p. 1



# OAR Box 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 57 ) ll-B-3 2

Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:50:54 AM

Sheet 57 of 276P. 2

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

Offic e of Ai r Quality Plannin g an d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , Nort h Carolin a 2771 1 '

7 JU L 198

6 II-B-3 2

MEMORANDU M
SUBJECT : Preventio no f Significan t Deterioratio n(PSD ) \\"S

Definitio no f "Modif i cat i o n\ - UU l
FROM : Geral dA . Emison , Direc t

Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g antT'Standard s (MD- 1
TO : Director , Ai r Managemen t Divisio n

Region s I , III , V , and I X Director , Ai r andWast e Managemen t Divisio n Regio nI I Director , A1r , Pesticides , an dToxi c Managemen t Divisio n Region s I V

an d V I Director , A1 r andToxic s Divisio n Region s VII , VIII , and X
Th e Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standard s (OAQPS ) ha s recentl y receive daninquir y

regardin g th e applicabilit y o f PS Dreview

t o tw o faciiitte s whic hwoul dreplac e we t scrubber s wit hbaghouses . Th e baghouse s woul dimprov e contro l o f particulat e matte r bu t allow a significan t ne t increas e o f sulfu r dioxid e (SO2 ) emissions . Th e questio ni s whethe r th e propose dchang e woul db e subjec t t o PS D review unde r th e Federa l PS D regu lation s a s a majo r modification . Fo r th e reason s discusse dbelow , I hav e conclude dtha t thi s chang e woul dconstitut e a majo r modification . Th e Offic e o f Genera l Counse l (OGC ) ha s concurre di nth e conclusion s o f thi s memorandum . Th e PS D revie w

applie s t o ne

w majo r stationary

source s an

d t o majo r modifications. ! Subjec t t o certai nqualification s an d exemptions , a "majo r modification " i s a "physica l chang e i no r chang e i nth e metho do f operatio no f a majo r stationar y sourc e tha t woul dresul t i na significan t ne t emission s increas e o f an y pollutan t subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Act " [4 0 CF R51.24(b)(2 ) and 52.21(b)(2)] . Ther e i s genera l agreemen t

1 Not e that , althoug hth e subjec t case s involv e PS D review , th e same issu e exist s wit hrespec t t o majo r sourc e nonattainmen t ne w sourc e review (NSR ) permittin g pursuan t t o Par t D o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (Act) . Becaus e thes e case s involv e PSD , an d becaus e nonattainmen t NS Rha s basi c program requirement s tha t mak e thi s issu e les s likel y t o aris e i ntha t area , thi s memorandu

m focuse s o

nPSD . Th e conclusion s o f thi s memorandu m appl y equall y t o nonattainmen t NSR , however .

# - W P. 3
4.3 2

tha t th e propose d chang e constitute s a majo r modificatio n withi n th e expres s term s o f th e PS D regulations. 2 Fo r purpose s o f brevity , I a m omittin g th e specifi c detail s o f tha t analysis

. Th e tru e are a o f controversy , and th e focu s o f thi s memorandum , i s th e relevanc e o f an exemptio n fro mrevie wunde r th e ne w sourc e performanc e standard s (NSPS) . Specifically , th e NSP S regulation s provid e tha t th e followin g shal l no t be considere d a modification :

Th e additio n o r us e o f an ysyste mo r devic e whos e primar y functio ni s th e reductiono f ai r pollutants , excep t wher e a

nemissioncontro l syste m i s remove d o r replace db

y a syste m whic hth e Administrato r determine s t o b e les s environmentall y beneficia l [4 0 CF R60.14(e)(5)] . Th e statutor y

definitio no f modificatio nfo r bot hPS D andNSP S purpose s i s presente di nsectio n11 1 o f th e Act . It ha s beenstate dthat , fo r thi s reason , th e subjec t exemptionautomaticall y applie s t o PS D eve n1 f i t 1 s no t expressl y

par t o f th e PS D regulation s (memorandu m fro m Edwar d E
. Reich , Director , Stationar ySourc e Complianc e Division , OAQPS , an d Willia mF
. Pedersen , Actin g Associat e Genera l Counsel , OGC , t o Ally n M
. Davi s an d Pau l Seal s o f EP ARegio n VI , date d Apri l 21 , 1983)

. Th e bette r approach , whic h I amsettin g fort h today , i s tha t th e subjec t exemptio n doe s no t automaticall yaffi x itsel f t o th e PS D regulations

. Rather , anysuc h exemption s ma yb e mad e applicabl e t o PS D onl yb yexpres s rulemaking

. Ther e ar e several ' reason s fo r concludin g tha t EP Adi d no t inten d t o mak e th e exemptio n i n questio n her e par t o f th e PS D system , beyon d th e obviou s Tac k o f languag e includin g i t i n th e regulations

. First , th e progra mi s oriente d towar d ambien t ai r qualit ya s wel l a s technolog y base d controls , i n contras t t o th e NSP S progra mwhic h addresse s onl yth e latter

. Th e PS D revie wi s a too l fo r ai r qualit ymanagemen t an d comprehen

- " siv e consideratio n o f increase s o f an ypollutan t regulate d unde r th e Act
. Th e NSP S exemptio n i s inconsisten t wit h thi s approach

. I n addition , i t seem s ver yunlikel ytha t EP Awoul d hav e importe d th e "environmentall y beneficial " tes t int o th e PS D applicabilit ycalculus , inasmuc h a s tha t calculu s i s strongl yquantitativ e and objectiv e i n it s orientation , ye t th e NSP S tes t i s highl yqualitativ e an d judgmental

. I n anyevent , th e overal l PS D calculu s i s simpl ydifferen t fro mth e NSP S approach , and henc e on e woul d hav e expecte d EP At o giv e expres s indicatio n o f an intentio n t o brin g th e NSP S exemptio n int o th e PS D calculu s i f indee d i t ha d ha d tha t intention

.

2 Th e owne r o f th e facilitie s ha s argue d tha t thi s activit yconstitute s routin e maintenance , repair , o r replacement , thu s allowin g i t t o rel yo n a n exemptio n fro mrevie w[4 0 CF R 51.24(b)(2)(iii)(a ) an d 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(a)]

. 1 conclude , however , tha t thi s situatio n doe s no t fal l withi n tha t exemption.

# A*

T '.« M

( P. 4 4.3 2



### » ' r , .

. Th e fac t tha t bot hprogram s us e th e definitio no f modificatio n containe di nsectio n11 1 o f th e Ac t i s not , i nitself , sufficien t t o prov e tha t Congres s intende dtha t NSP S exemption s the ni neffec t woul d automaticall y

b e incorporate dint o PSD . Congres s has , o f course , occa sionall y ratifie dexistin g regulator y program s o r approache s (e.g. , 4 0 CF R51 , Appendi xS anduncodifie dsectio n12 9 o f Publi c LawT£"95) , bu t suc hi s generall y don e wit ha

nexpres s indicatio no f tha t intent . I hav e foundn o suc hindicatio ni nthi s case . Apparentl y th e onl y

legisla
tiv e histor y

onthi s subjec t i s th e remar ktha t Congres s intende dt o conform th e meanin g o f "modification " fo r PS Dpurpose s t o "usag e i nothe r part s o f th e Act " [12 3 Cong . Rec . H1195 7 (Novembe r 1 , 1977)] . Give nth e distinc t difference s betwee nth e NS Rregulator y processe s promulgate di n respons e t o th e 197 7 amendment s an dth e preexistin g NSP S regulation s definin g "modification, " i t seem s clea r tha t Congres s desire dt o conform th e usag e o f tha t term i nonl y a broa dsense . Finally , I believ e tha t th e Federa l Registe r preambl e segmen t cite d I nth e Apri l 21 , 1983 , memorandu m (4 3 F R26380 , 26396 , Jun e 19 , 1978 ) shoul dno t b e readbroadl y i nsuppor t o f automati c Incorporatio no f NSP S provisions . Tha t preamble , involvin g review o f fue l switches , addresse da regulator y

reaffirmatio no f a

nexemptio nwhic hhadalready bee npromulgate d int o th e origina l 197 4 PS D regulations . Fo r thes e reasons , th e subjec t exemptio ndoe s no t appl y t o PS Dand th e earlie r memorandu m cite do nthi s topi c i s withdrawn .
cc : R . Bauma n A . Ecker t T . Helm s E . Reic h D . Tyle r P . Wyckof f