P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 226 ) ll-F-1 5
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17

PM Sheet 226 of 250P. 2 { 0 3 / lS*'9 5 19:3 S ©20 2 20 S 162 0 / •US O XR.'A Q NP S .-. - AQMD-PP B ]003.'03 1

u 

## 'u f

## 7*f/>KFo r the reason s ae t fort hi nth e preamble , par t 5 1 o f chapte r I -^/ 7 o f titl e A

O o f the Cod

e of Federa l Regulation s l e amende da a sBf&.M' follows : - **•*• / PART 51-REQOIREMENT B PO RPREPARATION , ADOPTION , AN D gOBKITTAt O

F IMPLEMENTATIO

N PLAN S 1 . The authority

citatio

nfo r par t 5 1 i s revise dt o rea

da s follove t Authority : 4 2 U.S.C . 7401(b)(1) , 7410 , 7411 , 7470-7479 , 7491 , 7501-7508 , 760 1 an

d7602 , a s amende

db y th e 199 0 .Amendments , Pub . L . NO . 101-549 , 10 4 Stat.239 9 (Kov . IS , 1990) ; 402 , 409 , 41 5 o f th e CA A a s amended , 10 4 Stat . 2399 , unles s otherwis e noted . • 2 . sectio

n51.16 6 i s amende

da s follows : S 51.16 6 Preventio

no f significan

t deterioratio

no f ai r quality .
(b ) * * * (2)(i ) * * * (iii ) A physica l chang

e o r change i

nth e metho d of operation , fo

r th e purpose s of assessin g a majo r modification , shal l no t include :

(H ) Th o addition , replacement o r us e o f a pollutio ncontro l projec t at a

nexistin

g emissions uni t provided : (X) The projec t i s determine d b y th e permittin

g authority t o b e environmentall y

beneficial , an

d (2) The pr o j ea t doe s not includ e th e replacemen t o

r reconstructio

no f a nemissions unit .

, (I ) The installation , operation , cessation , o r remova l o f a / __gm_ogar

y A 

### clea ncoa l technolog

y o r other temporar

y demonstratio

n * • project , providedthat th e projec t complie s with :

* * 

### v (L ) An y activity

o r projec t undertake na t a nemiosionc uni t fo r whic ha Federall y enforceabl e emission s limi t ha s been establishedunde r regulations approve d pursuan t t o 4 0 CF R51.160 - 166 , providedthat : THI S DOCUMEN

T 1 8 A PRBLIXINAR

Y6TAF P WORKIN

GDRAF T AN

D DOE S MO T REPRESEN

T OPPICIA

L EP A POLIC YO N THE ISSUE S DI8CUSSS D *• * Novembe r li , 199 4 — ffilenam

e 5i_l66^l.l(dat e l a No - 

### .) ] •• •

C O 0 0 1 

# R

5 v? i 

# n

, , iv VM

V 104 i o :i o 3 

## :U 0 XV J 09*0 0 311 1 Se/TZ/'Z OP. 3

03'15'9 3 19:3 9 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 •>AS O NRo-V Q NP S AQMD-PP B _001/03 1



# t ft 

# S^ (1 ) Th e activit y o r projec t wil l no t increas e th e maximum emission s rate , i npound s o r kilogram s pe r hou r ove r th e baselin e emission s rat e actuall y emitte db

y th e emissio nuni t a t any tim e durin g th « 18 0 consecutiv e day s whic hpreced e th e dat e o f th e activit y o r projec t an dth e emission s increas e i s determine dby : (1 ) Materia l balances , continuou s emissio nmonitoring ' data , o r manua l emissio ntest s usin g EPA-approve dprocedures , wher e available , an dconducte dunde r suc hcondition s a s th e permittin g authorit y

vil l specif y

t o th e owne r o r operato r base do n representativ e performanc e o f th e eaissio nunit s affecte db y th e activit y o r projec t includin g a t leas t thre e vali dtes t run s conducte dberor e an da t leas t thre e vali dtes t run s conducte d afte r th e activit y

o r projec t wit hal l operatin g parameter s whic h ma y affec t emission s hel dconstan t t o th e maximum feasibl e degre e fo r al l suc htes t runs , o r (ii) Emissio nfactor s a s specifie di nth e lates t iceu ©o f "Compilatio no f Ai r Pollutan t Emissio nfactors, " EP A Publicatio n No . AP-42 , o r othe r emissio nfactor s determine dby th e pennittin g authorit y t o b e superio r t o AP-4 2 emissio nfactors , i n suc hcase s wher e us e o f emissio nfactor s demonstrate s tha t th e emissio nleve l resultin g fro m th e activit y

o r projec t wil l clearl y no t increas e emission s an dth e permittin g authorit y determine s tha t emission s testin g i s no t feasible ; (2) Th e activit y

o r projec t woul dno t requir e a revisio nto , o r caus e a nexceedanc e of , an y Federall y

enforceabl e limi t o r conditio ni na permi t issue dunde r 4 0 CP R52.2 1 o r regulation s approve dpursuan t t o 4 0 CF R51.160-166 ; (3 ) Th e activit y

or . projec t doe s no t inolud e th e replacemen t o r reconstructio no f a nemission s unit , an d



# L ALTERNATIVE"! ^

(4 ) Th e Federall y

enforceabl e emission s Uni t a t th e tim e o f th e chang e i s a t leas t a s stringen t a s th e emissio nlimi t i nth o permi t mos t recentl y issue dunde r regulation s approve dpursuan t t o 4 0 CF RSl.l6L»(ii

J(a) o f Sl.i66(j ) fo r emissio nunit s o f th e sam e clas s o r sourc e category . ALTERNATIV E 2 N 

### (4 ) Th e Federall y

enforceabl e emission s limi t a t th e tim e o f th e chang e i s a t leas t a s stringen t a s th e averag e emisaio nlimi t establishe di nth e permit s issue dunde r regulation s approve d pursuan t t o 4 0 CP R51.165(a)(2 ) o r 51.l66(j ) durin g th e precedin g THI S DOCUXEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F VORJtIN Q DRAF T 'AN

DDOS S NO T REPRE8EN T OPPICIA L EP A POLIC YON

TE B ISSUE S DISCUSSE D ee e Uovembft T 11 , 199 4 — (filenam

e 5 1 16 6 1. 1 (dat e i a Nov.) ] •• •

io o P I V.M V 10 J J O ZJ 0 ft W J ft c •ft ft rjtt TP. 4



### 3 year s fo r emissio nunit s o f th e same clas s o r sourc e category . ALTERNATIV E O A (4 ) Th e Federall y

enforceabl e emission s limi t a t th e tim e o f th e chang e i s no t mor e tha n1 0 percen t les s stringen t tha nth e emissio nlimi t i nth e permi t mos t recentl y issue dunde r regulation s approve dpursuan t t o 4 0 CF R51.165(a)(2 ) o r 5l.l66(j ) fo r a nemission s uni t o f th e same clas s o r sourc e category . ALTERNATIV E 3 B (4 ) Th e Federall y

enforceabl e emission s limi t a t th e tim e o f th e chang e i s no t mor e tha n1 0 percen t les s stringen t tha nth e averag e emissio nlimi t l nth e permit s issue dunde r regulation s approve dpursuan t t o 4 0 CF. R51.165(a)(2 ) o r 51.l66(j ) durin g th e precedin g 3 year s fo r emission s unit s o f th e sam e clas s o r sourc e category . (5 ) Th e permittin g authorit y ma y presum e tha t a sourc e satisfie s paragrap h(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (4 ) o f thi s sectio nif : (i ) Th e activit y

o r projec t woul doccu r n o late r tha n12 0 consecutiv e month s fro m th e dat e o f issuanc e o f th e permi t issue d unde r regulation s approve dpursuan t t o 4 0 CF R51.165 , 51.16 6 o r unde r 52.2 1 whic hestablishe dth e currentl y applicabl e emissio n limi t fo r th e emission s unit , (ii ) Th e activit y

o r projec t woul docou r n o late r tha n1 2 0 consecutiv e month s from th e dat e o f issuanc e o f th e permi t issue d unde r regulation s approve dpursuan t t o 4 0 CF R51.160*16 4 whic h establishe dth e currentl y applicable emissio nlimi t fo r th e emission s uni t provide dtha t th e permi t wa s issue dunde r regulation s tha t wer e determine db y EP A t o provid e fo r permit s tha t contai nfederall y enforceabl e emissio nlimitation s tha t satisf y paragrap h(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (4 ) o r thi s section , o r (iii ) Th e activit y

o r projec t woul doccu r n o late r tha n6 0 consecutiv e month s from th e dat e tha t th e permittin g authorit y mad e a determination , wit hpubli c notic e andopportunit y fo r publi c commen t an dEP A disapproval , tha t th e emission s uni t satisfie dparagrap h(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (4 ) o f thi s section . (M ) An y activit y

o r projec t undertake na t a nexistin g non emittin g uni t a t a sourc e provided ; ,5 ^ (l ) Th e operatio no f th e non-emittin g uni t a t maximum rate d 0 fO-, T capdeit v

woul dno t resul t i n -a nemission s uni t a t th e sourc e t o n

### - A \ '~ T X.SI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T Vj J REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC YO N

TB S ISSUE S DX60U86E D j)' J



### - ** * Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filename S i 16 6 l.Kdat e i nNov.) ] ** e

^ '""•

. 

# V 3 3C& :

to o P i W V 1QA Af) ZAQ~ 0 _V J TC'O O 3l U .(t/lS/ZO_ T

_ _*__

_ 03'15/9 5 19:1 0 O20220 S 162 0 »'ASO NR/A Q NP S —»- . AQMD-PP B @)006.'03 1



### excee dan y

Federally.enforceabl e permi t limi t o nsourc e operation s o r emissions , (2) A chang e t o a nexistin g non-emittin g uni t woul dno t increas e th e maximu m

rate dcapacit y

o f th e non-emittin g unit ,

' (3 ) Th o activit y

o r projec t wil l neithe r caus e a nexistin g non-emittin g uni t t o begi nemittin g no r replac e a nexistin g non emitting ; uni t wit ha nemission s unit , an d (4 ) Th e additio no f a ne w non-emittin g uni t provide dtha t an y increas e i nemission s fro m a nemission s uni t resuicing-fror a increas e utilizatio nt o accommodat e th e ne w unit ' wil l b e determine da s th e actua l emission s increas e expecte dwhe nth e ne w non-emittin g uni t i s operate da t maximu m rate dcapacity .
* » * * * 

### (19 ) Undemonstrated

technology/application (UT/A ) means an y system , process , material , o r treataen t technolog y tha t ha s no t bee nadequatel y

demonstrate di npractice , bu t woul dhav e a substantia l likelihood£t o operat e effectively . and/t o aohiev e eithe r equa l o r greate r continuou s reduction s ofnai r pollutan t emission s tha nan y

demonstrate dsystem , o r comparabl e emissio n reduction s a t lowe r cost , lowe r energ y input , o r wit hlesse r non ai r environmenta l impacts .

**** * » 

### *~? ) • • t- .•rr-.'-**" 

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

### f^ " (ii ) Aetua l emission s shal l b e calculate dusin g th e unit' s actua l operatin g Jioura , productio nrates , an dtype s o f material s processed , stored , o r combuste ddurin g an y 1 2 consecutiv e month s durin g th e 120/aonsecutiv e month s whic hpreced e th e commencemen t O t constructio ne f a propose dphysica l o r operationa l chang e a t ^th r smiTi-;. ; tyn4

an y current , federall y

enforceabl e limitatio no n C gmleeionc ^ a s require db y th e Act , including , bu t no t limite dto , bes t available^ , technology , lowes t achievabl e emission s rate , reasonabl y

availabl e contro l technolog y o r maximu m

achievabl e / contro l technology . /vf-* - 

# **** * tc*Jtv4 (22 ) Complete means , i nreferenc e t o a napplicatio nfo r a permi t require dunde r thi s section , tha t th e applicatio nha s bee n deeme db y

the.permittin g authorit y t o contai nal l th e informatio n necessar y

fo r processin g th e applicatio ni naccordanc e wit nth e THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR Y8TAP P WORKIN GDRAF T AN DDOE S NO T REPRE8EN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YO N

TE E ISSUE S DXSCU8SE D ee e Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filenam e 51_l6fi_l . Mdet e i a Nov.) ] ** •

sooPi V*S! V 

### le uj o ?io o rv j TJ-OO " 

### im se/xz/zoP. 6
03'l5/9 5 19:1 0 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 WAS O NR.'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _|00 7 '03 1

I r> ' % 

### criteri a containe di nparagraph(n ) o f thi o section . Designatin g a napplicatio ncomplet e fo r purpose s o f permi t processin g doe s no t preclud e th e permittin g authorit y fro m requesting"o r acceptin g additiona l information . ) ,•,,,-,.,. - -<*&•%*..-7••••.•- ?7 •-• % .o*^,,^ , I r

" / 

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

***** * 

### (iv ) (Signir Icantmeans, wit hrespec t t o th e predicte d ambien t impac t Lha t tfi e emission s fro

m a ne w sourc e o r modificatio nwil l hav e fo r purpose s o f determinin g complianc e wit hth £ nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standards , concentration s i nexces s o f th e following :

•vt*



# k, Ce*'' K

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

# #£ W cPpN\* U C/\rf

Yn_C U -h

. rf

/ > C^<2^wj A —U 7WA3if.i

OAJCx^

OJ_JLJ_ 0 c-J^a

. 

### V

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR

Y8TAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T AN D DOE S MO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC YON

TB E ISSUE S DISCUSSE D ** • Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filenam

e 5 1 16 6 1. 1 (dat e i nNov.) ] ** *

300l? i VM> ' ~]Q_ J O U O " ~ o YVJ"s'e*o o •JU T0B/T7/sf iP. 7
03/15/0 5 19:1 1 ®20 2 20 8 162 0 *AS O .NR.'A O NP S —AQMD-PP B _00S/03 1



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

" ttufi 

## Pollutan t

NO ,

P b Averagin g Tim e

Annua l

Quarterl y Mea n- . Significan t Impac t l

. 0 Mg/mJ 5 . 0 ug/o J 2S. 0 •wg/m 3 1. 0 .ug/m 5 5 . 0 ug/m 1 l . o jig/m * 

## o. 6 mg/a 1 2 . 0 mg/m 1 

## o.o i ug/m

* 

# •#

(v ) significant

means , wit hrespee t t o th e predicte dambien t impac t tha t emission s from , a ne v sourc e o r modificatio nwil l hav e fo r purpose s o f determinin g complianc e wit hth e maximu m allowabl e increase s i npollutan t concentration s containe di nparagrap h(c ) o f thi s section , concentration s i nexces s o f any o f th e following :
Clas s I Clas s I I Clas s II I



# n
Pollutan t 

### Averagin g

Tim e Significan t

Impac t Significan t

Impac t significan t

Impac t 

### so , Annua l

24-Hou r 3-Hou r PM-1 0 

### Annua l

24-Hou r o. l yg/m * 

### 0. 2 nq/m r 1. 0 .ug/m

5 l. o fig/a? 

### 5 ug/m* 2 5 Mg/m1 l. o /jg/m1 b•ug/m , 2 5 ti-q/m? 0. 2 Mg/a 3 0. 3 ug/m ' 

### 1. 0 ug/m 3

2 ug/m * 1. 0 (tg/xo?.

3 /_g/m

J NO , Annua l 0. 1 Mg/ m l. o ug/o ' 1. 0 *ug/m J (24 ) Federal

Land Managermeans , wit hrespec t t o an y land s owne db

y th e Unite dStates , th e Secretary o f th e departmen t wit h thorit y

ove r suc hland s \ff tr

****** * /


### (31 ) Pollution control project

means : (i) An y activit y

o r projec t undertake na t a nexistin g emission s uni t whic hreduce s emission s fro m suc huni t provide d
THI S DOCUMEN T 1 8 A PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC YON

TB 8 ISSUE S DISCUSSE D • t t Novembe r 11 , 109 4 — [filenam

e 51_i66_l.l(dat e i nNov.) ] ** *

.00P 1 Ytf V lf\A -J

O ZJ 0 AW T~ O ? « n •»>* » *

•03U5'9 5 19:1 1 *£?20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS 0 NR.'AQ NP S — - AQMD-PP B _009'03 1



### that » (A ) Suc hactivitie s o r project s ar e limite dto : (1) Th e installatio no f conventiona l an dadvance dflu e ga s desulfurizatio nan d sorben t injectio nfo r SO, ; (2) Electrostati c precipitators , baghouses , hig hefficienc y multielones , an dscrubber s fo r particulat e o r othe r pollutants ; (J ) Flu e ga s recirculation , low-NO , burners , selectiv e non catalyti c reductio nan dselectiv e catalyti c reductio nfo r NO, ; (4 ) Regenerativ e therma l oxidizer s (RTO) , catalyti c oxidizers , condensers , therma l incinerators , flare s an dcarbo n adsorber s fo r volatil e organi c compound s (VOCc ) an dhazardous^!* . pollutants ; ' , ^ , / , . (5 ) Activities

- 

### jir_pro4_ctfi__und^rta)re nt o accommodat e - 1


### - 4 L''V''° " 

### switchin g t o a n(nfiorentl y ^sspoilutlKgr^uel , includin g bu t no t *' . limite dt o natura l ga e o r cT>al Peburnina, , o r th e cofirin g o f natura l ga s an dothe r inherentl y les s pollutin g fuel s fo r th o purpos e o f controllin g emissions , andVfncludin g an y activit y

tha r ; i s necessar y

t o accommodat e switchin g t o a ninherentl y les s xfc. ttr^-u pollutin g fuel ; an d•/*•//- / J ,rn ^i^'hS-' (6 ) Pollutio npreventio nprojects , a s define di nthi s subpart , Wher e th e pollutio ncontro l aspect s o f th e projec t ar e clearl y eviden t an d th e projec t wil l resul t i nsubstantia l - emission s reduction s pe r uni t o f outpu t fo r on e o r mor e j /(/.& • 7 0 P 

### ollutant|*<an* ^ fy oW ^ enrir**ni*JJl jiufif- J~^ ^ ^ (B ) Suc hactivit y

o r projec t doe s no t includ e th e ^awS^Va^ * replacemen t o f a nexistin g emission s uni t wit ha newe r o r ts 

### ^+***e%f differen t on e o r th e reconstructio no f a nexistin g emission s /*_%y_2»_- / unit . -_ , jr** (ii ) Notwithstandin g th e provision s o f paragrap h,(i ) o f thi s • section , an y

activit y

o r projec t a t a nexistin g electri c utilit y "ar 

### ^<M, stea m generatin g uni t reducin g emission s fro m suc hunit , provide d^ ' . tha t suc hactivitie s o r project s ar e limite dto ; 7*<f\


## **** * ?*£w

- (34 ) clea

ncoal technology orotherdemonstration project fyPG^f mean s a pollutio ncontro l demonstratio nproject , fo r whic hth e / Federa l contributio ni s a t leas t 2 0 percen t o f th e tota l cos t o f **^-*V£ b;->•••• . THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T ~ BBFRE8EN T OFFICIA L EF A POLIC YO N

TS S I8SUE 8 DISCUSSE D *• • Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — "filenam e 5l_16f > 1. 1 (dat e i nNov.) ] **>*

S00l? | VNi V lOiADZ.- "'"''0 VV J 2 9 = 0 0 3*1 T Q«/Tf,*.f iP. 9

03**15'9 5 19 : i : *3*20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS O NR'A Q NP S AQMD-PP B _010/03 1



# 7 th e demonstratio nproject , using fund s appropriated :

(i ) Fo r "Departmen t o f Energy-clea nCoa l Technology " project s fo r commercia l demonstratio no f Clea ncoa l technology , (ii ) Fo r th o Environmenta l Protectio nAgency , o r (iii) ' Fo r an

y othe r Department , Agenc y o r componen t o f th e Federa l government , provide dproject s plan s an dresult s ar e provide dt o th e permittin g authorit y an d th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency . (35 ) Temporary clean coal technology or

othertemporary demonstration project

mean s a clea ncoa l technology o r othe r demonstratio nprojec t tha t i o operatedfo r a perio do f 5 year s o r less , andwhic hcomplie s wit hth e stat e Implementatio nPla nfo r th e Stat e i nwhic hth e projec t i s locatedan d othe r requirement s necessar y

t o attai nand maintai nthe nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s durin g th e projec t an d afte r th e projec t i s terminated .

* a t * * * 

### (38 ) Federal

Class I

Area mean s an

y land s owne db

y th e Unite dState s whic hwer e designate db y CongrcG s a s mandator y Clas s I areas , o r hav e bee nredesignate da s Clas s I area s pursuan t t o th e provision s o f paragrap h(g ) o f thi s sectio no r 4 0 CF R52.21(g) .



## u/nsl
1 r 

### (39 ) Mandatory Class J Are a mean s an

y are a designate dby Congres s a s a Clas s I are a pursuan t t o §162(a ) o f th e Act , and whic haa y

no t b e redesignated , (40 ) AirQuality Related Value means , fo r purpose s o f thi s seetion , visibilit y

o r an y scenic , cultural , physical , biological , o r recreationa l resource , a e define dby th e Federa l Lan dManage r o f a Federa l Clas s I Area, - tha t ^a y b e adversel y • afT._Ui db

y ai r pollutl-eH-n^-p-H^-^^—^*v-*< ;a 

### ayi.vSHJL4<^V^ty K (41 ) Adverse Impact

on an AirQuality Related value means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section , a deleteriou s effec t resultin g i n whol e o r i npar t fro m emission s fro

m a propose dne v

o r modifie d cource , causin g pollutio nconcentration s whic hinterfer e wit hth e management , protection , preservation , or enjoymen t o f a specifi c 

# .^b--*ff«

Z^H&Ha sp_CT Y ai r qualit y

relate dvaiuey ^ ( 

### . . ^ .yfyadvr . aj. ^ci'^W •* ? e , (42 ) Demonstrate din practice bean s fo r th e purpose s o f thi s / subpart , tha t a nai r pollutio ncontro l technology ha s bee n&&S l



### f3'** . installe dan

doperatin g a t a minimu m o f 5 0 percen t O f it s THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINARYSTAF F ffORXINGDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T ABPBBSBM T OPPICIAL BPA POLICYO

N TE E ISSUE S DI8CUS8E D • • • xovesaber n , 199 4 — t filenam

e s i i« < l. i (dat e i nNov.) ] *•» •

6001? ) VN V 10 dJ O 2i 0 0 W J trO-nTy •J.H - O O <T* » '*" >P.1 0 03'15'9 5 19:1 2 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS O NR'A Q NPS -—AQMD-PP B _011/03 1



# ~3SS§.

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

### nameplat e .capacity

fo r 6 months , an

dit s performance , in ( 

### term s o f 'AJ"\7(7 

### pollutio nreducin g efficiency , ha s bee nverifie dwit ha ' M« ? r- - performane e tost , o r performanc e dat a collecte dwhe noperatin g / ' ., v a t 9 0 percen t o f it s nameplat e capacity . ( n 

### @^jw (43 ) (i ) Environmentally beneficial , fo r th e purpos e o f -J. evaluatin g a pollutio ncontro l project , shal l no t includ e any activit y

o r projco t whic hwil l resul t in , accordin g t o th e / provision s o f thi s subsection : (A ) A (signifioan t increas o i-f i emission s o f any

pollutan t tha t wil l caus e or - -contribut e t pa violatio no f a NAAQ S or,PS D J I JI increment , o r .adversel y impact/y-tgYbilTEy " *^~>ffi-**TT..QRV j i-qr-e

# Z\ ' ^ M 

# " J

# "°* oFS 

# " f



# a***-*"- V fy te at 

# T£n 7

^su&Mm. m\qS*A>1L 

### '( B 

### ) **• unacceptabl e increase d ria kdu e t o th e releas e o f UuLj3
, #JA ha2&rdou e ai rpollutants . ** l
^" >7^>.m. 

### if - ( 

### (ii ) (A ) I f th e pollutioncontro l projec t vil l no t increas e •>/• ••>, . -TU*.' ' utilization , th e pos t modificatio nemission s ar e calculate da s t ^' 7 

### fa<j th e ne w emission s rat e multiplie db y th e existin g utilizatio nO-ttJ^ ^J rate ; ^^/j, . (6 ) I f th e projec t wil l increas e utilization , th e associate d emission s increase s are - calculate da s th e post-modificatio n potentia l t o emi t o f the uni t considerin g th e applicatio no f th e propose dcontrols . (iii)(A ) Th e permitting authorit y ma y presume tha t a pollutio ncontro l projec t listedi n4 0 CF R51.166(31)(i)(a)(1) - (5 ) wil l no t increas e th e utilizatio no f th e eouroe . (B ) Th e permittin g authorit y shal l rejec t thi s presumptio n wher e ther e i s reaso nt o believ e tha t th e projec t woul dresul t i n debottlenecking , loadshifting t o taX e advantag e o f th e contro l equipment , o r othe r meaningfu l increas e i nth e us e o f th e uni t abov e curren t levels . (iv ) (A ) Th e permitting authorit y ma^^r-esum^tha t a pollutio ncontro l projec t listedi n4 0 CF R^1^*6131 ) (i ) (A ) (1) - (5) i s environmentall y beneficial . (B ) Th e permittin g authorit y shal l rejec t thi s presumptio n wher e ther e i s reaso nt o believ e that : (1 ) Th e control s wil l no t be designed , operate do r maintaine di na manne r consisten t wit hstandar dan d reasonabl e practices ; o r THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLIC YON

TN E I88UE 6 DX80U86E D 

## *• * Novembe

r11 , 199

4 - - t-tilenaa e s i I66_i.i(dat ai n Nov.) ] •• •

0I0 *f t WI0 di

. Ji U 0 XVI f"S:0 0 3it t

fiS/TZ/:oP.1 1
03'13'9 5 19:1 3 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 *VAS O NR'A Q NP S -. —AQMD-PP

B _012/03 1



### 1 0 (2) Collatera l emission s Increase s hav e no t bee nadequatel y addresse dth e safeguard s o f (v ) throug h(vi ) below . (v ) Fo r an y

pollutio ncontro l projec t whic hwoul dresul t i n a nincreas e i nnon-targete dpollutants , th e collatera l emission s increas e shal l b e reasonabl y minimize dan ddemonstrate dno t t o resul t i nenvironmenta l hnrm .

_(vi ^ Fo r an y

pollutio ncontro l projec t whic hwoul dresul t i n a Csiqniflcaj_E > increas e i nemission s wher e tha t increase dleve l ha s no t bee npreviousl y analyze dfo r it s ai r qualit y impact , th e permittin g authorit y ma y requir e th e sourc e t o provid e a nai r qualit y analysi s sufficien t t o demonstrat e th e impac t o f th e project , includin g an y potentia l NAAQ S o r incremen t violatio no r advers e impac t o na nAQR V o r visibility .

i 2^\ certai n"in-proces s recycling " practices) , energ y recovery , 0^ treatment , o r dispoeal , udJA^(45 ) Planttflde applicability limit (PAL) mean

s a federall

y C 

# ,17 (44 ) Pollutio npreventio nmean s an y activit y

tha t throug h iLA""proces s changes , produc t reformulatio no r redesign , o r [/- ^ nJ/'SubstitUtio no f les s polltiting ra w materials , eliminate s o r (^3y reduce s th e releas e o f ai r pollutant s an dothe r pollutant s t o th e l benvironmen t (includin g fugitiv e emissions ) prio r t o recycling , \\)j& , treatment , o r disposal ; i t doe s no t moa nrecyclin g (othe r tha n <j*



### " " I enforceabl e emissio nlimitatio nestablishe dfo r a stationar y j^- sourc e t o limi t th e potentia l t o emi t o f a sourc e t o a leve l suc h
, , tha t majo r ne v

sourc e revie w

i s no t require dfo r change s unde r [(bv th e PAL . Th e emission s lave l mus t b e establishe di na federall y <3TM'enforceabl e permi t tha t include s al l condition s neede dt o mak e ,jl^W 2 

### * ^ th e emissio nlimitatio npracticall y enforceable . ^ /

x 

### '^Si~ ( 46 

### ) W««Jo r stationar y PAL source means , injadditio nt o th e J Ml'Trh requirement s o f (b ) (1 ) (A)-(C ) o f thi s section , an y physica l crc 

### Chang e tha t woul doccu r a t a stationar y sourc e no t qualifyin g unde r paragrap h(b ) (1 ) (A ) (I ) o f thi s section , a s a majo r stationar y

6ouroe , i f th e chang e woul dresul t l na nemission s increas e ove r a PA L limi t tha t woul dconstitut e a majo r stationar y

sourc e b y

itself . (47 ) (1 ) MajorPAL modification means , notwithstandin g th e requirement s o f (b ) (2 ) o f thi s section , an y chang e tha t woul d resul t i na nincreas e ove r th e plantwid e applicabilit y limit . (ii ) An y

emission s increas e o f volatil e organi c compound s shal l b e considere dmajo r fo r ozone . L 

# favt t . ^ THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRJtFT AN D .DOES NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YO N

TH E I8SUE S DISCtTSSB D te e Novembe r il , 199 4 ~ [filenam e 51_l66_l.l(dat e i nNov.) ] •*»• >

noi? ! v\ v no di o :J O O 

### xv i frS*oo 3ilL.B/TZ/Z'O"P.1 2 03'1S'9 5 19:1 3 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 *AS 0 NR'AQNP S -.-. - AQMD-PP B ' _013'03 1

1 1 (48 ) PA L Modification mean s an y chang e tha t woul dresul t i n differen t emission s level s allowe dunde r th e plantwid e applicabilit y

liai t [sucha s emission s trade s whic hrequir e change s t o permi t condition s an dan y chang e tha t require s additiona l permi t condition s t o adequatel y limi t th e potentia l t o emi'tj .

***** * (j ) * * • (2 ) A ne w majo r stationary sourc e shal l appl y boo t availabl e contro l technolog y fo r eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Ac t tha t i t woul dhav e th e potentia l t o emi t T nsignifican t amounts . Bes t availabl e contro l technolog y shal l b e determine d accordin g t o th e methodolog y describe di nparagrap h(j ) (5 ) o f thi s section . (3 ) A sourc e tha t undergoe s a majo r modificatio na s define d i nthi s sectio nehal l appl y bes t availabl e contro l technolog y fo r , eac hpollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Ac t fo r whic h_*h*a5,>*-X;v / «^j*- r modificatio nwoul d resul t i na p^jjnpffi>Q?tftt_nejDemlaslon s />" " Increas e a t th e source . Thi s requirement ' applies - tb ~ eac h propose demission s uni t a t whic ha ne t emission s increas e i nth e pollutan t woul doccu r a s a resul t o f a physica l chang e o r chang e i nth e metho d o f operatio ni nthe unit . Bes t availabl e contro l technolog y

shal l b e determine daccording t o th e methodolog y describe di nparagrap h(j)(5 ) o f thi s section . i / 

## •KkV t ^-—<* • . . A^ J



## - • (4 ) Fo r phase dcon6t. r ue t lory-projects , th e determinatio n.o r bes t availabl e eontro l technology shal l b e reviewe dan dmodifie d . j£: a s appropriat e a t the(3i%ast : reasonaBTe-vtim e whic hoccur s T» O late r fg*' tha n1 8 month s prio r t o commencement * x>rconstructio no f eac h independen t phas e o f th e project . A t suchtime , th o owne r o r operato r o f th e applicabl e stationary sourc e ma y

b e require dt o demonstrat e th e adequac y o f an y previou s determinatio nO f bes t availabl e contro l technology fo r th e eouroe . Bes t availabl e contro l technolog y shal l b e determine daccordin g t o th e methodolog y

describe di nparagraph(j)(5 ) o f thi s section . (S)(i ) I ndeterminin g bee t availabl e contro l technology , al l contro l technolog y alternative s identifiedpursuan t t o (j)(5)(ii ) o f thi s sectio nshal l b e ranke dan devaluate di ndescendin g orde r o f contro l effectiveness . Th e mos t stringen t alternativ e providin g th e maximu m degre e o f emission s reductio nshal l b e establishe da s bes t availabl e contro l technology unles e i t i s demonstrate dtha t technica l considerations , o r energy , environmental , an d economi c impact s an dothe r cost s establis h THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L SPA POLIC YO

N TE S ISSUE S | DISCUSSE D ** * Novembe r il # 199 4 — (.filenam

e 5i_l«.S_l.l(dat e i a Nov.) ] ***• >

3I0S> 1 VM T ICJ d iV ZmO n VV 4 tre-n n -HI T e«/T»/"* rP.1 3 03'15'9 S 19:1 1 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 WAS O NR.'AQ NP S —.AQMD-PP B

_ ) 0 1 i. ' 0 3 1



### 1 2 tha t th e mos t stringen t contro l technolog y i s no t achievabl e i n Lh-al - case . Th e nex t mos t stringen t contro l technologie s shal l the nb e considere di nth e same manne r i ndescendin g orde r o f contro l effectiveness . I f tn e mos t stringen t technolog y i s chosen , th e requiremen t t o analyz e o r evaluat e les s effectiv e contro l technolog y

ma y b e waived . (ii ) Th e contro l technolog y alternative s considere di n paragrap h(j ) (5 ) (i ) o f thi s sectio nshal l b e base dupon — (A ) contro l technologie s andmethod s fo r sam e an d simila r soure e categories , i.e. , thos e eategorie a includin g source s tha t hav e simila r emission s stream characteristics , whic ha s o f th e dat e o f complete dapplication , hav e bee nliste di no r require db y th e following : (1 ) EPA' s RACT/BACT/LAE RClearinghouse ; (2) Federally-approve dstate , Triba l andloca l program s an d regulations , includin g majo r sourc e constructio npermit s issue d unde r them , bu t excludin g operatin g permit s issue db y program s approve dunde r Titl e v o f th e CAA ; (3) Federa l permit s andFedera l standard s develope dunde r section s il l an d11 2 o f th e Act ; (4) Alternativ e Contro l Technolog y Document s an dContro l Technique s Guideline s tha t hav e bee nissue dby EPA ; an d (B ) Othe r contro l alternative s tha t eve nthoug hno t represente di nparagrap h(j)(5)(ii)(A ) o f thi s section , hav e bee n demonstrate di npractice , pursuan t t o paragraph(b ) (42 ) o f thi s section , th e demonstratio no f which , conclude dn o les s tha n9 0 day s prio r t o th e dat e o nwhic ha permi t applicatio ni s complet e (iii ) Th e plan-^a^rcquir c th e sourc e t o evaluat e eontro l technolog y

alternative s identifie dafte r a permi t ha dbeen — 1 deteimine d-coffipTete , base do ninfonnatio nderive dindependentl y 'firr(' b v

t 

### * l e 

### pez-it^in g authorit y o r eubmitte db

y publi c commenters . Th e permittin g authorit y ma y requir e tha t al l contro l technolog y »- , - alternative s identifie dsubsequen t t o the dat e o f complet e

- ^ I-,/applicatio nmee t th e specificit y criteri a fo r publi c comment s se t Uj\*^ v fort hi nparagrap h(q ) (3 ) o f thi s section . 

## A mVtmrifo k <y (iv ) Th e plan/tta y allo w fo r a cut-of f dat e o no r subsequen t frA t o th e dat e tha t a napplicatio ni s complet e pursuan t t o

- A 51.16S(n) , bu t no ilstec than^th e clos e o f th e fina l publi c notic e * an dcommen t periodf , afte r whic hth e soure e i s no t obligated , - excep t *t

s require dpursuan t t o Vj ) (S ) (iii ) o f thi s section , t o evaluat e an y

technolog y

fo r bcetSavailabl e contro l technolog y othe r tha nthos e identifie dpursuan t t o paragrap h(j)(5)(ii ) o f THI S DOCUMEN T 1 8 A

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T AN D DOB S NO T REPRE8EN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YON

TE B ISSUE S DISCUSSE D **• » Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filename 51_lt56_l.i(dat e i nNov.) ] •* • 

# i7 

# 'A

CTO0 1 V.M V 10 J J O !i 0 0 XV i !S : 0 0 3I U,8/XZ/Z-___ _P.1 4
03'15'9 5 19:1 1 *S*20 2 20 S 162 0 "7-VS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _015/03 1



### 1 3 thi s section . (X ) Sourc e impac tanalysis. Th e pla n shal l provid e tha tth e owne ro roperator^o f an y propose d sourc e o rmodificatio n shal l demonstrat e tha tallowabl e emissio n increase s fro m th e propose d sourc e o rmodification , i n conjunctio n wit h al l othe rapplicabl e emission s increase s o rreduction s (includin g secondar y emissions ) woul d no tcaus e o rsignificantl y contribut e t o ai rpollutio n i n violatio n of :

* * •* y . V

> 

# <• >
.. . yV^3f_$7?y
(2 ) Wher e a

nai r qualit

y mode l specifie

dip th

e Appendi xW o r thi s par t ("Guidelin e o nAi r Qualit

y Models ' (Revised ) • • (1986) , supplemen t A

(1987 ) an

d supplement B (1993) ) /is inappropriate , th e mode l ma

y b o modifie

d o r anothe

r mode l substituted . Suc ha . modificationo

r substitutio

no f a mode l ma

v b e made o

na case-by-cas e basi s or , where appxopriate^b na generi c basi s for •** . specifi c stat e program . •^rTEten^pjgroval^-nP f th e Administrato r mus t be obtainedfo r an y modiffoationoTsubStitUtion . I n addition , us e e f a modifie do r substitute

dmode l mus t b

e subjec t t o notic e an

d opportunit

y forptih

l i r commen

t unde r procedure s se t fort RinS51.102 . "

(_ ) • e * \m/ / 

### (1 ) * * * (vi ) The pla

nshal l provid

e tha t wit

hrespec t t o an

y ai r quality relate dvalu e of a Federa l Clas s I area , th e analysi s shal l contai nsuc

hmonitorin

g dat a a s th

e permittin

g authority , i nconsultatio

nwithth

e Federa l Lan

d Manager , determine s i s necessar

y fo r determinin

g whether emissions fro m th e ne w sourc e o r modificationwoul d hav e a nadvers e impac t o

nth e ai r quality relatedvalue . /



### (2 ) -gpst-constructio nmonltorlnyT^Th

e pla nshal l provid e tha t the owne r o

r operato

r of a major stationar y sourc e or majo r -modificatio

nshall , afte

r constructio

nof th e stationar

y soure e ,p r modification , conduc t suc hmonitorin

g a s th

e permittin

g authority),determine s i s necessar y to determin

e th e effec t amissions/fro

m th e stationar

y sourc e o

r modificatio

nmay have , o r ar e havir/g , o

nai r qualit

y i nan y area , o

r o nai r quality

related value s i

han y Federa l Clas s I area . *



## - 1 J 

## "~ 4&- 

# * * *
. _^.,V

i cJYtkJM'^

toty -fa jQjj- iM^-if^f^ THI S DOCUMEN

T I S A PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T AN

D DOE 8 NO T REPRESEN

T OPPICIA

L EP A POLIC YO N TB E ISSUE S DISCUSSED »t t Novembe r 11 , 199 4 - • [filenam e 5l_l66_l.l(dat e i nNov..) ] t* e

n o P i VJN- V 10 4 j o zi o o xv i ss : o o a u S6 /03'15'9 5 19:1 5 S20 2 20 S 162 0 >>AS 0 NR'A Q NPS —AQMD-PP B P.1 5
1016/03 1

1 4

_*

• 

### (n ) Complet e Application Criteria. (2 ) Th e pla nchal l provid e tha t suc hinformatio nshal l include : ,

(iv ) Th e owne r o r operato r shal l presen t evidenc e tha t th e analysi s performe dt o selec t the bes t syste m o f continuou s emissio nreductio nha s bee nconducte dpursuan t ta r th e ap h(j)(5)(i ) an

d(ii ) oit/thi s £..,«.«._.. . •7 // , •*

- Oi-aH.-M' ^ 

### \ requirement s o f

paragrap h (j ) (5 ) (i ) an d (ii) / 

### o f / 

### /thi s section .

• ' / j 

### / La>^A \*)/4n.t\ve aFedera l Lan di%j.naye / 

### r'alleges^ha t th e emissions

. 

# * > • -iMJ&3>- v 

# *''^JZ^'rl&V . \ " *^ : (\- /^ ) f^o.»*^lpi^po8ed sourc e o r modifi\atiB*___»y--i_auB e o r contribut e t o lt £ _v ^ a/chang e i hai r qualit y ina Federa l clas s I area , th e owne r o r '* ^ op^£j__a*r'shal l includ e infonnationon.the-aAr-qua- 1 it y impact ? o f '• ' I th e sourc e o r modificatio no nthe^^-fecte d area/-includin g " " •**• » t.£

fiJ .' sufficien t informatio nfo r the pemittin g authorit y i n consultatio nwit hth e affecte dFedera l LandManager , t o determin e whethe r th e applicabl e emission s wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a v\olation_o C an

y ciae a I increment . ... - 

# 2fcfe (S ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t anapplicatio nshal l no t b e

considere dcomplet e unles s the applicatio nha s bee nregistere do n th e U.S . Environmenta l ProtectionAgenc y Ne w Sourc e Revie w Bulleti nBoar dinaccordanc e wit hparagraph(qi(1 ) o f thi s section . T o register , a t a minimum , th e followin g mus t b e provided : (i ) Nam e an

dtyp e o f source , (ii ) Natur e o f propose dproject , i.e. , ne w facilit y

o r modification ; (iii ) Product s t o b e mad e an ddesig nproductio ncapacity ; (iv ) sourc e locatio n(includin g UT M coordinates ) an

dth e distanc e betwee neac hsourc e an deac hClas s I are a withi n 50 0 kilometers , (v ) Anticipate demissio nrate , o r increas e i nemissio nrate , fo r eac haffecte d ai r pollutan t regulate dunde r th e Clea nAi r Act . (vi ) Sourc e mailin g addres s an dtelephon e number , an d

TEI 8 DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EF A POLICYO

N TB E ISSUE S DISCUSSE D • • e no-embe r 11 , X99 4 — [filenam

e S I 16 6 1. 1 (dat e i nNov.) ] tt e

9* 0 C? | VM V 10 d J O ZJ

O 0 Wl 98:0 0 30 1 S6/TI/Z 0P.1 6

03'1S'9 5 19:1 6 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS O NR'A Q NP S AQMD-PP

B _01Sy03 1 

# att

1 6



### t im e - -v«th"in> t

h_-^ja-ixid7

- _-!-

£ rev-ie v afte r

a^coriafideriij ^ a 

### impact s o naFedera l Clas c I area . Th e permittin g authorit y ma y issu e adeterminatio ntha t th e applicatio ni s cornplete \a t an y ^ -a-Hx-red-for^%he--Pedera l Lan dMsxtffger ' s y*ff1 rv iny

. comment s fro mth e Federa l Lan df<4&^r { 

### Manager . 

## <CTMW^*S-v

- 3n\diib e Y\JVL 

### C^*A<IL.$$£.-J (iv ) Whe nth e permittin g authorit y receive s advanc e notificatio n(e.g. , earl y consultatio nwit hth e sourc e prio r t o submissio no f th e applicatio no r notificatio no f inten t t o monito r unde r paragrap h(m ) o f thi s section ) o f a permi t £Uro applicatio nfo r a propose dne w sourc e o r modificatio nwithi n><r o kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area, , th e permittin g authorit y shall : I no... 

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

### L ) 

### Qfi<r'-e± (A ) notif y

th e Federa l Lan dManage r withi n3 0 day s o f receip t o f suc hadvanc e notification , an d^<raW*6c . (B ) provid e th e Federa l Lan dManage r witt y the nopportunit y

t o participat e Aa an y

pre-applicatio nmeeting s wit hth e source . -v^if) Tei_4ra

J Land Manager—Responsibility. (_ £ Th e Federa l /"' MiL

### v*&~ 

### Lan dManage r charge dwit hdirec t responsibilit y fo r management / ^y^J_i__i, o f a Federa l Clas s I are a shal l hav e a naffirmativ e ' •^^m.^p^s responsibilit y

t o identif y

an dprotec t th e ai r qualit y relate d/ •

_/ value s (includin g visibility v o f an y suc harea . —£ ^7^3, * » (ii ) Th e Federa l Lan dManage r shal l provid e relevan t N 

### ^_^^- <

- , f ^^information't o t*h^ permittin g authorit y whos e Territory , Stat e o\}%Jy/\L, Tt > ^C*** ^ loca l are a eontain V on e o r mor e Federa l Clas s I areas . Entr y o f pftt-x^i i h e followin g informatio ni nth e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio n/4•"*•- ' •H - CXgcne Bulleti Boards-hal l satisf y thi s requirement : -r>«u-t- «»ft* ^ wC y Bulleti nBoards-hal requirement :

\ 3 

### . \ t>s] > "f v curren t listing,\Xo r eac haffecte dFedera l Clas s I '_ / 5 5 r « < (A ) A
_ area , o f th e ai r qualit y relate dvalue s whic hhav e bee n identifie dt o date , sensitiv e receptor s t o specifie dai r pollutants , an dcritica l pollutant s loading s fo r suc hai r qualit y relate dvalue s an dsensitiv e receptors ; an d (B ) Copie s o f al l finding s o f advers e impac t eithe r independen t of , o r i nconjunctio nwith , consideratio no f permit s issue dpursuan t t o th e requirement s of thi s sectio no r an y o r th e followin g regulations : S 51.307 , o r S S 52.21 , 3^.27 , o r 52.2 8 o f 9 

### thi s chapter ; an dV •fit , } 

# s

v\ (C ) Othe r informatio nconcernin g *__^Cnb*_nai r polit y relate dvalues , includin g suc hvalue s tha t ma y b e understudy . (i*4* ) Th e Federa l Lan dManager , upo nadvanc e notificatio n 

# 3) \

. 

### »\ » THI S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOES^O T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YO N

TH E ISSUE S DI8CU88E D\ ^ •*•• • Novembe rn » 199 4 - - (filenam e s i I66_i.i(dat e i m Nov.) ] •• •

iio a V.M V lOi 10 ZJ

O 0 YV i is-n n Hl U Sl'U/7.0P.17 L 03'15/9 5 19:1 6 S20 2 20 S 162 0 •*AS O NR/A Q NP S --.- . AQMD-PP B _O19.'03 1

1 7 

# 7 Mm-e&t naJc e 

# j " *


# J i ) <t%7 Federal Land impact. Th e pla nshal l rei ••. , conside r an y

Uea.ui._

Ua m frn m th e 

# •33 LW r-wi;t|U_v-<0--dAj t ,^-n^_t^rmino dt h 

### JJEI<IS*W''. 

## cU

th e permittin g authorit y t o <^e^j <rr) .J7 submitte db y

th e Federa l Lan dManage r y t e o nwhic hth e peraititting authority—- ^ <&Za.<&)<a • e p<>rmi t applicatio ntr . h a cf^nplete , tha t show s tha t ^it*? /. onar v sourc e o r maio r modificatio nwi nhav e a n3TM < 7<-\ pursuan t t o paragrap h(p ) (l ) (ii ) o f thi s section , ot dire ; notificatio nb y

a prospectiv e permi t applicap-fcr""3hal l availabl e t o suc happlicant , whos e emiss>oTf s ma y affecy'suc h Federa l Clas s I area , th e informatio nrequire di nparagrap h (p)(2)(ii ) o f thl 6 sectio nconcernin g th e ai r qualit / relate d values , *i»e>lu_-iftg - an y cuirentl y

unde r study.- * (if ) Th e Federa l Lan dManage r tlfial l consider / i n consultatio nwit hth e Administrator , whethe r a propose dsourc e o r

. If modificatio nwoul dhav e a nadvers e impac t o nan y ai r qualit y »wtf'relate dvalue s whic hth e Federa l Lan dManage r UB S identifie d f pursuan t t o paragrap h(p ) (2 ) ( i



# •W48

ifchi e sec > ion . ager—'/NifBCvuj-bracio n of adverse i r e

a majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r modificatio nwil l hav e a n 

# v^K.

* u wujv i gvaak^wnai j oum « wi. uojv/ tuiuuij.y—aiiw n ti n nav e a n .4 advers e impac t o na nai r qualit y related/valu e i na Federa l Clas s "<-v C area . Th e permittin g authorit y shall / a t a minimum , provid e a ••Ov- V 'writte nevaluatio no f th e Federa l uand^nanager' s demonstration , tbisuf-.^,J C «;»>, A zr an

dinclud e th e evaluatio ni nth e publi c recor daccompanyin g th e •+ ^ "^preliminar y determinatio nrequire dunde r paragrap h(q)(3 ) o f thi s 

## 9 t ' ir

### { ^section . Th e writte nevaluatio nshal l addres s th e following :

(A ) Tft uaelhuUs~an dprocedure s b y whic hth a FuJuia l Liiml W.-*.p.**,gewi

At.m-H * i m A •+***—» 4-~*

rp- m I , fry Tu I.«t * af , v « 1 n r , fh » unrl.r l y **
. n r j iinpr,*-*- nmm m iinH H +-. j.,**.,** . *.*j r^ M . i •

; **- y rnlftt'-fl v-ilur . th e natur e o f th e allege dadvers e impact , an da nexplanatio no f an y conclusion s th e permittin g authorit y reache s abou t th e ai r 

# I

fa

qualit y

relate dvalu e tha t ar e inconsisten t wit hthos e reache db y f^a/p th e F1.M : C r t h e FLM ; 

## s»A / (B ) Lan d Nan a \\ questio n e value , e d tp ^ ofth e a l e Fed^-a l J Q . whic h relate d

v v. _/ ' ~ ~ \^y Vcf ^ /

(C ) Th e technica l dat aan d analyse s performe d i n ^^/demonstratin g th e advers e impac tan d th e basi s fo rth e permittin g

^ / : (authority' s disagreemen twit h an y dat ao ranalyses ; an d •* , JWI

rt&mJj {D)Jfio\y meacu\c G undertake n t o mitigat e th e -potentia l 

# n> J V 

## V advers e impact s o f propose demission s increases , includin g th e

estimate deffec t o f oq^.mitigation . authorit y

find s tha t th e analysi s Manage r i naccordanc e wit h (ii ) Wher e th e per m .submitte db y

th e Federa l THI S DOCUMEN T I S A FRELIHUiAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFIOIHA L BP A POLIC YO N

TB E ISSUE S DISCUSSE D • • • Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filenam e 5 1 16 6 i.i(dat e i a Nov.) ] ** *

STo3*l vjaiv-io d J O :J O o xv j is*o o a m ee/Tz/j oP.1 8

03'15'9 5 19:1 7 ®20 2 20 8 162 0 WAS O NR.'A Q NPS —AQMD-PP B , _020/03 1
i i 

### •\ " yJ '"' ' y ' e-\ •••- ' *" (



### - ^-- C. U , f

L 

### < : 

### ' ^ ^ \ 

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

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

### paragrap h(p ) (3 ) (i ) o f thiaXsectio ndoe s no t demohstrat e the satisfactio no f th e permittin g authorit y tha t a nadvers e impac t o na nai r qualit y

relate dvalu e wil l resul t i nth e Federa l clas s I area , th e permittin g authorit y shal l i nth e publi c recor d accompanyin g th e preliminar y determinatio nprovid e a complet e explanatio no f th e decisio nt o rejec t th e Federa l Lan dManger' s demonstration . , < 7 ,TW 7 6~'.1[.'V}. 

### 9 flSL(Y&**j

*• ^ • • 'V . . (4 ) Denial—•impact\on airquality related values. Th

e pla n 

### shal l provid e a mechanis m whereb y a Federa l LandMa/nager of--en y L * •such-Federa l cias a 1-are A may presen t t o th e permittin g (~' authority , prio r t o an y preliminar y

determination\rft-q_jred...under . (7

_ Ih'acX-ordancelTig

nparagraph.Jq7 \.)Jo t thi s V's-

g section , a"deumui*.tHf*atinn_tha t th e emission s fro

m the"propose d r

### ** ; )


### procedure s 'developed " Tn " "acxiordancelrig n paragrap h ^fq ) (.}Jot thi s N 

### X ^ ~3-^-~\%~e&7m~aT77~a7deiii-OTis^ati-oJLthatth e emission s fro m the^fopose d Jj2Jd''i*-.K*--aourc

co rmodificatio n would\hav e an advers e impac to n th e ai r. . "h l',trx qualit y relate d value s (inc l 

# f3!fy

J, „ qualit y

relate dvalue s (including visibility ) o f any Federa l ^ l 

### Clas s I area , notwithatandingvtha t th e chang e i nai r qualit y

. resultin g from

emission s fro

m suc hsourc e o r modificatio nwoul d no t caus e o r contribut e t o concentration s whic hwoul dexcee dth e maximu m allowabl e increase s for V Clas s I area . I f th e permittin g authorit y concur s with , such^Jegtofistiation , th e permittin g authorit y shal l no t issu e the^permi XT. ~'""-^W er 

### ^ 'mojkon (5 ) Mitigation of

adverse impacts. Th e permittin

g authority 

### ' ' ma y

issu e a permi t t o a propose dsourc e tha t woul dotherwis e b e \ , denie da permi t unde r paragraph(p ) (4 ) o f thi s section , i f th e

.„,, ' permittin g authorit y determines,Jtha t th e sourc e ha s mitigate dit s o . . v advers e impac t on , o r it s contributio nto , a nai r qualit y relate d

. value . For—example- , source s may J mitigat e anadvers e impac t by • f 

### ,;. - obtainin g enforceable^an dpermanen t emission s reduction s o f •'sufficien t amoun t an di nsuc hlocatio ntha t th e reduction s wil l \ x

### offse t th e ohang e i nai r qualit y i nth e Federa l Clas s I are a tha t

.. ) woul dhav e resulte dfro m emission s fro

m th e propose dsource . v ; fparagrap

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



### (7 ) sulfu r dioxid e varianc e by Governo r wit hFedera l Lan d Manager' s concurrence . Th e pla nma y provid e that — (i ) Th e owne r o r operato r e f a propose dsourc e o r modificatio nwhic heanao t b e approve dunde r procedure s develope d pursuan t t e paragrap h(p)(S ) e f thi s sectio nma y demonstrat e t e th e Governo r tha t th e sourc e o r modificatio ncanno t b e ooastruote dby

reaso ne f an

y maximu m allowabl e increas e fo r sulfu r dioxid e fo r period s o f twenty-fou r hour s o r les s applicabl e t o an y

Clas s I are a and , I ntb e cas e o f Federa l TBI S DOCUMEN T 1 8 A

PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC YO N

TB B ISSUE S DISCUSSE D • et Novembe r 11 , 199 4 • • [filenam e 51_16 « i.l(dat e i nNov.) ] ** •

6XoE> ! VM V 10 J 10ZAO 0 Vii8S-0 0 3ll L S6/TC/2 0P.1 9

03'13'9 5 19:1 3 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS 0 NR.'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _021'03 1

1 9 mandator y

clas s I areas , tha t a varlane a uhde r thi s claus e woul d ne t advorsel y

affec t th e ai r qualit y relate dvalue s o f tb e are a (includin g visibility) ;
e • • • * (iii ) I f suc hvarianc e i s granted , th e permittin g authorit y may issu e a permi t t o suehsoure e o r modificatio ni n accordanc e wit hprovision s develope dpursuan t t o paragrap h(p ) (7 ) o f thi s se e tion ) Provided / Tha t the applicabl e requirement s o f th e pla n ar e otherwis e met . (7 ) • • • (i ) • • • (ii ) • • • (iii ) I f sue ha varianc e i s approved, , th e permittin g authorit y

ma y issu e a permi t i n accordanc e wit hprovision s develope dpursuan t t o the requirement s o f paragrap h(p ) (8 ) e f thi s section : Provided , Tha t tb e applicabl e requirement s o f th e pla nar e otherwis e met . 

### (8 ) Eaission limitations forPresidential orgubernatorial variance . Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t l n th e cas e o f a permi t issue dunde r preocdurc o develope d pursuan t t o paragrap h(p)(6 ) o r (P)(7 ) o f thi s section , th e sourc e o r modificatio nshal l compl y wit hemissio nlimitation s a s ma y be necessary

t o assur e that , emission s o f sulfu r dioxid e fro m th e souro e o r modificatio nwoul d no t (during any

da y o n whic hth e otherwis e applicabl e maximu m allowabl e increase s ar e exceeded ) caus e o r contribut e t o concentration s whic hwoul dexceedth e followin g maximu m allowabl e increase s ove r th e baselin e concentratio nand.t o assur e tha t suc h emission s woul dno t caus e or contribut e t o concentration s whic h excee dth e otherwis e applicabl e maximu m allowabl e increase s fo r period s o f exposur e o f 2 4 hour s or les s fo r mor e tha ni a days , no t necessaril y

consecutive , durin g an y annua l period ;

Maximu m Allowabl e Increas e (Micrograms pe r cubi c meter ] Terrai narea s Perio do f exposur e Low Hig h 24-h r maximu

m 3 6 6 2 3-h r maximu

m 13 0 22 1

THI 8 DOCUMEN T 1 8 A PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EF A POLICYON

TH E (ISSUE S DISCUSSE D *•• * Novembe r 11 / 199 4 — (filenam

e 5 1 16 6 1. 1 (dat e i n Nov.) ] •»•» *

ObO ® V-4 V 10 J i O Si O 0 XV J 9 8 = 0 0 30 1 SS/TI/Z nP.2 0 03-*15'9 5 1 9 : I S 020 : 20 S 162 0 «AS O NR'A Q NP S AQMD-PP B _022/03 1

.7%
/ 2 0 

## A** '

__5____r?iy . 

## C^raifc^__^

_ (l ) Th e permittih g authority_5^ 1 transmi t to/th e ~fi<. fc^f. Administrato r _a__^p

y Tu t udLhyt5ompleteSpcrmi t applicatio nrelatin g ' LmA t o a major--5Tationar y sourceSji—

a a iui-^modi f icationAfl dprovid e t/T noX_«_t o th e Administrato r o f y ac7tioi___6_at_*v

f _l.t_get o Administratoro f ever actio nr±"\*i-dff > n4-he , , i-' . ^dnsideratio no f BUB A 

### ber_It- T Th e permittin g authorit y sh a 1 1 ' ,S / v_rit y

tna t informatio nconcernin g eac happlicatio nha s bee n poste do nth e U.S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Ne v Souro e Revie w Bulleti nBoard . ^3^- (2 ) Th e permittin g authorit y shal l notif y

al l applicant s withi na specifie dtim e perio da s t o th e completenes s o f th e applicatio no r an

y deficienc y

i nth e applicatio no r informatio n submitted . I nth e even t o f suc ha deficiency , th e dat e o f receip t o f th e complet e applicatio nshal l b e the . dat e o nwhic hth e permittin g authority , receive dal l require dinformation . (3 ) Th e pla nwa y

se t fort hcriteri a fo r acceptin g o r rejectin g recommendation s fo r contro l technolog y alternative s fro m publi o eommenter s tha t ar e receive dafte r th e dat e a n applicatio ni s determine dt o b e complete . Thos e criteri a ma y require : (i ) reasonabl y

availabl e informatio nregardin g th e typ e o f contro l technology ; location , siz e andproduc t o r functio no f th e sourc e i nwhic hi t i s installed ; andit s performanc e t o b e submitte dwit hth e recommendations ; o r (ii ) I nth e even t th e abov e informatio ni s no t readil y available , th e inquirin g part y shal l documen t an dpresen t evidenc e t o th e permittin g authorit y o f al l reasonabl e attempt s t o ascertai nsuc hinformation , includin g record s o f question s tha t ar e aeXe dand respectiv e response s fro m compan y

officials , trad e associations , environmenta l organizations , governmen t agencie s an dtechnica l consultant s tha t migh t hav e qualifyin g informatio nregardin g th e allege dtechnology . (4 ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t afte r any cut-of f dat e establishe dpursuan t t o (j)(5)(iv ) th e permittin g authorit y shal l notif y a permi t applican t withi n1 0 workin g day s upo nreceivin g a recommendatio nby

a publi c commente r fo r anothe r technolog y t o b e considere dan d th e technolog y qualifie s unde r th e plan' 6 criteri a a s bein g a candidat e fo r furthe r consideratio na s BAC T by th e permi t applicant . T8I 8 DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORXZN O DRAF T A-N DDOB S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YO N

TH E I8BUE B DISCU8SB D •* * Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filename 5i_i66_l.l(dat o i nNov.) ] •*-

UoG* i v>I V 10 J i O !i 0 n YV.- T6S:0 0 30 L ../U/ZOP.2 1 0 3 ' 1S/9 5 19:1 9 O20 2 20 9 162 0 WAS O NR.'A Q NP S "- . AQMD-PP

B _023/03 1



# r
W 

# x 2 1

(5 ) Th e *pla

nshal l provid e tha t th e permittin g authorit y shal l publis hth e result s o f evaluatin g eac hcontro l technolog y alternativ e recommende d b y publi c coamenter s afte r th e dat e a n applicatio ni s complete ^ an d mak e availabl e i nth e publi c recor d al l informatio ntha t wa s submitte d and considere d i nevaluatin g eac hcontro l technology alternative . (6 ) Witni non e yea r afte r receip t o f a complet e application , th e permittin g authorit y shall i " * (i ) Mak e a preliminar y determinatio nwhethe r constructio n shoul d b e approved , approve d wit hconditions , o r disapproved . (ii ) Fo r an

y propose d rjouree-'o r modificatio nwhos e applicatio ni s provide d fo r review b y th e Federa l Land Manage r i n accordanc e wit heithe r paragraph(n ) (6 ) o r (p ) (1 ) o f thi s section , addres s whethe r An d t o wha t exten t notificatio nwa s provide d t o an

y applicabl e Federa l T.an d Manager ; th e Federa l Lan d Manager' s involvement/i nth e revie w o f th e permi t application ; and a summar y

e f the / specifi c concern s raise d b y th e Federa l Land Ii i Manage r an d ho w euc hconcern s hav e bee naddresse d b y th e Cy***tj\ \ permittin g authority .

(iii ) Mak e availabl e i na t leatf t on e locatio ni neac hregio n U J 1 k V i nwhic hth e propose d sourc e would/b e constructe d a copy o f al l ' /\t jf\-^material s th e applican t sub)Ditfced, J a cop y o f th e preliminar y \ ^determination , and a cop y oi r summary

o f othe r materials , i f any , m/T considere d i nmakin g th e preliminar y 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 \ genera l 0 \-w woul db 

# rf (iv ) Notif y th e public , b

y circulatio ni neac hr e b e constructed , o f thr ? a f \ determination , th e degre e o f
' . expecte d fro

m th e soure e o r " " Age-* ! anai r qualit y relate d val u 7y\ A a t a publi c hearin g a s wel l vertisemen t i na newspape r o f ni hwhie hth e propose d sourc e ieatinn , th e preliminar y ncremen t consumptio ntha t i s Edification , an

y advers e impac t o n an d o f the opportunit y fo r commen t s writte npubli c comment . (v ) Sen d a cop

y o f th e notic e o f publi c commen t t o th e applicant , th e Administrato r an d t o official s an d agencie s havin g cognizanc e ove r th e looatio nwher e th e propose d constructio n woul d occu r a s follows : an y othe r stat e o r loca l ai r pollutio n contro l agencies , th e chie f executive s o f th e cit y and count y wher e th e eouro c woul d b e located ; an y comprehensiv e regiona l land us e plannin g agency , an d an y State , Federa l Land Manager , o r India nGovernin g bod y whos e land s may

b e affecte d b

y emission s fro m th e sourc e o r modification . [Renumbe r (q)(2)(v ) t o (q)(«)(vi ) TBI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL BPA POLIC YON

TB S ISSUE S DISCUSSE D 

## ** e Novembe

r11 , 199

4 • • [filenam e B

i 16 6 1.1(dat e i n Nov.) ] *• *

•0(9 , 

### v„vlog j o :i o 0 xvj fis-.nn .mi

. 96/u/z oP.2 2 03>15'» 5 19:1 9 ®20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS O NR/A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _021.'03 1

2 2

(7 ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t th o permittin g authority : . [Renumbe r (q)(2)(vi ) t o (q)(7)(i) ] [Renumbe r (q)(2)(vii ) t o (q)(7)(ii) * [Renumbe r (q)(2)(viii ) t o (q)(7)(ill) ]

*
. * * *

* * 

### (s ) Undemonstrate

d Technology/Application ; (1 ) Th e pla nmay

provid e tha t a

nowne r o r operato r o f a propose dmajo r stationary courc e o r majo r modificatio nma y reques t th e permittin g authorit y t o approv e a nundemonstrate d technology/application . The reques t shal l b e submitte di n writin g alon g wit hth e source' s permi t application . (2 ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t th e permittin g authorit y may , wit hth e consen t o f th e governor(s ) o f othe r affecte d state(s) , determin e tha t the sourc e o r modificatio nma y emplo y

a n undemonstrate dtechnology /application , if :

***** * (ii ) Th e owne r o r operato r agree s t o achiev e a leve l o f continuou s emission s reductionequivalen t t o tha t whic hwoul d hav e bee nrequire dunde r paragraph(j)(2 ) o f thi s section , b y a dat e specifie db

y th e permitting authority , suc hdat e shal l no t b e late r tha n2 year s fro m th e time o f startu po r 5 year s fro m permi t issuance ; (iii ) Th e sourc e or modificatio nwoul dmee t th e requirement s equivalen t t o thos e i nparagraph s (j ) an d(x ) o f thi s section , base do nth e emission s rat e tha t th e stationar y sourc e employin g th e undemonstrate dtechnology/applicatio nwoul db e require dt o mee t o nth e dat e specifie db y th e permittin g authority ;

**** * (vii ) Th e owne r o r operato r addresses , a e a minimum , th e followin g issue s i nthe waive r application : (A ) Identificatio no f potentia l failur e modc Gfo r th e system o f undemonstrate dtechnology/application ; (B ) Projection s o f correspondin g amission s increase s THI S DOCUMEN T I B A PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T AN D DOE 8 NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YO

M TH E IS8UE 8 DI8CU88B D *"• Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filenam

e S i I66_i.i(dat e i nNov.) ) *• *

C!0C* i v\- v -[QiJ Q JJ O ( 1 XV.-? 00:i 0 3(1 1 S6/TZ/J 0P.2 3
03'15'9 5 19:5 0 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 »AS O NR.'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _025.'03 1



### 2 3 resultin g (ro m

th e potentia l failur e mode s identifie di n(A) ; (C ) Characterizatio no f emission s increase s identifie di n (5 ) a s eithe r margina l o r groe s failure , a 6 define db y th e permittin g authority ; (D ) Identificatio no f potentia l contingenc y measures , bot h interi m an dlon g term , t o reduc e emissio nincrease s resultin g from th e potentia l failur e mode s identifie di n(A) . (3 ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t th e permittin g authorit y shal l withdra w

an y approva l t o emplo y

a nundemonstrate d technology/applicatio nmad e unde r thi s section , if : (i ) Th e propose dsyste m fail s by

th e specifie ddat e t o — s £>t—, achiev e th e require dcontinuou s emission s reductio nrat e sue hS xna t i t qu

> 

### iti^f,tvgy~aTr*groo8 failure ; o r ^

• * * * * 

### (4 ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t th e permittin g authorit y shal l include , a s a minimum , th e followin g informatio ni neac h undemonstrate dtechnology/applicatio npermit ; (i ) Th e undemonstrate dtechnology/application' 6 emissio n contro l performanc e objectiv e andth e applicabl e referenc e bes t availabl e contro l technolog y emissio nlimit . Bot hemissio n limit s shal l b e expres s a s anemissio nrat e (e.g. , pound s pe r hour ) an da mas s emissio nlimi t (e.g. , pound s pe r millio nBritis h therma l units) ; (ii ) Th e definitio no f margina l andgros s failur e a s define d by th e permittin g authorit y o na case-by-cas e basi s an deac hter m shal l b e expresse da s bot ha nemissio nrat e (e.g. , pound s pe r hour ) an da mas s emissio nlimi t (e.g. , pound s pe r millio nBritis h therma l units) ; (iii ) Th e gros s failur e emissio nlimit s shal l b e considere d enforceabl e which : (A ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f th e undemonstrate d technology/applicatio nshal l no t exceeddurin g th e ter m o f th e waiver ;

an d .--(B ) Protect s publi c health , ambien t ai r qualit y standard s ai r qualit y

relate dvaluce*; ] / " (iv ) Informatio nrequire-pursuan t t o (2 ) (vii ) o f thi s /THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINAR YSTA> F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOE S NO T (fyfi / REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YO N

TB B ISSUB S DISCUSSE DX / ee e Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filename S I IC C l. i (dat e l a Nov.) ] se e (7^1 

# ^3^33f.733^&L%M~ 3U -shekx 7f&rt cn**!****^*„7 r
•KOlf t' VM Y IQ-l i n 7J0 0 YV J 00-T O 311 1 i'bVlZ/2 UP.2 4
03'15'9 5 19:5 0 ®20 2 20 8 162 0 «AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _026.'03 1

/


## section

. n 

# ([J , flfh sw-c ^

(5 ) Th e pla n shal l provid e tha t i f b yth e dat e establishe d i n (2)(ii ) o f thi s section , th e undemonstrate d technology/applicatio n doe s no t achiev e th e permitte d emissio n limit , bu t actua l emission s ar e equa l t o o r les s tha n th e bes t availabl e contro l technolog yemissio n limi t rafara-iae d i n th e undemonstrate d technology/applicatio n permi t unde r subsectio n (4)(i ) th e permittin g authorit yshall : (i ) issu e a fina l permi t wit h th e emissio n limi t equa l t o undemonstrate d technology/application' s consistenc yachieve d actua l emissio n rate ; (ii ) Conside r th e undemonstrate d technology/applicatio n t o b e demonstrate d an d no t eligibl e fo r a n additiona l undemonstrate d technology/applicatio n waiver ; (iii ) Repor t th e fina l permi t limit s t o EPA' s RACT/BACT/LAE R Clearinghouse
. (6 ) Th e pla n shal l provid e tha t if , b yth e dat e establishe d i n (2)(ii ) o f thi s section , actua l emission s fro mth e undemonstrate d technology/applicatio n constitute s margina l failure : (i ) Th e owner/operato r ma ypetitio n th e permittin g authorit y t o permi t th e undemonstrate d technology/applicatio n t o operat e a t it s aotua l emissio n limit ; (ii ) Th e petitio n shal l addres s th e energy , economi c an d environmenta l benefit s derive d fro m usin g th e undemonstrate d technology/application ; an d (iii ) Th e permittin g authorit yshal l upo n approva l o f th e petition : (A ) Issu e a fina l permi t wit h th e emissio n limi t equa l t o th e actua l emissio n rat e consistentl yachieve d byth e undemonstrate d technology/application ; (B ) conside r th e undemonstrate d technology/applicatio n t o b e demonstrate d an d no t eligibl e fo r a n additiona l undemonstrate d teehnology/applieatio n waiver ; (C ) Repor t th e fina l permi t limit s t o EPA' s RACT/BACT/LAE R Clearinghouse ; an d

THI S DOCUMEN T I S APRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T AN D DOE S NO T RBPRE6EN T OFFICIA L BP APOLIC Y O NTH E ISSUE S DISCUSSE D ee * Novembe r 11 , 199 4 —(filenam e S i 16 6 l.Kdat e i n Nov.) ] *• *

OJ0P ; Vtf V 10 J J O no 0 XV i T 0 = T O a mce/Tj/zoP.2 5

03'15/9 5 19:5 1 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 WAS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _027'03 1 

# 2 5 

# ^n- (iv ) Th e permittin g aut_iori*_^shall , eithe r failin g t o > receiv e o r approv e a petitions/terminat e th e waive r an destablis h a schedule , no t t o excee d^vvonths , b y whic hth e owne r o r operato r shal l achiev e a leve l o f continuou s emission s reductio n equivalen t t o tha t whio hwoul dhav e bee nrequire dunde r paragrap h (2)(ii ) o f thi s section . (7 ) Th e pla n6hal l provid e tha t i f a t an y tim e prio r t o o r o nth e dat e establishe di n(2 ) (ii ) o f thi s section , actua l emission s fro

m th e undemonstrate dtechnology/applicatio n constitute s gros s failure : (i ) The/permittin g authorit y shal l expeditiousl y terminat e th e waive r an

dissu e a permi t containin g a schedule , no t t o / ' excee dJ**/months , b y whic hthe owne r o r operato r shal l achiev e a 7 leve l o f continuou s emission ©reduotio nequivalen t t o tha t whic h woul dhave , bee nrequire dunde r paragraph(j)(2 ) O f thl 6 section ; and (ii ) Th e owne r o r operato r shal l mitigat e al l emissio n increase s abov e the emissio nlimi t equivalen t t o tha t whio hwoul d hav e bee nrequire dunde r paragraph(j)(2 ) o f thi s sectio nb y reducin g actua l emissions . (8 ) Th e pla nfihall provid e tha t the permittin g authority : (i ) Shal l no t approv e anundemonstrate d technology/applicatio nwaive r for a technology/applicatio ntha t th e Administrato r consider s t o b e demonstrated ; and (ii ) Shal l submi t t o th e Administrato r a copy o f th e undemonstrate dtechnology /applicatio nwaive r withi n3 0 day s o f it e approval . (9 ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t th e numbe r o f waiver s grante dby

th e permittin g authorit y shal l no t excee d suc hnumbe r a s necessar y

t o ascertai nwhethe r or no t suc hsystem wil l achiev e th e followin g conditions : (i ) Th e propose dsyste m o r system s wil l operat e effectivel y an dther e i s a substantia l likelihoodtha t suc hsystem o r system s wil l achiev e equa l or greate r continuou s emissio nreductio ntha n tha t require dt o b e achieve dunde r the applicabl e contro l technolog y

requirements ; an d j ^^-^*C*(_- > , _ - <-j4_ . '7 

### (ii ) Th e owne ro roperato ro f th e propose d sourc e ha s r.* s 

### demonstrate d tha tth e propose d eyete m wil l no tcauut i -o rItHtf^rjm *zonfc*=*teut

e to—a n raTTgcacoriapre^aftgK-to publi chealth , welfare , o rA n 

### . ** , C —

—-r- r"

* • ' TT rfJQ /T-Ur, THI S DOCUMEN

T I S A PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T XH

D DOE S NO T y 

### REPRESEN

T OFFICIA

L BP A POLIC Y O N TH E ISSUE S DISCUSSE

D «» * Novembe r11 , 199 4 —[filenam e Sl_l6t_l.i(dat e i n Nov.) ] **** *

8ZO0 1 VM V 10 JJ O ZAO

0 XV i TO : TO

__ . S6/TC/S 0P.2 6 03'15'9 5 19:5 1 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 w.\S 0 NR.'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _02S/03 1



### 2 6 s^fp.t y i nit s operation , function , o r malfunction . (t ) Dispute dpermits orredesignatlan's . Th e pla nShal l provid e tha t i f th e Stat e i s affecte db y th e redesignatio no f a n are a b y a nIndia nGovernin g Body , o r an y India nGovernin g Bod y o f a trib e affecte db y th e redesignatio no f a nare a by th e State , disagree s wit hsuc hredesignation , o r i f a permi t i s propose dt o b e issue dfo r an y

majo r stationar y

sourc e o r majo r modificatio n propose dfo r constructio ntn e Stat e whic hth e Governo r o r India n Governin g Bod y

o f a n.affecte dtrib e determine s wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a cumulativ e chang e i nai r qualit y i nexces s o f tha t allowe di nthi s par t withi nth e Stat e o r India nReservation , th e Governo r o r India nGovernin g bod y ma y reques t th e Administrato r t o ente r int o negotiation s wit hth e partie s involve dt o resolv e suc hdispute , i f requeste db y an y stat e o r India nGovernin g Bod y involved , th e Administrato r shal l mak e a recommendatio nt o resolv e th e disput e an dprotec t th e ai r qualit y relate dvalue s o f th e land s involved . I f th e partie s involve dd o no t reac hagreement , th e Administrato r shal l resolv e th e disput e an dth e Administrator' s determination , o r th e result s o f agreement s reache dthroug hothe r means , shal l becom e par t o f th e applicabl e Stat e implementatio npla nan dshal l b e enforceabl e a s par t o f suc hplan , i nresolvin g suc hdispute s relatin g t o are a redesignation , th e Administrato r shal l conside r th e exten t t o - whic hth e land s involve dar e o f sufficien t siz e t o allo w effectiv e ai r qualit y managemen t o r hav e ai r qualit y relate d values 

## * ^——7*^C^toMeA****'#> (u ) PAL Applicability^ —The"j>xovisions o f thi s sectio nshal l (K 

### *V

, appl y t o a majo r stationar y sourc e fo r any

on e o r mor e pollutant s f_rf, a**/subjec t t o thi s apctio nfo r whic hth e permittin g authorit y ha s .^rTear&f /approve da PAL^/fo r th e sourc e provide dMat : C/J17

^ (l ) Th e PA L ha s bee nestablished-jco r eac hsubjec t pollutant :

(i ) Fo r a noxistin g source : (A ) Base do nactua l emission s representativ e o f norma l operation , o r (B ) Base do nallowabl e emission s wher e allowabl e emission s ar e les s tha nactua l eralsfiionfi ; (ii ) Fo r a ne w

source , base do nth e limit s establishe da s a resul t o f NS Rrequire dunde r th e Ac t andbase do napplicatio no f applicabl e contro l requirement s an d projecte doperatin g conditions ,


### THI S DOCUMEN T 1 8 A PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOE S MO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC YO N

TH E ISSUE S DISCUSSE D •• • Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — [filenam e S I 1( 6 1. 1 (dat e i nNov.) ] a* *

i;o0 i VM V in, ? At) ZAO 0 Wi 1 0 - 1 0 dil l i'6/12/5 003'15'9 5 19:5 2 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 « A S 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B P.2 7 ———————————————_—__________*• ]029.'03 1

2 7 

### (2 ) Emissio nlimit s establishe dar e achi-vabl e throug h application'o f productio nprocesse s o r availabl e methods , systems , an dtechnique s including , bu t no t limite dt o emit-.e-.ion s contro l equipment , fue l cleanin g o r treatment , fue l combustion , techniques , substitutio ne f lee s pollutin g materials ; o r limit s o nproductio ntha t represen t norma l sourc e operations , (3 ) Condition s neoesear y t o assur e enforceabilit y ar e include di nth e federall y enforceabl e mechanis m (e.g. , permit , order , consen t agreement , rule] , and (4 ) Th e emission s level s an dcondition s establishe dfo r PA L purpose s d o no t reliev e a soure e from continuou s complianc e wit h otherwis e applicabl e unit-specifi c requirement s (suc ha s NSPS , BACT. , LAER , RACT , KACT , o r othe r unit-specifi c federal , SI P o r stat e requirements] . A PA L permi t mus t continu e t o requir e complianc e wit hthes e limits . ^ ^^jjjfr^ ^ ^ y ^/U , (v ) (l ) PAL Modifications. Notwithstandin g th e requirement s f~-L/tf o f (b ) (23 ) o f thi s section , modification s a t majo r stationer y -*

* source s wit hFAL s 6hal l b e evaluated-)!fo r ambien t ai r qualit y impact s o f an y

chang e i nemission s [e.g. , SO, , CO , Pb , particulate s an d NC*, ] wher e th e PA L i s no t exceeded , i f (i ) th e location s o f emission s from unit s whic hwoul db e modifie dar e no t locate dwithi nth e sam e immediat e vicinit y [e.g. , withi n25 0 meter s o f eac hother] ; (ii ) a nincreas e occur s fro m a nemission s uni t wit ha lowe r effectiv e plum e height , a s determine dby EPA' s Guideline s o nAi r Qualit y Modeling , tha ntha t o t th e emission s uni t decreasin g . emissions ; (iii ) ther e i s comple xterrai nwithi nth e are a o f significan t impac t o f th e increas e o r s o kilometers , whicheve r i s les s ; (iv ) stack s fo r emissio nunit s wit hemissio nincrease s ar e no t sufficientl y

tal l t o avoi dpossibl e downwas hsituations , a s determine db y

th e formul a describe da t §51.100(ii) ; o r (v ) th e change s i nemission s involv e fugitiv e emissions . (w ) (1 ) PA L Permi t reevaluation . In-additiont o th e requirement s o f thi s section , th e PAT . emissio nlevel s shal l b e evaluate dever y

5 years , an dth e stat e ma y reduc e permitte dlevel s o r otherwis e adjust , bu t no t increase , permi t level s t o refleet :
TH I JDO0UM8N T I S A

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN-3DRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EF A POLIC YO N

TB E ISSUE S DISCUSSE D • • • Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — (filename Sl_l64_l.l(dat e i nNov.)] . ee e

ft'OOl V\ Y 10 d 4 0 11.0 0 XVi 2 0 = T 0 HlU Sfl'TJ/S OP.2 8

2 8 (i ) actua l emission s representativ e o f norma l operations ; (ii ) ai r qualit yconcern s arisin g sinc e th e las t reevaluatio n o f th e issuanc e o f th e PAL ; o r (iii ) permanen t shutdown s o r curtailment s tha t ar e n o longe r creditabl e fo r emission s trading
. 

### (2 ) PA L level s shal l b e adjuste d t o reflec t complianc e wit h federa l o r Stat e applicabl e requirement s a s the ybecome applicabl e t o PA L permitte d sources . (3 ) FA L level s shal l b e adjuste d t o addres s technica l erro r i n emission s calculation s an d othe r permi t deficiencie s whe n discovere d b yeithe r th e soure e owne r o r operato r o r th e permittin g authority
. (X ) PAL

Control technology review
. I n additio n t o th e requirement s o f (j ) o f thi s section , th e pla n Bhal l provid e that : (1 ) Amajo r stationar ysourc e o r majo r modificatio n shal l mee t eac h applicabl e emission s limitatio n unde r th e applicabl e implementatio n pla n and eac h applicabl e emission s standar d o f performanc e unde r part s 60 , 61 , an d 6 3 o f thi s chapter
. (2 ) Ano wmajo r stationar ysourc e shal l appl yth e BAC T fo r eac h pollutan t subjec t t o th e provision s e f thi s sectio n tha t i t woul d hav e th e potentia l t o emi t i n majo r amounts . Thi s provisio n applie s t o eac h ne wemission s uni t a t whic h emission s woul d occu r abov e a FAL . (3 ) Amajo r modificatio n shal l appl yth e BAC T fo r eac h pollutan t subjec t t o th e requirement s o f thi s sectio n fo r whic h i t woul d resul t i n a n emission s increas e a t th e source . Thi s requiremen t applie s t o eac h propose d emission s uni t a t a sourc e fo r whic h a n emission s increas e i n th e pollutan t woul d occu r abov e a PAL . , _ 

# /a - (4 ) Fo r phase d constructio n projects , th e determinatio n o f sth e BAC T shal l b e reviewe d and modifie d a s appropriat e a t th e lates t reasonabl e tim e whic h occur s n o late r tha n >fflmonth s prio r t o commencemen t o f constructio n o f eac h independen t phas e o f th e project
. A t cue h time , th e owne r o r operato r o f th e applicabl e stationar ysourc e ma yb e require d t o demonstrat e th e adequac yo f 7 u^nyPreviou s determinatio n -of th a lowes t achievabl e emissio n rat e / fo r th e source . " THi S DOCUMEN T I S APRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP APOLIC Y O NTH E I8SUB 8 DISCUSSE D *e * Novembe r 11 , 199 4 — > [filenam e 51_l66_l.l(dat e i n Nov.) ] • * *

6 -**'* ^ V-V Y 10i J O Zi O
. o'r*" i ZO-T O a mSO/TCS O, P.2 9 03'15'9 5 19:5 3 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 wA S 0 NR.'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _031'03 1

2 9 (5 ) Th e permittin g authorit y shall , ror eac hne w majo r sourc e and"majo r modificatio nsubjec t t o th e provision s o f thi s section , submi t t o th e RACT/BACT/LAE RClearinghous e withi n6 0 day s o f issuanc e o f tn e permit , al l relevan t informatio no nth e emission s preventio no r oontro l technology fo r th e ne w

majo r sourc e e r majo r modification . (6 ) Fo r th e ai r pollutio ncontro l requirement s applicabl e t o thi s section , th e sourc e wil l monitor , Xee precords , an dprovid e report s necessar y t o determin e complianc e wit han ddeviation s fro m th e applicabl e requirement s an dmee t th e monitorin g requirement s o f par t 6 4 o f thi s chapter .

**** *

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T AN D DOG S BO T REPRE8EN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC YON

TH E ISSUE S DISCUSSE D • • * Novembe r il , 199 4 — [filenam

e 5 1 16 6 1. 1 (dat e i nNov.) ] *• *

OcoP l *N » 10 4 i O Si O 0 XVi CO-1 0 am . sfi/tr./z oP.3 0

— — ' ! ~^- " _ 03'15'9 5 20:0 2 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 * v AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _002'02 2 

# o 

# , MA f°f^

^--f '•(I / ' 26 b

- /
s 

### betwee ntn e locatio

no f a propose

dsourc e an

da Clas s I area shouldbe , beyon

dwhic hthe permittin

g authority

woul db

e require dto sen

d the Fac t Shee t t o th e FL M fo r consideration . Th

e ful l Subcommittee coul dno t agre e o na cut-of f distance . Th e Subcommittee als o considere da nalternativ

e .. . approac hwhereb

y selecte

dsourc e information , simila r t o th e informatio

nsuggeste

dfo r th e Fac t Sheet , fro

m al l PS D permi t application s couldbe entere d o na nelectroni c bulleti nboar

ddevelope

dan dmaintaine

d b y th e EPA . Onc e o

n th e bulleti nboard , th e FL M coul drevie

w th e preliminar

y informatio

nan ddetermin

e whethe r to reques t th e entir e applicatio

nt o analyz e potentia l impact s o na clas s I area . Under thi s alternativ e approach , th

e completenes s determinatio

nfo r an y particular permi t applicatio ncoul dbe contingent upo

nentr y of informatio

no nth e bulleti nboard . C . Permittin

g authoritie s shoul d advis e PS D permi t applicant s withi n10 0 kilometer s o f a Claaa I area t o consul t wit

h<fo^opr\i_te ' FLM . The subcommittee qenerall y agree dtha t propose

d ne w an dmodifie

d source s locate

dwithi n f -f^-Hyi-f at leas t 10 0 kilometer s o f a Clas s I area shoul db e / 'r w scrutinize

d fo r potentia l Claco I are a impacts . The 3SUrCe.}> 

### potentia l impact s o f suc hsource s warrant s earl y discussion s betwee nth e applicant an

d th e FL M to determin

e whethe r i t PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * D0E 8 NO

T REPRESEN

T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ** * November 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.H6 ] •>**

•P.3 1 _003.'02 2 03/13/9 5 20: ° 3 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 .v A s o NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B 

# Cjosf7 « • -r- "^^Tj+tZT^^

na y b e necessar

y fo r th e FL M t o receiv

e a complet e cop

y o f the permi t applicatio nan d other relevant information . -Bgaeg-af l mejiberf

l of th e subcommittee , includin g PLM's , took

-th C&em7f 

### the positio

ntha t thi o distanc e shoul db e expande

dt o 20 0 kilometers . d . Permittin

g authoritie s shoul dadopt forma l o r informa l procedure s fo r th e coordination , orlor t o publi c notificatio

nof th e draf t PS D permit , of th e FLM' s input o

n ps npermi t applications . Th e Subcommitte e indicate dtha t
ouc hprocedure s should provid e fo r (1 ) th

e revie w o f the applicatio

nb y th e FLM , t o identif

y potentia l Clas s I are a issues , durin

g th e State' s norma l revie w perio d fo r * v



### -o« $ completeness , (2 ) a nopportunit

y fo r th e FL M t o request- . additiona l informatio nbefore th

e applicatio

ni s rule

d complete , an

d(3 ) a disput e resolutio nmechanism , i f a FLM' s . #



### reques t fo

r additiona l informatio ni s rejecte

db y the \ applican t or th

e permittin

g authority . The Subcommitte e 0tfT.uii*± •j^' J i XW( / C O &^m\*- U ' ..'*.' ] 

## \ applican t

o r th « 1 

### < * coul dnn t

reaitilh ijoneeaau B io n U mamoun t o f tia e th___shoul d••••'%••

1 ';
. .Ti
. 

### , th e State's , completenes s revie w for- t h e , _ b e provide dduring''th « FL M to7u)-rt.all l CTdoyneirV>r infermeteie n relate d t o Cluu s T rH a<_r3si^ ^___ i t^V^3^ , _••• - •• - f ^ - 

### * " nl > l 

### *MBP T • W>IIII M

### - , , th e subcommitteeNindieate dthat , (he

-

*' ' • _j______F*v?*' i 

### pcrmiti|fPK*uthority shoul d exten

d th e revie w period * for a t leas t 3 0 additiona l days i f th e FL M submit s a writtaw/ r reques t fo

r additiona l information . Durin g th e 30-da y > PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MAJOGBXENX'_V D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOB S SOT-RBPRB8BN T OFFICIAL.BE

A POLICY * ** * Novembe r IS , 199 4 — [filenam

e FRSA M l.lll ] •• • '

'•:•••[ 7* - 

# -I SP.3 2 03'15'9 5 20:0 3 ~20 2 20 8 162 0 "ASONR'AQNP S —-AQMD-PP B l_001'02 2

26 7 extensio nt o conside r the FLM' s reques t fo r additiona l information , a disput e resolutio nprocedur e ooul d b e implemente dfo r negotiation s betwee nth e applicant , th e FLM , an dth e permittin g authorit y t o decid e whethe r th e requeste d informatio ni s relevant , an dho w th e informatio neoul db e obtained .
e . Th a publi c notic e o f availabilit y o f th e draf t permi t shoul dproyj.d e a concis e statemen t o f unw-eierwd f iecmfc - J issue s raise db

y the FL

M during th e Sta+.r*'x no-platenes s review , an

dho w suc hissue s wer e rccolved . Th e Subcommitte e
wa s especiall y

concerne dabou t situation s wher e a FLM submit s a reques t fo r additiona l information , bu t th e permittin g authorit y issue s a preliminar y determinatio nfo r publi c review

withou t responding t o th e request . Tw o additiona l issue s wer e discusse dbu t wer e no t resolve di nth e Subcommittee' s deliberations . Th e firs t wa s whethe r ther e shoul dbe earl y publi c notificatio no f project s withi na certai ndistanc e o f Clas s I areas . Thi s woul dinclud e notificatio nb y th e permittin g authorit y tha t i t ha s receive danapplication , publicatio no f th e "tac t Sheet " b

y th e permittin g authorit y whe nth e applicatio ni s received , an

dFL M publicatio no f an y preliminar y determinatio no f advers e impact . Th e secondunreaulve d issu e wa s whethe r th e EP A shoul darticulat e specifi c PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRE.nM_l.llC ] •* *P.3 3
03'15'9 5 20:0 1 ®20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _005'02 2



### 26 8 - ^ criteri a (e.g. , scientifi c basis , ota»u e e f existin g AQRVs ) ^ tha t mus t b e oonsidere db y th e permittin g authorit y i n determinin g whethe r t o accep t o r rejeo t th e FLM' s findin g o f advers e impact . 2 . Determinatio no f Advers e impacts . Th e CAAAC se t fort hfou r recommendation s aime da t assistin g th e EP A

i nth e establishmen t o f procedure s an d

_ - Sli

f 

### (j2_ criteri a fo r performin g an devaluatin g a FLM's

_— . /

. demonstratio ntha t a propose dsource^x?p*-ntodificatio nwil l rcfT- J. hav e a nadvers e impac t onth e AQR*>-H S 

### o f a Clas s I area . Th e ^j^ Subcommitte e als o considere da numbe r o f pertinen t issue s fkciP fo r wnlc hn o consensu s fur recommendation s coul db e reache d
a . FT.M s shoul dbe responsibl e fo r specifvin uAQRV s 'yTf^Ce^ fo r th e Clas s I area s whic hthe v manage . Th e CAAAC' s '/*7 r'tf VH/ recommendatio nacknowledge s th e FLMs ' principa l rol e i n identifyin g th e ttmSr^m e AQRV s associate dwit hth e individua l Clas s I area s whic hthe y ar e .hargedyto

y statuL B wit h protecting . Ther e wer e significan t debates , however , r\-j/.-i-v*4'r^^'spcct^ K<!_, ; ^-^w-/__fc;<- ^ e-r~x •Arfi'Z.U S 

### concernin g ke y

eleaent s n f thi o insu e .whio h-wor e nove r resolve a aurin g th e subcommittee' s deliberation . On e ke y
concer nwa s th e amoun t o f i nformatio ntha t n*sa*d s t o b e availabl e fo r a give nAQR V befor e it^rfa

nb e considere dt o b e full y defined . Tha t is , §bo-l dsensitiv e receptors , critica l pollutant^t-ading s associate dwit hdeleteriou s PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T RBPRBSBN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y 

### ** * Novembe

r16 , 1994 —[filenam e PREAM_l.H6 ] •• »03'15'9 S 20: 0 1 g20 2 20 S 162 0 «ASO_NR'AQ_NP S

_ —AQMD-PP

B ®006'02 2



### 26 9 / effects , an

dothe r parameter s b e determirjedTbefor e a sourc e

, i s require dt o conside r it s potentia l advers e impacts ? Anothe r ke y

questio ntha t wa s no t resolve dwa s whethe r th e i ^ identificatio no f eac hAO"**" / shoul db e subjecte dt o ful l pee r review an dpubli c commen t befor e a napplican t i s require dt o 

# liirf " 3

t 

## If f 

# 0 

# K - M addres s i t i na plas s I are a impac t analysis . Finally , th e .Subcommittee/deliberate dabou t , bu t coul dno t resolve , 

# e #

__*« *



### N l whethe r onl y

thos e AQRV s clearl y identifie da t th e tim e th e

" N P3 D oermittin g proces s begin s fo r a particula r sourc e mus t V \ &e considere di nassessin g Clas s I are a impact s .

h . Significanc e level s shoul db e adopte dfo r Clas s I increment s an

dAQRVs . Whil e man y member s o f th e Subcommitte e clearl y supporte dth e adoptio no f separat e significanc e level s fo r th e Clas s I increment s an dfo r an y AQRV s identifie db y th e FLM , n o consensu s coul db e reache d
a c t o th e appropriat e values . Significanc e level s fo r Clas s I increment s hav e bee npreviousl y identifie db

y th e Nationa l Par k Servic e an

dth e virqini a Divisio no f Ai r Pollutio n Control . However , th e Subcommitte e coul dno t reac h agreemen t o na cingl e se t o f value s t o presen t t o th e CAAAC . Th e Subcommitte e acknowledge dtha t severa l isGUC G pertainin g t o significanc e level s neede dfurthe r resolution . 

# U f M 

# \ io*. /mriiv^h ?C4'iSmf\r\'<m, c**ih'tOt-mmi'^, HV- f ^Federal ! Lan d Manager s an d envi i representative s state d tJ<Ta-^y_y"l_H L tha teac h evaluatio n n f PRELIMINAR

Y STAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO ROFFIC

E O F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE

S NO T REPRESEN

T OFFICIA L EP

A POLICY •»• • Novembe r16 , 199 4 —[filenam e PREAM1.H6 ] ** *P.3 5
0 3 '15 ' 0 3 20:0 5 g20 2 20 S 162 0 "ASONR'A Q NP S -—AQMD-PP B l_007'02 2

f\ V 

### 27 0

th e potentia l effec t o f a ne w sourc e shoul db e performe do n
a case-by-cas e basi s usin g th e bes t ai r qualit y dispersio n mode l available, * Bfcqaus e effort s t o prescrib e specifi c
sourc e si2 e o r distanc e criteri a foj"'identifying propose d
source s t o b e automaticall y sjiato^ec

t t o a Clas s I are a analysi s invariabl y will^-Toa

dt o th e Ih-a-apjropriat e indl'ucion
o f come sourc e an

d th e inappropriat e exclusion^ST—ethers . Industr y

representatives , o nth e othe r hand , tJulufc-j . UUL— 3XSitsi<i H tha t th e fLPiti'yusitiui i o i case-by-cas e assessment s T.-nnlr t leave'to o muc huncertaint y fo r mos t applicants . c . Th e EPA

shoul dactivel y

begi nt o addres s numerica l E3 D increments , o r some alternativ e measure , fo r ozone . Th e subcommitte e recognize dth e technica l difficultie s '.L yJft^> associate dwit hdevelopin g increment s o r othe r alternativ e

. , -^ moacure s unde r sectio n1^- 6 o f th e Ac t fo r th e pollutan t T r

### sfs^t'yozone. Nevertheless , th e nee dfo r some mean s o f limitin g 

# if: 

# ^"*< x - - v m. r 

### ^'.^/\ futur e increase s i nambient ^ ozonexlevels—particularl y i n

. flA&j^' ~~~ ~ —'"' ^- ^



### . r 

### /.u F clas s I areas--wa s recognized - 

### <T B heocseasy .

'"'" d . A ninteractiv e bulleti nboard-base dClas s I are a informatio nclearinghous e shoul db e established . Th e Subcommitte e indicate dtha t certai ntype s o f relevan t informatio nshoul db e maintaine dand update di nsuc ha clearinghous e fo r eac hClas s I area , including : siz e (acres) , boundarie s and location , AQKV' s define db y th e MJ-i , PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D DUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EF A POLIC Y e* « Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filename FREA

K1.116 ] •* *0 3 '1 3 9 3 20:0 3 ®20 2 20 S 162 0 WAS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B l_008'02 2

27 1 / "eTTJl+c^



## I _& y screenin g level s (i f any) , curren t pollutan t loading s (wher e available ) , emission s inventorie s fo r th e surroundin g are a "*-.

_ (o r wher e t o obtai nthem) , documente dadvers e impacts! , on AQRVs , th e poin t o f contac t fo r Tfiotificatio no*-ia^S ^ and NU I Tiraiiiji

g addresse s fo r appropriat e ^Tjf^ s ftndc-^ii^-n-H-i-rt g wh o M.T(M<f I — ^ ^^

_ '
s J hav e worke dofT3p>pag£Xcula r issu e concernin g a Clas s I . are a y., rJ

L 

### \ (e.g.^^r o obtai ndocument s abou t theair^?*grsouro-6-J.ssues) .

, . L.-l- t r s,J. Significan t debat e wa s hel do nsevera l importan t issue s A f P^fffa- '-(-relatedt o advers e impac t determinations ; however , th e 

### / t*3L(7Lr

• Jr? i, . 7J Subcommitte e wa s unabl e t o reac hconsensu s onthes e issues . 

# tt*J*tr

.. . No recommendation s wer e mad e concernin g (l ) specifi c pfctys i. 'distanc e criteri a fo r automaticall y requirin g a sourc e t o {/yi. '^^ conduc t a Clas s 1 are a impac t analysis , (2 ) criteri a fo r th e Tr/V-L^l ' re 

### * D 

### -**ta l b

y a permittin g authorit y o f a FLM' s determinatio n / tha t a propose dsourc e o r modificatio nwil l hav e a nadvers e

v 

### impac t o nth e AQRV s o f a Clas s I area , an d (3 ) th e nee dfo r

, a standar danalytica l approac hfo r evaluatin g potentia l •>•'advers e impact s o nAQRVs . Finally , two issiis s whic hwer e discusse dbu t faile dt o ,"m , ••^pTjS-'receiv

e a £ muc hattention ^ a s th e aforementione dissue s includ e (1 ) FLM

recours e whe nth e permittin g authorit y reject s a findin g o f advers e impac t o na nAQRV , and (2 ) PS D provision s fo r specia l protec t vo no f Federa l Clas s I I areas . 

## o*

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T POROFFIO E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** « wovembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filename PREAM1.116 ] •* •P.3 7
03'15'9 5 20:0 5 _»20 2 20 3 162 0 »AS O N R A Q NP S --»•

» AQMD-PP B _009'02 2

27 2 3 . Mitigatio no f Clas s 1 Are a Soure e Impact s Th e CAAAC' c thir dserie s o f recommendation s concerne d th e rang e o f measure s tha t Bhoul d be considere dfo r new o r modifie dmajo r source s t o mitigat e thei r ow nadvers e impact s
o nth e AQRV s o f a Clas s I area .
a . Al l new

source s whic hcaus e o r -sirui.ifiiaiiLly- — </ contribut e t o anadvers e impac t o nth e AQRV s o f a clas s I
are a shoul db e require dt o provid e offsets . Th e Subcommittee' s recommendatio nfo r offset s containe dtwo distinc t components : first , wher e the propose demissio n offse t rati o fo r a sourc e i s les s tha n1: 1 (emissio n reduction s wil l b e les s thantne emission s fro m th e propose d
sourc e o r modification) , a ne t ai r qualit y benefi t analysi s shoul db e require dt o ensur e th e mitigativ e effect s o f th e offset ; second , .Co r propose demissionoffse t ratio s greate r tha n1:1 , a standardize demissions/distanc e adjustmen t facto r fo r determinin g th e appropriat e offse t rati o shoul d b e applie dwithou t imposing a requiremen t fo r a ne t ai r qualit y

benefi t demonstration . Th e subcommitte e wa s unabl e t o reac nconsensu s o na standardise d emissions/distanc e rati o o r th e questio no f wha t constitutes * a cource' o "significant " contributio nt o a nadvers e impact . ^•A-Tra'Dut--" ^ -f ^ b . Sources-havin g a slr-nifiran r *TfflrTfiTri-*-o*-P - a nexistin g advers e impac t shoul d h p subjec t t o mor e stringen t BAC T PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PR E A M 1.116 ] ** *P.3 8
0 3 '1 3 '9 5 20:0 6 "3*20 2 20 3 162 0 "AS O NR'AQ NP S —AQMD-PP B _010'02 2

27 3 conaiderations . Th e Subcommitte e recommende dtha t source s contributin g t o anexistin g advers e impac t o nAQRV s i na Clas s I are a shoul db e require dt o conside r contro l technology

option s tha t migh t otherwis e b e rejecte da s BAC T (based onth e top-dow nBAC T approach ) wher e existin g advers e impact s una Clas s I are a ar e no t a nissue . Tha t is , th e cost s associate dwit happlyin g suc hcontrol s woul db e considere djustifiabl e cost s i nth e BAC T analysis , althoug h
suc hcost s ma

y b e considere deconomicall y unjustifie dunde r differen t circurasLances . Ther e wa s als o debat e concernin g th e nee dfo r imposin g
a greate r degre e o f stringenc y t o the requirement s o na new
o r modifie dPS D sourc e onc e existing problem s wit hAQRV s hav e bee nidentified . Th e impositiono f requirement s applicabl e t o source s locating i na designate dnonattainmen t
are a wer e considere dbu t no consensu s coul db e reached . c . Establish - criteria__ f o r monitoring : AQR V 3 . Th e Subcommitte e addresse dth e nee dt o monito r fo r ai r qualit y relate dvalue s i

nth e sam

e wa y tha t ai r qualit y monitorin g i s alread

y require dunde r the PS D requirement s t o collec t ambien t dat a fo r criteri a pollutant s t o determin e whethe r a
sourc e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard . Th e Subcommittee' s objectiv e
wa s t o encourag e th e FLM's , inconjunctio nwit hth e EPA an d PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y *•*• * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRE.AM_1.116 ] *• *P.3 9
03'15'9 5 20:0 6 g20 2 20 8 162 0 »AS 0 NF_A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _Oil'02 2

27 4
Stat e ai r pollutio ncontro l agencies , t o develo pexplici t guidanc e whic hexplain s th e us e o f bot hpreconstructio nan d post-constructio nmonitoring.t o gathe r dat a concernin g effect s o nAQRVs . Tn*i s recommendatio nwa s mad e amids t som e skepticis m

tha t ambien t monitorin g fo r PS D purpose s ofte n

wa s o f littl e valu e t o th e pe'rml t revie w an dtende dt o dela y th e permittin g process . 4 . Addressin g th e Impac t o f Existin g Source s o nClas s I .-Ureas . Th e CAAAC S NS RRefor m subcommitte e discusse dan d identifie ddifferen t option s fo r majo r initiative s t o addres s impact Go nAQRV s attributabl e t o existin g source s locate dnea r Federa l Clas s I areas . Whi-re th e subcdttfflitttSE A hrf-'Hi'" 1 i • " ii-rm,i , n f l n r l <Tp f>ri 1f1' * •"P-rpilt a i tr -?r y •?hflr*r

f ?' a R . th e option s tha t i t explore dwer e directe da t thre e majo r existin g
sourc e problem s i nClac e I areas : (1 ) regiona l visibilit y impairment , (2 ) aci ddeposition , an d(3 ) ozon e damage .
a . Regiona l visibilit y impairment . Th e subcommitte e identifie dtw o option s fo r addressin g thi s problem : voluntar y

initiative s an da nationa l rulemaking . Voluntar y reqiona l haz e initiative s include dallowin g States , FLMs ,
an dothe r stakeholder s t o wor k togethe r t o addres s visibilit y

(andpossibl y

othe r Clas s I are a problems ) b y examinin g regiona l emission c reductio nstrategies , rathe r PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L BP A POLIC Y •• • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 «— [filenam e PREAM_1.H0 ] **• •P.4 0
0 3 ' 1 3 '9 3 20:0 6 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS O NR'A Q NP S

- - - AQMD-PP B

_01 2 '02 2

27 5 tha nfocusin g onthe emission s fro m a singl e State . A voluntar y

initiativ e woul dno t b e base do nAo t requirement s
an dtherefor e woul dno t be subjec t t o statutor y mandate s o r deadlines . On e voluntary regiona l initiativ e i s _irsady i n 

# flux:

'pja-iopr . th e Souther nAppalachia nMountain s Initiative. 3 3
A s note dpreviously , th e Ac t provide s fo r -similar i/rti'b'lftit/^AiimXcLL:>&£. interstat e initiatives* , Th e interstat e visibilit y transpor t region s an

dassociate dcommission s establishe dunde r the Ac t
ar e subjec t t o statutory deadline s fo r reportin g recommendation s t o the EPA . A nEPA-establiohc d GrandCanyo n Visibilit y

Transpor t commissioni s developin g recommendation s o napproache s fo r a regiona l haz e protectio n strategy , wit ha focu s o nthe issue s o f th e Colorad o Plateau , i

f Th e Subcommitte e identifie da nationa l regiona l haz e rulemakin g tha t include s consideratio no f th e Grand Canyo nvisibilit y Transpor t Commissio nrecommendation s a s anothe r optio nt o addrcc c existin g sourc e impacts .

3 3 Th e Souther nAppalachianMountain s Initiativ e wa s forme d cooperativel y

b y th e eigh t State s surroundin g th e Souther n Appalachia nMountain s (i.e. , Alabama , Georgia , Kentucky , Nort h Carolina , Sout hCarolina , Tennessee , Virginia , andWes t Virginia) , th e EPA , th e Nationa l Par k Servic e andth e U.S . Fores t Servic e t o identif y meaeure e t o remed y existing , an

dt o preven t future , advers e impact s fro m ai r pollutio nonth e ai r qualit y relates ' value s o f primaril y th e Clas s I area s i nth e Souther n Appalachians . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE 8 NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.11« ) ** *—_ _P.4 1

° 3/13 ' 9 3
. 20:07
. - ®?°2. 20S
. l 6 2 ° "AS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B ®013'02 2



### 57 6 Tr"""Nationa l regiona l haz e regulation s coul drequir e State s t o develo pcoordinate dlong-ter m strategie c tha t show "reasonabl e progress " towar dno man-mad e impairmen t i n mandator y

Clas s I areas . Suc hstrategie s woul dInclud e a monitorin g regim e t o determin e man-mad e component s 6 1 visibilit y

impairment , us e o f regiona l emission s inventorie s
an dai r qualit y

model s t o estimat e futur e man-mad e impacts , an da periodi c assessmen t o f th e nee dfo r reduction s i n A 

### pollutant s fro

m identifie dsource s i nligh t o f othe r ai r . , qualit yprograms . < L 

### *I = > ^ ^i ^*-—

- f

T_\\,J 

### b . &c.i ddeposition . Th e Subcommitte e examine d regiona l aci ddepositio ninitiative s wher e th e EP A woul d„ identify , i nconjunctio nwit hFLM's , Clas s T area s wit h excessiv e aci ddepositio nlevels . Throug heuc hregiona l

_ i , initiatives , th e EPA woul dse t standard s fo r loading s an d ^^*i*"4s r monito r complianc e wit hloading levels . Th e Subcommitte e als o discusse dwhether"Ch e -EP A shoul dexplor e adjustment s t o • *H £

< KaCA*-Ca** *&*> 

### tn e aci drai nprogram t o ensur e tha t th e progra m doe s no t resul t i nshift s o f emission s tna t exacerbat e impact s on^ ^ «\\ Clas s I areac . /T~~"
c . ozon e damage . Th e Subcommitte e identifie dsevera l option s fo r addressin qozon e damag e i nClas s I areas : revision s t o th e NAAQ S an d increment s an d a requiremen t fo r state s t o develo pcontro l strategie s lo r Clas s I area s wit h PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AM D BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y e« aNovembe r16 , 199 4 —[filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] ** •P.4 2
03'15'9 5 20:0 7 O20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _011'02 2

27 7

ozon e damage . I nparticular , th e Subcommitte e discusse d th e questio no f whethe r the EP A shoul dstud

y settin g \ ceoondar y

NAAQ S t o protec t Clas s I area s impacte db y oeon e fTr ^7fn>Y^O^djLi7 an destablishin g PS D increment s fo r oeon c t o ensur e prope r protectio no f clas s I areas . A s t o Stat e strategies , th e Subcommitte e explore dwhethe r state s shoul ddevelo pspecia l

ozon e aontro l programs , requirin g periodi c measure s o f progres s i nClas s I area s wit hozon e damage , usin g metho c simila r t o thos e use dinthe urba nozon e contro l program s require dunde r titl e I o l tn e Ac t fo r ozon e nonattainmenj !
areas . Specifi c contro l method s discusse db y th e Subcommitte e include demission s offsets , pcroentag e reduction s fo r emission s invento r it**-, , an dextende d inspectio nan

dmaintenanc e program s to r moto r vehicles . Th e Subcommitte e als o identifie dinteri m mechanism s ti

o address , i nth e shor t term , advers e impact s i nClas s I area s
cause db

y existin g sources . Thes e interi m mechanism s includ e (l ) enforcin g existing regulation s whic hrequire / revision s t o Stat e implementatio nplan s i ncase s wher e PS D incremen t violation s hav e bee ndocumented , an d(2 ) amendin g existin g PS D regulation s t o cal l fo r revision s t o Stat e implementatio nplan s whe nthe AQRV s o f a Clas s Xare a ar e bein g adversel y

affected .

PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRE8EN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PRE.AM_1.116 ] •• •P.4 3 0 3 15'9 5 20:0 8 g20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _015'02 2

27 o C . Th e EP

A Proposa l
A s describe d below , th e EP A i s toda y

providin g guidanc e
an dproposin g a numbe r o f revision s t o th e PS D regulation s
a t s bi.16 6 an

ds i 52.2 1 t o addres s th e protectio no f ai r qualit y

i nClas s I areas . I nman y instances , wher e th e EP A determine dappropriate , th e EPA i e takin g actio nconsisten t with , o r [iim*il_

r to , the CAAAC' s recommendations . i ngeneral , th

e EPA i s proposin g severa l change s t o bette r facilitat e Stat e notificatio nan dcoordinatio nwit h th e FLM' e an

dt o provid e th e States , permi t applicant s and FLM' s wit hcleare r guidanc e abou t thei r relativ e role s and responsibilities . Th e EP A i s proposin g "significanc e levels " fo r Clas s I increment s tha t woul dexclud e source s wit hd c minimi s ambien t impact s fro m a Clas 6 I incremen t analysis . Th e EP A i s als o establishin g a genera l policy , an dproposin g regulatory language , allowin g th e us e o f offset s t o mitigat e advers e impact s o nai r qualit y

relate d value s (AQRVs ) i nClas s I arcae- * whioh^v-il l provid e a reasonabl e wa

y t o allo

w th e perjailftin

g o f source s tha t woul d otherwis e fac e permitdenia l becaus e o f thei r adverse impac t
ona Clas s I as_a . The EP A i s als o proposin g severa l clarification s t o it s PS D regulation s wher e confusio nabou t
a requiremen t ha s create dcontrovers y o r impede dmor e expeditiou s permi t review . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAM1.116 ] ** *03'1 3 9 3 20:O S g20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _016'02 2

27 9 1 . Improvin g FLM/Permittin g Authorit y Coordinatio n Th e EPA

i c proposin g severa l improvement s t o Stat e an d FLM coordination . Th e CAAA C recommendation s reflecte d genera l agreemen t tha t bette r stat e an dFL M coordinatio ni s integra l t o avoidin g delay s an dcontroversie s durin g th e PS D permittin g process . Th e earlie r FLM 6 ar e informe dabou t a permi t applicatio nth e soone r the y wil l b e abl e t o determin e whethe r clas s I are a impact s ar e likel y t o b e o f concern , an dth e earlie r al l partie s involve di nth e permi t proces s
may examin e an

dresolv e suc hconcerns .

v \ Th e mor e difficul t tas k i s improvin g coordinatio ni na reasonabl e way . Th e likelihoodtha t a propose dsourc e ma y . *dve^el y

impac t a Clas s T are a varie s dependin g o nth e particula r Clac c I area , th e amoun t an dtyp e o f pollutant s emitte db

y a propose dsource , th e source' s location , meteorologica l anc xtopographica l conditions , an dth e emission s release dby\othe r sources . The . FP A ha s attempte d t o strik e a reasonabl e balanc e b y proposin g som

e minima l notificatio nrequirement s for^l l propose dsource s an d proposin g som

e additiona l coordinatio nrequirement s fo r
source s proposin g t o locat e withi na certai nproximit y o f a Clas s I area , whos e emission s ar e mor e likel y t o affco t Federa l Clas s I areas . However , the EP A recobfljize

s tha t an

y scheme t o improve coordinatio nmay b e over - an

dunder PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT^AND BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.li6 ] »* •^^___ P.4 5

92_7l3_93

_20:0 S ©20 2 20 9 162 0 "AS PXR'A Q NP S -- - AQMD-PP

B _017'02 2 

# s-A 

# '& ^, ^ «*-«&" **•% u-A«
<*V \

\ inclusive b

y failing\t o provid e heightene dcoordinatio n

\ wher e propose dsources^a y i nfac t adversel y impac t Clas s I ; \
area s an

db y establishing som e coordinatio nrequirement s | tha t appl y

wher e source s may no t i nrac t adversel y impac t a j Clas s I area .

a . Tre-applicatio nCoordinatio n Th e EPA

i s proposin g t o facilitat e pre-applicatio n coordinatio nwit hFLM s b y providin g fo r earl y notificatio n
o f a pendin g permi t applicatio nan da nopportunit y

fo r participatio ninpre-applicatio nmeeting s wit hth e prospectiv e source . Thi s proposa l make s revision s t o sectio nsi.16 6 an

dsection52.2 1 t o requir e tha t the permi t permittin g authorit y provid e pre-applicatio ncoordinatio n wit hth e FLM , regardles s o f Stat e boundaries , withi n3 0 day s
o f being informe dtha t a prospectiv e sourc e i s plannin gJA<3Tconstructio nwithi n^Lat T k m o f a Federa l Clas s i area , se e propose dsectio nSI.166(p ) (1)(ii ) an d sectio n52.21(p)(1)(ii) . Th e EPA

recognize s tha t th e typ e o f earl y

notificatio n tha t a prospectiv e applican t ma y provid e t o th e permittin g authorit y

wil l var

y fro m one situatio nt o another . Thus , th e typ e o f notificatio nprovide db y th e permittin g authorit y

shoul db

e commensurat e wit hth e typ e o f inrormatio nwhic hi s received , to r example , a shor t lette r PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINO DRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE 8 NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y *• • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.4 6

0 3 '1 3 '9 3 20:0 9 g20 2 20 S 162 0 "ASPNR-A Q NP S -.-.- . AQMD-PP

B (_01S'02 2

28 1
o r phon e cal l fro

m th e permittin g authorit y t o th e FL M

ma y b e appropriat e wher e th e informatio nabou t th e potentia l projec t i s onl y

very preliminary . Thes e propose drevision s ar e simila r t o th e existin g pre-applicatio nnotificatio nrequiremen t a t sectio n52.21(p)(l ) whic hcall s fo r the Administrato r t o notif y th e FL

M withi n3 0 day s o f receip t o f an y advance notificatio no f a PS D permi t applicatio nfo r a propose d
source , "th

e emission s fro

m whic hmay

affec t a Clas s I
area. " D

y contrast , sectio n51.IC C currentl y contain s n o requiremen t fo r th e permittin g authorit y t o provid e pre applicatio nnotificatio nt o FLM's . Accordingly , th e EP A i s proposin g t o establis hanentirel y ne w pre-applicatio n notificatio nrequiremen t for Stat e PS D programs , an di s proposinqt o clarif y th e existing notificatio nprocedure s unde r th e Federa l PS D regulation s b y stipulatin g tha t th e mandator y

notificatio nmus t appl y t o an y advance notificatio ninvolvin g a sourc e tha t woul dconstruc t withi n 10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l clas s I area . Th e permittin g authority—eithe r th e EP A o r th e applicabl e State , o r lora l agency—wil l b e require dt o notif y an y affecte dFLM

withi n 3 0 day s o f receip t o f an y suc hadvanc e notificatio no f a PS D permi t application , .se e propose d RP.r.t.in n 51.16 6 (p ) ( 1 ) (iv ) (A ) an dsection52.2 1 (p ) ( 1 ) ( iv ) (A )
. PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRBAM_l.li6 ] •* *___^

_ P.4 7

03'15'9 5 20:0 9 g20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _019.'02 2

28 2 Thus , th e EPA' s propose drevision s woul destablis h aoneistenc y

betwee nth e PS D regulation s containe di n part s 5 1 an

d52 . Th e EP A request s publi c comment s onal l aspect s o f thes e propose dregulator y revision s addressin g advanc e notification , includin g th e appropriat e typ e o f notification , the mandator y notificatio nwithi n Jtc O kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area , an dth e adequac y
o f a 3 0-da

y timefram

e fo r makin g suc hnotificatio nt o th e FLM . Th e EP

A i s intereste di nthe public' s view s about , th e
nee dfo r thes e change s i nligh t o f th e othe r regulator y revisions , describe dbelow , tha t th e EP A i s proposin g i n orde r t o improve FL M coordination , includin g th e propose d requiremen t tha t forma l permi t application s fo r al l PS D
source s proposin g t o locat e withi n10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I are a b e transmitte dt o th e FLMs . Th e CAAA

C recommendation s underscore dth e importanc e o f inoludin g FLM s i npre-applicatio nmeeting s an drecommende d tha t the EP

A encourag e permittin g authoritie s t o coordinat e wit ht'LM

S i nthi s way . Pre-applicatio nmeeting s ar e a n importan t foru

m for th e permittin g authorit y an dprospectiv e permi t applioan t t o discus s sourc e locatio nan ddesig na s wel l a s PS D requirement s an dothe r ai r quality-relate d considerations . Therefore , i nconjunctio nwit hth e propose d PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BODGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL BP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ••* •P.4 8

03'15'9 5 20:0 9 ®20 2 20 S 162 0 "AS PNR'A Q NP S —. - AQMD-PP B _020'02 2

28 3 earl y notificatio nrequirement , th e EPA i s proposin g t o

nCjiS6-N^_£c . requir e tha t permittin g authoritie s provid e anopportunit y fo r FLM' s t o participat e i npre-applicatio nmeeting s wit h prospectiv e PS D applicant s tha t woul dlocat e within ^i& o kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area . Se e propose d sectio n51.166(p)(l)(iv ) (B ) an d eectio n52.21(p)(l)(iv)(B) . Earl y involvemen t wil l hel penabl e th e FL M t o identif y specifi c concern s relate dt o affecte dFedera l clas s I areas , an dt o infor

m th e permitting authorit y an d permi t applican t abou t AQRV s tha t ma y b a affecte db

y th e propose dproject . Th e prospectiv e permi t applican t canthe nconside r FLM .. . concern s i nth e earl y staqe s o f proiec t planning A Further , o^-zi-. it v T_5y b e possibl e for th e FL M t o determin e a t thi s junctur e whethe r the^&ourco' s emission s woul dpotentiall y affec t an

y Federa l Clas s I areas^od^oncern . Conceivably , th e FLM coul dconclud e a t thi s earl y staq e tha t th e propose dsourc e woul dnot . affec t an y Federa l Clas s T a>ea , an d no furthe r analysi s o f impaot s i nClas s I area s woul dbe^Ti-tceeeary . Whil e today' s proposa l onl y require s th e permittin g authorit y

t o provid e th e FL M wit hadvanc e notic e o f prospectiv e source s an d modification s locate dwithi n .210 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clae e I area , th e EP A believe s tha t i ncertai ninstance s i t woul db e pruden t fo r th e permittin g authorit y t o notif y

th e FL

M o f prospectiv e PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] *• *P.4 9
0 3 '1 5 '0 5 20:1 0 g20 2 20 S 162 0 "ASQNR'AQNP S —AQMD-PP B 12)02 1 '02 2

28 4
source s tha t woul db e locate dmor e thanJJX ) kilometer s fro m
a Clas s I area . I nparticular , whe nth e permittin g authorit y

ha s reaso nt o believ e tha t a prospectiv e sourc e or modificatio nlocate dmor e tha n^6* 0 kilometer s fro m a Clas s I
are a may

adversel y

affec t tha t area , th e earl y involvemen t
o f the FLM

woul denabl e the applican t t o bette r understan d wha t specifi c Clas s I issue s needt o b e addresse di nthe FS U permi t application . Th e propose dmandator y advanc e notificatio no f the FL M for prospectiv e source s withi n T/d o kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I are a doe s no t necessaril y

exemp t a sourc e proposin g t o locat e mor e tha n 1-0 0 kilometer s fro m suc hare a fro

m a potentia l review fo r clas s I are a impacts , bu t onl y fro m the propocc d mandator y pre-applicatio nnotificatio n(includin g th e opportunit y fo r FL M attendanc e a t pre-applicatio nmeetings ) andth e propose d requiremen t (discusse dbelow ) t o automaticall y provid e th e forma l permi t applicatio nt o th e FLM . b . Improvin g coordinatio nDuring Permi t Applicatio n Revie w Severa l o f the CAAA C recommendation s addresse d improvement s t o coordinatio nbetwee nth e FLM' s an d permittin g authorit y onc e a permi t applicatio nha s bee n received . Simila r t o the recommendation s fo r pre applicatio ncoordinatio naddresse dpreviously , thes e PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIO E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — - [filenam e PREAM1.116 ] ** *P.5 0 03'13'9 3 20:1 0 ©20 2 20 5 162 0 "AS PNR'A Q NPS —AQMD-PP B ®022'02 2

28 5
measure s t o promot e earl y coordinatio nma y

avoi ddispute s
an ddelay s late r i nth e permi t review process . (1 ) FLM

Notificatio n Th e EPA

i s proposin g t o establis htwo independen t notificatio nrequirement s tha t appl y whe nth e permittin g authorit y

receive s a permi t application . First , th e EP A i e proposin g t o requir e tha t eac ho f the EPA-approve dStat e PS D program s includ e procedure s ensuring tha t th e FL M b e notifie do f eac hsourc e or modificatio nproposin g t o locat e withi n2^ 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l clas s I area , and provide dwit ha cop y o f th e applicatio nan dothe r pertinen t informatio nrelate dt o the source . Se e propose d sectio n51.166(p)(1)(i ) an dsection52.21(p)(1)(i) . currently , th e PS D regulation s unde r par t 51 , whic happl y t o Stat e PS D programs , contai nn o requiremen t fo r a permittin g authorit y

t o notif y

FLM s whe na PS D applicatio npotentiall y affectin g a Clas s I are a i s received . Th e Federa l PS D regulation s a t sectio n52.2 1 requir e the Administrato r t o provid e writte nnotificatio nt o th e FL M o f a P3 D permi t applicatio nwithi n3 0 day s o f receip t an da t leas t 6 0 day s prio r t o an

y publi c hearin g o nthe application . se e sectio n52.21(p)(l) . Accordingly , th e EPA i s proposin g change s t o bot hset s o f PS D regulation s t o implemen t th e notificatio nprocedure s describe dabove . PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EFA POLIC Y ** • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] *•*» •P.5 1 03'13'9 5 20:1 1 ©20 2 20 S 1 62 0 "AS P NR'A Q NP S

— - AQMD-PP B _002.'02 2

s

u* ' 

# 4w M* 28 6

I t i s no t the EPA' s inten t herei nt o mandat e tha t th e permittin g authorit y b e th e on e t o actually*sen d eac h affecte dpermi t applicatio nt o the FLM . Instead , th e Stat e
may elec t t o requir e eac hPS D applican t t o directl y transmi t
a cop y o f it s applicatio nt o th e FLM . I neithe r case , th e EPA recommend s tha t th e applicatio nbe sen t promptl y s o a s
no t t o unnecessaril y delay th e permi t process . Th e Er A i 6 als o proposin g t o revis e paragrap h(p)(1 ) i n ^bot hset s o f PS D regulation s b y requirin g tha t th e FL M b e give na t leas t 271 day s t o review th e relevan t portion s o f th e applicatio nprio r t o an y determinatio no f eomplete.nes s bein g issue db

y the permittin g authority . Se e propose d sectio n51.166(p)(1)(iii ) andsectio n52.21(p)(l)(iii) . Th e EP A i s proposin g thi s revisio ninorde r t o giv e th e FL M adequat e tim

e t o review

permi t application s an didentif y

any
concerns , including th e nee dro r additiona l information . However , th e propose dprovisio ni s no t intende dt o requir e th e permittin g authorit y t o wai t th e ful l Jk day s t o mak e a completenes s determinatio ni f th e FL M respond s withi na shorte r perio do f time , an dth e FLM' s comment s ar e considered . Finally , th e EP

A i s addressin g th e issu e abou t wha t constitute s a complet e applicatio nwit hrespec t t o informatio nrelevan t t o Clas s I areas . Th e EP A i s proposin g PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * D0E 8 NO T RBPRE8EN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y *• * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] •• •^ P.5 2
03'15'9 5 20:1 5 S20 2 20 S 162 0 »AS Q NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _003'02 2

28 7 that , whe na FI.M

allege s tha t a propose dsource' s emission s
ma y affeo t th e ai r qualit y i na Federa l Clas 6 I area , a t a minimum , eac hpermi t applicatio nmus t includ e informatio no n th e ai r qualit y

impact s (ambien t pollutan t concentration s fo r affecte dpollutants ) an dmus t contain'sufficien t 

# A . informatio nt o determin e whethe r th e propose dsource' s emission s wil l caus e or contribut e t o a violatio no f an y Clas s I increment . Se e propose dsectio n5i.i66(n)(4 ) an d sectio n52.21(n)(4) . Elsewher e inthi s preambl e the EP A i s alc o proposin g ne w eignifioanc e level s fo r Clas s I increments . Thes e significanc e level s ma y b e use dt o sho

w tha t th e ambien t concentration s fro m a source' s emission s
ar e insignifican t inthe Clas s T are a an dwill , therefore , no t contribut e t o a violatio no f an y Clas s I increment . I f
a propose dsource' s emission s wil l resul t i na significan t ai r qualit y

chang e i nthe clas s I area , the na ful l incremen t analysi s woul dbe needed . A B explaineUi nsectio nV.C.2. , "Determinin g an d Documentin g Adverse^Impacts.i nClas s I Areas, " th e statu s o f th e Clas s I incrementsNestablishe s the burde no f proo f i n term s o f wh o (th

e FL M or \h e applicant ) mus t demonstrat e whethe r th e source' s emission s wil l oaue e an y advers e impact s t o ai r qualit y relate dxalue s identifie di nth e Clas s I area . It th e applican t beax s th e burde no f PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — > [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] *•» *P.5 3

J0205_'9 5 20:1 5 _©202_20J_162 0 "AS P NR'A Q NPS —AQMD-PP

B L_001'02 2

28 8 demonstratin g t o th e FL K tha t th e sourc e wil l no t caus e any advers e impacts , the n the^P Aanticipate s tha t th e applican t generall ywil l provid e suc h ohmonstratio n i n th e applicatio n submitte d t o th e permittin g authority
. Th e EP Adoe s no t inten d ro r th e lac k o f suc h demonetra€_q n b

yth e applican t t o resul t i n a n applicatio n bein g rule d incbqtplete , however , 6inc e thi s i s somethin g tha t wil l nee d t o beN^oordinate d wit h th e FL M ove r a perio d

o f tim e i n orde r fo r th e permi t t o b e issued
. Othe r aspect s \ o f th e permi t applicatio n can\certainl yunderg o revie wb y -h e permittin g authorit ywhil e th^ e demonstratio n i s bein g prepare d an d negotiate d wit h th e FLMo \ Wit h regard.t o th e existin g notiric^-fcio n provisio n a t sectio n 51.166(p)(1) , th e EP Apropose s t o relocat e thi s provisio n whic h i s subjec t t o misinterpretatio n i n it s
curren t location
. Thi s provisio n require s tha t th e permittin g authorit ytransmi t t o th e Administrato r a cop yo f

eac h PS D permi t applicatio n received
. T n it s presen t form , th e notificatio n requiremen t coul d b e interprete d t o appl y onl yt o propose d source s an d modification s whos e emission s affec t a Federa l Clas s I area , ou t th e existin g provisio n doe s no t requir e notificatio n o f th e FLM . Th e Ac t actuall y intend s tha t thi s notificatio n requiremen t appl ywit h respec t t o al l PS D permi t applications—no t jus t thos e PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRBSBN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAM_l.ll6 ) •• •03'15'9 5 20:1 3 ©20220 S 162 0

_«AS O XR'A Q NP S -- - AQMD-PP B _005'02 2

28 9 affecting Federa l Clas s I areas . Th e Aot , sectio n165(d)(1) . Se e propose dsectio n51.166(q)(l) . m movin g th e existin g provisio nt o it s new locatio ni nth e Par t 5 1 regulations , it s coverag e o f al l PS D permi t application s wil l b e clarified . Th e scop e o f the ^ secondpropose dnotificatio n requiremen t i s broade r \ non e respect , ye t narrowe r i n another . Th e EPA

recognia.e s tha t th e FLM' s ma y hav e a n interes t i nreviewin g th e potentia l ai r qualit y relate d effeot c associate dwit hsource s proposin g t o locat e mor e tha n10 0 kilometer s fro m a Class\ I area . However , a genera l requiremen t t o transmi t copie s o f \l l permi t applications't o th e FLM' s woul db a quit e burdensom e an doverl y

inclusive . Aoco-dingly , the - EP A i s developin g a specia l electroni c databas e an

dproposin g t o requir e tha t a summar y o f eac hPS D permi t applicatio nb e entere dint o thi s database . Se e propose dsectio n51.166(n)(5 ) an dsectio n52.21(n)(5) . Unde r th e PS D regulation s i npar t Si , th e propose d requiremen t doe s no t specif y whethe r th e applican t o r th e permittin g authorit y i s t o ente r the dat a summary . Th e EP A believe & tha t i t i s appropriat e i nthi s cituatio nt o allow permittin g authoritie s t o exercis e thei r discretio ni n determinin g wha t specifi c procedure s they wil l adop t an

d implemen t t o ensur e tha t th e dat a i s entere d.int o th e P.PA' s PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EF A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** »P.5 5
03'15'9 5 20:1 6 g20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS Q NR'A Q NP S — - AQMD-PP B l_006'02 2

29 0 electroni c dat a base . I nth e oae c o f th e Par t 5 2 Federa l PS D program , however , th e proposa l provide s tha t th e EP A wil l ensur e tha t th e appropriat e sourc e informatio ni s entere dint o th e database . Th e propose d change s ar e generall y

consisten t wit hth e CAAAC s recommendatio nthat , t o facilitat e earl y FL M involvement , the FLM'- s b e give na "fac t sheet " containin g key informatio nabou t al l propose d PS D sources . Th e propose dinformationa l requirement s includ e th e nam

e an dtyp e o f source , the natur e o f th e project , product s an ddesig nproductio ncapacity , sourc e locatio nan

dproximit y

t o clas s i areas , th e propose d emissio nrate s (o r emission s increases ) o f ai r pollutant s t o b e emitte db

y th e source , an

dkey mailin g addresses . Th e FLMs , a s wel l a s the genera l public , wil l hav e reasonabl e

acces s t o thi s information . Th e propose dinformatio n 

### SkcuJlfff summary t o b e store di nthe EPA' s electroni c dat a bas e wii l functio na s a helpfu l screenin g too l for FLM' s t o identif y thei r concern s earl y i nth e permi t revie w process . I f a n FL M determine s tha t mor e informatio nabou t a propose dsourc e i s needed , th e FL

M 6houl dsee k th e necessary informatio n' from , or through , th e appropriat e permittin g authority^ . • Th e administratio no f thi s electroni c databas e i s addresse d inmor e detai l insectio nV.C.7. , "Informatio n Clearinghouse. " PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE 8 NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAMi.116 ] *• «___ _P.5 6
03'15'9 5 20:1 6 -g20 2 20 S 162 0 "ASPNRAQNP S —AQMD-PP B ®007'02 2



### 29 1 Th e EPA i 6 als o proposin g tha t th e FLM wil l b e afforde d
a t leas t 7

day s t o review

th e informatio ncontaine di nth e databas e andt o reques t th e ful l permi t applicatio ni f s o desired . Se e propose dsectio n51.166(p)(1)(ii ) and sectio n52.21(p)(1)(ii) - Th e propose drevision s includ e th e stipulatio ntha t th e permittin g authorit y ma y proocc dt o issu e a determinatio ntha t th e applicatio ni s complet e any tim e afte r the^-da y perio dfo r FL M

review , i f th e FLM fail s t o reques t additiona l informatio nrelevan t t o impact s i nth e Clas s I area . Fo r an y permi t applicatio nwhic hth e FLM request s jn 

### withi nth e propose dSf-day period , th e EPA i s proposin g tha t 

# A" th e FLM b e allowe d2m days , fro m th e dat e o f receipt , t o revie w th e informatio npertainin g t o impact s i nth e Clae e I
area , t o identif y

an y concerns , andt u reques t additiona l relevan t informatio nbefor e a forma l completenes s determinatio nma y

be mad e b

y th e permittin g authority . Se e propose dsectio n51.166(p)(1)(iii ) and sectio nt)i.i66(p ) (1 ) (iii ) . Th e permittin g authorit y may issu e it s completenes s determinatio nan y time (eithe r befor e 

## J " o r afte r th e J-i-da

y periodha s ended ) afte r th e FLM' s comment s hav e bee nreceive dandconsidered . A s describe dabove , th e applicatio nshoul dcontai n sufficien t informatio nt o determin e whethe r th e propose d PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_l.ll6 ] ** *P.5 7

_<__15'9 5 20:1 6 ®20 2 20 8 162 0 WAS PNR'A Q NP S -mm AQMD-PP

B I_008.'02 2

29 2 source' s emission s wil l caus e o r contribut**-*t o a violatio no f
an y Clas s I increment . Man y source s locate da t distance s greate r tha n10 0 kilometer s fro m a Clas s I are a wii l no t significantl y

affec t suc harea . Nevertheless , th e FLM , upo n reviewin g th e sourc e informatio navailable , ma y reques t tha t
anincremen t analysi s b e complete da s a prerequisit e fo r th e permittin g authority' s decisio nt o conside r th e applicatio n complete . Th e EP A believe s tha t i t woul db e i nth e bes t interes t o f th e applican t t o estimat e it s ambien t pollutan t concentration s i nth e Clas s I are a i f ther e i s an y doub t a s t o th e source' s potentia l impacts . Th e EPA

request s publi c comment s o nit s propose d requirement s t o improv e the notificatio nprocedure s whic h infor m FLM' s abou t incomin g permi t applications , an dchange s whic hclarif y

wha t constitute s a complet e applicatio n relativ e t o Clas s I are a impacts . I nparticular , th e EPA request s publi c comment s addressin g th e propose drequiremen t t o transmi t permi t application s t o th e FLM' s fo r an y Federa l Clas s T are a withi n'ie o kilometer s o f th e propose dsourc e o r modification . Th e appropriat e distanc e cutof f wa s activel y debate ddurin g th e Subcommittee' s deliberation s an dther e
wa s muc hdiscussio nabou t th e relativ e merit s o f a 240 - kilomete r versu s a 200-kilomete r cutof f point .

PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 *- - [filenam

e PREAM1.116 ] *• *03'15'9 5 20:17

_®2_2_ 2 08

_____

_"ASP_NR'A

Q NP S -—AQMD-PP B _009'02 2

V 29 3 \ Th e propose d^00-kilomete r cutof f fo r bot hth e les s formal ^ pre-applicatio nnotificatio n(disouccc di n sectio nVxC.l.a. , above ) an dthe mandator y

transmitta l o f 

### permi t applications t o the FL M i s consisten t wit hcurren t polic y b y th e EPnV.concernin g the modelin g o f Clas s I impacts 14 . Tha t polic y recommend s tha t majo r couro c \ emission s withi n10 0 Kile-meter s o f a Clas s I are a shoul db e \ routinel y

considere dwhe nassessing pollutan t impact s onth e Clas s I area . Thus , the EP A believe s tha t i t i s appropriat e \ t o requir e tha t th e applicabl e FLM\b c notifie do f an y PS D applican t plannin g t o construc t within\10 0 kilometer s o f a Clas s I area . I t th e FL M i s give nanopportunit y t o conside r th e impact s o f potentia l source s pn'-sr t o t.h e actua l submitta l o f a PS D application , the nearl^* x identificatio nan

dresolutio no f potentia l problem s ^ e likel y t o occur . Also , source s possibl y ma y b e excluded \ fro m conductin g furthe r Clas s I are a analyse s a t tha t tim e

"i nanOctobe r 19 , 199 2 memorandu m fro m Joh nS . Seitz , Director , Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g andStandard s t o EP A Regiona l offices , FP A clarifie dit s guidanc e to r modelin g clas s 1 are a impact s unde r th e PS D program . Th e polic y statemen t advised , Regiona l Offic e personne l tha t i t wa s appropriat e t o routinel y conside r th e ambien t impact s resulting fro m PS D source s proposin g t o locat e withi n10 0 kilometer s o f a Clas s I area . Suc hguidano e wa s not , however , t o b e takent o preclud e th e consideratio no f sourc e emission s occurrinqa t distance s greate r Uia n10 0 kilometer s fro m lr.rg e source s i f ther e i c reasont o believ e tha t suc heouree e coul daffec t th e ai r qualit y inthe Clas s I area . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE 8 NO T REPRE8EN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.5 9

_03'15'9 5 20:1 7 ®20 2 20 8 162 0 «AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B ]010'02 2

\ 29 4 i f the FLM , durin g early^involvement , conclude s tha t n o advers e impact s wil l occur^Iro o th e prospectiv e source . Th e _F A recognize s tha t larqe source s coul dpotentiall y hav e advers e impact s a t distance s beyon d3^ 0 kilometers . I t emphaticall y

i e no t th e EPA' s intentio nt o allow suc h
source s t o b e atrp<QBietiid<_l_y^exempte d fro m furthe r impad t analyse s fo r Federa l Clas s I areas . Rather , the N EP A believe s tha t th e propose drequiremen t tha t basi c sourc e informatio nfro

m al l propose dPS D source s b e entere dint o the EP A electroni c dat a bas e wil l serve a s a reasonabl e surrogat e t o a genera l requiremen t t o transmi t ful l permi t application s fo r al l source s locatedbeyond '"W o kilometers . Conversely , th e locatio no f a propose dsourc e withi n 7,1(3 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area , andascooiate d propose dnotificatio nprocedure s fo r permi t applications , doe s no t i nan

y manne r mea ntha t suc ha sourc e i nfac t ha s
anadvers e impac t o nthe AQRV 6 inth e area . Notificatio n i s simpl y

a mean s t o facilitat e FL M judgmen t abou t advers e impact s an

dt o hel pFLM' s fulfil l thei r responsibilitie s t o protec t Federa l Clas s I areas . Moreover , wher e th e FLM raise s concern s abou t th e impac t o f a propose dsourc e o na Federa l Clas s I area , improvednotificatio nwil l facilitat e t.Hp . FT.M' S involvemen t earl y inth e pennittin g process , whe n

PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BODGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y *•"» * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRBAM_1.116 ] ** *P.6 0

03'15'9 5 20:1 7 -2F202 20 S 162 0 »AS 0 NR'A Q NP S — * AQMD-PP

B _011'02 2

29 5 i t ma y b e substantiall y les s burdensome an dcostl y

t o resolv e Clas s I are a concerns . I nth e fina l analysis , th e EP A i s proposin g t o engag e i ndifficult , bu t necessary , line-drawing . Th e Ac t squarel y place s o nth e Administrato r th e responsibilit y t o provid e FLM' s wit hnotic e o f permi t application s fo r proposed, * facilitie s tha t may affec t a Federa l Clas s I area . Th e Act , sectio n163(d)(2)(A ) ("[t]h e Administrato r shal l provid e notic e o r th e permi t applicatio nt o the Federa l Land Manager . . . o f an y land s withi na clas s I are a whic hmay b e afecte db

y emission s fro

m th e propose dfacility." ) Se e also , the Act , sectio n165(d)(1 ) {"[ejac hStat e snai l transmi t t o th e Administrato r a copy o f eac hpermi t applicatio nrelatin g t o a majo r emittin g facilit y receive d b y suc hStat e an

dprovid e notic e t o th e Administrato r o f
ever y actio nrelate dt o th e consideratio no f suc hpermit.") . Th e EP A i s proposin g t o establis hrequirement s tha t wil l
ensur e tha t i nvirtuall y al l instance s th e FLM' s wil l hav e
acces s t o som

e relevan t informatio nabou t propose dPS D
sources . (2 ) FLM/Permittin g Authorit y Consultatio n Th e CAAA

C recommendation s als o addresse d th e importanc e
o f broade r coordinatio nbetwee npermittinq authoritie s an d FLM's , afte r receip t ot a permi t applicatio nan dprio r t o a PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.6 1
03'15'9 5 20:1 8 -g20 2 20 8 162 0 _AS 0 NR'A Q NP S —-AQMD-PP B (_012'02 2

» .'a * 

# - X 29 6 completenes s determination . Therefore , i nadditio nt o improve dnotification , th e EP A i s recommendin g tha t permittin g authoritie s tak e step s t o ensur e earl y and effectiv e consultatio nwit hFLMs . Wher e th e VLR identifie s speciri c informationa l deficiencie s tha t hinde r th e FLM' s abilit y t o asses s a " propose dsource' s impac t o na Federa l Clas s I area , th e permittin g authorit y shoul dmak e al l reasonabl e effort s t o hel pth e FL

M obtai ntha t informatio nfro m th e applicant . Permittin g authoritie s generall y shoul dno t announc e tha t a n applicatio ni s complet e wher e a nFLM indicate s tha t th e Clas s I increment s hav e no t bee nsatisfactoril y addresse do r A 

### estimate s o f ambien t concentration s ar e absen t fo r pollutant s whic hmay affec t th e Clas s I area . Looking ^

- '$^ beyon dth e completenes s determination , tlje^p_rmitting 

# V 

# V \y 

# --- — * v > 

### authorit y

shoul dals o ac t i n^^--cooperativ e manne r t o hel p 

## 0 -\7 ensur e tha t adequaiefinformatio ni s subsequentl y availabl e t o enabjje-'th

e FL M t o mak e an

y determination s concernin g advers e impact s o

nAQRVs . Th e CAAA

C recommende dtha t th e EF A conside r establishin g a forma l disput e resolutio nproces s a s a par t
o f th e completenes s review . Acoordin g t o thi s recommendation , i f the cooperatio nand coordinatio nwit hth e FLM ha s bee ninadequate , the FL M woul db e authorize dt o PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y •*•* * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** •P.6 2 03'15'9 3 20:1 8 O20 2 20 8 162 0 "AS PNR'A Q NP S —- . AQMD-PP

B _013.'02 2

29 7 invok e a compulsor y 30-day

disput e resolutio nperio dprio r t o a completenes s determination . Th e 3 0-day perio dwoul d allo w additiona l time t o addres s th e FLM' s concerns . Th e EP A

ha s decide dno t t o propos e any specifi c requirements , beyondthos e describe dfo r notificatio n purposes , fo r consultatio nwit hFLM s durin g th e completenes s review period . Instead , th e EPA prefer s tha t th e permittin g authoritie s andth e FLM' s retai ndiscretio nt o determin e th e natur e o f consultatio ntha t i s appropriate . Th e FP A believe s tha t mos t permitting authoritie s andpermi t applicant s recogniz e th e merit s o f earl y consultatio nwit h th e FLM' s an

dtha t al l affecte dpartie s wil l wor k i na cooperativ e manner . I nlie uo f imposing specifi c consultatio nrequirements , th e EPA

i s proposin g t o requir e tha t permittin g authoritie s addres s thei r effort s t o consul t wit hFLM' s a s par t o f th e preliminar y

determinatio nregardin g th e PS D permit , an di n th e material s i nth e publi o recor daeeooiatc dwit hth e particula r permi t application . Specifically , th e EPA i s 

### proposin g t o requir e that , fo r an y permi t applicatio nfo r a potentia l sourc e whic hma y affec t a Federa l Clas s I area , th e permittin g authorit y mue t addrce e i nth e preliminar y determinatio nfo r a permi t for suc hsource : whether , an dt o wha t exten t notificatio nwa s provide dt o th e *'_M ; th e FLM' s PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y <*-*> * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ** *P.6 3

0 3 '1 5 '0 5 20:1 9 Q20 2 20 8 J_620 »AS O NR'AQ NP S —m AQMD-PP

B _011/02 2



# 37~ 29 8

involvemen t i nth e review o f th e permi t application ; an d a ;J/jf summary

o f an y concern s raise db

y th e FLM , includin g how th e / 4 concern s hav e bee naddresse db y th e permittin g authority .

^ a • / / 

### s ,J[ i lAt / 

### Se e propose dsectio n51.16 6 (q ) (6 ) (ii ) and iA* ' 

### (\ 0 

### ^^section52 . 21(q ) (6 ) (ii ) .

Th e propose dapproac hwa s discusse di nth e Subcommittee' s deliberations . Th e EPA believe s tha t thi s provisio nshoul dappl y t o an y preliminar y

determinatio nfo r
source s an

d modification s locate dwithi nJ« 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I are a (fo r whic hautomati c transmitta l o f th e permi t applicatio nt o th e FL M i s required) , an d fo r source s
an dmodification s whos e permi t application s ar e requeste d fo r revie w

b y th e FLM

(basedo

nth e FLM' e revie w

o f th e
summary informatio nrequire dt o b e entere dint o th e electroni c databas e describe dpreviously ) i naccordanc e wit h propose dparagraph(n)(fi ) I nbot hset s o f PS D regulations . I nthi s way , th e permittin g authorit y i e obligate dt o identif y

fo r th e publi c recor dth e natur e an d exten t o f an y consultatio nwhic hma y hav e take nplac e wit hth e FLM i n consideratio no f a potentia l source' s impact s o na Federa l Clas s I area . Again , th e EPA

i s proposin g thi s particula r approac h becaus e i t represent s a mor e flexibl e an d les s intrusiv e way t o encourag e coordinatio nbetwee npermittin g authoritie s an d PRELIMINAR YSTAF P WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EF A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM1.116 ] *<*••P.6 4 03'15'9 5 20:1 9 g20 2 20 8 162 0 »ASQ NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B ®015'02 2

29 9 FLM's . Moreover , insteado f dictatin g specifi c consultatio n requirement s tha t may o r ma y

no t mak e sens e i nparticula r circumstances , publi c disclosur e o f a permittin g authority' s consultatio nWit hFLM s wil l promot e publi c accountabilit y
an dcreat e incentive s fo r appropriat e coordination . 2 . Determinin g an d Documentin g Advers e Impact s i n Clas s I Area s A s noted , the FLM s hav e an"affirmativ e responsibility " t o protec t th e AQRV s (including visibility ) associate dwit h Federa l ClaG C I areas . Th e Act , sectio n165(d)(2)(B) . I n
s o doing , FLM' s ar e directe dt o coneider , i nconsultatio n wit hth e EPA , whethe r propose dPS D source s wil l hav e a n advers e impac t o

nAQRVs . Td . i f the FL M conclude s tha t a n advers e impac t wil l occur , th e FL M ma y nee dt o demonstrat e
suc hadvers e impac t t o th e satisfactio no f th e permittin g authorit y

i norde r t o preven t the permi t fro m bein g iceued . Th e burde no f demonstratin g th e presenc e or absenc e o f a n advers e impac t o

nth e AQRV 6 o f a Federa l Clas s I are a depend s upo ncomplianc e wit hth e Clas s I inoremente . Tha t is , i f th e propose dsourc e o r modificatio nwil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a nincremen t i na Federa l Clas s I area , th e FL M ha s th e burde no f demonstratin g t o th e satisfactio no f the permittin g authorit y tha t a propose d
sourc e wil l hav e a nadvers e Impac t and , i f s o demonstrated , PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D , BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Novombe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] •• •03'15'9 5 20:1 9 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 <OVS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B _016,'02 2

30 0 th e permi t "shal l no t b e issued. " Conversely , i f a propose d
sourc e o r modificatio ncause s o r contribute s t o anincremen t violatio ni na Federa l Clas s I area , the permi t may b e issue di f th e owne r o r operato r demonstrate s t o the satisfactio nor the FL M tha t th e propose dsourc e wil l hav e
n o adverse impac t an d th e FLM

s o certifies . Se e th e Act , sectio n165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) an d (iii) . Nevertheless , th

e Ac t an

d the existin g PS D regulation s
ar e silen t i nexplaining wha t an AQR V (othe r tha n visibility ) is , wha t procedure s shoul dbe followe dfo r definin g anAQRV , an d wha t criteri a shoul dbe use dfor" " / is 3e-txng~criticai-~pollutan t "ludding s for determinin g whe na n adverse impac t ona nAQR V woul doccur . Th e _P A i s addressin g thes e issue s below . I ngeneral , the EP A explicitl y

recognize s tha t FLM' s hav e specia l expertis e an d knowledg e abou t the Federa l Clas s they manag e an

d tha t identifyin g AQRV S i s th e 

## V «p_ > « ~ •- • *T > '*. Sfo 

## L , I area s whic h "V^_ > *m -.•• rt> is. syfr- ^ domai no f th e FLM's . Further , th e EP A believe s the FLMs ' expertis e i s entitle dt o reasonabl e deferenc e whe nth e FLM s rais e concern s abou t the potentia l impact s o f a propose d
sourc e o na Federa l Clas s I aren. T o ensur e tha t appropriat e consideratio ni s give nt o th e FLM6 ' judgment , th e EPA

propose s t o establis hcriteri a tha t shoul dinfor m a

PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y -* • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.6 6

03'15'9 5 20:2 0 ©20 2 208 . 162 0 'OAS Q NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _017'02 2

30 1 permittin g authority' s assessmen t o f th e FLM' s advers e impac t determination . a . Definin g AQRV s Th e EP A

agree s wit hth e CAAA C s recommendatio ntha t th e FLM s shoul db e expressl y recognize da s havin g th e primar y responsibilit y

fo r th e identificatio no f s^-acif-i c AQRVs . ' Th e FLM' s hav e th e necessary knowledg e o f thei r respectiv e Clas s I areae , an dhav e th e expertis e fo r identifyin g th e uniqu e an

dimportan t resource s tha t ar e afrecte db y ai r pollutan t concentrations . Th e EPA

believe s tha t a logica l adjunc t o f th e responsibilit y

fo r identifying AQRV s i s th e responsibilit y t o provid e relevan t informationt o partie s involve di ntn e permittin g process . Permitting authoritie s an dpermi t applicant s shoul dhav e acces s t o an y informatio nconcernin g AQRV c whic hth e FLM' s hav e specificai-ly define dfo r thos e Federa l Clas s I area s tha t ma y b e affecte db

y a propose d
sourc e o r modification . T o addres s thi s concern , th e EPA i s proposin g tha t th e FL M b e require dt o provid e pertinen t information , wher e available , t o permittin g authoritie s an d PS D permi t applicant s uponrequest . Specifically , th e proposa l woul dappl y t o (1 ) permittin g authoritie s whos e jurisdictio ninclude s a Federa l Clas s I area , an

d(2 ) an

y prospectiv e applican t fo r whic h PRELIMINAR Y8TAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN O BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y • • • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *03'15'9 5 20:2 0 g20 2 20 8 162 0 "ASPNR'A Q NP S -—AQMD-PP B _01S'02 2

30 2 th e FL M receive s advanc e notificatio nfro m th e permittin g authority , o r wh o directl y request s tha t suc hinformatio nb e provided . ge e propose d sectio n51.1- 6 (p ) (

_J (n ) , (iii j aHa - -soctiw i 52.21(-p>H2 ^ (ill -/ _^iii^' . Th e piopooa l t-tlpulat- u 

### tha t the FL M

shal l provid e th e affecte dpermittin g authorit y
an dprospectiv e applican t a curren t listin g o f th e AQRV s
an dothe r relevan t information , inoluding ccncitiv c receptor s an

dcritica l pollutan t loadings , fo r th e affecte d clas s i areas . Th e FL M vo_± d als o b e require dfee* provid e copie s o f al l previou s finding s o f advers e impac t o nAQRV s tha t have bee nmad e fo r othe r PS D permi t rcvicwa , _•**. " Th e propooa l alc o prevido o that , i nlie uo f providin g thi s informatio ndirectl y t o the arrecte dpermittin g authorities , th e informatio nma y instead b e entere dint o th e EPA dat a bas e fo r publi o availability . Thi c databas e i c describe di nsectio nV.c. 7 o f thi s preamble . uuiffii-i- , th e EP

A i s no t proposin g regulation s tha t dictat e ho

w th e FLMs ' identif y AQRV s an

dassociate d critica l pollutan t loading s o r mak e advers e impac t determinations . Th e EP A believe s tha t thes e responsibilitie s ar e closel y tiedt o the rol e o f th e k'Lt. mandate db

y th e Act , an

dar e als o integra l t o th e managemen t
o f thos e AQRV s unde r the mandate s o f othe r statute s a s wel l (e.g. , Wildernes s Ac t an dorgani c Act) . Furthermore , PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDCE T REVIEW

* D0E 8 NO T RBPR8SEN T OFFICIA L BP A POLIC Y •»* • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] •• •P.6 8
03'15'9 5 20:2 0 *6**202 20 8 162 0 _AS 0 NR'A Q NP S — AQMD-PP B _019'02 2



# , 

# 6<f 

# cw&~ 

# yU W ~> .13 / 

### becaus e o f th e wid e variet y o f Federa l Clas s I areas , 

# X** * ' Myy

AQRVs , sensitivitie s o f critica l receptors , andth e inavailabilit y

o f dat a i nmany

caseB,(th e EP A

believe s tha t th e FLM s mus t hav e sufficien t latitud e t o addres s thes e issue s onanarea-by-area , a s wel l a s a permit-by-permit , basi s a s th e nee darises . A t th e same time , th e EP A / 

### encourage s FLM s t o identif y AQRV s ona regiona l o r nationa l

• _ • 

### basi s wher e appropriate , and t o establis hgenera l procedure s fo r identifyin g AQRV(js . A S note dbelow , FLM' s hav e alread y accomplishe dthi s latte r goa l i npart . "> 

### [Y \j \ Th e EPA

agree s wit hth e concer nexpresse dby som e -3- Xg member** * o f th e CAAA C s NS RReform subcommitte e tha t th e F T .M s Shoul d beXencuuraye a L o provid e ampl e opportunit yfo r publi c 

### \ x'S 7 

### inpu t i nth*^* . identificatio nan dprotectio no f AQRVs . I n .** - fact , th e FLM'a\(iav e addresse dthi s concer ni nprocedure s •7- ^ already

publishe dt o identif y an d protec t certai nAQRVs . 

# .N o Thes e procedure s wer e \h e resul t o f a publi c proces e o r expressl y

provid e fo r publi c input . See , e.g. , U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e "Screenin g Procedur e t o Evaluat e Effect s o f Ai r Pollutio nonEaster nRegio nWildernesse s Cite da s Clas s I Ai r Qualit y AreasV ' Northeaster nForce t vio e Experimen t Station , U.S . Fores t Servic e Genera l Technica l \ 

### Repor t NE-151 , (Septembe r 1991) ; U.S . Departmen t o f Agricultur e "Guideline s fo r Measurin g th e Physical , an d PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PRE.AM_1.116 ] ** *___^

_P.6 9
03'15'9 5 20:2 1 ®202__0 S
____ _HAS P NR'A Q NP S -*-.- . AQMD-PP B ®020.'02 2

<•-
.

' •

_ '•-j-'* 

## J / i > . " 1 / /

I ' 

### 30 4

biologica l conditio n o f wildernes s Ecosystems, " Rock y Mountai n Fores t an

d tange Experimen t Station , Genera l ^-Technica l Repor t RM-14 6 (Nov
. 1987) ; U.S
. Departmen t o f Interio r "Interna l Procedure s fo r Determination s o f Advers e Impac t Unde r section issXd ) (2 ) (C ) (ii ) an d (Hi ) o f th e Clea n Ai r Act " (4 7 F

R .10226 , .Tul ^ 12 , 1982)
. Th e EP Aanticipate s tha t FLM' s wil l continu e t o mak e
ever yreasonabl e effor t t o provid e fo r publi c participatio n i n identifying AQRVs , sensitiv e receptors , an d th e associate d critica l pollutan t loadings , and , i f possible , t o d o thi s i n advanc e o f particula r PS D permi t proceedings
. Th e identificatio n o f AQRV s during th e cours e o f a permi t proceedinq , whil e sometime s necessaryan d appropriate , preclude s a permi t applican t fro mtalcin g AQRV s int o accoun t i n facilit yplannin g an d design , an

d can dela

yth e norma l permi t proces s i n som e instances
. However , give n resourc e constraint s an

d the relativel yne wemphasi s tha t FLM s hav e place d on determinin g thes e values , considerabl e time wil l elaps e befor e a comprehensive listing fo r al l Federa l Clas s I area s wil l be developed
. Further , th e FLM' s note d i n discussion s tha t th e identificatio n o f AQRV s i s evolutionar yan d certai n value s
ar e likel yt o chang e a s ai r qualit yrelate d condition s change , scienc e progresses , an d ne wan

d bette r informatio n PRELIMINARY STAF F WORXIN G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NOT REFRE8EN T OFFICIA

L EP APOLIC Y 

### •• • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREAM_I.II6 ] 

### •• •03'15'9 5 20:2 1 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 "AS PNR'A Q NP S AQMD-PP

B _021'02 2

& 30 5 become s available . Thus , whil e th e EPA encourage s FLM s t o identif y

AQRV s earl y

an dwit hpubli c involvement , th e EPA recognize s tha t th e publi c notic e an dcommen t proces s

^ associate dwit hth e issuanc e o f individua l PS D permit s ca n ^T s provid e fo r publi c participatio na s a nalternativ e t o prio r j 7 ,-H . identificatio nan dpubli c review

o f AQRVs . I nal l 

# y.
_

% instances , th e fina l decisio no nidentificatio no f ai r qualit y

relate dvalue s remain s withi nth e discretio no f th e FLM . b . Scop e an dtiming o f the FLM' s demonstratio n Whil e no t specificall y addresse db

y th e CAAAC s recommendations , th e EP A i a proposin g revision s t o th e existin g PS D regulation s t o improve (1 ) th e provision s whic h limi t th e scop e o f the FLM' s demonstratio no f advers e impacts , an

d(2 ) the timing for submittin g th e FLM' s demonstratio nt o th e permitting authorit y fo r consideratio n prio r t o issuin g o r denyin qa PS D permit . Th e existin g Federa l PS D regulation s a t sectio n52.21(p)(3 ) ar e inadequat e becaus e they onl y requir e th e Administrato r t o conside r th e FLM' s demonstratio no f th e visibilit y impact s
o f a propose dsource , an dtherefor e d o no t contemplat e consideratio no f othe r AQRVs . Further , th e FT.M i s give n onl y 3 0 day 6 fro

m receip t o f a notic e fro m th e Administrato r (tha t a PS D applicatio nha s bee nsubmitted ) t o provid e it s PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y •• • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] •• •P.7 1

0 3 '1 5 '9 5 20:2 1 O20 2 20 8 162 0 «AS 0 NR'A Q NP S ->-* - AQMD-PP

B _022/02 2

3 0 6 demonstration . Thi s tim e constrain t place s th e FLM' s i na dilemma . Th e FLM' s ar e expecte dt o provid e well-doaunented , reasone ddemonstration s o f th e impact s tha t propose dsource s wil l hav e i nClas s I areas , bu t th e FLM' B ar e generall y give nanabbreviate dtim e t o complet e th e task . I ncontras t t o th e relevan t Par t 5 2 PS D xequiremcri- , th e PS D regulation s a t sectio n5l.l66(p)(3 ) requir e tha t th e Stat e PS D progra

m mus t includ e a mechanis m whereb y

th e FLM
ma y presen t a demonstratio no f advers e impac t t o th e permittin g authorit y afte r the preliminar y determinatio nha c bee nmade . Thi s existing requiremen t doe s no t contemplat e tha t th e FLM' s demonstratio nma y b e addresse da s par t O f th e preliminar y

determinatio nan dmad e availabl e fo r publi c notic e an

dcomment , unles s the preliminar y determinatio ni e delaye dan

damende dfollowing consideratio no f th e FLM' s findings . Th e EPA

believe s tha t 3 0 day s i s generall y no t sufficien t tim

e fo r the FL

M t o complet e a demonstratio n advers e impacts . Instead , the EP A propose s tha t 6 0 day s b e allowe dfo r th e demonstratio nt o b e complete dan dsubmitte d t o th e Administrato r o r th e appropriat e permittin g authorit y fo r consideratio nan dincorporatio nint o th e preliminar y determination . Se e propose drevision s t o eeotio n5l.l66(p)(3 ) an dsectio n52.21(p)(3) . Th e EPA PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y •*•*• • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 — [filenam

e PREA M 1.116 ] ***

>P.7 2 03'15'9 5 03/08/9 3 20:3 7 ©20 2 20 8 162 0

17.O I ©30 3 90 9 282 2 "AS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B _007'02 0 WlS O DENVE

R— - AQ

D D.C . 12(004/02 2

fiuA . l* i l ' J i

_ ()W V 

### 18 concernin g th e ai r qualit y relate dvalues , includin g any currentl y

unde r study . [iv ] Th e Federa l Lan dManage r 6hal l consider , i n consultatio nwit hth e Administrator , whethe r a propose d sourc e e r modificatio nwoul dhav e a nadvers e impac t o nany ai r qualit y

relate dvalue s whic hth e Federa l Lan dManage r ha s identifie dpursuan t t o paragraph(p)(2 ) £- 5 [A ) o f thi s section . 

## )C-1(A ) 

# W *

^ 

## tf (3)(i ) Federa l T.ari d Manager—Demonstratio no f adverse insaC-. . Th e pla nshal l requir e th e permittin g authorit y t o -cons-i_^

_an

y de^ttta-satlon , submitte db y th e Federa l Land Manage r wl*fch±«^S0days ) f ro m th e dat e onwhic hth e permittin g ,*A*~ . authorit y

determjTTed~"th

e permi t applicatio nt o b o oomplete , .(L 4 ' , \tha t show s tha t a majo r stationary sourc e o r majo r x-x . ^cWmodifieatio nwil l have a nadvers e impac t o na nai r qualit y ^jJ L P*

l< L.** » --i 3 ^- ^ valu e i na Federa l Clas s I area . Th e permittin g *i i.j-f'^f

l authorit y

chall , a t a minimum , provid e a writjte nevaluatio n o f th e Federa l Lan dManager' s demonstration , jan d includ e th e X( * /r.P

- evaluatio ni nth e publi c recor d accompanyin g th e preliminar y " determinatio nrequire dunde r paragraph(q)(3 ) o f thi s

section . Th e writte nevaluationshal l addres s th e •\_4mif following : 

# 3
h 

# y

\ ^xl- ^ (A ) Th e method s an dprocedure s b

y whic hth e Federa l /.-A 1 . MA' A Lan dManage r identifie dth e ai r qualit y

relate dvalue , th e J ° -A, (\u underlyin g importanc e ascribe dt o th e ai r qualit y relate d (J O ' X!•**'value , th e natur e o f th e allege dadvers e impact , an da n
Ca 

# .•jfp.-hi* . 

# C> 5 0 > explanatio ne f an y conclusion s th e permittin g authorit y •Veache s abou t th e ai r qualit y relate dvalu e tha t ar c tlyinconsisten t wit hthos e reache db y th e FLM ; (B ) Al l substantive value s o f importanc e whic hth e Federa l LandManage r ha s ascribe dt o th e ai r qualit y relate d value(s ) inquestio nan dthe.natur e o f th e allege dadvers e impact ; (C ) Th e technica l dat a an danalyse s performe di n demonstratin g th e advers e impac t an dth e basi s fo r th e permittin g authority' s disagreemen t wit han y dat a o r analyses ; an

d (D ) An y measure s undertake nt o mitigat e th e potentia l adverse impact s o f propose demission s increases , includin g th e estimate deffec t o f an y mitigation .

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINAR

YDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y *# * Novembe r 16 * 199 4 — [filenam

e 5116 6 1.116 ] ••*• •P.7 3
03'15'9 5 20:3 8 O20 2 20 8 162 0 03/09/9 5 17:0 6 ©30 3 96 9 2S2 2 »AS 0 NR'A Q NP S WAS O DENVE R — * AQMD-PP B •-»- AQ D D.C
. _009.'02 0 \@OiO/Q'i'.

^ 

### 1

9 

# X (ii ) Wher e th e pennitting authorit y find s tha t th e analysi s submitte db y th e Federa l LandManage r i naccordanc e wit hparagrap h(p ) (3 ) (i ) o f thi s sectio ndoe s no t demonstratexth e satisfactio no f th o permittin g authorit y tha t anadvers e impac t o nanai r qualit y

relate dvalu e wil l resul t i nth e Federa l Clas s I area , th e permittin g authorit y shal l i nth e publi c reoor d accompanyin g th e preliminar y determinatio nprovid e a complet e explanatio no f th e decisio n t o rejec t th e Federa l Lan dManger' s demonstration . (4 } Denial—Impac t o nai r qualit y

relate d valuea . Th e pla nshal l provid e a mechanis m whereb

y a Federa l Lan d

, Manage r o f any

sue hFedera l Clas s I are a ma y presen t t o th e tila M *^ r P-S-rai-tin

Uauthority , pii- i L uan y HI T 1 ii

n1 nng " JL^'"I"S~*>- . W ^ . , j7euuitM d unde r piuuidu.- - develumu d i nAccordanc e wit h

w i ijv*-^ pa-rayiAp h(q ) (P ) a f tiii

___&_i_n , l

a doaono-rartte ntha t th e • u. r j emission s fro m th e propose dsourc e o r modificatio nwoul d -^HiA / r>>' \ \ hav e a nadverc e impac t o nthe ai r qualit y

relate dvalue s Ao. (,, l 5 <?* (including visibility ) or an y Federa l Clas s I area , « i (a * 

# a^tf 1



# G * ^ 

# \ ^ i

* t\.^

- notwithstandin g tha t th e chang e inai r qualit y resultin g fro m emission s fro

m suc hsourc e e r modificatio nwoul dno t caus e o r contribut e t o concentration s whic hwoul dexcee dth e maximu m allowabl e increase s fo r a Clas s I area . I f th e permittin g authorit y concur s wit hsuc hdemonstration , th e permittin g authorit y shal l no t issu e th e permit . (5 ) Mitigatio no f advers e Impacts . Th e permittin g authorit y

ma y issu e a permi t t o a propose dcourc e tha t woul d otherwis e b e denie da permi t unde r paragrap h(p ) (4 ) o f thi s section , i f th e permittin g authorit y determine. ? tha t th e sourc e ha s mitigate dit s advers e impac t on,<§rit£ , ~^ntribution~ , Eo7 > a nai r qualit y

relate dvalueTTo r example , source s ma y

fflTClgate anadvers e impac t b y obtainin g enforceabl e an

dpermanen t cmiseion s reduction s e f sufficien t amoun t an

di nsuc hlocationtha t th e reduction s wil l offse t th e chang e i nai r qualit y inth e Federa l Clas s I are a tha t woul dhav e resulte dfro m emission s fro

m th e propose dsource . [paragraph(p)(4 ) redesignate da s (p)(6) ] (7 ) Sulfu r dio_ia e varianc e b y Governo r wit hFedera l LandManager' s concurrence . Th e pla nma y provid e that — (i ) Th e owne r o r operato r o f a propose dsourc e o r modificatio nwhic hcanno t be approve dunde r procedure s develope dpursuan t t o paragrap h(P ) (5 ) o f thi - -sectio nmay • demonstrat e t o the Governo r tha t th e souro e o r modificatio n canno t be constructe db y reasono f an

y maximu

m allowabl e TSI S DOCUMEN T I B A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y •« • Novembe r 16 / 199 4 — [filenam

e SI_166_I.I_« ] *- *P.7 4 03'15'9 5 20:3 9 ®20 2 20 8 162 0 ».\S O NR'AQ NP S —AQMD-PP

B _010'02 0 U3/08/9 5 17:0 7 ©30 3 90 9 282 8 «AS O DENVE R—AQ

D D C 1_011/02 2 

# LikJ: ihrJ? "Y« ^ t/"'^«A

. fa ffitU /oc*Utl fc/,77.,K

th e applicabl e Stat e implementatio npla nandshal l b e enforceabl e a s par t o f suehplan . I nresolvin g suo h dispute s relatin g t o are a redesignation , th e Administrato r chal l ooneide r th e exten t t o whic hth e land s involve dar e o f sufficien t siz e t o allow effectiv e ai r qualit y managemen t o r hav e ai r qualit y

relate dvalues . 0 PAL Applicability . Th e provision s o f thi s sectio n shal l appl y

t o a majo r stationary sourc e fo r an y

on e o r mor e pollutant s subjec t t o thi s sectio nfo r whic hth e permittin g authorit y

ha s approve da PAL for th e sourc e provide dthat : (1 ) Th e PA L ha s bee nestablishe dfo r eac hsubjec t pollutant : (i ) Fo r a nexistin g source : (A ) Base do nactua l emission s representativ e o f norma l operation , o r (D ) Base do

nallowabl e emission s wher e allowabl e emission s ar e les s tha nactua l emissions ; (ii ) Fo r a ne

w source , basedo

nth e limit s establishe d a s a resul t o f NS Rrequire dunde r th e Ac t andbase do n applicatio no f applicabl e contro l requirement s an dprojecte d operatin g conditions , (2 ) Emissio nlimit s establishe dar e achievabl e throug h applicatio no f productio nprocesse s o r availabl e methods , systems , an

dtechnique s including , bu t no t limite dr o emission s contro l equipment , fue l cleanin g o r treatment , fue l combustio ntechniques , substitutio no f les s pollutin g materials ; or limit s onproductio ntha t represen t norma l sourc e operations , (3 ) Condition s necessary t o assur e enforceabilit y act. include di nth e federall y enforceabl e mechanis m [e.g. , permit , order , consen t agreement , rule] , an d (4 ) Th e emission s level s an dcondition s establishe d fo r PA L purpose s d o no t reliev e a sourc e fro m continuou s complianc e wit hotherwis e applicabl e unit-specifi c requirement s [sueha s NSPS , BACT , LAER , RACT , MACT , o r othe r unit-specifi c federal , SI P o r Stat e requirements] . A PAL permi t mus t continu e t o requir e complianc e wit hthes e limits .

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y *** Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e S1_166_1.116 ] *• •P.7 5

03'15'9 5 20:1 0 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 UJ/U3/9 5 17:0 7 "330 3 98 9 282 2



# ,7 l a

t..7 

# { 

# 7 WAS O NR'A Q NP S mmm AQMD-PP

B _Oil'02 0 W.\S O DENVE R—AQD DC . _012/02 2
3 8 

### LUJdJLL.llli 111

- UT/

A WdiVfc!.!

. L

U I

. h g iigli- C t.-ilUU.U l N3 R proa--df~technol6gi-Qs

.

~ A-uu-diu aL

ULuday' ayiwposal , \j\sL\jitr a ?3 D UT/

A y_tv_ i -diib

. eridiiLei l L U asuiirra.Th e EP

A i s proposin g t o ren,_np . th e existin g innovativ e contro l technolog y (ICT ) waive r i nch e Fe--__ 1 Lam l Manutj.i—(TLM ) -huul

- b

- cunbulusd,—rf—impat.c s uu Claaa I „„-a aqualiL y u_ . di i u.u_liLy"l'elai:y dvdlm-j b lAWVh l d-fc , pigje-L.

- Im mill

- UT/ A •FOttrcePS D regulation s t o "UT/A " an d t o exten d th e UT/ A 

### waivo r t o th e nonattainmen t NS Rprogram. — T h e EP A i s xequtibLiu j LUi'.uiitji L ui i -Juhe'.ljBi—LhiT S 

### wotitiL-Liu u _huul

- D

- i •**imuiit!Llprnpos i n g severa l ne w provision s fo r

<- umidLLaiiuiuirl

. ajL_ aNSRa n UT/ A waive r icijucr-t

. A S proposed , aUT/ Awaive r reques t

mus t identif y potentia l fflilur- s T-nodes , projprt-e demissi**iT*i. s increase s fro m failur e modes , potentia l contingenc y meaeuree , an da nuppe r boun do nmas s emission s cha c coul db e accommcd-Le di nLh*

_ are ao f ch e UT/

A source . Thes e woul db e incorporate di n tn e permit

. Th e EP

A i s als o proposin g Lha t ueiubidw-aLiui i u £ uuuLluij-ui- ^ mtddjiu-.* , fo i a ..u.rBtt-iiiiugu Lai. dNSRincentive s fo r .bette r tha n expecte dUT/

A w_iv_ i feliualU ual y iuuludt i enviraiini-iiL'a l njiiL..tii s an duu Lmanyy ane r bf-uji'-jtui-i

z

PRELIMINAR YSTAf F WORXXNO DRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AIJ D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y •* • Marc h8 , 199 5 — [filenam

e FREAM_1.116 ' •* »P.7 6
03'15'9 5 20 : 10 03/09/9 5 17:0 8 ®20 2 20 8 162 0 ©30 3 90 9 232 2 »AS O NR'A Q NP S n-AS O DENVE R -- - AQMD-PP B

— AQ D D.C . _012.'02 0 _013'02 2

S

f-3 \ 7 3

permittin g authority
. • Ss e propose d section s 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 ) (£ )
. Unde r the.'propose d ..-rule , eac h case-by-cas e clea n uni t 'determination..'.would b e subjec t co.publi c notic e an d commen t _. , _

^ f 3X_L < egf>-fci4ui_^jEoj ^ SPAAUnde r today' s proposal , onc e a clea n uni t deLerminaLio n i s made , a
reassessmen t o r wha t i s curren t Federa l BAC T o r LAE R woul d

no t b e necessar yfo r th e S year s afte r th e datanr.inacion
. Fo r unit s whic h hav e recentl yundergon e th e moa t demandin g revie wfo r emission s control s (i.e. , a forma l 3AC"i '

n ~ LAE R rftviPW pursuan t t o majo r NSR) , re-evaluatio n o f th e technolog yshortl yafte r th e sourc e wa s constructe d o r modifie d c

ydetermin e i f Lli e technolog yi s stil l • "state-of

the-art " .woul d likel yresul t i n ver ylittl e o r n o incrementa l improvemen t i n control
. Thus , resource s spen t b yth e sourc e an d permittin g authorit yt o revie wrecentl y permitte d technolog ywoul d likel yb e o f lictl e o r n o benefi t t o tn e environment
. Therefore , tn e EP Ai s proposin g tha t th e ne wexclusio n ma ypresumptivel yappl yt o an yuni t whic h receive d a currentl yapplicabl e majo r NS R permi t withi n yearsjprio r t o th e dat e constructio n o r activit ywil l & 

# <fcommenc e o n th e propose d physica l o r operationa l change
. ( '•"'. \*- > o-'. V

• Reassessmen t o f wha t i s curren t BAC T o r LAE R fo r th e uni t 

# V xr.- 1 

# ' 3 J
v O * { PRELIMINAR Y ST.-&F F WORKIN G DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S MO T REPMSKN T OFFICIA L EP APOLIC Y •* * Marc h 8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e F.R_A M .1.116 ] •• •P.7 7

03'15'9 5 20:1 0 O20 2 20 8 162 0 U3/08/9 3 17:0 3 ©30 3 90 9 282 2 tt'ASO NR'A Q NP S WAS O DEWE R — - AQMD-PP B

- —AQ D I..C. _013,'02 0

12)014/02 2 

# 7 4 

# 7
woul dno t

b e neceasaryofo r

th e y£. years afte r th e permi t

i s issue dwic h5A- T *.yr'LAE Rcontro l unde r

majo r NSR

. _i_>_5*>A

c.lean/_hi t

e3r-__vi s w J 

### als o solicitAcomme n .T" " iriste^ d 

# f 

# j- \7 ce r eoxurtru '

tha t include d unjit commftiices/op^r^tiSf n V' a majo r ^I^ R pe i it
. Th e EPAalso-sa l i cit s commen t o n ^extendin g th e c3.R<*»

n uni t presumptio n t o emission' s limit s establishe d a s a Federa l RAC T o r MAC T limi t iu r u p L u i o yedi s fro

mLhe dat e
a permi t wa s issue d containin g the limit s o r 5 year s fro m the startu

p dat e o f th

a modificatio n fo r whic h the control s
wer e require d an

d installed
. Arecentl yrequire d MAC T emission s limit , whil e no t necessaril yequa l L O BAC T o r LAER , i s likel yt o resul t i n significan t emission s control s
sueh tha t a BAC T o r LAE R reviewwoul d no t necessaril yresul t i n significan t additiona l emission s reductions
. However , the EPAi s als o concerne d tha t a MAC T limi t coul d b e significantl yles s fiffper tha n BAC T o r T.AE

R i n man

y circumstances
. AMAC T emissio n limi t ma yadequatel ycontro l
a. pollutan t lisLe d i n Ac t Sectio n 112(b ) bu t coul d resul t i n emissio n increase s o f pollutant s subjec t t o NSR
. Therefore
. the EPAi s considering expandin g th e clea n uni t presumptio n t o unit s wit h recentl yMAC T bu t ma yala o require , an d 'solicit s commen t on , safeguard s t o addres s concern s ove r PRELIMINAR

Y STAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUSOS T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPAPOLIC Y ** • Marc h8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e PR£AM_1.116 ] **•* •P.7 8

03/08/9 5 17:0 9 ©30 3 90 9 282 2 WAS O DENVE R— - AQ

D D 0 l_015/02 2

presume d to . beo; n st_te-._f-the-art^ocontro l fo r u p t o J^year s afte r th e mino r NS R permi t i s issue d fo r th e technolog y required
. A s with.major ; NSR , th e 'EP Abelieve s tha t littl e improve d controls-woul d resul t fro m'reviewin g contro l technolog ytoX'determin e .i f i t is.xstate-nf-the-ar t i f a permittin g authoritie s ' mino r .NS R .contro l requirement s resul t i n control s substantiall yequivalen t t o th e Federe l BAC T o r LAER . Th e EP Aenvisions'tha t on e elemen t o f a mino r NS R requiremen t "pre-certified"

- a s requirin g state-of-rhp

ar t control s woul d includ e a 3 0-dayopportunit yfo r publi c notic e and commen t prio r t o th e approva l u f th e mino r NS R permi t sn d th e propose d contro l technolog yfo r th e unit
. Publi c revie wo f thes e permit s help s ensur e tha t tru e state

uf-the-ar t control s ar e require d b ymino r NSR
. Also , as wit h Federa l 5AC T o r LAE R limits , a reassessmen t o f wha L i a eupren t Federa l BAC T o r LAE R woul d no t h e necessar yfo r th e y€ year s afte r th e uni t i s permitte d wit h th e etate-of-the

-

•apliClt s commpnt/o m us e or/T. .
:• ©5 year s a f terthe uni- xcoinmeneff s <-»e

r _>T£*rol s rverguire

d byth e mino r JIC Rperaii ar t contro l permi t Le dunde r miiio i NSR. — Ayai.r ; t .**-<=

• LF A solicit s commpnt/orv
. us e of/"tn e ciea n uni t pr e t o 5 y-ar e aft_ r th p uni- x co^Mnenc^ s opera t
co i Unit s whic h qualif yfo r ._ g ' jnr r iliiflwin' i

r clea n uni L

- • presumptio n unde r permit s i ssue' d unde r majo r NS R o r equivalen t ET-

A "certified " mino r NS? . coul db e reassesse da t PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN O DRJlFT FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAI - EP A POLIC Y •"• • Kare h8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.7 9
03'15'9 5 20:1 1 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 UJ/08/9 5 17:0 9 ©30 3 9C 9 282 2 WAS O NR'A Q NP

S WAS O DENVE R -- - AQMD-PP B •. —AQ D n.c . _015'02 0 12)016/02 2

7 7 th e .en d o f th e 5 M-B^years'-'a n . a ease-by-cas R hasis
. T f th e uni t agai n qualifie d a s a clea n unit , th e clea n uni t exclusio n woul d appl yfo r u p t o an.additiona l 5 year s a s woul d an

yothe r case-by-cas e determinatio n o f clea n uni t status . Contro l technologie s ..ma yals o b e reviewe d fo r "clea n unit " statu s and b e subjecte d t o publi c notic e da d conwien t

a t th e tim e o f issuanc e o r renewa l o f a titl e V operatin g permit
. Unit s ma yh e determine d o n a case-by-cas e basi s a s meetin g th e exclusio n criteri a a s "state-©£-the-art " an d therefor e eligibl e t o appl yth e potentiai-to-potenLia l test . Tn suc h cases , th e designatio n o f th e uni t a s "clean " woul d las t fo r th e termo f th e operatin g permi t (i.a. , u p c o 5 yea r a)
. Fo r convenience , one , man yo r al l unit s a t a
sourc e coul d be reviewe d an d subjecte d t o publi c notic e <_r, d

commen t concurrentl ywit h th e issuanc e o r renewa l o f a titl e V

operatin g permit
. Qualifyin g clea n unit s shoul d b e clearl yidentifie d an d liste d i a th e tiLl e V permi t a s "clea n units"

- Th e EP Aexpect s tha t unit s qualifyin g o n a case-by-cas e basi s fo r us e o f th e "clea n unit " exclusio n woul d likel y qualif yb

yusin g contro l technolog ywhic h woul d otherwis e b e require d b yrigorou s mino r NS R technolog yrequiremen t o r Federa l BAC T o r LAER . "Likewise , th e EPA believe s that
. PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINO DRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W » DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y •" • Marc h 8 , 199 5 - - 'filenam e PR_AM_I.1!6 ] •* *P.8 0

_03'15'9 5 20:1 1 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 U'AS O NR'A Q NP S -—AQMD-PP B I_016'02 0 03/0a/9 5 17:1 0 ©30 3 96 0 2S2 2 WASO DENVI- K- - AQDD- C _01»/o «

. 8 1 

### recentl yissued...noii-attaiianen t NS R permit s shoul d qualif y fo r ih e 5_*-a_09«-.yea r clean unj t presumption
. Th e EPAi s considerin g i f the greate r ^tip*genc y•*•

- LA2 R requirement s should ' b e the targe t fo r encouraging cle_ a uni t technolog

y i n area s no t attainin g th e NAAQ S becaus e clea n unit s ma yb e avoiding LAE R limit c tha t migh t otherwis e hav e bee n require ^ i f the uni t wa s subjec t t o a n actual-to-potentia l emission s test . Finally , th

e grantin

g o f a clean uni t exclusio n fo r an y perio d o f tim

e {i.e. , S -aa-a-fi

T years ) unde r today' s proposa l i s independen t fro

mth e ca_e-by-cas e determinatio n o f 3AC T
o r LAE R fnr source s subjec t t o majo r NSR
. Contro l technolog

ywhic h qualifie s a uni t a s "clean " i s onl y considere d t o b e comparabl e t o BAC T o r LAE R bu t i s no t necessaril yequa l t o BAC T o r LAE R an d i n n o wa

yestablishe s
a presumptiv e BAC T nr LAER . Th e Ac t require s tha t BAC T an d LAE R b e ease-by-eac c determination s fo r source s subjec t *" o majo r NS R an

d th e clean uni t tes t canno t preemp t thi s statutoryrequirement
. C
. Change s t o Non-emitting Sourc e Operation s Th e EPAi s als o proposing t o ad d t o the lis t o f activitie s exclude d fro mthe definitio n c : physica l o r operationa l chang e an ypropose d change s t o existing , non emitting activitie s a t th e source . Unde r thi s propose d PRELIMINARY STAF F WORXIN G DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BTOGS T REVIE W « DOE S NO T RFPHESEN T OFFICIA

L EP APOLIC Y •* « Marc h 8
. 199 5 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] ** •P.8 1 03'15'9 5 20:1 2 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 03/09-'9 5 17:1 0 ©30 3 30 9 282 2 »'AS 0 NR'A Q NP S WAS O DFVVE R — - AQMD-PP B

•-•- . AU D D.C . _017.'02 0 l_01'J/02 2



# J3

* '<* l!* i



# (V 9 3

I t i s the EPA7:

5 experienc e ..tha

t man ysource s onl ykeep accurat e record s on'emission s o r operation s fo r 3 t o 5 years , unles s expressl yrequire d t o d o s o fo r a longe r pei'riod
. Anuirbe

r of.
. Stat e • an

d loca l permittin g authoritie s hav e similar , experiences
. Thus , the EP A ha s reservation s concerning the us e ;o f 10-year , -an

d longer , .baseline s an d solicit s commen t 6h whethe r a shorte r (e:g. , 5 year ) perio d woul d b e mor e appropridLe
. I n addition , i f th e EPAadop t a 1 0 yea r look bac k period , th e EP Aals o propose s tha t suc h pcrie d b e availabl e onlywhe n ade-qugrp , accurat e an d complet e emission s dat a ar e availabl e fo r th e baselin e calculation
. Th e EP Asolicit s commen t or . the nee d t o conditio n the us e o f such period s upo n th e accurac yand completenes s o f availabl e data , an d th e nee d t o establis h specifi c criteria , throug h guidanc e o r otherwise , fo r flcruracy. completenes s an d recordkeeping whe n using olde r data
. A s noted , the EPA' 3 existin g regulation s provid e tha t tn e sourc e ma

ysee k t o us e anothe r time perio d outsid e the 2 preceding .years upo n a findin g b yth e permittin g authuriL y tha t thi s othe r perio d i s "mor e representative " o t norma l
sourc e operations
. . .S_____s___. , curren t sectio n 51.165(a)(1)(xii)(B)
. Thi s provisio n ha s bee n a sourc e o f confusio n an

d uneve n imp!smentation
. Th e EPAtherefor e PRELIMINAR

Y STAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BOTiGE T REVIE W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP

A POLIC Y *•• • Marc h8 , 199 5 - - *file__» o PR_J*aM_l . 11€ ] ** *P.8 2 03'15'9 5 20:1 2 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 n.VOfl/9 5 17:1 0 ©30 3 90 9 282 2 •USO NR'A Q NP S WAS O DENVE R •
—AQMD-PP B

•
—AU D D-C . l_01S'02 0

t_020/u2 2



### ]*H^U.S 

# I 9 4

toda y propose s t o eliminat e thi s provision . I nothe r words , j auui m

may -luyl y

-UL»J- M

ih w V i i yh-. L -cori

b..nu t jv e I^UIUULI : peiTo d u f uL.ili^aliu: . wiLhi u Lht ! jJdb L 1 0 yuai baim-n_ i HIH U SLdLy buuii f "th

e EPA wil l xetci nan

y UiTLieLiu u L Uulluwwer e t o .adop

t a 10-yea r loo

k back . , a -source Jtva v simply , choos e th e •^jjAghes^-'ccnsccutiv e 12-mont hperio do f ur. i li2atio nwithi n th e 1 0 year s prio r t o a Lim e u.iiu Q uuLbiiht* . thi!* . y.gt.num j tauy-propose d physica l or operationa l chang e (bu t no t befor e Novembe r 15 , 195 0 i nnnr.attair.men t areas ) . 7. P-tuL.-Liu u u f •g': itjiL"-twi m ~m.rginijhr.taan d NJtAtji * Ii i uihmbs--uii & u raiui.yc i b__eii.HL,—eT.v__u:_i>u.itd l yiu_ y i Hi-jr-S-hLdLiT- b liux-ilNelthe rth e pexTf.ittin g authorit y
no rth e EP

A wii l retai n an y r:hrfr:y u iieii u LU

« _x__Llu y b__b!liu e *iL h Lli e uviopLi-'i i -i'b.-f.iju-.-'ib—£c=—_hf.i i i. __ii u NAAQ 3 dh

d Pa D laLiejuaiiL'a-a a welldiscretio nt o allow a tim e perio d outsid e thi s extende drange . Th e EP A

als o solicit s commen t o nho w today' s propose d extensio no f ch

e emission s baselin e fo r nettin g ma y inter-n t wir hthe statutory requirement s o f the Ac t section s 182(e )
and132(e ) applicabl e inserious , sever e andextreme ozon e nonattainmen t areas . Section18 2 (c ) (6 ) , ("7 ) an d(8 ) o f th e Ac t provide s specia l rule s for modification s a t majo r
source s i nseriou s an dsever e ozon e nonoLtainmen t area s includin g anaggr«g_tia? no f al l ne e increase s i n-emission s PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIaA L EF A POLIC Y

-- - narc h8 , 199 S - - [filenare e _R_AM_1.116 ] •* *P.8 3

__03'15'9 5 20:1 3 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 03/09/9 5 17:1 1 ©30 3 98 9 282 2 K'ASO NR'A Q NP S »'A5 0 DENVE

R — • AQMD-PP B

— - A-J D D-C * _019'02 0 CVaa ' - . -


### 9 3 fro ma sourc e ove r 5 consecutive calenda r years . Sectio n 182(e)(2 ) o f the Ac t govern s .applicabilit yo f NS R t o modification s ..I

n extreme ozon e nonattainmen t area s requirin g
.an ychang e tha t result s i n an yincreas e i n emission s fro.i t a discret e operatio n o r uni t t o b e subjec t t o majo r NSR
. Whil e the determinatio n o f th e emission s baselin e i e somewha t independen t o f the actua l nettin g calculation , clearl ythe propose d ne wbaselin e can affec t nettin g transaction s an

d mayb e i n tensio n wit h th e desig n an d .inten t o f ches e statutor yprovision s and th e EP Asolicit s comment s on thes e potentia l interactions
. Also , becaus e o f th e misunderstanding c i th e curren t rul e provision s allowin g th e us e i n certai n situation s o t allowabl e emission s i n lie u o f actua l emission s fo r determining applicability , th e EF Apropose s t o delet e thi s provisio n fro

mthe curren t rules
. £g___£__L_
. curren t sectio n 5 2 .2Kb ) (21 ) (iii )
. Th e EPAcurrentl yidentifie s in guidance 9 

### whe n a

n allowabl e emission s limi t ma yproperl ybe
use d i n lie u o f actua l emission s fo r determinin g applicabilit ysuc h tha t the curren t provisio n shoul d b e deleted
.

3 

### Fo r example , se e paoa s A . 4 2 an d A . 4 3 o f th e NS R Worksho p Marual
. Draft , October(!££(£>-

- \C\SQ y( PRELIMINAR

Y STAF F WORDIN

G DRAF T FO

X OFFIC E O F .MANAGEMEN T -MT O BUDGE T RSVTE W - DOE S MO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL ER

APOLIC Y ** * Marc h 8 , 139 S - - [filenam e FREAM_i.ll6 ] •• •_03'15'9 5 20:1 3 ©20 2 20 S 1620 „ A S 0 NR'A Q NP S ---AQMD-PP B 03/09/9 5 17:1 1 ©30 3 38 3 282 2 WAS O DENVER- —AQ D D- C



### 10 3 direct s permittin g authorrteyauthoritie s t o requi- H iiiudtdiii y evaluat e th e ai r qualit y impact s o f PCP s tha t

could

- -throug hcollatera l emission s increase s ___uc±_t^d—with- a yuliutaiu u uuuLiu l uiujuoLo r change s i n utilizatio npatterns

- -adversel y iiupac t

local , ai r

qualit y (ee e S 7 F

R32322 )

. •J-dThi s provisio ngenerall y authorizes , a s appropriate , a permittin g authorit y r. o requir e modeling-o f em i as i ori s increase s associate dwit ha?CP

. MH' H i-iidaiuex:tally

. ""I L -Apliuici y at-te hLU_ LI. UyulluLlu u -onLru i y-uj-..\. —cnriar
an y i.. ;



### . ouni-LaTitfej b iii_ y Lda_

_J i _ui:txibuL e L

U viui'aL-u. r

u f <- NAAQS , PS

D iuiiajmc-iL,—u i AQR V i.i-t f Cla. b I ai.dld

. _3Mor e fundamentally , i t

explicitl y state s tha t n o PC ? unde r

an y circumstance s ma

y caus e o r

contribut e t o violatio no f a fl d\jSr *«-<•* iW« • -

^ y NAAQS , PS D increment , ori-AQRVtji n a Clas s Z area . t_020/02 0 1410.1.1/02 2 P.8 4

'

—Ai*
. u-Jt-u , ilm WEPC O iul-H)iidA.iiit f Wd b •.X'JIe^bl y1 imi-re u t o _xl-Li:i g • -ei-L'-ii c utilit yfeL-<_it ••yonwi-t-i- j a n its.—l_ee
.
v. y. r - -i

v(JF K Si.i617t- ) (i ) (v ) (C1-C5 ) an d : i • 18 5 (-)i l 1 (.w. ) ] Id. ~ ThtvZP Alimite d chpX 1

; 1 Th e WEPC O rul e refer s specificall yt o "visibilit y limitation " rathe r tha n "ai r qualit yrelate d values. " Mowever . EP Aclearl ystate d i n th e preambl e t o th e fina l rul e tha t permittin g agencie s hav e th e authorit yt o "solici t th e view s o f Other s i n taXinc f an yothe r appropriat e remedia l strap s deeme d necessar yt o protec t Clas s I areas... . EP Aemphasize s tha t al l environmenta l impacts , includin g thos e or . Clc.3 5 I areas , ca n b e considered.... " (5 7 F R 32322)
. Further , th e statutor y projection s i n sectio n 155(d ) o f th e Ac t plainl yar e intende d t o protec t agains t an y"advezs e impac t o n th e AQR V o f suc h [Clas s I j
PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKIN G DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T R2VIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP APOLIC Y •* * Marc h8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e FREAM_1.118 J ** *