OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

10) ll-F-52 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54 AM Sheet 10 of 45 

p.1 
P.2 

A-90-3? 

FAX COVER SHEET AFFAIRS 

DATE: 

%AL NUMBER OF PAGES: 

COMMENTS: APL 

-**> r*» c\ *-** n An rs 

j j APRS (T|9g5 

ri'-*/w_ L ._/. 

J 

IF VOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES 

PLEASE CONTACT US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. 

VERIFICATION NO.: 202-395-3084 

OR 202- 395-7340 

OIRA FAX NO.: 202-395-7285 

8k 
P.3 

KSBIuufis 

1. General 

a) Is this NSR reform? Is it better than no change? 

- EPA believes that this proposal will reduce the cost of NSR; we think that on 

balance it increases costs over the current NSR regulations. J£n particular, we 

believe the BACT determination process and the Federal Land Manager process 

(with the associated requirements to assess AQRV effects in netting, etc.) fUi 

significantly to the burden of the current process. Our efforts to come to grips 

with this through EPA's cost analysis have been largely frustrated. 

2. Applicability 

a) "Actual-to-Future Actual" language equal WEPCO? 

- EPA's new language mimics WEPCO. 

b) Use additional language from "Puerto Rico cement" to support like kind 

replacement/actual-to-future actual. 

---• EPA's OGC does not accept DOE's view of "PR cement". 

c) Applicability determined through minor NSR, not self-implementing. 
P.4 

- EPA argues that WEPCO is administered through State NSR, this proposal 

provides as much flexibility as WEPCO. 

d) Federal enforceability required for ftiture emissions? 

- Yei. EPA will discuss, though, the D.C. Circuit remand in the preamble. 

e) Repeat 1992 W£PCO language on why WEPCO is good? 

EPA has added some 1992 WEPCO language; DOE believes EPA should add 

more of the 1992 WEPCO language. 

" -:"^\. 

f) Support "demand growth exclusion"? 

- EPA's language continues to be skeptical of a broad application of "demand 

growth exclusion"; EPA's language sets out a "neutral" request for comments for 

WEPCO (i.e., retaining the demand growth exclusion just for electric utilities). 

g) Netting, "clean unit", pollution control/prevention projects PALs, etc. must evaluate 

effect on NAAQS, PSD increments, and AQRVs. AQRV effects will be especially 

difficult to evaluate and may entail a lengthy review process. 
P.5 

EPA has retained these requirements. Evaluation and review of AQRV effect. 

W y to be burdensome for any source within 250 km of a Federal Class I area. 
P.6 

h) Treatment of Pollution Control/Prevention Projects: 

* • 

(I) Rewrites WEPCO to make it a permitting process: includes toxics and AQRVs. 

Modeling is required; not just a permitting authority option. 

- EPA's language no longer includes toxics; AQRV review will be burdensome (as 

noted above). Preamble language seems to increase the burden on the source to 

demonstrate (model?) that no adverse effects will occur, but, it is not clear whether 

this is a change that imposes substantial new burdens on sources. 

(ii) Definition of pollution control project is closed. 

- EPA promises to fix this. 

(iii) Draws a "bead" on demand growth exclusion. 

- Yes; especially for broad application beyond WEPCO. 

(iv) Environmentally beneficial test required for pollution prevention projects? 

- Yes. EPA staff report they may offer some relief for repeat projects. 

(Note: proposal drops the environmentally beneficial test in WEPCO for 

pollution control projects). 
P.7 

(v) Energy Efficiency Projects excluded from PPP? 

- - Yes. 

3. BACT/Technology Issues 

a) Federal BACT is "top-down" 

Yes. 

b) State BACT is implicitly "top-down". 

- Yes, as currently written. 

(I) EPA should include 1977 Senate Report language. 

EPA has done so. 

(ii) EPA should make "maximum reduction feasible" a function of all factors (p 

statutory language), not just a technology test. 

EPA has revised its language; we are evaluating it. 
P.8 

(iii) Put "cost-effectiveness" into rule language and elaborate on the role of CE in 

the. preamble. 

Has DOE provided language? 

4. FLM. Class I Issues 

a) EPA should drop/revise preamble language requiring States to give deference to FLM 

EPA has changed language to "recognize" expertise of FLM, instead of deferring 

to the FLM; allows States to use experts to counter FLM. 

b) Only "defined" AQRVs need be evaluated by source, considered by State. 

EPA rejects this position. 

c) Rule language should include specific criteria that FLM should meet in submitting a 

"Notice of Potential Adverse Impact" to the State. 

EPA has declined suggested changes; EPA's revised preamble language drops the 

"causal link" discussion in favor of much softer language. 
_E_a_, 

d) Exclude dfl minimis sources. 

EPA has declined suggested rule language. EPA has added preamble language 

asking for comments and ideas on way to implement a ds minii-ma approach, but 

the discussion does not offer a specific approach. 

e) Burden of AQRV analysis for a demonstration, of adverse impact, on the FLM or on 

the source? 

EPA's rule/preamble clearly places the burden of doing AQRV analysis on the 

source. 

__£!