P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 243 ) ll-F-3 3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17

PM Sheet 243 of 250OS/25/95 ' 14:1 4 ®20 2 .20 8 462 0 P. 2 WAS PNR/A Q NP S ->->-> OG

C AI RDIVISIO N ©00 1

rt-%>-57 * 

# UnitWState s Departmen

tofth eInterior

INREUVREreRTO : NATIONA L PAR KSERVIC

E P.O. Bo x3712 7 Washington , D.C . 20013.712 7

LmmmOr-K

NUMBE RO F PAGE S T OFOLLQH :

SUBJEC T 

# : frV^fc- ^^CoS^ "7-5 *

fi . 

### REMARKS : • • 0<^S T

IS^EWY^V , 

### pre i J^tUJ WC^yx^cfr?

I F YOUHAV E ANYPROBLEM S HIT HTHI S FA XORTROUBL E RECEIVINGA FA X PLEAS E CAL L TH E INDIVIDUA L FRO N UHON YOUAR E RECEIVINGTH E FAX . DENNIS , JOHN EADY , C0LLETT E JOHNSTON . GAR Y KLIHIHSKI , SHARON NA1XIN , KARE N NCCLEUAND , LINDSA

Y MILLER , ABB Y PECK , DEBB Y SOUKUP , HIK E 202-208-519 3 202-208-464 0 202-208-588 6 202-208-463 9 202-219-338 4 202-208-495 8 202-208-465 0 202-208-462 4 202-208-388 4 HAUER , BIL L

MATKINS , HILM

A WILSON , RITA 202-219-338 6

202-208-491 3 202-208-388 4



# ,-4^ 

# a3


# - '• i : \- r : 1,1 '

.. .P. 3

08/25/9 5 14:1 4 ®20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S +++ OGC AI RDIVISIO N ©00 2

« 17 8 the ' lOO-kilome-te r distance . Neverthelesi^trli e EP Awil l conside r a mor e inclusiv e cutoff , e.g. , 20 0 kilometers' , fo r mandator ypre applicatio n notification , i f f-n r mmr' rrnnn n i t i s unabl e t o implemen t th e databas e tha t i s intende d t o informFLM s abou t th e

A , mor e distan t propose d ne wmajo r source s an d majo r modifications . Th e EP Arequest s publi c comment s o n al l aspect s o f thes e propose d regulatoryrevision s addressing advanc e notification , includin g th e appropriat e typ e o f notification,

- th e mandator y notificatio n withi n 10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area , an d th e 30-daytimeframe fo r providin g suc hnotificatio n t o th e FLM . Tto-KEP Ai s intereste d i n th e public' s view s abou t th e nee d fo r r J ^u-thes

e ckainge s i n ligh t o f th e othe r regulatoryrevisions , ,,.-,< ^ describe d btl^ow , tha t th e EP Ai s proposin g t o improv e FL M

coordination , ihc^uding th e propose d requiremen t tha t permi t application s fo r al l PSSa^source s an d modification s proposin g t o locat e withi n 10 0 kilometerso f a Federa l Clas s I are a mus t automaticall yb e transmitte d t o the.*FLMs . b . Coordinatio n o f th e Permi t Application . Severa l o f th e CAAAC recommendation s addresse d improvin g coordinatio n betwee n th e permittin g authorit yand th e FLMonc e a permi t applicatio n ha s bee n received . Simila r t o th e recommendation s fo r pre-applicatio n coordinatio n addresse d previously , suc hcoordinatio n wa s considere d importan t i n helpin g

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 •• * [fil e name : Masters.29 ] ** *PA .

08/25/9 5 14:1 5 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S -»-.-

• OGC AI RD I VI S IP

N ©00 3



### 17 9 t o avoi d dispute s an d delay s i n carryin g ou t th e permi t revie w process . ^" ^ . Th e EP Ai s proposin g t o revis e th e notificatio n requirement s tha t appl ywhe n th e permittin g authorit yreceive s a PS D permi t applicatio n Th e propose d requirement s ar e t o appl yo n th e basi s o f th e proximit yo f th e propose d sourc e o r modificatio n t o a Federa l Clas s I area , wit hth e propose d revisions , th e FL Mi s afforde d a n opportunit yt o revie wth e content s o f an yPS D permi t applicatio n t o determin e whethe r sufficien t informatio n i s availabl e t o asses s th e potentia l impact s o n a Federa l Clas s I area . A s describe d earlier , i n sectio n IV.Q..1. . o f thi s preamble , th e EP Aha s propose d t o requir e tha t th e FL M(or"othe r n•a^twd•" , 

### " officials ) fil e a notic e allegin g potentia l Clas s I impact s i n orde r t o trigge r specifi c Clas s I informationa l need s i n th e permi t application . Th e propose d 10 0 kilomete r cutof f applie s onl yt o th e automati c notificatio n (includin g forwardin g o f permi t application ) o f th e FL Mtha t suc hsourc e ha s applie d fo r a PS D permit . ' Thau e l bii u iiUmit-iiL assumptio n thag^such

- source wti- 1 aSfcut

- tlit-

i Ffeaera l Clas s I area . f (1 ) Notificatio n t o FL Mfo r source s locate d withi n 10 0 kilometers . Becaus e source s locate d withi n a 100-kilomete r rang e o f Federa l Clas s I area s generall yhav e th e greates t potentia l fo r affectin g th e ai r qualit yi n thos e areas , EP Ai s proposin g t o requir e notificatio n o f th e affecte d FL Mwhe n a PS D permi t
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLIC Y 

### ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Masters.29 ] •• *P. 5

T87T5/9 5 14:1 5 ,g2,0 2 20 8 462 0 ~ ,^ASP_NRMQJjPS_ , - PG C AI RDIVISION ^ _a004

_

,18 1 Th e Act , sectio n 165(d)(1) . i n movin g th e existin g provisio n t o th e ne wlocatio n i n th e par t 5 1 regulations , it s intende d coverag e o f al l PS D permi t application s wil l b e bette r understood . Sge . redesignate d sectio n 51.16 6 (q ) (1 ) . (2 ) Notificatio n t o FLMfo r source s locatin g more . 10 0 kilometer s froma Federa l Clas s I area . Th e EP Arecognize s tha t th e FL Mwil l hav e a n interes t i n reviewin g th e potential , effect s associate d wit hemission s fromcertai n source s proposin g t o locat e mor e tha n 10 0 kilometer s froma Federa l Clas s I area . It ' emphaticall yi s no t th e EPA' s intentio n t o enabl e suc hsource s t o b e automaticall yexempte d fromconsideratio n a s t o their , potentia l impact s o n Clas s I areas . However , a genera l requiremen t t o transmi t copie s o f al l permi t application s t o th e FLM-woul d b e quit e burdensom e and overl yinclusive . Accordingly , th e EP Ai s proposin g a differen t approac hfo r providin g . notificatio n t o th e FL Mfo r application s proposin g source s mor e tha n 10 0 kilometer s from a Federa l Clas s I area . Th e EP Ai s developin g a specia l electroni c databas e and proposin g t o requir e tha t a summar yo f eac hPS D permi t applicatio n b e entere d int o thi s database. "

5 6 Unde r th e par t 5 1 PS Dregulations , th e propose d requiremen t doe s no t specif ywhethe r th e applican t o r th e permittin g authorit ymus t ente r th e dat a summary . Th e EP A. believe s tha t i t i s appropriat e i n thi s situatio n t o allo w permittin g authoritie s t o exercis e thei r discretio n i n determinin g wha t specifi c procedure s the ywil l adop t and implemen t t o ensur e tha t th e require d dat a i s entere d int o the PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMSNT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOS S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP APOLICY ** « June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Masters. 29 ] ** *



# 5P. 6

08/25/9 5 14:1 5 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS PNR/A Q NP S ->->- > PG C AI RDIVISIP

N©00 5

*•£*•

- 

# X
18 2 

### The proposedinformationa l requirement s include the nam e an d type o f source , th

e nature o f th

e project , sourc e locatio nan d proximit y

t o Clas s I area' s (i.e. , withi n25 0 kilometers) , th e proposedemissionrate s (o r emission s increases ) o f ai r pollutant s t o be emittedb y th e source , an

dke y mailing addresses . The FLM , a s wel l a s th e genera l public , wil l have acces s t o thi s information . Th e administratio

no f thi s electroni c databas e i s addressedi nmor e detai l i nsection IV.C.6. , "Informatio nClearinghouse. " Se e proposed section51.166(n)(4 ) an dsectio

n52.21(n)(4) . Onc e relevant informatio npertaining rc a proposedhntajoa r . . sourc e o r majo r modificatio ni s registere

di nth e EPA database , the FL M wil l be abl e to checkth e Bulleti nBoard , determine whethe r suchsourc e represent s a potentia l concernt o ai r quality o r ai r quality

relatedvalue s i nth e Clas s I are a (base do nthe summar y informationcontainedtherein) , ,an dreques t a cop

y o f th e

. entir e permi t application . Inorde r t o ensur e tha t the FL M i s givena reasonabl e opportunity t o reques t a cop

y o f an y specifi c application(fo

r source s that woul dlocat e beyon dth e 100-kilomete r range ) , th e EP A i s proposin

g tha t th

e FL M wil l be affordedat leas t 7 days fro m th e dat e o f registrationo f informationo nth

e electroni c databas e t o revie w suchinformation



# . : i^oi-rJ-i, w EP A electroni c database. ( ffifi^ii&*aLiL

### V^ - Jwrthax-l. ^clcfa-.-^ UL PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

R0FPIC 8 OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** • June 29,.199 5 -- - [fil e nane t Masters.29 ] ** • 

# z\

I. _I _E i

08/25/9 5 14:1 6 ®20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S •*•-»- . PG C AI RDIVISIO

N ©00 6

18 3 and ' reques t th e entir e permi t application . ££ g propose dsection 51.166(p ) (4 ) (ii ) andsectio n52.21(p ) (4 ) (ii ) . Th e EP A

requests.publi c comment s onit s propose d requirement s t o improv e th e notificatio nprocedure s whic hinfor m th e FLM

abou t incomin g permi t applications . I nparticular , th e EP A requests , publi c comment s addressin g th e propose drequiremen t t o transmi t a permi t applicatio nt o the FLM whe nth e propose d sourc e i s withi n10 0 kilometer s o f a Federa l Clas s I area . c . ' Coordinatio no f th e Completenes s Determination . Th e EP A

i s als o proposin g t o revis e bot hset s o f PS D regulation s by

addin g a requiremen t tha t the FLM b e give na t . . leas t 3 0 day s (starting fro m receip t o f the applicatio nby th e FLM ) t o revie w

th e applicatio nprio r t o any completenes s determinatio nissue dby th e permittin g authority . Th e 30-da y revie w i s require donl y whenthe FLM

i s t o receiv e th e permi t applicatio na s provide dunde r today' s proposa l [See e.g. , propose dsectio n51.166(p)(4 ) ] wher e th e propose dsourc e i s V locate dwithi n10 0 kilometer s fro m a Federa l Clas s I are a o r ~ ] *h J*. wher e i t i s locate dbeyon d100—kilometer s bu t th e FLM request s "7^ ;vs "< . 

# / K

# •fa \ , X*V * th e entir e applicatio nwithin\ 7 days , fro m th e inclusiono f ' f^O, th e entir e applicatio nwithin\ ^ summar y

informatio ni nEPA' s electroni c dat a base . Se e propose d sectio n51.16 6 (p ) (5 ) (ii ) andsectio n52.2 1 (p ) (5 ) (ii ) .« ' 

# x< A if

5 7 Fo r propose dsource s mor e tha n10 0 kilometer s from a Federa l Clas s I area , th e permittin g authorit y ma y procee dt o issu e it s completenes s determinatio nan y tim e afte r theVf-da y . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W

• DOES NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [filename : Masters.29 ] ** *

^P. 8

08/25/9 5 14:1 6 ®20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S •»•»•

» PGC AI RDIVISIPN ©00 7

18 5 reques t fo r additiona l informatio n ha s bee n satisfie d byth e applicanfr7-*n

d 'th e FLMha s had a n opportunit yt o fil e a notic e allegin g potentia l Clas s I impacts , i f suc hnotic e ha s no t alread ybee n filed . I n some cases , however , th e permittin g authorit yma yquestio n th e reques t mad e byth e FL Mo r disagre e wit hi t completely . Whe n thi s occurs , th e EP Ai s proposin g tha t th e permittin g authorit ymus t consul t wit hth e FLMand tr yt o resolv e whateve r problem s ma yexis t prio r t o issuin g a completenes s determination . Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(p)(5)(iv ) and sectio n 52.21(p)(5)(iv) . Nevertheless , whil e th e permittin g authorit ymuj^givar^feayonabl e consideratio n t o th e FLM' s concej3w*""Gnder th e proposed_cJfenges . th e permittin g authorlty-iBresponsibl e fo r making th e igdtimat e decisio n Th e propose d provision s allo wth e permittin g authorit yt o issu e it s completenes s determinatio n an ytime (eithe r befor e o r afte r th e 30-dayperio d ha s ended ) afte r an ycomment s from

th e FL Mhav e bee n receive d and consultatio n wit hth e FL Mha s occurre d abou t anyinconsistenc ybetwee n th e permittin g authority' s view s and th e FLM' s recommendations . Th e CAAAC recommende d tha t th e EP Aconside r establishin g a forma l disput e resolutio n proces s a s a par t o f th e completenes s review . Th e EP Aha s decline d t o propos e an yspecifi c requirement s focusin g o n th e resolutio n o f potentia l problem s PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKINGDRAF T FO ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] *• *



# laP. 9

08/25/9 5 14:1 7 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S «- > OGC AI RDIVISIPN ©008
_



### 18 9 Th e EP Abelieve s tha t i t i s importan t t o th e permittin g proces s trhSTtr^Th

e FLM' s demonstratio n b e submitte d befor e a preliminar ydeterminatio n i s mad e an d tha t sufficien t tim e b e allowe d t o complet e th e demonstration . Thirt yday s i s generall y no t a sufficien t amoun t o f tim e fo r th e FL Mt o complet e a demonstratio n o f a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs . Instead, , th e EP A propose s tha t th e FL Mb e allowe d a t leas t 6 0 day s t o mak e th e ' _- •— -

-f^y. require d demonstration . :Moreover , th e propose d regulation s provid e tha t th e 60-da yperio d occu r prio r t o a preliminar y determinatio n s o tha t anydemonstratio n submitte d by'th e FL Mma y. b e adequatel yconsidere d b yth e permittin g authorit yan d addresse d a s par t o f th e preliminar ydetermination , ge e propose d sectio n 51.166(p)(6)(i ) an d sectio n 52.21(p)(6)(i) . Th e EP Aals o believe s tha t a 60-da yperio d (beginnin g o n th e dat e tha t the.permittin g authorit yformall yissue s it s determinatio n tha t th e applicatio n i s complete) , take n togethe r wit hth e improvement s addresse d abov e t o facilitat e earlie r FL M an d permittin g authorit ycoordination , provide s th e FL Mwit ha mor e reasonabl e perio d o f time . Durin g thi s period , th e FL Mma y f y/nee d t o iximduefe a variet yo f technica l analyse s o r perhap s reques t (vi a th e permittin g authority ) tha t th e applican t provid e additiona l analyse s t o provid e sufficien t basi s fo r th e demonstratip n t o b e developed . Thi s will , o f course , depen d o n 

# A th e amoun t informatio n alreadycontaine d i n th e applicatio n a s a PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP APOLIC Y ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *



# 1P.1 0

08/25/9 5 14:1 7 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S ->->- > PG C AI R DIVISIP N©00 9

tr^m-m. 19 5 contribut e t o a violatio n o f a Clas s I increment . £eg . sectio n 165(d)(2)(C)(ii ) o f th e Act . Ther e hav e bee n severa l instance s ove r th e pas t fe wyear s where , i n suc hcircumstances , th e FL Mha s submitte d a demonstratio n o f an advers e impac t o n AQRV s i n a Clas s I area . I n some cases , th e FLM' s concern s hav e bee n addresse d throug hsuccessfu l negotiation s betwee n th e FL Mand th e permi t applicant , wher e th e sourc e obtaine d emission s reduction s (offsets ) froma n existin g source , adopte d mor e stringen t contro l measure s o r som e combinatio n o f both. 6 0 I n othe r instances , simila r demonstration s o f a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s hav e bee n th e subjec t o f contentiou s administrativ e litigation. 6 1 b . Genera l Polic yfo r Mitigating Clas s I Are a Impact s Th e CAAA C recommende d requiring offset s fo r anypropose d sourc e tha t woul d hav e a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs . Specifically , th e CAAAC recommende d tha t wher e th e emissio n offse t rati o wa s les s tha n 1:1 , a ne t ai r qualit ybenefi t analysi s shoul d b e mad e t o suppor t th e specifi c offse t rati o proposed. . Th e CAAA C

" See

- e.g. • Multitrad e Limite d Partnership . PS D Appea l Nos . 91- 2 e t ali a (Januar y21 , 1992) . I n Multitrad e th e propose d sourc e agree d t o mitigat e it s impac t througha combinatio n o f reduce d emission s fromth e ne wsourc e a s originall ypropose d and emissio n offset s froma nearb yexisting source , resultin g i n a n offse t rati o substantiall ygreate r than one-co-one . Basedo n thes e changes , th e FL Mconclude d tha t th e emission s fromth e propose d source , i f modified , woul d no t hav e a n advers e impac t o n th e Shenandoa hNationa l Park . X£ . a t 5 .

" Se e Ol d Dominio n Electri c Cooperative . PS D Appea l No . 91-3 9 (January29 , 1992) ; Hadso n Powe r 14--Buen a Vista . PS D Appea l Nos . 92-3 , 92- 4 & 92- 5 (Octobe r 5 , 1992) . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EPA POLICY •* * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *



# 7p . 1 1

08/25/9 5 14:1 8 ©20 220 8 462 0 WAS PNR/A Q NP S •»•>• > PG C AI RDIVISIO

N©01 0

19 7 ther e wil l be no ne t advers e impac t a s a resul t o f th e proposed. source's-emiaaions . Th e proposedprovisionspecificall y acknowledge s offset s a s a mitigatio noptionwher e th

e owne r or operato r o f a proposedsourc e obtain s enforceabl e an dpermanen t emission s reduction s o f sufficient amount an di nsuchlocation tha t th e reduction s wil l offse t th e change i nai r qualit y ir i th e Federa l Clas s I area tha t woul dhav e resultedfro

m th e proposed source . Se e proposedsectio n51.166(p)(7 ) an

d52.21(p)(7) . The quantitative amount o f th e offsettin

g emission s should , therefore , b e show nt o be sufficient t o i nfac t mitigat e the advers e impac t o

nAQRVs tha t woul dotherwis e b e causedby the/0 \ propose demission s increase . Thi s wil l involvt^eonsiderar^oa^j&h e locationo f the offsettin g sourc e relativ

e t o the Clas s I area ; a«7^^Hr^as r the meteorologica l an dtopographica l condition s whic h affec t dispersiono f th e offsettin

g emissions . tfUfll' H^-ft. 1/.-U S ( v «> ^ Q+ w Anothe r possibl e consideratio ni nevaluatin

g whethe r an

y I potentia l emissionreduction s identifie dat existin

g source s can b e usedt o mitigat e th e advers e impac t o

nAQRVs i s whethe r the reduction s ar e alread y requiredb

y som e othe r Act-mandated program . I nnonattainmen t areas , sectio n173(c)(2 ) o f the Ac t plainl y prohibit s emissionreduction s otherwis e required - unde r

PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOB S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY *• • June 29 , 199 5 •- - [fil e name : Masters.29) . •* *P.1 2

08/25/9 5 14:1 8 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/AQ NP S •»•»• » PG C AI R DIVISIP N©Oi l

19 8 the

- Ac t from

bein g credite d a s offset s fo r ne wsourc e revie w• purposes . Iy ~ ^*-' c

Unlik e th e nonattainmen t NS R program , offset s unde r th e PS D programare.no t expressl yaddresse d b yth e Act . Th e EP Ai s intereste d i n th e public' s view s abou t th e creditin g o f thos e emissio n reduction s alread yrequire d fo r othe r purpose s a s offset s fo r mitigatin g a propose d source' s advers e impac t o n a n 

### AORV,.«- S i^jt f 0\ ho wQc*^ ^O-olvV ^ Qfi-UpA Crmr^^^r

t y emissio n limitatio n tha n th e limitatio n tha t woul d otherwis e b e . r^vC'v require d byBAC T ma yb e establishe d t o mitigat e a n advers e impac t . , t < t*jL , s-ofU s <Lr*d&\r& -* » t>cCrrriis&sJt wJL r f^-t

Opts, /4^1,-ri \ \V\. "^^-A s a n alternativ e t o emission s offsets , a mor e strmgen r ' " »

o n AQRV s i n a Federa l Clas s I area . Dependin g upo n th e remainin g emission s release d and th e sensitivit yo f th e AQRV s o f a Clas s I area , a n emission s limitatio n tha t woul d otherwis e b e require d by BACT , i f a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s wa s no t considered , ma yb e inadequat e t o entirel ymitigat e th e advers e impact . Thus ,

„ emissio n offsets , a stricte r emissio n limitation , o r som e 

### y^\ X ./combinatio n o f both , ma yb e appropriat e t o mitigat e a n advers e impac t o n AQRVs . Th e EP Abelieve s tha t measure s suc ha s emissio n offset s from existin g source s represen t a reasonabl e approac hwhic henable s

6 3 Incidenta l emissio n reduction s no t otherwis e require d by th e Ac t ar e t o b e creditabl e unde r sectio n 173(c)(2 ) o f th e Act . Se e als o 5 7 F R 1355 3 (Apri l IS , 1992 ) (guidanc e o n creditabl e reduction s unde r th e nonattainmen t NS R program) . PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Masters.29 ] ** *



# 10P.1 3

08/25/9 5 14:1 8 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S ->->-

> PGC AI RDIVISIO

N ©01 2

-*ri—.
20 0 have , o r ar e having , o n AQRV s i n a Federa l Clas s I area . Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(m)(2 ) an d 52.21{m)(2)
. Th e existin g PS D regulation s a t sectio n 51.166(m)(2 ) an d 52.21(m)(2 ) currentl y requir e th e owne r o r operato r o f a ne wmajo r eourc e o r majo r modificatio n t o conduc t suc hpost-constructio n ambien t monitoring , a s th e permitting authorit ydetermine s t o b e necessary , t o determin e the effec t emission s ma yhave , o r ar e having , o n ai r qualit yi n an yarea . However , th e curren t EP A regulation s d o no t specif ytha t suc hambien t monitorin g ma y includ e th e monitorin g o f ai r quality-relate d impact s i n Federa l Clas s I areas . Th e EPAis , therefore , proposin g t o amend .the . PS D regulation s t o specificall ystat e tha t post-constructio n ambient/-~ \ y? Monitorin g ma yb e require d i n Clas s I areas . Iht i EV Alequusts—H-- /

^ ^^geimuuiiL

buu liuiiytojjosod

regulatoryohango . 4 . Clas s I Significan t Impac t Levels . Som e member s o f th e NS R ReformSubcommitte e recommende d tha t th e EP Aprovid e criteri a indicating the circumstance s i n whic ha propose d source' s projecte d contributio n t o ambien t concentration s i n a Clas s I are a ma yb e considere d d e minimi s fo r certai n planning.requirements . Thes e member s recommende d tha t th e EP Aidentif ya leve l o f contributio n (ambien t concentration ) tha t i s d e minimis , o r insignificant , s o that , a propose d sourc e havin g a contributio n les s tha n tha t concentratio n wil l kno wwit h certaint ytha t i t wil l no t b e subjec t t o th e ful l requirement s PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKING . DRAF T ?O ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMSNT AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] *• * / /P.1 4

08/25/9 5 14:1 9 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S •>->-

> PGC AI RDIVISIPN ©01 3

f 20 2 eignifieanj t JeBipjict ' level s woul d appl yt o th e existin g Clas s I increment s fo r PM-10 , SO a , an d N0 2 i n th e PS D regulations . Th e significan t impac t level s woul d b e used.t o determin e whethe r a ne wmajo r sourc e o r majo r modification , du e t o th e predicte d ambien t concentratio n fromit s ow n emissions , woul d b e require d t o conduc t a comprehensiv e Clas s I incremen t analysi s fo r a give n pollutant . Ad e minimi s impac t resulting fromth e emission s from a propose d sourc e woul d serv e a s th e basi s for. a determinatio n tha t suc hemission s wil l no t contribut e t o a violatio n o f th e applicabl e Clas s I increments . Th e propose d significan t impac t level s fo r Clas s I . increment s wer e derive d bytaking fou r percen t o f th e concentratio n define d fo r th e existing Clas s I incremen t fo r eac h applicabl e pollutan t an d averaging period . Th e EP Abelieve s tha t wher e a propose d sourc e contribute s les s than , fou r percen t t o th e Clas s I increment , concentration s =*£ £ sufficientl ylo ws o a s no t t o warran t a costl yand detaile d analysi s o f th e combine d effect s o f th e propose d sourc e an d al l othe r increment-consumin g emissions . Th e EP Apreviousl yuse d a simila r rational e t o establis hth e significan t emission s rate s fo r PS D applicabilit y purposes , concludin g i n par t tha t emission s rate s whic hresulte d i n ambien t impact s les s .tha n fou r percen t o f th e 24 -hou r

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPA POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Mas ter 6. 29 ] ** *



# lbP.1 5

08/25/9 5 14:1 9 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S ->-•-

> OGC AI RDIVISIP N ©01 4

- V ^"Hi . • " ' r "" " " / •"'•'••*•'•" '

* * " ' ' J2© 5 r (*••' ' 

### significan t impac t level s fo r th e AQRV s shoul d res t wit hth e FLM . An ysignifican t impac t level s fo r AQRV s ma ynecessaril yb e site

speci f ic ; 

### sinc e eac hAQR V an d it s associate d critica l pollutan t loading s ma yb e differen t fromare a t o are a and eve n withi n individua l Federa l Clas s I areas . y i, TM '0 

# y^7 A s describe d i n sectio n IV.C.i.e. , th e FLM's/fcol e i n ' f" f J 

### i Triggerin g a Clas s I Incremen t Analysis , th e EPA / i s proposing ; regulation s tha t cal l fo r th e filin g o f a notice.byth e FLM , th e Federa l officia l wit hdirec t land managemen t responsibility , th e Administrato r o r th e Governo r o f a n adjacen t Stat e containin g a . Federa l Clas s I are a t o trigge r th e dut y'o£^ptepur.e e t o conduc t a "Clas s I incremen t an d Clas s I 1 

### impac t analysis'. ^ Th e notic e woul d alleg e tha t emission s froma propose d source ^ caus e o r contribut e t o a chang e i n th e ai r qualit yi n a Federa l Clas s I.are a an d woul d identif yth e potentia l effect s o f suc hchange . Source s no t receivin g th e notic e ar e no t require d t o conduc t a^CTas s I incremen t analysis . Thus , th e significan t impac t iffA 

### level s tha t EP Ai s proposin g fo r clas s I increment s woul d appl y^ \ t o propose d source s tha t hav e receive d thi s notice . A^

- determinatio n tha t a propose d sourc e receivin g a Clas s Jsnotice Qs* ha s a n insignifican t impac t o n Clas s I increment s VHHUC T 

### exclud e G^^ * r i t fro mfurthe r incremen t analysis , bu t no t fro ma clas s I are a S?^ ^ - impact s assessment . Th e EP Arequest s publi c comment s o n it s ^yZ/C 

### ^^ 

# y^>_ PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D^sj " ^ BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP A POLIC YU 

### 7^ ** • Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *



# lbP.1 6

08/25/9 5 14:2 0 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S •>•*-> PGC AI RDIVISIPN ©015
_

«i.-.. . 

## "H v

V 20 6 proposa l t o establis hsignifican t impac t level s fo r Clas s I increment s i n genera l an d th e propose d levels , specifically . 5 . Clarificatio n o f Miscellaneou s Issues . Th e discussio n whic hfollow s addresse s severa l relativel y discret e issues . Th e EP Ai s clarifyin g curren t polic yi n area s wher e ther e i s potentia l fo r significan t confusio n o r uncertaint y and , i n som e instances , i s proposin g conformin g change s t o th e implementin g regulations . Th e EP Ai s als o proposin g change s tha t largel ycodif yexistin g policy . a . Significan t Impac t Level s fo r NAAQ S an d Clas s I I an d II I Increment s Th e EP Ai s proposin g severa l change s t o th e PS D regulation s a t bot hsectio n 51.166 . an d sectio n 52.2 1 t o mak e th e rule s rf- consisten t wit hcurren t practice . First , th e EP Ai s proposin g t o t , \ revis e th e provision s o f existin g sectio n 51.16 6 (k ) an d sectio n

u/ f 

# ,7 

# J ?• f 52.2l(k ) t o clarif ytha t a source , itself , mus t mak e a "significan t contribution " t o a violatio n o f an yNAAQ S o r PS D Clas s I I o r II I incremen t befor e tha t sourc e woul d b e denie d a PS D permit . Second , th e EP Ai s proposin g t o incorporat e int o th e

' * _j r ' PS D regulation s th e significan t impac t level s currently , se t fort h

^a, ^ 

### vif/v . a t 

### sectio n 51.165(b ) (2)--whic har e bein g use d t o determin e * J 7 

### ywhethe r majo r ne wsourc e o r majo r modificatio n contribute s t o a J^ . violation-o f a NAAQS--S O tha t the yma yb e directl yapplie d t o th e 

# i7)f. 4 j f \ " A
. PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAOEMEN T AN D y ^ \ 7 BUDGE T REVIEW

• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y S 7 

### \w". /

""•• V Jun e *29 , 19*95 " ---""[file^name* : Masters.29 ] *• •P.1 7

08/25/9 5 14:2 0 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S ->->- > PG C AI R DIVISIP N©01 6

/ i — v » •••-•* • • ' ' • 7 ' - ' '-(• - / v " 7 " ^ 1 . L

_t_.. .- r-^-^. .:';>•.•' . i . . i . ' r- a . ' 

### significan t impac t level s fo r th e AQRV s shoul d res t wit hth e FLM . .An ysignifican t impac t level s fo r AQRV s ma ynecessaril yb e site

specific ^ sinc e eac hAQRV an d it s associate d critica l pollutan t loading s ma yb e differen t fro mare a t o are a an d eve n withi n individua l Federa l Clas s I areas . .,yA s describe d i n sectio n IV.C.i.e. , th e FLM' s Rol e i n Triggerin g a Clas s I Incremen t Analysis , th e EP Ai s proposin g i 

### i regulation s tha t cal l fo r th e filin g o f a notic e b yth e FLM , th e 

## i Federa l officia l wit hdirec t land managemen t responsibility , th e Administrato r o r th e Governo r o f a n adjacen t Stat e containin g a Federa l Clas s I are a t o trigge r th e dut yo f a sourc e t o conduct--a . ^ Clas s I incremen t and Clas s I impac t analysis . Th e notic e woul d CcsJiJy 

### alleg e tha t emission s fro ma propose d sourc e caus e o r contribut e t o a chang e i n th e ai r qualit yi n a Federa l Clas s I are a an d woul d identif yth e potentia l effect s o f suc hchange . y



### Source s no t receivin g th e notic e ar e no t require d t o conduc t a^Clas s I incremen t analysis . Thus , th e significan t impac t ,- - rfi& 

### level s tha t EP A

i s proposin g fo r clas s I increment s woul d appl y-t-^" t o propose d source s tha t hav e receive d thi s notice . A- ^ t 

### determinatio n tha t a propose d sourc e receivin g a Clas s j-f^notice ^* s 

### ha s a n insignifican t impac t o n Clas s I increment s **<I>-SI Q 

### exclud e (y*^ i t fro mfurthe r incremen t analysi s bu t no t fro ma clas s I are a impact s assessment . Th e EP A request s publi c comment s o n it s ^y 

## c^>_ PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T ANDv^u " ^ BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y. V^ " *• * JUn e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Masters.29 ] ** •P.1 8

08/25/9 5 14:2 0 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S ->->- > OG C AI RDIVISIO N©01 7

"si* * - • 20 7 "significan t contribution " tes t i n th e PS D regulations . Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(b ) (23 ) (iv ) an d sectio n 52,2Kb ) (23 ) (iv ) . Th e EP Aha s lon g interprete d th e "significan t contribution " tes t se t fort hi n existin g sectio».5l.l65(b)(2 ) t o appl yt o PS D Cpr ^.w-w-c f puff'*-'

-(fly) sources , a s well , 'since thtr-provisio n applie s t o majo r ne w source s and majo r modification s locate d i n attainmen t and . C AJ>A ^ 

### U^y$ri^$&^*Jr

(WVo f UvjLol

u^-v-^

— t\*&--LsuT

f's

— Tz£rTZ3Zr~£ttv J -irrKHjid unca.assifiabl e areas . _ A/ Finally , th e EP Ai s proposin g t o add significan t impac t r^^J* ^ level s fo r th e Clas s I I an d Clas s II I increments , ge e propose d f r i^ r sectio n Si.166(b ) (23 ) (v ) an d sectio n 52.2 1 (b ) (23 ) (v ) . Th e Hr© / \ propose d level s ar e th e same a s thos e level s a t existin g sectio n 51.165(b)(2) , whic hdefin e a significan t contributio n t o a violatio n o f th e NAAQS , an d simpl ycodif ycurren t EP Apolic y^ whic hallow s th e significan t impac t level s fromsectio n 51.165(b ) t o b e directl yapplie d t o th e PS D progra mt o determin e a significan t contributio n t o eithe r th e NAAQ S o r PS D increments . Th e EP Arequest s commen t o n th e nee d t o includ e thes e significan t impac t level s i n th e PL D regulation s an d th e nee d fo r significan t impac t level s fo r Clas s I I and Clas s II I increments . Furthermore , th e EP Arequest s commen t o n th e propose d significan t impac t level s fo r th e "las s I I an d Clas s II I increments , specificall ywhethe r the yshoul d b e lowe r tha n th e level s used

fo r NAAQ S compliance . b . Analysi s o f Impact s o n Federa l Clas s I I Area s PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMSNT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIA L EP A POLICY ** * June 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Masters.29 ] *• •P.1 9

08/25/9 5 14:2 1 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S ->*-

> OG C AI RDIVISIP

N©01 8

•**- , 20 8 Today " s-proposa l als o clarifie s th e requiremen t fo r th e "additiona l impac t analysis " under-existin g section s 51.l66(o ) an d 52.21(o) . I n additio n t o th e centra l requirement s tha t eac h PS D sourc e mus t demonstrat e tha t it s allowabl e emission s wil l no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f an yNAAQ S o r PS D increment , eac hsuc hsourc e i s generall yrequire d t o prepar e a n additiona l analysi s fo r th e pollutant s tha t i t wil l emit . Thi s additiona l analysi s i s consisten t wit hth e statutor yprovision s unde r sectio n 165(e)(3)(B ) o f th e Act , an d include s a n assessmen t o f th e impairmen t o f visibility , soils , an d vegetatio n withi n th e propose d source' s impac t area, \ includin g Federa l Clas s I an d I I areas . I n addition , th e EP Ai s proposin g mor e specifi c provision s fo r Federa l Clas s I area s tha t requir e simila r analysi s wher e a Federa l Lan d Manage r allege s tha t a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s ma yoccu r i n Federa l Clas s I are a land s locate d beyon d th e are a normall yconsidere d t o b e withi n th e propose d source' s impac t area . Se e propose d sectio n 51.166(p)(2)(i ) an d sectio n 52.21(p ) (2 ) (i) , an d relate d discussio n i n sectio n IV.C.i.e . o f thi s preamble .

. w6 7 Th e EP A considersNyth e impac t are a t o b e th e geographica l \JLS\yare a fo r whic hth e propose d sourc e mus t carr you t th e require d r ' • \ ai r qualit yanalyse s fo r the . NAAQ S an d PS D increments . Th e EPA' s siC\ guidanc e provide s tha t such\re a generall ylie s withi n 5 0 J ^wV kilometer s o f th e propose d so\irce--th e accepte d rang e o f Gaussia n lytT . dispersio n modelin g techniques ^ Se e th e EPA' s "Ne wSourc e Revie w Lv c Worksho p Manual, " Offic e o f Air\Qualit yPlannin g an d Standards , rT
- Octobe r 199 0 (Draft ) \jJ\\ 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 .w^V-M . ** * Jun e 29 , 1995^ - [filename : Master6.29 ] •• • m h 

# 1 it 

# y \ f y <oxy A 

# <\yM 

# 'jmZr*

. town, iP.2 0

08/25/9 5 14:2 1 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS ONR/A Q NP S -»-»-

• PGC AI RDIVISIP N

©01 9



### 21 7 and/o r permi t applicants . Al l FLM s wil l hav e acces s t o th

e database . Thi s segment'o f th e NSR . B B wil l provid e ver ybasi c sourc e information , sucha s th e nam e an d typ e o f source , it s location vi a UT

Mcoordinates , th

e distanc e between th e proposed sourc e an

d al l Federa l Clas s I area s withi n 50 0 km , an d th e proposed emission rat e o r ne t emission s increas e o f eachai r pollutan t associated wit hth e project . I t als o wil l allowpermi t applicant s an

d permittin

g authoritie s t o presen t question s t o th e FL Mregardin

g ai r qualityissue s relativ e t o an yFedera l land s potentiall yaffected b yth e proposed newo r increased emissions , and , conversely , provide a contac t t o whom ' th e FL Mma ydirec t •-;--,

• inquirie s an

d information . Se e proposed section 51.166(n)(4 ) section 52.21(n)(4) . Second , a databas e addressin g Federa l Clas s I area s wil l be availabl e i n whichth e FL Man d th e EP Awil l pos t the followin g information a s i t become s available :

- Boundarie s an

d siz e o f existin

g Federa l Clas s I area s

- Area-specifi c AQR

V information , includin g sensitive receptors , critica l loadings , current sourc e inventory , curren t loading s fro

msource s i n th

e sourc e inventory , an d existin

g advers e conditions ; ^ TlU s si^jd no\ C-tfc W^ k

- Source-specifi c informatio n on increment consumption an d -lp . J impact s on AQRVs i n specifi c Federa l Clas s I areas ; $~ /""?

_C-e^e- f
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGET REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Masters.29 ] ** * ^ ^ •. name : n-»-«»4« J— ,yi^ x^,^. . 

## X if -r

a h 

## .P.2 1

08/25/9 5 14:2 2 ©20 2 20 8 462 0 WAS P NR/A Q NP S -»-»-

• OGC AI RDIVISIP N

©02 0

*; . 

# V
22 9 few, ' i f any^mjjo r NS R permit s t o proces s i n a year . A t thi s tim e ther e ar e n o Triba l permittin g authorities . Therefor e th e EP Adoe s no t expec t a significan t economi c impac t o n a substantia l numbe r o f smal l entities . However , th e EP Asolicit s commen t o n th e possibl e impact s o f thi s rulemakin g proposa l o n smal l entitie s a s require d unde r sectio n 605(b ) o f th e Regulator y Flexibilit yAct . F . Unfunde dMandate s Ac t Unde r th e Unfunde d Mandate s Refor mAc t o f 1995'("Unfunde d Mandate s Act") , signe d int o la wo n Marc h22 , 1995 , EP Amus t undertak e variou s action s i n associatio n wit hpropose d o r fina l rule s tha t includ e a Federa l mandat e tha t ma yresul t i n estimate d cost s o f $10 0 millio n o r mor e t o th e privat e sector , o r t o State , local , o r triba l government s i n th e aggregate . A s show n i n th e economi c impac t analysi s (EIA ) fo r thi s rul e ( a cop yo f th e EI Ai s availabl e i n th e docket) , th e EP Aha s estimate d th e tota l annualize d cos t o f .th e NS R permittin g progra m includin g th e propose d reform s t o b e $35. 5 million . Th e change s t o th e NS R rule s propose d i n thi s rulemakin g ar e expecte d t o decreas e annua l cost s t o industr yb yapproximatel y$1. 2 million , t o Stat e an d loca l ai r pollutio n contro l agencie s b y ••-"? ' ^> 

### approximatel y$1. 4 million , an d t o EP Ab y$116,000 . « EPA's propose d actio n woul d no t impos e anyfedera l intergovernmenta l ' ~^> 

### W i 

# 4 ei. 'Jt fi^7

, „ CE O F MANAGEMEN T AN D. ' r

### h?Cr/ PRELIMINARYSTAF F WORXIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D' -«y BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y^< V

/ ** * Jun e 29 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : ipaster6.29 ] ** * K



# / f