P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



## Document

Number: 

# 231 ) ll-F-2 1
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17

PM Sheet 231 of 250P. 2 03'15-9 S 03/09/9 5 20:3 6

17:U 0 ®20 2 20 S 162 0

CO0 0 96 9 282 2 

# V *AS O NR'A Q NP S WAS O DENMI R A * " 

# o V ( M 

# ^ n N* ' 

# v'- , - AQMD-PP B -TT-rrfa l @O05'02 0

- AQ D D.C

. (21006./02 2



### f4 ) Wher e a Federa l Lan d Manage r allege s tha t the emission s fro

a a propose

d sourc e o

r modificatio

naa y caus e 

### 1 5 

## c u ^

* * * 

# +kU

o r contribut e t o a change i nai r quality ina Federa l clas s I axea , the ovper or operato r fftn*n g 

### _ude infagnatio

no n ^he^ai r qualit

y inpac^s^erTfiiTaQufe a graodlli-afciQ - o n

### Eh «
r 

### affectte d area , *4jiell__i_g_sufficient^nforiaTton-tor~th e peaittw g authorit

y i nconsultatio

nwit hth

e a f leered Federa l Lan

d Manage r t e deteraine vhethe r th e applicabl e emission s wil l caus e e r contribut e t o a violatio no f an

y 

### Class^i-cre ^ ^ 8*^**. i-yiAt ~h /\&fl\/g. ' (5 ) The pla

nshal l provide tha t a napplicatio

nshal l ne t b e considere

dcoaplet e unles s th e applicatio

nha s bee n registered o

nthe O.S . Environaenta l Protectio nAgenc y

Kew Sourc e Revie

w Bulleti nBoar

d inaccordanc e vit h paragrap

h(q)(i ) o f thi c section . To register , at a ainiaua , th

e followin

g aus t b

e provided : (i ) Naae an

dtyp e e f source , (ii ) Natur e o f propose d project , i.e . notification ; ne w facilit y

or 

# P

(iii ) eapaeity ; Product s t o be aade an d desig nproduction (iv ) Sourc e looatio n(includin

g UT M coordinates ) an

d the distanc e betwee neac hsourc e an

deac hClas s I are a vithi nSo

o kilometers , (V ) Anticipate

d emissio

nrzte , o r increas e jf i emissi r rate i fo

r eac haffecte

dai r pollutant regulate dunde r the CleanAi r Act . (vi ) Sourc e mailin

g addres s an

dtelephon

e nuaber , an

d (vii ) Naae , addres s an d telephon

e number ro

r contac t a t the permittin

g agency . 

### (c ) * * * 

### (3 ) Th e analyse s require

d b y paragraph s (o)(1 ) an d (o ) (2 ) o f thi s sectio nshal l specificall y addres s impact s o n an y Federa l lands vhic hare require

dt o b e either clas s I o

r Clas s I I ..ursuan

t t o paragrap

h(e ) (4 ) of thi s section , tfotvithctanding th e provision s of paragrap h(o)(1 ) o f thi s TBZ S DOetJXEN

T 1 3 A FKBlZXIMAJt

YDRAF T FO

ROr«C £ O

P HAMttSEKSN

T AM D BUDGE T REVIE

W AKf i DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L SP A POLICY • • • Novembe r 16 , 199 4 - - [filenam e Si_iee_i.ii6 ] •• • 

# gjJU.5LJL|i f

0189 5 iE___/.: 3 EGCTE TP. 3 0 3 ' 1 3 ' 9 3 20:3 6 ©20 2 20 8 162 0 03/09/9 5 17:0 4 "CJO J 96 9 282 2 «AS O NR-A Q NP S WASO DENVE

R —

AQMD-PP B
•• > AQ DD.C . @008'02 0 (2)007/02 2



### »• « Preliminar y

Staf f Draft-Interna l Revie w onl y »» * ** * Jul y

H , 139 4 .. . [51166.DRP ] 4 2 4 0 CF R51.16 6

^ 

### (i ) A

descriptio

no f th e nature , location , desig ncapacity , an d typica l operatin

g schedul e o

f ch e sourc e or modification, ' includin

g specification s an d drawing s showin

g ic s desig

nan d plan t layout ; (ii ) A detaile

d eehedul e fo

r constructio

no f th

e sourc e o

r modification ; (iii ) A detaile

ddescriptio

nas to wha t syste

m o f continuou s emissionreductio

nI s planne

db y ch e sourc e o r modification , emissionestimates , an dan y othe r informatio

na s necessar

y t o determine that besr . svailab] * contro l technolog y a s applicabl e woul dbe applied .

(3 ) Th e pla nshal l provid

e cha t upo nreques t of th

e 3tate , th

e owne r o r operator shal l als o provid e informatio

non : (i ) Th e ai r qualit

y impact o

f th e sourc e or modification , includin

g meteorologica l an dtopographica l dat a necessar y t o estimat e suc

himpact, - an

d (ii ) Th e ai r qualit

y impact s an

dth * natur e an

dextent of an

y o r al l genera l commercial , residential , industrial , an dache x growt hwhic hha s occurre d sir.c c Augus t 7 , 1977 , inth e are a th

e sourr e o r modificatio nwoul d arrect .

KftWiP. 4 03'13'8 5 20:3 S U0/09/9 S 17:0 8 ©20 2 20 9 162 0 330 0 36 9 282 2 »'AS 0 NR'A Q NP S »AS 0 DENVE

R AQMD-PP B AQ D D.C . @00S'02 0 <2ioo9'o: 2

1 7
t o monito r unde r paragrap h(a ) o f thi s section ) o f a permi t applicatio nfo r a propose d ne w sourc e o r modificatio nwithi n 10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l clas s I area , th e permittin g authorit y

shall : (A ) Notif y

th e Federa l lend Manage r withi n3 0 day s o f reeeip t o f suc hadvanc e notification , and (B ) Provid e th e Federa l Lan d Manage r wit hth e opportunit y

t o participat e i nany pre-applieatio nm wit hth e source . O ^ H\&(L (2 ) Federa l Land Hanaqe.r—Jtesponsih i litv . (i ) Federa l Land Manage r charge d wit hdirec t responsib i managemen t o f a Federa l Clas s I are a shal l hav e a n affirmativ e responsibilit y t o identif y

an d protec t th e ai r qualit y

relate d value s (including visibility ) of_any su e area . """

* — ' " " ^ 

## (rM •trW 

# <tf&4 ^ iJi

(if^aVTh e Federa l Land Manage r shal l provid e relevan t

. inforaatio nt o th e permittin g authorit y whos e Territory , Stat e or loca l are a contain s on e o r aor e Federa l clas s I areas . Entry

o f th e follovin g informatio ni nth e U.S . Environaenta l Protectio nAgenc y Bulleti nBoar d shal l satisf y thi s requirement : (A ) A curren t listing , fo r eac haffecte d Federa l Clas s Xarea , o f th e ai r qualit y relate d value s whic hhav e bee n identifie d t o date , sensitiv e receptor s t o epeoifie d ai r pollutants , an

d critica l pollutan t loading s fo r suc hai r qualit y

relate d value s an d sensitiv e receptors ; an d (B ) CopiA 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 d pursuan t t o th e requirement s o f thi s sectio n o r an y o f th e followin g regulations : sectio n51.307 , o r section s 52.21 , 52.27 , o r 52.2 8 o f thi s chapter ; an d (C ) Othe r informatio nconcernin g th e Know nai r qualit y relate d values , includin g suchvalue s tha t ma y b e unde r study . (iii ) Th e Federa l Lan d Manager , upo nadvanc e notificatio npursuan t t o paragraph(p)(1)(ii ) o f thi s section , o r direc t notificatio nb y a prospectiv e permi t applicant , chal l mak e availabl e t o suc happlicant , whos e emission s may

arfec t suc hFedera l Clas s l area , th e informatio nrequire d i nparagraph(p)(2)(ii ) o f thi s sectio n THI S DOCUMEN T 1 5 A PRELIMINAR YDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MAMAGEMEH T AN P BVDOE T REVIE

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

e Sl_l6 6 1.U6 ] *• •P. 5 03'13'0 5 03/08/9 3 20:3 7 ®20 2 20 S 162 0

17.O S ©30 3 96 0 282 2 'VASO NR'A Q NP S »'AS O DENVE R —AQMD-PP B

— - AQ D D.C .



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

unde r etudy . (iv ) Th e Federa l Lan dManage r shal l consider / i n consultatio nwit hth e Administrator , whethe r a propose d sourc e o r modificatio nwoul dhav e a nadvers e impac t o nan y ai r qualit y

relate dvalue s vhic hth e Federa l Lan dManage r ha s identifie dpursuan t t o paragrap h(p)(2)£*5(A ) o f thi s section . (2 ) 00 7 '02 0 OUS/U2 2



# l) 

# m

^ 

### (3 ) (i ) federa l T,an dManager—-HaaanBtratio no f advers e impact . Th e pla nshal l requir e th e permittin g authorit y t o coire-£d*y

_an y de^Mtetsatien , submitte dby th e Federa l Lan d Manage r wTfch±*^0daye ) f rom th e dat e o nwhic hth e permittin g <ui*^~iauthorit y

determTrtecrth e permi t applicatio nt o b e oomplete , 3 

### . \tha t show s tha t a majo r stationar y sourc e o r majo r L- recodificatio nwil l hav e anadvers e impac t o na nai r qualit y ^jJ L /M l< 

### r . . relate dvalu e i na Federa l Clas s Xarea . Th e permittin g ^ ^jtjT'^D authorit y

chall , a t a minimum , provide , a writjtenevaluatio n o f th e Federa l Lan dManager' s demonstration , jan dinclud e th e evaluatio ni nth e publi c recor daoeompanyin g th e preliminar y determinatio nrequire dunde r paragrap h(q)(3 ) o f thi s section . Th e writte nevaluatio nshal l addres s th e following : *



## af \ 

# fy ^ 

# _ 0 ^ ^<*0 '

Co* : 

### ^ i <J > ^ ^ U 

### ' (* ) Th e method s andprocedure s by whio hth a Federa l /-.tfVl 11A " Lan dManage r identifie dth e ai r qualit y relate dvalue , th e 3 ~ •: > i W

underlyin g importanc e ascribe dt o th e ai r qualit y relate d •Qi) ' . iu* ' value , th e natur e o f th e allege dadvers e impact , an da n )nrt[\ iexplanatio ne f any conclusion s th e permittin g authorit y y faTx iVeache s abou t th e ai r qualit y relate dvalu e tha t ar c K P ^ -jcnAu^Anconsisten t wit hthos e reache db y th a FLM ; ( Li- , (B ) Al l substantiv e value s o f importanc e vhic hth e T Federa l Lan dManage r ha s ascribs dt o th e ai r qualit y relate d value(e ) i nquestio nandth e natur e o f th e allege dadvers e impact ; (C ) Th e technica l dat a andanalyses , 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 nan y dat a o r analyses ; an d (D ) An y measure s undertake nt o mitigat e th e potentia l advers e impact s o f propose demission s increases , includin g 'th e estimate deffec t o f an y mitigation .

THI S DOCOMEX T I S A

PRELIMINAR YDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AM D BUDGE T REVIE V

AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y *• * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 « • [filename 5l_l66_l.116 ] • * •0 3 '1 5 '9 5 20:3 S ©20 2 20 S 162 0 03/09/9 5 17:0 6 ©30 3 96 9 2S2 2 *AS O NR'A Q NPS WAS O DENVE R P. 6

—AQMD-PP

B

•

—AQ D D-C

. @009'02 0

€1010'Oi u 

# k 19 

# y : (ii ) Wher e th e permittin g authorit y find s tha t th e analysi s submitte db y th e Federa l Lan dManage 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 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 Xarea , th e permittin g authorit y shal l i nth e publi o recor daeeoapanyin 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 dyelu-a . Th e pla nshal l provid e a mechanis m whereb y

a Federa l Lan d

, Manage r e f an y

suc hFedera l Clas s I are a ma y presen t t o th e
M ,U l ^« * permittin g authority , oriu i L u en v UILU»|||| | , l

l I 1 | <-al»A

t I » p 

### W " ^ | • > ^retftt4g«_

i unde r piowJuic o aevel^uu di nAccordanc e wit h ^ fi ^ p**aqwjj hjg) (*) ei f LIIJ L 

### -eetion , a domonctgal^y ntha t th e n . emission s fro m th e propose dsourc e o r modificatio nwoui a • n ^ \ hev e a nadvcrc e impac t o nth e ai r qualit y relate dvalue s Ao. |,f 

### i 5 if** (includin g visibility ) o r an y Federa l Clas s I area , Ybi.. (^JJ L j notwithstandin g tha t th e chang e i nai r qualit y resultin g i V* 1 

### v* ^ -vl^ 0 1 6 

### •mission s fro m suc hsourc e o r modificatio nwoul dno t P ,f{ S 

### <* r f 

### )frcaus e o r 

### contribut e t o concentration s whic hwoul dexcee dth e V > y ^ ^ maximu m

allowabl e increase s fo r a Clas s Xarea . I f th e t^T- r permittin g authorit y eoneur s vit hsuc hdemonstration , th e permittin g authorit y

shal l no t issu e th e permit . 

# >t*t

( ^ V 

## At o _e*T -



# _w (5 ) Mitigatio no f advers e Impacts . Th e permittin g

authorit y

ma y idsu 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 determings_tha t th e sourc e ha s mitigate dit s advers e impac t on,^_""lt ^ Contribution___} > a nai r qualit y relate dvalue . To r example , source s ma y

mitigat e a nadvers e impac t b y obtainin g enforceabl e 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 offse t th e chang e l 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 . [paragrap h(p)M ) redesignate da s (p)(C) ] (7 ) sulfu r dioxid e varianc e bv Governo r wit h Federa l 

### Lan dManager' 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 b e approve dunde r procedure s develope dpursuan t t o paragrap h(P)(5 ) o f thi s sectio nma y demonstrat e t o th e Governo r tha t th e souro e o r modificatio n canno t b e constructe db y reaso no f an y

maximu m

allowabl e TBZ S DOCUMEN T I S A

PRELIMINAR YDRAF T FO ROFFIC E 0 7 MANAGEMEN T AM D BUDGE T REVIE W

AN DDOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y • « • Novembe r ifi , 199 4 — (filenam e si_i66_i.iiC ] •* *P. 7
03'15'9 5 20:3 9 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 «AS O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP

B @010'02 0 03/09/9 5 17:0 7 ©30 3 90 9 282 2 WAS O DENVE R—AQ

D D C 10011/02 2

£0/ ^ Qa^XTrnj- ^f*^ tr^ ^ fa ffil± I.CTUXto/ftarhth e applicabl e 9tat e implementatio npla nand Bhal l b e enforceabl e a s par t o f euehplan . 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 d values . D PA L Appli-ahi,ntv . Th e provision s o f thi s gectio 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 vhic hth e permittin g authorit y

ha s approve d a PA L fo r th e sourc e provided - that : (1 ) Th e PA L ha s bee nestablishe d fo r eac hsubjec t pollutant ; (i ) Fo r a nexisting source : (A ) Base d o

nactua l emission s representativ e o f norma l operation , o r (D ) Base d o

nallowabl e emission s wher e allowabl e emission s ar e les s tha nactua l amissions ; (ii ) Fo r a ne

w source , base d onth e limit s establishe d a s a resul t o f NS Rrequire d unde r th e Ae t and base d o n applicatio no f applicabl e contro l requirement s and projecte d operatin g conditions , (2 ) .Emissio

nlimit s establishe d ar e achievabl e throug h applicatio ne f productio nproeasee s o r availabl e methods , systems , and technique s including , bu t no t limite d t 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 ; o r limit s onproductio ntha t represen t norma l sourc e operations , (3 ) Condition s necessary t o assur e enforceabilit y ar e include d i 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 d condition s establishe d fo r PA L purpose s do no t reliev e a sourc e fro m continuou s complianc e wit hothervis e applicabl e unit-specifi c requirement s [suc ha s NSPS , BACT , LAER , RACT , MACT , 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 .

TEI S DOCUMEN T If

i A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BODGE T REVIE V

AMD D0E 8 NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** • Novembe r It, 199 4 — [filenam

e 91_lfl«_l.116 ] *• •

_0 3 '1 5 - 8 5 20:1 0 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 UJ/U9/8 5 17:0 7 ©30 3 96 9 282 2 «AS O NR'AQ NPS w.\S O DENVE R —AQMD-PP B

••

—AQ D D.C

. ® Oi l

12)01 2 02 0 /02 2 P. 8

\xT\\,Ls



# I * 3 8



### L U bAC-Tl U LIM UT/ A WdlV-il

I. U i.i J g 

### uuua c t

dimueii LNS

R progrsctitechnolbgies

.

" An.ui.diK 9 L



### L > LuUay' ayiuposal , insivitr a PSD ' UT/

A Vrfivu i ca n lim eriduiei l L U asuurtf.Th e EP

A i s proposin g t o
renam e th e existin g innovativ e contro l technolog y (ICT ) waive r i n ch e Fedui- l La« J ftxiuycx—friiEi) _l:oult i bv vuusulted.—i f

iwpauc s uu Clas s I aiw aai x qudliL y ux di x 'jualiiyr-mleiL-nl

vdlufai

b fAWVb) di e viojecie u Livn: th u UT/ A ycroroePS D regulation s t o "UT/A " an dt o exten dth e UT/ A waivo r t o th e nonattainmen t NS Rprogram.— • Th e EP A i s requestin g uui'.u»ti:;u u awhg'.ne:.—rtrr s :iuti f i_d'Liu n shuuli i Lt

di wyuiiuC^roposin g severa l ne w provision s fo r

< * uunaLLanuium

. a

x bi dM9Ra n UT/ A waive r leijucat

. A S proposed , aUT/ Awaive r reques t

mus e identif y potentia l f^iiur * modes , projecte demission s increase s fro n failur e modes , potentia l contingenc y measure: , an da nuppe r boun dor . mas * emission s cha t coul db e accommodate di n Lh e
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 tha t miibidwiatiuii 1 

### u f LuuLluyunu. y intidjuibi j £u i auufiBttaiiuiicu t tuvu N3Rincentive s fo r bette r tha nexpecte dUT/

A *-aivt: x shuci duul y lull-life ! BP.viianwmn.'-' l luundin s an dnu Letiexy y am r

m.um:mi.L '

PRELIMINAR Y STAP F WORKIN G DRATT FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AM D BUDGE T REVIEW • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y • * • Marc h 8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e PREAM_i.ll6 ] •• »P. 9 03'1 5 '9 5 20 : 10 03/09/9 5 17:0 8 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 ©30 3 90 9 232 2 «AS O NR'A Q NP S »VAS O DENVE

R —

AQMD-PP B

— AQD D.C . 0012/02 0 121013/02 2

S 

# z

1-7 \ 7 3

permittin g authority . . . ge e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (Ul ) ( a ) , 5i.l66(bJ.{2 ) (iii ) (L ) (£ ) , 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii)(.L ) (£ ) , an d 52.2 4 (f ) (5 ) (iii ) (J ) (£ ) . Unde r th e propose d rule , eac hcase-by-cas e clea nuni t determination...woul d b e subjec t to publi c notic e an d commen t
_
^ j i-ui^ggj^ciigity^or^prsx^-by'th e EPA ^ Unde r today' s proposal , onc e a clea nuni t determination"i s made , a
reassessmen t o

r wha t i s curren t Federa l BAC T o r LAE Rwoul d

no t b e necessar y

fo r th

e 5 year s afte r the dGtsmination . Fo r unit s whic hhav e recentl y undergon e the mos t demandin g review

for emission s control s (i.e. . a forma l 3AC"i '
n-rLAERreview

pursuan t t o majo r NSR) . re-evaluatio no f th o technolog y

shortl y

afte r th

e sourc e wa s constructe d o r modifie d t

u determin e i f th e technolog

y i s still•"state-of the-art " .woul d likel y resul t inver y

littl e o r n o incrementa l improvemen t i ncontrol . Thus , resource s spen t by th e sourc e and permittin g authorit y t o revie w

recentl y permitte d technology woul d likel y

b e o f littl e o r r. o benefi t t o tn e environment . Therefore , the EPA i s proposin g tha t th e new

exclusio nma y

presumptivel y

appl y t o any

uni t whic h receive d a currentl y applicabl e majo r NS Rpermi t withi n yearsJprio r t o the dat e constructio n.o r activit y

wil l 

## if-

# <fy. \\-j commenc e o nthe propose d physica l o r operationa l chang e



### , r J 

### V ' 

### \ (•/"'A* - 3_ . V pcasceccwcn t o f wha t i s eurren t BAC T o r LXE Rfo r th e uni t

^ •I'C'I ' PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D J . BUDGE T REVIEW • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y \ 0 •» * Marc h8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e PREA M .1.116 ] •• •P.1 0 03'15'8 5 20:1 0 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 U3/08/8 3 17:0 3 ©30 3 90 9 2S2 2 "3AS O NR'A Q NP S W.\S O DEWE R —AQMD-PP B

—AQ D n.r . © 01 3 '02 0

0)014/02 2



# { 7 4 

# J
woiil d no t b e necessary-fo r the yi year s afte r the permi t i s issue d wit hBAC T or'LAE Rcontro l unde r majo r NSR . Tho BP A un|i t convnences/ope;r ) a.ti^ n l a majo r ^ Rpe : t . 

## ,r\2 ^, .[/II, » thp L include d

Th e EP A als o solicit s commen t o nextendin g fh e clfifl n uni t presumptio nt o endscion' s limit s establishe d a s a Federa l RAC T o r MAC T limi t fu r u p tu y C year s fro

m th e dat e
a permi t ws s issue d containin g th e limit s or 5 year s fro m th e startup dat e o f the modificatio nfo r whic hthe control s
wer e require d an

d installed . A

recentl y

require d MAC T emission s limit , whil e no t necessaril y equa l to BAC T o r LAER , i s likel y

t o resul t i nsignifican t emission s control s
sue htha t a BAC T o r LAE Rreview woul d no t necessaril y resul t i nsignifican t additiona l emission s reductions . However , the EP A

i s als o concerne d tha t a KAC T limi t coul d b e significantl y

les s ftffecr thanBAC T o r T.AE S i nmany eireumccaneec . A MAC T emissio nlimi t ma y adequatel y

contro l

a pollutan t liste d i nAc t sectio n112(b ) bu t coul d resul t In emissio nincrease s o f pollutant s subjec t t o NSR . Therefore . th e EP A

i s considerin g expandin g the clea nuni t presumptio n t o unit a wit hrecentl y MAC T bu t ma y

als o require , an d

- solicit s commen t on , safeguard s t o addres s concern s ove r PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** • Mare h8 , 1S9 5 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] ** *P.1 1
03/08/9 5 17:0 9 ©30 3 90 9 2S2 2 «.\S 0 DENVE R—AQ

D D 0 £015-32 2 

# J

presume d t o bp Xstate-of-the-arrVjcbntro' l fo r u p t o .LB^year s afte r th

e mino r NS Rpermi t i s issue d fo r the technolog y required . A s wit hmajo r ; NSR , the EPA believe s tha t littl e improve d contro l woul d resul t fro m reviewin g contro l technolog y

to-determin e i f it i s .^state-nf-thfi-art i f a permittin g authorities ' minor"NS Rcontro l requirement s resul t i ncontrol s substantiall y equivalen t t o th e Federe l

BAC T o r LAER . Th e EP A envision s tha t on e elemen t o f a mino r NS Rrequiremen t "pre-certified 1 a s requirin g state-of-r>,p ar t control s woul d includ e a 3 0-da y opportunit y

fo r publi c notic e sn

d commen t prio r t o th e approva l u f th e mino r NS R permi t an

d th e propose d contro l technolog y fo r th e unit . Publi c review

o f thes e permit s help s ensur e tha t tru e state of-the-ar t control s ar c required b y mino r NSR . Also , a s wit hfedera l 5AC T o r LAERlimits , a reassessmen t o f wha L ia cupren t Federa l BAC T o r LAET ? wnul d no t be necessar y fo r th

e yZ year a afte r the uni t i s permitte d wit hth e state-of-the ar t contro l permicte c unde r ::iiuu r XSR. —

Ayai.l , l.

w . e bf A -solicit s rom-enr/on . us e ot/T,h e ciea nuni t pr « t c 5 year s afte r th buni> t commence s operat i coVifcrols r.e_fuire

d b y th e mino r JRGI. perm * Unit s whic hqualif y for a " .ni

r i Infix ] clea nuni t presumptio nunde r permit ? issued unde r majo r NS Ro r equivalen t ET>

A "certified " mino r NS? . coul d b e reassesse d a r PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y »» « Marc h8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] •* •P.1 2
03'15-9 S 20:1 1 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 iv A S O NR'A Q NP S —AQMD-PP B ®015'02 0 U3/09/9 5 IT : 0 9 ©30 3 96 9 282 2 *'\SO DENVE R—AO

D D.C . ffl016/022

7 7 th e end o f th e 5 o*_B9»years ' o na ease-by-cas « hasis . T f th e uni t agai nqualifie d a s a clea nunit , th e clea nuni t exclusio nwoul d appl y fo r u p t o a nadditiona l 5 year s a s woul d an

y othe r case-by-cas e determinatio no f clea nuni t status . Contro l technologie s ma y als o b e reviewe d fo r "clea n unit " statu s an

d b e subjecte d t

o publi c notic e en< 2 commen t at th e tim

e o f issuanc e or renewa l et * a titl e V

operatin g permit . Unit s ma y b e determine d o

na case-by-cas e basi s a s meetin g the exclusio ncriteri a a a "state-of-the-art " an d therefor e eligibl e t o appl y th e potential-to-potei--i* l test . T nsuc hcases , th

e designatio nof th e uni t a s "clean " woul d las t fo r th e ter

m o f th e operatin g permi t (i.e. , up t o 5 years ) . Fo r convenience , one , many or al l unit s a t a
sourc e coul d D e reviewe d an d subjecte d t o publi c notic e an d

commen t concurrentl y wirhth

e issuanc e o r renewa l o f a titl e v

operatin g permit . Qualifyin g clea nunit s shoul db e clearl y

identifie d and listed i nch e titl e V

permi t a s "clea nunits" . Th e EP A

expect s tha t unit s qualifyin g o na case-by-cas e basi s fo r us e o f the "clea nunit " exclusio nwoul d likel y qualif y

b y usin g contro l technolog y whic hwoul d otherwis e b a require d by

rigorou s mino r NS Rtechnolog y requiremen t o r Federa l BAC T o r LAER . Likewise , the EP A believe s that . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAOEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S V" T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y *•" • Marc h8 , 199 5 - - (filenam e PRBAM_I.II6 1 »* *P.1 3 03'15'9 5 03/0H/9 5 20 : U

17:1 0 ©20 2 20 9 162 0

©30 3 08 0 282 2 »AS O NR'AQ NP S —AQMD-PP

B t_016'02 0 WASO DENV't

K-•"• AQ D D- C woi*'--.. 8 1 recentl y

issued...nori-accaiamen t NS Rpermit s shoul d qualif y fo r th e 5*-e__BBSyea r clea nunj t presumption . Th e EP A i s considerin g i f th e greate r ^tip^renc y o f LAE Rrequirement s should'b e th e targe t fo r encouragin g clea nuni t technolog y i narea s no t attainin g the NAAQ S becaus e clea nunit s ma y be avoidin g LAE Rlimit c tha t migh t otherwis e hav e bee nrequire d i f the uni t wa s subjec t t o a nactual-to-potentia l emission s test . Finally , the grantin g o f a cleanuni t exclusio nfo r an y perio d o f tim

e (i.e. , 5 -0^45 " years ) unde r today' s proposa l i s independen t fro m th e caae-by-cas e determinatio no f 3AC T
o r LAE S fo r source s subjec t t o majo r NSR . Contro l technology

whic hqualifie s a uni t a s "clean " i s onl y considere d t o b e comparabl e t o BAC T or LAE Rbu t i s no t necessaril y

equa l t o BAC T o r LAE Ran d i nn o wa y

establishe s
a presumptiv e BAC T o r LAER . Th e Ac t require s tha t BAC T an d
LAE Rb e ease-by-eas e determination s fo r source s subjec t ^ majo r NS Rand the clea nuni t tes t canno t preemp t thi s statutor y

requirement . C . Change s t o Non-emittin g Sourc e Operation s The EPA

i s als o proposin g t o ad d to the lis t o f activitie s exclude d fro m the definitio no f physica l o r operationa l chang e an y propose d change s t o existlr. q non emittin g activitie s a t th e source . Unde r thi s propose d PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVJK

W - DOS S NO T RKPHESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y •• • Marc h8 . 199 5 — [filenam

e ?R£AM_1.116 J •* •P. M 03'1 5 '0 5 20 : 1

2 03/09/9 5 17:1 0 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 ©30 3 90 9 282 2 *AS O NR'A Q NP S WAS O Ht-N'VE R —AQMD-PP B

••• - AQ D D.C . Ifi)017'02 0 l£10l'j/u2 :



# J. 

# A ( 

# ? 

# u ^

> x^ 1 ( 0* " - ^ Ci " 9 3



### I t i s the EPA'.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 period
. Anumbe r of
. Stat e an d loca l permittin g authoritie s hay e simila r experiences
. Thus , the EPAha s reservation s concerning th

e use'o f 10-year , an d longer , .baseline s an d solicit s commen t oh whethe r a shorte r (e.g*. , 5 year ) perio d woul d b e mor e appropriate
. I n addition , i f th e EP Aadop t a 1 0 yea r loo

k bac k period , the EP Aals o propose s tha t suc h perio d b e availabl e onl ywhe n adequate
. accurat e an d complet e emission s dat a ar e availabl e fo r th e baselin e calculation
. Th e EPAsolicit s commen t o n the nee d t o conditio n the us e o f suc h period s upo n the accurac yand completenes s o f availabl e data , an d the nee d t o establis h specifi c criteria , throug h guidanc e o r otherwise , fo r ar.r.uracy. completenes s an d recordkeeping whe n usin g olde r data
. A s noted , the EPA' s existing regulation s provid e tha t tn e sourc e ma

ysee k t o us e anothe r tim e perio d outsid e th e 2 preceding year s upo n a findin g b ythe permittin g auuhurit y tha t thi o othe r perio d i s "mor e representative " o t noma !
sourc e operations , see , e.g. . curren t -sectio n 51.165(a)(1)(xii)(B)
. Thi s provisio n ha s bee n a sourc e c f confusio n an

d uneve n implementation
. Th e EPAtherefor e PRELIMINAR

Y STAF F WORKIN

G DRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y »* • Marc h8 , 199 5 - - [filonan o PREAM_1.116 ] ** •P.1 5 03'15'fl S 20:1 2 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 O.V09/9 5 1":1 U ©30 3 90 9 282 2 ''AS O NR-A Q NP

S WAS O DENVF R —AQMD-PP B

- —Ml) D.C . @01S'02 0 I&O20/U2 3

<**• * 

# )<4a ^ f 9 4

tod* y propose s c o eliminat e chi s provision , i nethe r words , u'SOUiL bmu y biuyl y thuuh H \\m t

! iyhbist TuilbWLtitiTfc i lg"U'.Ui!t h peiTo du f utllxietl'j nwithi nZiw pab t 1 0 ywai bdiri - ny.. r IIHT I 

### Stdte bliuii f 'th

e EP A will - ietai nan

y ilxscictiunt uulluwwer e t o adop t a 10-yea r loo k back , . a -sourc e Itva v simply , choos e th e 3_y_hes>''ecnsccutive 12-mont hperio do f ur. i li2atio nwithi n th e 1 0 year s prio r t o a tim e pLiiu Q uutbiUt e thi bu.tfgmder i

' ilj^' . taiiueyroposec l physica l o r operationa l chang e (bu t no t befor e \i f 

### t*'Novembe r 15 , 195 0 i nnnr.attair.men t areas) . 5~. Pxucwtlu nu f •Shi nf-twuulni.rviv.kiui.t-. am i KJtAtJ S J. i uistubb'iruu s u r a iun a 

### c i btfjelinu,—yT:v_iu:iiuun , 

### s.dl ^'ruufc. ) • • ^jresenidtirg bliTiXmiNelthe r th e permittin g authorit y
no r th e EP A

wil l retai nany

r.hdt:y uno m cil B nxr-ilu u baselin e *it hth e edoytiu nu r e.dfwiiu-.i'i b£u i bhr.ifi . tbiu

i MAAQ 3 an dPi>

D iiiLieiuent s "a s welldiscretio nt o allo w a tim e perio doutsid e thi s extende drange . Th e EP A

als o solicit s commen t o nha w today' s propose d extensio no £ th e emission s baselin e fo r nettin g ma y interar r wir. hth e statutor y

requirement s u f th e Ac t section s 182(e )
an d182(e ) applicabl e i nserious , sever e an dextrem e ozon e nonattainmen t areas . Sectio n18 2 (c ) (6). , (7 ) an d(8 ) o f th e Ac t provide s specia l rule s fo r modification s a t majo r
source s i nseriou s an dsever e ozon e nonattainmen t area s includin g a naggregatio no f al l ne t increase s i nemission s 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 EP A POLIC Y •« « nare h8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.116 ] •* *P.1 6 __03 / 15'9 3 20:1 3 ©20 2 20 9 162 0 03/OS/9 5 17:1 1 ©30 3 G« 0 282 2 «*AS O N'R'A Q NP S *AS 0 DENVE

R —AQMD-PP B

—• - AQ D D.-x @010'02 0 ms> w•- • •. .


### 3 3 fro m a sourc e ove r 5 consecutiv e calenda r years . Sectio n 182(e)(2 ) o f the Ac t govern s applicabilit y o f NS Rir

o modification s .i

nextrem e ozon e nonattainmen t area s requirin g
any chang e tha t result s i nan y increas e i nemission s fro m a discret e operatio no r uni t t o b e subjec t t o majo r NSR . Whil e th e determinatio no f th e emission s baselin e i c somewha t independen t o f th e actua l nettin g calculation , clearl y the propose dne w baselTin

e ca naffec t nettin g transaction s an

d ma y b e i ntensio nwit hth e desig nan d inten t o f thes e statutor y provision s an d th e EP A solicit s comment s o

nthes e potentia l interactions . Also , becaus e o f th e misunderstandin g o f th e curren t rul e provision s allowin g the us e i ncertai nsituation s ot allowabl e emission s l nlie uo f actua l emission s fo r determinin g applicability , the EP A propose s t o delet e thi s provisio nfrc

m th e curren t rules . Cape . a . curren t sectio n52.21(b)(21)(iii) . Th e EP A currentl y

identifie s in guidance ' whe n* naliowabl e emission s limi t ma y properl y

be
use di nlie uo f actua l emission s fo r determinin g applicabilit y

suc htha t th e curran t provisio nshoul db e deleted .

'Fo r example , se e page s A . 4.2 and A . 4 3 o f th e NS RWorksho p Manual . Draft , October(XTscT.,/ — \CjClQ y ^ 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 EP A POLIC Y ** * Mare h8 , 199 S - - [filenam e PREAM_l.ll6 ] •• •_.. _, P.1 7 - ' 1 S ' ° 3 2 ° : ' 3 ® 2 ° 2 20 S 162 ° TM ° NR'A Q NP S .-

_AQMD-PP

B 8,020*03 0 03/09/» 5 17:1 1 ©30 3 38 3 2822 WAS O DENVE R- —AQ D D.C . I^O^S/02 2

10 3 direct s permittin g authuircyauthoritie s t o requiT H mudwlinyevaluat e th e ai r qualit y impact s o f PCP c tha c could - -throug hcollatera l emission s increase s as^uc-rgtec 1 with- u yuliUtaiui i tunt-u l yiujuuto r change s i nutilizatio npatterns - -adversel y

impac t local , ai r qualit y (ee e S 7 F R32322 ) . ftrThi s provisio ngenerall y authorizes , a s appropriate , a permittin g authorit y r.o requir e modeling-o f emission s increase s associate d wit ha PCP . Mn' « i'undaiue ntally, " I t HAyliuiti y

slate s tha t i.

u yullutlu nlunttu i piujf'-i.—crrrtTR r aiiy-T.. ; r u.uiiibtaTice s 'ua y taJbt f J I tunc i ibut e t u vrruratitur U L a NAAQS;—PS D iniifcmicm.—u r AQR V i. i a LlaS bI madid . IriMor 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 NAAQS , PS D increment , or^AQRVjji na Clas s Z area .

A ^ imtwu , tub ! WEPC O lulHiiidkiiiU ' Wd beA'Jiabbl y 1 imi-reu t o ejribti:ig ••eieLt.i L u^.lit y btbdji t '^ynwi«tti.. j units—h»"«u . M.y. r JC

1 ilk'X Si.iC S td ) (1 ) iv ) (C1f5 ) an d Sl.lSsU ; il : i-u.') ) Id . - The-CP A

limite d CM". 1 '

i l Th e WSPC O rul e refer s specificall y t o "visibilit y limitation " rathe r tha n"ai r qualit y relate d values. " However . EP A clearl y

state d i nth e preambl e t o th e fina l rul e tha t permittin g agencie s hav e ch e authorit y t o "solici t th e view c o f others.i ncakin g an y othe r appropriat e remedia l step s deeme d necessar y

t o protec t Clas s I areas... . EP A emphasize s tha t al l environmenta l impacts , lncludiii y thos e o nCla3 3 I areas , ca nb e considered.... " (2 7 F R32322) . Further , the statutor y projection s i nsectio n185(d ) o f th e Ac e plainl y ar e incende d t o pr-otee t agains t an y "advers e impac t o nth e ^QR V o f suc h[Clas s i ; 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 EP A POLIC Y •* * Marc h8 , 199 5 - - [filenam e PREAM_1.118 J ** •P.1 8

1 

### /o/ v 03'15'9 5 20: 3 1 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 »'AS 0 N'R'A Q NPS —AQMD-PP B @002'02 0 03/09/9 5 17:0* ^ ©30 3 96 9 282 2 ».\S 0 DENVE R—AQ

D D. C 3003/02 2

^Padera l Lan d Manage r c l a Tedeiu l ciua a I Aiee > tha t ma y b e adversel y

affeete d b

y ai r pollution . (41 ) Advers e Impac t o nanAi r Qualit y Relate d Valu e means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section , a deleteriou s effeo t resultin g i nwhol e o r i npart , fro a eaission s fro a a propose d nav o r -modifie

d source , causin g pollutio nconcentration s Vhic hinterfer e wit hth e management , protection , preservation , o r enjoymen t o f a specifi c ai r qualit y relate d value . (42 ) Demonstrate d inpractic e mean s fo r th e purpose s o f thi s subpart , tha t anai r pollutio noontrb l technolog y ha s bee ninstalle d an d operatin g a t a mininure o f 5 0 percen t o f it e nameplat e capacit y fo r 6 months , and it s performance , i nterm s o f pollutio nreducin g efficiency , ha s bee nverifie d vit ha perforaanc e test , o r perforaanc e dat a collecte dwhe n operatin g a t 9 0 percen t o f it s nameplat e capacity . (43)(i ) Environmentall y beneficial , fo r th e purpos e O f evaluatin g a pollutio ncontro l projeot , shal l no t includ e an y activit y

o r projec t whic hwil l resul t in , accordin g t o th e provision s o f thi s subsection ; (A ) A significan t Increas e i neaission s o f an y pollutan t tha t wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a NAAQ S o r PS D increment , o r adversel y impac t visibilit y o r othe r AQRV

i na clas s I area ; o r (B ) A nunacceptabl e increase d ris k du e t o th e releas e o f hazardou s ai r pollutants . (ii ) (A ) I t tn e poJ'utio ncontro l projec t vil l n<•**. • increas e utilization , the pos t modificatio neaission s ar e calculate d a e th e ne v emission s rat e multiplie d b y th e existin g utilizatio nrate ; (B ) I f th e projec t wil l increas e utilization , th e associate d emission s Increase s ar e calculate d a s th e post modificatio npotentia l t o emi t o f tb e uni t considerin g th e applicatio no f th e propose d controls . (iii)(A ) Th e permittin g authorit y aa y presum e tha t e pollutio ncontro l projec t liste d i n4 0 CF R 51.166(31)(i)(a)(l)-(i ) wil l no t increas e th e utilizatio no f th e sourc«» .

THI 8 DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE V

AN D DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL BPA POLIC Y •• * Novembe r 16 , 199 4 • • [filenam e 9i_i66._i.iif ] «• •P
. 1 9
03'15'9 5 20:3 5 03/09/9 3 17:0 2 ©20 2 20 S 162 0 ©30 3 90 S 232 2 »AS O NR-A Q NP S WAS O DENVE

R —AQMD-PPB

•

—AQ D D. C 1^100 3 '02 0 12(001/02 2

C c i < &, 

### 9 5<jr 

### \ 1 2

shal l b a deteraine d according t o th e methodolog y describe d i nparagrap h(j)(5 ) o f thi s 6ectien . (4 ) Fo r phase d constructio nprojects , th e deterainatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y shal l b e revieve d an d modifie d a s appropriat e a t th e leas t reasonabl e tim e vhio hoccur s n e late r tha ni e month s prio r t o commencemen t o f constructio no f eac hindependen t phas e o f th a project . A t suc htiae , th e ovne r o r operato r o f th e applicabl e stationar y sourc e aay

bo require d t e demonstrat e th e adequac y

o f any

previou s deterainatio no f bes t availabl e contro l technolog y fo r th e source . Bes t availabl e contro l technolog y

shal l b e determine d aeeordin g t o th e methodolog y describe d i nparagraph(j)(5 ) o f thi s section .
*-^ . (S ) (i ) I ndeterminin g bes t availabl e contro l technology , al l contro l technology alternative s identifie d pursuan t t o (j)(5)(ii ) o f thi s eoctio nehal l b e ranke d and evaluate d i ndescendin g orde r o f contro l effectiveness . Th e mos t stringen t alternativ e providin g th e maximum degre e o f eaission s reductio nshal l be establishe d a s bee t availabl e contro l technolog y unles s i t i s demonstrate d tha t technica l considerations , o r energy , environmental , and economi c impact s and othe r cost s establis htha t th e mos t stringen t contro l technology i s no t achievabl e i ntha t case . Th e nex t aos t stringen t contro l teohnelogic c shal l the nb e ooneidere d i nth e saa e aanne r i ndescendin g orde r o f contro l effectiveness . I f th e aos 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 aa y b e waived . (ii ) Th e contro l technology alternative s considere di n paragrap h(j)(S)(i ) o f thi s sectio nshal l b e base d upon — (A ) eontro l technologie s an d method s fo r sam e an d simila r sourc e categories , i.e. , thos e categorie s includin g Gouroe s tha t hav e simila r emieoiono strea m characteristics , vhic na s o r tn e dat e o f complete d application , hav e bee n liste d i no r require d b y th e following ; (1 ) EPA' S RACT/BACT/LAE RClearinghouse ; (2 ) Federally-approve d State , Triba l an d loca l program s an

d regulations , including majo r sourc e constructio npermit s issue d unde r them , bu t oxcludin g operatin g permit s issued b y program s approve d unde r titl e V o f th e Act ;

THI 8 DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEV

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

e 5i_i««_i.ll« ] ** *0 3 '1 5 '0 5 20:3 5

03/08/9 3 IT: 0 3 ©20 2 20 S 182 0 ©30 3 96 9 2S2 2 P.2 0 «AS 0 NR'A Q NP S WAS O DENVE

R —AQMD-PP B >« « *Q D D.C - SO O 1/02 0 I&OQ3/U2 2



### 1 4 (Revised) " (1916) , supplemen t A (1987 ) an d supplemen t B (1993) ) i s inappropriate , th e aode l aa y b a modifie d o r anothe r mode l substituted . Suc ha modificatio no r substitutio no f a aode l aa y b e mad e e na ease-by-cas e basi s or , vher e appropriate , o na generi c basi s fo r a specifi c stat e prograa . Writte napprova l o f th e Administrato r mus t b e obtaine d fo r any

modificatio no r substitution . I naddition , us e o f a modifie d o r substitute d aode l Bus t b e subjec t t o notic e and opportunit y fo r publi c commen t unde r procedure s se t fort hI nsectio n51.102 . (a ) (1 ) • * *

* * *

* (vi ) Th e pla nshal l provid e tha t vit hrespec t t o any ai r qualit y

relate d valu e o f 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 nwit hth e Federa l Lan d Manager , determine s i s necessary fo r determinin g vhethe r emission s fro a th e ne v sourc e o r modificatio nvoul d hav e a n advers e impac t o nth e ai r qualit y relate d value . (2 ) Eos^c^nsjcniCtlon_mQnitQringrTh e pla nshal l provid e tha t th e owne r o r operato r o f a majo r stationar y \ sourc e o r majo r modificatio nshall , afte r constructio no f & th e stationar y sourc e o r modification , conduc t ouc h monitoring - a s th e permittin g authorit y determine s i 6 /\5V \ Q X'I'necessar y

t o determin e th e effec t em < ««*«- * rrr>

m rh * ^--V.iV stationar y

sourc e o r 'Tff'Mflgflfcio nm^y_have f tfrar f having . o nai r qualit y

i nan y area ^ o r o nai r qualit y relate d value s i nan y Federa l Cia6 6 I area .

**** *

• > (n ) Complet e Applicatio nCriteria .
^VVu 7 include :

(2 ) Tn e pla nshal l provid e tha t suc hinformatio nshal l

**** * (iv ) Tn e owne r o r operato r shal l presen t evidenc e tha t th e analysi s performe d t o selec t th e bes t syste m o f continuou s emissio nreductio nha s bee nconducte d pursuan t t o th e requirement s o f paragraph(j)(5)(i ) and (ii ) o r thi s section .
THI S DOCUMEN T 1 8 A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAOEMEN T AM D BUDGE T REVIEV

AMD DOE S RO T REPRX8BM T OFFICIA L EF A POLIC Y ** * Novembe r m, 199 4 — [filenam

e «i_l«6_1.116 ] •* *