P. 1



# OAR Box 1790 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 230 ) ll-F-2 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/200812:43:17

PM Sheet 230of 2500J/1B/9 5 17700©20258 6 280 5 GC-4 2

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F ENERG Y Washington / DC OFFIC E O F GENERAL COUNSE L INTERNATIONAL & LEGAL POLIC Y P. 2 1^00 1



## . A-90-3 7 3I* ~ £ - S O

DATE : ^l/fe/^ V PAGES : COVE R+ 

# 4* . TO : FA X# : FROM : J^ftQ. ^

ET-rioiR.e ' 

### ?n-Y4 l -«-* * <~7?< 7 " / — 

### Artv2_ir\ An^ «

REMARKS : 

### _K^>R ' PVa^Vui^W- ^ r^^Llcf- h

Fa x# : (FTS ) 896-739 6

(202 ) 586-739 6 Verificatio n # : (FTS ) 896-290 6 (202 ) 586-290 0



# ^:^^:^m^S^M

••»-»A>T*- 'P,3

_ 03/16/9 5 17:0 0©20 258 6280 5 GC-4 2 E l 00 2 0 €p-.tb*erJr-

o f £Vv< »

CHECKLIS T O F RECOMMENDATIONS/REACTION S R E EPA' S NE WSOURC E REVIE W REFORM- 1 . I t woul d b e desirabl e t o grovid e a conceptua l framewor k fo r evaluatin g mor e comprehensivel yth e reformoptions , especiall y sinc e thi s proposa l present s a variet yo f applicablilit y methodologies . I nparticular , EPAshoul d clarif yth e typ e o f conduc t tha t need s t o b e regulated . 2 . Pag e 18 : Delet e th e phras e i nlin e tw o referrin g t o electri c utilit ygeneratin g units . Th e Puert o Rica nCemen t Co . cas e di d no t dea l wit helectri c utilities . Th e discussio n shoul d briefl y distinguis hth e fact s o f th e tw o cases . Thes e case s addresse d th e interpretatio n o f th e phras e ha s "begu nnorma l operations. " 3 . Pag e 39 : Indicat e firs t th e genera l rul e tha t wher e th e uni t "ha s begu nnorma l operations, " th e Ne wSourc e Revie w(NSR ) rule s contemplat e a n"actual-to-actual " comparison . 4 . Page s 41-43 : I norde r t o distinguis hth e tw o cases , EPA shoul d briefl ydescrib e th e natur e o f th e change s involve d i nth e Puert o Rica nCemen t cas e (renovation s resulting i n a "newkiln") . 5 . Pag e 45 : I nth e firs t paragraph , mention , that , i n th e 197 7 amendment s t o th e Clea nAi r Act , Congres s affirme d a pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio nfo r al l sourc e categorie s base d o nth e exclusio n containe d i n th e NSP S rules . Th e WEPC O exclusio n buil t upo ntha t exclusion . Also , delet e th e las t sentenc e o f th e paragrap hand replac e wit hth e following sentence , whic hi s consisten t wit hEPA' s propose d revision : Today , EPAi s proposin g a ne wpollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio n tha t i s differen t i n approac hfromth e WEPC O exclusion . Th e propose d exclusio nwoul d supersed e th e WEPC O exclusio nand b e applicabl e t o al l sourc e categories. " 6 . Topi c generally : Clea nUni t Exclusion . Inquir e whethe r thi s i s trul ya n"exclusion. " Th e "exclusion " describe d seem s t o focus , no t o nwhethe r ther e i s a physica l o r operationa l change , but , instead , o nth e criteri a fo r applying a nNSPS-typ e emission s increas e test . See , fo r example , las t sentenc e o f continuin g paragrap ho npag e 46 . Also , se e discussio no f CM Aproposa l o n pag e 137 . 7 . Recommend raising a s a questio nth e suitabilit yo f applyin g an "allowabl e t o allowable " tes t i nsituation s wher e a nemission s uni t ha s undergon e nettin g or . offsetting . Also , questio n th e wisdo mo f repealin g curren t paragrap h52.21(b ) (21 ) (iii) . Thi s proposa l seem s inconsisten t wit ha rulemaking tha t i s considerin g variou s applicabilit ymethodologies . 8 . As k whethe r EPAshoul d reques t commen t o nwhethe r th e Agenc yP. 4

03/16/9 5 1770 1 ©20 258 6 280 5 GC-42(g] 00 3

shoul d remov e th e presumption s embodie d i nth e curren t regulation s and allo wth e State s th e discretio nt o determin e a baselin e perio d tha t i s representativ e o f norma l busines s operations . 9 . Recommend amending EPA' s propose d inser t o nth e Pollutio n Projec t Contro l Exclusio nt o highligh t th e following significan t differences : us e o f differen t environmentall ybeneficia l tests ; requiremen t t o minimiz e collatera l emission s increases ; requirement , wher e appropriate , fo r a nai r toxic s ris k assessment . Also , solici t commen t o napplying th e curren t WEPC O exclusio n t o al l sources . 10 . Pag e 82 : Delet e th e third sentenc e an d describ e briefl yth e approac htake nbyth e WEPC O environmentally-beneficia l standard-

- overal l benefit s test , "no t les s environmentally " beneficial . Indicat e tha t th e propose d exclusio nwoul d requir e individua l pollutan t assessments . Finally , correc t th e las t ful l sentenc e o n th e pag e tha t indicate s tha t th e WEPC O exclusio n"requires " modeling . Th e WEPC O rul e state s tha t a permittin g authorit yma y requir e modelin g unde r certai ncircumstances . 11 . Indicat e tha t th e WEPC O exclusio nfocuse s o nincrease s i n "representativ e actua l annua l emissions. " 12 . Pag e 86 : As k EPAt o explai nit s assertio ni nth e second paragrap htha t th e environmentally-beneficia l standar d i nth e WEPC O rul e i s "vague. " I t woul d seemmor e accurat e t o indicat e tha t th e WEPC O tes t i s differen t fromth e on e being proposed . 13 . Pag e 92 : As k EPAt o solici t commen t o nwhethe r a pollutio n preventio nprojec t woul d qualif yfo r th e pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio ni f th e chang e significatl yreduce s emission s pe r uni t o f product , and , althoughth e modificatio ni s reasonabl ylikel yt o caus e a n increas e i nutilization , th e resulting highe r leve l o f emisssion s woul d no t excee d th e source' s permitte d allowabl e emissions . 14 . Pag e 94 : As k EPAt o solici t commen t o na self-executin g exclusio nfo r project s liste d i nth e propose d exclusio ntha t ar e require d unde r statutoryo r regulatorystandard s takin g int o accoun t collateral/othe r ai r qualit yimpacts . Could.actuall yrais e questio no npag e 104 . 15 . Paa e 96 : Indicat e tha t Par t C o f th e CA Ai s no t t o appl yt o pollutant s regulate d unde r Sectio n112(g) . 16 . Pag e 97 : Not e again , tha t th e WEPC O exclusio nconcern s representativ e actua l annua l emissions . 17 . Pag e 99 : As k EPAwhethe r offset s shoul d b e require d regardles s o f ai r qualit yimpacts . Also , shoul d EPAconside r whethe r a Stat e alread yha s take nint o accoun t collatera l increase sP. 5

uo'.\x a, ±i. u iCZTT Z OD D iau oIJC-4 212)00 4

i nit s SIP . 18 . Pag e 101 : Questio nth e applicatio no f th e actual-to-potentia l tes t wher e ther e i s debottlenecking an d loadshifting a s a resul t o f th e installatio n o f th e pollutio ncontro l equipment . 19 . Inquir e abou t th e natur e o f th e advanc e notificatio ntha t a sourc e woul d hav e t o provid e t o permittin g authoritie s i n connectio nwit happlicabilit ydetermination s fo r pollutio ncontro l projects . 20 . I nth e sectio n o nth e WEPC O rule , clarif yth e applicatio n o f curren t regulation s fo r determining whe na sourc e ha s "begun norma l operations. " . 21 . Examin e th e merit s o f applying th e actual-to-futur e actua l methodologyt o noncyclica l industries . Also , as k EP At o solici t commen t o nth e curren t us e o f th e actual-to-potentia l tes t fo r non utilities . 22 . Inquir e a s t o ho wEPAwil l dea l wit hth e statutor yan d regulator yrequiremen t tha t a nincreas e abov e th e baselin e yea r emission s mus t "resul t from " th e physica l o r operationa l change . 23 . Inquir e regardin g th e effec t o f eliminating th e futur e actua l methodologyo nth e CA Acomplianc e obligation s o f utilities . 24 . Overall , EPAshoul d solici t commen t o n whethe r differen t emission s test s ar e appropriat e depending o n th e activit yinvolved .