p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

95)IV-C-10 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:22 AM Sheet 95 of 142 
o^0SS 

\ 

» « rr~.~ z 

A- ^-3 7 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY TO ~ £ - - I O 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK. NC 27711 

APR I 4 I999 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

Dr AND STANDARDS . Barry R. Wallerstein 

Acting Executive Officer 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 

21865 E.Copley Drive 

Diamond Bar, California 91765-4182 

Dear Dr. Wallerstein: 

This is in response to your March 23,1999 letter regarding-ceTtain issues discussed afthe 

March 9,1999 meeting with representatives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) staff, the SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Board, and EPA concerning the 

implementation of the Clean Air Act's requirement that new major sources and major 

modifications apply Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) in the South Coast. In general, 

the majot issue areas discussed at the meeting included the extent to which cost and small 

business considerations can be factored into LAER decisions, how to add a greater degree of 

certainty as to what represents LAER during the permitting process, and the LAER requirement 

as it applies to relocated sources. 

As you are aware, some of the issues you have raised are currently being addressed 

within the context of EPA's New Source Review (NSR) Reform rulemaking. They include 

regulatory changes intended to promote certainty, such as defining the circumstances under 

which a new pollution control technology is considered achieved in practice, setting a cutoff date 

for the consideration of new developing pollution control technologies in determining Best 

Achievable Control Technology (BACT)/LAER, and amending the definition of LAER to 

accommodate undemonstrated technologies. The EPA will continue to address these issues 

within the context of the NSR Reform rulemaking. To date, the rulemaking has included 

multiple, public stakeholder meetings and an extended comment period lasting 6 months. 

Although the comment period on the proposed rulemaking has already closed and we are not 

obligated to consider additional comments, to the extent your current issues were covered in the 

NSR Reform proposal, we will endeavor to take into consideration any additional comments you 

may wish to provide in the next few weeks as we proceed with developing a final rulemaking. 

ft1-

The LAER issues relating to very small sources (such as those subject to LAER in the 

South Coast) or to a specific type of business are best addressed in the context of the individual 

case, rather than through a national rulemaking or a public work group type of process. As 

discussed at the March meeting, working through some real world case examples may be the best 

way to understand the real magnitude of the problem and the need, if any, to issue additional 

guidance or change current policy. Region IX is committed to working with the District to 

1 

Internet Address (URL) • http://www.epa.gbv 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OH Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Postconsumer) 
P.3 

• / 

address the outliers identified in the District's Socioeconomic Impact Report, along with any 

other extreme cases that warrant special attention. We believe the March meeting was an 

important major step to reaching a mutual understanding of the issues and potential solutions, 

and that Region IX will continue as the overall lead to follow up with future meetings with your 

staff and other interested parties in order to bring these issues to closure. In addition, most of the 

other LAER issues raised in reference to cost and small business concerns, including small 

source relocation, are somewhat unique to the South Coast. Consequently, in regard to the other 

LAER issues not covered in the rulemaking, we feel that it would be most appropriate at this 

time for the SCAQMD to continue to meet and work with Region IX as the EPA lead. We 

understand that Region IX has already contacted the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce 

and offered to work with stakeholders on some of these South Coast specific issues. Of course, 

the Home Rule Advisory Group and the Scientific Review Committee will continue to serve as 

valuable forums for public discussion of these issues. To the extent necessary, this office will 

continue to provide appropriate input and consultation where issue resolution may have broader 

national policy implications. 

I appreciate this opportunity to be of service and trust that this information will be 

helpful. 

Sincerely, 

^JoMiS. Seitz 

Director 

Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 

cc: D. Howekamp, EPA Region DC 

M. Kenny, CARB, Sacramento, CA 

L. Wallace, Sempra Energy, Los Angeles, CA 

j 

%: 

2. 
P.4 

-i 

j 

South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

21865 E. Copley Drive. Diamond Bar. CA 91765-4182 

L (909) 396-2000 • http://www.aqmd.gov 

1) 

^ 

Office of the Executive Officer 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. 

' 909.396.2100.fax 909.396.3340 

March 23, 1999 

Mr. John Seitz 

Director, Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Mail Drop-10 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

Subject: Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) Discussions 

Dear Mr. Seitz: 

On Mar&h 9, 1999, your staff along with others from U.S. EPA met with representatives of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) staff and the 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Group to discuss important issues regarding implementation of LAER in our jurisdiction. We extend our sincere appreciation to the U.S. 

EPA for the time and efforts spent to meet and confer on these issues. This meeting 

was a continuation of work started in 1998 on these very issues with the U.S. EPA 

Region IX, as detailed in my July 30, 1998 letter to David Howekamp. It is important 

that we continue this dialogue until a satisfactory resolution is reached, including 

integration of a public process to facilitate stakeholder participation regarding these 

LAER issues. 

As suggested by your staff, we will send our comments regarding the LAER issues 

discussed in the U.S. EPA's New Source Review Reform (NSR Reform) proposal to 

the appropriate docket this month. We also understand that the issues of cost and 

relocation were not addressed in the NSR Reform proposal, and may not be handled in 

that regulatory process. Hence, we will provide further thoughts on these items to you 

under separate cover to complement the items discussed in my letters of July 30, 1998, 

and February 26 and March 3, 1999, to David Howekamp of U.S. EPA Region IX. 

While the March 9, 1999 meeting was helpful, a sustained effort is needed. Hence, we 

recommend a public working group meeting or forum on LAER issues. Such action 

would honor the request of Administrator Carol Browner at the July 1998 meeting at 

the Los Angeles Chamber of Commerce. The SCAQMD staff will be happy to assist 

3 
P.5 

»J P)'f» W « af *f" 

Mr. John Seitz -2- March 23, 1999 

you and other U.S. EPA officials in notifying the public and holding such meetings in 

the Los Angeles area. 

I close by thanking you and the other U.S. EPA staff for their cooperation and 

willingness to analyze these importantf policy issues. I would also like to request a :L 

written response to this letter and my previous letters to U.S. EPA no later than April 

1999, so that the SCAQMD Governing Board and other elected officials may be kept 

apprised of our progress in this area. 

Please direct all questions or inquiries regarding this matter to Pom Pom Ganguli (909-

396-3185, aganguli@aqmd.sgov) or Barbara Baird (909-396-2302, bbaird@aqmd.gov). 

\ 

Sincerely, 

B 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. 

Executive Officer 

PB:EC:AG:pgm 

Encl. 

cc: David P. Howekamp, US. EPA, Region IX 

Mike Kenny, California Air Resources Board 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Group Members 

4-

/ 

* 
P.6 

South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

21865 E. Copjey Drive. Diamond Bar. CA 91765-4182 

(909) 396-2000 • http://www.aqmd.gov 

March 3, 1999 

Mr. David P. Howekamp 

Director, Air & Toxics Division 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX I 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Dear Mr. Howekamp: " 

On February 26, 1999,1 wrote to you regarding some issues with the federal policies 

and procedures for implementing the requirement of Lowest Achievable Emissions Rate 

(LAER) in New Source Review. I also mentioned therein that we may have additional 

material for the consideration of the U.S. EPA in the near future. Please find enclosed 

two additional papers on Cost and Source Categories as related to the discussion 

scheduled for the upcoming meeting on March 9, 1999 at the EPA offices in North 

Carolina. This completes the package of 6 topical White Papers on LAER issues -

which should focus the discussion during the March 9 meeting. 

The 6 LAER White Papers were prepared by the South Coast Air Quality Management 

District's (SCAQMD's) Home Rule Advisory Group - New Source Review 

Subcommittee (HRAG - NSR Subcommittee) with the help of the SCAQMD staff, and 

are for discussion purposes. These issues are of prime importance to the SCAQMD and 

we appreciate EPA's willingness to review arid discuss these issues in greater depth. 

Please direct all questions and inquiries regarding this matter to PomPom Ganguli at 

(909) 396-3185 or Barbara Baird at (909) 396-2302. 

Sincerely yours, 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D. Env. 

Executive Officer 

JPB:AG:pgm 

Ends. 

5 
P.7 

COST IN LAER DETERMINATIONS 

Present EPA Policy and Procedure 

The current general policy for LAER determinations is that cost is not to be 

considered in making a LAER determination. 

We understand that EPA rationale is based on a distinction between federal BACT 

(where cost considerations are allowed) and non-attainment LAER. Therefore 

permitting and technology issues in aftainment areas versus non-attainment areas 

may have different results. In making this distinction, EPA relies on the Clean Air 

Act definition of federal BACT and LAER. 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Gnoup Perspective 

•Cost should be considered in the demonstration of "Achieved in Practice" LAER 

and EPA should allow the permitting authority some flexibility in this area, due to 

the following reasons: 

1. Historical conditions related to LAER have changed over time. 

2. The Calcagni memo, dated 2/23/89, dealing with consideration of cost in 

LAER needs to be updated. 

(a) Cost needs special consideration, especially for small businesses, since 

there is a zero threshold ftgr applicability of LAER in the only extreme 

non-attainment area of thel country. 

(b) The Calcagni memo assumes that the initial installation is cost 

representative of all subsequent operations, which may not be the case. 

3. The focus on exhaust emissions in a LAER implementation policy may 

discourage the development of innovative, alternative, and more desirable 

technologies to control emissions of air pollutants in some instances. 

\D 
P.8 

SOURCE CATEGORY 

Present EPA Policy and Procedure: 

The Clean Air Act provides that a stationary source must implement as LAER the 

most stringent emissions limitation which is either contained in a SIP for, or has 

been achieved in practice by, a "class or category of stationary sources." EPA 

Region IX appears to be taking an expansive view of this phrase (otherwise known 

as a "source category") in encouraging the SCAQMD to apply new LAER 

determinations to any source that uses similar equipment. Issues have arisen with 

regard to whether all future sources would be operated in the same industrial 

context as the source or sources that initially used the LAER technology. 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Group Perspective: 

. 1. In the South Coast, LAER must be applied to any new source or any 

physical change (or change in the method of operation) resulting in an 

emissions increase of even one pound. The LAER requirement thus 

applies to thousands of businesses, most of small or moderate size, whose 

operations and ability to afford significant additional control costs vary 

widely, and hence can affect feasibility. 

2. LAER determinations require consideration of the unique context and 

attributes of each individual source category. Generalizing from one 

context to another may or may not be warranted and should depend upon a 

variety of factors, including a comparison of processes, materials used, and 

access to capital, among other considerations. 

3. The current practice of defining categories very broadly may neglect 

potentially important distinctions among industrial settings and the market 

conditions that define industries. Examples are the differences in the way 

equipment is used and in the ability of the facility operator to afford the 

required capital investment or operating and maintenance costs. 

4. The broad characterization of "source category" applied in the context of 

LAER determinations may also be at odds with the EPA's construction of 

the same term under Clean Air Act § 112, where it recognizes over 170 

distinct source categories that warrant separate regulations and different 

control requirements for various subcategories. 

7 
P.9 

•fj pu- p««" 

5. AQMD Permits 

Recently, EPA issued notice of violations and Section 114 information requests in 

response to permits issued by the A^MD. These actions have put the facility in a very 

uncomfortable position of being caught in between the AQMD and the EPA regulatory 

process. While we recognize and respect EPA's oversight authority on permitting, we 

want to explore uie possibility of EHA establishing a policy of providing guidance to the 

AQMD during the public comment iprocess before permits are issued, and only using 

notice of violations as rare exceptions and only after consultation with ARB and the 

AQMD.. ' 

6. LAER by Size and Category 

AQMD staff firmly believes that co|t has to be considered in the demonstration of 

chieved in practice," which should be specified for different source categories and size 

ranges. We believe there are two potential conflicting policies existing at EPA that need 

to be clarified. One policy allows for technology transfer among source categories and 

"size ranges, apparently even between different industries, while the other policy provides 

that federal LAER does not apply in cases where the economic impact is so great no 

source in the industry would be built. We believe the economic impact policy should 

prevail over the technology transfer^ policy in cases where there are no sources in that 

specific source category and size ratnge that have been demonstrated "achieve in 

practice," and in which fere will be an unacceptable economic impact. We would like 

EPA to provide a clear position on Ihis issue. 

C:\docs\ta\9807\BACT2 2 
P.10 

^outn Loast 

Air Quality Management District 

_ . 21865 E. Copley Drive. Diamond Bar. CA 91765-4182 

* " **' (909) 396-2000 • http://www.aqmd.gov 

February 26, 1999 

Mr. David P. Howekamp 

Director, Air & Toxics Division 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX 

75 Hawthorne Street 

San Franscisco, C.A 

Dear Mr. Howekamp, 

As you may know, your staff has been working with the South Coast Air Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) staff and the SCAQMD Governing Board's Home Rule Advisory Group to streamline and 

enhance-the implementation of the New Source Review program, which is an important aspect of our 

permitting program. In particular, some issues have arisen lately in the implementation of the Lowest 

Achievable Emissions Rate (LAER) requirement in accordance with current federal policies and 

procedures. 

In an attempt to resolve these LAER issues, the SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Group's New Source 

Review Subcommittee members have prepared the attached material with the help of the SCAQMD 

staff. It is my understanding that a meeting has been scheduled at the U.S. EPA's offices in North 

Carolina on March 9, 1999, to discuss these issues in greater depth with the U.S. EPA. 

The attached papers are intended to form the basis for discussions between the SCAQMD Home Rule 

Advisory Group members, SCAQMD staffs and the U.S. EPA offices involved in formulating policy, 

implementation, and enforcement activities relative to LAER. I request that you make appropriate 

distributions to the other U.S. EPA offices at your earliest convenience. The attached material has 

been marked Draft, since it has not yet been reviewed by all members of the Home Rule Advisory 

Group's New Source Review Subcommittee. Additional material may be sent to you next week to 

supplement these papers. 

The SCAQMD staff and public look forward to engaging in a meaningful dialog with the U.S. EPA on 

this important LAER issue. Please direct all questions or inquiries to PomPom Ganguli at (909) 396-

3185 or Barbara Baird at (909) 396-2302. 

Sincerely yours. 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. 

Executive Officer 

CC: Michael D. Antonovich, 

SCAQMD Governing Board Member 

End. 

JPB:AG:md 

r;.vjr^.T«V-

,-".*V-v4.V^--; 
TM___ _ P.11 

^ IMP . V i wfiii KUII m •?< •• T- T " 

CRITERIA FOR "ACHIEVED IN PRACTICE" 

Present EPA Policy and Procedure 

1. An emission control technology that sets a new LAER standard is deemed "achieved in 

practice" if it has been: 

(a) Required and reported through existing regulators' programs; or 

(b) Operating continually for at least six months on a source (including foreign sources) 

which has been operating at 50 percent or more of design capacity; and 

(c) Verified through performance test or other performance data. 

2. We understand that EPA's rationale is: 

(a) A technology that has been through a regulator}- program has already been reviewed 

for performance, applicability, etc. 

(b) Six-months is a reasonable time to demonstrate a technology because that is the 

maximum allowed for a shakedown period for replacement emissions units. 

Furthermore, the 50 percent load factor provides some assurance that the technology 

has been placed in meaningful service. 

(c) Performance must be verified by at least one source test. 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Group Perspective 

3. The fact that a technology was required, and has been reported through existing 

regulatory programs does not ensure the applicability, effectiveness, or reliability of that 

technology, due to the following reasons: 

(a) EPA policy does not include a feedback mechanism in the LAER Clearinghouse for 

confirming peiffomiaig.be of technologies. 

(b) SIPs routinely contaiiUechnology-forcing measures; construction permits frequently 

list emerging technology because the project proponent has proposed its use, prior to 

actual field verification. 

(c) An action by one permit engineer in one agency must not automatically become a 

nation-wide precedent. Differences between regions, plants, and economic 

environments vary widely. 

(d) Customary commercial considerations (e.g., performance guarantees) also vary 

widely. 

(e) Vendors of control technologies will begin to learn to exploit the LAER process. 

4. In some case, the technology must be proven by continuous full-scale commercial 

operation for at least one year at a load that is significant; periods longer than one year 

may be reasonably necessary depending upon the "operating cycle" of the equipment 

5. There are numerous factors in addition to performance that must be considered in 

evaluating the applicability of a fore jgn technology to a facility in the U.S. 

6. Some flexibility should be afforded to consider technologies with comparable emission 

reduction capabilities. 

lo 
P.12 

LAER DETERMINATION CUT-OFF DATE 

Present EPA Policy and Procedure 

LAER determination is fixed at the time the permit is issued. 

1. We understand that EPA's rationale is: 

(a) A final determination before the public review process of the draft permit obviates 

the benefits of the public process 

(b) A source is not disadvantaged by such a position since it may not legally begin 

construction unit after it has received a final permit 

(c) Control technology searches by the public will uncover potential new technologies 

that may achieve additional emission reductions 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Group Perspective i 

2. ; The LAER determination should be fixed at the time a permit application is deemed 

complete for minor and major sources, due to the following reasons: 

(a) Applicants are indeed disadvantaged by such "moving target" uncertainty, 

particularly small business applicants who cannot afford a continuous due diligence 

search. 

(b) Allows certainty for long lead projects where substantial engineering and design is 

involved. 

(c) Similar to die latest EPA NSR Reform proposal, except that it differs in (1) timing of 

finalization, and (2) scope of presumption of due diligence on the part of the 

applicant. 

(d) Allows pollution prevention projects to proceed in a more timely fashion. 

(e) Title V exacerbates the current situation given the long review times of most permit 

revision scenarios. 

(f) South Coast BACT process is well publicized nationally; few technologies exist that 

we are not aware of. 

(g) EPA's public review process is for large source permits (-PSD) and major source 

NSR permits. 

(h) Provides more incentive for development of new technology for LAER. 
P.13 

. RELOCATION OF EXISTING SOURCES 

Present EPA Policy and Procedure 

Relocated sources are "new" for purposes oif LAER and offsets. Region-wide equivalency 

programs can offer some relief from offsets if a local rule so provides, but there can be no relief 

from LAER. 

1. We understand diat EPA's rationale is: 

(a) Relocated sources are "new" to the area in which they propose to locate. 

(b) Federal regulations provide a limited relocation exemption from PSD requirements, 

but there is no mention of any exemption from NSR requirements. 

(c) Previous interpretation has treated relocated sources as "new." 

(d) Relocation offers the same potential as new sources to require more stringent 

controls without retrofitting. 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory GroupPerspective 

2. Relocates sources are not "new" by (definition; they are existing sources and not subject 

to NSR, due to the following reasons*. 

(a) Clean Air Act NSR does not apply to relocated existing sources. 

(b) A relocation in the same air bas<in does not add to total pollution burden, 

(c), Localized impacts are already addressed by specific rules. 

(d) Relocation is not much of an is§ue in most of the country where major sources are at 

100 tons per year potential to emit or more, but it imposes significant burdens on 

small business, anjll^latively small sources, in Southern California, where major 

source threshold is only 10 tons per year. 

(e) Relocations may not present the same opportunity to impose more stringent controls 

as a truly new source; source nfay not have realistic options. 

(f) Too stringent requirements on relocations can deter pollution reduction efforts. 

(g) Requiring stringent NSR controls for relocations may lead smaller sources to go 

"underground." 

2. 
P.14 

PUBLIC PROCESS FOR LAER DETERMINATIONS 

Present EPA Policy & Procedure 

1. EPA's LAER determinations are: 

(a) Open to any information that may or may not be available to applicant. 

(b) Not always reflected in the LAER Clearinghouse. 

(c) Sometimes made without public review of new/advanced technology. 

2. We understand that EPA's rationale is: 

(a) Applicant must conduct research on new LAER technologies. 

(b) LAER Clearinghouse may not contain all pertinent information. 

(c) Public review of technology occurs during Title I or Title V public noticing. 

• 

SCAQMD Home Rule Advisory Group Perspective 

3. The Public Process for LAER determinations needs to be enhanced to: 

(a) Include formal and early public participation for new and more stringent LAER 

determinations. 

(b) Provide new LAER technology infonnation to applicants in a timely manner. 

(c) Improve the content, utility, and timeliness of the LAER Clearinghouse. 

(d) Utilize the SCAQMD BACT<5i4deline model for EPA's LAER Clearinghouse. 

(e) Provide adequate resources for maintenance and validation of data base and public 

comment docket 

4. This position is based on: 

(a) EPA's previously stated goals to increase certainty, consistency, and timeliness. 

(b) Implementation of CAA Section 173(d) [EPA Clearinghouse]. 

(c) Lack of resources and attention to Clearinghouse data in recent past 

(d) Recognition of the fact that the burden of due diligence is currently placed on the 

applicant who is in the weakest position to carry it out successfully. 

(e) Public review is essential to validate EPA's LAER determination for emission 

standards based on new technologies. 

13 >A"< 
P.15 

RP |l|l«l«lfj|lip 

LIST OF ANTICIPATED BACT/LAER MEETING PARTICIPANTS 

< 

August 4,1998 

U.S. EPA Region IX 

David Howekamp 

Nina Spiegelman 

MattHaber 

Julia Barrows 

U.S. EPA Small Business Office. Washington. D.C. 

Tom Kelly (202-2«SGM©01) 

Karen Brown (202-260-1391) 

ARB 

Peter Yenturini 

Ray Menenbroker 

AQMD 

Chung Liu 

Barbara Baird 

La Ronda Bowen 

PomPom Ganguli 

Coalition for Clean Air 

Tim Carmichale 

California Manufacturers Association 

Curt Coleman, CMA 

Small Business Coalition 

Gene Beck 

C:\docs\ta\9807\BACTl 14-
P.16 

ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION AT AUGUST 4,1998 MEETING 

1. Facility Relocation 

It is not clear to the AQMD that the relocation of facilities should be treated the same as 

new or modified sources in terms of New Source Review and BACT/LAER requirements 

in the Federal Clean Air Act. Under EPA guidance, the AQMD has treated relocated 

facilities the same as new or modified sources. However, we do not believe the policies 

underlying the Clean Air Act requirements for LAER necessarily apply to relocations. 

We need to know from EPA the basis and interpretation of the Federal Clean Air Act on 

this issue. 

2. Effective Date BACT/LAER Determination 

There are questions about the fairness of applying LAER requirements up to the date of 

issuance of permits. The difficulty, stems from the facility having to do an overall facility 

^ planning design, cost study, and impact assessment prior to submitting the permit 

application, based on the understanding of the BACT/LAER requirements at that time. It 

would add an extra burden for the facility to respond to BACT/LAER requirements when 

the permit has been processed and a new set of requirements have emerged. We 

understand that EPA insists on BACT/LAER determination up to the time of permit 

issuance, not when permit application is deemed complete. We would appreciate it if 

EPA could provide the legal basis and formal policy for such a position. We would also 

like to discuss the possibility of allowing the determination of BACT/LAER when the 

permit application is deemed complete for those permits without public notification 

requirements. 

3. Section 507 and Other Potential Relief for Small Business 

Section 507 allows potential relief for small business in terms of exemptions to federal 

rulemaking. We would like EPA to examine and determine if there are situations for 

which small businesses could be exempted from federal LAER requirements under 

Section 507 and other regulations. 

4. BACT/LAER Exemption for Non-Major Sources 

Under existing SIP commitments, the AQMD is required to apply BACT/LAER on 

minor sources. This is in the form of Regulation XIII for the South Coast Air Basin. We 

would like EPA to examine the possibility of changing this arrangement. In addition, we 

would like to examine the possibility of offering alternative emission reductions in lieu of 

applying BACT/LAER to specific source categories. 

C:\docs\ta\9807\BACn. 15 
P.17 

South Coast 

Air Quality Management District 

21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. CA 91765-4182 

(909) 396-2000 • http://www.aqmd.gov Office of the Executive Officer 

Dr. Barry R. Wallerstein 

909-396-2100: fax 909-396-3340 • 

July 30,1998 

David P. Howekamp 

Office of the Director 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20450 

Dear MrJJoweicamp: \^ r^ ^ 

We appreciate the opportunity to meet with EPA, ARB, Coalition for Clean Air, Califomia Manufacturers 

Association, and the Small Business Coalition on the AQMD's implementation of BACT/LAER. This 

meeting will be held at the EPA Region IX office in San Francisco on Tuesday, August 4,1998 from 

10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. A list of anticipated meeting participants is enclosed for your information. We 

are sending identical letters and attachments tcall participants on the list. 

To ensure that this will be a meaningfial and productive meeting for all parties, AQMD staff suggests that 

we concentrate on the following six issues: 

1. Facility Relocation 

2. Effective Date for BACT/LAEM Determination 

3. Section 507 and Other Potential Relief for Small Business 

4. BACT/LAIR Exemption for N<§n-Major Sources 

5. Credibility of AQME) Permits 

6. LAER by Size and Category 

AQMD staff has prepared, and enclosed for your review, a brief description of these issues and would like 

to discuss your preliminary position on each of these points at the meeting. We believe all the meeting 

participants can and will speak with authority for his/her organizations on these issues. 

The implementation of BACT/LAER has been a critical issue facing the AQMD, as extraordinary efforts 

are needed to combat the nation's worst air quality problem. We want to work with all parties to resolve 

these issues at the earliest possible date. I believe we owe the regulated community and public our 

concerted efforts to find ani acceptable resolutic;n in balancing environmental and economic needs, and 

complying with federal and state law. We need! your help and participation in this process. 

We look forward to meeting with you on August 4,1998. 

Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. 

Acting Executive Officer 

BRW:CSL:dk 

Enclosure 

(p