p.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

269) IV-C-15 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:04 AM Sheet 269 of 276 
J 

P.2 

Iv-c- \tT 

Note to file: 

The attached memorandum was also circulated to David Rifkin, 

Vice President's staff, and Paul Bailey on March 13, 1992. 
P.3 

_ @]002 

XJ/23/9 2 18:20 © 

i/'3h 2_ 

Note 

To: Howard Gruenspect 

Department of Energy 

From: Tom Kiernan 

E.P.A. 

Attached is a new draft of the WEPCO rule. We have made 

changes to reflect our discussions including the following: 

o There is no change to "air quality related values" for 

visibility limitations in the modeling requirement. Please 

note: EPA's Office of General Counsel continues to have 

strong concerns regarding the legality of referencing only 

visibilty. Since we received no further input from DOE, we 

have not prepared a response to the DOI comment suggesting 

the change. 

0 We have retained the five year tracking provision but have 

accomodated the request that sources be allowed to satisfy 

this requirment through utilization (rather than emissions) 

data. We have limited this alternative to situations where 

the emissions factors do not increase as a result of the 

physical or operational change. (If the unit's emissions 

rate increases, utilization could remain the same or even 

decrease yet emissions could still increase.) 

o We have added the requested language regarding efficiency 

changes being treated the same as any other physical or 

operational change. 

o we have added a reference to the use of soprce categories 

for determining what constitutes "routine" and have promised 

guidance on the subject by early summer. 

Beyond these specific changes, we have generally revised the 

preamble to follow the preamble to the proposed? rule. However, 

many of the comments discussed raise issues that were not 

discussed in the proposal and our responses could not be drawn 

from the prior language. 
.P3/23A92 18:22 Q 

v 

Pd 

t2]006 

WEPCO INSERT ON AIR QUALITY RELATED VALUES 

b. Comments on the EPA Proposal. 

* * * * * 

A government agency questioned why the safegjuard provision 

protected "visibility limitations" when the PSD program is 

designed to protect all air quality-related values in Class I 

areas. An environmental group commented that the proposed rule 

does not provide for notification to Federal Land Managers so 

that they can fulfill their responsibilities to protect Class I 

areas. 

c. The EPA Analysis 

**** * 

The government agency commenter is correct that PSD 

permitting requirements are intended to prevent a major new 

source or major modification from causing an advjerse impact on 

all air quality-related values in Class I areas.; See Clean Air 

Act section 165(d). EPA believes, however, that the safeguards 

in today's rule will allow reviewing authorities sufficient 

flexibility to protect Class I areas from the impacts of 

pollution control projects. First, as noted above, pollution 

control projects reduce emissions of targeted pollutants. While 

emissions of other pollutants could in theory increase ins;asfew. 

cases, EPA does not expect this to result in significant impacts 

on Class I areas. Where prospective projects may be cause for 

concern, state authorities can require modeling] to prevent 

increment or visibility violations, and may soliicit the views of 
P.5 

' v <• "#3/23/*92 18:23 0 (g]007 

Federal Land Managers in taking any other appropriate remedial 

steps they deem necessary to assure that the project will be not 

less environmentally beneficial.