p. 1 

# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 269 ) IV-C-1 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:51:04

AM Sheet 269of 276

# J P. 2 

### Iv-c- \tT
Not e t o file : Th e attache d memorandu mwa s als o circulate d t o Davi d Rifkin , Vic e President' s staff , an d Pau l Baileyon Marc h13 , 1992 .P. 3

_@]00 2 XJ/23/9 218:2 0© 

### i/'3 h 2_
Not e To : Howar d Gruenspec t

Departmen t o f Energ y From : TomKierna n

E.P.A . Attache d i s a ne wdraf t o f th e WEPC O rule . W e hav e mad e change s t o reflec t ou r discussion s including th e following : o Ther e i s n o chang e t o "ai r qualityrelate d values " fo r visibilit ylimitation s i n the modeling requirement . Pleas e note : EPA' s Offic e o f Genera l Counse l continue s t o hav e strong concern s regarding the legalityo f referencing onl y visibilty . Sinc e w e receive d n o furthe r inpu t fro mDOE , w e hav e no t prepare d a respons e t o the DO I commen t suggesting th e change . 0 W e hav e retaine d th e five yea r tracking provisio n bu t hav e accomodate d th e reques t tha t source s b e allowe d t o satisf y thi s requirmen t throughutilization(rathe r tha n emissions ) data . W e hav e limite d thi s alternative t o situation s wher e th e emission s factor s d o no t increas e a s a resul t o f th e physica l o r operationa l change . (I f th e unit' s emission s rat e increases , utilizatio ncoul d remai n th e same o r eve n decreas e ye t emission s coul d stil l increase. ) o W e hav e adde d the requeste d languag e regarding efficiency change s being treate d th e sam e a s an yothe r physica l o r operationa l change . o w e hav e added a referenc e t o th e us e o f soprc e categorie s fo r determining wha t constitute s "routine " an d hav e promise d guidanc e onth e subjec t b yearl ysummer . Beyon d thes e specifi c changes , w e hav e generall yrevise d th e preambl e t o followth e preambl e t o the proposed ? rule . However , man yo f th e comment s discusse d rais e issue s tha t wer e no t discusse d i n th e proposa l an d our response s coul d no t b e draw n fro mth e prio r language ..P3/23A9 218:2 2Q

v P d t2]006

WEPC O INSER T O NAI RQUALIT YRELATE D VALUE S b . Comment s o n th e EP AProposal . * * * * * Agovernmen t agenc yquestione d wh yth e safegjuar d provisio n protecte d "visibilit ylimitations " whe n th e PS D progra mi s designe d t o protec t al l ai r quality-relate d value s i n Clas s I areas . A n environmenta l grou p commente d tha t th e propose d rul e doe s no t provid e fo r notificatio n t o Federa l Lan d Manager s s o tha t the yca n fulfil l thei r responsibilitie s t o protec t Clas s I areas .

c . Th e EP AAnalysi s
**** * Th e governmen t agenc ycommente r i s correc t tha t PS D permittin g requirement s ar e intende d t o preven t a majo r ne w sourc e o r majo r modificatio n fro mcausin g a n advjers e impac t o n al l ai r quality-relate d value s i n Clas s I areas.; Se e Clea n Ai r Ac t sectio n 165(d) . EP Abelieves , however , tha t th e safeguard s i ntoday' s rul e wil l allo wreviewin g authoritie s sufficien t flexibilit yt o protec t Clas s I area s fro mth e impact s o f pollutio n contro l projects . First , a s note d above , pollutio n contro l project s reduc e emission s o f targete d pollutants . Whil e emission s o f othe r pollutant s coul d i n theor yincreas e ins;asfew . cases , EP Adoe s no t expec t thi s t o resul t i n significan t impact s o nClas s I areas . Wher e prospectiv e project s ma yb e caus e fo r concern , stat e authoritie s ca n requir e modeling ] t o preven t incremen t o r visibilit yviolations , an d ma ysoliici t th e view s o fP. 5

' v< •"#3/23/*9 2 18:2 3 0 (g]00 7

Federa l Lan

d Manager s i n taking an yothe r appropriat e remedia l step s theydeemnecessaryt o assur e tha t th e projec t wil l be no t les s environmentall ybeneficial .