — [filename FREAM_1.116' •*» 
P.76 

03'15'95 20: 10 

03/09/95 17:08 

®20 2 208 1620 

©30 3 909 2322 

»ASO NR'AQ NPS 

n-ASO DENVER 

--- AQMD-PPB 

— AQD D.C. 

_012.'020 

_013'022 

S 

f-3 

\ 

73 

permitting authority. • Sse proposed sections 

51.165(a) (1) (v) (C) (ifl) (2) , 51.166(b). (2) (iii) (L) (£) , 

52.21(b) (2) (iii)tL) .(£), and 52.24(f) (5) (iii) (J) (£) . Under 

the.'proposed ..-rule, each case-by-case clean unit 

'determination..'.would be subject co.public notice and comment _., _ 

^ f 3X_L<egf>-fci4ui_^jEoj^ SPAA Under today's 

proposal, once a clean unit deLerminaLion is made, a 

reassessment or what is current Federal BACT or LAER would 

not be necessary for the S years after the datanr.inacion. 

For units which have recently undergone the moat 

demanding review for emissions controls (i.e., a formal 3AC"i' 

n~ LAER rftviPW pursuant to major NSR), re-evaluation of the 

technology shortly after the source was constructed or 

modified cy determine if Llie technology is still • "state-ofthe-art" .would likely result in very little or no 

incremental improvement in control. Thus, resources spent 

by the source and permitting authority to review recently 

permitted technology would likely be of lictle or no benefit 

to tne environment. Therefore, tne EPA is proposing that 

the new exclusion may presumptively apply to any unit which 

received a currently applicable major NSR permit within 

yearsjprior to the date construction or activity will 

& 

<fcommence on the proposed physical or operational change. 

( '•"'.\*-> o-'.V • Reassessment of what is current BACT or LAER for the unit 

V xr.-1' 

3J 

vO * 

{ PRELIMINARY ST.-&FF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES MOT REPMSKNT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•** March 8, 1995 -- [filename F.R_AM .1.116] ••• 
P.77 

03'15'95 20:10 O20 2 208 1620 

U3/08/93 17:03 ©30 3 909 2822 

tt'ASO NR'AQ NPS 

WASO DEWER 

—- AQMD-PPB 

-— AQD I..C. 

_013,'020 

12)014/022 

74

 7 

would not be neceasaryofor the y£.years afte r the permit is 

issued wich 5A-T *.yr'LAER control under major NSR. _i_>_5*>Ac.lean/_hit e3r-__vis 

wJ 

als o solicitAcommen 

.T"" iriste^d 

f j- \7 

cer eoxurtru' 

that included 

unjit commftiices/op^r^tiSfn 

V'a major ^I^R pei 

it. 

The EPA also-sal i cits comment on ^extending the c3.R<*»n 

unit presumption to emission's limits established as a 

Federal RACT or MACT limit iur up Lu io yedis from Lhe date 

a permit was issued containing the limits or 5 years from 

the startup date of tha modification for which the controls 

were required and installed. A recently required MACT 

emissions limit, while not necessarily equal LO BACT or 

LAER, is likely to result in significant emissions controls 

sueh that a BACT or LAER review would not necessarily result 

in significant additional emissions reductions. However, 

the EPA is also concerned that a MACT limit could be 

significantly less fiffper than BACT or T.AER in many 

circumstances. A MACT emission limit may adequately control 

a. pollutant lisLed in Act Section 112(b) but could result in 

emission increases of pollutants subject to NSR. Therefore. 

the EPA is considering expanding the clean unit presumption 

to units with recently MACT but may alao require, and 

'solicits comment on, safeguards to address concerns over 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUSOST REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• March 8, 1995 -- [filename PR£AM_1.116] **•*• 
P.78 

03/08/95 17:09 ©303 909 2822 WASO DENVER — - AQD D 0 l_015/022 

presumed to. beo;nst_te-._f-the-art^ocontrol for up to J^years 

after the minor NSR permit is issued for the technology 

required. As with.major;NSR, the 'EPA believes that little 

improved controls-would result from 'reviewing control 

technology toX'determine .if it is.xstate-nf-the-art if a 

permitting authorities ' minor .NSR .control requirements 

result in controls substantially equivalent to the Federel 

BACT or LAER. The EPA envisions'that one element of a minor 

NSR requirement "pre-certified"- as requiring state-of-rhpart controls would include a 3 0-day opportunity for public 

notice and comment prior to the approval uf the minor NSR 

permit snd the proposed control technology for the unit. 

Public review of these permits helps ensure that true stateuf-the-art controls are required by minor NSR. Also, as 

with Federal 5ACT or LAER limits, a reassessment of whaL ia 

euprent Federal BACT or LAER would not he necessary for the 

y€ years after the unit is permitted with the etate-of-the-

•apliClts commpnt/om use or/T.. 

:•© 5 years af ter the uni-x coinmeneffs <-»er 

_>T£*rols rverguired byth e minor JICR peraiiart control permit Led under miiioi NSR.— Ayai.r; t .**-<=• LFA 

solicits commpnt/orv. use of/"tne ciean unit pre 

to 5 y-are aft_r thp uni-x co^Mnenc^s operat 

coi 

Units which qualify for ._

 g ' jnrr iliiflwin' ir clean uniL 

-• presumption under permits i ssue'd under major NSR or 

equivalent ET-A "certified" minor NS?. could be reassessed at 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKINO DRJlFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAI- EPA POLICY 

•"•• Kareh 8, 1995 -- [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.79 

03'15'9 5 20:11 ©202 20S 1620 

UJ/08/95 17:09 ©303 9C9 2822 

WASO NR'AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

--- AQMD-PPB 

•.— AQD n.c. 

_015'020 

12)016/022 

77 

the .end of the 5 M-B^years'-'an .a ease-by-casR hasis. Tf 

the unit again qualified as a clean unit, the clean unit 

exclusion would apply for up to an.additional 5 years as 

would any other case-by-case determination of clean unit 

status. 

Control technologies ..may also be reviewed for "clean 

unit" status and be subjected to public notice dad conwient 

at the time of issuance or renewal of a title V operating 

permit. Units may he determined on a case-by-case basis as 

meeting the exclusion criteria as "state-©£-the-art" and 

therefore eligible to apply the potentiai-to-potenLial test. 

Tn such cases, the designation of the unit as "clean" would 

last for the term of the operating permit (i.a., up co 

5 year a). For convenience, one, many or all units at a 

source could be reviewed and subjected to public notice <_r,d 

comment concurrently with the issuance or renewal of a 

title V operating permit. Qualifying clean units should be 

clearly identified and listed ia the tiLle V permit as 

"clean units"-

The EPA expects that units qualifying on a case-by-case 

basis for use of the "clean unit" exclusion would likely 

qualify by using control technology which would otherwise be 

required by rigorous minor NSR technology requirement or 

Federal BACT or LAER. "Likewise, the EPA believes that. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKINO DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW » DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•"• March 8, 1995 -- 'filename PR_AM_I.1!6 ] •** 
P.80 

_03'15'95 20:11 ©20 2 20S 1620 U'ASO NR'AQ NPS -—AQMD-PPB I_016'020 

03/0a/95 17:10 ©30 3 960 2S22 WASO DENVI-K - - AQDD-C _01»/o « 

. 81 

recently issued...noii-attaiianent NSR permits should qualify 

for ihe 5_*-a_09«-.year clean unjt presumption. The EPA is 

considering if the greater ^tip*gency •*•- LA2R requirements 

should' be the target for encouraging cle_a unit technology 

in areas not attaining the NAAQS because clean units may be 

avoiding LAER limitc that might otherwise have been require^ 

if the unit was subject to an actual-to-potential emissions 

test. 

Finally, the granting of a clean unit exclusion for any 

period of time {i.e., S -aa-a-fiT years) under today's proposal 

is independent from the ca_e-by-case determination of 3ACT 

or LAER fnr sources subject to major NSR. Control 

technology which qualifies a unit as "clean" is only 

considered to be comparable to BACT or LAER but is not 

necessarily equal to BACT or LAER and in no way establishes 

a presumptive BACT nr LAER. The Act requires that BACT and 

LAER be ease-by-eacc determinations for sources subject *"o 

major NSR and the clean unit test cannot preempt this 

statutory requirement. 

C. Changes to Non-emitting Source Operations 

The EPA is also proposing to add to the list of 

activities excluded from the definition c: physical or 

operational change any proposed changes to existing, nonemitting activities at the source. Under this proposed 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORXING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BTOGST REVIEW « DOES NOT RFPHESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•*« March 8. 1995 -- [filename PREAM_1.116] **• 
P.81 

03'15'9 5 20:12 ©20 2 208 1620 

03/09-'95 17:10 ©30 3 309 2822 

»'AS0 NR'AQ NPS 

WAS O DFVVER 

— - AQMD-PPB 

•-•-. AUD D.C. 

_017.'020 

l_01'J/022 

J3 

* '<* 

l!*i 

(V93 

It is the EPA 7:5 experience ..that many sources only keep 

accurate records on'emissions or operations for 3 to 

5 years, unless expressly required to do so for a longer 

pei'riod. A nuirber of.. State • and local permitting authorities 

have similar, experiences. Thus, the EPA has reservations 

concerning the use ;of 10-year, -and longer, .baselines and 

solicits comment 6h whether a shorter (e:g., 5 year) period 

would be more appropridLe. In addition, if the EPA adopt a 

10 year look back period, the EPA also proposes that such 

pcried be available only when ade-qugrp, accurate and 

complete emissions data are available for the baseline 

calculation. The EPA solicits comment or. the need to 

condition the use of such periods upon the accuracy and 

completeness of available data, and the need to establish 

specific criteria, through guidance or otherwise, for 

flcruracy. completeness and recordkeeping when using older 

data. 

As noted, the EPA'3 existing regulations provide that 

tne source may seek to use another time period outside the 

2 preceding .years upon a finding by the permitting authuriLy 

that this other period is "more representative" ot normal 

source operations. . .S_____s___., current section 

51.165(a)(1)(xii)(B). This provision has been a source of 

confusion and uneven imp!smentation. The EPA therefore 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BOTiGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*••• March 8, 1995 -- *file__»o PR_J*aM_l. 11€] *** 
P.82 

03'15'95 20:12 ©20 2 208 1620 

n.VOfl/95 17:10 ©30 3 909 2822 

•USO NR'AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

•— AQMD-PPB 

•— AUD D-C. 

l_01S'020 

t_020/u22 

]*H^U.SI 

94 

today proposes to eliminate this provision. In other words, 

j auuim may -luyly -UL»J-M ihw Vi i yh-.L -corib ..nut jve I^UIUULI: 

peiTod uf uL.ili^aliu:. wiLhiu Lht! jJdbL 10 yuaib aim-n_i HIHU 

SLdLyb uuiif "the EPA will xetcin any UiTLieLiuu LU ulluwwere 

to .adopt a 10-year look back. ,a -source Jtvav simply, choose the 

•^jjAghes^-'ccnsccutive 12-month period of ur.i li2ation within 

the 10 years prior to a Lime u.iiuQ uuLbiiht*. thi!*. y.gt.numj 

tauy-proposed physical or operational change (but not before 

November 15, 1950 in nnr.attair.ment areas) . 

7. P-tuL.-Liuu uf •g':itjiL"-twim ~m.rginijhr.ta and NJtAtji* 

Iii uihmbs--uii& ur a iui.yci b__eii.HL,—eT.v__u:_i>u.itdl 

yiu_ y i Hi-jr-S-hLdLiT-b liux-ilNelthe r the pexTf.itting authorit y 

nor the EPA wii l retai n any r:hrfr:yu iieiiu LU« _x__Lluy 

b__b!liue *iLh Llie uviopLi-'ii -i' b.-f.iju-.-'ib—£c=—_hf.ii i. __iiu 

NAAQ3 dhd PaD laLiejuaiiL'a-aa welldiscretion to allow a time 

period outside this extended range. 

The EPA also solicits comment on how today's proposed 

extension of che emissions baseline for netting may inter-nt 

wirh the statutory requirements of the Act sections 182(e) 

and 132(e) applicable in serious, severe and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas. Section 182 (c) (6) , ("7) and (8) of the 

Act provides special rules for modifications at major 

sources in serious and severe ozone nonoLtainment areas 

including an aggr«g_tia?n of all nee increases in -emissions 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIaAL EFA POLICY 

--- narch 8, 199S -- [filenaree _R_AM_1.116] •** 
P.83 

__03'15'95 20:13 ©20 2 208 1620 

03/09/9 5 17:11 ©30 3 989 2822 

K'ASO NR'AQ NPS 

»'A50 DENVER 

— • AQMD-PPB 

— - A-JD D-C* _019'02 0 

CVaa ' - . -

93 

from a source over 5 consecutive calendar years. Section 

182(e)(2) of the Act governs .applicability of NSR to 

modifications ..In extreme ozone nonattainment areas requiring 

.any change that results in any increase in emissions fro.it a 

discrete operation or unit to be subject to major NSR. 

While the determination of the emissions baseline ie 

somewhat independent of the actual netting calculation, 

clearly the proposed new baseline can affect netting 

transactions and may be in tension with the design and 

.intent of chese statutory provisions and the EPA solicits 

comments on these potential interactions. 

Also, because of the misunderstanding ci the current 

rule provisions allowing the use in certain situations ot 

allowable emissions in lieu of actual emissions for 

determining applicability, the EFA proposes to delete this 

provision from the current rules. £g___£__L_. current 

section 52 .2Kb) (21) (iii) . The EPA currently identifies in 

guidance9 when an allowable emissions limit may properly be 

used in lieu of actual emissions for determining 

applicability such that the current provision should be 

deleted. 

3 For example, see paoas A. 42 and A. 43 of the NSR Workshop 

Marual. Draft, October(!££(£>-- \C\SQ y( 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORDING DRAFT FOX OFFICE OF .MANAGEMENT -MTO 

BUDGET RSVTEW - DOES MOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL ERA POLICY 

*** March 8, 139S -- [filename FREAM_i.ll6] ••• 
_03'15'95 20:13 ©202 20S 1620 „AS0 NR'AQ NPS ---AQMD-PPB 

03/09/95 17:11 ©303 383 2822 WASO DENVER -— AQD D- C 

103 

directs permittin g authorrteyauthoritie s to requi-H 

iiiudtdiiiy evaluat e the ai r qualit y impacts of PCPs tha t could-

-through collatera l emissions increase s ___uc±_t^d—with-a 

yuliutaiuu uuuLiul uiujuoLor changes in utilizatio n patterns-

-adversely iiupact local, ai r qualit y (eee S7 FR 32322) . 

•J-dThis provision generally authorizes, as appropriate , a 

permittin g authorit y r.o requir e modeling-of emi a si oris 

increase s associate d with a ?CP. MH'H i-iidaiuex:tally. ""IL 

-Apliuiciy at-te h LU_L I.U yulluLluu -onLrui y-uj-..\.—cnriar 

any i..; . ouni-LaTitfejb iii_y Lda__ Ji _ui:txibuLe LU viui'aL-u.r uf <-

NAAQS, PSD iuiiajmc-iL,—ui AQRV i.i-tf Cla.b I ai.dld . _3More 

fundamentally, i t explicitl y state s tha t no PC? under any 

circumstances may cause or contribut e to violatio n of a 

fl d\jSr*«-<•* iW«•- ^ y 

NAAQS, PSD increment, ori-AQRVtjin a Class Z area. 

t_020/020 

1410.1.1/022 

P.84 

'— Ai*. u-Jt-u, ilm WEPCO iul-H)iidA.iiitf Wdb •.X'JIe^bly 1 imi-reu 

to _xl-Li:ig • -ei-L'-iic utility feL-<_it ••yonwi-t-i-j an its.—l_ee. 

v. y . r- -iv (JFK Si.i617t-) (i) (v) (C1-C5) and :i • 185 (-)il 1 (.w.) ] Id.~ 

ThtvZPA limited chpX1 

;1 The WEPCO rule refers specifically to "visibility 

limitation" rather than "air quality related values." Mowever. 

EPA clearly stated in the preamble to the final rule that 

permitting agencies have the authority to "solicit the views of 

Others in taXincf any other appropriate remedial straps deemed 

necessary to protect Class I areas.... EPA emphasizes that all 

environmental impacts, including those or. Clc.35 I areas, can be 

considered...." (57 FR 32322). Further, the statutory 

projections in section 155(d) of the Act plainly are intended to 

protect against any "advezse impact on the AQRV of such [Class Ij 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET R2VIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•** March 8, 1995 -- [filename FREAM_1.118J ***