p. 1 

# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 26 ) ll-F-6 9 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/200811:31:54 AM

Sheet 26 of 45P. 2 

## Wbmutio n Transfe r J^^ (WM : 

## Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 FA X Number : (919 ) 541-550

9 4 ^

91*541 . ^-7, COMMENTS : 

## i n £,€'C<L; /^z^ r HT ) 

## s}&££v AO^/A UGM^//I

Numbe r o f Page s (includin g cove r sheet) : ? Ifyo q di d no c receiv e a U tfte pages

, pleas e conac tth e following pcnoo : 

# H U'a^-LLLctz^- J 5 

# ** NUOIf t 

### 919-MU SST CL^-P. 3



# OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T OFFIC E O F INFORMATIO N AN D REGULATOR

Y AFFAIR S FA X COVE

RSHEE T DATE : TO : 

# FAX NUM

] 

# fift)$tl-'2</t></ ONENUMBER : FROM : 

# A hna6 PTA L NUMBE RO F PAGES : 

# 7= £ OMMENTS : ^Ct<^C, 

# A 

# J R msmmtSaWt 

## 4r '•M&M* MisSiiLTM.. . &£?r'~" ""

••••a-x«W>i>«*<«jr..'- ' ^(..:-.:<-X'>:«^: v ,•,.,«;•• . v : >«*>:*•*::: ; :*>»«•>. •

• •**:*:a<a»y<*»fc>w««^«.!w:' ' • :A'*K.),A>M:«x.>:«:'* y 

# I F YO U D O NO T RECEIVE AL L PAGES , PLEAS E CONTAC T U S A S SOON A S POSSIBLE . VERIFICATIO N NO. : 202-395-308 4 O R202 - 395-734 0 OIRAFAXNO. : 202-395-728 5P. 4

NS RIssue s 1 . Genera l a ) I s thi s NS Rreform ? I s i

t better tha n n o change ? EP A believe s tha

t thi s proposa

l wil l reduc e th e cos t

o f NSR ; w e thin

k tha t o n balanc e i t increase s cost s ove

r th e current

NS Rregulations . j$ n particular , w e believe th e BACT determination proces s an d th e Federa

l Land Manage

r proces s (wit h th e associate d requirement s t o asses s AQR V effect s i n netting , etc. ) jt&d significantl y to th e burde

n of the curren t process . Ou

r efforts t o com

e to grip s wit h thi s through EPA' s cos t

analysi s have bee

n largel y frustrated . 2 . Applicabilit

y

a) "Actual-to-Futur

e Actual " languag e equa

l WEPCO ? EPA' s ne w languag e mimic s WEPCO . b ) Us e additiona

l languag e from"Puert

o Ric o cement " t o suppor

t lik e kin d replacement/actual-to-futur

e actual . EPA' s OG

C doe s not accept DOE' s vie

w o f "P Rcement" .
c ) Applicabilit

y determine

d through mino

r NSR , no t self-implementing .P. 5

- EP A argue s tha

tWEPC O i s administere

d throug h State NSR , thi s proposal provide s a s muc

h flexibility as WEPCO . d ) Federa l enforceabilit

y require d fo r futur

e emissions ? Yes . EPA wil l discuss , though , th e D.C . Circui treman d i n th e preamble .

e ) Repeat199 2 W^PC O language o n wh y WEPC O i s good ? EP A has adde

d som e 199 2 WEPC O language ; DO E believe s EP A should ad

d mor e o f th e 199 2 WEPCO language . f ) Suppor t"deman d growt h exclusion" ? EPA' s languag e continue s t o b e skeptica l of a broa

d applicatio n o f

"deman d growt h exclusion" ; EPA' s languag e set s ou ta "neutral " reques tfo r comment s for WEPC O (i.e. , retainin

g th e deman

d growt h exclusio n jus tfo r electri c utilities) . g ) Netting , "clea

n unit" , pollution control/preventio n project s PALs , etc . mus

tevaluat e effecto n NAAQS , PS D increments , an d AQRVs . AQR

V effects wil l b e especiall y difficul tt o evaluat

e an d ma y entai l a lengthy revie w process .P. 6

EP A ha s retained thes e requirements . Evaluatio n an d review o f

AQR V effect s likel y t o b e burdensom

e fo r an y sourc e withi

n 25 0 k mo f aFedera l Clas s I area .P. 7

h ) Treatmen

t o f Pollutio n Control/Prevention Projects : * (I ) Rewrite s WEPC O t o mak e i t apermitting process : include s toxic s an d AQRVs . Modeling i s required ; not

jus t apermitting authorit

y option . EPA' s languag e n

o longe r include s toxics ; AQR

V review wil

l b e burdensom

e (a s note d above) . Preamble languag e seem s t o increas e th e burden o n th e sourc e t o demonstrat

e (model? ) tha

t n o advers e effect

s wil l occur ; but , i t

i s no t clea r whethe r thi s i s achange tha

t impose s substantia

l ne w burden s o

n sources . (ii ) Definitio

n of pollution contro l project

i s closed . EP A promise s t o fi

x this , (iii ) Draw s a"bead " o

n deman d growt h exclusion . Yes ; especiall

y fo r broa d application beyon

d WEPCO . (iv ) Environmentall

y beneficia l tes t required fo

r pollutio n preventio n projects ? Yes . EP A staf f repor t the y ma y offe r som e relie f fo r repea t projects . (Note : proposa

l drop s th e environmentall

y beneficia l tes t in WEPC O fo

r pollution contro l projects) .P. 8
(v ) Energ y Efficienc

y Project s exclude

d fro mPPP ? Yes . 3 . BACT/Technology Issue s

a) Federa l BAC T i s "top-down" . Yes . b ) Stat e BAC T i s implicitl

y "top-down" . Yes , a s currentl

y written . (I ) EP A shoul d includ e 197 7 Senat

e Repor t language . EP A ha s done so . (ii ) EP A should mak

e "maximu mreductio n feasible " afunctio n o f al l factor s (pe

r statutor y language) , no l jus t

atechnology test . EPA has revise

d it s language ; w e ar

e evaluating it . 

# JP. 9
(iii ) Put "cost-effectiveness " int

o rule languag e an

d elaborat e o n th e rol e o f

C E i n th e preamble . Ha s DO E provide d language ? 4 , FLM/Clas s I Issue s

a) EP A should drop/revis e preamble languag e requiring State s t o giv e deferenc e t o FL M EPA ha s change

d languag e to "recognize " expertis e o f FLM , instea

d o f deferrin g t o th e FLM ; allow s State s t o us e expert s t o counte r FLM . b ) Onl y "defined " AQRV s nee

d b e evaluated b

y source , considere d by State . EP A reject s thi s position .
c ) Rul e languag e shoul

d includ e specifi c criteri atha

t FL M should mee

t i n submitting a "Notic e o f Potentia l Advers e Impact " t o th e State . EP A ha s declined suggested changes ; EPA' s revise d preamble languag e drop s th e "causa l link " discussion i

n favo r of muc h softe r language .

—