p.1 

OAR Box 1793 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

5) ll-F-47 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54 AM Sheet 5 of 45 
Would you 

kindly 

see that 

this gets to 

the right 

person? 

' ys-F-ij 

P.2 

H-10- 37 JT-f-U* 

orrzcs or XANACEKENT AND BUDGET 

orrzcz or XKTORXATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

OATEt 0 , , _ SENDER : Afr £<*** 

TO» 

AGENCYI 

IRON* . 

^Utevuols Crun.plx-r' 

RECIPIENT'S PAX NO.I fo »<0 5*// ~SS0 9 

RECIPIENT TELEPHONE MO.I 

TOTAL NUXBER OP PAGES INCLUDING COVER SBEETl 

CONMENTS l , _ _ 

MOTE: IP YOU DO HOT RECEIVE ALL 

AS POSSIBLE. 

VERIFICATION NO. I 202-395-7340 

OZRA PAX NO.f 202-395-7215 

IKE PAGES, YXJEASE CALL AS SOON 
P.3 

CJgfl*L, U/uIr FyrLA 

UUx/ihe/i tW^Ut^L&jT"LTftuJr< **y\'*^ U*

U

fr 

, J... . ^"„-»...• .iL .4-"'. ...i f .JL A 'L. ~ (PZ 

rl^tWx^W.4L.-p/3 . S-bzig. Ol/xr?/!?? tk faulJa.L^T' 

-fa EPA /]q|vi^ WJ . 

Q1/Xr7/5fr LS. ^i , 

(j^^-c^Qj^Qlg pp, 31 3 3S j9? ^ 

QM»LM^LTS Cihifci.f.1 [hH)t CQ'^Ia fa^ UK^U-il*. ?>QrtAi, Pfd/f^Ja y 

G^.? Vi*. tn "Uw y^f <HA,T) ft^ M tiidc *B ACT d. 

k iJh&rAiu^i^ "iLls. .AiQ^ ggvlL Z^^tk 

{. CJ^Atnl^ 

V W. fJr^AjuiL^k. f^i <p>. ^\ J for g^a'npU 

f IS I "5 / * I I I _ I - f I I 

/Ujwg,l fen ^av^^.a^k ove-tL. MAIIK F& F.Pft 

yxrg^.-f^ ^La ^ i/ftvAA 'VAI^. (^ uWfr 

CJ**JLAA& -\L^r dx ^ fjvtogUfl.bU, , 

3) UAg. \ ^ ^ Sa-fcu&cuc** S^-D«..Ift S-ackwi (^.33 ) 

C^XA3.€^g^& WXgflAAa.- . ? 
P.4 

y) Tlr Is* ^'11 VU)f Ata*, 4o Y*JL IJXJJLA. 

dlua 

•ACT/L^Eg ^ ^^pyirgV 

-a^nQAbiJc ^tn <?OAUSA T^ACT/lAF? <4>frfoi*n 

£ ) CLUXJ ^ 4Q koTtbVn 6^ (p. ?(r? |'f?*V /?, 

)W^clp 

• - , I — 
P.5 

OCT 02 '95 03:26PM ITPID-IIG/OP-J 

P.5/-12 

. . . < a . • l l • 

In other worda, what oxitaria diatinguiah a unit eligible for 

thla axciuaioc from one which ia sot? Criteria which allow a '" 

broad, range of unite to qualify eouid iargaly transform the 

exiatirvg applicability ayatam into one baud aoialy oa aaaaaeing 

a wfit'.a potential amiasiona. vith tha posaibility ef a dramatic 

increaaa ia a unit'a actual amiaalone -without undergoing vaft. 

. • * . • '• i 

• 

. Tha EPA'a propoaea. to require dmisaieaa units to hava a' 

•federally enforceable emlaalone limit" that "i» aowtpagabie to J* 

the, emi aaion limit that . . .would result frem,>-current-rovieifl'y 

under the BAn- ojr LABA regulrejanta. whiehevar ia applicable to 

the prapoaad change. te*m. a-a... proposed aeetione S**9* 

Il.lfiS(e) (i) (v) io (W (ii), 3l.l«6 Co). (21 (111) (L) (2) and 

52.21(b) (2). (Ill) iii) (2).) Tha IPA enviaiona that three fcypea Of 

llralta would qualify (1) SAW, or LASE liwita aet within the laet 

10 yaara,; (2>*litdq^VetAby a ata^a Vig^A^.p> *fsft/aw Bgaaraln 

dat arm 

«, (2telitd.ge7aet.by a a>^| v^Wf* ^ »TMMf 

Im BPft. tn ivalent\to tha federal BACT' or LAER 

notice and 

_ fi 'ifr 

program*/, and, omimiaS'ftound on a oaaa«by,-caae. baeie -- aftar 

' " >r public comment' »» to be Cayaivalent) tof*8* 

+Ui.' OfcctTc-4-M- U « & *» ^

 #"^*r "*'*** ^ *-*""f Wl 

a. • feita with BACT. or LAS * Limit. "*;* **& T "•tf*" S "M**'"* * 

One etarting point for determining wbether a .unit ia, well- . 

controlled ia the laval of control. required tO eatlefy PACT (in 

attainment/enelaaalClad areaa) or LAER (In nonattainment araaa). 

rot unit a which hava recently undergone theae reviews, rePBiLXKlVMiy flTAf f N0JUC2N9 DRAFT FOB OFFICE OP XAKA98X2OT ALU? 

. HionaiT MVXS W * pose NO T AEPMSBN T orrscxAb S» A POLICY -

#•• July 15, 1M B --- [file nemai Naate.rC.a9] •*• 

f/iy 
: PJ_ 

OCT 02 '95 03-26PM ITPID-IIG/OPG 

P.6/12 

-' ' ' -.'.. . 

with Federal MACT or XACT limit a, the SPA is not inclined to do • 

• , .'••• • • ' • a * •••." ' 

ao aoroae the board. Rather, the-EPA beiievea that MACT pr RACT 

llmlta ahould be found to qualify for the clean Unit exclusion 

Uaing'the edao-bycesa option described in section-2X.C.)*c 

below. .'.'•*•' " 

b. state Technology Programa Equivalent to BACT or LAER, 

There are many emisalons units at etationary eourcea that 

were permitted acoordlng to a state*s minor NfiR,permitting ' 

program, while theea unit a are. not^at r oiled' pmauanL • LU a SA W 

or LAER limit, they etill may .navel etate-of-the-'art'i 

lain. • LU a SAffKa 

contxtole. J / 

For instance, several jurisdiction* have control technology 

reviews ae part of State, loeal er tribal minor NSR program whieh 

requires new or-modifying aeureaa to meet amissions levale '\ 

Caqujval eafc\ to major source control techhology requirements. 11ACT 

or LABR). Ppr thla reaaon-, the SPA le proposing that permitting 1 ' ' f * ' ** 

• > i • 

-authorities, may'submit miner NSR eontrol technology requirements; 

for certification by the EPA that the minor NBA' program requireo ' . . 

eontrol technology that would satisfy,tha requirementa for the 

. clean unit axolueioh. Sift proposed'sections 

51.16*(a) (1) (v) (O (U) (X) il) , Bl.lfiS (b) (2) (iii) (L) (A) (ii) aid • 

S3.21(b) (3) (iii) (L) (A) (ii) • Onpa determined by EPA to be. ~~Y r*^\*£ 

, , , • • • , - _ * *- " 

• equivalent." ell unite subject to emieeions limitation established 

uader.the jurisdiction'a miner NBR program would be eligible for 

the dee s Unit exeluaion for tha firet 10 yeare following 

& 

PMLIMIllARY ITAFF WOAKXXO DRAFT FOR OFF ICI OF MAHABSK2NT AMD 

1UDGST Ain/IDW * SOIfl NOT ASPA1B8NT OFFICIAL aFA POLICY ' 

••• July 5, 1001 —- [file namei Master*.2*) *•* 
P.7 

OCT 02 '9S 03:2BPn ITPID-IIG/OPG 

P.7/12 

V" 

• 3S ....-- . 

issuence of the permit, the' EPA also solicits comment oa whether 

a shorter period, euch as 5 years, would be more appropriate, 

* ' a a ' ' 

' The BPA also solicits comment on the appropriate' standards 

for IfPA te Ufa'in determining, whether a permitting authority a 

minor V W program control technology requirement! are comparable 

to the BACT and IAEA requirement!. TJhe BPA snvlsiona tbat aa a'""""). 

minimum a "pre*certifled"' minor NBA program comply with *D CFR 

, 5i..iao-ua. 

1 e. Qualification of Units on a Case-by-Casa fi&ai'a 

' . In many cases an emissions unit not-subject to major. Np* ie 

eonetruetad.or retrofitted with a eontrol technology or etratagy 

i • • • 

equivalent to the beet Ooatrola applied in practice. Thie may 

occur when a aource minimises emiaaione in order to »nat« a unit i • 

i 

.out of major NBA or applies,controls. to comply vith other 

provisions 'of tha Act.' For this.reason, the BPA1a prepoaed 

regulations would allow a aburoe having a limit on en amlaal< 

unit determined to be (

/eyilvalentJ|to BACT or LABkAfcc.quality lor? c»*s Metier*- +»A, 

bc**£Na 

the •'clean unit* exclusion on a ceee-by-eaee baaie*/fOnoe a 

permitting authority makaa this.determination through a process 

involving notice and opportunity for publics comment, the.unit 

would be eligible for tne clean 'unit exclusion for the\next five 

yaaxa* . Aa with the other types of proposed clean unit 

•exclusions, 1PA request a, public commenta on tlae prepoaed 

exclusion eligibility period, flaft prepoaed aactiena • ^XaJL-k.vt 

PaiLXXXNARV STAFF WOKKX1W PAAPT FO* OFFlCS OF KaKAQHMMT AND 

_ OFFICIAL 8FA POL." — 

Masters.2t] ••• 

1PDOTT UVZXW « SO^B KOT AltABSBOT OFFICIAL 8FA POLICY 

•***,July.3,* IMS •*• (file hamai 

i?s. 
OCT 02 '33 B3-27Pn ITPID-IIG/OPG 

•P.9/12 

P.8 

1« 

91.165(a) (1) tv) (C) (ia) (x) 11) . Sl.UCCb) (*> (ill) (L) (5) (iii) and' 

S3.2Kb) (2) (iii) (L)(l) OU) . . . X ^ H • ' 

»^ •soUcf'Ts frai*w«a»tSS #K 

The BP^propoeeij aeverai*%lT»«nat iva baeaa upon whieh a 

permitting euthority could take to .make the determinetion that a 

unit hae an-equivalent BACT or LAB A emieeiona'limltetiBn. The 

first would be baaed on an average of BACT or LAS * for equivalent 

or similar aouvoee over a recent period ef time (e.g.* mOet 

repent three years), The Second would be bared en the unit's 

control, level being within soma percentage (e.g., five or, ten 

peroentV of the moat recant, or average of the moat recent* ,1AI 

or LAER levels .for equivalent or similar sources.. The SPA 

'solicits comment on these approaches aad on the general issues 

eoneernlng whether and how .SPA aheuld impose a.epeoifie .'•; 

* • 

methodology for determining that a specific emieeiona limit, la. 

"comparable" .to the QugrgtjBACT or LAB* limitx ^ '^ate-fc ft>ierf \ 

Per ell of the 4b«s"s- teate. the BPA realitee' that- there are 

many aouroe and* emlsaion unit categorise for whieh BACT .or LAS* ' 

.determinationa do net.exist, let alone recent determinations. 

For, these sources, the SPA proposes that their level of conttol 

ba gauged ageinet tbe control level aaaoeiated with BACT or LAB* 

for omission unite vith similar- amission stream eharactariaalde. 

That is i if thafamlasione unit were to undergo a BACT. -or. IAEA . 

A • ' . • • .t 

review today or recently, whe,t technologies would be evaluated 

.and what,are the^currentjBACT or LAER levels associated with. 

I*1XL2¥IWAJI¥ STAFF WORXIMO DRAFT FOR 0FFZ01 OP 

' avpoiT Mvjrw • sold NO T RBFBSSEH T OFFICIA L NP A FOLIC * 

« •• July Si 1SSB • -• [fil e asmai Kaacarfi.BS] ***.' 

« 

°s{^' 
OCT 02 '95 03.29Pri ITPID-IIG/OPG 

P.12/12 

3 . 1 

Sit requirements, Including aay federally enforceable limite on 

emieeiona or operations and miner NBR requirement et'. 

* . • a 

I • - ' Finally, the .determination that a unic is "clean* or ."well-

• * ' •••'" . . • • . -

• controlled• .under today's proposal ia independent from the easebycaae determination of .RACT or LAB* for Bourses subject to : 

najbs Nf*. while control technology' which quail flea a unlt.aa ' 

Jf%t &t,tar*ri*+**'' <-*MV «»na\4er>iM|tta u*i*< 

•.clean" may be comparable to BACT er LAIR, it ie net necessarily > . 

•fpr*V*fe u*.rt mx OL>vau Awg^f • ». • 4Jr«*^iT*"^eB 

equal to'BACT or LA*R. aad In-no way establishes a preeunptlve 

BACT or .LAB*. Further, a five ox tan year praeumptien that a' 

unit is •cleanh doea not in any way "freeee* BACT 6r LAB* 

determinations in permitting aetiona. The Act requires that'BACT 

• I' I * 

and LAB* be current caaa-hy-caee determinations for soureea 

aub j set to major NBA and tha clean unit 

ij«ier^\*^oCT 

tr cannot override this 

4.. Deacriptipn of tha Clean Facility Proposal. • 

Similar to the clean unit exclusion/ BPA la pcepoaing an 

exoluaion for changes at clean facilitiaa. This •clean1 facility". ' . 

exclusion will allow states te exclude from major M R prepoaed,' & \*+. 

, chengea to an oieletlng major atatienary. aeuree that has installed tf*Vjtpi 

major BACT or LABR and has undergone an air quality impact l'l 

analyaia aa appropriate ta the area- designation/ or which *. ** • y V 

ctherwiae qualify aa a "clean facility^ fie* prapoaed sections ^^H'?**^ 

Si.lisU. U ) if) (O (u*»" Bl.l««(b) (2) (iii) <H) and •...•*• \&*\. 

iS.ailb) (a) (iii) tM). under this exclusion, soureea can make anyif>."jjL 

a

1

 v. i 

FBBz.XNxamR'r BTAFF wonxuro BXAFT FOR OFFICII or MaxxasKBMT ANB V ^lutf** .» 

' BPDOJBT RBVXBH • DOBS MOT RBPRaSBNX; OFFICIAL SPA »OLICV 0>\,/*^ I •** J^ly B, iss5 .-- [file namei Heaters.a*J «•• ^ 

rfps. 
P.10 

Would you 

kindly 

see that 

this gets to 

the right 

person? 

S+ P-V5" 

orrxcx or MANAGEMENT AND BODGET 

orrzcz or XNPORMATZON AND XECUZATORY ATTAINS 

DATE* Ull , . ,„ ^, «^K3ER: ,/ l T T *<&&& 

TO» 

AGENCY) 

FROM: . 

*?$?. 

RECIPIENT'S PAX NO.f ftiQs^/-gsro9 

JgCZFZENT TELEPHONE NO.f 

TOTAL NUXBER OP PAGE* XNCXX7DZNG COVE* SBEETl 

COMMENTS t . _ _ 

NOTE: XP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL 

AS POSSIBLE. 

VERIFICATION NO.I 202-3*5-7340 

OZKA PAX NO.i 202-395-7215 

THE PAGES, YLEASE CALL AS SOON 
P.11 

Ctg&*i, li/ulr FyfLui VtTYl. 

U lUp.4<gf.4< IiA*.* 7 

0^nKA{\AAn\\\. ^ o(f lff ? f f 

.dl&fc/l l<UM^ W -iW-f <ft Sfajg. Q1/»7/S n LKOfr, ^ L , :T 

MS . 

/f! . 0 / i nkg.^Ctt.Oials pp. ^Ij^^ J 

.£L) Ctte. QlU^a. nXA/AAAAhiM <iJ\n*L±<**l YTIA O . l^ k iVUtdT 

QM. Lu^[ ^ CfjdCuA Ic^kf £r..iij. k c uvtul/ . ^-* ^ ip^/^/Jg (Prd.«fr.<la&C 

lA^T ^-yj^j^XjLa^^^L k LfOfl ~tke, 

Afl*> ,IH. vu gf)<j G^vdrtols 

z 

-^ l I a ( t " I 1 ' ' 

f ^VCUJQU U^ r (UJU r/Twtcflxo-bU>. 

j ) U/U. W V -fr/m s^eur ^ ft^ -tVls S^£h^v (^-^V 

**£**.'{h^Vi 

IXUIT £&L< 

^ Q,,^ ^ fl>^^ ^tlogA/CX^ -bUa lite * 
P.12 

***K ^ an ^cxtoittU 

fo n. .SMT/1 ftEg. «ttUSf^t o ^ 

•^> . 

i s^Zk 

Cs«.<p.-w) •<p< ? . 

*A*. "Vo botibv? fry pi 3(r? !*(*«>&, a. 

S&. m-*ct - ! • f /%,. AX ',\J&IA 

-^4 -
P.13 

OCT 02 '95 03-26PI1 ITPID-HG/OF-S 

P.5/12 

•a • ' "» 

In other words,' what criteria distinguish a unit eligible for 

this exclusion from one which is not? Criteria whieh allow a " 

... . H ' •/.,•• . 

broad.1 range ef units to <r-ialtfiy could largely transform the 

* * » . 

existing applicability aystem Into one based solely on assessing. 

a ujjiat's potential eaissions. vith the possibility ef a draimatie 

increaaa in a unit'a actual ami a alone without undergoing NBi*. 

. The SPA'S proposes, to require Omissions units to have a' • H 

' '•.-'• ' -»;ip <• -

•federally'enforceable emissions limit "that "ie oeriparabia to •Ji*ry" • " ' * * • ^Jfc 

the.-emi aaion .limit that . . .would result from 'a -current' revieW^.Or *<v>i 

under the BAC T or LAB A requirements, whichever^ is applicable to \\JAiyl' 

the proposed change, (flee, e.g... proposed sections Pf*3* 

Sl.ics(a) (l) (v) (C)(1A) (ii),,3l.lfi6(b).(a1 (lllML).(A) and 

$a;il(b) (2H111) (ii) (2).) The BPA envi«ione that three typiae Of 

limits vould quellfy 

•Cof.-tk*. eerV. fc*W »**•* 

110 yeara/ (2)Alimi 

 . -A A — 

•Am^m^nj^A hy Bt& «•••*• >« (equivalent^ to the federal BACT or .LAER 

programs*, and, (3)*limitifftound on a caaa^by.-caae. baaie «•- after 

notice and bopartunity fpr public comment' r* to be 

lify. (11 BACT. or LASB limits set within .the laet 

* *JT »«^i*."4U Beet lt^V*»'bs+P**U*»k+r *»* 

mib^aet^by a atatjo^t^'^r ' »^g y pypfp** . 

ivalenS) toj^-*' 

aat^r. ot* IAJR litfottC^. , %; (A AJ #^Lertdiae. V>«-^we*l e* +Ui; petcbc<4«.r 

Ujtite with BACT. or LABA Limits 

wi»-fc <*£4>*' K\ri»v-» rttb^Atcocfe 

One etartfng point for determining whether a .unit is. welloontrollad i e the level of eontrol. required to" set is fy BACT (in 

attainment/anelaaalfisd areas) or LABA (In nonattainment areae). 

' . ' ' . * ' a ' . 

70* units which have recently undergone these reviews, re -

PRBLaDCZKMLY STAPP WOABXNW SBAPT JOB 0FFICB OP XAHA9BMBNT AJP 

• • BOT01T RSVXflW •> cone urar ASPASSSNT orrjcuu. S»A POLICY -

'••* July S, 199B --- [fil e neaei NeStsrC2.il ••* 

5"//y 
~~ —— P.14 

OCT B2 '95 03.26PM ITPID-IIG/OPG 

P.6/12 

• a. • , • • a 

,. with federal MAC T or IACT limits, the BPA is not inclined to do • 

* •*. * * • - > . . • ' " 

ao aoreee the board. Rather,' the EPA believes that- MACT .or BACT . 

limits should be found to qualify for the clean Unit exclusion 

using'the edee-by-ease option described in section-IX.C.l.c 

• • * * ,•••• . • 

. below . • *•• '""'. -

- • • . . <i 

b. State Technology Programa Equivalent to BACT or LAEA 

' , ' . ' • • ' • •'•'' . 

There are many emiaaions units at stationary sources that 

.wer e permitted according to a state's minor N8R .permitting ' 

program, while these unite are. not^coatrolled' imrauaut.LO a BACfes. . 

<T •' * eAuiwaUH.V 7^ V 

or LAER limit, they still may heve\atate-of* the-art controls. J / 

Per instance, several jurisdictions have control technology 

reviews as part of State, local er tribal minor NBA program which 

requires new or-modifying sources to meet.amissions-levels " 

Vsequ;ivftlent\to major aource eontrol technology requirements. tl ACT 

or LABA). Fpr this reason, the BPA ie proposing that .permitting 

' ..'.'•' ' ' • ' 

-authorities.may submit miner NSR eontrol technology requirements 

for Certification by ths SPA that ths minor Man' program requires ' '. 

oontrol teohnolegy that would satisfy.the requirements for the 

. clean unit exclusion. S M propessd sections 

51,168(a) (1) (v) (O (U) (X) (D , ".51.166 (b) (2) (iii) (D (A) <ii) ahd . 

Sa.ailb) (2) (iii)(L) (AMii) . Onoe determined by BPA to be. 

. 4 , • ' ' * *m < 

• e-quiyalsnt; all -units eubject te emieeiens limitation established 

under .the jurisdiction's minor NBR'program would be eligible for 

the Cleat; Unit axcluaion for the first io years following 

PRSLIMXHARY STAFF WORKXKO DRAFT FOR OF?ICI OF KASAOMNT AMD 

1OTORT RRV3XW * DOES HOT KXFR188KT OFFSCZAZi SFA POLICY 

' ••• July 5, last — - [file namei MesterC.as] *•* 

• -i 
P.15 

OCT 02 '93 03s26PM ITPID-IIG/OPG 

P.7/12 

• 3S ....-- . 

iaauance of the permit. The' BPA alao solicit* comment on whether 

a shorter period, such as 5 years, would be more appropriate.. 

' The BPA also solicits comment On the appropriate' standards 

..for RPA to use'in determining, whether a permitting authority's * 

minor srflR program control, teohnolegy-requirement a are comparable 

to the BACT and LABA requirements.. The BPA envisions- that ae a'~~\ 

minimum a "prei-certifi*d"' minor NBA program comply with to CFR ' 

."' o. Qualification of unite on a Ca'as-By-Casa Ba'ei'e 

. tn many cases an emiaaions unit not-subject to major NBA ia 

conetrueted. or retrofitted with a centrol technology or strategy 

• equivalent to the beet Controls applied in practice. This may 

- occur whan a aource minimises emissions in order to "net" a unit 

.out of major NBR or applies controls, to comply with other 

provisions 'of the Aat.' For this, reason, the BPA1 a proposed 

regulatiene would allow a aburpe having a limit on an .omisslf 

V 

unit determined to be/equivalent)tc BACT or :o quality for 

VVKt 

* -*»W£ the "clean unit1

* exclusion on a sass-by-oase basis j/fOnoe a • 

AY * i 

permitting authority makaa this.determination through a proceea 

involving notice end opportunity fer public comment, .ihe.unit 

• a ' ' ' I ' 

- would be eligible for tha clean 'unit exclusion for theVnext five 

• yaaxa> As with the ether types of proposed clean unit 

•exclusions, BPA requests, puftllc commenta on tne prepoaed . 

,' exelueion eligibility period, je* proposed eactione • i££*Xt*ttPBILXXZMARY STAFF WORXISO DRAFT P0A OFFlCR OF KRMAOJBMBNT AMD . 

• .OTBQSV ASVZXW « DORS MOT RBFRRSBKT OFFICIAL SP* POLICY 

• *++ july.S,-14JS •-- (file namei Master*.as] ••• 

iK. 
OCT 02 '35 &3i27Pf1 ITPID-IIG/OPG 

P.16 

• • . • 

•P.9/12 

3« 

• i. 

31.165 (a) (l) tv) (fi) (ifl) (U) (i> S1.U6 (b) (i> (ill) (L) &)' (iii) and' 

82.21(b) (2) (iii) (L) (A) IU1) . 

The RP^propbees^jneverey^ 

permitting euthority could take to .make the datormi.netion chat a 

iative baeas upon whieh a 

* • 

unit has an • equivalent BACT or LAS R emissions'limitation. The 

•first would be basad otf an average of BACT or LABA for aqulvalent 

or similar aoureea ever a recant period of time (e.g., mOat 

repent three years), The 'second would be based en the unit'.s 

, control, laval being within some percentage (e.g., five or, ten 

• ' percent) of the most recent, or average of the moat recent, ^^V ^ 

or LABA levels .tor equivalent or similar soureea.. The SPA IAJ^'II^IM -

' 'solicita comment on these approaches aad en the general ieeuee. ^AK*' Mf_o* 

concerning whether and how .SPA should impose a.speoifio .'•; UxuJ^ i 

methodology for determining that a specific amissions limit, is, , Cr. ' '- .' 

I V "a 

' "comparable" -to the (Current J BACT or LABA limit^ f k ' L durnJt tti'xt >*'-. 

Per all of the ahov-a- teats, the BPA realiaes' that- there e.ra. \ 

many aouroa and* emlsaion unit categories for whieh BACT .or LASk 

.determinations do net.exist, let alone recent determinations. 

• ' " • 

Per these source», tha SP A proposes that their level ef conttol 

be gauged ageinet the control level aeeociated with BACT or LAIR 

fer ami a sion unit ~£*r-cic»A»« e with similar-emissio - n stream charac terieaiCe. That is i if the Remissions unit were to undergo a BACT. -or. IAEA 

A • ' ' 

review today or recently, what technologies would be evaluated 

.and what are the^urrancj BACT or LAER levela associated with; 

PJOLXiailARy STAFF WORXXWO DRAFT FOR 6FFXCR OF MA«A0)BSR11T; AND 

' aVDOST RXVXSW • BOBS MOT RRPRBSEWT OFFICIAL BVA POLICV 

«•• July S, 19SB •-• tills aamai Kaacerfi.RS] ••*.• 

* 

i^ 
P.17 

OCT 02 '95 03-23Pn ITPID-IIG/OPG 

P.12/12 

' *» • .% a • • 

.,-..•' . . . • ... . 

SIP requijramflnte, including any federally enforceable limite on 

emissions or eperetlona and minor NSR requirement e; • ' 

i ' - • * • 

• Finally, the .'determination that a unit ia "claaa" or ."well-

•'controlled* .under today'e proposal i'e independent from the ease-

' byoaee determination of .BACT or LAER for aourcea subject to 

ma} or HSR. while control t^hnelcgy* which aual if lea a unit'ae • 

•".clean" .may be comparable to BACT or lAXA, it ie net necessarily * s 

equal to1 BACT or LAER. and in-no way establishes a preaunptiva 

• -fsr-t*<*n\s •*-.'tj ••«^Z^ , 4>y P « e r cAjk***' * 

BACT or,LABA. Further, a five or ten year praeumptien that a' 

unit ie "cleen* doea not in anv way "fracee* BACT Or LABA 

determinations in permitting aetiona. The Act requires that* BACT 

end-LASR be ourrent eaae-'by-eaae determinations for sources 

aub j sot to major NBA And tha clean unit Wsaveanno-t override thia 

•dtWt-MiHecH't 

4.. beecriptipn of tha Clean Facility Proposal.' 

Simlla' to the clean unit exclusion/ BPA ie proposing, an 

* • ' * 

exclusion for ohanges at clean facilitias. This "clean' facility". ' . 

'exclusion will allow States to exclude from .major MR propoee-d.' ffi^*^ 

. changes to en existing najor atatienary, aource that has installed jp*Vrfi 

najog BACT or LAER and has undergone aa air quality impact y\ • 

analyaia aa appropriate ta the erea designation/ or which •. • y Y. 

otharvia'a qualify .as a "clean facility'.," AAA proposed sections *\^*\i 

Bi.iiiU) U) (y) (O (ii1). 8i.i«6(b) (2) (iii) m) and -...•» • \&£\* 

SS.ailb) (2)(Iii) IM). under thia exclusion, sources een make anyvU Jjt, 

nBLaczmnr STAFF HOARMO DSAFT FOR omen or HMtAOBCBMT AND W M V^* 

- '' BUDORT ABVXSM • DOBS MOT RlPMaBW OFFICIAL B A FOLIC* ^\,/^ 

- •** Jv-ly B, IBSS «-• [file aaftei Kaaterl.aa] **• ,gf*k 

4 'W