p.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

22) IV-E-17 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM Sheet 22 of 117 
P.2 

AT/2*_ Uw \ 6 7^r;J | ? lott^c- 4^ 

NSR Reform Package Generally . . , , 

THINGS INDUSTRY REALLY NEEDS l£* \ _. 

1. Ozone Depleting Substance Significance Levels (presently any increase 

triggers PSD) 

2. Pollution Control Project exclusion (in place of present case-by-case 

determination) 

3. Pre-permit Construction Activities ("Commence Construction") 

4. Auto's Onlv ~ Baseline Selection Over Ten Years 

5. Changes Easing use of Shutdown Credits j 

6. BACT/LAER "Cut-Off Date

 ! 

THINGS INDUSTRY 'KIND OF' WANTS 

1. Clean Unit Exemption (though it looks like no one would-be eligible for a long 

enough time period to get real benefit from it) 

2. UTA Waivers 

3. Improvements to BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (esp. info on whether project 

actually built) 

THINGS EPA WANTS WHICH INDUSTRY HAS SIGNIFICANT MISGIVINGS 

ABOUT 

1. State Minimum PAL Criteria (Eliminates Flexibility) 

THINGS EPA WANTS THAT INDUSTRY IS NEUTRAL ON 

1. Judicial Standing Requirements for Citizens 

2. Early Notification (nonjurisdictional) of FLMs 

3. 1990 Codification Rule (we've lived this long without it!) 

THINGS INDUSTRY IS OPPOSED TO 

1. Class I Procedures Generally (Federal and Nonfederal Class I Procedures) 

2. Top Down BACT/SIP Core Technology 

3. WEPCO Adjustments if EPA Eliminates Exclusion or Continues to Refuse to 

Expand It 

4. AQRV Monitoring Guidance Promised by M. Nichols as part of Stonewall XL 

Agreement 

5. Regional Haze SIP Commitments on Stationary Sources in Light of Grand 

Canyon Findings that they do not Significantly Contribute to Regional Haze 

H>ln 

\\\DC - 70166/300 - 0574324.01 
P.3 

Class I Issues 

WHAT INDUSTRY WANTED 

1. De minimis values for presumptive findings of no adverse impact 

2. Recognition of mitigation to resolve claims of adverse impacts 

3. FLMs restricted to use of CAA-approved models for predicting adverse 

impacts 

4. Public procedures under the CAA for defining specific AQRVs in specific 

Class I areas 

WHAT INDUSTRY HATES ABOUT EPA'S PROPOSAL 

1. Limitless FLM opportunity to ask for technical studies to block state 

completeness determination on an application and/or issuance of permits 

2. Virtually meaningless definition of adverse air quahty impact on undefined 

generic AQRVs 

3. Apparent burden on States to conduct its own analysis to reject FLM claim of 

adverse impact order and to issue permit (goes well beyond Old Dominion 

and Buena Vista findings that states only must give reasonable consideration 

to FLM's assertion of adverse impact and cannot summarily reject a specific 

impact finding) 

WHAT INDUSTRY COULD PROBABLY LIVE WITH 

1. Nonjurisdictional procedures encouraging early notification and dialogue 

2. Rules acknowledging abihty to mitigate adverse impact with recognition that 

some tools yet to be developed 

3. Fact sheets prepared by applicants to notify FLMs within 50/100 meters (but 

not 200 meters) of Class I areas when permit application submitted 

4. Preamble acknowledging considerable work to be done on identifying AQRVs 

of concern in specific Class I areas and need for tools for identifying potential 

adverse impacts 

\\\DC - 70166/300 - 0574390.01