P. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 8 ) ll-A- 8

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:18 AM

Sheet 8 of 147\s~- P. 2

5. 8



### '"ii ! \h. iiiO ; JA W2 5 fc ^ rfv:!
i /..'.*• { DOCKE T 

# FINA L DRAF

T

Decembe r 198 6P. 3

The Ne w Source Review Tas k Forc e

Gar yD

. McCutchen , Chairma n Ric h Biond i Wayn e Blackar d Joh nCrensha w Ji m DeMocke r Gre g Foot e Jud y Kat z Tom Maslan y Roge r Pfaf f Marci a Spin k Ro nVa n Mersberge n Contro l Program s Developmen t Division , OAQP S Stationar y

Sourc e Complianc e Division , OAQP S Regio nIX Emission s Standard s and Engineerin g Division , OAQP S Offic e o f Polic y

Analysi s .an

dReview , OA

R Offic e o f Genera l Counse l Offic e o f Enforcemen t an d Complianc e Monitorin g

Region - II I Regio nI V Regio nI Regio nV

Tas k Force/OARLiaison : Josep hE . Lees , OA R

Th e NS R Tas k Forc e gratefull y acknowledge s th e effort s o f th e followin g EP A staf f i n developin g thi s report : Berni e Turlinsk i Mat t Habe r Gar y Rus t Regio nII I Regio nI X Contro l Program s Developmen t Division ; OAQP S Finally , tw o particula r contributions : Eri c Noble , CPDD , OAQP S fo r hi s wor k o n th e BACT/LAE Rportio no f thi s report , and Davi dA . Solomon , CPDD , OAQP S whos e ideas , energy , an d enthusias m

mak e hi m

th e prtactparVarchiteclro f thi s report . —TABL E OF CONTENT S

Chapte r Titl e ' Pag e
I . Introductio n1

A . Statemen t o f Purpos e 1
II . Executiv e Summar y 2
III . Th e NS RProgram ; Expectation s andConcern s ..... . 3
IV . Enhancin g NS RPermi t Processing : Certaint y an d Consistenc y

7
A . NS RAssistanc e an dTrainin g Need s 7 1 . Existin g Concerns . . . '. 8 2 . Option s fo r Impro " ' "* . 9
B . Communicatio nandInformatio nExchang e - . 1 3 1 . Backgroun d1 3 2 . Cause s o f Inadequat e Communications'/Informatio n Exchang e 1 5 3 . Impact s o f Inadequat e Communications/Informatio n Exchang e 1 6 4 . EPA andth e Publi c Notic e Perio d1 8 5 . Option s fo r Improvin g Communications/Informatio n Exchange . . . ... . .. . . . . . 1 9

a . Fro m Stat e an

dloca l agencie s t o EPA 1 9 b . Fro m EP A t o th e Stat e an

dloca l agencies . . . 2 2 C . Th e BAC T Revie w

2 5 1 . Backgroun d2 5 2 . A nAlternat e Approac ht o Determinin g BACT . .. . 2 6 3 . Option s fo r Improvin g th e Curren t BAC T Proces s . 2 7 3 . Th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e 2 8

a . Purpos e andConcern s 2 8 b . Option s fo r Improvemen t 2 9P. 5

*

TABL E O F CONTENT S (CONTINUED ) Chapte r Titl e Pag e
V . Publi c Participatio ni nExterna l Option s 3 4
VI . Th e Nex t Ste p3 4 Appendice s 3 5

A . NS RProgram : A

Backgroun dSummar y B . Settin g o f BAC T t o Addres s Toxi c Ai r pollutant sP. 6

I . Introductio n
Majo r stationar y

source s o f ai r pollutio n(an dmajo r modification s t o majo r sources ) ar e require d t o obtai na permi t befor e commencin g construction . Th e proces s "i s calle dnew

sourc e revie w

(NSR ) an

di s require dwhethe r th e majo r sourc e o r modificatio ni s planne dfo r anare a wher e th e nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standard s (NAAQS ) ar e exceede d (nonattainmen t areas ) o r a nare a wher e ai r qualit y i s acceptabl e (attainmen t areas) . Attainmen t are a permit s ar e referre dt o a s preventio no f signifi can t deterioratio n(PSD ) permits ; nonattainmen t are a permit s ar e referre dt o a s NA

A permits ; th e entir e program , includin g bot hPS D an dNA A permi t reviews , i s referre dt o a s th e NS Rprogram . A . Statemen t o f Purpos e Or i Jun e 27 , 1986 , Crai g Potter , EP A Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an dRadiation , announce dth e formatio no f a Specia l Tas k Forc e o nNew Sourc e Review . Mr . Potter' s principa l purpos e i norganizin g thi s tas k forc e wa s t o addres s growin g concern s abou t th e consistenc y an dcertaint y o f permit s issue dunde r th e Clea nAi r Ac t NS Rprograms . Th e establishmen t o f th e Specia l Tas k Forc e onNS Rha s bot h(a ) focuse dagenc y attentio non th e problem s an

dissue s associate dwit hth e NS Rprograms , an d(b ) provide d a vehicl e fo r identifyin g andproposin g effectiv e solution s t o curren t problems . Th e basi c goa l o f th e overal l Tas k Forc e effor t i s t o improv e th e timeliness , certaint y an deffectivenes s o f th e NS Rpermi t process . Th e Tas k Forc e i s t o identif y specifi c measure ; t • -sur e tha t delegate d permittin g agencie s hav e th e knowledg e ano . *.*••"• -ecessary

t o correctl y implement " ttre~"NSR""programs""aTTd

_ provtde " EP A

wv r .:r r .- . 7Ax:zte~ informationto assur e tha t th e technolog y an dothe r program

requirement s ar e implemente d consisten t wit hClea nAi r Ac t requirements . T o th e maximum exten t possible , th e option s develope db y th e Tas k Forc e ar e t o attemp t t o improv e th e NS R proces s withi nexistin g resourc e constraints .P. 7

II . Executiv e Summar y Th e NS Rworl dconsist s o f abou t 20 0 permit s pe r yea r fo r majo r sources , whic htota l from 70-90 % o f al l new

ai r pollutio nemissions . Thes e permit s ar e processe db y on e o f th e 9 0 o r mor e State , territorial , local , o r district agencie s o r on e o f th e 1 0 EP A Regiona l Offices . Problem s i nbot hth e processin g an dth e technica l revie w o f thes e permit s hav e bee nidentifie dinrecen t audits , specia l reports , andspecifi c incidents . A study o f thes e problem s ha s ledt o th e mai nTas k Forc e conclusio n that , i nalmos t al l cases , the y coul db e bes t resolve db y improvement s in :

° additiona l genera l NS Rprogram assistanc e an

ddetaile dtechnica l trainin g an

dassistanc e i nth e determinatio no f Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y

(BACT ) and ;
0 enhance dcommunication s an dinformatio nflow

betwee nEP A

andth e Stat e an dloca l revie w

agencie s i na manne r consisten t wit hStat e andloca l permittin g procedure s andmanpowe r concerns . Additiona l guidanc e an dtrainin g i s necessar y du e t o th e comple x natur e o f th e regulation s an dthei r technica l revie w requirements . Adequat e guidanc e an

dtechnica l trainin g wil l provid e Stat e an dloca l agenc y personne l wit hth e knowledge , tools , andskill s t o implemen t NS R consisten t wit hClea nAi r Ac t requirements . Th e exchang e o f "rea l time " informatio nbetwee nEP A andth e State s whe na ke y

mileston e i s reache ddurin g th e permittin g proces s appear s t o b e a critica l elemen t i nensurin g correc t andappropriat e progra m TmpTementatiOn" . Thoug hth e pathway s fo r timel y an dappropriat e informatio n flow andexchang e currently.exis t a t eac ho f thes e milestones , the y ar e ofte nno t utilize db y EP A i na uniform

manne r t o track , review , and , whe n appropriate , provid e commen t o na State' s permi t actions . Thi s lac k o f a comprehensive,-unifor m approac ht o EP A

participatio ni nongoin g "permi t review s i s probabl y

th e singl e mos t importan t caus e fo r inconsistenc y an d uncertaint y

i nth e NS Rprograms . B y trackin g andreviewin g permi t action s durin g th e applicatio nprocessin g period , potentia l majo r issue s andconcern s ca nbe flagge da s (o r before ) the y

occur , thu s decreasin g th e possibilit y

o f discoverin g area s o f concer nonl y afte r a permi t ha s bee nissued . Th e identificatio no f majo r issue s a s soo na s possibl e i n th e processin g o f a permi t allow s EP A t o provid e inpu t an dcommen t i na manne r consisten t wit hth e Stat e permittin g process . Timel y an dadequat e polic y an dtechnica l guidanc e couple dwit hth e effectiv e ongoin g exchang e o f informatio no

nth e processin g o f individua l NS Rpermit s wil l resul t i n mor e certaint y

fo r th e applican t an dincrease dconsistenc y i nth e implementatio no f th e NS Rprogram .P. 8

3

. . •

III

. Th e NS

R Process : Expectation s an d Concern s Th e permi t applicant , Stat e an d loca l revie w agency , an d (t o a lesser ) degree ) th e publi c an d EP A al l shar e a n activ e rol e an d interes t i n th e ongoin g everyda yproces s o f NS R permi t review

. Th e participants , eac h wit h a differen t perspectiv e o f NSR , expec t th e proces s t o fulfil l individua l expectations :

° Th e applicant , wit h th e submitta l o f a complet e NS R application , expect s a fai rrevie w withi n a reasonabl e perio d o f time

. 0 Th e Stat e o rloca l revie w agencyexpect s t o b e abl e t o implemen t NS R i n a manne ri n keepin g wit h it s mandat e t o protec t th e healt h an d welfar e o f it s citizen s withi n it s ai rqualit yan d personne l resourc e need s an d constraints

. 0 Th e publi c expect s t o b e abl e t o participat e i n th e NS R proces s b

y bein g notifie d of , commentin g o n ,an d hav e th e reviewin g agenc y respon d adequatel yt o comments o n propose d NS R permi t actions

.

° EP A expect s tha t th e Stat e o rloca l revie w agenc ywil l implemen t NS R program s consisten t wit h Clea n Ai rAc t requirements

. O n th e othe rhand , eac h o f thes e group s ha s concern s ove rcertai n aspect s o f th e NS

R program , a s follows : Fo rapplicant s
0 Delay s i n processin g application s an d grantin g permits—tim e i s money
. 

### °-DecTSh)ns"whrch

- do-not-appear-to-makf r muc h sens e t o the-applicant

. "Decision s (e.g. , o n BACT ) whic h chang e o rar e questione d afte rth e fact

. "Lat e hits " ar e a n extrem e cas e o f this

. 0 Inexperience d reviewer s wh o tak e longer , usuall ydeman d more informatio n tha n i s needed , an d ma yfou l u p i n processin g applications

. Educatin g suc h personne l bytria l an d erro rcost s th e applican t (an d th e reviewin g agency ) additiona l resource s an d time

. 0 Inconsisten t decision s withi n a n agenc yo rfro m agenc yt o agency , excep t fo rth e applican t wh o obtain s (o rshop s for ) a competitiv e
'

- advantag e fro m a mor e favorabl e decision , suc h a s a les s stringen t BAC T limit

. Fo rreviewin g agencie s

° Lac k o f polic yguidanc e an d othe rinformatio n fro m EP A o n specifi c issue s o rdifferen t guidanc e from , fo rexample , th e Regiona l Offic e an d Headquarters

.P. 9

° Monda y mornin g quarte r backing : EP A tellin g th e agenc y

wha t i t shoul dhav e done , bu t to o lat e t o d o an y good .

° Lac k o f trainin g opportunitie s an dth e fund s t o atten dtrainin g courses .

° Lac k o f equipment—mos t agencies , fo r example , canno t acces s BLIS , th e computerize dBACT/LAE Rclearinghouse .

° Inadequat e personnel— a Stat e ma y hav e onl y

a fe w ( 1 t o 10 ) majo r sourc e permit s pe r year , bu t a determinatio na s t o whethe r a sourc e i s majo r o r mino r mus t b e mad e o nhundred s o f application s an dal l thes e application s mus t b e processed . 0 Difference s betwee nEPA Regiona l Office s o r th e manne r i nwhic h a Regiona l Offic e (o r EP A Headquarters ) resolve s issue s fro m Stat e t o State .

° Lac k o f (o r badl y

timed ) feedbac k fro m EP A o r th e publi c whe nth e Stat e submit s informatio no npermit s o r request s guidanc e o r assistance . 0 Incomplet e permi t applicaiton s (e.g. , inadequat e BAC T analysi s an d proposal) . Fo r EPA
0 Problem s i nobtainin g th e informatio nrequire dt o carr y ou t overvie w responsibilities . 0 Inabilit y

t o provid e specifi c polic y decision s o r technica l informatio na s requested . "Jncorrec t applicabilit y determinations .

, ° Incorrec t BAC T an dLAE Rdeterminations . 0 Error s i napplyin g o r enforcin g emissio noffsets . 0 Allowin g us e o f off-sit e dat a fo r preconstructio nmonitorin g withou t a demonstratio no f th e representativenes s o f th e data .
° Permi t condition s tha t ar e s o poorl y writte ntha t the y

ar e unenforceable ; als o assumption s tha t wer e mad e durin g a nanalysi s (e.g. , operatio n8 hour s ou t o f 2 4 hours ) tha t wer e no t mad e enforceabl e i nth e permit .

° Incorrec t ambien t ai r modeling .

° Inadequat e respons e t o comments .
° Inadequat e resource s t o respon dt o comments .P.1 0

5
Fo r th e publi c (includin g th e FLM )

0 No t hearin g abou t anapplicatio ntha t concern s o r affect s them unti l th e publi c commen t perio d(or later) .

° Receivin g th e publi c commen t packag e to o lat e t o revie w i t thoroughly .

° Findin g i t difficul t t o obtai ninformatio nabou t th e propose d project .

° Inadequat e respons e t o comments . Throughou t th e histor y o f th e NAA/PS D programs , litigatio nha s playe d a majo r rol e i nshapin g th e NS Rprograms . Litigatio nha s resulte d i n numerou s fundamenta l change s t o mos t aspect s o f th e NS Rprograms . Existin g andevolvin g issue s continu e t o remol dthes e programs . Specificly :

0 PMlO » whic hwil l affec t PSD/NA A sourc e applicability , ai r qualit y modelin g an

dmonitorin g requirements , BACT/LAE Rdecision s an d permi t conditions ;

° N0 Xincrements , whic hwil l add additiona l ai r qualit y revie w requirement s t o th e PS D program ;
0 Surfac e coa l min e rulemaking , whic hma y impac t sourc e applicability , ai r qualit y

modelin g and.monitoring , an dBAC T requirements ;

° Vesse l emission s rulemaking , whic hma y affec t sourc e applicability , ai r qualit y

modelin g an

dmonitoring , offset s andBACT/LAER ; BAC T fo r toxi c ai r pollutants , whic haffect s BACT/LAE Randpermi t condition s (see " appendi xB) , and ;

° Chemica l Manufacture s Associatio n(CMA ) suit , whic himpact s sourc e applicabilit y

an doffsets . Participant s i nth e NS Rproces s (especiall y th e Stat e andloca l agencie s andth e EP A

Regiona l Offices ) expect , an drequire , clear , timel y andadequat e assistance , trainin g an dguidanc e t o implemen t th e curren t an dchangin g NS Rregulations . Eac hregulator y chang e bring s wit hi t ye t anothe r leve l o f complexit y t o th e NS Rpermittin g process . A stud y o f thes e specifi c concern s ledt o th e Tas k Forc e conclusio n that , i nalmos t al l cases , the y coul dbe bes t resolve db y improvement s in :

° NS Rprogram

guidanc e andtrainin g (i.e. , front-loadin g th e NS R system wit hth e informatio nandguidanc e neede dt o resul t i ncorrec t implementatio no f th e rules) ;
0 Improve dCommunication s andinformatio nflow betwee nEP A

an dth e Stat e an dloca l review

agencie s i na manne r consisten t wit hStat e andloca l permittin g procedure s andmanpowe r concerns , and ;p.1 1

0 BAC T information , polic y an ddata . Th e Tas k Forc e explore deac ho f thes e area s wit hth e goa l o f providin g option s t o improv e th e NS Rprogram b y bringin g greate r certaint y and consistenc y

t o th e NS Rprocess . Tw o type s o f improvement s ar e possible : interna l and external . Interna l improvement s consis t o f change s i nth e interna l operation s o f EP A tha t ca nbe mad e withou t rulemakin g o r rule.revisions . Thes e change s (suc ha s a commitmen t t o revie w al l majo r NS Rpermit s received ) ca nb e implemente dwithou t fanfar e o r publi c input ; th e onl y thin g th e outsid e worl dwoul d(hopefully ) notic e woul d be a nimprovemen t i nEPA' s processes . Externa l changes , o

nth e othe r hand , requir e th e cooperation , input , o r knowledg e o f outsid e groups ; example s includ e a nagreemen t wit hSTAPP A t o submi t al l publi c notic e package s t o EP A an dan y rulemakin g activity . Sinc e ther e ar e considerabl e difference s i nth e proces s tha t woul dbe use d t o implemen t thes e type s o f options , th e option s liste di nthi s repor t ar e identifie da s interna l o r external . Option s whic hrequir e additiona l resource s fro m a Stat e o r applican t should , t o th e greates t exten t possible , b e offse t b

y a reductio ni n EPA-mandate d resource s elsewhere . Fo r example , State s agre e t o promptl y submi t complet e publi c commen t package s t o EP A an dth e FLM ; EP A

could , i n return , requir e onl y

some basi c informatio no neac happlicatio nsubmitte d rathe r tha nth e complet e application . I naddition , th e applicatio ninforma tio ncoul dbe submitte dmonthl y rathe r tha nupo nreceipt .P.1 2

7 IV

. Enhancin g NS

R Permi t Processing : Certaint yan d Consistenc y A

. Assistanc e an d Trainin g Need s Wel l traine d staf f ar e th e ke yt o a goo d Stat e o rloca l NS R program
. A NS R permi t reviewe r(eithe rne w t o NS

R an d needin g trainin g o r familia rwit h NS

R an d seekin g progra m guidance ) ha s availabl e fo rreferenc e th e followin g material :

0 Th e Clea n Ai rAc t Th e Clea n Ai rAct , th e statut e fro m whic h th e NS R regulation s ar e derived , provid e littl e guidanc e i n th e practica l implementatio n o f th e NS

R programs
. 0 Th e NAA/PS D regulation s o rth e applicabl e SI P (o rSI P approve d programs ) Thes e requirement s defin e th e progra m requirement s an d administrativ e procedures

. However , the ypresen t ver ylittl e guidanc e fo rth e implementatio n o f mos t o f th e program' s technica l requirement s (i.e. , BACT/LAER , ai rqualit ymodeling , visibilit yimpacts)

. 0 EPA' s 198 0 Preventio n o f Significan t Deterioratio n Worksho p Manua l Th e manua l wa

s intende d fo rus e i n conjunctio n wit h EPA' s 198 0 PS D workshops

. Th e workshop s wer e hel d t o familiariz e th e Region s an d Stat e an d loca l agencie s wit h th e Augus t 198 0 amendment s t o th e PS D regulations

. However , attendanc e a t a worksho p wa s no t essentia l t o understandin g o rusin g th e manual

. Th e PS D worksho p manua l describe s i n simpl e term s th e 198 0 PS D regulation s foun d a t 4 0 CFR52.2 1 an d provide s suggeste d method s o f meetin g thes e requirement s (includin g illustrativ e examples)

. EP A Ai rPollutio n Trainin g Course s (*APTI ) Course s availabl e specifi c t o understandin g th e technica l requirement s o f implementin g th e PS D program s are : Overvie w o f PS

D Regulation s (APT I self-instructiona l cours e SI:453 ) Thi s 15-hou rcours e utilize s slide/tap e an d flipbook/tap e presentation s t o provid e a overvie w o f al l majo raspect s o f th e PS D program
. I t derive s muc h o f it s materia l fro m EP A 198 0 PS

D workshops

. Effectiv e Permi t Writin g Worksho p (*APT I cours e 454 ) Th e cours e emphasi s i s o n reviewing , analyzin g an d draftin g constructio n an d operatin g permits

. Th e cours e trie s t o provid e a practica l backgroun d fo rth e permi t revie w engineer

. Thi s i s a ne w cours eP.1 3

whic hwa s initiate di nJanuar y 1986 . Althoug hi t wa s ver y wel l receive dandprovide s usefu l informatio nfo r th e new an dexperience d permi t reviewer , i t i s schedule dt o be given.onl y onc e i n1987 . Wit hsuc ha limite dschedule di t i s obviou s tha t it s usefulnes s t o mos t Stat e andloca l permittin g agencie s i s minimal . Fundamental s o f Effectiv e Permi t Draftin g an dAnalysi s APT I (self instructiona l cours e SI:45T ) Thi s cours e i s designe dt o provid e technica l trainin g i nmethod s o f effectiv e permi t an

defficien t revie w

analysi s an

ddraftin g o f constructio nandoperatin g permits . Th e cours e materia l i s bein g finalize dandwil l b

e read y fo r disseminatio nearl y i n1987 . EP A ha s already

receive dbetwee n5 0 t o 6 0 request s fo r th e cours e materia l from

permittin g agencies . Thi s i s a vali dindicatio n o f th e wan t an

dnee dtha t Stat e an dloca l agencie s hav e fo r practica l trainin g material . A.l . Existin g concern s o nth e par t o f Stat e an dLoca l agencie s regardin g existin g program assistanc e andtrainin g need s are :

° Th e EP A

wil l no t (o r cannot ) provid e specifi c informatio no r guidanc e t o th e Stat e o r loca l agenc y o nnumerou s majo r issue s (e.g. , dua l sourc e definition , vesse l emissions , federa l enforceability , applicabilit y

determinations , ambien t ai r definition) . Thi s lac k o f inpu t result s i neac hagenc y implementin g it s ow nse t o f criteria , whic hcause s eve ngreate r inconsistenc y i nprogra m

implementatio n betwee npermittin g agencies . °_Th_ e EPA , i nrespondin g t o request s fo r guidance/technica l assistance , "prWide s inconsisten t answers , bot hwithi nHeadquarter s andbetwee n" Regions. . For . example,..the respons e fro m Headquarter s t o th e permittin g agenc y

ma y no t be consisten t wit htha t receive dfro m th e Regiona l offic e o r th e applican t ma y no t be give na respons e whic h i s consisten t wit htha t give nt o th e permittin g agency . 0 Permittin g agencie s hav e continua l personne l turnove r an dtherefor e nee dconstan t acces s t o trainin g an dcurren t technica l informatio n anddat a t o d o th e jo bright . Thoug hEP A doe s provid e som e trainin g an dtechnica l support , i t i s no t a s timel y an du pt o dat e a s ma y b e neede db

y a Stat e o r loca l agency , and i s definitel y no t give n ofte nenoug han

di nenoug hdifferen t location s t o maintai nan acceptabl e leve l o f training .

° Th e lac k o f ongoin g interactio nwit hth e State s andloca l agencie s prevent s EP A

fro m learnin g abou t th e specifi c needs , concerns , and requirement s o f individua l State s andloca l agencies . A s a result , EP A ha s t o b e constantl y "brough t u pt o speed " o nloca l issues , th e wa y a nagenc y ma y d o business , o r a

nagency' s rule s an

d regulation s [Stat e implementatio npla n(SIP) ] vs . delegate dprograms .P.1 4

A.2 . Option s t o Improv e Program Assistanc e andTrainin g Stat e andloca l permi t agencie s nee dt o be abl e t o rel y o nEP A a s a technica l resourc e fo r gatherin g an d exchangin g up-to-dat e technica l dat a andpolic y

information . Option s fo r ensurin g tha t th e informatio nEP A provide s t o th e Stat e an dloca l permi t agencie s i s curren t an dcomprehensiv e ar e (se e Figur e 1.) :
0 Establis ha comprehensiv e NS RClearinghous e (separat e fro m th e BACT/LAE R Clearinghouse ) t o trac k an dcompil e informatio no nNS Rissue s andpolic y (e.g. , NS Rapplicability , creditabl e contemporaneou s emission s reductions , enforceabl e permi t conditions , new technology) , (internal ) Implementation : Headquarter s t o implemen t ou t o f NS Rsection . Pro : Consolidate s informatio nint o a singl e reference . Eas y acces s singl e mechanis m

t o disseminat e new

informatio no

npolic y andissues , thereby promotin g consistency . Con : Settin g upan

dcontinua l operatio no f a clearinghous e i s a majo r tas k an dwoul drequir e bot hin-hous e personne l an dcontrac t funds . Note : Regio nI

V ha s issue da "New

Sourc e Review : PSD/Nonattainmen t Polic y Referenc e Guide" . Th e guid e i s a compilatio no f EP A polic y memorandums , letters , andinformatio ntha t hav e bee ndevelope dt o ai dimplementatio no f PS D andNA A ai r pollutio ncontro l programs . I t ha s ha s prove nextremel y usefu l t o bot hth e Region s an dStat e an

d loca l agencie s i nunderstandin g NS Rpolicy . However , distributio no f th e documen t ha s bee nextremel y limited . A

nationa l NS Rclearing hous e woul dac t o

na large r scal e t o compil e a nationa l databas e on NS Rpolic y

jot hexistin g an

ddeveloping .
0 Continue-and-improve . semi annua l NS RWorkshop s t o disseminat e informatio n o nnew development s i nth e worl do f NS Rpermits . Althoug hno w bein g hel d thes e Workshop s ar e onl y sporadicall y

attended , (internal ) Implementation : Meeting s woul db e supporte db y EP A uppe r management ; R O representatio nwoul db e mandator y wit hth e meetin g attende db y NS R Regiona l contacts . Eac hRegio nan dHeadquarter s woul dpresen t an d discus s informatio no nwha t i s new

i nal l area s o f NS Rpermitting . A prerequisit e i s tha t eac hRegio nhav e a dedicate dNS Rcontac t person . Pro : Brin g al l Regiona l NS Rcontact s u pt o spee dthereby

promotin g nationa l consistenc y

andconsensu s o

nemergin g polic y

issues . Con : Trave l constraint s ma y no t allo w

al l Region s t o attend . Informatio n stil l need s t o be disseminate dt o Stat e andloca l agencies .

° Hol dquarterl y

conferenc e call s betwee nal l th e Region s t o exchang e th e lates t NS Rinformatio n(e.g. , technolog y data , nationa l policy) , (internal )P.1 5

1 0
FIGUR E 1 . OPTION S T O ENSUR E ADEQUAT E NS R PROGRA M TRAININ GAND ASSISTANCE :
ADEQUAT E NS R PROGRA

M ASSISTANC E AND TRAININ G

A . Ensur e tha t EP A

ha s th e abilit y an d expertis e t o respon d t o th e State' s nee dfo r timel y guidanc e an

d assistanc e o

n NS Rpolic y

and issues .
tiveness : lo w

<<<<<<< <

<<<<<<< <

<r«<<< ~

<<<<<<< <

«<<<<< <

<<<<<<< < B . Provid e NS R trainin g an d referenc e material s adequat e t o foste r prope r NS R progra m implementation .

OPTION S 1 . Establis ha t H Q nationa l NS Rcontact s fo r eac h majo r progra m

are a (e.g. , BACT , applicability) . Increasin g Resourc e Need s v v v

2 . Requir e a t eac hR O a regiona l NS R expert / contac t responsibl e fo r State' s need s and overview .
3 . Hol dquarterl y

confer enc e calls - betwee nal l R O t o exchang e lates t NS R information .

4 . Continu e and improv e annua l NS R Worksho pwit h mandator y

R O attendance .

5 . Hol dannua ] workshop s a t eac hR O wit hStat e agencie s attending .

6 . Establis ha NS R Clearinghous e t o trac k informatio no

n al l NS R area s and issues . OPTION S 1 . EP A publishe s (wit h updates ) a lis t o f NS R contacts . Effectivenes s hig hlo

v

<< <

2 . Updat e existin g PS D Worksho pManua l and slid e presentatio nt o cove r "current " issues . <<<<< <



### 3 . boo k Publis ha oriente d PS D work 

### toressin g specifi c gram area s o f add pro concern . <<<<< <

4 . Establis hnew

trai n in g course s providin g in-dept hcoverag e o f individua l progra m

area s <<<<<<<< <

5 . Exten dtrainin g cours e location s t o eac hStat e a s needed / requested . <<<<<<<<<< <

ote : Option s unde r eac htas k ar e no t mutuall y exclusive ; combination s o f option s shoul dbe considere dfo r mos t effectiv e results .

### 1 1 Implementation : Eac hRegio nan dHeadquarter s woul dpresent an ddiscus s informatio no

nwha t i s new

inal l area s o f NS Rpermitting . Pro : Woul dbrin g al l Regiona l NS Rcontact s u pt o spee dthereby

promotin g nationa l consistenc y

andconsensu s o

nemergin g polic y

issues . Canbe use da s follow

u pt o augmen t workshops . Con : Informatio nstil l need s t o be disseminate d t o Stat e an d loca l agencies . A

prerequisit e i s tha t eac hRegio nhav e a dedicate dNS R contac t person . Conferenc e call s ar e difficul t t o arrange ; tota l participatio ndurin g discussio nles s likel y tha na t meeting . P.1 6

Hol dmeeting s wit hStat e an dloca l agencie s andR O personne l annually , eithe r i nconjunctio nwit hSTAPP A o r APC A

o r o na Regio nb

y Regio nbasis . Pro : Bring s togethe r many regulator y

agencie s thereby

promotin g consistenc y

betwee nth e States . Regiona l meeting s ca ntarge t assistanc e wher e needed . Con : Larg e meeting s mak e i t difficul t t o addres s th e need s o f individua l permi t revie w

agencies . Stat e an dloca l agencie s ma y no t wan t t o discus s sensitiv e issue s (o r acknowledg e failin g ina program area ) befor e othe r agencies . 0 Establis ha Regiona l Contact/Exper t responsibl e fo r Regiona l overvie w an dassistanc e t o Stat e an dloca l agencies , (internal ) Implementation : A

minimum o f on e ful l tim e staf f assigne dt o NS R program a t eac hRegiona l Office . Regiona l contact' s performanc e ca n b e linke dt o facilitatin g consistenc y an dcertaint y

i nth e Stat e NS R program . .

— Pro : Stat e an

d loca l agencie s ar e mor e likel y t o as k fo r assistanc e i f a knowledgeabl e singl e NS Rcontac t i s availabl e an d abl e t o respon dt o requests . Regiona l contac t wil l be directl y responsibl e t o ensur e prope r NS Rprogram implementation . Con : Regiona l contac t mus t b e kep t u p t o spee do

nal l NS Rissue s an

d policy . Region s ma y

no t fee l th e nee dfo r ful l tim e staf f onNSR . Regiona l contac t mus t stil l coordinat e polic y decision s wit h Headquarters. . "^Establis ha Nationa l Contact , (internal ) Implementation : Nationa l contact(s ) t o be establishe da t Headquarter s fo r BAC T technica l and/o r polic y and othe r progra m

area s o f concern , a s appropriate . Pro : Singl e contac t perso npromote s consistenc y anddirec t acces s t o information . Con : Polic y

decision s mus t stil l be coordinate dwit hnumerou s offices .P.1 7



### 1 2

Publis ha lis t o f EP A Contacts , (internal ) Implementation : Headquarter s t o publis ha lis t o f national/regiona l contact s fo r al l area s o f NS Rpermitting . Pro : Eas y

t o implement ; help s promot e on e sto pinformatio naccess . Con : Lis t mus t b e alway s kep t curren t t o b e useful . On e o non e i s a ver y resourc e intensiv e wa y fo r EP A

t o communicate . Ensur e appropriat e trainin g fo r revie w engineer s (interna l t o decid e t o establis hcourse ; externa l t o requir e attendance) . Implementatio n(A ) : Promot e th e us e andwide r distributio no f existin g *APT I NS Rtrainin g course s (o r sel f stud y material) . Coul d giv e th e cours e i neac hstat e tha t request s it , u pt o a limite d numbe r pe r year , andthe nretrai nanagenc y a s needed . Implementatio n(B) : Establis hadditiona l indept h*APT I mini-trainin g course(s ) (o r sel f stud y material ) fo r specifi c progra m area(s ) (e.i. , BACT ) o f concern . Pro : Tw o o r thre e da y cours e (o r sel f study material ) ca ncove r a majo r NS Rarea , enablin g new permi t engineer s (includin g ne w Regiona l Offic e NS Rpersonnel ) t o b e quickl y brough t u

pt o speed . Con : Costl y

t o reac ha larg e audience . Difficul t t o reac hal l permi t reviewer s (excep t sel f study) . Trainin g materia l mus t b e kee pcurren t t o b e effective . Delegat e authorit y

t o mak e interpretatio npolic y decision s o

n promulgate drulesjt pCPD D o r OAQP S Directors , (internal )
Pro : Greatl y

reduc e tur naroun dtim e o ninterpretativ e (no t new ) polic y issues . Con : Som e polic y

decision s wil l stil l nee dt o b e coordinate dwit h othe r offices . Reactivat e SSCD' s rol e (eve ni f NSR S carrie s i t out ) i nissuin g NAA/PS D applicabilit y

determinations , includin g update s t o th e summary , (internal ) Implementation : SSC D issue dthes e determination s i nth e pas t (197 6 - 1982) ; therefore , th e syste m b y whic ht o issu e th e determination s an dsummarie s coul db e reactivate dwit hrelativ e ease . Pro : Summarie s canb e easil y distribute dt o Regiona l Offices , t o Stat e andloca l agencies , andt o th e publi c b y request , thereb y

increasin g informatio nflow

andconsistenc y

i napplicabilit y

determinations . Con : Implementatio nma y no t b e possibl e withi ncurren t workloa dconstraint s o r priorities .P.1 8

1 3 B

. Communication s an d Informatio n Flow B.l

. Backgroun d Each ste p a permittin g agenc yfollow s a

s i t proceed s wit h theprocessin g o f a permi t applicatio n carrie s wit h i t th e potentia l nee d t o communicat e wit h partie s outsid e th e permittin g agenc yregardin g permittin g informatio n an d actions

. Typically , a Stat e o rloca l agenc ywil l communicat e a t som e tim e durin g th e permittin g proces s with :

0 th e regulate d community ;

° ' th e public ;

0 EP A Regiona l Office/Headquarters ; and

° othe r Stat e o r loca l agencies . Effectiv e communication s betwee nth e permittin g agenc y an d th e othe r involve dpartie s i s key t o prope r program

implementation . I t i s ou r opinio ntha t mos t o f th e issue s assigne d t o th e Tas k Forc e ca n b e addresse d b y concentratio no

n th e natur e an

d typ e o f informatio nflow occurrin g betwee nEPA

and th e Stat e agencies . Therefore , fo r th e mos t part , th e followin g discussion s focu s o n th e typ e and flow

o f informatio nbetwee n th e two . Communicatio nand th e exchang e o f informatio ntake s plac e o n forma l andinforma l levels . Ther e ar e specifi c statutor y and regulator y

require ment s whic hdefin e th e proces s fo r th e forma l exchang e o f specifi c infor matio nbetwee nStat e agencie s and EP A durin g th e permi t process . Th e statutor y

requirement s are :

° Sectio n165(d)(1 ) o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (CAA ) whic hrequire s eac h Stat e t o transmi t t o th e Administrato r a copy o f eac hpermi t applicatio nand provid e notic e o f ever y actio nrelate d t o th e consideratio no f suc hpermit ; and

° 4 0 CF R 51.18(h ) "no w Sectio n51.161" , whic hrequire s th e Stat e agenc y t o provid e th e opportunit y fo r publi c commen t o n th e applicatio n ando n th e agency' s analysi s o f suc hconstruction , includin g th e agency' s propose dapprova l o r disapproval . Congres s clearl y

intende dtha t EP A

maintai na

n interactiv e (o r overview ) rol e i n th e permittin g process , eve nwhe nth e actua l permittin g i s performe db

y th e Stat e Agencies . Infulfillin g th e notificatio nrequirements , EPA envision s a Stat e o r loca l agency :

° Notifyin g EPA

and othe r affecte dpartie s (e.g. , th e FLM i f Clas s I ar e impacted) , withi na reasonabl e time , o f th e receip t o f a ne w permi t application . Thi s can tak e th e for m o f a complet e cop

y o fP.1 9

1 4
th e applicatio nitsel f o r a brie f descriptio no f th e propose d project . Notificatio ncanb e mad e a s eac happlicatio ni s receive d o r th e informatio nma y be submitte d t o EP A i na periodi c (e.g. , monthly ) report . •

0 Submittin g t o EP A a complet e publi c notificatio npackag e a t th e beginnin g o f th e publi c notic e period . Th e packag e mus t contain : ! th e publi c notice , th e propose d permit , and a technica l analysi s demonstratin g how

th e propose d projec t complie s wit hth e technica l : revie w requirement s o f th e regulation s ( i.e. , contro l technology , ai r qualit y

impac t review , an

d additiona l impacts) .
0 Submittin g t o EP A a cop y o f th e fina l preconstructio npermi t whe n issued , includin g a respons e t o an y appropriat e comment s submitte d durin g th e publi c commen t period .

° Submittin g t o EP A a copy o f th e operatin g permi t whe nissued . Whe ninforme d o f a permi t action , EP A ha s th e responsibilit y t o evaluat e th e informatio nreceive d and , i f warranted , provid e commen t t o th e Stat e or loca l agenc y

i na manne r consisten t wit hthei r permittin g proces s an d responsiv e t o thei r needs . Thi s typ e o f forma l interactio no nEPA' s par t i s bes t suite d t o th e publi c commen t perio d and wil l b e discusse d in detai l late r i nth e report . Asid e fro

m th e majo r point s o f forma l interactio nbetwee nStat e and loca l agencie s an d EPA , another , jus t a s important , are a o f communicatio n occurs . Thi s take s plac e a t th e leve l o f th e permi t revie w engineer . Whil e processin g th e application , a reviewe r usuall y find s i t necessar y t o consul t variou s source s fo r additiona l informatio nand expertise . -Information-exchang e ca noccu r withi na nagency , betwee nagencies , and — •'•- betwee nagencie s an d th e public/regulate d community . Suc hexchange s ar e ! mos t likel y

t o occu r prio r t o th e publi c notic e perio d and , fo r th e mos t ' part , ar e directe d a t th e technica l aspect s o f th e permi t review . Suc h\ informatio nma y

b e communicate d betwee nEP A and a permittin g agenc y throug ha formalize d transfe r syste m suc has :

° Policy/guidanc e memo s (e.g. , EP A guideline s fo r determinin g BACT) ;

° Th e PS D Worksho p Manua l

° Th e BACT/LAE RClearinghouse ,

° Th e EP A

technica l document s (e.g. , AP-42 , NSP S backgroun d documents , EP A modelin g guidelines) , and ;

0 Attendanc e a t EPA sponsore d NS Rworkshop s and trainin g courses . Additionally , progra m and technica l informatio nma y b e gathere d b

y a permittin g enginee r throug hinforma l mean s suc has :P.2 0



### 1 5

o tw o Stat e and/o r loca l permittin g agencie s conferrin g o nemission s tes t data ;
0 discussion s wit hequipment vendor s regardin g contro l efficiencies , and ;

° a Stat e o r loca l agenc y permittin g enginee r discussin g polic y o r technica l question s wit ha Regiona l Office/Headquarter s expert . Ofte nth e informatio nth e permi t enginee r use s ha s bee ntransmitte d throug hnumerou s channel s befor e being received . Fo r example , a reques t t o th e Regiona l Offic e fo r technica l informatio nma y g o throug hHeadquarter s befor e bein g relaye dbac k t o th e originator . Withi nHeadquarters , th e questio nma y

hav e bee ndiscusse dbetwee nnumerou s staf f prio r t o respondin g t o th e Region . Consequently , th e same questio noriginatin g fro m anothe r permittin g enginee r migh t no t necessaril y resul t i nexactl y

th e sam e response ; consistenc y ca nofte nbe improve db y conferrin g wit hmor e people , bu t thi s increase s th e tim e require d t o respon d t o th e question . Regardles s o f th e sourc e o f th e information , o r th e metho do f transfer , consistenc y

an dcertaint y

i s bre d int o th e permittin g proces s whe nth e permi t reviewe r ha s acces s t o an dreceive s accurat e an dcurren t technical / polic y informatio nspecifi c t o hi s need s i na timel y manner . B.2 . Cause s o f Inadequat e Communication s an dInformatio nFlow Durin g th e permittin g process , th e Stat e o r loca l agenc y i s responsibl e fo r notifying EP A

p f permi t actions . Currently , man y o f thes e agencie s eithe r fai l t o provid e thi s notificatio no r suppl y inadequat e documentation . Th e impac t o f thes e failure s caninclud e th e following : ^NcTniotTffcatid ni s give nto~EPA~~an d othe r affecte dpartie s o f th e ~ receip t o f a

nmajo r sourc e permi t applicatio n(e.g. , FL M fo r project s impactin g a Clas s I area) .

- Wit hnotic e o f a ne w application , EPA

ca nfla g application s tha t are , o r ma y

become , controversia l i nnature . Th e permittin g agenc y ca nthe nb e give nadvance dnotificatio no f issue s o r concern s (o r eve nth e availabilit y o f specifi c information/expertis e tha t ma y be beneficia l t o th e review) . Fo r example , EP A ma y wan t t o key i no nspecifi c sourc e categorie s (e.g. , municipa l incinerators ) o r location s (e.g. , Clas s I areas ) wher e ther e ma y b e a caus e fo r concernan

dincrease dEPA

involvement . A notic e o f receip t o f a napplicatio ni s sen t t o EP A bu t i t doe s no t contai na cop

y o f th e applicatio no r a descriptio no f th e project .

- T o d o an

y prescreening , th e notificatio nmus t carr y wit hi t some informatio nregardin g th e propose dproject . N o publi c notic e packag e i s sen t t o EP A (o r othe r affecte dparties) . oP.2 1

1 6

- Withou t prope r notificatio no f th e beginnin g o f th e publi c commen t period , EP A

i s unabl e t o participat e i nth e permittin g proces s durin g th e mos t critica l an dappropriat e phas e o f th e permi t review . Thi s i s tru e als o fo r th e FL M an dothe r affecte d parties .

- I f ther e ar e significan t concern s regardin g th e permi t o r review , the y ma y g o undetecte do r surfac e durin g o r afte r sourc e constructio no r operation .
0 Th e publi c notic e packag e i s sent , bu t i s incomplet e (e.g. , i t doe s no t contai nth e propose dpermi t and/o r technica l analysis) .

- Th e Stat e o r loca l agenc y mus t be contacte dan dth e missin g informatio nreceive dbefor e EP A ca nevaluat e th e propose daction . Thi s may significantl y

reduc e th e amoun t o f tim e EP A ha s t o conduc t a nadequat e revie w

and , i f necessary , prepar e comments .
0 EP A doe s no t receiv e a cop y o f th e preconstructio npermi t (and , i f applicable , respons e t o comments) .

- I f n o comment s ar e received , th e preconstructio npermi t shoul d rea dexactl y

th e same a s th e propose dpermit . Thi s i s no t alway s th e case . Sometimes , eithe r durin g o r afte r th e publi c notice , a Stat e o r loca l agenc y ma y negotiat e change s to-th e permi t wit h th e applicant . EPA' s revie w o f th e fina l permi t i s t o determin e whethe r th e finishe dproduc t conform s t o th e program requirements .

- A Stat e o r loca l agenc y i s obligate db

y regulatio nt o conside r al l comment s prio r t o issuin g a preconstructio npermit . T o ensur e prope r program implementatio nandth e validit y o f th e

_preconstructio npermit , EP A need s t^

> know^whetheran d ho w a n agenc y respond s t o issue s raised . I f th e respons e t o comment s i s unacceptabl e t o EPA , th e permittin g agenc y andth e sourc e nee dt o be informe da s soo na s possibl e t o ensur e tha t issue s ar e resolve di na timel y manner .
0 EP A doe s no t receiv e a cop y o f th e operatin g permit .

- Stat e andloca l permi t agencie s issu e a permi t t o operat e t o source s afte r th e sourc e ha s starte du pan dme t complianc e tests . Th e agencie s fee l tha t thes e permit s supersed e th e preconstructio n permit . However , th e OG C doe s no t conside r thi s permi t t o be federall y

enforceabl e becaus e th e operatin g permi t conditions , includin g emissio nlimits , coul d chang e fro m thos e i nth e preconstructio npermi t withou t (i nEPA' s view ) adequat e review . T o ensur e tha t th e sourc e complie s wit hth e NS Rpreconstructio n permit , whic hi s federall y enforceable , EPA

must verif y

tha t th e operatin g permi t condition s ar e no t les s stringent . B.3 . Impact s o f Inadequat e Communication s Whe nbreakdown s i ncommunicatio nan dinformatio nflow

occur , thei rP.2 2

1 7 impact s canbe fa r reachin g an dhav e significan t advers e impacts . Th e mos t direc t an

dsignifican t impac t resultin g fro m a failur e t o communicat e timel y informatio no

na majo r permi t actio ni s o nth e applican t i nth e form o f n.iulator y

uncertainty . Unles s a majo r concer no r issu e arise s durin g th e permittin g proces s an dremain s unresolve d despit e th e issuanc e o f th e fina l permit , i t i s generall y assume dth e applicant , permittin g agency , th e prulic , and(usually ) EP A tha t wit h-.h

e issuanc e o f th e fina l permi t th e sourc e ma y

begi nconstruction . Fo r many majo r sources , th e receip t o f a fina l NS Rpermi t i s a necessar y

prerequisit e t o securin g financia l backin g andsignal s th e go-ahea dfo r initiatio no f actua l onsit e constructio nactivities . I n al l cases , th e receip t o f a fina l NS Rpermi t i s a majo r mileston e i nth e timelin e o f an

y majo r projec t subjec t t o review . Th e discover y o f a majo r issu e whic hma y impac t th e content , o r eve nth e validity , o f th e fina l permi t canresul t i nsever e economi c hardshi pt o th e applicant . Change s i ncontro l technolog y requirement s afte r th e fina l permi t i s issued , fo r example , ma y cos t th e applican t considerabl e tim e andmone y t o implemen t desig nchanges . I f a fina l NS Rpermi t i s invalidate db y EP A afte r i t i s issued , constructio nma y no t commenc e or , i f already underway , ma y hav e t o be postpone do r rescheduled . Poo r o r nonexisten t communication s betwee nEP A anda permittin g agenc y ha s resulte dinth e increase dexpenditur e o f resource s i nprogram implementation . Whe na majo r problem t issu e surface s afte r a permi t i s issued , bot hEP A

andth e permittin g agenc y hav e a responsibilit y t o th e sourc e t o resolv e tha t proble m a s soo na s possible . Thi s put s al l partie s involve dint o a "fir e fighting " mode , divertin g previousl y allocate d tim e andresource s t o addressin g th e problem ; th e applicant' s plan s an dschedule , t o some extent , ar e disrupted . When " th e forma l communicatio nmechanisms " d o notr function - correctly,-• - - permittin g engineer s andagencie s ma y tur ntoward s th e les s structured , mor e informa l type s o f communication s exchange . Whil e thes e avenue s o f communicatio nd o provid e many advantage s t o th e use r (e.g. , quicke r tur n around , les s bureaucratic ) the y als o carry

wit hthem

disadvantage s an

d th e potentia l fo r abuse . Fo r example :

° i f th e correc t sourc e i s no t used , the nth e informatio nprovide d ma y no t represen t curren t o r comprehensiv e EP A policy ;

o inconsisten t informatio nma y b e transferre dt o th e variou s involve d parties ; th e transfe r an

ddisseminatio no f informatio nt o al l concerne d partie s ma y

no t occur ; o r th e permittin g agency/appncan t ma y try t o solici t onl y

th e typ e o f response s i t wishe s t o hea r b y avoidin g prope r channels .P.2 3

1 8
I t i s th e responsibilit y o f th e permittin g agenc y t o implemen t th e NS Rpermi t program

consisten t wit hth e approve do r promulgate dregulations . Failur e t o adequatel y inform al l affecte dpartie s o f majo r permi t action s may b e indicativ e o f othe r area s o f deficienc y i nth e program . Noncomplianc e wit hspecifi c program element s require db y th e Ac t o r implementin g regulation s ma y caus e th e los s o f § 10 5 gran t fund s t o th e permittin g agency . I f th e deficiencie s ar e sever e enough , EP A ma y hav e n o recours e bu t t o tak e bac k th e program . However , i f EPA receive s an

dreview s informatio no na n ongoin g basi s (an

dprovide s constructiv e feedbac k whe nappropriate) , deficiencie s ma y

b e detecte dbefor e the y becom e a chroni c problem requirin g majo r correctiv e action . B.4 . EPA andth e Publi c Notic e Perio d
A s necessary , EPA

ma y communicat e wit ha Stat e o r loca l agenc y a t an y ste pi nth e permittin g process . However , i ngeneral , th e mos t appro priat e plac e fo r EPA' s forma l interactio nt o occu r i s durin g th e publi c commen t period . Th e regulate dcommunity , th e public , andEP A ar e al l equall y invite dt o commen t o nth e propose dactio na t tha t time . Also , a t tha t time , th e permittin g agenc y ha s available , andEP A shoul dhav e received , al l th e informatio nnecessar y t o perform

a comprehensiv e evalua tio no f th e propose dpermit , th e reviewer' s associate dtechnica l review , an dth e actio nth e reviewin g agenc y anticipate s takin g wit hregar dt o th e propose dsource . Durin g th e publi c commen t period , comment s an dconcern s ca nb

e voice d t o th e Stat e o r loca l permittin g agenc y i na manne r totall y consisten t wit hthei r norma l permi t processin g procedures . Comment s submitte d a t thi s tim e automaticall y become s par t o f th e officia l recor dan dar e availabl e no t onl y

b y th e Stat e o r loca l agency , bu t als o t o th e regulate d communit y

andth e genera l publi c whoar e intereste di nth e permit . Thi s allow s EP A

t o participat e i nth e permit^proces s ina publi c foru m a t a tim e when-al l intereste dpartie s ar e communicating-wit hth e permittin g agency . Al l issue s an dconcern s ca nb e pu t o nth e tabl e a t on e tim e an d be viewe dtogethe r b

y al l intereste dparties . B y commentin g durin g th e publi c commen t period , EPA encourage s (no t onl y fro m th e th e perspectiv e o f th e permittin g agenc y bu t als o the . applicant ) resolutiono f outstandin g issue s a t a time leas t disruptiv e t o th e permittin g proces s andproject plannin g (assumin g th e applican t understand s tha t publi c comment s ma y

impac t th e schedul e fo r issuin g a preconstructio npermit) . Knowin g tha t EP A

ha s reviewe dthei r propose dpermi t an dha s eithe r raise dal l potentia l concerns , o r find s th e review acceptable , th e applican t shoul d expec t n o surprise s regardin g th e validit y o f th e permi t onc e i t i s issued . Additionally , b

y uniforml y

reviewin g al l Stat e and loca l permi t review s durin g th e commen t period , EP A canaddres s incorrec t o r inadequat e review s o r procedure s befor e permit s ar e issued . Thi s promote s mor e consistenc y i nth e permittin g proces s amon g th e State s andprovide s th e highest degre e o f certaint y

t o th e applican t tha t th e permi t wil l no t b e challenge d a t a late r date .P.2 4

1 9
« EPA should , however , no t be preclude dfro m relayin g concern s t o a Stat e o r loca l agenc y regardin g a pendin g permi t applicatio na t a tim e other tha ndurin g th e publi c commen t period . Fo r example , afte r reviewin g a cop y o f a recentl y

submitte dapplication , EPA ma y wan t t o aler t a permittin g agenc y

t o a potentia l are a o f concern . Suc hcommunication s ma y b e formalize di na lette r fro m EPA t o th e agency , o r tak e th e for m o f a simpl e cal l fro

m EPA staf f t o th e Stat e o r loca l agenc y permi t engineer . Here , a s durin g th e commen t period , EPA shoul dfunctio nt o aler t th e permittin g agenc y (an dth e applican t throug hth e agency ) t o issue s an

davailabl e informatio ntha t ma y influenc e th e permittin g process . However , shoul da Stat e o r loca l agenc y isssu e a permi t tha t EPA ha s determine dt o be inadequate , th e Agenc y shoul dinvestigat e th e followin g option s t o addres s th e issue : 1 . Fo r PS D permit s inState s with.delegate d programs , revie w o f th e permi t condition s b

y th e Administrato r unde r 4 0 CF R124.19(b ) withi n3 0 day s o f th e servic e dat e o f notic e o f th e Regiona l Administrator' s action . 2 . Direc t enforcemen t agains t th e sourc e unde r section s 16 7 o r 11 3 fo r State-approve dPS D permit s an dNS Rpermit s fo r failur e t o ge t a vali d PS D permi t prio r t o commencin g construction . Th e EPA' s positio nher e woul dbe tha t a PS D permi t issue d no t consisten t wit hth e requirement s in 4 0 CF R52.2 1 o r 51.1 8 woul dno t be a vali dPS D permit . Th e EP A ma y nee dt o issu e guidanc e t o claifir y th e prope r Agenc y procedure s fo r handlin g inadequat e permits . Thi s ma y includ e draftin g some ne w regulation s a t 4 0 CF Rsectio n124 . B.5 . Option s fo r Improvin g Communication s andInformatio nFlow B.5.a . Improving"th ¥AcquiTitTdnb y EPA of"Ong"ofhg"Permittin g Informatio n fro m Stat e an dLoca l Agencie s - '

_ Permittin g agencie s nee dt o understan d andcarr y ou t thei r responsibilit y t o inform

EP A o f majo r permi t action s a s thos e action s occur . O f th e permi t action s reportabl e t o EPA , th e singl e mos t importan t i s th e timel y submitta l o f a complet e publi c notic e package . Option s availabl e t o EP A t o requir e o r promot e th e timel y flo w o f informatio ninregar dt o permi t action s from Stat e agencie s (se e Figur e 2 ) include :
0 Stres s th e importanc e o f th e statutor y an dregulator y

reportin g requirement s an dassume permittin g agencie s wil l comply , (external ) Implementation : EPA , throug hth e Regiona l Offices , woul dinfor m th e Stat e agencie s o f th e nee dfor , an dimportanc e t o th e program of , timel y an dappropriat e informatio no nal l majo r NS Rpermi t actions . A lette r (possibl y

fro m th e AA ) t o th e hea do f th e Stat e agenc y woul dstres s th e importanc e andpositiv e aspect s o f informin g EPA o f majo r NS Rpermi t action s a s the y

occur . Unles s currently , require db y a nexistin g agreement ,P.2 5

2 0
FIGUR E 2 . OPTION S T O ENSUR E PROPE RCOMMUNICATION S AN D INFORMATIO N FLO W

PROPE RCOMMUNICATION S

AN D INFORMATIO N

FLO W

A . Ensur e tha t EP A receive s fro

m Stat e an

d loca l agencies :

° Notificatio no f receip t o f a NS R application ;

° a complet e publi c notic e package ;

0 th e fina l NS R preconstructio n permit , and ;

° th e permi t t o operate .

:t i veness : lo w 

## I I

:<<<<<<< <

<<<<< <

:<<<<<<<< < B . Ensur e th e timel y an d comprehensiv e revie w b y EP A o f Stat e an

d loca l majo r NS R permi t actions .

OPTION S
1 . Reques t i n writin g tha t Stat e agencie s sub mi t th e neede d informa tio nt o EPA . Increasin g Resourc e Need s v v v v
2 . Includ e i n th e §10 5 grant s a requiremen t t o submi t th e necessar y information .

3 . Negotiat e a forma l agreemen t wit hSTAPPA / ALAPC O fo r th e necessar y information .

4 . Tak e appropriat e actio n wher e th e Stat e fail s t o | (afte r du e notice ) submit | requeste d information . | OPTION S
1 . A A request s tha t al l Regiona l Office s imple men t a progra m

t o revie w al l Stat e NS R permi t actions . Effectiveness , hig hl

i 

## I I
<<<<< <

2 . Implemen t a

n SPM S (o r | equivalent ) requirin g | | | I ongoin g revie w

o f Stat e | <<<<<<<<<<< < NS Rpermi t actions . |

3 . H Q develop s a standardize d procedur e fo r Regiona l revie w o f NS Rpermi t actions . <<<<<<<< <

4 . Headquarter s review s al l publi c notic e package s issue d b

y th e States . i <<<<<< •

Note : Option s unde r eac htas k ar e no t mutuall y exclusive ; combination s o f option s shoul d b e considere d fo r mos t effectiv e results .P.2 6

2 1 * i t woul das k fo r voluntar y complianc e whil e citin g th e regulator y back groun dfo r th e request . I f th e permittin g agenc y i s currentl y

committe d b y som e agreemen t wit hEPA t o sendth e information , it s commitmen t woul db e reemphasized . Th e reques t coul db e tailore dt o pas t performanc e andan y curren t concern s EPA ma y hav e regardin g a

nindividua l permittin g agency . Pro : This,typ e o f actio ni s leas t confrontationa l andi s th e easies t t o implement . It allow s eac hRegiona l Offic e t o communicat e it s informationa l need s o na case-by-cas e basi s t o th e permittin g agencie s i na manne r consisten t wit hbusines s a s usual . Con : It woul donl y

b e a forma l reques t an dit s implementatio ncoul d no t be enforced . Ther e woul db e littl e o r n o incentiv e fo r th e Stat e agenc y t o compl y

wit hth e reques t an di t woul dbe difficul t t o monito r complianc e wit hsuc ha request . Implementatio nmay stil l b e viewe d b y th e Stat e agenc y

a s jus t anothe r recordkeepin g chore . Negotiat e a

nagreemen t wit hSTAPPA/ALAPC O whic hdirect s permittin g agencie s t o submi t th e neede dinformatio no npermi t actions , (external ) Implementation : EPA

woul dmee t wit hSTAPPA/ALAPC O an ddiscus s 'th e benefit s t o th e permittin g agencie s o f stron g an d ongoin g informatio nflo w fro m an dt o EPA . EP

A woul dreac ha forma l agreemen t wit hSTAPPA/ALAPC O whic h require s tha t Stat e agencie s submi t th e neede dinformation . I nreturn , EPA woul dcommi t t o improvin g it s functio na s a program resource . Pro : It involve s directl y thos e partie s affecte dth e mos t b y it s implementation . Con : Ca nbe a length

y an dresourc e intensiv e proces s wit ha nunpredictabl e outcome . "Again , ther e T s TTttT e incentiv e t o accommodat e EPA . ^ STAPPA's.strength s ar e formin g consensu s opinion s an dexchangin g information , no t enforcin g agreement s " individua l agencies . Requir e th e submitta l o f th e necessar y informatio nthroug hth e sectio n10 5 gran t process , (external ) Implementation : § 10 5 Gran t mone y woul dbe conditione dt o requir e th e submitta l o f th e necessar y information . EP A

caneithe r develo p a minima l se t o f criteri a applicabl e t o al l permittin g agencie s o r allow eac hRegiona l Offic e th e flexibilit y t o negotiat e gran t condition s wit hthei r individua l Stat e agencies . Failur e t o transmi t th e require d informatio ncoul dresul t i nth e withdrawa l o f funding . , Thi s metho di s currentl y

bein g employe db

y some Regiona l Office s wit hgoo dresult s (se e attachment) . Pro : I t make s th e Stat e agenc y directl y

accountabl e fo r th e submitta l o f necessar y

informatio nan

d it s us e i s consisten t wit hexistin g regulator y

requirements . Verificatio no f performanc e coul dbe accom p i' i she d durin g th e annua l audit .P.2 7

2 2
Con : Stat e agencie s ma y argu e tha t additiona l fund s ar e require dt o accomplis hth e require d task .

° Fo r agencie s tha t fai l t o compl y wit hth e statutor y

an dregulator y requirement s fo r notificatio no f majo r permi t actions , tak e actio nt o rescin dth e authorit y o f th e permittin g agenc y t o review / issu e majo r sourc e NS Rpermits , (interna l polic y decision ; externa l i f rescission required) . Implementation : Tak e forma l actio nt o tak e bac k th e NS Rprogram fro m Stat e an dloca l agencie s tha t fai l t o notif y EP A o f permi t action s (i.e. , publi c notice) . Pro : Insure s prope r implementatio no f NS Rprogram . Con : Lengthy

andmanpowe r consumptiv e process . Mos t drasti c o f al l measures , wit hadvers e impact s no t onl y fo r th e permittin g agenc y (e.g. ; los s o f funds ) , bu t als o EP A (e.g. , increase dworkload ) an dth e permi t applican t (e.g. , new

players , transitio nperiod , mus t no w dea l wit htwo ! permittin g agencies) . It i s als o i ndirec t conflic t wit hEPA' s long standin g goal s o f "on e sto ppermitting " andhavin g th e State s incontro l o f thei r ow

nai r qualit y

resources . B.5.b . Option s t o mak e EPA' s ongoin g interactio ninNS Rpermittin g responsiv e t o a Stat e agency' s an dapplicant' s concern s tha t involvemen t occu r i n a timel y an dappropriat e manner . EP A ha s n o establishe dsystem o r formalize d procedur e fo r th e ongoin g revie w o f Stat e o r loca l agenc y NS Rpermitting . Regiona l Office s ar e lef t t o thei r ow

ndiscretio nregardin g th e exten t t o which , an d how , a

n ongoin g evaluatio ni s implemented . Some Region s hav e implemente da system"fo r comprehensivel y reviewin g al l Stat e and"loca l agenc y permi t actions . Thes e Region s usuall y ar e abl e t o detec t an d infor m th e permi t agencie s o f potentia l problem s prio r t o th e issuanc e o f a preconstructio n permit . Othe r Regions , eithe r throug hchoic e o r lac k o f program personnel , hav e no t become involve dinreviewin g ongoin g permittin g actions . Consequently , fro

m Stat e t o State , EPA' s abilit y t o detec t an

daddres s majo r issue s durin g th e permi t proces s range s fro m ver y goo dt o nonexistent . Thi s lac k o f a comprehensive , uniform approac ht o EPA

participatio ni n ongoin g permi t review s i s probabl y th e singl e mos t importan t caus e fo r inconsistenc y

an duncertaint y

inth e NS Rpermitting . EP A shoul dconside r implementin g a systemati c approac ha t eac h Regiona l Offic e t o th e monitorin g an devaluatin g o f ongoin g permi t actions . Th e approac hshoul daddres s th e nee dt o trac k and , whe nnecessary , th e abilit y t o comprehensivel y

evaluat e individua l permi t action s a s the y occur . I t shoul ddirec t itsel f t o flaggin g potentia l issue s whil e a permi t i s stil l i nprocessin g an dpromot e th e feedbac k o f timel y constructiv e comments . Option s fo r th e implementatio no f suc ha system include :

° Stres s th e nee dan dimportanc e o f ongoin g overvie w wit hth e Regiona l Office s an

dreques t tha t the y

trac k an

drevie w

Stat e agenc y

permi t action s a s necessary , (internal )P.2 8

2 3 Implementation : Th e A A fo r OA Rwoul dtransmi t a mem o t o th e Regiona l Divisio nDirector s recommendin g tha t th e Region s revie w fo r correctnes s an dconsistenc y

al l NS Rpermit s submitte dt o th e Regio ndurin g th e publi c commen t period . Th e memo woul dstres s th e importanc e o f suc h ongoing review

t o th e program . I f necessary , th e mem o coul drecommen d specifi c procedure s t o be followe d fo r th e revie w o f eac haction . However , ther e woul dbe n o accountabilit y o nth e par t o f th e Regio ni n carryin g throug hth e reviews . Pro : Administrativel y quic k an

deas y t o implement . Con : Ther e i s n o accountabilit y an d therefor e littl e incentiv e fo r a Regio nt o inves t tim e an dresource s i nsuc hanundertaking . Therefore , ther e i s littl e assuranc e tha t Region s woul d compl y an dtha t ther e woul dbe a chang e i nth e statu s quo . Requir e tha t eac hRegiona l Offic e be directl y responsibl e fo r developin g an dimplementin g a system whic hprovide s fo r th e ongoing overvie w o f Stat e permittin g agencies , (internal ) Implementatio nA : Develo pan dimplemen t a % Regiona l Strategi c Plannin g and Managemen t System

(SPMS ) o r othe r specifi c commitmen t requirin g ongoin g revie w o f Stat e an

dloca l permits . Pro : Define s a specifi c commitmen t t o ongoin g revie w whic hcanb

e easil y tracke dan

daudite db

y Headquarters . Con : Region s wil l be concerne dabou t workloa d impacts . Implementatio nB : Revie w th e Regio nOffices ' performanc e o f NS Rovervie w a s par t o f th e Annua l Ai r Enforcemen t Audit . Th e enforcemen t audi t team coul dinclud e a NS Rspecialis t wh o woul devaluat e th e Region' s •overvie w

program

an dit s effectiveness . _. . Pro : Allow s eac hRegio nt o develo pan dimplemen t thei r ow nsystem fo r Stat e NS Rpermi t overview . Regiona l performanc e i nth e are a o f Stat e NS Rpermi t overvie w

woul dbe evaluate dfo r effectivenes s an dnationa l consistenc y

annually . Regiona l Office s ar e mor e likej y t o undertak e a conscientiou s effor t t o undertak e Stat e NS Rpermi t revie w wit hth e knowledg e tha t thei r program i s t o b

e audited . Con : Region s wil l be concerne dabou t workloa dimpacts . Develo pa standardize dproces s fo r th e trackin g an d revie w

o f permi t action s b

y th e Regiona l Offices , (internal ) Implementation : Memo fro m th e A A fo r OA Restablishe s th e system an d include s th e form s neede dfo r tracking . Pro : Standardize s th e Regiona l review process. ' Ensure s correc t an d comprehensiv e revie w

b y Region . Consistenc y fro m Regio nt o Regio ni n typ e an ddept ho f review .P.2 9



### 2 4

Con : Region s wil l complai nabou t workloa dimpacts . Stil l require s a mechanis m

t o ensur e th e Region s ar e accountabl e t o task . Standardize d form s ten dt o leadt o shallo w review s becaus e o f th e complexit y o f th e NS Rprocess . Thi s i s on e o f th e drawback s o f th e NS R Nationa l Audi t forms . State s ma y com e t o believ e tha t anythin g no t covere do

nth e form

i s no t ope nfo r review . EP A Headquarter s responsibl e t o revie w al l NS Rpubli c notic e package s durin g th e publi c notic e period . Implementation : A

t th e commencemen t o f th e publi c notic e perio dH Q woul dreceiv e direc t fro m th e Stat e an

dloca l agencie s a cop y o f th e publi c notic e package . HQ staf f woul dbe responsibl e t o revie w eac h packag e fo r consistenc y an dcomplianc e wit hNS Rrequirements . Pro : Wit hth e same staf f responsibl e fo r th e revie w o f al l propose d' NS Rpermi t action s nationwide , a very hig hdegre e o f consistenc y and certaint y

wil l result . Con : H Q staffin g need s woul dincreas e accordingl y (1- 2 workyears) . H Q i s on e ste pfurthe r remove dfro nth e Regiona l Office s i nunderstandin g th e State' s positio nandconcern s regardin g loca l issues , industr y growth , and , (perhap s mos t important ) politics . Stat e andloca l agencie s woul dconside r suc hanundertakin g b y H Q a s an

additiona l leve l o f federa l involvemen t i n"their " programs . Stat e an dloca l agencie s woul dten dt o bypas s th e Regiona l Office s i nseekin g progra m assistance , thereb y furthe r taxin g H Q resource s andcausin g confusio na s t o wh o ha s th e lea d(HQ o r th e RO ) i nprovidin g progra m assistanc e t o th e Stat e an dloca l agencies .P.3 0

2 5
C . Th e BAC T Proces s C.l . Backgroun d
A BAC T analysi s determine s th e lowes t emission s tha t canb e me t b y a sourc e o r modification , considerin g economic , environmental , an d energ y impacts . Th e BAC T analysi s and th e result s i t produce s provid e th e majorit y o f th e inpu t dat a fo r th e othe r tw o require d PS D analyses : th e ai r qualit y analysi s an

d th e additiona l impac t analysis . Consequently , anaccurat e BAC T analysi s canb

e considere d th e foca l poin t o f a successfu l PS D review . BAC T analyse s fo r th e same type s o f emission s uni t an d th e same pollutant s i ndifferen t location s o r situation s ma y determin e tha t differen t contro l strategie s shoul d be applie d t o th e differen t sites , dependin g o n site-specifi c factors . Therefore , BAC T analyse s mus t b e conducte d o na case-by-cas e basis . A napplican t i s require d t o propos e BAC T emission s limitation s fo r eac hpollutan t subjec t t o PS D review an d provid e supportin g evidenc e an d documentatio nderive d fro m a thoroug hanalysis . T o full y asses s anapplicant' s BAC T analysis , th e reviewe r mus t no t onl y posses s a broa d knowledg e o f th e informatio nan

d situation s referre d t o i nth e analysis , bu t als o mus t be awar e o f th e PS D requirement s fo r th e BAC T analysi s an d th e method s suggeste d fo r meetin g thes e requirements . Th e applican t i s expecte d t o provid e th e appropriat e dat a t o suppor t hi s o r he r BAC T proposal . I nthos e area s wher e th e reviewe r lack s extensiv e knowledg e o r seek s additiona l informatio n, h e o r sh e i s encourage d t o us e th e informatio ncontaine d i nothe r sources . Thes e source s includ e th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e reports , literatur e references , nationa l emission s standards , contro l technolog y vendors ' data , actua l sourc e tes t data , an d an y othe r sourc e o f informatio non-emission s contro l technology . — - State s ofte nfee l tha t the y receiv e insufficien t guidanc e from EP A o n wha t source s ar e presen t i neac htyp e o f plant , th e pollutant s the y generate , o r wha t contro l technique s ar e available . Th e ESE D ca n(an d does ) provid e thi s typ e o f suppor t o noccasio nbut ; sinc e the y hav e neve r ha d an

y budge t t o d o so , hav e neve r advertise d th e fact . State s hav e als o indicate d th e nee d fo r additiona l guidanc e i ndefinin g th e BAC T proces s itself . Th e onl y guidanc e o

nperformin g a BAC T analysi s tha t EP A ha s date s bac k t o 198 0 PS D Worksho p Manua l an d a draf t 197 8 guidanc e o ndeterminin g BACT . Thi s informatio nmay hav e bee nadequat e a t th e tim e i t wa s issued ; howeve r a s th e program matures , comple xpermittin g issue s an d circumstance s indicat e th e nee d fo r additiona l definitio nan d guidanc e regardin g BAC T protocol . I nassessin g th e BAC T analysis , th e reviewe r ma y requir e a mor e stringen t emissio nrat e tha ntha t propose d b y th e applicant . T o d o this , th e reviewe r mus t hav e acces s t o informatio no nalternativ e emissio ncontro l technolog y fo r th e sourc e unde r review , s o tha t th e decisio ncanb e base d o nfact . Many Stat e an

d loca l agencie s ar e concerne d tha t the y hav e timel y

acces s t oP.3 1

2 6 informatio n o

n th e latest/newest/bes t contro l option s available

. O n th e othe rhand , withou t adequat e informatio n on viabl e contro l options , man y agencie s defaul t t o th e Ne w Sourc e Performanc e Standard s (NSPS ) a s BACT

. Inconsistenc yan d uncertaint yi n BAC T determination s ca n fo rth e mos t par t b e trace d back

t o eithe ra lac k

o f a tru e understandin g o f th e BAC T determinatio n process , o rinsufficien t o rinappropriat e dat a on viabl e contro l options

. C.2

. A n Alternat e Approac h t o Determinin g BAC T Tw o similar , ye t slightl ydifferen t approache s ar e availabl e fo r determinin g BACT

: th e "bottom-up " (current ) an d th e "top-down " (alternate ) approach

. Th e bottom-u p approac h fo rdeterminin g BAC T i s discusse d i n detai l i n th e EPA' s PS

D Worksho p Manua l issue d i n Octobe r1980 , an d i s currentl y considere d EPA' s standar d methodolog yfo rperformin g a BAC T analysis

. I n th e th e bottom-u p approach , a bas e cas e i s chose n tha t reflect s th e contro l optio n tha t woul d hav e bee n eithe rrequire d o rchose n i n th e absence o f BAC T decisionmaking

. Fo rmos t sources , th e bas e cas e i s the'applicabl e NSP S o rSI P limitation

. Alternativ e contro l strategie s mor e stringen t tha n th e bas e cas e ar e the n chose n tha t hav e bee n demonstrate d t o operat e efficientl y o n identica l o rsimila rprocesses
. Th e chose n alternative s shoul d affor d greate rlevel s o f contro l tha n th e bas e case
. Eac h contro l optio n i s the n evaluate d fo rit s (1 ) economic , (2 ) energy , an d (3 ) environmenta l impacts

. Th e contro l strateg ywit h th e lowes t leve l o f overal l impact s fo rth e cos t i s the n generall yconsidere d BACT

. Significan t inconsistencie s i n BAC T level s betwee n permittin g agencie s (fo rth e sam e sourc e typ e unde rsimila r circumstances ) indicat e a need t o eithe rimprov e th e existin g procedures , o r implemen t a n alternativ e approach

. Option s fo rimprovin g th e curren t BAC T decisionmakin g proces s are-discussedi n a separat e sectio n o f th e report.- • - A n alternativ e procedur e fo rdeterminin g BACT, th e "top-down " approach , i s bein g successfull yimplemente d b ysom e Stat e an d loca l agencies

. Th e firs t ste p i n thi s approac h i s t o determine , fo rth e emission s sourc e i n question , th e most stringen t BAC T fo ra simila ro ridentica l sourc e o r sourc e category

. I f i t ca n b e prove n tha t thi s BAC T leve l o f contro l i s technicall yo reconomicall yinfeasibl e fo rth e sourc e i n question , the n th e nex t mos

t stringen t BAC

T leve l i s determine d an d evaluated

. Th e proces s continue s unti l th e BAC T leve l unde rconsideratio n canno t b e eliminate d b

y anyseriou s technical , environmental , o reconomi c objections

. Th e bottom-u p versu s top-dow n approache s ma yno t necessaril yresul t i n th e sam e emission s contro l level

. However , ther e i s reaso n t o believ e tha t top-dow n BAC

T determination s woul d gravitat e t o a mor e consisten t leve l o f BAC T nationwid e tha n does th e bottom-u p approach

. Othe radvantage s associate d wit h th e top-dow n approac h are :

° Top-dow n start s al l BAC T review s a t th e sam e leve l o f control

. Thi s i s a n importan t facto rfo rnon-NSPS sources , wher e bottom-u p bas e cas e emissio n limit s ma yvaryfro m agenc

yt o agency
.2 7

° Top-dow

ni s fundamentall y

a les s resourc e intensiv e revie w (fo r bot h th e applican t an

dth e reviewin g agency ) sinc e al l availabl e contro l option s ma y

no t necessaril y

nee dt o be evaluated .
0 Unde r top-down , th e close r anapplicant' s BAC T i s t o th e top-leve l BACT , th e greate r certaint y o f havin g tha t leve l accepte dwithou t challeng e an

dprocessin g time reduced . 0 Top-dow

nwoul drequir e tha t th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e repor t onl y BAC T determination s mor e stringen t tha nth e NSPS . Thi s woul dallo w th e clearinghous e t o provid e mor e informatio no ncontro l alternative s an doptions . Implementation : Th e followin g option s exis t fo r implementin g top-dow nBACT :
0 EP A promulgate s regulation s describin g th e procedur e an dit s requiremen t fo r us e i ndeterminin g BACT . 0 EP A H Q issue s guidanc e describin g th e procedur e an dth e requiremen t (o r preference ) fo r it s us e indeterminin g BACT .

° EP A H Q issue s a memo indicatin g tha t to p dow nmor e closel y

follow s

. th e Ac t definitio nan di s t o be use dfro

m tha t dat e on . C.3 . Option s fo r improvin g th e Curren t BAC T Proces s Withi nth e framewor k o f th e existin g "bottom-up " approac ht o BACT , ther e ar e certai noption s availabl e t o EP A t o improv e th e consistenc y o f BAC T determination s nationwide . Some PS D permi t application s simpl y d o no t completel y

fulfil l al l curren t BAC T analysi s requirements . Thi s i s apparen t whe nn o contro l alternative s ar e considere dandth e propose dBAC T contro l i s generall y

no t considere dt o represen t th e "best""optio navailabl e o r default s t o th e NSP S o r SI P limits . Thi s ma y occu r whe na

napplicant' s applicatio ni s incomplet e an o . . : ^viewe r fail s t o reques t additiona l informatio no r i s unawar e o f alternativ e options . Whe nthi s occurs , i t i s no t th e BAC T process , bu t th e incomplet e natur e o f th e applicatio nandlac k o f correctiv e actio no nth e reviewin g agency' s par t tha t result s i na n inappropriat e BAC T determination . Ther e are , however , case s i nwhic hn o contro l alternative s ma y b e evaluate dsimpl y becaus e th e applican t preselecte d th e "best " contro l option . Th e numbe r o f alternativ e contro l option s evaluate d b y th e applican t an dpresente dt o th e reviewin g agenc y appear s t o hav e a

nimpac t o

nth e outcom e o f th e BAC T process . A commo ninstanc e o f "on e alternative " BAC T analyse s appear s t o be whe nth e BAC T contro l leve l ha s bee npre-determine d b y th e applicant . I

nthes e cases , th e chose nBAC T contro l i s usuall y les s stringen t tha ntha t whic hma y hav e bee nchose nhad a ful l rang e o f contro l option s bee npresented . I nsuc hcircumstances , th e applican t ma y includ e on e alternativ e ina

neffor t t o justif y

th e preselecte dBAC T option . Fo r source s wher e a t leas t tw o alternativ e contro l option s wer e available , a study o f PS D permit s issue dbetwee n198 1 an d198 4 show s tha t th eP.3 3

2 8
percen t o f BAC T decision s mor e stringen t tha nth e NSP S i s highe r wher e th e permittin g agenc y

consider s two o r mor e alternative s tha nwhe non e alternativ e wa s considered . Thes e result s sugges t tha t EP A shoul drequir e (a s specifie d i nexistin g BAC T protocol ) Stat e an d loca l agencie s t o requir e th e applican t t o analyz e al l potentiall y applicabl e contro l option s (unless , o f cours e th e "best " i s preselected) . Thi s requiremen t wil l no t onl y resul t in mor e meaningfu l dat a an

d mor e option s upo nwhic ht o mak e a soun dBAC T decision , bu t als o define s a mor e consisten t approac ht o th e BAC T decisio nmakin g process . Also , b

y evaluatin g BAC T proposal s agains t th e same se t o f criteri a (i.e. , al l availabl e contro l options ) determination s b y tw o differen t reviewin g agencie s fo r simila r source s wit hsimila r energy , environmental , andeconomi c impact s shoul dresul t i n simila r BAC T determination s thereby promotin g greate r consistenc y i n BAC T determination s nationwide , applicant s wh o evaluat e al l availabl e contro l option s wil l findtha t on e advantag e o f doin g s o i s tha t thei r permit s ar e processe dquicke r becaus e al l th e informatio ni s there . Option s fo r requirin g th e analysi s o f al l potentiall y applicabl e contro l option s whe ndeterminin g BAC T are :

o Hav e th e Regiona l Office s senda lette r indicatin g th e requiremen t t o d o s o t o thos e Stat e an d loca l agencie s wher e i t i s no t commo n practic e t o evaluat e al l availabl e contro l option s in a typica l BAC T analysis . 0 Hav e EP A

H Q publis hforma l guidanc e o n th e BAC T decisionmakin g proces s stressin g th e nee dt o evaluat e al l availabl e contro l options .
° Hav e EP A

H Q develo pa detaile dBAC T workshee t tha t woul dassis t th e reviewe r i n determinin g BACT . Th e workshee t woul d b e require dt o b e "kep t wit hth e permi t fil e an d coul db

e submitte dt o th e BACT/LAE R Clearinghous e a s a detaile drecor do f th e determination .
° Us e th e BACT/LAE Rnewslette r t o infor m Stat e an

d loca l agencie s o f th e nee dt o requir e a n applican t t o presen t al l availabl e contro l option s i n th e BAC T portio no f th e permi t application .

° Obtai na STAPPA/ALAPC O agreemen t t o asses s BAC T i na manne r consisten t wit hth e requirements . C.3 . Th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e C.3.a . Purpos e and Concern s Th e basi c purpose s o f th e BACT/LAE R Clearinghous e ar e to : 1 ) provid e Stat e an d loca l ai rpollutio n contro l agencie s wit h curren t informatio n o n case-by-cas e contro l technolog ydetermination s tha t ar e mad e nationwid e an d 2 ) promot e communication , cooperation , an d sharin g o f contro l technolog y informatio n amon g permittin g agencies

. I t i s intende d a s a referenc e fo r Stat e an d loca l agencie s i n makin g BACT/LAE R decisions

.P.3 4

are : 2 9

Concern s wit hth e curren t operatio no f th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e

Many user s fee l tha t informatio no nBACT/LAE Rdecision s i s no t bein g disseminate dina timel y fashion . Th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e Repor t i s publishe dannually , an dprovide s fe w

detail s o

neithe r th e plan t o r th e controls . Th e Clearinghous e compute r networ k (electroni c bulleti nboard ) provide s mor e up-to-dat e information . However , i t i s n o mor e extensiv e tha nth e repor t an di s no t easil y

accessibl e t o many agencies . Input s t o th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e ar e voluntary , s o many determination s (probabl y abou t half ) ar e no t reported . Th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e Repor t contain s al l report s submitted , regardles s o f stringency , so : 1 ) i t i s muc hlarge r tha nnecessar y an dusefu l dat a canbe burie di na mas s o f determinations . 2 ) encourage s us e o f th e lowes t commo ndenominato r inmakin g determinations ; man

y entrie s equat e BAC T t o th e NSPS , th e applicabl e SIP , o r commo npractice . 4 ) spac e limitation s mea ntha t littl e informatio nca nbe provide do n a nindividua l facility , and ; 5 ) few o f th e complete dBACT/LAE RClearinghous e form s o na majo r facilit y

(whic hprovid e th e dat a bas e fo r th e BACT/LAE R Clearinghous e report ) lis t al l th e emissio nsources , al l th e pollutant s generate db y thos e sources , an

dal l th e emissio n control s an

dcontro l efficiencie s selecte dfo r them. " o

C.3.b . Option s fo r Improvemen t

0 Increas e us e of , an dparticipatio nin,th e BACT/LAE RClearinghous e b y makin g submitta l o f questionnaire s b y th e Stat e mandator y fo r al l majo r facilities , b y tyin g receip t o f sectio n105'gran t mone y t o thei r submittal , an

db y providin g incentive s fo r th e State s t o utiliz e th e Clearinghous e dat a base , (external ) Implementation : On e possibl e -'•-iv e i s t o provid e a modem , plu s som e fre e acces s tim e u : ... . : • clearinghous e compute r networ k fo r eac hsubmittal . A

variatio no

nthi s optio nmigh t b e t o giv e STAPPA / ALAPC O a mont ho r tw o t o pol l thei r member s an deithe r come upwit h a nacceptabl e alternativ e t o mandator y submitta l o r solici t suppor t fo r thi s proposal . Pro : A nincreas e i nth e numbe r o f submittal s t o th e Clearinghous e shoul dincreas e th e potentia l fo r receivin g goo dBAC T determinations . Us e o f sectio n10 5 gran t mone y ma y encourag e holdout s t o participate .P.3 5

o 3 0
Eve na greatl y

expande dsubmitta l for m shoul dno t requir e ove r a hal f hou r t o complet e (permits , o f course , vary greatly , s o extractin g th e neede dinformatio nfro m a permi t packag e i s th e mos t time-consumin g task) . Th e potentia l fo r permittin g plant s whic hdon' t eve nmee t NSP S requirement s migh t be reduce di f agencie s knew thei r action s woul d routinel y

become know

nt o EP A andothe r agencies . Enforcemen t shoul d catc hsuc hproblems , a s coul dth e periodi c audits , bu t a nappearanc e i nth e Clearinghous e woul dmak e them mor e obvious . Usag e o f th e compute r networ k shoul d increas e i f State/loca l agencie s ar e no t charge dfo r acces s t o th e ne t whil e learnin g how t o us e i t (o r eve ndeterminin g whethe r they canus e it) . Con : STAPPA/ALAPC O migh t no t concu r wit hmakin g Clearinghous e submittal s mandatory . Th e us e o f gran t mone y t o forc e participatio nwil l b e unpopula r an d• coul dbe counter-productive . Agencie s whic hno w participat e t o a limite ddegre e may

elec t t o forg o gran t mone y an drefus e t o sendi n an y questionnaires , thereby reducin g overal l participatio nrathe r tha nincreasin g it . Increas e th e Clearinghous e dat a bas e b y havin g th e Region s submi t th e Clearinghous e questionnaires , (internal )
Pro : Transferrin g thi s responsibilit y t o th e Region s migh t giv e State s tim e t o identif y mino r source s wit hgoo dcontrol s an dsubmi t form s o nthes e source s t o th e Clearinghouse . Ofte nth e bes t new .technolog

y J s first_trjed_oiij5malj[e r sources . Th e adde dworkloa da t th e Regiona l leve l shoul db e minimal , sinc e onl y anaverag e 20 0 (12 0 PSD , 8 0 NAA ) majo r permi t application s ar e expecte deac hyear . Con : Region s probabl y d o no t ge t copie s o f al l 'major ' permi t application s a t present , an dmay no t d o s o unles s th e reportin g requirement s ar e enforced . Region s ma y

no t b e willin g t o accep t an y additiona l workload . Thi s approac hha s bee ntrie dbefore , unsuccessfully . Improv e th e usefulnes s o f th e Clearinghous e t o 'permi t reviewers ' b y reportin g onl y

th e 'best * BAC T determination s (bes t 5-10 , to p3 , al l bette r tha nNSPS , etc. ) fo r eac hindustr y an d b y includin g (i f available ) th e lowes t emissio nrate s actuall y achieve di npractice . On e representativ e NSP S coul dbe include dfo r eac hsourc e type , (internal ) Implementation : Th e EPA woul dreorganiz e th e Clearinghous e t o reflec t ; thes e changes .P.3 6

o 3 1

Pro : Th e Clearinghous e annua l repor t an dcompute r networ k woul db e muc h smalle r andeasie r t o use , whic hcoul dencourag e thei r increase duse . Th e dept ho f informatio nprovide d inth e Clearinghous e o neac ho f th e remainin g determination s coul d be expande d withou t th e siz e becomin g unmanageable . Th e tendenc y

t o rationaliz e acceptin g minima l control s a s BAC T woul dbe lessene db

y eliminatin g al l suc hmediocr e determination s (les s opportunit y t o play th e number s game) . Con : Participatio ni nth e Clearinghous e coul d dro p off , especiall y from State s whic htendt o requir e minima l control , i f thei r input s ar e no t published . Dat a o nmediocr e BAC T determination s wil l b e los t fro m th e report . Selectin g th e bes t BAC T determination s wil l b e difficult , sinc e informatio n submitte dt o th e Clearinghous e ma y no t be adequat e t o makethi s judgement . It wil l als o be resourc e intensiv e i f performe do na regula r basis . Same a s above , excep t tha t th e remainin g BAC T analyse s woul dbe publishe d a s a supplementa l report , o r a s a nappendix , (internal )
Pro : Dat a o

nles s stringen t BAC T analyse s woul dno t b e lost . Participatio ni nth e Clearinghous e b y State s exertin g minima l contro l shoul dno t be impacted , sinc e thei r determination s woul d stil l b e published . Con : Th e presenc e o f th e les s "stringen t BAC T analyses " i nthe"Clearingh"6us e report , eve na s a separat e document , ma y hel pt o perpetuat e th e permittin g o f plant s wit hmediocr e controls . Requir e additiona l effor t t o publis h a secon dvolume . Improv e th e Clearinghous e questionnair e t o mak e th e informatio nsubmitte d mor e useful , (internal ) Implementation : On e possibl e approac hwoul dbe t o ad dtw o column s t o th e curren t dat a table , on e notin g wha t regulatio nwoul d appl y (NSP S o r loca l regulation ) i nth e absenc e o f BACT , an d th e othe r listin g thi s limit . Anothe r i s t o requir e tha t al l new proces s equipmen t a t a majo r facilit y

b e listed , tha t al l pollutant s emitte db y thos e processe s be identifie dan dtha t th e contro l technique s proposed , i f any , b e reported . Also , proces s code s coul dbe adde dt o eac hlin e item s o tha t dat a ca nb e sorte db y th e typ e o f proces s used . Pro : Littl e extr a effor t woul db e require dt o complet e th e amende d questionnair e onc e user s became familia r wit hth e format .P.3 7

3 2
Con : An y revisio nt o th e forma t o f th e questionnaire , howeve r minor , coul dincreas e th e potentia l fo r receivin g incorrectl y complete d forms . Expan dth e conten t o f th e Clearinghous e report s (hardcopy and/o r computer ) t o includ e informatio no nproces s andcontro l equipmen t operatin g parameter s fo r al l determinations . Th e determination s may , o r ma y not , al l b

e published , (internal )
Pro : Th e searc htime fo r comparabl e BAC T coul dbe reduced, a s coul dth e nee dt o cal l fo r informatio nonBAC T determination s whic htur nou t t o b e inappropriate . Permi t reviewer s woul dhav e mor e informatio no ncomparabl e plant s wit hth e bes t BAC T at thei r fingertips . State s takin g th e leado nBAC T contro l coul dreduc e th e numbe r andduratio no f th e querie s abou t thei r determinations . Permi t review

coul db

e simplifie d andmad e mor e consistent , thereby reducin g th e potentia l fo r charge s o f capriciousnes s o r favoritism . Con : Th e workloa do

nStat e an

dloca l agencie s wil l increase , whic hmay reduc e thei r participatio ni nth e Clearinghous e below curren t level s (abou t 12 5 majo r permit s a year) . Th e supplementa l informatio nenterin g th e Clearinghous e wil l serv e n o vali dfunctio nunles s i t i s include di nth e report . Th e greate r availabilit y o f dat a i nth e Clearinghous e wil l serv e n o rea l purpos e unles s i t i s accesse dmor e frequentl y tha na t present-(hardcop y

report s ar e only-pub l ishedannual-ly-an d th e . _— compute r networ k i s underutilized) . Some agencie s eithe r hav e n o computer s o r hav e equipmen t whic h i s incompatibl e wit hth e Clearinghous e network . Th e informatio ni nth e annua l (hardcopy ) repor t i s a s muc ha s 1 1/ 2 year s ol dassumin g i t take s 6 month s t o prepar e an di s publishe d annually . Supplemen t th e informatio ni nth e Clearinghous e annua l report s an d compute r networ k wit htechnica l support , plu s periodi c newsletter s o r bulletin s containin g informatio no non e o r mor e o f th e followin g subjects , (internal )
Note : Th e informatio ni nth e Clearinghous e for m ca nb e adde d t o th e compute r dat a bas e i n2- 4 weeks . Th e supplementa l data , whic hmigh t includ e th e following , ca ntak e muc hlonge r t o input :

° dat a sort s o

nbes t BAC T decision sP.3 8

3 2

0 dat a sort s o

ntes t result s fro

m th e complianc e dat a system (CDS) , NSP S backgroun ddocuments , etc . 0 comparison s o f 'permitted ' and'measured ' emission s fro m selecte d installation s

° article s o

nnew contro l technologie s fro m trad e magazines , oversea s installations , vendors , etc .

° summarie s o f availabl e contro l technique s (proces s an dadd-on ) fo r selecte dindustrie s an d processes , wit hinformatio no nemissions , controlNAAficiencies , an dcost s
0 analyse s o f 'target ' BAC T andLAE Rfo r us e a s th e mos t stringen t contro l i ntop-dow

nanalyse s
0 a lis t o f technica l expert s withi nESE D wh o ar e availabl e fo r consultatio no

neac hindustry , proces s an dcontro l syste m Pro : Provide s a singl e resourc e t o th e permi t reviewe r o navailabl e contro l options . Thes e report s canprovid e th e reviewe r wit hmuc hmor e specialize d informatio ntha ni s now readil y available . Thes e report s wil l provid e informatio no nth e contro l technique s whic hshoul dbe include di na bottom-u panalysi s and whic hshoul db e analyze dfirs t whe nusin g th e top-dow napproach . Preparatio nan

ddistributio no f thes e document s nee dno t impac t existin g BACT/LAE RClearinghous e operations . Con : Considerabl e additiona l manpowe r wil l b e require db y EPA/OAQP S t o develo pand-disseminat e thi s ne w dat a an

dt o provide,a n appropriat e leve l o f technica l support .

° Incorporat e complianc e tes t result s int o th e Clearinghous e dat a bas e a s the y

becom e availabl e o

n'permitted ' plants , (internal ) Pro : Actua l tes t result s wil l eithe r validat e th e BAC T determination s o r indicat e tha t the y ar e to o lenien t (BAC T assessment s whic har e no t achievabl e shoul dalread y b e subjec t t o intens e scrutiny) . Con : Some technica l suppor t wil l be neede db y th e State s t o revie w th e tes t dat a an

dinser t th e tes t result s int o th e Clearinghous e (however , the y

shoul dalread

y b e evaluatin g th e tes t dat a an d reportin g th e result s internally) . Se e Figur e 3 fo r a summar y o f th e availabl e optio nfo r improvin g BAC T determination s an

dth e BACT/LAE RClearinghouse .3 3
FIGUR E 3 . OPTION S T O ENSUR E CONSISTEN T AND CERTAINT YI N BAC T DETERMINATION S P.3 9



### I N CONSISTENC Y AND CERTAINT Y BAC T DETERMINATION S

A . Ensur e tha t th e curren t BAC T protoco l i s correctl y understoo d andi s implemente di n a consisten t manne r b

y Stat e and loca l agencies . • »o r alternat e BAC T

_ approac h

:tiveness : lo w

<<<<<<< <

<«< <

<<<<<<<< < B

. Ensure tha t th e BACT/LAE R Clearinghous e provide s usefu l contro l technolog ydat a i n a manne rwhic h enhance s a Stat e agency' s abilit yt o properl y determin e BACT

.
OPTION S 1 . Infor m Stat e agencie s | o f th e nee dt o evaluat e j al l availabl e contro l j option s i n th e BAC T review . Increasin g Resourc e Need s v v v

2 . Issu e polic y

guidanc e memo s o n considerin g economi c impact s i n th e BAC T revie w

process .
3 . Develo p a-Work-sheet fo r th e purpos e o f evaluatin g BAC T (Workshee t woul db e par t o f permi t fil e andcoul dbe submitte dt o th e Clearinghouse) .

<«<<<<< < ALTERNATE APPROAC H T O BAC T

EPA t o promot e th e us e o f th e "to p down " approac hi n determinin g BACT .

•lote : Option s unde r eac htas k ar e no t mutuall y exclusive ; combination s o f option s shoul d be considere dfo r mos t effectiv e results . OPTION S Effectivenes ; hig hlo

v 1 . Hav e th e Clearing delet e multipl e NSP S a s BAC T determinations . <<<<<<< <

2 . Lis t BAC T submittal s accordin g t o leve l o f control . <«<<<< <

-3-.
- Expand

- contents
- o f Clearinghous e t o includ e actua l sourc e tes t data

.



# I I I - - I

<<<< <

4 . Supplemen t Clearing hous e wit htechnica l newsletters/reports . <<<<<<< <

5 . Improv e Clearinghous e questionnair e (e.g. , lis t bas e cas e fo r BAC T decision) . <« <

6 . Increas e th e numbe r o f Stat e submittal s t o th e Clearinghouse . <<<<<< 'P.4 0



### 3 4

V . Publi c Participatio nI nExterna l Option s Ther e ar e thre e level s o f externa l options . Eac hleve l shoul dinvolv e increase dpubli c participation . Mos t option s suggeste di nSectio nI V ca n b e implemente dusin g Leve l 1 o r Leve l 2 . Leve l 1—Agreements . Agreement s suc ha s a commitmen t wit hSTAPP A t o submi t BAC T determination , woul drequir e onl y interactio nwit hSTAPPA , no t wit happlicant s o r th e public . Leve l 2—Requirements . Polic y decision s tha t mus t be followe dan d requirement s othe r tha nforma l rulemakin g shoul db e publicize d b y Federa l Registe r notic e o r othe r measures . A decision , fo r example , t o begi n rescindin g program s i f State s d o no t mee t al l th e statutor y requirement s shoul db e wel l publicize dan dopinion s shoul dbe sough t befor e a decisio n i s made . Leve l 3—Forma l rulemaking . Thi s woul drequir e ful l scal e publi c participation , a s al l rule s do . Thi s i s a resource-intensiv e optio nand shoul dbe avoide di f a t al l possible . Th e option s i nSectio nI V ca nal l be implemente dwithou t forma l rulemaking , althoug hsom e woul dbe mor e readil y complie d wit hi f the y wer e mad e rules . VI . Th e Nex t Step s Onc e th e optio no r option s ar e selected , th e Tas k Forc e wil l reconven e and , a s specifie di nth e authorizin g memorandum , develo pa detaile dpla n fo r implementin g th e options , includin g th e necessar y memoranda , forms , an d information .P.4 1

APPENDI XA . Th e NS RProgram : A

Backgroun g Summar y Th e NSR/PS D worl dconsist s o f a naverag e 20 0 permit s pe r year , encompassin g 6 0 t o 9 0 percen t o f al l new stationar y

sourc e emissions , dependin g o

nth e pollutant . Th e permit s ar e processe dby : (1 ) Stat e o r loca l agencie s wit happrove dStat e implementatio npla n(SIP ) NSR/PS D programs , (2 ) Stat e o c loca l agencie s wit hdelegate dPS D programs , o r (3 ) EPA Regiona l Offices . Ever y

NS Rpermi t program

i s SI P approved ; th e PS D program s ar e abou t evenl y

divide dbetwee nSI P approve danddelegated , wit hpermit s fo r te nState s handle do r signe db y th e Regiona l Office . I na delegate d program , th e Stat e i s actin g a s EPA' s agent , applyin g EPA' s rules . I na SIP-approve dprogram , th e Stat e i s carryin g ou t it s ow nEPA-approve d NSR/PS D program . Ther e ar e pro s an dcon s t o eac htyp e o f delegatio no f authority , bu t th e mai nadministrativ e difficult y wit ha SIP-approve d program i s tha t th e Stat e rule s d o no t chang e automaticall y whe na nEP A rul e does . Some o f th e approval s ar e conditional : EP A accept s onl y

par t o f th e SI P o r accept s th e entir e SI P contingen t o nth e Stat e revisin g a portio no f it . Additionally , whe nEP A doe s no t agre e wit ha SIP-approve d State' s rul e interpretation , th e Stat e ca nconten dtha t i t ca nbes t interpre t it s ow

nrule ; delegate dprograms , onth e othe r hand , ar e mor e boun db y EPA' s interpretation , sinc e the y ar e applyin g EPA' s rules . Regardles s o f wh o ha s th e program , NSR/PS D permittin g follow s thes e genera l step s (se e Flo w Chart) :

° Th e review

agenc y i s notifie do f a propose dnew sourc e o r a propose d modificatio nt o a source .
° Th e review

agenc y decide s whethe r th e source/modificatio ni s majo r o r minor . Thi s i s no t aneas y determination . Decision s ar e mad e a s t o wha t constitute s th e "source; " whethe r th e sourc e i s "listed " (i n attainmen t areas , a sourc e i s majo r a t 10 0 ton s pe r yea r (tpy ) i f i t i s listed , 25 0 tpy

i f i t i s not) ; whethe r fugitiv e emission s ar e t o b e "c67^i"de^d^n"deterinin"urg

_ the

_ thrreshoTd~"(anothe r sourc e categor y list); , and, , for . eac hpollu t an t ^whethe r th e sourc e i s major . I f th e sourc e i s majo r fo r an y pollutant , th e othe r pollutan t emission s ar e the nreexamine dt o determin e whic h(i f any ) ar e "significant. " Fo r modifications , emission s increase s anddecrease s mus t b e "netted " fo r eac hpollutan t separatel y befor e th e threshol dandsignificanc e determination s ca nb e made . Tentativ e applicabilit y determination s ar e usuall y

mad e prio r t o submitta l o f a permi t application . Mor e tha n20,00 0 ne

w source s an

dmodification s pe r yea r ar e considere d "minor, " i.e. , the y

d o no t excee dth e 100/25 0 tpy new sourc e o r th e majo r modificatio nlevels . Man y o f thes e ar e "syntheti c minors; " th e sourc e accept s limit s o nhour s o f operation , productio ncapacity , o r typ e o f fue l t o sta y below th e majo r source/modificatio nthreshold .
0 Th e sourc e owner/operato r submit s a napplication , whic hth e agenc y review s fo r completeness . I f complete , th e dat e o f submitta l o f th e applicatio nusuall y

determine s a source' s plac e inlin e fo r PS D increments , whic hdefin e th e amoun t o f deterioratio no f ai r qualit y allowe dinanattainmen t area . Unles s exempted , a sourc e mus t includ e init s applicatio n4 t o 1 2 month s o f on-sit e ambien t ai r monitorin g data .FLO W CHAR T o f PERMITTING ^ SEQUENC E fo r NE W an d MODIFIE D SOURCE S


### 5 . !
1

' Completenes s Determinatio n 

## 4 1 i o ! 3 l 1
New Sourc e —

Existin g Sourc e wit h Permit/Sourc e Modificatio n 

### 10 . * •

Revie w Agenc y Notifie d b

y Sourc e and/or Pre-App l icatio n Meetin g

(EP A Audits)- >

Complianc e Determinatio n


## 11 . \ Continuou s Complianc e Monitorin g 

### 9 . « - • i Applicabilit y Determinatio n

i *

- i

Mino r Sourc e o r Modificatio n 

# 1 Startu p

<-(EP A Audits )

<-(EP A 

### 12 .

Operatin g * Permi t Issue d Audits ) : 

### 8

J " •

i i Majo r Sourc e Applicatio n Receive d

1 EP A Notifie d * (EPA Aud i

! i • Constructio n | Begin s Ti i ' \ 

### i ! i i •\ i 

# 1

i • 

# ' ! !
. i ! 1 i |<— .



# 1 1 1

ts)- > 

# 1 — (EPA Audits )

A EPA * and

Publi c Notifie d
Applicatio n Reviewe d ; * "BACT/LAE R "Modellin g "NAAQS/Incremen t Analysi s "Monitorin g "Clas s I impact s "Visibilit y "Add' l Impact s "Offse t Verif .

EP A Notifie d

* 

### 7 . Permi t Grante d - >

-V-

"^ Preliminar y Determinatio n Packag e "Publi c Notic e "Technica l Revie w "Propose d Permi t

Publi c Commen t Perio d * (Publi c Hearing )

6 . \ ' Revie w Agenc y Respond s t o Comment s

<-(EP A Audits )

Permi t Denie d

'* Curren t EP A

inpu t point s t o th e permittin g systemP.4 3

° Th e complete applicatio ni s the nreviewe di ndetai l b y th e agency , whic hassesse s bot hth e qualit y andcorrectnes s o f th e applicatio n (e.g. , wer e al l appropriat e contro l technolog y system s examine d i n determinin g BACT , wer e th e appropriat e ai r qualit y model s use dcorrectly ) andth e conclusion s reache d(e.g. , whethe r th e Clas s I are a impact s ar e acceptable) .

° Th e revie w

agenc y make s a preliminar y decisio no

nwhethe r i t wil l gran t o r deny

th e permit . I f th e permi t wil l b e denied , th e agenc y contact s th e source , whic husuall y negotiate s change s t o th e applica tio nunti l th e resul t i s acceptabl e t o th e reviewin g agenc y (a s a resul t o f thi s informa l negotiatio nprocess , few permi t application s ar e eve r denie doutright) . Acceptabl e application s ar e prepare dfor publi c comment , includin g a publi c hearing , i f requested . Th e public , includin g EPA , th e Federa l Land Manage r (FLM) , andth e applicant , i s informe do f th e agency' s preliminar y determinatio nan

dinvite dt o comment .

° Th e revie w

agenc y consider s an

d respond s t o comment s received . I f a sourc e i s controversial , man y "w e don' t wan t i t here " comment s ar e . received ; thes e carr y littl e weigh t sinc e th e revie w proces s decision s ar e base do

ntechnica l considerations .
° Unles s ne w

informatio ni s generate do r deficiencie s i neithe r th e applicatio no r th e review ar e pointe dou t b

y comments , th e revie w agenc y issue s a preconstructio npermit .

° Th e permitte dsourc e i s the nconstructed , starte dup , andchecke d fo r complianc e wit hpermi t condition s and emissio nlimitations . 0 Mos t agencie s the nissu e a n"operating " permi t (whic hEP A ma y o r nfty-not-recognize)-t-o-the-source . - — - — I f th e program

ha s bee ntransferre d(whethe r b y SI P approva l o r delegation ) t o a Stat e o r loca l agency , th e agenc y shoul dnotif y

EP A when :
0 a napplicatio ni s received ;

0 th e publi c commen t packag e i s released ;

° th e preconstructio npermi t i s issued ; an d

° th e operatin g permi t i s issued . Inaddition , EP A

audit s bot hmajo r an dmino r sourc e permi t file s a t leas t onc e ever y

2 years . Amon g th e item s audite dfo r correctnes s and adequat e documentatio nare :

° th e applicabilit y

determination ;° th e completenes s determination ;
0 th e technica l revie w (modeling , BACT/LAE Rdeterminations , etc.) ;
0 publi c notificatio nan drespons e t o comments ;

° th e preconstructio npermit ;

° th e complianc e determination ;

° continuou s monitorin g an d reportin g requirements ; and

° th e operatin g permit . Not e tha t th e revie w agency , rathe r tha nth e source , i s bein g audite db y EPA . Althoug hther e canbe a neffec t o

nth e sourc e i f particularl y seriou s concern s arise , th e audi t generall y concentrate s o

nfindin g ou t whethe r th e revie w

agenc y i s handlin g th e revie w proces s adequately . Th e NSR/PS D program , particularl y PSD , i s a comple xone , requirin g considerabl e expertis e an da numbe r o f judgmenta l call s (e.g. , BACT , acceptabilit y

o f impact s o

nsoils , vegetation , andvisibility) . I t i s als o on e o f th e fe

w suc hprogram s t o be delegated ; EP A ha s s o fa r retaine d th e TSC A andhazardou s wast e permi t programs . Othe r delegate dprograms , suc ha s th e on e fo r wate r pollutio npermits , repor t difficultie s simila r t o thos e bein g experienc e b y th e NSR/PS D program . Th e las t majo r revision s t o NSR/PS D cam e o nAugus t 7 , 1980 , a s a direc t resul t o f a cour t decision ; ther e ar e stil l a numbe r o f unresolve d polic y andlitigatio nissue s tha t EP A ha s no t ye t settled , ye t transfe r o f th e program

continue dthroug hal l o f this . I naddition , EP A

offere d n o specific-trainin g o nNSR/PS D sinc e th e 198 0 PS D workshops - wer e held. - •— - Resource s t o revie w

an daudi t performanc e o nthes e new , complex , changin g program s ha s actually decreased ; eYery~year" f it'shdws T The " EPA"7ia s backe d awa y to o soon ; NSR/PS D ha s no t ye t bee nfull y establishe da s a routine , well-understoo d proces s inth e Stat e agencies . I t i s surprisin g tha t th e system work s a s wel l a s i t does .P.4 5

; \ • . . . APPENDI XB

Settin g o f BAC T t o Addres s Toxi c Ai r Pollutant s Th e increasin g emphasi s upo nth e regulatio no f ai r toxic s ha s underscore dth e importanc e o f thi s aspec t o f PS D permitting . Th e PS D program i s bein g looke dt o a s a key componen t i nth e overal l toxic s strategy . Th e BAC T determinatio naddresse s th e contro l o f toxic s throug h tw o pathways . First , BAC T applie s t o eac hpollutan t "regulate dunder th e Act " an demitte di n"significant " amounts . Many o f th e toxic s o f concer n ar e subspecie s o f P

M o r VO C andar e thereby regulate dunde r th e Act . Second , th e Administrator' s Jun e 3 , 1986 , remando f th e Nort hCount y Resourc e Recover y

projec t PS D permi t indicate s a dut y t o conside r eve n toxic s riot

^ regulate dunder th e Ac t indeterminin g BAC T fo r directl y regulate dpollutants . Th e term "pollutan t regulate dunde r th e Act " i s currentl y

define dt o includ e thos e pollutant s subjec t t o a NAAQS , a n NSPS , o r a NESHAP . Th e PS D revie w

ha s alway s bee ndistinguishe d b y a broa dapproac ht o ai r qualit y

mangemen t issues . Thi s i s stresse db y sectio n16 0 o f th e Act , whic hstate s tha t a purpos e o f PS D i s "t o protec t .publi c healt han d welfar e fro

m an y actua l o r potentia l advers e effec t whic hi nth e Adminis trator' s judgmen t ma y reasonabl y

b e anticipate dt o occu r fro m ai r pollu tio no r fro

m exposur e t o pollutant s inothe r media , whic hpollutant s originat e a s emission s t o th e ambien t air , notwithstandin g attainmen t an dmaintenanc e o f al l nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standards . ... " On e shoul dals o not e th e extremel y broa ddefinitio nof . "ai r pollution " containe di nsectio n302(g ) o f th e Act , whic hencompasse s any "substanc e o r matte r whic hi s emitte dint o o r otherwis e enter s th e ambien t air. "
I t ha s bee nEPA

polic y tha t subspecie s o f P M andVO C b e considere d i nmakin g BAC T determinations . I nconsiderin g thes e substances , th e review authorit y

shoul drequir e control s tha t constitut e BAC T fo r thes e toxi c subspecies . Thi s i s a nimportan t mean s o f addressin g many pollutant s bu t jdqe s npt ^ cove r alVtoxics . I naddition , thi s approac hi s diminishe db y
_ th e EP A lis t o f VOC s considere dt o b e "negligibl y

photochemica l ly

reac - " -tive.-—Examples—includ e methylen e chloride-an d methyl~cMoPof-ornu.--.This . - highlight s on e reaso ntha t th e Administrator' s Nort hCount y remandi s especiall y

important . Tha t decisio nconclude dtha t th e revie w authorit y ha s th e obligatio nt o tak e int o accoun t th e toxi c effect s o f pollutants , includin g thos e no t regulate dunder th e Act , i nmakin g th e BAC T decision s fo r thos e tha t are . : , Tw o aspect s o f review ar e fundamenta l t o implementin g thi s requirement . First , th e applican t i s require dt o repor t o nal l pollutant s t o b e emitted , no t jus t th e "regulated " pollutant s o r thos e emitte di n"significant " amounts . Th e applican t ha s th e obligatio no f performin g th e customar y BAC T analysi s fo r eac hpollutan t regulate dunde r th e Act , an demitte di n significan t amounts , includin g subspecie s o f particulat e matte r andSO2 . Finally , th e revie w

take s int o consideratio nth e optima l contro l o f al l pollutant s emitte dregardles s o f whethe r "regulated. " Thi s determinatio n woul dnormall y

includ e anambien t impac t assessmen t tha t addresse s no t onl y complianc e wit hPS D increment s an dNAAQ S bu t als o th e environmenta l impact s o f thes e othe r pollutants . Suc hanevaluatio no f rrfaximu m impact s an do f populatio nan

dresource s affecte di s importan t i ndeterminin g whethe r i t woul dbe reasonabl e t o requir e specia l contro l measure s fo rP.4 6

th e toxi c pollutant s i n question

. Th e secon d keyaspec t o f thi s revie w i s publi c notification

. I t i s importan t tha t th e revie w authorit yreferenc e thes e toxic s issue s i n it s publi c notice , identif yth e wa yi n whic h the yhav

e bee n considere d i n any propose d BAC

T decision , an d indicat e th e public' s righ t t o commen t on thi s aspec t o f th e determination

. Note , also , tha t th e revie w authorit yha s th e independen t obligatio n o f evaluatin g th e impact s o f toxic s fro m a propose d project , regardles s o f whethe rthos e ar e raise d b yth e public

. I f th e environmenta l effect s o f th e unregulate d pollutan t ar e projecte d t o b e significant , th e revie w authorit yha

s th e responsibilit yo f addressin g thes e effect s i n it s revie w o f BACT

. Thi s ma ywel l involv e an enhancemen t o f BAC T beyon d what woul d otherwis e hav

e bee n chosen

. Give n th e potentiall yunlimite d scop e o f pollutan t coverag e an d th e varyin g situation s presente d b yeac h application , n o specifi c guidanc e ca n b e provide d wit h respec t t o th e degre e tha t thes e consideration s wil l affec t a particula rdetermination

. EP A wil l undoubtedl yreceiv e request s fo rspecifi c guidanc e o n suc h matter s a

s threshol d level s o f impact , dept h o f analysis , an d rol e o f contro l costs

. A s a recor d i s developed , EP A wil l b e i n a bette rpositio n t o giv e mor e detaile d suggestions

. I n man ycases , however , thi s proces s wil l b e les s difficul t tha n i t appears i n th e abstract

. Thi s i s becaus e th e toxic s componen t o f revie w wil l ofte n b e i n th e rol e o f providin g furthe rmotivatio n fo rth e selectio n o f a technology—generall ya scrubber--tha t i s alread yth e preferre d for m o f contro l fro m a n environmenta l standpoint

. A

n importan t exampl e i s th e us e o f th e scrubber/baghous e combination , rathe rtha n a precipitator , on resourc e recover yfacilities

. I n thes e cases , th e concer n wit h dioxin s an d furan s provide s an additiona l reaso n fo rusin g wha t i s alread yth e preferre d technolog yfo rcontrollin g particulat e matte ran d SO2

. Th e PS D provision s o f the " Ac t address~toxi"«""isl^uey"more"directly - ..than..the.nonattainment..NSR

. provisions-i n Part

. D

. Man yo f these_same

. _ consideration s shoul d als o b e applie d t o nonattainmen t permitting , however

. Sectio n 172(b)(11 ) require s tha t nonattainmen t NS R program s provid e "a n analysi s o f alternativ e sites , sizes. , productio n processes , an d environ

menta l contro l technique s fo rsuc h propose d sourc e whic h demonstrate s tha t benefit s o f th e propose d sourc e significantl youtweig h th e environmenta l an d socia l cost s impose d a s a resul t o f it s location , construction , o r modification

. . . . " Thi s provide s a mandate fo ra simila ranalysi s o f toxic s issue s withi n th e nonattainmen t NS R permittin g process
.