P L


# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 239 ) ll-F-2 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17

PM Sheet 239of 250P. 2 

## A-9&-3 7 ~T£- P- ^

• fAJ r 

## Mtgrate d Implementatio n Grou p (MD-12 )

Offic e o f Ai rQualit y Plannin gan d Standard s U . S . Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 FA X Number : (919)541-550 9 

# FAX TRANSMISSIO

N

NAM E 

# n sZ2S T ^ ICOWANY/OFHC E 

# rt

ch. l-t-L\ NT/OFFIC E7
_. . 

# Qh 23 ' I £P4 age PHON E NUMBE

R IFA X NUMBE

R/ 

### FROM : 

# E S COMMENTS ; 

## ^A^fs ; C^ris..on^aU

i^s7P , PHON 8 NUMBE R 

## 919-341 - Dflf

fr 

### />W ? UJ

o< 

### fhj^£>6*?utzT^_

y)e are c<~sT^ 

# ]

s (J

^ fo&b$ez>%^fe-r

J L2>y / vecsj&i^s 4h+JC

kLsTZ_jtj&u. 

# J J> -0/4*3

• _[ ^ T ^- Zi ' T

m / > <22<^TT
tO • f) A /

/ r T • ] . _ _. /

y 

### Numbero f

Pages (includingcove rsheet) : 2C 

# JD4AM E 

### I f yo u did notreceiv e al l th e pages , pleas e contac tthe foUdwia

gperson : BK H

### —-> - Ro m NUMBB m 

### 919-541 -COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Propose d Rul e A. The "Clean Unit" Exclusion

* Revised

package

presents

no substantive

changes

in the actual test: some editing Asimplifie d applicabilitytes t fo rchange s t o existin g unit s tha t alread yhave state-of the-ar t controls
. Change s whic h d o not increas e th e unit' s hourl ypotentia l emission s woul d not b e considere d a physica l o roperationa l chang e an d woul d not trigge rmajo rNS R What i s a "clea n unit" ? a n emission s uni t tha t ha s a federall y enforceabl e emissio n limi t comparabl e t o th e emissio n limi t tha t woul d resul t fro m a curren t revie wunde rth e BACT/LAE R requirement s Curren t Rul e Th e existin g NS R progra m doe s not includ e th e "Clea n Unit " exclusion
.

Augus t 7 , 199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) thre e limit s woul d qualify : o BAC To rLAE R limit s se t withi n th e las t 1 0 year s o limit s se t b ya Stat e technolog y mino rne wsourc e revie wprogram determine d b yEP At o b e equivalen t t o th e federa l BACT/LAE R program s
* o Revised

package

allows States to qualify a technology

on acaseby-case basis, to

be comparable to BACT/LAER

limits. The

11/94 package was more prescriptive.

Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) B. The

"Clean Facility"

Exclusion
* Subsumes

the non-emitting

unit exclusion

of the 11/94 package Allow s State s t o exclud e fro m majo rNS R propose d change s t o a n existin g majo rstationar ysourc e tha t ha s installe d BAC To rLAE R an d ha s undergon e a n ai rqualit yimpac t analysi s withi n th e las t 1 0 year s Netting Baseline Amor e flexibl e an d lenien t metho d fo r computin g "nettin g baseline " emissions
. Base d o n source' s highes t leve l o f utilizatio n an d no t necessaril yhighes t emissio n rate
. Base d o n th e source' s averag e rat e a t whic h th e uni t actuall yemitte d th e pollutant
. Thi s reflect s actua l operatin g hours , productio n rates , an d type s o fmaterial s processed , stored , o rcombuste d durin g th e prescribe d tim e period
.

Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Utilizatio n leve l (capacit yfactor ) i s th e highes t consecutiv e 12-mont h perio d i n th e 1 0 year s precedin g th e propose d change
. I n nonattainmen t area s an d ozon e transpor t regions , th e baselin e canno t begi n prio rt o Novembe r11 , 1990
.

Sourc e mus t us e th e curren t allowabl e emissio n rat e (e.g. , Ibs./MMbtu ) takin g int o consideratio n Federa l o rStat e emission s restriction s (RACT , NESHAP , MACT , BACT , LAER , NSPS , etc. ) impose d ove r th e 1 0 yea rperiod
. "Nettin g baseline " i s th e curren t allowabl e emissio n rat e multiplie d b yth e utilizatio n level
. "Actua l emissions " a s o fa particula rdat e equa l th e averag e rat e a t whic h th e uni t actuall yemitte d th e pollutan t durin g a 2-yearperio d whic h precede s th e particula rdat e an d whic h i s representativ e o fnorma l sourc e operation
. Th e Administrato rmayallo wth e us e o f a differen t tim e perio d upo n determinatio n tha t i s i t mor e representativ e o f norma l sourc e operation
. Fo ra n electri cutilit ystea m generatin g unit , actua l emission s ar e th e representativ e actua l annua l emission s o f th e uni t fo ran y2-yearperio d ou t o f th e precedin g 5 years . Th e Administrato rma ypresum e tha t source-specifi c allowabl e emission s fo rth e uni t ar e equivalen t t o th e actua l emission s o f th e unit
. Allowabl e emission s accoun t fo rapplicabl e Federa l standards , SI P emission s limitations , o rfederall yenforceabl e permi t conditions
. "Nettin g baseline " i s th e actua l rat e o femission s fro m th e uni t average d ove ra 2-yearperiod
.

Augus t 7 , 199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) 

### D. Pollution

Control Projects Proposin g genera l exclusio n fro m majo r NSR : Add-o n control s Fue l switche s t o cleane rfuel s Pollutio n preventio n project s
* •Revised

package

proposes

essentially to broaden

the WEPCO

exclusion

to all source categories. It

creates a presumption

that add-on-type

and simple fuel switching

pep projects

are environmentally

beneficial. Although proposal

calls for comment

on deleting the WEPCO

exclusion

in the face of adopting

the broader

general

exclusion, the actual provisions

of the WEPCO PCP exclusion

are retained

in and by the proposed

revisions. Ther e ar e currentl yn o exclusion s fo radd-o n control s o rfue l switches
. Pollutio n contro l project s (no t includin g pollutio n preventio n projects ) a t electri cutilitie s ar e exempt
. Ther e ar e currentl y exemption s fo rtemporar yclea n coa l technolog y demonstratio n project s an d fo rpermanen t clea n coa l technolog ydemonstratio n project s tha t d o no t increas e th e potentia l t o emit
.

Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Includes all exclusions

under WEPCO Includes temporary

and permanent projects of all types at State's discretion Allows emissions

determination

of increases

based on comparison

of "representative

actual annual emissions"

before and after the project applies generally. Implementatio n safeguards : Environmentall ybeneficia l tes t fo r pollutio n preventio n project s Permittin g authorit ygive n th e responsibilit yfo rdecisio n o n th e Caus e o rcontribut e test/ai rqualit y impac t assessmen t Thes e safeguard s ar e applie d t o th e electri cutilit y exclusions , bu t d o no t includ e consideratio n o f AQRV s i n Clas s I areas .

Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) E. Plantwide

Applicability

Limits (PAIs) Proposin g regulation s t o allo wan d facilitat e • Curren t rule s mak e n o provision s fo rPALs
. State s issuanc e o f voluntar ysource specifi cPALS
. Apermittin g authorit yma ychoos e t o adop t a n area-wid e PA L approac h APA L permi t allow s th e sourc e t o mak e an ychang e provide d i t doe s no t violat e it s plantwid e emission s limi t F. Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology Th e WEPC O rul e i s explicitl ylimite d t o utilitie s an d promulgate d a n actual-to-future-actua l methodolog y fo ral l change s a t a utility , excep t fo rne wunits
. I n th e fina l rule , EP Aindicate d i t woul d conside r adoptin g thi s methodolog yfo ral l sourc e categorie s i n a subsequen t rulemaking
. EP Asolicit s commen t o n thre e alternative s fo rth e futur e actua l methodology : leavin g th e scop e th e same ; applicabl e onl yt o utilit yunit s extendin g th e methodolog yt o al l sourc e categorie s eliminatin g th e methodolog y

' Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29 , 199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) G. Proposal

of CMA Exhibit

B * Revised

package

unchanged EPAagree d t o propos e an d tak e fina l • Th e curren t basi s fo rnet emission s increas e i s actio n o n a methodolog yfo rdeterminin g actua l emissions , whethe ra sourc e has undertake n a modificatio n base d o n th e source' s potentia l emission s Unde rthi s methodology , source s ma y calculat e emission s increase s o rdecrease s base d o n eithe rth e existin g actua l emission s o ro n potentia l emissions , measure d i n term s o fhourl yemission s Source s coul d us e thi s potential-to potentia l tes t fo rbot h NS R applicabilityan d fo rcalculatin g offsets , nettin g credits , an d othe remissio n reductio n credits
. Aseriou s drawbac k

o fthi s approac h i s that i t woul d allo wunchecke d consumptio n o f incremen t byold , grandfathere d t o th e exclusio n o fnew , mor

e efficien t an d les s pollutin g sources .

Augus t 7 , 199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29 , 199 5 packag eCOMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) IV . Best Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) A. EPA is

proposing

to codify core criteria for BACT determinations: Al l o fth e availabl e contro l system s fo rth e • Curren t rule s d o not specif ythes e criteria , bu t source , includin g th e most stringent , must curren t polic ycall s fo rthei ruse . b e considere d i n th e determinatio n Th e selectio n o fa particula rcontro l syste m • Curren t rule s d o not specif ythes e criteria , bu t a s BAC Tmus t b e justifie d i n term s o fth e curren t polic ycall s fo rthei ruse . statutor ycriteri a an d supporte d byth e record , an d mus t explai n th e basi s fo rth e rejectio n o fth e othe rmore stringen t contro l candidat e syste m B. Codifying

the Existing

"Top-Down"

BACT Determination

Policy in Federal NSR Regulations EPArequest s publi ccomment s o n alternativ e method s fo rdeterminin g BACT
. Th e propose d Federa l regulation s woul d serv e a templat e fo rStat e an d loca l agenc yrules
. Announce s Case-Stud yRepor t tha t wil l provid e additiona l guidanc e o n determinan t factors
. C . Improve

Content and Management

of RACT/ BACT/LAER

Clearinghouse * EPA will

propose

in a separate

• Curren t rule s d o not require submitta l t o th e RBLC
. rulemaking

mandatory

submittal

of BACT determinations

to the RBLC bv 'i the permitting

authority

within 60 days of permit issuance.

' Augus t 7 , 199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29 , 199 5 packag e * *COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Most o fth e improvement s t o th e RBLC requir e allocatio n ofadditiona l resources . . D. Streamlining

BACT/LAER Determinations BACT/LAE R determination s nee d onl y conside rtechnologie s "demonstrate d i n practice. "
"Demonstrate d i n practice " includes : al l technologie s require d an d reporte d throug h existin g regulator yprogram s an d thos e that , whil e not identifie d i n th e regulator

yarena , mee t specifi c criteri a fo rdeterminin g thei ravailability an d appropriatenes s fo rconsideratio n i n a BACT/LAE R analysi s Curren t rule s d o not mak e detaile d requirement s wit h regard t o a cutoffdate
. Curren t EP Apolic y call s fo rconsideratio n o favailabl e contro l technologie s fo rBACT , includin g emergin g technologies , unti l th e tim e tha t a fina l NS R permi t i s issued
.

Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e 1 0COMPARISO N O F TH E NEWSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) an ytechnolog ytha t ha s bee n (1 ) installe d an d operatin g continuall y fo rat leas t 6 month s o n a n emission s uni t whic h ha s bee n operatin g at least at 5 0 percen t ofnameplat e capacity ; an d (2 ) whos e performanc e has bee n verifie d wit h a performanc e tes t o r performanc e dat a whil e operatin g eithe rat a loa d tha t coincide s wit h th e operatio n o fth e emission s unit s serve d b yth e contro l devic e at thei r potentia l t o emit , o rat 9 0 percen t o f th e contro l technology' s desig n specifications
. Proposa l authorize s th e permittin g authority• Cu t of fi n curren t polic

yi s whe n fina l permi t i s t o cu t of fconsideratio n o fadditiona l contro l issued
. technologie s identifie d afte rth e permi t applicatio n ha s bee n determine d complet e unles s a commente rmeet s minimu m documentatio n criteria
.

Augus t 7 , 199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e * * 1 1COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Minimu m documentatio n criteri a Nam e an d locatio n o f th e sourc e utilizin g th e technolog y Manufacture ran d typ e o fcontro l 

### devic e Dat e technolog ywa s installe d an d operationa l Performanc e requirement s Resultin g tes t o rperformanc e dat a Complete

Application

Criteria New name for Source Information EPA is proposing

minimum

criteria upon which the permitting

authority should base its completeness determination: Thorough

BACT or LAER analysis additional

impact analyses Class I area analyses PALapplicability undemonstrated

technology

waiver provisions FLM review and coordination registration

on applicable

bulletin board statewide

compliance

for nonattainment Curren t rule s requir e tha t source s submi t al l informatio n necessaryt o perfor m an yanalysi s o r mak e require d determinations , includin g a descriptio n o fth e source , a schedul e fo r constructio n o rmodification , informatio n necessary t o determin e BACT , meteorologica l an d topographica l data , an d ai rqualit yan d growt h impacts
.

' Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e 

### 1 2COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued )

F. Proposing

reforms to the existing

Innovative Control Technology

(ICT) waiver Ne wnam e - "Undemonstrate d Technolog y o rApplication " (UT/A) waive r Ne wdefinitio n —"an ysystem , process , material , o rtreatmen t technolog ytha t show s substantia l likelihoo d t o operat e effectivel yan d t o achieve either : (a ) greate rcontinuou s reduction s o fai r pollutan t emission s tha n an ydemonstrate d system , o r(b ) comparabl e emissio n reduction s at lowe rcost , lowe renerg y input , wit h lesse rnon-ai renvironmenta l impacts , o rwit h othe radvantage s tha t ar e define d an d mutuall yagree d o n a case specifi cbasi s t o justifyth e us e o fUT/ A provisions. " Expandin g applicabilityofUT/ Awaive rt o nonattainmen t areas . UT/ Awaive rmus t contai n a referenc e emissio n contro l performanc e objectiv e of 2 th e UT/

Aan d th e otherwis e applicabl e BACTo rLAE R standard
. Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e * * Referre d t o a s innovativ e contro l technolog y(ICT) at 51.166(s ) Curren t definition-"an ysyste m o fai rpollutio n contro l tha t has not bee n adequatel ydemonstrate d i n practice , bu t woul d have a substantia l likelihoo d o fachievin g greate rcontinuou s emission s reductio n tha n an ycontro l syste m i n curren t practic e o ro f achievin g at leas t comparabl e reduction s at lowe r cost i n term s o fenergy , economics , o rnon-ai r qualityenvironmenta l impacts. "

ICTwaivers are limite d t o PS D areas .

1 3COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Permittin g authorit yi s require d t o includ e i n th e UT/Apermi t bot h "marginal " an d "gross " failur e emissio n limits
. Contingenc ymeasure s mus t b e identifie d fo rfailur e modes
. "Gross " failur e emissio n limi t i s a n enforceabl e emissio n limi t Provide s permittin g authorit yth e flexibilit y t o eithe rpermi t th e UT/ Aa t it s "marginal " failur e emissio n leve l o rrequir e th e sourc e t o instal l technolog ycapabl e o f achievin g th e appropriat e referenc e emissio n limit
. EP Arequest s commen t o n possibl e method s fo rcreatin g incentives
. A n UT/Atha t "grossly " fail s i s require d t o eithe rreplac e o rretrofit , o n a n expeditiou s schedule , suc h tha t th e sourc e achieve s th e applicabl e BAC To rLAE R standar d withi n 1 8 months
. Duratio n o fUT/

Awaive r 2 year s fro m dat e o f start-u p or ; 5 year s fro m dat e o fpermi t issuance
. IC Tmus t achiev e a leve l o fcontinuou s emissio n reductio n equivalen t t o BACT
. Ther e i s n o distinctio n betwee n margina l an d gros s failure
.

N o margina l failur e provisions
.

I f th e IC Tfail s t o mee t th e require d leve l o f emissio n reduction , th e sourc e ha s u p t o 3 year s t o mee t th e requirement
. Duratio n o f IC Twaive r

- 4 year s fro m dat e o f star t up ; o r

- 7 year s fro m dat e o fpermi t issuanc e

Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e 1 4COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Consisten t wit h th e CAA , establishe s a limi t o n th e issuanc e o fUT/

Awaivers t o that necessar yt o demonstrat e th e performance o fa technolog yo rapplication
. G. Pollution

Prevention

(PP) Reaffirm s existin g Agenc ypolic yo n • N o specifi cmentio n o fpollutio n prevention , pollutio n preventio n (May28 , 199 2 memo) whic h provide s guidanc e o n incorporatin g pollutio n preventio n int o th e Agency' s ongoin g programs . Revised package

retains position

that existing regulations

and the PCP exclusion

provide satisfactory consideration

of PP initiatives

** Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e * * 1 5COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Clas s I Area s Se e attachment for details of revised OMB Package
• Proposin g severa l revision s t o improv e coordinatio n amon g th e FLMs , permittin g authorities , an d permi t applicants
. A. Defining

Air Quality Related Values and Determining

Adverse

Impacts EP Ai s proposin g genera l definition s fo r "ai rqualityrelate d value " an d "advers e impac t o n ai rqualityrelate d values. " EPAi s affirmin g tha t FLM s mus t have sufficien t latitud e t o addres s impact s o n a n area-by-are a an d o n a permit-by-permi t basis
. EPAi s encouragin g FLM s t o identif y AQRV s o n a regiona l o rnationa l basi s wher e appropriate , an d t o establis h genera l procedure s fo ridentifyin g AQRVs
. EP Ai s proposin g t o authoriz e FLM s t o fil e a notic e whe n i t i s believe d tha t a propose d sourc e ma

yhave a n advers e impac t o n a Clas s I area . Thes e term s ar e not define d i n curren t rules
. N o specifi cmentio n ofFL M wit h regard t o monitorin g requirement s o rimpac t analyses
.

51.166(p)(2 ) simpl ystate s that FLM s have affirmativ e responsibilityt o protec t thei rAQRVs
. FLM s ma ypresen t a demonstratio n tha t emission s woul d adversel yaffec

t AQRVs
.
Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29 , 199 5 packag e 1 6COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) EP Ai s proposin g tha t th e FL M b e require d t o provid e pertinen t informatio n o n AQRVs an d method s t o analyz e potentia l impacts , wher e available , t o PS D permi t applicant s upo n request
. EP Ai s creatin g a n electroni cdatabas e fo r th e compilatio n o favailabl e Clas s I information
. B. Proposing

Pre-Application

Coordination

with FLMs through Early Notification

and Involvement Permittin g authorityrequire d t o notif yth e FL M withi n 3 0 days o fbein g informe d that a propose d sourc e intend s t o locat e withi n 10 0 km o fa Federa l Clas s I area . Propos e requirin g permittin g authoritie s t o provid e a n opportunityfo rFLM s t o participat e i n an ypre-applicatio n meeting s wit h prospectiv e PS D applicant s plannin g t o locat e withi n 10 0 k m o fa Federa l Clas s I area . Th e FL M wil l receiv e summar ynotificatio n o fsource s beyon d 10 0 km
. FLM s ar e not require d t o provid e suc h information
.

Notificatio n o fFLM s i s not required
.
Permittin g authoritie s ar e no t require d t o includ e FLMs , althoug h FLM s have th e responsibilityt o protec t AQRVs i n Clas s I areas . FL M reviewoccurs afte rth e permittin g authoritymake s it s preliminar y determination
. Notificatio n o fFLM s i s not required
.

Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e 

### 1 7COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) C . Propose

Improving

Coordination

During Permit Application

Review Requir e th e permittin g authorit yt o notify FLM s whe n a permi t applicatio n i s receive d fro m eac h sourc e proposin g t o locat e withi n 10 0 k m o f a Federa l Clas s I area . Proposin g t o establis h publicl yaccessibl e electroni cdatabas e fo rPS D permit s t o facilitat e FL M revie wo f source s beyon d 10 0 k m Requir e a summar yo f eac h PS D permi t applicatio n b e entere d int o thi s database
. FL M wil l hav e a t leas t 7 day s fro m th e dat e o fregistratio n o n th e databas e t o reques t th e entir e permi t applicatio n FL M wil l hav e a t leas t 3 0 day s fro m receip t • o fpermi t applicatio n fo rrevie wprio rt o issuanc e o fa completenes s determinatio n b yth e permittin g authorit y
• Th e permittin g authorit ymus t consul t • wit h th e FL M an d tr yt o resolv e an y informatio n deficiencie s prio rt o issuin g a completenes s determination
. Notificatio n o fFLM s i s no t required
.

Th e onl ymentio n o fFL M revie wi s afte rth e permittin g authority' s preliminar ydetermination
. Permittin g authorit yi s no t require d t o consul t wit h FLM
.

' Augus t 7,199 5 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29,199 5 packag e 1 8COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) Proposing

that permitting

authorities coordinate

with FLMs in the preliminary determination

regarding

the PSD permit.
• Th e FL M o rdesignate d representativ e o r adjoinin g Stat e mus t fil e a notic e allegin g advers e impac t (i n th e cas e a source' s applicatio n indicate s n o significan t impac t o n increment ) i n orde rt o obligat e sourc e t o conductin g furthe rincremen t o rAQR V analysis
. • EP Ai s proposin g t o provid e fo r consideratio n o fth e FLM s advers e impac t determinatio n fo ran yAQRVs , no t limite d onl yt o visibility
. • EP Ai s proposin g tha t th e FL M b e allowe d 6 0 day s t o mak e th e advers e impac t demonstration , an d tha t th e permittin g authorit yus e a 60-da yperio d t o conside r th e FLM s demonstratio n prio rt o makin g th e preliminar ydetermination
. Onl yrequir e consideratio n o f visibilit yimpacts
.
FL M i s give n 3 0 days
.

August 7,199

5 Outlin e base

d o n Jun e 29 , 199

5 packag e 1 9COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued )

• EPAi s proposin g t o establis h consideration s fo ra permittin g authority' s rejectio n o fa n FLM' s advers e impac t demonstration
. Scientific/Technica l basi s Importanc e o f th e AQR V an d natur e o fth e advers e impac t Mitigatio n
• EPAi s proposin g a genera l consultatio n provisio n betwee n th e permittin g authorit yan d th e FL M whe n a disagreemen t arises
. • EPAi s proposin g t o requir e tha t th e permittin g authorit yinclud e a summar yi f issue s raise d b yth e FL M fo rth e publi c recor d Proposing

to allow a source to provide emission offsets, a

reduction

in emissions

or some combination

of both to mitigate

its adverse impacts on a Class I area in order to obtain a PSD permit. Post-construction

ambient

monitoring

may be required in Class I areas to determine

the effect of emissions

on AQRVs. N o criteri a fo rrejectio n o fFL M analysi s ar e specified
.

N o consultatio n i s required
.
N o summar yo fFL M issue s i s require d
Mitigatio n i s no t specificall yaddressed
.

Post-constructio n monitorin g i s require d fo rai r qualit yimpact s a t th e discretio n o f th e permittin g agency . August 7,1995 Outlin e base d o n Jun e 29, 199

5 packag e 2 0P.2 3



## Change s t o Contro l Technolog y Section s A/ 0 8/8/9 5 1 . Remove d th e "technica l guidanc e discussio n fo r LAE R from th e preambl e and eliminate d th e procedura l languag e fromth e regulations . W e retaine d a placeholde r fo r certai n LAE R regulation s tha t ar e planne d fo r proposa l i n th e Par t C& D rulemaking . 2 . Modifie d th e Definitio n o f "Demonstrate d i n Practice " t o includ e al l criteri a tha t make s a technologya mandator ycandidat e fo r BAC T o r LAER , eithe r require d i n a regulatio n o r majo r sourc e permi t o r successfull yinstalled , operate d and documented . 3 . Inserte d additiona l technica l suppor t fo r criteri a fo r th e successfull yinstalled , operate d and documente d tes t i n th e definitio n o f "Demonstrate d i n Practice. " 4 . Inserte d tha t Stat e regulation s ma yspecif yBAC T methodolog yothe r tha n Top-down , bu t i t mus t satisf y propose d cor e criteria , whic h are : Univers e o f technologie s t o b e considere d mus t includ e th e bes t tha t hav e bee n demonstrate d i n practice . Rejectio n o f Technologie s mor e stringen t tha n th e alternativ e selecte d mus t b e supporte d bystatutor y factor s and mus t b e documente d fo r th e publi c record . 5 . Clarifie d i n Preambl e th e subtl e differenc e betwee n cut-of f dat e fo r introductio n o f ne wtechnologyand dat e bywhic h somethin g shoul d hav e bee n demonstrate d i n practic e fo r mandator yconsideratio n byapplican t 6 . Clarifie d requirement s fo r Completenes s i n Reg s and Preambl e discussio n 7 . Incorporate d specifi c publi c informatio n requirement s fo r cor e criteri a regulation s i n reg s and preambl eP.2 4



### 8 . Provid e i n th e Federa l regulation s a n absolut e cut of f dat e a t clos e o f th e publi c commen t perio d afte r whic h applicant s bea r n o burde n t o conside r ne wand emergin g BACT/LAE R tha t i s identifie d afte r tha t date . Thi s modifie s curren t polic yse t i n severa l memo s tha t BACT/LAE R ca n b e establishe d up-t o permi t issuance . State s wil l b e lef t t o establis h a fina l cut-of fP.2 5



### MA R1 6 199 5

Mr . Christophe r Wol z Offic e o f Managemen t and Budge t NEO B Roo m301 9 Washington , D C 2050 3 Dea r Mr . Wolz : Pe r you r reques t i n telephon e discussion s wit h th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) staf f o n Februar y1 3 and 28 , pleas e find enclose d a draf t chapte r 3 o f a repor t o f severa l recen t BAC T determination s tha t EPAplan s fo r futur e issuanc e i n suppor t o f EPA' s Ne wSourc e Revie wreformeffort . Th e repor t i s a compendiu

mo f cas e studies , i s no t a regulator yactio n an d wil l no t hav e bindin g lega l effect . - Th e draf t chapte r 3 contain s th e centra l portio n o f th e repor t tha t discusse s th e variou s cas e studies . (Chapter s 1 an d 2 , addressin g th e introductio n and.background information , ar e pendin g redrafting) . Draf t chapte r 3 examine s severa l BAC T decision s and relate d analyses , illustratin g instance s whe n BAC T ha s resulte d i n th e implementatio n o f th e mos t stringen t emissio n reduction s and les s stringen t emissio n reductions . Pleas e b e awar e tha t th e State s an d EPAoffice s tha t provide d th e underlyin g informatio n hav e no t ye t ha d a n opportunit yt o revie wo r qualit yassur e th e draf t w e ar e providin g t o you . W e therefor e underscor e tha t th e draf t i s preliminar yand shoul d no t b e use d a s a publi c guidanc e document . I f yo u hav e an

yquestion s regardin g th e draf t report , pleas e d o no t hesitat e t o contac t m e a t (919 ) 541-0871 . Sincerel yYours , Denni s W . Crumple r Integratio n an

d Implementatio n Group Enclosur e USEPA:OAQPS:ITPID:IIG:DCRUMPLER:PJSMITH:NCMU:RM915:MD-12:3-16-9 5 COVE R MEM O AND DRAF T WA S COORDINATE D W/OG C O N3/5/9 5