p. 1



# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 19 ) ll-F-6 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 19 of 45P. 2



# '•rs : 7JT - F - r 

### ^ S 

## inttgratt d fanpfemtfitattofi Grou p (MD-1 2 InformationTransfe randProgramIntegrationD Offic eo f Ai rQualityPlannin gandStandards U . S . EnvironmentalProtectio nAgenc y\A ResearchTriangl ePark ,N C 2771 1 FA XNumber : (919)541-550 9

D*r. /% ^ /<$<?-

|COMPANY/OFFIC S 

# OH4 IMON S NUMBE R



### FROM : /Actrettr

M<~lk;*,<& GojA VAXNUMBE X

BO-a 

## Q&V/J/s CR.UM

fiL&g, 7.GT- ~S&& - / / 8 g 2 0 2 L - ZOS -HAPZQ pHONBNUMBE B



### 919-541 - A ? 7 / COMMENTS : 

## T £ 

# ^ « ^ foo^5j^ c 

# , w 

# ^ Ul^C*~M/A/U^ _Q7i4dJ^ ues f o PC/ > h s 

### t. Also S^cJuMJ :S n^^yf. 4/^c ^


## l&m^*^ ;

If yo udi dDO C receiv eal lth epages, pleas

econtac ttb efollowin gpcnon ; 

# rr

Maa n

919-541 .P. 3

Sectio n 51.166 ; Preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n o f ai r quality
.

**** * (b ) * * *

(H ) Th e addition , replacemen t o r us e o f a pollutio n <-*-h£ j contro l projec t a t a n existing emission s uni t unles s the •* Q < pollutio n contro l projec t wil l resul t i n a significan t net P increas e i n representativ e actua l annua l emission s o f an y pollutan t regulate d unde r thi s g$s<:tic*t t the Ac t an

d th e permittin g authorit ydetermine s tha t thi s increas e wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f an ynationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard (includin g visibility ) o r preventio n o f significan t deterioratio n incremen t o r wil l adversel yimpac t an yai r qualit yrelate d valu e a t an yClas s I area . Fo r the purpos e o f thi s paragraph , i n lie u o f the source' s representativ e actua l annua l emissions , the emission s level s use d fo r tha t sourc e i n the mos t recen t ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s i n the are a conducte d fo r the purpos e o f titl e I , i f any , mayb e used
.

**** * (L ) An yactivit yundertake n a t an existing emission s uni t fo r whic ha federall yenforceabl e emissio n limi t ha s bee n established , provide d that : (JL ) Th e activit yo r projec t wil l no t increas e th e maximu memission s rate , i n pound s o r kilogram s pe r hour , abov e the maximu

memission s rat e achievabl e b ythe emissio n uni t a t an

ytime during the 18 0 consecutiv e day s whic h preced e the dat e o f the activit yo r projec t an d th e emission s increas e i s determine d by : (i. ) Materia l balances , continuou s emissio n monitorin g data , o r manua l emissio n test s using the EPA-approve d procedures , wher e available , an d conducte d unde r suc h condition s a s the permitting authorit ywil l specif yt o th e owne r o r operato r base d o n representativ e performanc e o f the emissio n unit s affecte d b ythe activit yo r projec t including a t leas t thre e vali d tes t run s conducte d befor e and a t leas t thre e vali d tes t run s conducte d afte r the activit yo r THI S DOCUMEN

T I S A PRELIMINAR

YDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W AN DDOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 26 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 5 1 166.918 ] ** *P. 4



### so 2

### . . .
PM-1 0 N0 2 Annua l

. .

24-Hou r . . 3-Hou r . . Annua l

. . 24-Hou r . . Annua l

. . . 0 . 1 /xg/m '

0. 2 /xg/m ' 1. 0 /xg/m ' 0. 2 /xg/m ' 0. 3 /xg/m 3 0 . 1 /xg/m 3 1. 0 /xg/m '

5 /xg/m 3 2 5 /xg/m 3 1. 0 /xg/ m 3 5 /xg/m ' 1. 0 /xg/m 3 1. 0 /xg/m 3

5 /xg/m 3 2 5 /xg/m 3 1. 0 /xg/m 3 5 /xg/m ' 1. 0 /xg/m 3

(27 ) India n Reservatio n mean s al l lan d withi n th e limit s o f anyIndia n Reservatio n unde r th e jurisdictio n o f th e Unite d State s Government , notwithstandin g th e issuanc e o f an ypatent , an d includin g rights-of-wa yrunnin g throug h th e reservation
.
(31 ) Pollutio n contro l projec t means : (i ) An yactivit yo r projec t undertake n a t a n existin g emission s uni t which , a s it s primar ypurpose , reduce s emission s o f ai r pollutant s fro msuc hunit
. Suc hactivitie s o r project s d o no t includ e th e replacemen t o f a n existin g emission s uni t wit ha newe r o r differen t uni t o r th e reconstructio n o f a n existin g emission s uni t an d ar e limite d t o an yo f th e following : (A ) Th e installatio n o f conventiona l an d advance d flu e ga s desulfurizatio n an d sorben t injectio n fo r S0 2 ; (B ) Electrostati c precipitators , baghouses , hig h efficienc ymulticlones , an d scrubber s fo r particulat e o r othe r pollutants ; (C ) Flu e ga s recirculation , low-NO xburners , selectiv e non-catalyti c reductio n an d selectiv e catalyti c reductio n fo r NO x ; (D ) Regenerativ e therma l oxidizers , catalyti c oxidizers , condensers , therma l incinerators , flare s an d carbo n absorber s fo r volatil e organi c compound s an d hazardou s ai r pollutants ;

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

ANDDOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 26 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 5 1 166.918 ] ** *P. 5



## ^/./U&)(A3/)
1 0 (E ) Activitie s o r project s undertake n t o accommodat e switchin g t o a n inherentl yles s pollutin g fuel , includin g bu t no t limite d t o natura l ga s o r coa l reburning , o r th e cofirin g o f natura l ga s an d othe r inherentl yles s pollutin g fuel s fo r th e purpos e o f controllin g emissions , an d includin g anyactivit ytha t i s necessar yt o accommodat e ^ switchin g t o a n inherentl yles s pollutin g fuel ; an d u$*j*, (F ) Pollutio n preventio n project s whic har e determine d ' » • & b yth e permittin g agency , throug ha proces s whic hincludc a 0^ ' publi c notic e an d opportunit yfo r publi c commen t consisten t wit hsectio n 51.16 1 o f thi s part , t o b e environmentall y beneficial
. Pollutio n preventio n project s tha t ma yresul t i n a n unacceptabl e increase d ris k fro mth e releas e o f hazardou s pollutant s ar e no t environmentall ybeneficial
. . i A r ) Plo.<^_. -f*r- 6>t-9«iS Terry, ;^J; c.*Jrr>**Cf ^/>4 uit'/AJm* CX_.Mf 

## **** * +ed_**Uf*s Jot'ft* J (38 ) Federa l Clas s I are a mean s anyFedera l land s withi n th e Unite d State s eithe r designate d byCongres s a s Clas s I pursuan t t o sectio n 162(a ) o f th e Ac t (an d whic hma y no t b e redesignated ) o r redesignate d a s Clas s I pursuan t t o th e provision s o f paragrap h(g ) o f thi s sectio n o r sectio n 52.21(g ) o f thi s chapter
. (39 ) Federa l officia l mean s th e Federa l officia l charge d wit hdirec t responsibilit yfo r managemen t o f an y land s withi n a Federa l Clas s I area . (40 ) Ai r qualit yrelate d valu e means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section , visibilit yo r a scenic , cultural , physical , biological , ecological , o r recreationa l resource , a s define d b yth e Federa l Lan d Manage r fo r federa l land s an d a s define d b ya Stat e o r India n Governin g Bod yfo r nonfedera l land s withi n thei r respectiv e jurisdictions
. (41 ) Advers e impac t o n ai r qualit yrelate d value s means , fo r purpose s o f thi s section , a deleteriou s effect , resultin g i n whol e o r i n par t fro memission s fro ma propose d majo r sourc e o r majo r modification , tha t interfere s wit hth e management , protection , preservation , o r enjoymen t o f th e ai r qualit yrelate d value s o f a Federa l Clas s I area . (42 ) Demonstrate d i n practic e mean s fo r th e purpose s o f thi s section , a contro l technolog ytha t ha s been-

- (i ) Liste d i n o r require d b yanyo f th e following :

THI S DOCUMEN T I S A PRELIMINARYDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIEW

ANDDOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPA POLIC Y ** * Octobe r 26 , 199 5 - - [filenam e 5 1 166.918 ] ** *P. 6



### 1 ^ 

# i*r*VCx* 2 4 Tw o case s hav e addresse d the EPA' s applicatio n o f the actual-to-potentia l test , an d specifically , the interpretatio n o f the phras e "begu

n norma l operations. " I n Puert o Rica n Cemen t Co . v . EPA , 88 9 F.2 d 29 2 (1s t Cir
. 1989) , the cour t uphel d the EPA' s applicatio n o f the actual-to-potentia l methodolog yi n a cas e involving rcnovation o t o conversio n o f a cemen t plan t froma we t proces s t o a mor e efficien t dryprocess . Th e cour t uphel d the EPA' s interpretatio n tha t the word s "emission s uni t tha t ha s no t begun norma l operations " includ e modifie d unit s a s wel l a s ne w units , citing a passag e fro mthe 198 0 rulemaking preambl e that , i n th e court' s view , mad e i t clea r tha t the EPAintende d t o appl y the actual-to-potentia l tes t t o a "ne wo r modifie d unit. " 88 9 » F.2 d a t 29 8 (4 5 FR 52676 , 52677 ) (emphasi s adde d b ycourt ) . }ojfA ^ " Th e cour t note d tha t it s endorsemen t o f EPA' s us e o f th e "actual-pc^/j*/* ^ f *^ > cas e wa s circumstances , th e decisio n coul d hav e bee n mor e difficult
. $fO n a relate d issue , the cour t agree d wit hthe EPA' s positio n tha t th e regulatoryexclusio n fo r certai n increase s i n a source' s productio n rat e o r hour s o f operatio n applie s onl ywhe n suc ha n increas e i s unaccompanie d b yconstructio n o r modificatio n activity
. Se e id
. a t 916 , n.ll
. Th e EPAi s todayproposing t o mak e the existing exclusio n explicitl yclea r o n thi s poin t b y inserting the phras e "standing alone " a t the beginning o f the
PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO

R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] ** * to-potential " approac hfo r calculating a n emissio n chang e in this ^ A \jf

simplifie d byth e fact s presented , aa d tha t unde r othe r UP'IAP. 7

proposa l reflect s th e fa r mor e comple xtas k o f addressing a vas t
arrayo f pollutio n contro l an d pollutio n preventio n project s a t a variet yo f source s facing myria d federal , stat e an d loca l environmenta l requirements
. Specifically , today' s proposal :
o Provide s a muc hbroade r definitio n o f pollutio n contro l projec t tha n tha t adopte d i n the WEPC O rul e an d includes , unlik e th e WEPC O rule , pollutio n preventio n projects ; O Delete s th e requiremen t tha t add-o n control s an d fue l switche s b e subjec t t o a n "environmentall ybeneficial " test ; instead onl ypollutio n preventio n project s ar e subjec t t o thi s additiona l safeguard ;
o Incorporate s the safeguard tha t n o project , whethe r add-o n controls , fue l switches , o r pollutio n prevention , can resul t i n a n increas e i n actua l emission s tha t wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQ S o r PS D increment , an d extend s the polic yt o gPA protectio n agains t advers e impact s o f AQRV s i n a Clas s I areas. 1 5 CM*}** 

### 1//7 EPAencourage s commenter s t o addres s EPA' s propose d decisio n t o supersed e th e WEPC O pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n wit ha singl e exclusio n applicabl e t o al l type s o f sources .

1 5 Th e WEPC O rul e refer s specificall yt o "visibilit y limitation " rathe r than "ai r qualit yrelate d values. " However , EPAclearl ystate d i n the preambl e t o the fina l rul e tha t permittin g agencie s have the authorit yt o "solici t the view s o f other s i n taking an yothe r appropriat e remedia l step s deeme d necessaryt o protec t Clas s I areas... . EPAemphasize s tha t al l environmenta l impacts , including thos e o n Clas s I areas , ca n b e considered.... " (5 7 FR 32322) . Further , the statutoryprotectio n i n sectio n 165(d ) o f the Ac t plainl yar e intende d t o protec t agains t an

y"advers e impac t o n the AQR V o f suc h[Clas s I ] land s (including visibility). " Base d o n thi s statutoryprovision , EPA believe s tha t an

yai r qualit yassessmen t fo r a pollutio n contro l projec t shoul d conside r impact s o n visibilit yan d an yothe r relevan t AQRV s fo r an yClas s I area s tha t mayb e affecte d b ythe propose d project
. PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NOT REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y ***Octobe r 26 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] ** *P. 8



### 5 9 

### wS*



# *•£*>* expand s the type s o f add-o n control s covere d t o includ e othe r contro l projects
. Se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (xxv) , 51.166(b)(31 ) an

d 52.21(b)(31)
. Thes e type s o f project s include : the installatio n o f conventiona l an d advance d flu e ga s desulfurizatio n an

d sorben t injectio n fo r sulfu r dioxid e (S0 2 ) ; electrostati c precipitators , baghouses , highefficienc y multiclones , an

d scrubber s fo r particulat e o r othe r pollutants ; flu e ga s recirculation , low-NOxburners , selectiv e non catalyti c reductio n an d selective catalyti c reductio n fo r N0 X ; an

d regenerativ e therma l oxidizers , catalyti c oxidizers , condensers , therma l incinerators , flare s an d carbo n absorber s fo r VO C an d hazardou s ai r pollutants
. Project s undertake n t o accommodat e switching t o a les s pollutin g fue l suc ha s natura l ga s whe n the sourc e i s burnin g
coa l woul d als o qualif yfo r the proposed,.exclusion
. I n some instances , wher e the emission s unit' s capabilit ywoul d otherwis e b e impaire d a s a resul t o f the fue l switch , thi s mayinvolv e certai n necessarychange s t o the pollutio n generating equipmen t (e.g. , boiler ) i n orde r t o maintai n the norma l operating capabilit yo f th e uni t a t the time o f the project
. (Placeholde r fo r explanatio n o f adding ne wtechnologie s t o th e lis t o f qualifying PCP's . (2 ) Pollutio n Preventio n Project s Th e EPA' s polic yi s t o promot e pollutio n preventio n approache s an

d t o remov e regulatorybarrier s t o source s seeking
PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 26 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] ** *P. 9

6 2 b e require d t o mee t the "environmentall ybeneficial " test. 1 9 T o qualif yfo r thi s exemption , a s fo r al l pollutio n contro l projects , a "cros s media " pollutio n contro l projec t coul d no t
caus e o r contribut e t o a NAAQ S violation , PS D incremen t violatio n
o r advers e impac t AQRV s i n a Clas s I area . ^>
. (3-§ ) Th e Caus e o r Contribut e Tes t ' \gUj\ fl^i Apropose d pollutio n contro l project , o r an yphysica l o r operationa l change , canno t resul t i n an emission s increas e tha t wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQ S o r PS D increment , o r adversel yimpac t AQRV s (includin g visibility ) i n $< ?A * 5 Clas s I areas . Se e section s 110(a)(2)(C) , 165 , an d 17 3 o f th e A ^aA 0) Act ; se e als o 5 7 FR 32322-23 . T o ensur e tha t the propose d *?//7 pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n doe s no t hav e thi s proscribe d impact , EPAi s als o proposing t o adop t (withsome changes ) th e ai r qualit yimpact s safeguard currentl yi n plac e fo r utilit y pollutio n contro l projects
. Se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C) (8) , 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(H ) an d 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(H)
.

1 9 A"cros s media " pollutio n contro l projec t coul d b e define d a s eithe r a contro l technolog yo r applicatio n t o compl y wit hlimitation s establishe d unde r othe r Federa l environmenta l law s (e.g. , Saf e Drinking Wate r Ac t o r Clean Wate r Act ) tha t result s i n emission s t o the atmosphere
. Fo r example , t o compl y wit han effluen t limitatio n establishe d unde r the Clea n Wate r Act , a sourc e choose s t o instal l a contro l devic e tha t remove s the pollutan t fro

mthe wastewate r strea man d discharge s i t int o th e atmosphere
. Thi s typ e o f pollutio n contro l projec t coul d qualif yfo r th e exclusio n provid e i t i s environmentall y beneficial
. PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 26 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 J ** •P.1 0

6 5 However , a less-than-significan t increas e mayb e subjec t t o a State' s mino r NS R requirements
. /Afl/J-f t (3

- | ) Determinatio n o f Increas e i n Emission s / ' Th e EPAi s todayproposing t o us e a representativ e actua l
annua l emission s approac ht o determining whethe r a pollutio n contro l projec t wil l resul t i n increase d emissions
. Se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (8) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (H ) an d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (H) . Thi s i s the methodologydevelope d i n the WEPC O rul e an

d i s explaine d i n detai l i n tha t rulemaking
. Se e 5 7 FR 32323 . Th e us e o f thi s approac hi s premise d o n the EPA' s experienc e an

d expectatio n tha t i n mos t circumstance s pollutio n contro l project s wil l no t impac t ho wthe sourc e i s operate d s o tha t th e calculatio n o f whethe r a pollutio n contro l projec t wil l resul t i n a n emission s increas e can b e mad e throughth e simpl e compariso n o f pre-chang e an d post-chang e emission s rates . O f
cours e wher e th e permitting authorit yexpect s sourc e operation s t o change , thi s methodologyallow s the post-chang e emission s t o b e projecte d base d o n the ne woperating levels
. I n th e cas e o f a pollutio n contro l projec t tha t wil l no t affec t utilizatio n bu t collaterall yincrease s a non-targete d pollutant , the actua l increas e (calculated using the ne wemission s rat e an d curren t utilizatio n pattern ) woul d nee d t o b e analyze d t o determin e it s ai r qualit yimpac t unde r today' s proposal
.

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••October 26 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] ** *P.1 1


# r/fM'^ fc/i^ Althoug hth e EPAi s supportive o f pollutio n preventio n project s an

d strategies , specia l car e mus t b e take n i n classifying suc ha projec t a s a pollutio n contro l projec t an d i n evaluating a projec t unde r a pollutio n contro l projec t exclusion
. Virtuall yeverymodernizatio n o r upgrad e projec t a t a n existin g industria l facilit ywhic hreduce s input s an d lower s uni t cost s ha s th e concurren t effec t o f lowering an emission s rat e pe r uni t
o f fuel , rawmateria l o r output . Nevertheless , i t i s clea r tha t thes e majo r capita l investment s i n industria l equipmen t ar e the verytype s o f project s tha t Congres s intende d t o addres s i n the ne wsourc e modificatio n provisions
. Se e Wisconsi n Electri c Powe r Co . v . Reilly , 89 3 F.2 d 901 , 907-1 0 (7t hCir
. 1990 ) (rejecting contentio n tha t utilit ylif e extensio n projec t wa s no t a physica l
o r operationa l change ) ; Puert o Rican Cemen t Co. , Inc . v . EPA , .j, 88 9 F.2 d 292 , 296-9 8 (1s t Cir
. 1989 ) (major NS R applic o t o §|f | frafif* found t o b e applicabl e t o a modernizatio n projec t tha t decrease-sf f '' ' emission s pe r uni t o f output) . Moreover , project s whic h significantl yincreas e capacity , decreas e productio n costs , o r improv e produc t marketabilit ymaydramaticall yincreas e sourc e operations
. I n thes e situations , the environmen t mayo r mayno t
se e a reductio n i n overal l sourc e emission s du e t o th e project. 2 0 Nevertheless , the EPAbelieve s tha t thes e type s o f

2 0 Thi s i s i n marke d contras t t o the additio n o f pollutio n contro l equipmen t whic htypicall ydoe s not , i n EPA' s experience , resul t i n an

yincreas e i n the source' s utilizatio n o f th e PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••October 26 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] ** *P.1 2

les s wel l define d an d shoul d b e reviewe d t o ensur e tha t the

6 9
project' s overal l impac t o n the environmen t ar e beneficial. 2 2 4 . Procedura l Safeguard s Nothin g i n curren t guidanc e o r i n today' s proposa l void s o r create s a n exclusio n fro man yapplicabl e mino r NS R • preconstructio n revie wrequiremen t i n an ySI P tha t ha s bee n ,/\M 6

. approve d pursuan t t o sectio n 110(a)(2)(C ) o f the Ac t an d 4 0 CFR 51.160-164 . Se e footnot e 10 . Accordingly , th e EPAbelieve s tha t *£) £
a pollutio n contro l projec t qualifying fo r today' s propose d exclusio n generall ywil l b e reguire d b ythe applicabl e SI P t o obtai n a mino r NS R permi t prio r t o beginning construction
. Th e EPAexpect s th e mino r NS R permitting proces s t o b e the mechanis m b ywhic hth e permitting agenc yreview s the pollutio n contro l projec t t o ensur e the projec t design i s consisten t wit hstandar d
an d reasonabl e practices , determine s i f a significan t ne t increas e i n representativ e actua l emission s wil l occu r and , i f

2 2 Fo r example , a pollutio n preventio n projec t whic hwhil e decreasing emission s o f a criteri a pollutan t result s i n a n unacceptabl e increase d ris k du e t o the releas e o f ai r toxic s shoul d no t b e considere d environmentall ybeneficial
. However , the EPAexpect s tha t man ypollutio n preventio n project s wil l b e fo r the purpos e o f complianc e wit htitl e II I MAC T requirement s an d b ythei r natur e wil l resul t i n reduce d ris k fro mai r toxics
. Consequently , i n judging whethe r a pollutio n preventio n projec t ca n b e considere d environmentall ybeneficial , permitting authoritie s mayconside r a s a relevan t facto r whethe r a projec t i s being undertake n t o bring a sourc e int o complianc e wit ha MACT , RACT , o r othe r Ac t requirement
. PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 26 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] ** *P.1 3



### *1 

## 7 0 P L>< applicable , resultan t ai r qualit yo r AQR V impacts
. Se e 5 7 F R 32322 . I n addition , a s discusse d above , fo r a pollutio n preventio n projec t t o qualif ya s a pollutio n contro l projec t the permittin g agenc ymus t firs t determin e tha t the propose d pollutio n \0j^ ML 1 ) preventio n projec t wil l b e environmentall ybeneficial
. Th e EPA/" > i o propooin g t o requir e tha t the determinatio n b e conoioten t wit hg 0] mino r NS R publi c notic e requircmento
. Se c propose d acction o 51.165(a ) (1 ) (xxv ) (A ) (G) , 51.1G G(31 ) (i ) (F ) an

d 52.21(b ) (31)ji ) (F ) . Th e proces s shoul d includ e documentatio n o f the basi s fo r a finding tha t a propose d pollutio n preventio n projec t i s environmentall ybeneficia l an d provid e fo r publi c notic e an d
commen t o n th e decision
. Th e EPAals o solicit s commen t o n the adequac yo f thes e procedura l safeguard s an d the nee d fo r an

y additiona l o r alternativ e safeguard s a s appropriate
. 5 . Emissio n Reductio n Credit s I n general , certai n pollutio n contro l project s approve d fo r
a n exclusio n fro

m majo r NS R coul d resul t i n emissio n reduction s whic hmayserv e a s NS R offset s o r netting credits
. Unde r today' s proposal , al l o r par t o f the emissio n reduction s equa l t o the differenc e betwee n the pre-modificatio n actua l baselin e emission s
an d post-modificatio n potentia l t o emi t fo r the decrease d pollutan t mayserve a s credit s provide d tha t (1 ) th e projec t wil l
no t resul t i n a significan t collatera l increas e i n actua l PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY •••October 26 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] ** *