P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

231) ll-F-21 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 231 of 250 
P.2 

03'15-9S 

03/09/95 

20:36 

17:U0 

®20 2 20S 1620 

CO00 969 2822 

V 

*ASO NR'AQ NPS 

WASO DENMIR 

A * " 

oV 

(M 

^n N*' v'-, 

- AQMD-PPB -TT-rrfal @O05'020 

- AQD D.C. (21006./022 

f4) Where a Federal Land Manager alleges that the 

emissions froa a proposed source or modification aay cause 

15 c u ^ 

* * * +kU 

or contribute to a change in air quality in a Federal class 

I axea, the ovper or operator fftn *ng_ude infagnation on 

^he^air quality inpac^s^erTfiiTaQufea graodlli-afciQ- on Eh« 

raffectted area, *4jiell__i_g_sufficient^nforiaTton-tor~the 

peaittwg authority in consultation with the af leered 

Federal Land Manager te deteraine vhether the applicable 

emissions will cause er contribute to a violation of any 

Class^i-cre ^ ^ 8*^**. i-yiAt ~h /\&fl\/g. ' 

(5) The plan shall provide that an application shall 

net be considered coaplete unless the application has been 

registered on the O.S. Environaental Protection Agency Kew 

Source Review Bulletin Board in accordance vith 

paragraph (q)(i) of thic section. To register, at a 

ainiaua, the following aust be provided: 

(i) Naae and type ef source, 

(ii) Nature of proposed project, i.e. 

notification; 

new facility or 

P 

(iii) 

eapaeity; 

Products to be aade and design production 

(iv) Source looation (including UTM coordinates) and 

the distance between each source and each Class I area 

vithin Soo kilometers, 

(V) Anticipated emission rzte, or increase jfi emissir 

ratei for each affected air pollutant regulated under the 

Clean Air Act. 

(vi) Source mailing address and telephone nuaber, and 

(vii) Naae, address and telephone number ror contact 

at the permitting agency. 

(c) * * * 

(3) The analyses required by paragraphs (o)(1) and 

(o) (2) of this section shall specifically address impacts on 

any Federal lands vhich are required to be either class I or 

Class II ..ursuant to paragraph (e) (4) of this section, 

tfotvithctanding the provisions of paragraph (o)(1) of this 

TBZS DOetJXENT 13 A FKBlZXIMAJtY DRAFT FOR Or«C£ OP HAMttSEKSNT AMD 

BUDGET REVIEW AKfi DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL SPA POLICY 

• •• November 16, 1994 -- [filename Si_iee_i.ii6] ••• 

gjJU.5LJL|if 

01895 

iE___/.:3 EGCTET 
P.3 

03 ' 13 ' 93 20:36 ©20 2 208 1620 

03/09/95 17:04 "CJOJ 969 2822 

«ASO NR-AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

— AQMD-PPB 

••> AQ D D.C. 

@008'020 

(2)007/022 

»•« Preliminary Staff Draft-Internal Review only »»* 

*** July H , 1394 ... 

[51166.DRP] 

42 

40 CFR 51.166 

^ 

(i) A description of the nature, location, design capacity, 

and typical operating schedule of che source or modification,' 

including specifications and drawings showing ics design and 

plant layout; 

(ii) A detailed eehedule for construction of the source or 

modification; 

(iii) A detailed description as to what system of continuous 

emission reduction Is planned by che source or modification, 

emission estimates, and any other information as necessary to 

determine that besr. svailab]* control technology as applicable 

would be applied. 

(3) The plan shall provide chat upon request of the 3tate, the 

owner or operator shall also provide information on: 

(i) The air quality impact of the source or modification, 

including meteorological and topographical data necessary to 

estimate such impact,- and 

(ii) The air quality impacts and th* nature and extent of any 

or all general commercial, residential, industrial, and achex 

growth which has occurred sir.cc August 7, 1977, in the area the 

sourre or modification would arrect. 

KftWi 
P.4 

03'13'8 5 20:3S 

U0/09/9 S 17:0 8 

©20 2 209 1620 

330 0 369 2822 

»'AS0 NR'AQ NPS 

»AS0 DENVER 

AQMD-PPB 

AQD D.C. 

@00S'020 

<2ioo9'o:2 

17 

to monitor under paragraph (a) of this section) of a permit 

application for a proposed new source or modification within 

100 kilometers of a Federal class I area, the permitting 

authority shall: 

(A) Notify the Federal lend Manager within 30 days of 

reeeipt of such advance notification, and 

(B) Provide the Federal Land Manager with the 

opportunity to participate in any pre-applieation m 

with the source. O ^ H\&(L 

(2) Federal Land Hanaqe.r—Jtesponsihi litv. (i) 

Federal Land Manager charged with direct responsibi 

management of a Federal Class I area shall have an 

affirmative responsibility to identify and protect the air 

quality related values (including visibility) of_any sue 

area. """* — ' " " ^ 

(rM •trW 

<tf&4^ iJi 

(if^aVThe Federal Land Manager shall provide relevant 

. inforaation to the permitting authority whose Territory, 

State or local area contains one or aore Federal class I 

areas. Entry of the folloving information in the U.S. 

Environaental Protection Agency Bulletin Board shall satisfy 

this requirement: 

(A) A current listing, for each affected Federal Class 

X area, of the air quality related values which have been 

identified to date, sensitive receptors to epeoified air 

pollutants, and critical pollutant loadings for such air 

quality related values and sensitive receptors; and 

(B) CopiAS of all findings of adverse impact either 

independent of, or in conjunction with, consideration of 

permits issued pursuant to the requirements of this section 

or any of the following regulations: section 51.307, or 

sections 52.21, 52.27, or 52.28 of this chapter; and 

(C) Other information concerning the Known air quality 

related values, including such values that may be under 

study. 

(iii) The Federal Land Manager, upon advance 

notification pursuant to paragraph (p)(1)(ii) of this 

section, or direct notification by a prospective permit 

applicant, chall make available to such applicant, whose 

emissions may arfect such Federal Class l area, the 

information required in paragraph (p)(2)(ii) of this section 

THIS DOCUMENT 15 A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MAMAGEMEHT ANP 

BVDOET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** November 16, 1994 — (filename Sl_l66 1.U6] *•• 
P.5 

03'13'05 

03/08/93 

20:37 ®20 2 20S 1620 

17.OS ©30 3 960 2822 

'VASO NR'AQ NPS 

»'ASO DENVER 

— AQMD-PPB 

— - AQD D.C. 

concerning the air quality related values, including any 

currently under etudy. 

(iv) The Federal Land Manager shall consider/ in 

consultation with the Administrator, whether a proposed 

source or modification would have an adverse impact on any 

air quality related values vhich the Federal Land Manager 

has identified pursuant to paragraph (p)(2)£*5(A) of this 

section. 

(2) 007 '020 

OUS/U22 

l)m 

^ 

(3) (i) federal T,and Manager—-HaaanBtration of adverse 

impact. The plan shall require the permitting authority to 

coire-£d*y_ any de^Mtetsatien, submitted by the Federal Land 

Manager wTfch±*^0daye) f rom the date on which the permitting 

<ui*^~iauthority determTrtecrthe permit application to be oomplete, 3 . \that shows that a major stationary source or major 

L- recodification will have an adverse impact on an air quality 

^jJL /Ml<r . . related value in a Federal Class X area. The permitting 

^ ^jtjT'^D authority chall, at a minimum, provide, a writjten evaluation 

of the Federal Land Manager's demonstration, jand include the 

evaluation in the public record aoeompanying the preliminary 

determination required under paragraph (q)(3) of this 

section. The written evaluation shall address the 

following: 

* 

af\ fy ^ 

_ 0 ^ 

^<*0 ' 

Co*: 

^ i <J> ^ ^U' (*) The methods and procedures by whioh tha Federal 

/-.tfVl 11A" Land Manager identified the air quality related value, the 

3~ •:> i W underlying importance ascribed to the air quality related 

•Qi) ' . iu*' value, the nature of the alleged adverse impact, and an 

)nrt[\ i explanation ef any conclusions the permitting authority 

y faTx iVeaches about the air quality related value that arc 

K P^ -jcnAu^Anconsistent with those reached by tha FLM; 

( Li-, (B) All substantive values of importance vhich the 

T Federal Land Manager has ascribsd to the air quality related 

value(e) in question and the nature of the alleged adverse 

impact; 

(C) The technical data and analyses, performed in 

demonstrating the adverse impact and the basis for the 

permitting authority's disagreement witn any data or 

analyses; and 

(D) Any measures undertaken to mitigate the potential 

adverse impacts of proposed emissions increases, including 

'the estimated effect of any mitigation. 

THIS DOCOMEXT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AMD 

BUDGET REVIEV AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•* November 16, 1994 «• [filename 5l_l66_l.116] • *• 
03 '15 '95 20:3S ©20 2 20S 1620 

03/09/9 5 17:06 ©30 3 969 2S22 

*ASO NR'AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

P.6 

— AQMD-PPB 

•— AQD D-C. 

@009'020 €1010'Oiu 

k 

19 

y: 

(ii) Where the permitting authority finds that the 

analysis submitted by the Federal Land Manager in accordance 

with paragraph (p)(3)(i) of this section does not 

demonstratexthe satisfaction of tho permitting authority 

that an adverse impact on an air quality related value will 

result in the Federal Class X area, the permitting authority 

shall in the publio record aeeoapanying the preliminary 

determination provide a complete explanation of the decision 

to reject the Federal Land Manger's demonstration. 

(4) Denial—impact on air quality related yelu-a. The 

plan shall provide a mechanism whereby a Federal Land 

, Manager ef any such Federal Class I area may present to the 

M ,Ul ^«* permitting authority, oriui Lu env UILU»||||| , ll I 1 | <-al»At I »p 

W "^ | •> ^retftt4g«_i under piowJuico aevel^uud in Accordance with 

^ fi ^ p**aqwjjh jg) (*) eif LIIJL -eetion, a domonctgal^yn that the 

n. emissions from the proposed source or modification wouia • 

n ^ \ heve an advcrce impact on the air quality related values 

Ao.|,fi5 if** (including visibility) or any Federal Class I area, 

Ybi.. (^JJL j notwithstanding that the change in air quality resulting 

i V*1 v*^ -vl^0 1 6 •missions from such source or modification would not 

P

,f{S <*r f )fr caus e or contribute to concentrations which would exceed the 

V> y^ ^ maximum allowable increases for a Class X area. If the 

t^T-r permitting authority eoneurs vith such demonstration, the 

permitting authority shall not issue the permit. 

>t*t 

( ^ 

V Ato 

_e*T-

_ w 

(5) Mitigation of adverse Impacts. The permitting 

authority may idsue a permit to a proposed cource that would 

otherwise be denied a permit under paragraph (p)(4) of this 

section, if the permitting authority determings_that the 

source has mitigated its adverse impact on,^_""lt ^ 

Contribution___}> an air quality related value. To r example, 

sources may mitigate an adverse impact by obtaining 

enforceable and permanent emissions reductions of sufficient 

amount and in such location that the reductions will offset 

the change ln air quality in the Federal Class I area that 

would have resulted from emissions from the proposed source. 

[paragraph (p)M) redesignated as (p)(C)] 

(7) sulfur dioxide variance bv Governor with Federal 

Land Manager's concurrence. The plan may provide that — 

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

modification which cannot be approved under procedures 

developed pursuant to paragraph (P)(5) of this section may 

demonstrate to the Governor that the souroe or modification 

cannot be constructed by reason of any maximum allowable 

TBZS DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE 07 MANAGEMENT AMD 

BUDGET REVIEW AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

• «• November ifi, 1994 — (filename si_i66_i.iiC] •** 
P.7 

03'15'95 20:39 ©20 2 20S 1620 «ASO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB @010'020 

03/09/95 17:07 ©30 3 909 2822 WASO DENVER — AQD DC 10011/022 

£0/ ^ Qa^XTrnj- ^f*^ tr^ ^ fa ffil± I.CTUX to/ftarhthe applicable 9tate implementation plan and Bhall be 

enforceable as part of eueh plan. In resolving suoh 

disputes relating to area redesignation, the Administrator 

chall ooneider the extent to which the lands involved are of 

sufficient size to allow effective air quality management or 

have air quality related values. 

D PAL Appli-ahi,ntv. The provisions of this gection 

shall apply to a major stationary source for any one or more 

pollutants subject to this section for vhich the permitting 

authority has approved a PAL for the source provided- that: 

(1) The PAL has been established for each subject 

pollutant; 

(i) For an existing source: 

(A) Based on actual emissions representative of normal 

operation, or 

(D) Based on allowable emissions where allowable 

emissions are less than actual amissions; 

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

as a result of NSR required under the Aet and based on 

application of applicable control requirements and projected 

operating conditions, 

(2) .Emission limits established are achievable through 

application ef production proeasees or available methods, 

systems, and techniques including, but not limited to 

emissions control equipment, fuel cleaning or treatment, 

fuel combustion techniques, substitution of less polluting 

materials; or limits on production that represent normal 

source operations, 

(3) Conditions necessary to assure enforceability are 

included in the federally enforceable mechanism [e.g., 

permit, order, consent agreement, rule), and 

(4) The emissions levels and conditions established 

for PAL purposes do not relieve a source from continuous 

compliance with othervise applicable unit-specific 

requirements [such as NSPS, BACT, LAER, RACT, MACT, or other 

unit-specific federal, SIP or state requirements). A PAL 

permit must continue to require compliance with these 

limits. 

TEIS DOCUMENT Ifi A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BODGET REVIEV AMD D0E8 NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• November It, 1994 — [filename 91_lfl«_l.116] *•• 

 
03 '15 - 85 20:10 ©20 2 20S 1620 

UJ/U9/85 17:07 ©30 3 969 2822 

«ASO NR'AQ NPS 

w.\SO DENVER 

— AQMD-PPB 

••— AQD D.C. 

® Oil 

12)012 

020 

/022 

P.8 

\xT\\,Ls 

I * 

38 

LU bAC-TlU LIM UT/A WdlV-il I.U i.iJg uuuac t dimueiiL NSR 

progrsctitechnolbgies. 

" An.ui.diK9

 LL> LuUay'a yiuposal, insivitr a PSD' UT/A 

Vrfivui can lim eriduieil LU a suurtf.The EPA is proposing to 

rename the existin g innovative contro l technology (ICT) 

waiver in che Fedui-l La«J ftxiuycx—friiEi) _l:oulti bv 

vuusulted.—if iwpaucs uu Class I aiwa aix qudliLy ux dix 

'jualiiyr-mleiL-nl vdlufaib fAWVb) di e viojecie u Livn: thu UT/A 

ycroroePSD regulation s to "UT/A" and t o extend the UT/A 

waivor to the nonattainment NSR program.—• 

The EPA is requesting uui'.u»ti:;u ua whg'.ne:.—rtrrs 

:iutif i_d'Liun shuulii Ltd i wyuiiuC^roposing severa l new 

provision s for <* uunaLLanuium. ax bid M9Ran UT/A waiver 

leijucat. 

AS proposed, a UT/A waiver request muse identif y 

potentia l f^iiur * modes, projected emissions increase s fron 

failur e modes, potentia l contingency measure:, and an upper 

bound or. mas* emissions chat could be accommodated in Lhe 

area of che UT/A source. These would be incorporate d in tne 

permit. The EPA is als o proposing tha t miibidwiatiuii 1 uf 

LuuLluyunu.y intidjuibij £ui a uufiBttaiiuiicut tuvu N3Rincentives 

for bette r than expected UT/A *-aivt:x shucid uuly lull-life! 

BP.viianwmn.'-'l luundins and nuL etiexyy amr m.um:mi.L' 

PRELIMINARY STAPF WORKING DRATT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AMD 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

• * • March 8, 1995 - - [filenam e PREAM_i.ll6 ] •• » 
P.9 

03'15 '95 20: 10 

03/09/95 17:08 

©202 20S 1620 

©30 3 909 2322 

«ASO NR'AQ NPS 

»VASO DENVER 

— AQMD-PPB 

— AQD D.C. 

0012/020 

121013/022 

S 

z 

1-7 

\ 

73 

permitting authority. .. gee proposed sections 

51.165(a) (1) (v) (C) (Ul) (a), 5i.l66(bJ.{2) (iii) (L) (£) , 

52.21(b) (2) (iii)(.L) (£) , and 52.24 (f) (5) (iii) (J) (£) . Under 

the proposed rule, each case-by-case clean unit 

determination...would be subject to public notice and comment _ 

^ j i-ui^ggj^ciigity^or^prsx^-by'the EPA^ Under today's 

proposal, once a clean unit determination"is made, a 

reassessment or what is current Federal BACT or LAER would 

not be necessary for the 5 years after the dGtsmination. 

For units which have recently undergone the most 

demanding review for emissions controls (i.e.. a formal 3AC"i' 

n-r LAER review pursuant to major NSR). re-evaluation of tho 

technology shortly after the source was constructed or 

modified tu determine if the technology is still•"state-ofthe-art" .would likely result in very little or no 

incremental improvement in control. Thus, resources spent 

by the source and permitting authority to review recently 

permitted technology would likely be of little or r.o benefit 

to tne environment. Therefore, the EPA is proposing that 

the new exclusion may presumptively apply to any unit which 

received a currently applicable major NSR permit within 

yearsJprior to the date construction .or activity will 

if-<fy. \\-j commence on the proposed physical or operational change 

, r J V' \ (•/"'A*- 3_. V pcasceccwcnt of what is eurrent BACT or LXER for the unit 

^ •I'C'I' PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

J. BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

\0 •»* March 8, 1995 -- [filename PREAM .1.116] ••• 
P.10 

03'15'8 5 20:10 ©20 2 20S 1620 

U3/08/83 17:03 ©30 3 909 2S22 

"3ASO NR'AQ NPS 

W.\SO DEWER 

— AQMD-PPB 

— AQD n.r . 

© 013 '020 

0)014/022 

{ 

74

 J 

woiild not be necessary-for the yi years after the permit is 

issued with BACT or'LAER control under major NSR. Tho BPA 

un|it convnences/ope;r)a.ti^n 

la major ^ R pe: 

t. 

,r \2 ^, .[/II,» thpL included 

The EPA also solicits comment on extending fhe clfifln 

unit presumption to endscion's limits established as a 

Federal RACT or MACT limit fur up tuyC years from the date 

a permit wss issued containing the limits or 5 years from 

the startup date of the modification for which the controls 

were required and installed. A recently required MACT 

emissions limit, while not necessarily equal to BACT or 

LAER, is likely to result in significant emissions controls 

sueh that a BACT or LAER review would not necessarily result 

in significant additional emissions reductions. However, 

the EPA is also concerned that a KACT limit could be 

significantly less ftffecr than BACT or T.AES in many 

eireumccaneec. A MACT emission limit may adequately control 

a pollutant listed in Act section 112(b) but could result In 

emission increases of pollutants subject to NSR. Therefore. 

the EPA is considering expanding the clean unit presumption 

to unita with recently MACT but may also require, and 

- solicits comment on, safeguards to address concerns over 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• Mareh 8, 1S95 -- [filename PREAM_1.116] *** 
P.11 

03/08/9 5 17:0 9 ©30 3 909 2S22 «.\S0 DENVER — AQD D 0 £015-32 2 

J 

presumed to bp Xstate-of-the-arrVjcbntro'l for up to .LB^years 

after the minor NSR permit is issued for the technology 

required. As with major ;NSR, the EPA believes that little 

improved control would result from reviewing control 

technology to-determine if it is .^state-nf-thfi-art if a 

permitting authorities' minor"NSR control requirements 

result in controls substantially equivalent to the Federel 

BAC T or LAER. The EPA envisions that one element of a minor 

NSR requirement "pre-certified1 as requiring state-of-r>,part controls would include a 3 0-day opportunity for public 

notice snd comment prior to the approval uf the minor NSR 

permit and the proposed control technology for the unit. 

Public review of these permits helps ensure that true stateof-the-art controls arc required by minor NSR. Also, as 

with federal 5ACT or LAER limits, a reassessment of whaL ia 

cuprent Federal BACT or LAET? wnuld not be necessary for the 

yZ yeara after the unit is permitted with the state-of-theart control permictec under ::iiuur XSR.— Ayai.l, l.w.e bfA 

-solicits rom-enr/on. use ot/T,he ciean unit pr« 

tc 5 years after thb uni>t commences operati 

coVifcrols r.e_fuired by the minor JRGI. perm* 

Units which qualify for a " .nir i Infix] clean unit 

presumption under permit? issued under major NSR or 

equivalent ET>A "certified" minor NS?. could be reassessed ar 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

»»« March 8, 1995 -- [filename PREAM_1.116] •*• 
P.12 

03'15-9 S 20:1 1 ©20 2 20S 1620 ivASO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB ®015'02 0 

U3/09/9 5 IT: 09 ©30 3 969 2822 *'\SO DENVER — AOD D.C. ffl016/022 

77 

the end of the 5 o*_B9»years' on a ease-by-cas« hasis. Tf 

the unit again qualified as a clean unit, the clean unit 

exclusion would apply for up to an additional 5 years as 

would any other case-by-case determination of clean unit 

status. 

Control technologies may also be reviewed for "clean 

unit" status and be subjected to public notice en<2 comment 

at the time of issuance or renewal et* a title V operating 

permit. Units may be determined on a case-by-case basis as 

meeting the exclusion criteria aa "state-of-the-art" and 

therefore eligible to apply the potential-to-potei--i*l test. 

Tn such cases, the designation of the unit as "clean" would 

last for the term of the operating permit (i.e., up to 

5 years) . For convenience, one, many or all units at a 

source could De reviewed and subjected to public notice and 

comment concurrently wirh the issuance or renewal of a 

title v operating permit. Qualifying clean units should be 

clearly identified and listed in che title V permit as 

"clean units". 

The EPA expects that units qualifying on a case-by-case 

basis for use of the "clean unit" exclusion would likely 

qualify by using control technology which would otherwise ba 

required by rigorous minor NSR technology requirement or 

Federal BACT or LAER. Likewise, the EPA believes that. 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAOEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES V"T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*•"• March 8, 1995 -- (filename PRBAM_I.II61 »** 
P.13 

03'15'9 5 

03/0H/95 

20: U 

17:10 

©202 209 1620 

©30 3 080 2822 

»ASO NR'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB t_016'020 

WASO DENV'tK -•"• AQD D-C woi*'--.. 

81 

recently issued...nori-accaiament NSR permits should qualify 

for the 5*-e__BBSyear clean unjt presumption. The EPA is 

considering if the greater ^tip^rency of LAER requirements 

should'be the target for encouraging clean unit technology 

in areas not attaining the NAAQS because clean units may be 

avoiding LAER limitc that might otherwise have been required 

if the unit was subject to an actual-to-potential emissions 

test. 

Finally, the granting of a clean unit exclusion for any 

period of time (i.e., 5 -0^45" years) under today's proposal 

is independent from the caae-by-case determination of 3ACT 

or LAES for sources subject to major NSR. Control 

technology which qualifies a unit as "clean" is only 

considered to be comparable to BACT or LAER but is not 

necessarily equal to BACT or LAER and in no way establishes 

a presumptive BACT or LAER. The Act requires that BACT and 

LAER be ease-by-ease determinations for sources subject ^ 

major NSR and the clean unit test cannot preempt this 

statutory requirement. 

C. Changes to Non-emitting Source Operations 

The EPA is also proposing to add to the list of 

activities excluded from the definition of physical or 

operational change any proposed changes to existlr.q nonemitting activities at the source. Under this proposed 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVJKW - DOSS NOT RKPHESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

••• March 8. 1995 — [filename ?R£AM_1.116J •*• 
P.M 

03'15 '05 20: 12 

03/09/9 5 17:10 

©20 2 20S 1620 

©30 3 909 2822 

*ASO NR'AQ NPS 

WASO Ht-N'VER 

— AQMD-PPB 

•••- AQD D.C . 

Ifi)017'020 

l£10l'j/u2: 

J. A( 

? 

u ^ 

> x^1 

( 0*" - ^ 

Ci" 

93 

It is the EPA'.5. experience ..that many sources only keep 

accurate records on emissions or operations for 3 to 

5 years, unless expressly required to do so for a longer 

period. A number of. State and local permitting authorities 

haye similar experiences. Thus, the EPA has reservations 

concerning the use'of 10-year, and longer, .baselines and 

solicits comment oh whether a shorter (e.g*., 5 year) period 

would be more appropriate. In addition, if the EPA adopt a 

10 year look back period, the EPA also proposes that such 

period be available only when adequate. accurate and 

complete emissions data are available for the baseline 

calculation. The EPA solicits comment on the need to 

condition the use of such periods upon the accuracy and 

completeness of available data, and the need to establish 

specific criteria, through guidance or otherwise, for 

ar.r.uracy. completeness and recordkeeping when using older 

data. 

As noted, the EPA's existing regulations provide that 

tne source may seek to use another time period outside the 

2 preceding years upon a finding by the permitting auuhurity 

that thio other period is "more representative" ot noma! 

source operations, see, e.g.. current -section 

51.165(a)(1)(xii)(B). This provision has been a source cf 

confusion and uneven implementation. The EPA therefore 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

»*• March 8, 1995 -- [filonano PREAM_1.116] **• 
P.15 

03'15'flS 20:12 ©20 2 20S 1620 

O.V09/95 1":1U ©30 3 909 2822 

''ASO NR-AQ NPS 

WASO DENVFR 

— AQMD-PPB 

-— Ml) D.C. 

@01S'020 

I&O20/U23 

<**• * )<4a^ 

f 

94 

tod*y proposes co eliminate chis provision, in ether words, 

u 'SOUiLb muy biuyly thuuhH \\m t! iyhbist TuilbWLtitiTfci lg"U'.Ui!th 

peiTod uf utllxietl'jn within Ziw pabt 10 ywaib diri- ny.. r IIHTI 

Stdteb liuiif 'the EPA will- ietain any ilxscictiun tu ulluwwere 

to adopt a 10-year look back, .a -source Itvav simply, choose the 

3_y_hes>''ecnsccutive 12-month period of ur.i li2ation within 

the 10 years prior to a time pLiiuQ uutbiUte thib u.tfgmderi 

' ilj^'. taiiueyroposecl physical or operational change (but not before 

\ift*' November 15, 1950 in nnr.attair.ment areas). 

5~. Pxucwtlun uf •Shin f-twuu lni.rviv.kiui.t-. ami KJtAtJS 

J.i uistubb'iruus ur a iunaci btfjelinu,—yT:v_iu:iiuun,s.dl 

^'ruufc.) •• ^jresenidtirgb liTiXmiNelther the permitting authority 

nor the EPA will retain any r.hdt:yu no m cilB nxr-iluu 

baseline *ith the edoytiun ur e.dfwiiu-.i'ib £ui bhr.ifi. tbiui 

MAAQ3 and Pi>D iiiLieiuents "as welldiscretion to allow a time 

period outside this extended range. 

The EPA also solicits comment on haw today's proposed 

extension o£ the emissions baseline for netting may interarr 

wir.h the statutory requirements uf the Act sections 182(e) 

and 182(e) applicable in serious, severe and extreme ozone 

nonattainment areas. Section 182 (c) (6)., (7) and (8) of the 

Act provides special rules for modifications at major 

sources in serious and severe ozone nonattainment areas 

including an aggregation of all net increases in emissions 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•«« nareh 8, 1995 -- [filename PREAM_1.116] •** 
P.16 

__03 /15'9 3 20:1 3 ©20 2 209 1620 

03/OS/95 17:11 ©30 3 G«0 2822 

«*ASO N'R'AQ NPS 

*AS0 DENVER 

— AQMD-PPB 

—•- AQD D.-x @010'02 0 

ms> w • - • • . . 

33 

from a source over 5 consecutive calendar years. Section 

182(e)(2) of the Act governs applicability of NSR iro 

modifications .in extreme ozone nonattainment areas requiring 

any change that results in any increase in emissions from a 

discrete operation or unit to be subject to major NSR. 

While the determination of the emissions baseline ic 

somewhat independent of the actual netting calculation, 

clearly the proposed new baselTine can affect netting 

transactions and may be in tension with the design and 

intent of these statutory provisions and the EPA solicits 

comments on these potential interactions. 

Also, because of the misunderstanding of the current 

rule provisions allowing the use in certain situations ot 

allowable emissions ln lieu of actual emissions for 

determining applicability, the EPA proposes to delete this 

provision frcm the current rules. Cap e. a . current 

section 52.21(b)(21)(iii). The EPA currently identifies in 

guidance' when *n aliowable emissions limit may properly be 

used in lieu of actual emissions for determining 

applicability such that the currant provision should be 

deleted. 

'For example, see pages A. 4.2 and A. 43 of the NSR Workshop 

Manual. Draft, October(XTscT.,/— \CjClQ y ^ 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW * DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

*** Mareh 8, 199S -- [filename PREAM_l.ll6] ••• 
_.._ , P.17 

- ' 1 S ' ° 3 2 °

:

 ' 3 ® 2°

2 20 S 162 ° TM ° NR'AQ NPS .-_ AQMD-PPB 8,020*030 

03/09/»5 17:11 ©303 383 2822 WASO DENVER -— AQD D.C . I^O^S/02 2 

103 

directs permitting authuircyauthorities to requiTH 

mudwlinyevaluate the air quality impacts of PCPc thac could-

-through collateral emissions increases as^uc-rgtec1 with-u 

yuliUtaiuii tunt-ul yiujuutor changes in utilization patterns-

-adversely impact local, air quality (eee S7 FR 32322) . 

ftrThis provision generally authorizes, as appropriate, a 

permitting authority r.o require modeling-of emissions 

increases associated with a PCP. Mn'« i'undaiuen tally," It 

HAyliuitiy slates that i.u yullutlun lunttui piujf'-i.—crrrtTRr 

aiiy-T..; r u.uiiibtaTices 'uay taJbtf JI tunci ibute tu vrruratitur UL a 

NAAQS;—PSD iniifcmicm.—ur AQRV i.i a LlaSb I madid . IriMore 

fundamentally, it explicitly states that no PC? under any 

circumstances may cause or contribute to violation of a 

NAAQS, PSD increment, or^AQRVjjin a Class Z area. 

A^ imtwu, tub! WEPCO lulHiiidkiiiU' Wdb eA'Jiabbly 1 imi-reu 

to ejribti:ig ••eieLt.iL u^.lity btbdjit '^ynwi«tti..j units—h»"«u. 

M.y.r JC1 ilk'X Si.iCS td) (1) iv) (C1f5) and Sl.lSsU; il: i-u.') ) Id. -

The-CPA limited CM".1' 

il The WSPCO rule refers specifically to "visibility 

limitation" rather than "air quality related values." However. 

EPA clearly stated in the preamble to the final rule that 

permitting agencies have che authority to "solicit the viewc of 

others.in caking any other appropriate remedial steps deemed 

necessary to protect Class I areas.... EPA emphasizes that all 

environmental impacts, lncludiiiy those on Cla33 I areas, can be 

considered...." (27 FR 32322). Further, the statutory 

projections in section 185(d) of the Ace plainly are incended to 

pr-oteet against any "adverse impact on the ^QRV of such [Class i; 

PRELIMINARY STAFF WORKING DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEW • DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

•** March 8, 1995 -- [filename PREAM_1.118J **• 
P.18 

1

 /o/v 

03'15'9 5 20:3 1 ©20 2 20S 1620 »'AS0 N'R'AQ NPS — AQMD-PPB @002'020 

03/09/95 17:0*^ ©30 3 969 2822 ».\S0 DENVER — AQD D. C 3003/02 2 

^Paderal Land Manager cl a Tedeiul ciuaa I Aiee> that may be 

adversely affeeted by air pollution. 

(41) Adverse Impact on an Air Quality Related Value 

means, for purposes of this section, a deleterious effeot 

resulting in whole or in part, froa eaissions froa a proposed 

nav or -modified source, causing pollution concentrations 

Vhich interfere with the management, protection, 

preservation, or enjoyment of a specific air quality related 

value. 

(42) Demonstrated in practice means for the purposes 

of this subpart, that an air pollution oontrbl technology 

has been installed and operating at a mininure of 50 percent 

of ite nameplate capacity for 6 months, and its performance, 

in terms of pollution reducing efficiency, has been verified 

vith a perforaance test, or perforaance data collected when 

operating at 90 percent of its nameplate capacity. 

(43)(i) Environmentally beneficial, for the purpose Of 

evaluating a pollution control projeot, shall not include 

any activity or project which will result in, according to 

the provisions of this subsection; 

(A) A significant Increase in eaissions of any 

pollutant that will cause or contribute to a violation of a 

NAAQS or PSD increment, or adversely impact visibility or 

other AQRV in a class I area; or 

(B) An unacceptable increased risk due to the release 

of hazardous air pollutants. 

(ii) (A) It tne poJ'ution control project vill n<•**.• 

increase utilization, the post modification eaissions are 

calculated ae the nev emissions rate multiplied by the 

existing utilization rate; 

(B) If the project will increase utilization, the 

associated emissions Increases are calculated as the postmodification potential to emit of tbe unit considering the 

application of the proposed controls. 

(iii)(A) The permitting authority aay presume that e 

pollution control project listed in 40 CFR 

51.166(31)(i)(a)(l)-(i) will not increase the utilization of 

the sourc«». 

THI8 DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEV AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL BPA POLICY 

••* November 16, 1994 •• [filename 9i_i66._i.iif] «•• 
P. 19 

03'15'9 5 20:3 5 

03/09/9 3 17:02 

©20 2 20S 1620 

©30 3 90S 2322 

»ASO NR-AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

— AQMD-PPB 

•— AQD D. C 

1^1003 '020 

12(001/022 

C c i< 

&, 

9

5<jr\ 

12 

shall ba deterained according to the methodology described 

in paragraph (j)(5) of this 6ectien. 

(4) For phased construction projects, the 

deteraination of best available control technology shall be 

revieved and modified as appropriate at the least reasonable 

time vhioh occurs ne later than ie months prior to 

commencement of construction of each independent phase of 

tha project. At such tiae, the ovner or operator of the 

applicable stationary source aay bo required te demonstrate 

the adequacy of any previous deteraination of best available 

control technology for the source. Best available control 

technology shall be determined aeeording to the methodology 

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

*-^. (S) (i) In determining best available control 

technology, all control technology alternatives identified 

pursuant to (j)(5)(ii) of this eoction ehall be ranked and 

evaluated in descending order of control effectiveness. The 

most stringent alternative providing the maximum degree of 

eaissions reduction shall be established as beet available 

control technology unless it is demonstrated that technical 

considerations, or energy, environmental, and economic 

impacts and other costs establish that the most stringent 

control technology is not achievable in that case. The next 

aost stringent control teohnelogicc shall then be ooneidered 

in the saae aanner in descending order of control 

effectiveness. If the aost stringent technology is chosen, 

the requirement to analyze or evaluate less effective 

control technology aay be waived. 

(ii) The control technology alternatives considered in 

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

(A) eontrol technologies and methods for same and 

similar source categories, i.e., those categories including 

Gouroes that have similar emieoiono stream characteristics, 

vhicn as or tne date of completed application, have been 

listed in or required by the following; 

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

(2) Federally-approved State, Tribal and local 

programs and regulations, including major source 

construction permits issued under them, but oxcluding 

operating permits issued by programs approved under title V 

of the Act; 

THI8 DOCUMENT IS A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND 

BUDGET REVIEV AND DOES NOT REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLICY 

**• November 16, 1994 «— [filename 5i_i««_i.ll«] *** 
03 '15 '05 20:35 

03/08/9 3 IT:03 

©20 2 20S 1820 

©30 3 969 2S22 

P.20 

«AS0 NR'AQ NPS 

WASO DENVER 

— AQMD-PPB 

>«« *QD D.C -

SOO 1/020 

I&OQ3/U22 

14 

(Revised)" (1916), supplement A (1987) and supplement B 

(1993)) is inappropriate, the aodel aay ba modified or 

another model substituted. Such a modification or 

substitution of a aodel aay be made en a ease-by-case basis 

or, vhere appropriate, on a generic basis for a specific 

state prograa. Written approval of the Administrator must be 

obtained for any modification or substitution. In addition, 

use of a modified or substituted aodel Bust be subject to 

notice and opportunity for public comment under procedures 

set forth In section 51.102. 

(a) 

(1) 

• * * 

* * * 

* 

(vi) The plan shall provide that vith respect to any 

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

analysis shall contain such monitoring data as the 

permitting authority, in consultation with the Federal Land 

Manager, determines is necessary for determining vhether 

emissions froa the nev source or modification vould have an 

adverse impact on the air quality related value. 

(2) Eos^c^nsjcniCtlon_mQnitQringr The plan shall 

provide that the owner or operator of a major stationary 

\ source or major modification shall, after construction of 

& the stationary source or modification, conduct ouch 

monitoring- as the permitting authority determines i6 

/\5V\ QX 'I'necessary to determine the effect em< ««*«-* rrr>m rh* 

^--V.iV stationary source or 'Tff'Mflgflfcion m^y_havef tfr arf having. 

on air quality in any area^ or on air quality related values 

in any Federal Cia66 I area. 

**** * 

• > (n) Complete Application Criteria. 

^VVu 7 include: 

(2) Tne plan shall provide that such information shall 

**** * 

(iv) Tne owner or operator shall present evidence that 

the analysis performed to select the best system of 

continuous emission reduction has been conducted pursuant to 

the requirements of paragraph (j)(5)(i) and (ii) or this 

section. 

THIS DOCUMENT 18 A PRELIMINARY DRAFT FOR OFFICE OF MANAOEMENT AMD 

BUDGET REVIEV AMD DOES ROT REPRX8BMT OFFICIAL EFA POLICY 

*** November m, 1994 — [filename «i_l«6_1.116] •**