P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

223) ll-F-12 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 223 of 250 
P.2 

• * OUTIVf OFFKX OP 1MB PftESMNT 

OFFXOI OF xirouuTxav 

JUIO UOUUtOM UF-UM 

tsjurixxmi. tasooMtt OVIST 

•ttLTlJ 

fOt 

?te-M 

five 5* Li>+1<r*r/ 

fMKl aO/^5 tiMCt- •OOM VO* 

taxFxcAnoK no. . 

TOO» OF FAfiM ftKT (XHCLTOIHO fTtAHIWTWU OHO?) _ _ 

•0DK FAX aVUKBZftt (J 03) 395-7263 — (KtOl - ROOM 10202) 

3 

EftlBZII 

| | ^oGiSHo (jjl 

Jia li r | 

• EW7. &J. b-LCiCET 
<T 

P3 

01/23 '00 05:02 ID:LftNIERFr*<3800 FAX- ppcE t 

Department of Energy 

Washington. OC SOWS 

FAX COVER SHEET 

OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS & 

SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT 

OFFICE OF POLICY 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

1000 INDEPENDENCE AVENUE, SW 

WASHINGTON, X).C. 20886 

TEL (202)-i586-2061 

FAX (202) 686-2062 

DATE ^7 W *'* 

NUMBER or PAGES ____ 

(INCLUpiNol COVER) 

TO Ij-il'-fW-i)^, itfiA : '" '' I Uv-'/KlAs, urn 

PHONS NUMBER:. 

PA'< NUMBER: 

') 

FllfiM." ^ ^ /flrffl ^ 

PH0N3 NUMBER: 

PA< NUMBER: S"<Wr ^ ~T*>(f*L/ 

MERSA(ii_: 

• * 
01/23 '00 05:02 ID'.l^tERFfWSSOO FAX: 

P.4 

PAGE 

Department of Energy 

Washington, DC 20M6 

March ;j, 1995 

MEMORA1N MJM KOK: Bill Tyndall, KPA 

FROM: 

Chris Wolz. OMJ* 

Roger Mums, DOIJ$/y 7 

Th* atta.:h«i.l requests for specific chnngcu to the November 16, 1994. draft 'Now 

Source Reviow Reform" is hereby provirttiH us •••H|iic,*Niad. Uue to the short tinio 

available tu prepare these request!., Lori-wi DobriunHky and I arc not attempting to 

consolidate our efforts and are Bubmillui*-,' out pictus separately. Duu tu her hemic 

workload, Lc.riita's submission may noi. bo completed by Fridn.y, nvx do I rccftll hor 

p)*omiso thai it would bo, 

I did pii-oiiiifli! results by Friday, nnd here ihoy «ro. I'll see you next Tuesday. 
P i 

01/23 '00 0B = 03 ID*LPlMlERFftX3800 FAX: pqi_£ $ 

SJpedfic DO.S Request for Changes to Iho November 16, 1994 Draft "Now Source 

Review Kefinn" 

LAER 

* 

On p;.g* 176, fifth line, add the word Vaoiifiold" after "moat". At the end of 

thut paragraph, add: 

"However, a source fa-tug NSK duo to reconatruction or modification 

m ay be constrained by tile, fuel and/oi technology considerations ft'om 

doing wha t tho beet controlled source in its class or category ha s dune. 

Therefore, EPA requests comment on whothor or not the phras e "in its 

CIHSS or category' should be interpreted to mean "similar source" when 

LAER la being determined for "brownfiuld" sources." 

Or* p'i|jo 178, eliminate the fin-t complete sentence. 

BACT 

On p<na. 159, last two lines, chance air pollution abatfimont' to emission 

limitation," On page 160, 4th line, eliminate "Internalizing the costs ofai v 

pollution protection," Also, in lines 7 & 8. chango "air pollution" to "emissio/i." 

Ii-uijrt an page 166, just prior tc point 2 tho following: 

However, sume stakeholders boliovo that the "top down" BACT process 

pliices undue emphasis on the most stringent (and costly) control option. 

Therefore, while the "top down" process is proposed herein and 

oaplained below, EPA seeks usmmont on alternative processes wherein 

no initial presumption (or a different presumption) would bo used. Such 

comments should address in particular the factors to bo considered in 

vht* BACT selection process, and how suuh factors would be balanced in 

selecting a specific BACT." 

On paneti 167 and 168 (and evory where el no in the proposal) chttngo "air 

pollution" and "pollution" to "emissions." 

Innort, in page 174 after the first (to complete) pnragraph, the following: 

Anyone submitting a comment recommending a n approach to BACT 

IliHerent from ''top down" should ulao supply example s addressing the 

Vavc points described abnvo." 

Cl.tsn I Ana ? 

On •.wj-.i UaH, lines 8-U , delete establish nf a national goal" and substitut e 

,,„..„,,, • imn in*iiiiaiuiroiiNiiiBBiii>m«u*">'**: ••••" •"• 
_ _ _ _6_ 

01,-23 '00 06-03 ID!LANICRrflX3800 FAX: PAGE A 

"ruquira reasonable progress toward a national goal of. 

On pa*?* 2*9(1, linos 14-19. delete tho indicated aonunco. Substitute; 

"Given that the applicant has provided increment-related pollutant 

concei tration estimates, and assuming that the FLM may, in some cases, 

denim further information or anolysiu ofthe effects of those concentrations on 

AQRVs, tho Question arises whether or not it is the applicant^ responsibility 

co sujiply euch information. Kl3A believes (hat cooperation between the 

applicant, FLM and permit authority in determining impacts on AQRVs is in 

lh« interest of all. Dut EPA ljuaiute.s to require! information or analysis of'tho 

applic; mt bayond incremonl-j-elated air quality because the statute places tho 

liu vder. of demonstrating an ndvwsc eiTect on tho FLM. This issuo ifl discussed 

furkhur under "b. Scope and timing ofthe FLM's demonstration" after which 

comment on tha issue is solicited. 

On page HOC, hat paragraph, striko all following: "Further ..." 

On page bOH after the first (incoinploti*) paragraph insert the following: 

"Wliilt; EPA believes that the identification of AQRVs is the .FLM's 

reapoH.nihility, the Statute assigns a consultative role to EPA in the 

iclontii. attion of adverse effect,*, on AQRVs (tho Act, section 166fdX2)(B)). This 

proposul implies an informal, caii&-b.y-i:aKu approach by EPA to thAt 

<.*on!-iuk;»tive role. However, some stekoholdci s have SUgguottid that EPA's I'Olo 

ba defined more explicitly. Those stokeholdo,--- point out that FLMs arc single 

isau-s (idvocateB in the PSD permit rnviow process while EPA has broader 

reifoniaibilitieg to the genurnl public intercut. 1'hey alao point out that an 

ir*.ip.)rtE.nt aspect of the Class I area protection issuo is assistance to thn 

permit Lng authority in making judgement,* on FLM claims that an AQKV 

would he adversely afTeeled. Therefore, KPA request* comment on whether 

and he v the EPA consultation on adverse AQRV impacts could bo met. 

explicit. In particular, KPA roquootB comment on potential guidelines which 

would h» generally applicable to ndvnrso AQRV impact determinations. 

On paig<9 306 U the end ofthe first (incomplete) paragraph, insert tlie following: 

"Yrrhi:,th.**r or not such identiiiod AQltVi* would bo adversely affected by a 

propoat'i:! new or inodifiod source must ultimately be doeided by the pormit 

authority based on tho demon f-tnui on of t.hr? J<'LM and guidance provided by 

EPA in iits consultive capacity, As moi.tior.ed frnrlior, EPA awfiks comment on 

tho foUiittial toopo of audi conpultivc (•••iili.iici •." 

On pate 309, tinea 10 -fell, change "must ko wmp'oi^d" to "may be appropriate." 

On page Si'2,. .ie»: before point d, inncrt th.e fbllowi*.*;;: 

„,„„:„ «. • • « »••-• ,.-..-.-.•---— - - "» " 
P.7 

01.-23 ' W 05:04 [D:L»Jf£RTAX3800 FAX' PAGE 

"A qveetion arises as to whether EPA, in its consultive rolo. should provide 

ftvojlt .ble inlbrmation on tho accuracy or eta to of development of raudols which 

ara Jot covered by the Guideline on Air Quality Models. EPA seeks comment 

on. U'luither and how descriptions of non-guideline models might be 

supp lamented by EPA with information which could Assist tlio permitting 

authivity to evaluate the reanlts of such models." 

On page 3.115, point (1), change "substantial deference" to "reasonable con-aidci-ation." 

Cn png* 32*, delete the first complete paragraph, find doleto the word ''Novartholuafl'' 

fhmi the ha,; inning ofthe following paragraph. 

On page 32?*, Tine 6. chango'"determination" to "rlemonatration." Also, in line », 

change "finc'inff" to "demonstration." 

On page ;J2I>, 3d from last line, change "coucernr*" to "a finding hy tho permitting* 

authority" 

OJI page 12(1, lino 4, placo n period afW "dispu^'H". Continue (he paragraph u« 

fol.lo-.vs: 

"Th* applicant may choose to address the KI.MV concerns through mftigative 

mflfinut'63 prior to a detormlnation by the permitting authority that an AQRV 

would bo adversely afl'octcd, thun eliminating the neod for ctuch a 

det*rnii nation. Howover, the proposed mi ligation policy should not ho 

conntrn ;d to require any mitigation by the applicant unloea an adverse AQRV 

finding lb made by the permit Linn authority. 

On p<*tge 3J!7. i>*»foro point 4, insert tho following: 

"The;: BI'A seeks comment, on the condition? which would or would not Justify 

pest cciifttruction monitoring in Class 1 twin* by a nowly constructed or 

mod,ifi«i;l source, and on tho appropriate typo nnd duration of such monitoring." 

On pag« 3T-.0, Yam 13-15, delete the sentence beginning "Such..". 

On pasc 331, linos 10*13, delate tho sentence beginning "The FLMs...''. (Note: AQRV 

eigidficanc* levels would be part of an adverse <*>llcct dctt-rmination. El'A has .*. 

con.wltivo role In such determinations. Therefore. Mliri .iflcanco level selection rloop not 

rest solely with the FLMs.) 

, , antti wiii'inaiiuHMUiilSn* ,,.,«...,n.»^