BryanW. Shaw, Ph.D., Chairman Buddy Garcia, CommiSsioner Carlos Rubinstein, Commissioner Mark RVickery, P.G., Executive Director 

## RECEIVED II t1AR 29 PH I: 52 t:H£RHAL AFFAIRS OIVISIIN 

### TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL \,lUALITY Protecting Texas byReducingandPreventingPollution 

### March 25, 2011 

### DocketNo. 2009-1898-RlJL 91 7108 2133 3935 2304 81b5

AlfredoArmendariz, Ph.D. RegionalAdministrator U.S. EnvironmentalProtectionAgency- Region 6 1445 RossAvenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 DearDr. Armendariz:

### EJFtl\.~~;)....••.fllttl................. EJDFtl\.

# fi.%1...EJWQ....•...•.••..... 

### 6MD..............6SF.......•.......... fiOEJ...·-···....EJRC.. ........•..•.... 6PD

# .O.r •.**~ ~;f.~** .1•••

### fiXA..

### f'~-;-.-:t

## .......

On September 15, 2010, the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (Commission) adopted revisions to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) relating to therules for the Qualified Facilitiesprogramandthedefinition ofBestAvailableControlTechnology. TheCommission adoptedamendmentsto§§ 116.10, 116.111, 116.116, and 116.117 anda new§ 116.17of30TAC Chapter 116, ControlofAir

### Pollutionby

### Permitsfor New Constructionor ModificationandcorrespondingrevisionstotheSIP. The adoptedamendmentsaddress deficiencies asidentifiedbyEPAintherules relatedtothequalifiedfacilityprogramas publishedintheApril14, 2010 noticeofdisapprovaloftheprogramasa SIPamendment(75 FederalRegister 

### 19468). ByletterdatedOctober5, 2010,theTCEQ submittedtheseproposedrevisionstotheSIP, a publichearingcertification, a completerecordofthepublichearings, andtheaccompanying orderandsupplementfortheSIPrevision. Enclosed, ona CD, arethesubmittalsfortherulemakingsthatadoptedoramendedrules regardingthequalifiedfacilities program,andthedefinitionofbestavailablecontroltechnology in§ 116.10,bytheCommissiononthefollowing dates: February 14, 1996;June 18, 1998; August 9, 2ooo; andAugust 21, 2002. AlthoughEPA's records containtheseprevious submittals, EPAhasrequestedandtheCommissionis supplying, aspartofthistransmittal, thesepreviouslysubmittedrulemakingstoensurethatEPAreviewsthenewsubmittaltogether withtheseprevious submittals. I alsobringtoyourattentionthatthecommissionrepealed §116.118 ina separaterulemakingon February23, 2011, whicltbecameeffectiveMarch 17, 2011. Thisrepealwill notbesubmittedas

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512-239-1000 Internetaddress: www.tceq.state.tx.us

### a SIPrevision, astherepealedrulehadpreviouslybeendisapprovedbyEPA (75 

### Federal Register 19468) andisthereforenolongerbeforeEPAas a revision to theSIP.
I lookforwardtoyourexpeditious approval oftheseSIPrevisions. Sincerely,

BWSfjbh EnclosuresSTATE OF TEXAS OFFICE OF THE GovERNOR GEORGE W. BUSH GOVERNOR



### Ms. Jane Saginaw Regional Administrator March 13, 1996

U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency Region 6 1445 RossAvenue Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 DearMs. Saginaw: Enclosed are revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, which were adoptedbythe TexasNatural Resource Conservation Commission (Commission) onFebruary 14, 1996. Chapter 116, Subchapter

### A, concerningDefinitions, and SubchapterB, concerningPermit Application, were amendedto modifY air permit applicationprocedures and evaluation criteriato providemore operationalflexibility to facilities. The amendments were adopted in responseto changesrequiredby SenateBill 1126, 74thLegislature. Therevisions are being submitted toyou as a proposedrevision tothe StateImplementationPlan (SIP). Also enclosed is a public hearing certification asrequired by40 CFR §51.102 

### (f), a completerecord ofthepublic hearing, and the adoption Order. I lookforward toyour expeditious approval ofthisrevisiontotheTexas SIP.

Enclosures

cc: Mr. 

### BarryR. 

### McBee, Chairman, TexasNaturalResource Conservation Commission Mr. 

### DanPearson, ExecutiveDirector, TexasNaturalResource Conservation

Commission

Posr Oma Box 12428 AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711 (512) 463-2Barry R. McBee, Chairman R. B. "Ralph" Marquez, Commissioner John M. Baker, Commissioner Dan Pearson, ExecutiveDirector 

## TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas byRedudngandPreventingPollution

THE STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF TRAVIS §

This is to certify that the attached are true and correct copies ofrevisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and the State Implementation Plan adopted onFebruary 14, 1996 pursuant to 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR), §51.104. Prior to the adoption ofthe revision, a public hearing was held pursuant to 40 CFR, §51.102(a), and notice of the hearing was given which conformed to the requirements of 40 CFR, §51.102(d). I am the custodian ofthe records ofthe Commission.

To certify which, witness my hand and the seal of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commi3sion, this the 14th day ofFebruary, 1996.

# ~~d.**o/4L~~-""'------** Glm:iaVasquez 

### V-\S ChiefClerk, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-1000Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Public Hearing November 6, 1995 30 TAC Chapter 116-

SB 1126 ChangesINTRODUCTION

A public hearing was held in Austin on November 6, 1995 to consider the following revisions: §116.10, concerning General Definitions and §116.116, concerning Changes to Faclities; the repeal of §116.117, concerning Distance Limitations; and new §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, §116.117, concerning Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities, and §116.118, concerning Pre-change Qualification. The TNRCC permit amendment and alteration criteria were modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1126, 74th Legislature.

Written comments were accepted through December 6, 1995. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and seriously considered. This volume contains a complete record ofthe public hearing and is divided into the following four sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation ofTestimony

o StaffRecommendations

Additional copies ofthis hearing record are maintained in the TNRCC central office at 12100 North IH-35, Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, contact Thomas Ortiz at (512) 239-1054.

# PUBLIC NOTIFICATION AND PROPOSALPUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification to the public ofthe proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. Publication ofthe notice ofpublic hearing in the following newspapers on the dates listed:

Austin American-Statesman; October 7, 1995 Fort Worth Star-Telegram; October 7, 1995 Houston Chronicle; October 6, 1995

2. Publication ofthe public hearing notice and proposed rules in the Texas Register on October 10, 1995.

3. Correspondence forwarding the notice ofpublic hearing to the following officials and agencies:
Speaker ofthe House Lieutenant Governor Dallas Department ofHealth and Human Services El Paso City-County Health District Fort Worth Public Health Department Galveston County Health District Houston Department ofHealth and Human Services Harris County Pollution Control Department City ofEl PasoNorth Central Texas Council ofGovernments Houston-Galveston Area Council South East Texas Regional Planning Commission Arkansas Department ofPollution Control and Ecology Louisiana Department ofEnvironmental Quality New Mexico Air Quality Bureau Oklahoma State Department ofHealth U. S. Environmental Protection AgencyEXAMPLE OF NEWSPAPER CLASSIFIED AD Fort Worth Star-Telegram October 7, 1995

:. NOTICE OF PUB IC HEARING



### rttl::f. THE TE TURAL.**f•~ ;.:~og~** **RJ~TION** ! PROPOSE SIONS TO

• , CHAPTER 6 AND THE ' - STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN**N~~;se,ai~t h~~ebrhtv~~Q~~~~**  ' ments of the Texas Health i and Safety Code, Section 1 ! 382.017; Texas Govern-**·3'~~Jt~0fdb1~'::,~h~~tt'o9e** ' of Federal Regualtions.- Section 51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning State Implemen- tation Plans (SIP), the Texas Nautrual Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive**;y;~~~~y c~~~r::nrr6** **r:~:;** the SIP. The proposal includes the**fo~**

lowmg revisions: amend· ments to Section 116.10,**fig~;e~~i;\e~~~~r~l 1** **f.gi~~** concerning Amendments and Alterations; the repeal**~~rn1~~tio'bis\~~c!** 1 7**Li~~~ ¥~~~l**  1!.nd**co~~~ninSecg?~** tance Limit,tions,**~ection** 116.117, concerning Notification for Changes at Quah- •lied Facilities, Section

116.118, concerning Quali- feed Facilities, and Sect1onl 116.119, concerning Dem-, onstrating Compliance With. Allowable Emission Rate.l The TNRCC permit amend- ment and alteration criteria.**~~dili'~~c;~~~ea"nt ~~e** **S~~~7~** A**B~~~~;;~~~~~g L~~is~~~u~;O-I**  '11osal will be held November 6, 1995, at 2:00 p.m. 1n Room 131E of TNRCC Build· ing C, located at 12100 North IH-35, Park Technology Center, Austin. The hearmg IS structured lor the re- ceipt of oral and writte''**;g~';'~~d~v~Ju~~~r,;~t;dp~;~::** ent oral statements when called upon in order of regis- tration. Open discuss1on within the audience will not**g~~~~e~.uri~g Tt~~cgea~ira~i**  member will be ava1lable to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hea.ring and will answer ouest•ons beofre and after the hearing. Written comments not pre·**":n~~~;h!~e u!'~~"-FNfrtc**  · central office· in Ausftn. The

deadline lor submission of written comments will be'30 daYS after tile**d~e** of Publi· 

# m::**~~::~~~~r..oa~:·rl~~ ~~~**  ceived by the TNRCC Office I**~!~~~~ln~n~ R!,lf,'l\a~~~-** **~",;** that date wnrbe considered by the commission prior to any final action on the pro- posal. Please mail corn- 1 ments to Lisa Martin, Office

of Policy and Regulatory De-**~';,~Pri8§7 Mfus~i~~·T:x~s**  78711-3081, and reference**~~~g_~~ra~~~~~!"o~ ~95** **~~~:** ments to (5121 239-5687. Copies of the revision are available atthe central office of the TNRCC, Air Policy and

.**~:',~1~~n~g:.t~sil'?i~3~c~~~e** 35 Technology Center,**Buildi~** E, Austin, and at an·**Tu":t~~r ~~F~~:;,~ti~~:ce~er~~**  contact Thomas Ortiz at (5121239-1054. Persons with disabilities who**~~ve ~~=~iala~~'6'~~~~=~~g~**  needs who are planning to attend the hearing should. contact the agency at (5121' 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.**ls~~e?e,:.nbe~u s.til!l** **~~xas,** on**/~Jeydia** Gonzalez-Gromatzky Director, Legal Services Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commissioncertificate of authority to establish and operate a single service health maintenance organization (HMO) offering a dental care plan in the State ofTexas in compliance with the Texas HMO Act and rules and regulations for HMOs. The application is subject to public inspection at the offices ofthe Texas DepartmCllt ofInsurance, HMO Unit, 333 Guadalupe, Hobby Tower I. Sixth Aoor, Austin, Texas. Upon consideration of the application,· if the Commissioner is satisfied that all requirements of law have been met. the Commissioner or his designee may ta1cc action to issue a certificate of authority to DENTAL BENEFITS, INC.• doing business as BUJECARE DENTAL HMO without a public hearing. Issued in Austin, Texas, on Oclober 4, 1995. TR0·9S,2604 Alicia M. Fech!el G-ral Cou,...l and Chlel Clerll Texas Depanrnera of**lra.~rance** Filed: October 4, 1995 

# • • • A 

### Texas Department of Mental Health and Mental Retardation Request for Proposal/Consulting Contract The Texas Departiilent of Mental Health and Mental Re· tardation (IDMHMR) requests. pursuant to the provisions ofthe Texas Government Code. Chapter2254, the submission ofproposals leading to the award ofacontract for an organiution that specializes

.in quality improvement of services and supports for persons with mental retardation. The organiution must possess qualifications and refer· Cllces indicating a full understanding of the operations of comprehensive mental retardation community service systems and methods effective in enhancing outcomes. IDMHMR's obj-..c:tives for this project are to improve the quality of services and supports as qualitY is defined by persons with mental retardation and their families: assure that resources are used to achieve outcomes of value to persons receiving services and supports; and improve the efficiCllcy and effectiveness of state and local authority oversight of an increasingly decentralized system. The awarded organization will be responsible for: •developing ahandbook to assist in implementation ofthe IDMHMR's Quality Assurance and Improvement System for Mental Retardation Services and Supports. • on-site training of department staff and the staff of 4 7 local mental retardation authorities and their contract providers. and any department designated providers in the measurement of outcomes for people with mental retardation and outcomes for organizations which provide services and supports for persons with mental retardation: • achieving reliability among staff in the measurement of outcomes for people and outcomes for organiz.ations: and

- providing training and technical assistance in methods for using outcome measures in conducting selfassessments and plans of improvement consistent with continuous quality improvement principles and technology. TD:l\fiiMR reserves the right to accept orreject any or all proposals submitted. ••**·~** •• ·-**-·-·-·-~~.~~--·-··-** ..... ···-· 0

The organization awarded a contract, if any, will be the organization whose proposal conforming to this request is deemed to be the most advantageous by TDMHMR. Other factors in awarding acontract will include, but not limited to, demonstrated competence, qualifications, experience, and reasonableness in the cost. Proposals must remain valid for acceptance and may not be withdrawn for a period of 180 days after the proposal closing date. An original and two copies of the full proposal must be submitted to IDMHMR no later than noon, Monday, November 13, 1995. Proposals received thereafter will not be considered and will be returned unopened. Proposals must be sent to Gretchen Qaibome. Managed Care Administration. IDMHMR. 909 West 45th Street, Room 367, Austin, Texas 78751. For further information or to obtain a complete proposal package, please contact Ms. Claiborne at the address pre· viously mentioned or call (512) 206-4614. Issued in Austin, Texas, on October 4, 1995. TRD·9512595 · Am K. Utley Chair, Texu MHMR Board Texu Departrnera of Mental Heallh and Mental Retardation Filed: Oclober 4, 1995 

# • 

# • • A 

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Notices of Public Hearing Notice is heiebygiven that pursuant to the requirements of
. the Texas Health and Safety Code. §382.017: Texas Government Code, Subchapter B. Chapter 2001: and 40 Code ofFederal Regulations, §51.102 ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning State Implementatiou Plans (SIP). the Texas Natural**~esource** Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning revisions to Chapter 116 and the SIP. The proposal includes the following revisions: amend· ments to §116.10, concerning General Definitions and §116.116, concerning Amendments and Alterations: the repeal of §116.117, concerning Distance Umitations; and new §116.112, concerning DistanceLimitations, §116.117, concerning Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities, §116.118, concerning Qualified Facilities, and §116.119. concerning Demonstratin& Compliance withAl· lowable Emission Rate. The TNRCC permit amendment and alteration criteria and procedures are being modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1126 (74th Legislature). Apublic hearing on the proposal will beheld November 6. 1995, at 2:00p.m. in Room 131E ofTNRCC Building C. located at 12100North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Austin. The hearing is structured for the receipt oforal or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not occur during the hearing; however. a TNRCC staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing. Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the Th"RCC central office in Austin. The deadline for submission of written comments wiU be 30 20 TtxRrg 8342 October 10, 1995 Texas Register • 

## ----**--~--·-**

•. 

# •

# ••

r days after the date of publication of the proposal in the TexasRegister. Material received by the TNRCC Office of Policy and RegulAtory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that date will be considered by the commission prior to any final action on the proposal. Please mail comments to Lisa Martin, Office of Policy and Regulatory Development, MC 202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711·3087, and reference Rules Traclcing Log *95144-116-AI. Please fax comments to (512) 239-5687. Copies of the revision are available at the central offlCC of the !NRCC, Air Policy and Regulations Division, located at 12118 North nl-35, Park 35 Technology Center, BuildingB. Austin, and at all 'INRCC regional offices. For further information, please contact Thomas ,Ortiz at (512) 239·1054. Per!ons with disabilities who hwe special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. lssuecl in Austin, Texas, on Septerreer 5, 1995. TRE:>-8512606 Kevin Mccaua Dl,.ctor, L.gal S.rvioes Dlvlllon Texu Natullll Reaource Coreervalion Commlulon Filed: October 4, 1995 

# •• 

# . , 

# • Notice is herebygiven that pursuant to the requirements of the Teu.s Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Gov· emment Code, Subchapter B. Chapter 2001; and 40 Code ofFederal RegulAtions. §51.102 ofthe United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations coneerning State Implementation Plans (SIP), the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (1NRCC or commission) will conduct apublic hearing to i'ec:eiVe testimony conce.rnin& revisions to Olapter 116 and the SIP. · The lNRCC proposes amendments to 30 TAC Oupter 116, Subchapter P. §116. 610, concerning Applicability; and §116.617. concerning Standard Permit List. In addi· tion. the lNRCC proposes new §116.620, concerning Installation and/or Modification ofOil and Gas Facilities, and §116.621. concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. The amendments and new sections would reorganize the numbering of the standard permits. New §116.621 would establish a standard airpermit for aMunicipal SolidWaste Landfill with new, amended, or modified municipal solid waste permits. The sections are proposed to allow in· creased efficiencyin proposing new standard permitprovisions. Comment is specifically solicited on §116.621. concerning Municipal Solid Waste Landfill. Apublic hearing on theproposal will beheld November 6. 1995, at 10:00 L m. in Room 2S4S oflNRCCBuilding E. loeatcd at 12118North Ui-35, Park35 Technology Center, Austin. The hearing is struCtured for the receipt oforal or writt= comments by interested pez-sons. Individuals may present oral statements when called ·upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not occur during the hearing; however. aTNRCC staff mem· bet will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing. Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office in Austin. The deadline for submission of written comments will be 30 days after the date ofpublication of the proposed rules in the Texas Register. Material received by the TNRCC 

# • Office of Policy and RegulAtory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that date will be considered by the commission prior to any fmal action on the proposal. Please mail comments to Lisa Martin, Office ofPolicy and RegulAtory Development, MC 202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. ancl reference Rules Traclcing LOg *95103- 116-AI. Please fax comments to (512) 239-5687. Copies of the revision are available at the central offlCC of the TNRCC, Air Policy and Regulations Division, located at 12118 North Ui-35, Pllk 35 Technology Center. Building E. Austin, and at all lNRCC regional offlCes. For further information, please contact Monica Pesek at- (512) 239-1971. Persons with disabilities who have special communication· or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. fssuecl in Austin, Texas, on October 2, 1995. TRD-1512805 Kevin MCC.Ia Director, Legll Servlcea DMilion· Teua Nalullll Reaource Coreervmlon Comrn11111on Filed: Odober 4, 1995 

# • •• • A 

### Texas Department of Protective and



### . Regulatory Services Correction of Error The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services published an invitation for Consultant Proposal Re· quest in the October 3, 1995, issue of the Texas Register (20 Te.xRe& 8091). Thecontactperson, Deborah Williams, phone number was published incorrectly. Thephone num· ber for Deborah Williams is (512) 438-3367, Mail Code E-559. · lssuecl in Austin, Texas, on October 3, t995. TRD·9512577 Nancy Murphy Section M-;er, Media and l"olicy Servioes Teua Departmllnl of Protective and

. Regulalory**Service~** Filed: Odober 3, 1995 

# • • 

# • Request for Information The Texas Department of Protective and Regulatory Services (PRS) is seelcing informationregarding the availability ofqualified SCI'Vice providers to conduct an economic impact and cost/benefit study of recent chan&eS to the minimum standards for licensed day-care centersin Texas. The minimum standards are rules that facilities**m~st** fol· • low to obtain and maintain their license 10 provide child · care. These rules focus on conditions that impact the health, safety, and well-being of children. The study will examine changes in the child/staffratios, group.sizes, and square footage requirements of the minimum standards that were adopted in 1994. The goals ofthe economic impact aspect of the study are to determine the differential and actual economic impact of the changes for facilities, the average cost increase for centers which are impacted and how that cost is recouped, the profile of centers that are impacted. the impact on IN ADDITION October IO, 1995 20 TexReg 8343

# ..

•:j; 

## 'li

.. !!- .. --·· 

### ·-.---**--~-------** §408.63. Distribution. (a) Copies of this subchapter shall be distributed to: (1) members of the Texas Mental Health and Mental Retardation Board; (2) executive. management. and program staff of the department's Central Office; (3) chairs of boards of trustees of local authorities; (4) CEOs of local authorities and designated providers; and (5) interested advocates and advocacy organizations. (b) The CEOs of local authorities and designated providers are responsible for distributing copies of this subchapter to: (1) appropriate staff; (2) providers; (3) agents; (4) any individual rece1vmg services and supports who requests a copy: (5) family members and advocates of individuals receiving services and supports who request a copy: and (6) any employee who requests a copy; and (7) any other person who requests a cbpy. This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt. Issued in Austin, Texas. on October 4, 1995. TRD-9512596 Ann Utley Chair, Texu MHMR Board Texu Depanment of Mental Heatth and Mental Relardalion Earliest possible date of adoption: November 10, 1995 For further information, please call: (512) 206-4516 

# • • • 111LE 30. ENVIRONMEN

### TAL QUALITY 

### Part I. 

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116. Control of Air Pollution by 

### Permits for New Construction or Modification The Texas Natural Resol.l'ce Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes amendments to §116.10, concerning General Definitions. and §116. 116, concerriing Amendments and Aherations; the repeal of §116.117, concerning Distance Limitations; and new §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, §116.117, concerning Notification lor Changes at Oualifted Facilities, §118.118, concerning Oualifted Facilities. and §116.119, concerning Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate. The TNRCC permit amendment and aheration criteria and proce**dun~s** are being modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1128 (74th Legislature, 1995). The TNRCC proposes revisions to §116.10, concerning General Definitions, to amend the definition of new source and to add new deli· nitions lor actual emission rate, aHowable emission rate, best avaHable control technology (BACT), maximum allowable emission rate table, modification of existing facility, net increase in allowable emissions, non-qualified facility, qualified facility, and relatively equivalent compound. The TNRCC requests comments on the definition of relatively equivalenl coiJ1)ound. Relatively equivalenl compound is defined generally in this rule proposal so that specificity on chemical groupings may be handled in a separate guidance document. The approach of the staff is to develop concurrently with the rule proposal a guidance documenl which assists qualified facility implementation of changes under the proposed §116.118(b) (2). The guidance documenl will group compounds based on similar chemical and effects characteristics. In the definition of actual emission rate, lacili· ties are anowed to consider any consecutive 12-rnonth period within the past ten years before the change. This definition establishes a rolling window. The ten-year period is constrained by the requiremenl that the window lor considering actual emissions must begin no earlier than January 1, 1990. The purpose of this restriction is to ensure the ability of the permitting system to protect public health ill the ear1y years of the new exeiJ1)tions. Proposed §118.118, concerning Amendmenls and Alterations, establishes the criteria by which quafified facilities thai make changes must apply with the executive director lor a permit amendment. The- proposed section also directs qualified facilities to make application lor permit arrl8ndrr18nts on the Pl1 form and requires that any existing level of control at a qualified facility not be lessened by actions allowed under this section. Proposed §116.117, concerning NotifiCation lor Changes at Qualified Facilities, provides the criteria lor notification to the TNRCC lor various changes at qualified facilities. In addi· tion, the section establishes the requirement for record keeping of all changes made under the proposed §118. 116(b)(2) at the facility. This section also requires that all changes be incorporated inlo the facility's permit upon amendment or renewal and provides lor the continual applicability of any appropriate federal requiremenl. The staff requests specific comments on the August 1 deadline lor submission of annual reports of changes that did not require notification. Proposed §118.118, concerning Qualified Facilities, provides the cases in which prior in·
20 TexReg 8306 October 10, 1995 Te:ms Register • volverr18nl of the TNRCC is necessary lor a facility to be considered qualified. The staff also requests specific commenls and assistance on the concept of adjusting a grandlathered facility's allowable emission rate once current BACT is applied to beCOme a qualified facility. It is expected that the maximum potenlial emission rate with BACT will be higher than the facility's actual emission rate with BACT applied. The difference between the two emission rates should allow lor the lacHity to exercise the nexibility established by this rule. · Proposed §116.119, concerning Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate, provides the opportunity lor the executive director to require any facility to slbmit information demonstrating compliance with allowable emission rates. Proposed §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, relocates the exact rule language inthe repealed §1 16.117 to this new section. As rnenlioned previously. the staff of the TNRCC will develop guidance lor the iiJ1)1ementation of · changes allowed Under §116.116(b)(2). The staff win have two guidance docurrl8nts lor this purpose. A BACT guidance document win be provided in order lor facilities to become qualified lor treatment under §118.118(b)(2). The guidance document will be comprehensive enough to establish BACT lor many types of facilities. However, in some instances, a case-by-case .review will be required lor control technologies not in the guidance document. b is intended that this guidance document also be flexible for quick revision as different technologies demonstrate equivalency to established technologies. The staff will develop a TNRCC guidance documenl covering modifications to existing facmties. This guidance will assist in the implementation aspects of chemical speciation, trading of allowable and actual emission levels, and notification. On chemical speciation, the staff will determine groupings lor chemical compounds that have similar characteristics and effects. These groupings are intended to anow qualified facilities to make changes which result in the emission of a different, yet relatively equivalent compound without obtaining a permit amendment. Along with the grouping, the staff will establish a de minimis level under which emission point trading of t;()I11)0Unds within a grouping may occl.l' without notification of the TNRCC. Trading of compounds between groupings will be permissible under certain ratios based upon impacts. These determinations will be a part of the guidance document. Notification of the TNRCC is required under specifiC circumstances in this proposal. The guidance document win further clarify the required information to be included in the various notifications as well as establish the form to be submitted to the TNRCC. While the required reviews by the TNRCC under these rules were kept to a minimum, nothing should prevenl a facility lrom voluntarily requesting additional guidance or early review from the TNRCC. The TNRCC is willing to assist companies in making the appro-priale determinalions so that facilities may p-operty use the flexibility afforded by Senate Bil 1126. Steve Minick, Strategic Planning and Appropriations Division, has determined that Iathe firs( fiVe-year period the sections are in effect there wiD be no major fiscal impfiCalions Ia state or local go.-emmenl as a resull of en· forcing or administering the sections. Mr. Mini(t( also has determined that fa each yetlf ofthe firsl five years the sections are in effectthe public benefit anticipated asa result of enlacing the sections wiU be deaeases in the emissions from "andfathered facmties which are required to install Best Available Control Technology to use these sections. There wiD be negf.gble costs tothe regulated community and no new economic costs to persons who are requred to COI11lly with the sections as proposed. A ptblic hearingon the proposal wiD be hek:t No.-ember 6, 1995, a1 2:00 p,m. in Room 131E ofTNRCC Buik:ting C. located al12100 Nath IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Austin. The hearing is slrucllnd for the re**ce~** of oral or wrilten comments by interested persons. lndivliuals may p-esent oral statements when caDed upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience wiU nor occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC staff member wiD be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing andwin answer questions belore and after the hearing. Written comments not presented althe hearing may be sLbmitled to the TNRCC central office in Austin. The deadline for submission of written comments will be 30 days after the date of pl.bfJC&tion of this proposal in the Texas Register. Material received by the TNRCC Office of Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that date wDI be · considered by the commission prier to any flllal action onthe p-oposal. Please mail comments to Lisa Martin, Office of Policy and Regulatory Development, Mail Code 202, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, and reference Rules Tracking Log #95144- 11&-AI. Please lax comments to (512) 239-5687. Copies of the revision are available at the central office of the TNRCC, Ajr Policy and Regulations Division, located at 12118 Nath IH-35, Park35 Technology Center, Buik:ting E, Austin, and at an TNRCC regional offices. For fu1her information, please contact Thomas Or1iz at (512) 239-1054. Persons with disabilities who have special communication a other accommodation needs who are planning to aHend the hearing shouk:t contact the agency at (512) 239-4900

.. Requests shouk:t be made as lar in advance as possble. 

### Subchapter A. Definitions • 30 TAC §116.10 The amendment is p-oposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Clean Ar Act (TCAA), §382-017, which provides the TNRCC with the authaity to adopt rules con· sistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA. The proposed amendment implements the Texas Heallh and Safety Code, §382. 017. §116.10. General Definitions. Unless specifically dcfmed in the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) or in the rules of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) [board]. the terms used by the commission [board] have the meanings commonly ascribed to them in the field ofair pollution control. In addition to the terms which are defmed by the TCAA, and in §101.1 of this title (relating to General Rules). the following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Actual emission rate-The highest annual rate (consecutive 12-month period) of emissions from a qualified facility achieved within a 120-month period prior to the chana:e. The period shall start no earlier·than January 1, 1990. This rate cannot exceed any federal or state emissions limitation. Allowable emission rate-An authorized rate ofemissions from a facility that emits air contaminants. This rate cannot exceed theallowable emission rate
· specified by an applicable stateorfederal

relt1Jlation other than this chapter. (A) An allowable emission ratefor a permitted facility is an enforceable emission limit established in a permit on a maximum allowable emissions rate table plus any allowable emissions authorized by a standard exemption. (B) An allowable emission rate for an exempted facility is the least of the emission rate allowed in §116.211 ofthis title (relatineto Standard Exemption List), a rate specified iu the applicable exemption, or a federally enforceable rate established on a Pl-8. (C) An allowable em1ss•on ratefor a qualified grandfathered facility is an emission rate at 01e maximum capacity accordine to the physical or operational desip. (D) An allowable emission rate for a facility authorized by standard permit, other than §116. 617(2) of this title (relating to Standard Permits List), is the maximum emission rate represented in the registration for the standard permit. (E) An allowable em•ss•on rate for· a qualified facility voluntarily installine controls shall be the maximum 11ilowable emission rate prior to the installation of the controls. BACT-Best Available Control Technoloey with consideration riven to the technical practicability and the economic reasonablenesS of reducing or eliminatin& emissimu from the facility. Maximum allowable emissions rate table-A table establishine the allowable emission rates included with a permit. Modification of existin& facility-Any physical chanee in, or change in the method of operation ofa facility in a ·manner that increases the amount-ofany air contaminant emitted by the facility into the atmosphere or that results in the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted. The term does not include: (A) insignificant increases in the amount of any air contaminant emitted that is authorized by one or more boai-d exemptions; (B) iosipificant increases at a permitted facility; (C) maintenance or replacement ofequipment components that do not increase or tend to increase the amount or chaJ12e the characteristics of the air contaminants emitted into the atmosphere; (D) an increase in the annual hours of operation unless the existing facility bas received a preconstruction permit or bas been exempted, pursuant to §1 16.211 of this title, from preconstruction permit requirements;

· (E) a physical change in, or chanee in tbe method of operation of, a facility that does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions of any air contaminant and that does not result in the emissions ofany air contaminant not previously emitted, provided that.the fa-**~ility:** (i) has receiYed a precmutruction permit or penni! amendment or has been exempted pursuant to §116.211 of this title from precmutruction permit requirements no earlier than 120 montbs before the chau&e will occur; or (ir) uses, regardless of whether the facility has received a permit, an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as BACT, considerin& technical practicability and economic reasonableness, that the board required or would have required for a facility of the same class or type as 11 condition or issuine a permit or permit amendment 120 months before the chanee will occur;

t PROPOSED RUI.ES October 10, 1995 20 TetRtR 8307' I. I.



# !**~**

# I

! ., .i

. I

.

## .

' I.

# ~.•1' '. 

## 1 --
.......-----------

(F) a physical chanee in, or chanee in the method of operation of, a facility where the chanee is within the scope or 8 flexible permit; or (G) a chanee in the method of operation of a natural £liS processine,
·treatin£, or compression facility connected to or part or 8 natural eas eatherine or transmission pipeline which does not result in an annual emission rate ofa · pollutant iD excess of the volume emitted at the maximum desia:ned capacity, provided that the facility is one for which: (i) construction or operation started on or before September I, 1971, and atwhich either no modification has occurred after September 1, 1971, or ·at which modifications have occurred only pursuant to standard exemptions; or (ii) construction started after September 1, 1971, and before March I, 1972, and which re£istered in accordance with the TCAA, §382.060, as that section existed priorto September 1**1991~** • Net increase in allowable emissions-For a qualified facility, an increase in allowable emissions considerine any air pollution control method applied to the facility, any decrease in aUowable emissions from other qualified facilities at the same TNRCC air quality account number that have received a permit or permit amendment within 120 months, and any decrease in actual emissions from other qualified facilities at the same TNRCC account number..
. . ·· New source-Any stationary source. the construction or modification ofwhich is commenced after Au£USt 30, 1971; or, for those sources that bad contracts to start before Au£0St 30, 1971, but did not start actual construction until after March I, 1972 [March 5. 1972].

. . Non-qualified facility-Any facility that 1s not a qualified facility.**Qualir~ed** facility-An existine fa-· cility that has received a permit or has been exempted pursuant to Subchapter C of this chapter (relatine to Permit Exemptions) no earlier than 120 months prior to a chanee iD that facility; or, that uses an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as BACT that would have been required for the same type of facility that received a permit no earlier than 120 months prior to a physical**o~**.operation chanee to the facility. If a fac1hty addscontrols to become a qualified facility, those controls must meet current BACT requirements. · . Relatively equivalent compound-A compound that is in the same eroupine due to similar characteristics and effects as specified by the executive director of the
.**T~RCC.** This agency hereby certifies thatthe Jroposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt.
. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 

### s. 1995. TR0-9512548 Kevin McCalla Director, Legal OMUon Texaa Natural RHOUJ'C41 Coreervatlon Commlll&lon Proposed date of adoption: November 29 1995 • For bther information, please cab: (512) 239-1966 

# • • • Subchapter_B. New Source Review Permits Permit Application • 30 TAC §§116.112, 116.116-116.119 The**~ndment** 

### and new sections are Jroposed under the Texas ..,eallh and Safety Code, the**T~xas** Clean M Act (TCAA), §382.017, whiCh provicles the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA. The proposed amendment and new sections implement the Heallh and Salety Code, §382.017. §116.112. Distance Limitations. (a) Lead smelters. Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act, §382.053. a permit shall not be issued for 1: new lead smelting plant at a site located within 3.000 feet of the residence ofany individual and atwhich lead smelting operations have not been conducted before August 31. 1987. This subsection**d~** not apply to a modification of a lead smelting plant in operation on or before August 31. 1987. to a new lead smelting plant or modification of a plant with the capacity to produce not more than 200 pounds of lead per hour. or to a lead smelting plant that was located more than 3.000 feet from the nearest residencewhen the plant began operations. (b) Hazardous waste permits. Per-**~ts** for haurdous waste management facilltles shall not be issued if the facility is to belocated in the vicinity ofspecifiedpublic access areas under the following circumstances. · (l) No permit shall be issued for anew hazardous waste landfill or land treat· ment facility or an areal expansion of an existing facility ifthe boundary ofthe facility or expansion is to be located within 1.000 feet of an established residence. church, school. day care center. surface.wa·
20 Te:rReg 8308 October 10, 1995 Textu Register • ter body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park. (2) No permit shall be issued for a new commercial hazardous waste management facility or the subsequent areal'expansion of such a facility or unit of that facility if the boundary of the unit is to be located within one-halfmile (2.640 feet) of an established residence. church, school. day care center, surface water body used for apublic drinking water supply, or dedicated public park. (3) For a subsequent areal expansion of a new commercial haZardous waste management facility that is required to comply withparagraph (2) ofthis subsection, distances shall be measured from a residence. church. School. day care center. surface water body used for apublic drinking water supply, or dedicated public park only ifsuch structure, water supply, orpark was in place at the time the distance was certified for the original permit. (4) Nopermitshall be issued for a· new commercial hazardous waste**man~** agement facility that is proposed to be locatedwithin one-halfmile (2.640 feet) from an established residence. church, school. day care center, surface waterbody used for apublic drinking water supply. or dedicated public park. at any distance beyond the facility's property boundaries. unless the applicant demonstrates that the facility will be operated so as to safeguard public health and welfare and protect physical property and the environment
. (5) The measurement of distances required by paragraphs (1)-(4) ofthis subsection shall be taken toward an established ·residence. church. school, day care center, surface water body used for apublic drinking water supply. or dedicated public park that is in use when the permit application is filed with the Texas Natural Resource . Conservation Commission. The restrictions imposed by paragraphs (1)-(4) of this subsection do not apply to a residence. church. school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, a dedicated public park located within the boundaries ofacommercial hazardous waste management facility. or property owned by the permit applicant. (6) The measurement of distances required by paragraphs (1)-(4) ofthis subsection shall be taken from a perimeter around the proposed hazardous waste management unit. The· perimeter shall be no more than 75 feet from the edge of the**p~posed** hazardous waste management urut. §JJ6.JJ6. Amendments and Alterations. (a) Representations and conditions [Permit amendments]. All represents·

# ) tions with regard to construction plans and operation procedures in an application for a permit, special permit. or special**ex~p** tion. as well as any general and spCC1al oonditions attached to the permit, special permit, or special exemption itself. become conditions upon which the subsequent permit. special permit. or special exemption are issued. [It shall be unlawful for any person to vary from such representation. or permit condition ifthe change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions; the character ofthe emissions. or will result in ari increase in the discharge ofthe various emissions. unless

_application is made to the executive director to amend the · permit or special permit in that regard and such amendment is approved by the executive director or the Texas Natural Re- source Conservation Commission [Commission]. Applications to amend a permit or special permit shall be submitted
. with acompleted Form PI-1 and are subject to the requirements of §116.111 ofthis title (relating to General APplication).] (b) Permit amendments.

. (l) For non-qualified facilities, it shall be unlawful for any person to vary from any representation or permit condition if the chanee ·will cause a chanee in the method of.control of emissions, the character of the emissions, or wilJ result in an increase in the**discha~e** of the various emissions, unless applica· tion is made to the executive director to amend the permit or special permit in that rerard and such amendment is approved by the executive director or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation· Commission (TNRCC). Applications to amend a permit orspecial permit shall be submitted with a completed Form Pl·1 and are subject to the requirements of §116.111 of this title (relatine to General Application). (2) For qualified facilities, it shall be unlawful for any person to vary from any representation orpermit condi· tion ifthe chanee will result in the emission of any substance other than a. relatively equivalent compound or result in a net increase in the allowable emis· sions, unless application is made to the executive directorto amend the permit or special permit in**~hat r~ard**  and su.ch amendment is approved by the execut•ve director or the TNRCC. Applications to amend a permit orspecial permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and are subject to the requirements of §116.111 ofthis title. The existine level of control may not be lessened for any qual· ified facility. (c)[(b)] Permit alterations. (J} A permit alteration is: (A) any variation from 8 representAtion in 8 permit application that does not involve an increase in emission rates or a change in the character or method of control of emissions; or (8} [for] any ·change in a. general or special condition of apermit that does not involve an increase in emission rates or achange in the character or method of control of emissions; [.] (C) a decrease in allowable emissions. (2) ·Allrequests for permit alterations which may result in an increase in off-property concentrations of air contami· nants, involve a change in pennit condi· tions. or affect facility or control equipment performance must receive prior approval by the executive director. The executive direc· tor shall be notified in writing of all other permit alterations. Any request for permit alteration shall include information suffi· cient to demonstrate that the change does not interfere with the owner or operator's previous demonstrations ofcompliance with the requirements of §116.111(3) of this title.

- (3) Permit alterations ·shall not be subject to the requirements of Best Available Control Technology identified in §116.111(3) of this title.

_ (d)[(c)] Standard exemption in lieu

.·of·permit amendment or alteration. Not-
.

withstanding subsections (a), [or] (b), or (c) of this section. no permit amendment or alteration is required if the changes to the permitted facility qualify for an exemption under Subchapter Cofthis chapter (relating to Permit Exemptions) unless prohibited by permit condition as provided in §116.115 of this title (relating to Special Conditions). All such exempted changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed. §116.117. Notification for Changes at QllalifiedjQI,:i/ities. (a) All qualified facilities shall maintain documentation at the plant site supporting that physical or operational changes are excluded from permitting re· quirements per §116.116{b)(2) of**th~** title (relating to Amendments and Alterabons). This documentAtion shall include quantifi· cation of all emission increases and de· creases associated with the physical or operational**chang~.** a description of**~e** physical or operabonal change. a descnp· tion ofany equipment being instAlled. sufficient information as may be necessary to demonstrate that the project will comply with the Federal Clean Air Act. Title 1. Parts C and D. and be made available to representAtives of the Texas Natural Re· source Conservation Commission (lNRCC) upon request (b) No notification is required at the time a change is made for qualified facilities that meet the following criteria. An aMual report, including information described in subsection (a) of this section. of all changes made to a facility shall be submitted to the appropriate TNRCC regional off1Ce by August 1st of each year:· (1) Best Available Control Technology for the facility has been established by the executive director of the lNRCC; (2) the facility has an established allowable emission rate on an accu· rate mlximum allowable emission rate tAble CMAERn. Pl-8 form or PI-E form. A MAERT shall be considered to be accurate if all air contaminants affected by the change have been represented. all emission points have been identified, and emissions have been calculated according to good engineering practices; and (3) the change involves no trad· ing of allowable or actual emissions be· tween facilities. (c)
. Pre-change notification on a PIEform shall be submitted to the 1NRCCby certified mail prior to the physical or operational change. The physical or operational change may be made after re· ceipt of written notiflCation from the lNRCC that there are no objections. or 45 days after receipt by the 1NRCC of the registration for the change. whichever occurs first Th.is prior notification shall be required if the change involves a trade of allowable or actual emissions above a de
·minimis level established by the executive director of the lNRCC. · (d) Post-change notification on a PI-E form within 30 days of the change is required for all trades between facilities be· low the de minimis level established by the executive director of the 1NRCC. (e) All such changes·to apermitted facility shall beincorporated into that facili· ty's permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed. (f) Nothing in this section shall limit the applicability of any federal re· quirement. §116D8._ Qualified Facilities. (a) In order ro establish that the facility is qualifled. pre-change notifiCation on a PI·B form shall be submitted to the Texas Natural Resource Conserv:ltion Com· mission (lNRCC) by certified mail prior to the physical or operational chan&e in the following cases: 

# • PROPOSED RULES October 10, 1995 20 TuReg 8309... _·

### .....-. .-.-- ·-- .. (1) Best Available Control Technology (BACD for the facility has not been established by the executive director of the Th'RCC; (2) the facility does not have an allowable emission rate or the allowable emission rate is inaccurate. (b) The physical or operational change may be made after receipt ofwritten notification from the TKRCC that there are no objections, or 45 days after receipt by the Th'RCC of the registration for the change. whichever oceurs first. This notification may be submitted at the same time as a pre-change notification required under §116.117(c) of this title (relating to Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities) or at any other time prior to making a physical or operational change to the facility. (c) If installing controls to become a qualified facility, the facility must install BACT and the allowable emission rate for the facility shall be the maximum potential emission rate after the installation of controls. If otherwise required, authorization under this chapter shall be obtained prior to installation of these controls. §116.119. Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate. The owner or operator of any facility may be required to submit information demonstrating compliance with**allowa~le** emission rates upon request ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). The method of demonstrating compliance shall be as required by this section or as otherwise directed by the Th'RCC: (1) the method specified in a permit C()vering that facility; (2) continuous emissions monitors; (3) parametric/predictive emissions monitors; (4) stack testing supported by engineering calculation based on measured process variables; (5) emissions related recordkeeping. This agency hereby certifies that the proposal
- has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 5, 1995. TRD-9512548 Kevin McCalla Dire<:1or. Legal Services Division Texas Natural Re&ourc:e Con&ervation Commission Proposed date of adoption: November 29, 1995 For further information, please call: (512)**23~1966** 

# • • • • 30 TAC §116.117 (Editors noll': Tilt> It'XI of Ihefolluwing St'Ciion •propo.tt'dfor rrpt>al will nol M pul>lished. Till' .<rclion may l>t> l'.wmined in 1/ae offices of lilt' Texas Narural Resourcl' Consnvalion Commis· sion or in lhl' Tt>xas Rt'gisln offia. Room 245, .lames Earl Rudder Building, 1019 Bra;os Slrt't'l, Auslin.) The repeal is proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules con· sistent with the policy and ptrpases of the TCAA. The repeal implements the Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017. §116.117. Distance Limitation-f. This agency'hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 5, 1995. TRD·9512547 Kevin McCalla Director, Legal Services Division Texa& Natural Resource Conservation Commission Proposed date of adoption: November 29, 1995 For further information, please call: (512)**.23~1966** 

# • • • Chapter 330. Municipal Solid
· Waste The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (commission a TNRCC) proposes the repeal of §330.568, amendments to §§330.561·330.567, and new §330.568 and §330.569, concerning the development of regional and local solid waste management plans, and financial assistance to regional planning commissions and local governments. The proposed amendments specify requirements lor the preparation and approval of regional and local solid waste management plans and the provisions of a planning lund lor providing financial assistance to prepare those plans. The new §330.569 establishes a new regional solid waste grants program. The title of the subchapter will therefore be changed from "Guidelines lor Regional and Local Solid Waste Management Plans· to "Regional and Local Solid Waste Manage· ment Planning and Financial Assistance·. The proposed rule changes update the regional and local planning requirements in the existing rules to include a requirement to con· duct an inventory of existing 

### ana closed land·

20 Tc1·Reg 8310 October 10, 1995 TeXlls Register • fills, and to otherwise update the rule language to account lor changes in agency responsibilities and plan approval policies. The new grants program provides lor financial assistance to regional planning commissions and local governments to conduct local and regional projects consistent with state, regional, and local solid waste management plans, and to update and maintain those plans. The aHocation of funds under the new grants program is to be according to a formula established by the commission that takes into account population, area, solid waste lee generation, and public health needs. The specific details of this formula have been developed by the commission, in cooperation with various interested parties, and copies will be available at the public hearing to be held October 27, 1995. Amendment to §330.561, relating to pUrpose and scope, reflect the agency's cLJTent jurisdiction over all of the types of wastes that must be considered in regional and local solid waste management plans. Amendment to §330.562, relating to definitions of·terms and abbreviations, include new definitions and eliminate some that are no longer necessary. Amendment to §330.563, relating to regional and local plan requirements, specify the re-

. quirement in House Bill 2537, Regular Session, 73rd Legislattre (1993) that regional and local solid waste management plans include an inventory of municipal solid waste landfill units, including those that are no longer·in operation, the location of those units, the cLJTent owners of the land on which the former landfill units were located, and the cLJTent use of the land. Amendment to §330.564, relating to coordinating with otherprograms, reflect changes in requirements to coordinate solid waste management plans with programs of other agencies as a result of the consolidation of Texas Air Control Board and the Texas Water Com-

. mission andthe transfer of the municipal solid waste management program from the Texas Department of Health (TDH) to the TNRCC. Amendment to §330.565, relating to public participation requirements for solid waste plans, is amended only to change references regarding the TDH to the TNRCC. Section 330.566, relating to procedures lor regional and local plan submission and approval, is amended to.change references regarding the Commissioner of Health to the Executive Director (TNRCC) and Board of Health to the TNRCC, and to revise procedures lor updating approved solid waste man· agement plans. Section 330.567, relating to financial assistance Ia regional and local plans, is amended to change reterences regarding the TDH and Board of Health to the TNRCC and Commissioner ot Health to Executive Director (of the TNRCC), and to update procedures lor obtaining state financial assistance Ia re· gional and local planning. Section 330.568, concerning approved state, regional, and local solid waste management plans. is proposed to be repealed because those state and regional solid waste manage-Barry R. McBee, Chairman R. B. "Ralphw Marquez, Commissioner John M. Baker, Commissioner Dan Pearson. ExecutiveDirector 

## TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting Texas byReducing andPreventingPollution



### NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 116 AND THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the requirements of the Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017; Texas Government Code, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001; and 40 Code of Federal Regulations, §51.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency regulations concerning State Implementation Plans (SIP) , the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning revisions to Chapter 116 and the SIP. The proposal includes the following revisions: amendments to §116.10, concerning General Definitions and §116.116, concerning Amendments and Alterations; the repeal of §116 .117, concerning Distance Limitations; and new §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, §116.117, concerning Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities, §116.118, concerning Qualified Facilities, and §116.119, concerning Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate. The TNRCC permit amendment and alteration criteria and procedures are being modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1126 (74th Legislature)
. A public hearing on the proposal will be held November 6, 1995, at 2:00p.m. in Room 131E of TNRCC Building C, located at 12100 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Austin. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing. Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office in Austin. The deadline for submission of written comments will be 30 days after the date of publication of

### PAGE TWO
the proposal in the Texas Register. Material received by the TNRCC Office of Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that date will be considered by the commission prior to any final action on the proposal. Please mail comments to Lisa Martin, Office of Policy and Regulatory Development, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, and reference Rules Tracking Log #95144-116-AI. Please fax comments to (512} 239-5687. ·copies of the revision are available at the central office of the TNRCC, Air Policy and Regulations Division, located at 12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Building 

### E, Austin, and at all TNRCC regional offices. For further information, please contact Thomas Ortiz at (512} 239-1054. Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512} 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 1, 

### 1995.

i Gonzalez-G omatz



### ctor, Legal Servic s Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

### Texas**~atural** 

### Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 1

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission) proposes amendments to §116.10, concerning General Definitions, and §116.116, concerning Amendments and Alterations; the repeal of §116.117, concerning Distance Limitations; and new §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, §116.117, concerning Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities, §116.118, concerning Qualified Facilities, and §116.119, concerning Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate. The TNRCC permit amendment and alteration criteria and procedures are being modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1126 (74th Legislature, 1995).

The TNRCC proposes revisions to §116.10, concerning General Definitions, to amend the definition of new source and to add new definitions for actual emission rate, allowable emission rate, best available control technology (BACT), maximum allowable emission rate table, modification of existing facility, net increase in allowable emissions, non-qualified facility, qualified facility, and relatively equivalent compound.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
The TNRCC requests comments on the definition of relativelyPage 2

equivalent compound. Relatively equivalent compound is defined generally in this rule proposal so that specificity on chemical groupings may be handled in a separate guidance document. The approach of the staff is to develop concurrently with the rule proposal a guidance document which assists qualified facility implementation of changes under the proposed §116.116(b) (2). The guidance document will group compounds based on similar chemical and effects characteristics.

In the definition of actual emission rate, facilities are allowed
to consider any consecutive 12-month period within the past ten years before the change. This definition establishes a rolling window. The ten-year period is constrained by the requirement that the window for considering actual emissions must begin no earlier than January 1, 1990. The purpose of this restriction is
to ensure the ability of the permitting system to protect public health in the early years of the new exemptions.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Proposed §116.116, concerning Amendments and Alterations, Page 3

establishes the criteria by which qualified facilities that make changes must apply with the executive director for a permit amendment. The proposed section also directs qualified facilities to make application for permit amendments on the PI-1 form and requires that any existing level of control at a qualified facility not be lessened by actions allowed under this section.

Proposed §116.117, concerning Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities, provides the criteria for notification to the TNRCC for various changes at qualified facilities. In addition, the section establishes the requirement for record keeping of all changes made under the proposed §116.116(b) (2) at the facility. This section also requires that all changes be incorporated into the facility's permit upon amendment or renewal and provides for the continual applicability of any appropriate federal requirement. The staff requests specific comments on the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 4

August 1 deadline for submission of annual reports of changes that did not require notification.

Proposed §116.118, concerning Qualified Facilities, provides the

cases in which prior involvement of the TNRCC is necessary for

a facility to be considered qualified. The staff also requests specific comments and assistance on the concept of adjusting a grandfathered facility's allowable emission rate once current BACT is applied to become a qualified facility. It is expected that the maximum potential emission rate with BACT will be higher than the facility's actual emission rate with BACT applied. The difference between the two emission rates should allow for the facility to exercise the flexibility established by this rule.

Proposed §116.119, concerning Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate, provides the opportunity for the executive director to require any facility to submit information demonstrating compliance with allowable emission rates.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 5

Proposed §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, relocates the
exact rule language in the repealed §116.117 to this new section.

As mentioned previously, the staff of the TNRCC will develop guidance for the implementation of changes allowed under §116.116(b) (2). The staff will have two guidance documents for this purpose. A BACT guidance document will be provided in order for facilities to become qualified for treatment under §116.116(b) (2). The guidance document will be comprehensive enough to establish BACT for many types of facilities. However, in some instances, a case-by-case review will be required for control technologies not in the guidance document. It is intended that this guidance document also be flexible for quick revision as different technologies demonstrate equivalency to established technologies.

The staff will develop a TNRCC guidance document covering modifications to existing facilities. This guidance will assist in the implementation aspects of chemical speciation, trading ofI**-~~** 

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
allowable and actual emission levels, and notification. On chemical speciation, the staff will determine groupings forPage 6

chemical compounds that have similar characteristics and effects. These groupings are intended to allow qualified facilities to make changes which result in the emission of a different, yet relatively equivalent compound without obtaining a permit amendment.

Along with the grouping, the staff will establish a deminimis level under which emission point trading of compounds within a grouping may occur without notification of the TNRCC. Trading of compounds between groupings will be permissible under certain ratios based upon impacts. These determinations will be a part of the guidance document.

Notification of the TNRCC is required under specific circumstances in this proposal. The guidance document will further clarify the required information to be included in the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
various notifications as well as establish the form to be submitted to the TNRCC. Page 7

While the required reviews by the TNRCC under these rules were kept to a minimum, nothing should prevent a facility from voluntarily requesting additional guidance or early review from the TNRCC. The TNRCC is willing to assist companies in making the appropriate determinations so that facilities may properly

use the flexibility afforded by Senate Bill 1126.

Steve Minick, Strategic Planning and Appropriations Division, has determined that for the first five-year period the sections are in effect there will be no major fiscal implications for state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the sections.

Mr. Minick also has determined that for each year of the first five years the sections are in effect the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the sections will be decreases in

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 8

the emissions from grandfathered facilities which are required to install Best Available Control Technology to use these sections. There will be negligible costs to the regulated community and no
new economic costs to persons who are required to comply with the sections as proposed.

A public hearing on the proposal will be held November 6, 1995,
at 2:00 p.m. in Room 131E of TNRCC Building C, located at 12100 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Austin. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office in Austin. The deadline for submission

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 9

of written comments will be 30 days after the date of publication of this proposal in the Texas Register. Material received by the TNRCC Office of Policy and Regulatory Development by 4:00 p.m. on that date will be considered by the commission prior to any final action on the proposal. Please mail comments to Lisa Martin, Office of Policy and Regulatory Development, MC 205, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087, and reference Rules Tracking Log #95144-116-AI. Please fax comments to (512) 239- 5687. Copies of the revision are available at the central office of the TNRCC, Air Policy and Regulations Division, located at 12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Building E, Austin, and at all TNRCC regional offices. For further information, please contact Thomas Ortiz at (512) 239-1054.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-4900. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 10

The amendment is proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

The proposed amendment implements the Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
SUBCHAPTER A DEFINITIONS

§116.10. General Definitions. Page 11

Unless specifically defined in the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) or in the rules of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission), the terms used by the commission have the meanings commonly ascribed to them in the field of air pollution control. In addition to the terms which

are defined by the TCAA, and in §101.1 of this title (relating to General Rules), the following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

Actual emission rate

- The highest annual rate (consecutive 12-month period) of emissions from a QUalified facility achieved within a 120-month period prior to the change. The period shall

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 12

start no earlier than January 1. 1990. This rate cannot exceed any federal or state emissions limitation.

Allowable emission rate

- An authorized rate of emissions from a facility that emits air contaminants. This rate cannot exceed the allowable emission rate specified by an applicable
state or federal regulation other than this chapter.

(A) An allowable emission rate for a permitted facility is an enforceable emission limit established in a permit

on a maximum allowable emissions rate table plus any allowable emissions authorized by a standard exemption.

(B) An allowable emission rate for an exempted facility is the least of the emission rate allowed in §116.211 of this title {relating to Standard Exemption List) . a rate specified in the applicable exemption. or a federally enforceable
rate established on a PI-8.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI (C) 

## An allowable emission rate for a qualified grandfathered facility is an emission rate at the maximum capacity according to the physical or operational design.

(p) 

## An allowable emission rate for a facility Page 13

authorized by standard permit. other than §116.617(2) of this title (relating to Standard Permits List) , is the maximum emission rate represented in the registration for the standard permit.

(E) 

## An allowable emission rate for a qualified facility voluntarily installing controls shall be the maximum allowable emission rate prior to the installation of the controls.

BACT

- 

### Best Available Control Technology with consideration given to the technical practicability and the economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating emissions from the facility.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
Maximum allowable emissions rate table

- 

### A table Page 14

establishing the allowable emission rates included with a permit.

Modification of existing facility

- 

### Any physical change in. or change in the method of operation of a facility in a
manner that increases the amount of any air contaminant emitted by the facility into the atmosphere or that results in the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted. The term does not include:

(A) insignificant increases in the amount of any air contaminant emitted that is authorized by one or more board exemptions;

(B) insignificant increases at a permitted facility;

(C) maintenance or replacement of equipment components that do not increase or tend to increase the amount or change the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
characteristics of the air contaminants emitted into the atmosphere; Page 15

(D) an increase in the annual hours of operation unless the existing facility has received a preconstruction permit or has been exempted. pursuant to §116.211 of this title. from preconstruction permit requirements;

(E) a physical change in. or change in the method of operation of. a facility that does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions of any air contaminant and that does not result in the emissions of any air contaminant not previously emitted. provided that the facility;

(i) has received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment or has been exempted pursuant to §116.211 of this title from preconstruction permit requirements no earlier than 120 months before the change will occur; or

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 16

(ii) uses. regardless of whether the facility has received a permit. an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as BACT. considering technical practicability and economic reasonableness. that the board required or would have required for a facility of the same class or type as a condition or issuing a permit or permit amendment 120 months before the change will occur;

(F) a physical change in. or change in the method of operation of. a facility where the change is within the scope of

a flexible permit; or

(G) a change in the method of operation of a natural gas processing. treating. or compression facility connected to or part of a natural gas gathering or transmission pipeline which does not result in an annual emission rate of a pollutant in

excess of the volume emitted at the maximum designed capacity. provided that the facility is one for which:

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 17

(i) construction or operation started on or before September 1. 1971. and at which either no modification has occurred after September 1. 1971. or at which modifications have occurred only pursuant to standard exemptions; or

(ii) construction started after September 1. 1971. and before March 1. 1972. and which registered in accordance with the TCAA. §382.060. as that section existed prior
to September 1. 1991.

Net increase in allowable emissions

- 

### For a gualified facility. an increase in allowable emissions considering any air pollution control method applied to the facility. any decrease in allowable emissions from other gualified facilities at the same TNRCC air QUality account number that have received a permit or permit amendment within 120 months. and any decrease in actual emissions from other QUalified facilities at the same TNRCC account number.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 18

New source - Any stationary source, the construction or modification of which is commenced after August 30, 1971; or. for those sources that had contracts to start before August 30. 1971, but did not start actual construction until after March 1. 1972

[March 5, 1972].

Non-qualified facility

- Any facility that is not a qualified facility.

Qualified facility

- 

## An existing facility that has received

a permit or has been exempted pursuant to Subchapter C of this chapter (relating to Permit Exemptions) no earlier than 120 months prior to a change in that facility; or. that uses an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as BACT that would have been required for the same type of facility that received a permit no earlier than 120 months prior to a physical

or operation change to the facility. If a facility adds controls
to become a qualified facility. those controls must meet current BACT requirements.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 19

Relatively equiyalent compound

- 

### A compound that is in the

same grouping due to similar characteristics and effects as specified by the executive director of the TNRCC.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 27, 1995.

### Texas Matural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 20

The repeal is proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

The repeal implements the Texas Health and Safety Code, §382.017.

SUBCHAPTER B : NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMITS PERMIT APPLICATION



### §116.117. Distance Limitations.

This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency•s authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 27, 1995.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 21

The amendments and new sections are proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code (Vernon 1992), the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

The proposed amendments and new sections implement the Health and Safety Code, §382.017.

SUBCHAPTER B : NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMITS PERMIT APPLICATION

§116.112. Distance Limitations.



### (a) Lead smelters. Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act, §382.053, a permit shall not be issued for a new lead smelting plant at a site located within 3,000 feet of the residence of any individual and at which lead smelting operations have not been

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 22

conducted before August 31, 1987. This subsection does not apply
to a modification of a lead smelting plant in operation on or before August 31, 1987, to a new lead smelting plant or modification of a plant with the capacity to produce not more than 200 pounds of lead per hour, or to a lead smelting plant that was located more than 3,000 feet from the nearest residence when the plant began operations.

(b) Hazardous waste permits. Permits for hazardous waste management facilities shall not be issued if the facility is to be located in the vicinity of specified public access areas under the following circumstances.

(1) No permit shall be issued for a new hazardous
waste landfill or land treatment facility or an areal expansion of an existing facility if the boundary of the facility or expansion is to be located within 1,000 feet of an established residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 23

used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park.

(2) No permit shall be issued for a new commercial hazardous waste management facility or the subsequent areal expansion of such a facility or unit of that facility if the boundary of the unit is to be located**within~** 

### mile (2,640 feet) of an established residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park.

(3) For a subsequent areal expansion of a new commercial hazardous waste management facility that is required
to comply with paragraph (2) of this subsection, distances shall be measured from a residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park only if such structure, water supply, or park was in place at the time the distance was certified for the original permit.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 24

(4) No permit shall be issued for a new commercial hazardous waste management facility that is proposed to be located**within~** 

### mile (2,640 feet) from an established residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for

a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park, at any distance beyond the facility's property boundaries, unless the applicant demonstrates that the facility will be operated so as to safeguard public health and welfare and protect physical property and the environment.

{5) The measurement of distances required by paragraphs (1)

- (4) of this subsection shall be taken toward an established residence, church, school, day care center, surface
water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park that is in use when the permit application is filed with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The restrictions imposed by paragraphs (1)

- (4) of this subsection do not apply to a residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, a

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
dedicated public park located within the boundaries of a Page 25

commercial hazardous waste management facility, or property owned by the permit applicant.

(6) The measurement of distances required by paragraphs (1)

- (4) of this subsection shall be taken from a perimeter around the proposed hazardous waste management unit. The perimeter shall be no more than 75 feet from the edge of the proposed hazardous waste management unit.

§116.116. Amendments and Alterations.

(a) Representations and conditions [Permit amendments]
. All representations with regard to construction plans and operation procedures in an application for a permit, special permit, or special exemption, as well as any general and special conditions attached to the permit. special permit. or special exemption itself, become conditions upon which the subsequent

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 26

permit, special permit, or special exemption are issued. [It shall be unlawful for any person to vary from such representation

or permit condition if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions, the character of the emissions,

or will result in an increase in the discharge of the various emissions, unless application is made to the executive director
to amend the permit or special permit in that regard and such amendment is approved by the executive director or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Applications to amend

a permit or special permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and are subject to the requirements of §116.111 of this title (relating to General Application).]

(b) Permit amendments.

(1) For non-Qualified facilities. it shall be unlawful for any person to vary from any representation or permit condition if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions. the character of the emissions. or will

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 27

result in an increase in the discharge of the various emissions. unless application is made to the executive director to amend the permit or special permit in that regard and such amendment is approved by the executive director or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
. ·Applications to amend a permit

or special permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and are subject to the reguirements of §116.111 of this title (relating to General Application)
.
(2) For gualified facilities. it shall be unlawful for any person to vary from any representation or permit condition if the change will result in the emission of any substance other than a relatively eguivalent compound or result in a net increase in the allowable emissions. unless application is made to the executive director to amend the permit or special permit in that regard and such amendment is approved by the executive director

or the TNRCC. Applications to amend a permit or special permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI 1 and are subject to

### Texas Natural Resource Page 28 Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
the requirements of §116.111 of this title. The existing level of control may not be lessened for any qualified facility.

lQl[(b)] Permit alterations.

(1) A permit alteration is:

(A) any variation from a representation in a permit application that does not involve an increase in emission
rates or a change in the character or method of control of emissions; or

(B) [for] any change in a general or special condition of a permit that does not involve an increase in emission rates or a change in the character or method of control of**emissions~** 

### [.]

(C) a decrease in allowable emissions.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 29

(2) All requests for permit alterations which may result in an increase in off-property concentrations of air contaminants, involve a change in permit conditions, or affect facility or control equipment performance must receive prior approval by the executive director. The executive director shall be notified in writing of all other permit alterations. Any request for permit alteration shall include information sufficient to demonstrate that the change does not interfere with the owner or operator's previous demonstrations of compliance with the requirements of §116.111(3) of this title.

(3) Permit alterations shall not be subject to the requirements of Best Available Control Technology identified in §116.111(3) of this title.

lQl[(c)] Standard exemption in lieu of permit amendment

or alteration. Notwithstanding subsections**(a)~** 

### [or] (b), or (c) of this section, no permit amendment or alteration is required if the changes to the permitted facility qualify for an exemption

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
under Subchapter C of this chapter (relating to Permit Page 30

Exemptions) unless prohibited by permit condition as provided in §116.115 of this title (relating to Special Conditions). All such exempted changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed.

§116.117. Notification for Changes at Qualified facilities.

(a) All qualified facilities shall maintain documentation
at the plant site supporting that physical or operational changes

are excluded from permitting requirements per §116.116(b) (2) of this title (relating to Amendments and Alterations)
. This documentation shall include quantification of all emission increases and decreases associated with the physical or operational change, a description of the physical or operational change, a description of any equipment being installed, sufficient information as may be necessary to demonstrate that

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 31

the project will comply with the Federal Clean Air Act, Title 1, Parts C and D, and be made available to representatives·of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) upon request.

(b) No notification is required at the time a change is made for qualified facilities that meet the following criteria. An 

### annual report, including information described in subsection (a) of this section, of all changes made to a facility shall be submitted to the appropriate TNRCC regional office by August 1st of each year:

(1) Best Available Control Technology for the facility has been established by the executive director of the TNRCC;

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 32

(2) the facility has an established allowable emission
rate on an accurate maximum allowable emission rate table (MAERT), PI-8 form or PI-E form. A MAERT shall be considered to be accurate if all air contaminants affected by the change have been represented, all emission points have been identified, and emissions have been calculated according to good engineering practices; and

(3) the change involves no trading of allowable or actual emissions between facilities.

(c) Pre-change notification on a PI-E form shall be submitted to the TNRCC by certified mail prior to the physical

or operational change. The physical or operational change may be made after receipt of written notification from the TNRCC that there are no objections, or 45 days after receipt by the TNRCC of the registration for the change, whichever occurs first. This prior notification shall be required if the change involves a

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 33

trade of allowable or actual emissions above a de minimis level established by the executive director of the TNRCC.

(d) Post-change notification on a PI-E form within 30 days of the change is required for all trades between facilities below the de minimis level established by the executive director of the TNRCC.

(e) All such changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporated into that facility•s permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed.

(f) Nothing in this section shall limit the applicability of any federal requirement.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
§116.118. Qualified Facilities. 

### Page 34

(a) In order to establish that the facility is qualified, pre-change notification on a PI-E form shall be submitted to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) by certified mail prior to the physical or operational change in the following cases:

(1) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for the facility has not been established by the executive director of the TNRCC;

(2) the facility does not have an allowable emission
rate or the allowable emission rate is inaccurate.

(b) The physical or operational change may be made after receipt of written notification from the TNRCC that there are no objections, or 45 days after receipt by the TNRCC of the registration for the change, whichever occurs first. This

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 35

notification may be submitted at the same time as a pre-change notification required under §116.117(c) of this title (relating
to Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities) or at any other time prior to making a physical or operational change
to the facility.

(c) If installing controls to become a qualified facility, the facility must install BACT and the allowable emission rate for the facility shall be the maximum potential emission rate after the installation of controls. If otherwise required, authorization under this chapter shall be obtained prior to installation of these controls.



### §116.119. Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate.

The owner or operator of any facility may be required to submit information demonstrating compliance with allowable emission rates upon request of the Texas Natural Resource

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI Page 36

Conservation Commission (TNRCC)
. The method of demonstrating compliance shall be as required by this section or as otherwise directed by the TNRCC:

(1) the method specified in a permit covering that facility;

(2) continuous emissions monitors;

(3) parametric/predictive emissions monitors;

(4)**s~ack** 

### testing supported by engineering calculation based on measured process variables;

(5) emissions related recordkeeping.

### Texas Natural Resource Page 37 Conservation Commission Chapter 116 Control of Air Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Rule Log Number 95144-116-AI
This agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 27, 1995.

# WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONYReference Number W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 W-10 W-11 W-12 W-13 W-14 W-15 W-16 W-17 INDEX OFWRITTEN TESTIMONY Submitted By D. Troy Vickers, Amoco Corporation Keith A. Courtney, Brown McCarroll & Oaks Hartline Jon K. Fisher, Texas Chemical Council Gene Lipnicky, City ofDallas Dael Baughman, Eastman Chemical Company Janet Greenberg, EC-Applied, Inc. Marc N. Phillips, Enron Operations Corp. Jole C. Luehrs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Neil R. Latimer, Exxon Company, U.S.A. Brandt Mannchen, GRASP B.C. Carmine, Houston Lighting & Power Dan F. Hunter, Phillips Petroleum Company Rob Looney, Texas Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Richard L. White, Texas Utilities Services, Inc. John Tuttle R.A. Wozniak, Union Carbide Corporation Kathleen A. Young, Central and South West Services, Inc.713 366 7556 1 NOV 09 '95 03:43PM APC EHS CPT&S),HOU

D. Troy VICkers Deputy Director 

### November9, 1995 via

### FAX 512/239-5687 

### LisaMartin OfficeofPolicy andRegulatoryDevelopment TexasNaturalResource Conservar'·onCommission MailCode202 POBox 13087 Austin,

### Texas 78711-3087 DearMs. Martin: 

# (\ 

# v.
Amoco Corporation EH&S Regulatory Services 580Westlake Park Boulevard Houston, Texas 77079-2696 713-366-7688



### Amoco Corporationonbehalfof**i~s** 

### operatingfacilities 

### inTexasappreciatesthe opportunity

### to comment

### on a..mendfentsto RegulationVIconcerning Controlof

### Air Pollutionby

### PennitsforNew

### ColonorModificationpursuantto Senate

### Billll26. Amocoparticipatedinthe**prepara~ion** 

### ofcommentsbeing submittedby

### theTexas Chemical CoWlcil (fCC) andtheTexasMidContinentOil 

### & GasAssociation (TMOGA). We supportthosecomments. 

## I Inparticular,we

### wishto 

### express

## o~ supportfor defining allowable

### emissions for grandfathered. facilitieswantingtofbecome qualifiedfacilities. Industry has 

### suggesteda 

### definition as 

### follows: themaxim annual

### emissions rate afterthe 

### implementationof any

### airpollutioncontrolmethods becomea qualifiedfacility plus 10%ofthe maximumannual emissionsratepJiiortotheimplementation

### ofsuchcontrolmethods. Webelieve

### this approachisreasonable; 

### itwill provide significantreductions inboth actu8.1 

### andallowable emissions

## wh~leprovidingflexibility tothe 

### grandfatheredfacility to 

### justify

### theimplementationofquali:fying controls. We

### also strong!y supportthe

# ineo~orationofthe"relativelyequivalentcompound" concept. We applaudTNRCC'sinnovativethinkinginthis areaandlookforwardto continuingto 

### workwiththe

# agenlasthisconceptis implemented. We also 

### encourageTNRCCtoke thenotificationforchanges at

### qualifiedfacilities as simple as possible. Amoco supportsthenotificationprocessthathas been

### outlined·inthe TMOGNTCC coinments. 

### Inaddi 'on, webelieve thatthe industry's commentsin

1:\COMMON\MOOU\MOD.DOCI 

### NOV 09 '95 03:43PM APC EHS (PT&S),HOU LisaMartin November9, 10095 

### Page2 P.2/2



### 116.117( e) which allowsTNRCC reissue specialpermitconditionswillprovidethe necessary docwnentationtomainJ'consistency/accuracy inthe

### TNRCC permit 

### program. Finally,

### wewould liketo express o appreciationto the lNRCCstaff

### for working with 

### the regulated communityin

### an open

### forumto implement

### Senate Billll26.

### These discussionsprovidedfor 

### a**bett~r**

### un erstanding ofconcerns 

### andissues. 

### We encourage 

### TNRCCto continuethistype ofpro ess infuture rulemakings. Ifyouhave 

### any questions concemin 

### ourcomments,

### please contact 

### SusanMoore

### at (713) 366-5018.



### D. Troy 

### Vickers SSM!bl

i·\COMMON\MOO"RFIMOD.DOC

# BROWN McCARROLL&

# OAKS HARTLINE 

# 8

Ms. Lisa Martin Attorneys ARegisteredLimitedLialnlityPartnmhipIncludingProfessionalCorporations 1400 Franklin Plaza Ill Congress Avenue Austin, Texas 78701-4043 {512) 472-5456 Fax (512) 479-1101 

### November 9, 1995

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Office ofPolicy and Regulatory Development Mail Code 202 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Re: Rules Tracking Log No. 95144-116-Al; Writer'sDirectNumber: 

### (512) 479-9789

Comments on Proposed Revisions to Chapter 116 to Implement S.B. 1126 Dear Ms. Martin: On behalfofinterested clients, we have enclosed a document containing our suggested revisions, and the bases therefor, to the proposed revisions to Chapter 116 ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ("TNRCC") air quality rules to implement S.B. 1126, which were published in the October 10, 1995 Texas Register. 

### For your information, all language we suggest be added is underlined, while all language we suggest be deleted is indicated by strikeover. Based on our understanding of the TNRCC's desire to limit the rev1s1ons in this rulemaking to those absolutely necessary to implement S.B. 1126, we limited our comments accordingly. However, we believe that, because of this limitation on the scope of this rulemaking, upon adoption oftheserevisions, theundesignatedhead "PermitApplications" under Subchapter B ofChapter 116 will constitute a patchwork ofprovisions that will be confusing to those members ofthe regulated community that do not have historical knowledge regarding the development, and agency interpretation and application of these provisions. For example, although current 

### § 116.116(b)(1) is in the rules to describe when a change constitutes a "modification ofan existing facility" and whatmustbe done upon suchchange,thelanguageused in that provision is not consistent with the statutory definition of "modification of an existing facility" and, as a result, often raises interpretational issues when a company desires to make a change at an existing facility. Accordingly, we request and recommend that in the preamble to the adopted rules, the TNRCC commit to reopen this undesignated head in Subchapter B of Chapter 116 for whatever reorganization and redrafting is necessary to render it less ambiguous, more logical, and internally consistent.

Dallas Office: 300Crescent Court· Suire 1400 ·Dallas, Texas 75201-6929 · (214) 999-6100 • Fax (214) 999-6170 Houston Office: 1300Wortham Tower· 2727 Allen Parlway ·Houston, Texas 77019-2100 · (713) 529-3110 ·Fax (713) 525-6295 Long-iew Office: ,220 Energy Centre· I127judson Road· P.O. Box }999 • Longview, Texas 75606-3999 • (903) 236-9800 • Fax (903) 236-8787

### Ms. Lisa Martin Page 2 November 9, 1995
Thank you very much for the opportunity to present our comments on these proposed revisions on behalfofinterested clients. Ifyou have any questions, please call.

KAC/dr 

### Enclosure L:\DOCS\PUBLICICOURTNEK\WORK\243432.1 

### Sincerely,

# 'UiAa.~ Keith A. 

### Courtney

_

### COMMENTS TO PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 116 TO IMPLEMENT S.B. 1126

PROPOSED SECTION COMMENTS § 116.10

- "Actual emission Suggested revisions: 

### Revise the definition of "Actual rate" emission rate" to read as follows: Actual**emission~--ffite** 

### - For purposes ofthe determination under § 

### 116.116(e)(l) ofthis title, +!he highest annual rate ofemissions ofan air contaminant actually achieved from a qualified facility aehieved within athe 120-month period prior to the change, with the 120-month period shell 

### starting no earlier than January 1, 1990. In determining the annual actual emissions. any consecutive 12-month period during the 120-month period may be used. This rate cannot exceed any applicable federal or state emissions limitation. Basis: 

### The suggested deletion ofthe word "rate" in the term "actual emissions rate" is being suggested to avoid potential confusion and ambiguity since S.B. 1126 and the proposed rules to implement it use the term "actual emissions", not "actual emissions rate". Section 116.116(e)(1) is a new rule section we are recommending be added that will specify the procedure for determining whether the flexibility provided by S.B. 1126 is available. The suggested deletion ofthe word "annual" is to confirm that actual emissions can be short-term (i.e., in pounds per hour), as well as annual. The term "actual emissions" will be used to make determinations under our proposed § 116.116(e)(1) 

### [i.e., used in intraplant trading, as defined in our proposed § 116.116(e)(6)]. In conducting intraplant trading, the time period for actual emissions will have to match that for the allowable emissions for which an intraplant trade is needed at the qualified facility where the change will occur. For example, ifthe qualified facility has allowable emissions stated in terms ofan annual emissions rate, and an intraplant trade ofannual emissions is needed,

### § 116.10

- "Allowable emission rate" it will be necessary to determine the actual annual emissions rate for the other facility(ies) involved in the trade. The other suggested changes to this definition are for clarification purposes. Suggested revisions: Revise the definition of "Allowable emission rate" to read as follows: Allowable**emission~--mte-** 

### ARThe authorized rate of emissions ofan air contaminant from a facility that emits air eoRtamiRaB-tsas determined in accordance with this section. This rate cannot exceed the allowable emissioRs rate specified by any applicable state or federal emissions limitationregula-tiofl other than this chapter. (A) Permitted facility

- i\n 

### allovr-able emissiofl: rate for a permitted facility is an eRforeeableFor a facility with a preconstruction permit under this chapter. the allowable emissions shall be the emission limit established in athe permit on a mwtimum allmvable emissiofls rate tableMAERT, plus any allowable emissions authorized by a standard exemption. (B) Standard exemption facility

- P.dl 

### allowable emissioR ra-te for an eJ£empted faeilityFor a facility operating under a standard exemption. the allowable emissions shall beis the least ofthe**emission~** 

### rate allowed in 

### § 116.211 ofthis title (relating to Standard Exemption List), athe emissions rate specified in the applicable exemption, or a federally enforceable emissions rate established on a PI-8 form.



### 2 ,, 

### .. -·... '·.**·~** . ·.· ... . . .,



### (C) Grandfathered facility

- Aafor a qualified grandfathered facility, the allowable emission§-ffit.e for a EJ:l:lalifiecl granclfatherecl faeility is aB 

### emissioas rate at shall be the maximum capacity according to the physical and operational design. (D) Standard permit facility

- 

### AB allowable emissioa rate fEor a facility authorized by standard permit, other than 

### § 116.617(2) ofthis title (relating to Standard Permits List), the allowable emissions shall beis the maximum emission§ rate represented in the registration for the standard permit. ill} 

### Special exemption facility -For a facility operating under a special exemption. the allowable emissions shall be the emissions rate represented in the original special exemption request. (EE) AftThe allowable**emission~** 

### for a qualified facility shall not be adjusted by the v=oll:lftt:arily iastalliagvoluntary installation ofcontrols shall be the maxiffil:lffl allov,rable emissioa rate prior to the iastallatioa ofthe eoatrols. Basis: Our basis for suggesting that the term "allowable emissions rate" be changed to "allowable emissions" is the same as discussed above in our comments for the term "actual emissions rate". The remainder ofour suggested revisions to this definition are for clarification and internal consistency purposes.

3 ' .. '**~ ~**  ....'..**~** ·.**'~**



### § 116.10

- "Best Available Control Technology"



### § 116.10

- "Grandfathered facility"



### § 116.10- "Maximum allowable emissions rate table"**-~-.** '.- '**~** .. _.;_



### Suggested revisions: Revise the definition of "Best Available Control Technology" to read as follows: BACT Best Available Control Technology (BACT)- The control technology or method that is the best available for the reduction in emissions ofan air contaminant, 

### Best Availaele Control Teelmology with consideration giYen teconsidering the technical practicability and the economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating such emissions from the facility. Basis: The proposed definition is circular because it uses the term being defined, "best available control technology", within the definition ofthat term. Our proposed revision actually defines the words "best available control technology", rather than merely restating them in the definition. Suggested revisions: Revise the definition of "Grandfathered facility" to read as follows: Grandfathered facility - A facility for which either construction commenced on or before August 30, 1971, or construction commenced on or before February 29. 1972. if a contract was executed on or before August 30. 1971 for construction to commence on or before February 29. 1972. I 

### Basis: Although this term is used in the proposed revisions to Chapter 116 and is a term ofart used frequently by TNRCC and the regulated community, it is not currently defined in Chapter 116. We believe a definition ofthis term will be helpful to both TNRCC personnel and the regulated community. Suggested revisions: Revise the definition of "Maximum allowable emissions rate table" to read as follows: Maximum allowable emissions rate table CMAERT)- A table included with a preconstruction permit issued under this chapter that containsestaelishing the allowable emission rates included with aestablished by the permit for a facility. Basis: These changes are for clarification purposes only.

4- .·.·



### § 

### 116.10

- "Modification of existing facility" - ,

## ..**·-~·:.,** •.

- ...-...·.**~ ~** ·. •.:

.**~** . ... .

### - '.•., . ...·· ..'..·.·-:
..·...



### Suggested revisions: 

### Revise the definition of "Modification ofexisting facility" to read as follows: Modification ofexisting facility

- Any physical change in, or change in the method ofoperation of, a facility
... does not include: (A) insignificant increases in
... authorized by one or more eeaffiTNRCC exemptions; (B) 

### (C) (D) 

### (E) a physical change in, or ... does not result in the emissions ofany air contaminant
... that the facility:

(F) 

### (i) (ii) 

### uses, regardless ofwhether the facility has received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment or has been exempted pursuant to § 116.211 ofthis title, an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as the BACT, eoa:sideria:g teelmieal**praetieaeil~** 

### aBd eeoa:omie reasoa:aelea:ess, that the eoardTNRCC required or would have required for a facility ofthe same class or type as a condition erofissuing a permit or permit amendment 120 months before the change will occur;

5-·.**.~**

### ..**~ ~:.**  ...



### § 116.10

- "Net increase in allowable emissions"



### § 116.10- "New source" . ·. ·,



### (G) a change in
... annual emission rate ofa flOllutamany air contaminant in excess ofthe volume

. . . is one for which: (i) (ii) Basis: The suggested deletion ofthe words "considering technical practicability and economic reasonableness" in paragraph (E)(ii) is being suggested because those words are already included in the definition ofthe term "BACT" in these proposed rules. The remainder ofthese changes are either for clarification purposes or to ensure that this definition accurately reflects the legislative intent ofS.B. 1126. Suggested revisions: Delete the definition of "Net increase in allowable emissions". Basis: This definition is not necessary since it is incorporated in our proposed 

### § 116.116( e

### )(1). Suggested revisions: Revise the definition of "New source" to read as follows: New sotif'eefacilitv

- Any statioaa:ry sotif'eefacilitv for which either,..the constructionor modifieatioa ofv.thieh is commenced after August 30, 1971**t~** 

### or; construction

. commenced after February 29, 1972, ifa contract was

executed on or before August 30, 1971 for construction to commence on or before Februarv 29, 1972forthose sotif'ees that had eoatraets to start before 1\ugust 30, 1971, hut did aot actual eoastruetioa 

### until after Mareh 1, 1972. Basis: The suggested change ofthe word "source" to "facility" is being suggested because the term "facility", not "source", is used in Chapter 116. The other changes are to make this definition consistent with our proposed definition of "grandfathered facility".

6..·.**~** ._ - : -":

. ..**·~** ·. '.



### § 116.10

- 

### "Non-qualified facility"

§ 116.10

- 

### "Qualified facility" -'-.. ,-..,. ·-_- '

..**~** .. .



### Suggested revisions: 

### Delete the definition of "Nonqualified facility". Basis: 

### Because the provisions that apply only to qualified facilities are clearly identified in the rules, this term is unnecessary. Referring to some facilities as "non-qualified" may tend to have adverse connotations that should be avoided. Suggested revisions: 

### Revise the definition of "Qualified facility" to read as follows: Qualified facility

- An 

### existing facility that satisfies the criteria ofeither subsection CE)(i) 

### or CE)(ii) 

### under the definition of "modification ofexisting facility" in this sectionhas reeeiYed a permit or has been**e~{e1Hj3ted** 

### pursuaRt to 8ubehapter C ofthis ehapter (relating to Permit E:Ke1Hj3tions) no earlier than 120 

### months prior to a ehaage in that faeility; or, that uses an air pollution eontrol method that is at least as effeetive as BACT that wot1ld hEP1e been reql:lired fur the same type offaeility that reeeived a permit no earlier than 120 

### months prior to a physieal or operational ehange to the faeility. Ifa faeility adds eontrols to beeome a qt1alified faeility, those eontrols HTUst meet el:lffent BACT reqHirements. Basis: 

### These revisions are being recommended to avoid internal inconsistency and ambiguity in the rules. The criteria to be a qualified facility are provided in S.B. 1126 

### and restated in the proposed regulatory definition of "modification ofexisting facility". The proposed definition of "qualified facility", on the other hand, contains language that is significantly different from the language in S.B. 1126 

### and in the regulatory definition of "modification ofexisting facility", and, furthermore, provides no additional clarification ofthe meaning ofthe term.

7 ... ·:.

### § 

### 116.10

- "Relatively equivalent compound"

§ 116.10



### § 116.116 Suggested revisions: Revise the definition of "Relatively equivalent compound" to read as follows: Relatively equivalent compound - A compound that f.s....ffi 

### the same groupiag d\:le to similar characteristics aad effects as speeifiedmay be interchanged with other compounds in a manner approved by the executive director ofthe TNRCC based on relative characteristics and effects. Basis: The suggested revisions are to make this definition consistent with our proposed § 

### 116.116(e)(2). Suggested additions: Add the statutory definitions ofthe terms "facility" and "source" from § 382.003 ofthe Texas Clean Air Act. Basis: The term "facility" is one ofthe basic terms in the Chapter 116 permitting scheme. The term "source" is used in the statutory definition ofthe term "facility". Suggested revisions: Revise the title of § 116.116 to read as follows: § 116.116. Ameadmeats a:H:d AlteratioasChanges to Facilities Basis: This change is to make this title consistent with the provisions in § 116.116.

8 - . . ;.

### § 116.116(b)

§ 116.116(c) ..**~.** · ...'"'·:·
. . .**:_~·~:.·.·.::,:··~**..**~.'.** · ..··.· .**.~** ·:'**~**

### · .. ,· •'.. . -

## . . - -_.-.**~·.__.** ·..: :



### Suggested revisions: 

### Revise § 116.116(b) to read as follows: (b) Permit amendments. (1) Per fteft ql:lalified faeilities, itit shall be unlawful for any person to vary from any representation or permit condition ifthe change will cause a change in the method of control ofemissions, the character ofthe emissions, or will result in an increase in the discharge ofthe various emissions, unless

... to General Application). (2) Fer ql:lalified faeilities
. . . te Gefteral A 

### I" . ) nf!f! 

### Ieatleft
. Basis: 

### The deletion ofproposed § 116.116(b)(2) is due to our proposed inclusion ofthe substantive portions ofthis provision in § 116.116(e). Comment: It 

### is our understanding that the addition of paragraph (C) to§ 116.116(c)(1) is to clarify that a permit alteration may be used to decrease the allowable emissions ofan air contaminant from a facility for use in an intraplant trade under our proposed§ 116.116(e)(1). We recommend that the preamble to the adopted rules clarify that a permit alteration is merely one means to decrease the allowable emissions for use in intraplant trading, and that another means is the notification required under our proposed § 116.117(b)(2) or (b)(3). The inclusion ofa decrease in allowable emissions in the notification under § 116.117(b)(2) or (b)(3) will make the decrease in emissions enforceable, because it will become a condition to being able to make a change to a qualified facility under our proposed § 116.116(e).

9

### § 116.116(d) . -·

.. ·.-.·.· .

### .-.· ··,.··· .:;_··.-. ·.-· .,. . .....**~** ....



### Suggested revisions: Revise § 116.116( d) to read as follows: (d) Standard exemption in lieu ofpermit amendment or alteration. Notwithstanding any other subsections (a), (e), or (e) ofthis section, no permit amendment or alteration is required
... is amended or renewed. Basis: These changes are recommended to clarify the intent, simplify the language, and make the subsection consistent with other changes we are recommending to this section.

-

10 · ... ·. •' .

### § 116.116(e) Suggested revisions: 

### Add a new § 116.116(e) to read as follows: 

### ,UU Changes to Qualified Facilities. Notwithstanding any other subsection ofthis section. a physical or operational change may be made to a qualified facility ifthe change does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions ofany air contaminant and does not result in the emissions of any air contaminant not previously authorized to be emitted. 

## ill In determining whether a change to a qualified facility results in a net increase in allowable emissions or in the emissions of any air contaminant not previously authorized to be emitted, the effect on emissions ofthe following shall be considered: .(Al 

### any air pollution control method applied to the qualified facility, ill} 

### any decreases in allowable emissions from other qualified facilities at the same TNRCC air quality account number that have received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment no earlier than 120 months before the change will occur, and 

### lQ. any decreases in actual emissions from other qualified facilities at the same TNRCC air quality account number other than qualified facilities included in subparagraph (B) 

### ofthis paragraph.

11

## ill In making the determination under paragraph (1) 

### ofthis subsection, relatively equivalent compounds may be interchanged in a manner approved by the executive director of TNRCC based on relative characteristics and effects. 

## ill Persons making changes to qualified facilities under this subsection shall comply with the applicable requirements of § 

### 116.117 ofthis title (relating to Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities) and 

### § 116.118 ofthis title (relating to Pre-Change Qualification). 

## ill As used in this subsection, the term "physical and operational changes" does not include: 

## ill. construction ofa new facility, or (ill 

### changes to procedures regarding monitoring, determination of emissions, and recordkeeping that are required by a permit. 

## ill Ifany additional air pollution control method(s) is implemented so that a facility will 

### be a qualified facility, such additional control method(s) shall be at least as effective as the BACT required at the time the additional control method(s) is implemented. The implementation ofany additional control method(s) shall be subject to the requirements ofthis chapter.

12

### @ 

### Intraplant trading. For purnoses ofthis subsection and § 

### 116.117 ofthis title. the consideration ofdecreases in allowable and actual emissions from any other qualified facility(ies) at a plant site in accordance with paragraph (1) ofthis subsection shall be referred to as "intraplant trading". The decreases in allowable and actual emissions shall be based on emission rates for the same time periods (e.g., hourly and annual rates) as the allowable emissions for the facility at which the change will occur and for which an intraplant tnide is desired. Actual emissions shall be based on data that is representative ofthe emissions actually achieved from a facility during the relevant time period (e.g., hourly or annual rate). Intraplant trading shall establish new allowable emissions for the other qualified facility(ies) involved in the trading. Basis: 

### Our proposed § 116.116(e) consolidates into one location in the rules the principal provisions ofS.B. 1126 and implements the legislative intent ofS.B. 1126 that physical and operational changes that satisfy the criteria contained in S.B. 1126 are not subject to the requirements to obtain a permit amendment, permit alteration, standard exemption, or any other approval. This subsection tracks the language and/or legislative intent ofS.B. 1126. With respect to paragraph (2), 

### which incorporates the concept of "relatively equivalent compounds" into the determination ofwhether a change results in a net increase in allowable emissions or in the emissions ofany new air contaminant, we recommend that in the preamble to the final rule, the TNRCC state that what constitutes the interchange ofrelatively equivalent compounds "in a manner approved by the executive director ofthe TNRCC" will be specified in a TNRCC guidance document. The language in paragraph (5) is our proposed revised version ofthe language in proposed § 116.118(c). We are suggesting this relocation ofthe language in 

### § 116.118(c) because this section specifically deals with changes to qualified facilities. 13

### Paragraph (6) is to create and define a term, "intraplant trading", to describe the netting ofallowable emissions under our proposed § 116.116(e)(1). The basis for our suggested use ofthe terminology "air contaminant not previously authorized to be emitted" (rather than "air contaminant not previously emitted") in § 116.116(e) and ( e)(I) 

### is as follows. Some "non-flexible permits" (i.e., permits providing operational flexibility that were issued before the flexible permits rules were promulgated) include allowable emission rates to authorize the emissions ofair contaminants that were not be emitted upon issuance ofthe permit, but may be emitted in the future. Ifa change is proposed for a facility covered by such a permit before such an air contaminant was actually emitted, based on a strict interpretation ofthe language "air contaminant not previously emitted", the change may require a permit amendment, even though the permit currently authorizes the air contaminant to be emitted. This could prevent the holders of "non-flexible permits" from being able to use the operational flexibility they obtained when the permit was issued. Our suggested inclusion ofthe language "authorized to be" would clarify that a physical or operational change that will result in the emissions ofany air contaminant that is authorized by the inclusion ofan allowable emission rate for that contaminant in the MAER T will not be a modification and, therefore, will not require permit amendment, even ifthe air contaminant has not actually been emitted previously.

14

### § 

### 116.117 Suggested revisions: Revise § 

### 116.117 to read as follows: § 

### 116.117. Documentation and Notification ferofChanges atto Qualified Facilities (a) All qaalifieel facilities shall maiFJ:taiR elocumeB:tatioR at the plant site sapportiB:g thatPersons making physical or operational changes to qualified facilities under the provisions of§ 116.116(e) ofthis title (relating to Changes to Qualified Facilities) shall maintain documentation at the plant site are exclaeleel from permittiB:gdemonstrating that the changes satisfy the requirements ofthat subsectionper 

### § 116.116(b)(2) ofthis title (relatiB:g to AmeB:elmeflts and AlteratioB:s). This documentation shall include (1) 

### a description ofthe physical or operational change, (2) a description of any equipment being installed, (3) 

### qualification of the net increase in allowable emissions (including all allowable emission§ increases and decreasesl assoeiated 'Nith that will result from the physical or operational change, a descriptioB: ofthe physical or operatioB:al chaRge, a descriptioB: ofany eqaipmeflt beiB:g iB:stalled (4) sufficient information as may be B:eeessary to demonstrate that the project will comply with the Federal Clean Air Act Title I,
... Parts C and D;
... aB:dThis documentation shall be made available to (TNRCC) upon request. .(Q). 

### In addition to the documentation requirements under subsection (a). persons making physical or operational changes to qualified facilities shall comply with the following notification requirements:

15

## ill Annual report. For any physical or operational change to a qualified facility for which there is no intraplant trading in accordance with§ 116.116(e)(l) ofthis title, no notification to TNRCC is required prior to making the change. Instead, an annual report shall be submitted to the appropriate TNRCC regional office by August 1 ofeach year which shall include all such changes during the immediately preceding annual period July 1 through June 30, except such changes that are incorporated into the permit for the facility by the August 1 due date. The annual report shall contain the information required by a PI-E form. The due date of the annual report and the annual reporting period for a TNRCC air quality account may be changed with the agreement ofthe TNRCC regional office. 

## ill Post-change notification. For any physical or operational change to a qualified facility for which there is intraplant trading in accordance with § 

### 116.116(e)(l), and such intraplant trading is below the limits approved by the executive director of TNRCC. notification ofthe change shall be submitted on a PI-E form to the TNRCC office in Austin within 30 days after such change occurs. 

## ill Pre-change notification. For any physical or operational change to a qualified facility for which there is intraplant trading under § 116.116(e)(l), and such intraplant trading is above the limits approved by the executive director ofTNRCC, notification ofthe change shall be submitted on a PI-E form to the TNRCC office in Austin before the change may occur. The change may occur after the receipt ofwritten notification from TNRCCthat there are no objections. or 45 days after the notification is received by TNRCC, whichever occurs first.

16

### (b)**~lo** 

### aotificatioa is req1:1ireel
. . . A1:1g1:1st 1st ofeach year, 

### (1) Best Available Coatrol
... ofthe TNRCC; (2) the facility has
. . . gooel eagiaeeriag praetiees, ana (3) the change iB:YOh'es
. . . emissioas betvli!ea facilities. (e) Pre ehange aotifieatios:
... ofthe TNRCC. (el) Post ehange aotifieatioa
... ofthe TNRCC.
(e£) 

### For any qualified facility that has received a preconstruction permit.**A~ll** 

### Stteh-changes that are made under § 

### 116.116(e) to a permitteel facility shall be incorporated into that faeility'sthe permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed. For such changes that involve a special permit condition, TNRCC may reissue the special permit condition to maintain consistency with changes as documented in the notification under subsection (b) ofthis section. (fQ) 

### Nothing in this
... any federal requirements. Basis: The changes to proposed 

### § 116.117 are being suggested for clarification and organizational purposes.

17

### § 116.118 

### Suggested revisions: Revise 

### § 116.118 to read as follows: 

### § 116.118. Qaalifiecl FaeilitiesPre-Change Qualification (a) Ifeither ofthe following conditions exists. it will be necessary Ia orderto establish that tfte£! 

### facility is £! 

### qualified facility before a physical or operational change may be made under the notification procedure of § 

### 116.117 ofthis title (relating to Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities), pre change aotifieatioa Oft 

### a PI 

### B form shall he su-Bmitted to the TeJtas ·Natural Resource ConserYation-Commission (11'1RCC) by certified m:ail prior to the physical or operatioaal change ia the followiag eases: (1) the facility is a qualified facility on the basis ofBACT, and the Best Availahle Coatrol Technology (BACTj requirement for the**facility~** 

### has not been previously established by the executive director ofthe 1NRCC; or (2) The facility does not have 

### aa allowable**emission~** rate 

### established for each air contaminant affected by the change in a MAERT. PI-8 form, or PI-E form or the allowahle em:issioa rate is iaaeeurate. (b) The pre-change qualification shall be made by submitting a PI-E form to the 1NRCC office in Austin. The facility shall be deemed qualified in accordance with the PI-E form physical or operatioaal change m:ay he macle afterupon receipt ofwritten notification from the 1NRCC that there are no objections, or 45 

### days after the PI-E form is receivedreceipt by the 1NRCCofthe registration for the ehaage, whichever occurs first. =Ffti.s 

### aotifieatioaThe pre-change qualification may be

18L:\DOCS\PUBLiaCOURTNEK\WORK\243356.1 

### submitted at the same time as athe pre-change notification required under § 116.117(eQ) ofthis title (relatiH:g to }(otifieatioa for Changes at Qaa-lified Faeilities) or at any other time prior to making a physical or operational change to thea qualified facility. (e) Ifiastalliag eofttrols to beeome a qaa-lified faeility, the faeility mast iastall BACT and the allo·uable emissioa rate for the faeility shall be the mB*imum potefttial emissioa rate after the iastallatioa of eoatrols. Ifotherwise reqaired,**aathori~atioa** 

### ooder this ehapter shall be obtaiaed prior to iastallatioa of these eofttrols. Basis: The language in proposed § 116.118( c) has been moved to our proposed § 116.116(e)(5). All other suggested changes to proposed § 116.118 are for clarification or organizational purposes only.

19

# GG 1402 Nueces Street • Austin, Texas 78701-1534 • (512) 477-4465 • Fax (512) 477-5387



### November 8, 1995

Ms. Lisa Martin Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Office of Policy and Regulatory Development Mail Code 202 P. 

## o. Box 13087 Austin, Tx 78711-3087 COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 T.A.C. CHAPTER 116 REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 1126
Dear Ms. Martin: Texas Chemical Council (TCC) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the subject rule proposal. TCC concurs with the comments submitted by Texas Mid-Continent Oil 

### & Gas Association {TMOGA). TCC members represent a major component of the manufacturing sector in Texas. The chemical industry results in the employment of more than 450,000 Texans, with a total annual payroll of more than $15 billion. The chemical industry has invested more than $40 billion in Texas production facilities. The Texas chemical industry generates one-quarter of the state's manufacturing value added, and accounts for a similar percentage of manufacturing shipments. TCC strongly supports the general intent and many of the specific provisions of the proposed rules to implement Senate Bill 1126, which was enacted by the 1995 Texas Legislature and became effective on May 19, 1995. The majority of the comments are intended to clarify the regulatory intent and, in some cases, correctly implement the legislative intent of Senate Bill 1126. We encourage TNRCC to incorporate these recommended changes into the adopted rule. The clear intent of the legislature in enacting Senate Bill 1126 was to provide much greater operating flexibility to certain facilities. Specifically, facilities that satisfy the qualifying criteria of either a fairly recent air permit or the use of fairly current air pollution control methods would be allowed to make physical and operational changes without any requirement to obtain

CQ PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER**'6~**

### a permit or other approval from TNRCC. These "qualified facilities" would be allowed to respond more quickly to changing conditions without the delay of the permitting process, while all other facilities would remain subject to the current permitting requirements. In addition to the benefits to the owners and operators of these facilities, this flexibility would provide an incentive for persons to voluntarily upgrade the control methods on older facilities and would allow the TNRCC to more effectively use its resources. We strongly encourage TNRCC to keep this legislative intent in mind as it develops the adopted rule. We wish to express our appreciation to the TNRCC staff who have worked with the regulated community in developing these proposed rules." This process has allowed an open forum to address the details in implementing the statute. We feel that the cooperative attitude exhibited by the staff in understanding our concerns, and what we hope was our cooperative attitude in understanding TNRCC's concerns, will result in a better rule. We encourage TNRCC to continue to utilize this process in future rulemakings. Your consideration of the comments submitted by TMOGA is v·ery much appreciated. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Steve Knis of Dow North America (409/238-7976).

isher Vice President, Research

# I

CITY OF DALLAS 

### November 3, 1995 Lisa Martin Office of**~olicy** 

### and Regulatory Development Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission MC205 

### P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Re: Proposed Regulation,. Log No. 95144-166-AI Dear Ms. Martin: The City of Dallas Air Pollution Control Section has reviewed the proposed revisions to Regulation VI. We believe that the TNRCC is attempting to make the best of a very. sensitive situation. However, the resulting regulation, as it 

### applies to modifications, will be difficult to understand. 116.10 

### Allowable Emission Ratei (A) The TNRCC has traditionally not included speciated contaminants in the**~~RT.** 

### This proposed regulation change appears, to reduce agency awareness of emission changes on a timely basis. The proposed regulation also introduces the term 11

### relative equivalent compound". With this in mind we strongly suggest that speciated pollutants be included; at least the most critical compound(s) as they would relates to an ESL. (C) The wording of this subparagraph is somewhat generalized, and is not clear whether it is intended to include control equipment. 116.10 Modification of Existing Facility We have a serious concern with the definition of "Modification of Existing Facility". The concern is how the term n 

### insignificant increases
.. could be interpreted under various sceneries, especially as they may apply to toxic emissions. A partial solution would be to include allowable emission rates of candidate speciated compounds in the MAERT for permitted facilities and apply Standard Exemption 116 requirements in other cases when possible.Nov. 3 '95 15:28 DALLAS 0 C M C TEL 2149484412 

# I

November 3, 1995 Lisa Martin Page 2 116.10: Relative Eguivalent Compound; What does the term "similar characteristics" signify? There are numerous physical and chemical properties for compounds. A few of these properties could be very significant to somewhat significant depending upon the system process and state(s) the compound undergoes. For example, a heavy solid compound is processed at ambient temperature with a sublimination rate as the only**po~ential** 

### for emissions, whereas in a different process the same compound is boiled at a high temperature resulting in a very high evaporation rate. Thus extreme care should be exercised before any grouping is attempted by the TNRCC. 116.ll7(b) & 

### {c): It is not absolutely clear that the notification referred to in subparagraphs (b) 

### & {c) are one and the same. If not, then the term 11

### notification 11 

### should be clarified in subparagraph (b)
. On the other hand, if we are referring to the same notification; rule 116.117 could be somewhat improved if_ the order of subparagraphs (b) & 

### {c) are reversed. As proposed, subparagraph (b) exerr,pts notification requirements before the notification requirements are addressed in subparagraph (c}
. 116.117 (b) : The proposed rules are expected to place an additional burden of our field investigation activities. Any significant facility/operational changes should be available on a timely basis. If change notifications are exempted via the use of an annual report, then the report should be due at a date earlier than August 1. We cannot envision any company requiring seven (7) months to produce this type of report. A deadline of July 1 offers more than ample time to prepare and in all probability could be produced earlier. 116.117 (b) & 

### (c) : The local agencies should also be notified because of our enforcement responsibilities. We would not require notification by certified mail as specified in subparagraph (c)
. Also see 116.118(a). 116.ll7(d): Include a copy to the local agency. 116.118 {a): Notifying local agency (see 116.117 (b) 

### & (c)). l16.118(b): The two sentences of this rule do not appear to follow a chronological sequence, and may be clarified if their order is reversed. P. 3Nov. 3 '95 15:29



### November 3, 1995 Lisa Martin Page 3 DALLAS 0 C M C TEL 2149484412



### 116.118 (b) : 

### (second sentence) If 11

### This notification" is not the same notification as the notification required under 116.ll?(c) (relating to Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities), then what is "this notification" and what is 

### its purpose. Note that the term "Changes at Qualified Facilitiesn does not appear in rule 116.11?{c). Proposed rules 116.117 and 116.118 are most confusing and should be clarified. 116.119 We would request that any information demonstrating compliance with allowable emission rates would also be sent to the local agency. The City of Dallas appreciates the opportunity of addressing the proposed regulation, even with the concerns and complexities associated with these issues. Sincerely,

# ~ 

# .p,,.___-; Q. Gene

# Lipili~;**-"'V'"~** Air Pollution Control Engineer Air Pollution Control Section dj P. 4. NOV 09 '95 03:39PM 

### P.2



## . 

# EASTMAN Eastman Division P.O. Box7444 Longview. Texas 75607-7444 

### Eastman Chemical Company November 9, 1995 

### •

CERTIFIEDMAIL-RETURNRECEIPTREQVESTED 

### Ms. LisaMartin OfficeofPolicyandRegulatoryDevelopment Texas Natural Resource Conservation Conunission Mail 

### Code 202 

### P. 0.Box 13087 

### Austin, Texas 78711-7087 Phona: (903) 237·5000



### Re: ProposedChangesto Regulation

### VIImplementing Senate

### Bill1126(Rules

### Tracking Log#95144-116-AI) DearMs. Martin: Texas Eastman Division, Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman) is amanufacturerofchemicals andplastics and operates facilities in Harrison and Smith counties. We frequently apply for permits for new construction andmodification, andhave a significantinterestin

### the proposed rule changes implementing SenateBillll26,

### as published in

### the October 10, 1995,Texas Register. Eastmanbelieves the incorporation ofSenateBi111126 into RegulationVI will allow many insignificantprocess changes to bypasstheresource intensive case-by-casenew sourcereview process in

### the future. Hitherto, thereview oftheseinsignificantchanges 

### has only servedto divertvaluable industry andTNRCCresources from the documentation andreview offacility modificationswithmorepotential environmental impact. However, we do have several concerns withthe Texas Registerproposal as notedinthe following comments. Definition ofActualEmission Rate 

### 1. 

### The January 1, 1990, restriction in determining actualemissions fromfacilities with no permittedallowable emission rate shouldbe deleted. 

### Many companies implementedvoluntary emission controlsbetween 1986 and 1990. Credit
·forthese voluntary control projects should notbelostwhen creditcan still betakenfor

vohmtary emissionreduction projectsthatothercompanies delayeduntil after 1990. It wouldbe unfairto penalize those companies who implementedvoluntary controls early.

OStiASTARWORKBn'E TEXoU lAnMANDIVISION

### NOV 09 '95 03:40PM 

### Ms. LisaMartin Page2 November9, 

### 1995 P.3



## Thepreamble to theproposedregulatory changes states "Thepurpose

## ofthisrestriction is 

## to ensurethe ability ofthepermitting 

### system to

### protectpublic health 

### in the early years of the newexemptions.,The inclusionofemissionrates occurringbetween 1986 and 1990 in the determinationofactual emissions will notaffectpublichealth

### any differentlythan only including emissionrates thatoccurred after 1990. All 

### qualifiedfacilities in eithertime period mustbe equippedwith

### BACT. Therefore, the only emissionreduction credits that 

### will be generated 

### are thoseresulting from the voluntary installation ofemissioncontrols that are

### beyond

### BACT (whetherbefore or after 1990). 2. 

### Eastmansupports the use of aJ20·month window fordetermining actual emissionsfrom qualified facilities with nopermittedallowable emission rate. The

### flexible 120·monthwindow will allow the 

### owner oroperatorto use atrue representationofthe maximum emissionrate from the facility in determining emission 'reductions. The 120-monthwindow also incorporates the spirit ofthe proposed changes to theEPANew Source Review andPSD regulations. The proposed changesto the EPA permittingprograms allowthe use of

### any two years ofactual emissions datawithinthe 

### last tenyears 

### indetermining actual

### emissionrates. We encourage the 

### 1NRCCto incorporate this type offlexibility in future regulations when applicable. Definition of

### Modification o.fan 

### ExistingFacilizy 3. 

### Emission increasesauthorizedusingstandardexemptions are no longerdefinedas modifications. However, this change has notbeen updatedthroughoutRegulation VI 

### Insignificantincreases 

### inthe amountofany air contaminantemitted

### that is authorizedby oneormoreboardexemptions are no longerconsideredamodification as notedinthe definitionofa modification

### of existing facility

### in §

### 116.10. However, elsewhere in 

### RegulationVI, changes authorizedusing standard exemptions continuetobe referred to as modifications. Forexample, §

### 116.11O(a) requires pennitor standard exemption authorization ifa modification occurs, as 

### follows: · "Any

### person who plans to constructanynew facility orto engage inthe modification ofany existingfacility whichmayemit air 

### contaminants intothe airofthis state shall obtain apermit.
..or satisfYthe conditions for exempt facilities
...before any actual workis begun on the facility." 

## Also.paragraph (G)(i) ofthe proposed definitionof

### modification in §

### 116.10 refers to modifications that "haveoccurredonlypursuantto standardexemptions". These and any otherreferences to 

### modification in RegulationVI needto be changedto reflect the new definitionwhichno longerincludes changes authorizedusing standard exemptions.

### NOV 09 '95 03:40PM 

### Ms. Lisa

### Martin Page 3 November9, 1995 P.4



### , 4. 

### The definition of modificationshouldbe changedso thatan increase in the hours of operationatapermittedorexempted facility wouldnotbe consideredamodification if 

### the additionaloperating time waspreviouslyauthorized. As currentlywritten, the defmitionof

### modification does notinclude "anincrease inthe annualhours ofoperationunless the facility has received apreconstructionpermit orhas beenexempted
...". As

### aresult, anincrease inthehours ofoperation at apermittedor exempted facility wouldbe considered amodificationeven ifthe additional operating time was already authorizedbythepennitorexemption. Insteadithe definition of

### modification shouldbechangedto notinclude "anincrease in

### the annual hours ofoperationunless a limitation in

### anexistingpreconstructionpermitorexemption will

### be exceeded.'' 5. 

### The emission of anew compoundwouldbe

### consideredamodification even**ifth~** 

### emissio7l3 of a relatively equivalentcompoundwere reducedbyagreateramount. As written, the definition of

### modification does notinclude "aphysical change in, orchange 

### inthe method ofoperationof, afacility thatdoes notresult inanetincrease inallowable emissions ofany ail' 

### contaminant andthatdoes notresultinthe emissions ofany air contaminantnotpreviouslyemitted
...". However, according to the draftTNRCC guidance documentthatwill be usedto assist inthe implementation ofSenateBill 1126. emissionofanew aircontaminantto the atmosphere is allowedifthe emissions ofa relativelyequivalentcompound are reducedby agreateramount. The definition of

### modification shouldbe modified for clarification. Forexample, the exemption couldbe changedto "aphysical change in, 

### orchange inthe methodofoperation of, afacility thatdoes notresult in anetincrease inallowable emissions ofanyair 

### contaminant andthatdoes notresult inthe emissions of

### any air

### contaminantnotpreviously emitted, otherthan arelativelyequivalentcompound." 6. 

### A facility thathas undergone aBACTreviewaspartof aspecialexemption authorization within the last 120monthsmustbe

### consideredaqualified facility. Afacility is considered aqualifiedfacility if

### ithas undergone any BACTreview withinthe last 120months. However, the currentdefinitions of

### modification of an existing facility and of

### qualified facility onlyreference afacility 

### ifit "hasreceivedapreconstructionpermit orpennitamendment orhas been exemptedpursuantto §

### 116.211 ofthis title
...noearlier than 120monthsprior to

### achangeinthat facility". Thesereferences do not include special exemptions as a suitable fonn ofauthorization andBACTreview. Special exemptions shouldbe 

### specifically listed in both

### definitions, and otherforms ofauthorizationsuch as standardpermits, specialpennits 1

### etc. should also be 

### listedfor clarification.

### NOV 09 '95 03:41PM 

### Ms. Lisa

### Martin Page4 

### November 9, 1995 P.S



### 1. Apermitamendment

## oralterationshould

### notbe required for any type of change thatdoes notqualifyas amodification to an existing facility. As 

### notedin§116.116(d), "nopennit amendmentoralterationis requiredifthechanges to thepennittedfacility qualify.for an exemption
...**~~.** 

### However, this section should exempt otherchanges that are not consideredmodifications. Therefore §116.116( d) should

## be changedtoread: ccsituations when 

### apennitamendment

### or

### alterationis not

### required. Stanelftfl4 exemptiee 

### inliet1 efpermitftll't:ertameftteralteratiea. Notwithstandinganyother subsections (a),**(a~.** 

### er(e) ofthis 

### section, no 

### pennitamendment oralteration is required 

### ifthe changes to thepermitted facility do not quality as amodification to an existing facility. 

### as definedin Subcha;pterA ofthis chapterql:l-S:lifyfer aa exemptiOft ttntler 

### Sl:lbehapterCoftfiis 

### ehapter (relatm;te

### PermitExemptie11s) unless

### -prohibited bypermitcondition as provided in §

### 116.11

### Softhistitle (relating to 

### Special Conditions). All suchexemptee changes affecting emissionrates fromto 

### apermitted facility shallbe incorporatedintothatfacility's permitat suchtime as the permitis amended orrenewed.•• Definition of

### fJuaUfied Facility 

### 8. EftliSsions reductions resulting from the shutdown ofgrandfatheredfacilitiesandother facilities thathave notundergone aBACTreview within the last 120monthsshouldbe allowedas creditable reductions. The 

### definition ofqualified facility shouldbemodifiedto include all facilities that are shutdown 

### in an enforceable manner. The definition of qualified facility couldbe modified 

### as follows: Qualified 

### facility-Anexisting facility thathas receivedapermitorhas been exempted pursuantto Subchapter Cof this chapter (relating to Permit Exemptions) no earlier than 

### 120monthspriorto a change in that facility; or, that uses an airpollution controlmethodthat is atleastas effective as B.A.CTthatwouldhave been required for the same type of facility that receivedapermitno earlier than 120monthsprior to aphysical or operationalchange to thefacz'lity.· or. thatwas shutdown no earlier than 120

### monthspriarto aphysical qr

### operationalchange tQ. 

### the facilityNOV 09 '95 03:41PM 

## Ms. LisaMartin Page 5 

### November 9, 1995 P.6



### Inotherwords, shutting down afacility shouldbe considered equivalentto

### BACT. Shutting down afacility constitutes 1 00% control. Reg VI would still require thatfacilities experiencing emissions increases during future operationbe equippedwithBACT. The inclusionofemission reductionsresultingfrom shutdowns will provide anincentive for taking older, higher emitting facilities outofoperation. NotificationofChangesto 

### QualifiedFacilities 

### 9. 

### Documentationshouldbe requiredonly for thosephysicaloroperationalchanges which are excluded frompermittingrequirementsper§

### 116.116(b)(2) by remaining below the allowable emissions rate (as notedin the definition of modification of an existingfacility). As 

### stated, §

### 116.117(a)requires documentation for allchanges which do

### not constitute modification ofan existingfacility; includingmaintenance and replacement ofequipment(e.g. replacement ofa single valve), an increase in

### the annualhours ofoperation, andthe use ofStandardExemptions (forwhich documentationis already required in

### orderto incorporate suchchanges intopermits during amendments andrenewals). The wording in

### this section shouldbemodified accordingly to implementthe intentofSenateBill 1126 and exclude these other types ofchanges from additionalrecordkeeping.
_) 

### 10. Documentation requiredto be maintainedattheplantsiteshouldonly include that information relevantandnecessary to demonstrate exclusion.from §ll6.116(b)(2) 

### permittingrequirements.

§

### 116.117(a) lists documentationrequired to bemaintainedattheplantsite including a "quantificationofallemissionincreases and decreases
...and adescription of anyequipmentbeing installed." This wording needs to berevisedto clarifythat only relevantinfonnationneeds to 

### be retained. For aMAERTtobe considered accurate, §116.117(b)(2)

### requires allemission pointsto be identified, and all air

### contaminants afl'ected by

### the changetobe represented. To 

### clarifythe intentofthisparagraphthe wording forthe first requirement shouldbe revisedto complimentthatforthe secondrequirement and read "allemissionpoints affectedby

### the changehavebeen identified." 11. 

### For changes atqualified facilities thatdo notrequire notification when the change is made, on-site recordkeeping is solelyadequate to demonstrate environmental compliance. An annualreportsummarizing each change is not justified for such insignificantemission rate changes.NOV 09 '95 03:42PM 

### Ms. LisaMartin Page 6 November 9, 

### 1995

§

### 116.117(b)requires affected facilities to submit an

### annual reportfor all changes whichmeet 

### agiven criteria. According to 

### SenateBi111126, changes as identified by

## this criteria

## are not evenconsidered "modifications" due to

### theirinsignificantor previously authorized emissions. Such changes are comparable to maintenance and replacement ofequipment, 

## anincrease inthe

## annual hours ofoperation, and theuse ofStandardExemptions (forwhichnotificationrequirements have already been identified on 

### a**case~**

### by-case basis in

### the appropriate exemptions). Also, 

### these changeswill be

### rolled into the permit at the nexttime the pennitis 

### amended or renewed. As aresult, the annual notification requirement shouldbe

### removedfrom RegulationVI. 

### 12. The criteriafor changes atqualified facilities which do notrequire notiflcation when the change is made shouldbe expandedto include changes which involve

_ tradingof emissions between facilities with "relatively equivalentlocations,"and those which ventthrough a common ventsystem. §

### 116.117(b)(3) excludes from notification only those changes which do not involve trading 

### ofemissionsbetweenfacilities. The

### purpose ofthis 

### condition is to eliminate any net effect on off-site emission impacts. However, emissionnetting between facilities 

### in closeproximityto each other(e.g. less 

### than

### 25 feet), 

### andthose from facilities which share acommonvent system, will nothave a significant affect on**off~**

### site emissions impacts. The wording inthis section shouldbe modified accordingly to 

### accommodate these scenarioswithout notification. 'I'l\fRCC 

### review ofthese insignificant changes would only clog the systemwithunneeded work. 13. 

### Noticespr9Yided to

### the INRCC 

### should beacceptedby

### means other

### thanjust certified mail. In

### certain situations, there may be aneedto sendnotices viaother suitablemail delivery methods (e.g. Federal Express, UnitedParcel Service, andhandcarried). The wording in §

### 116.117(c) shouldbe modified in order

### to accommodate these othermethods ofdelivery. Referenced Guidancel)ocument P.7



### 14. 

### Eastmanfully supports the consideration of relatively equivalentcompoundsas interchangeable when determining 

## if changes tofacilities willresult in a

### netincrease in 

### emissions.NOV 09 '95 03:42PM 

### Ms. LisaMartin Page 

### 7 November 9, 1995 P.B



### We supporttheproposed changesto RegulationVI thatwill considerrelatively equivalent compounds as interchangeable. We

### will likely submitseparate comments 

### inthe future regarding any methods proposedfor evaluatingthe interchangeability ofonecompoundfor anotherinthe referenced guidance document. Wemay also proposetheuse ofanother methodforevaluating interchangeability thatuses acollocationofimpacts screening approach. This approachyields a slightlymore complex air

### toxics analysis for aparticular change ormodification; however, the result will be an analysis that is notoverly stringent andthatachieves the desiredresultofremoving more insignificantemissions increases fromtheresource intensive case-by-case new sourcereview-process. 15. 

### The guidance documentreferencedin the rule changes, andchanges thereof, should undergopublic reviewandcomment, orataminimum, thepublicshouldbe given adequate noticepriorto changes to the guidance document. Issuingnew TNRCC guidance documents orchanging existing guidance documents withoutnotifyingthe publicofthe changes and makingthe documentreadily available to 

### the public forreview and commentresults ininefficiency andconfusion. Regulated entities can only follow guidance ofwhichthey are aware. Ifchanges are madeto thereferenced guidance documentwithoutinformingthe affectedentities, these companies may rely on inaccurate oroutdated guidance. In some cases, this may result in alot ofwastedtime and effort. Allowingpublicreviewandcommentorprovidingnoticepriorto changing guidance documents wouldeliminate the confusion and inefficiencies associatedwith 

### fluctuating guidance and instantaneous 1NRCCchanges to guidance documents. New ComplianceDemonstrationRequirements 

### 16. 

### Section 116.119restricts compliance demonstrations tojiveacceptable methods. The TNRCCStaff shouldnotuse the implementation of Senate Bil/1126as an opportunityto ltmttthe methods fordemonstrating compliance with all types of authorizations. It

### has 

## always beenunderstoodthatthe 1NRCCcouldrequestademonstration of compliance atany time. However, compliance demonstrations have neverbeen limitedto a listofspecificmethods. TheTNRCC shouldnotusethe implementation ofSB 1126 as 

### an opportunity to restrictcompliance demonstrationsto only five acceptablemethods regardless ofthetype ofauthorization. Ataminimum, asixthoption should

### be addedto §

### 116.119thatwill allow acompliance demonstrationusing "any othermethod of demonstrating compliancethatuses appropriate engineering calculations oranalyses.,NOV 09 '95 03:43PM 

### Ms.LisaMartin 

### Page 8 November 9, 1995

Ifyou

### have 

### any questions regardingthese comments, please callJohnTolleson, P.E. at 

### (903) 237-6128. Very truly

### yours,

# &JtJ~ Dael Baughman, P.E. Manager, Environmental Affairs L025JDT5.rw P.911-08-1995 04:05PM FROM EC-Applied, Inc. 

## EC-Applied, Inc. Environmental Consulting



### November 3, 1995 Ms. Lisa Martin 

### Office ofPolicy and Regulat€>ryDevelopment 

### P.O. Box 

### 13087 Austin. Texas 

### 78711-3087 RE: Rules Tracking 

### Log**#95144·166~AI** 

### Dear Ms. Martin: TO 15122395687 P.02 

# 8

1800 Bering-Suite 200 Houston,**~exes** 770S7**713/977-a7~** [FaxJ 7 3/9n-a797



### This letter presents comments regardjng the proposed revisions to the Chapter 

### 116 rules publishedinthe October 10, 1995,issue ofthe TexasRegister, 

### regardingControlofAi Pollution 

### by Permits or New 

### Construction orModification. I 

### applaud the effort to create groupings of compounds based 

### on similar characte istics and 

### effects. Recent permitting experience with 

### a 

### to11 processing facility. whose fee 

### tocks and products change weekly,**m~de** 

### evident the need for a 

### convenient method fo changing compounds without the need for a 

### permit amendment or even the paperwork of standard exemption. My comments today regard the specific mechanism by 

### which the "relatively equivalent compound" idea 

### will be 

### put into place. 

### It appears that the compou 

### s will be 

### grouped

### by theTNRCC

### staffandpublishedin a

### guidancedocument,withouta

### formal egulatory proposal to allow industry to comment. 

### Jfeel that industry should be given the opp rtunity to comment onthese crucial compound'groupings, as well as on the de minimis level nd impact ratio equ.ation thatwill be 

### used to determine qualified compound trading. H 

### this regulation evolves with**reason~ble** 

### compound groupings and a workable mec anism for implementation, it

### will be a tremend0us step for ensuring the 

### protection ofhuman ealth and the environment, while allowing the regulated community flexibility and a reductio inpermit and exemption filings. · · Sincerely, .LI'm.rn.uplied, 

### Inc.

c:\"fl1'60data\mart.in.ltr

• Air ,• Groundwater

. . WllstJwaMr

.• Solid Waste • ASS$:!;$n'lsnts

. . Permi1ting •. Refr,ediation •

TOTAL P.02

### ...·. ··-··**·-·~.-:--·:.·:** ·. :.·· .... ·.. · .·· __.·.·-· ... _ .........·**~** 

## .....: ... _ -·-**·-·-~** _. NOV 09'95 15:58 FR EOC ENVIRO-SAFETY 713 646 7867 TO 915122395687 P.02/0 

# INRON OPERATIONS CORP.
'P, 0. Bmc 11S8 Haudon, Taltal 77231-1188 (713)**853~161**



### November9, 1995



### Ms. Lisa

### Martin OfficeofPolicy andRegulatory Development TexasNaturalResource ConservationCommission MailCode202, P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

# 8

RE: CommentsonProposedAmendmentsto Chapter 

### 116 to

### ImplementSenate

### Bill 1126,20TexasRegister 8306, October 10, 1995,RulesTrackingLog#95144- 

### 116-AI DearMs.Martin: Thesecommentsarebeing submittedonbehalfofEnron Operations Corporation (Enron). 

### Enronoperates one of

### the largest

### natural gastransmission systems 

### intheworldwith

### 39,000 

### miles ofpipeline 

### inthe

### United States. Enronis thelargestpurchaser

### andmarketeroflongtermnatural gas supplies 

### inNorthAmerica. markets natural gas liquids worldwide, and 

### is oneofthe largestindependentdevelopers andproducers ofelectricityintheworld. Theregulationsproposed

### by the TexasNaturalResource ConservationCommission (TNRCC)to implementtheprovisionsofSenateBill 1126arebeingcodifiedinChapter 

### 116.Enron supportstherecommendations oftheTexasMid-ContinentOil and Gas Association (TMOGA)thatare being submittedconcurrentlyto clarify andrefinethe proposedregulations. 

### Inaddition,EnronbeHevesthattheproposedregulations, 

### in section(G)ofthe "'modification"definition. couldindicate a resolution to the statusof

### natural gas facilities thatare "grandfathcrcd'' (pre-datetheTexasCleanAirAct), as wastheintentofSenate Bill1126. Enronanticipatesthatfurtherrevisionsto Chapter 116 arerequired to clearlyresolvethis

..grandfather" issue. TheTexasTitle VPlanning Committee,ofwhichEnronisa member,hasrecommendedthatthe "grandfather"provisionsincluded in

### Chapter 122 shouldberemoved andaddressed in Chapter 116. This issue should be resolvedin

- separaterulemaking onanexpeditedbasis.

### NOV 09'95 15:58 FR EOC ENVIRO-SAFETY 713 646 7867 TO 915122395687



### EmonappreciatestheopportunitytocommentonTNRCC'sproposedregulations

### to modify Chapter 116.Ifyouhave any questions, pleasecall meat(713) 646-7646. Sincerely.

MarcN.Phillips Regulatory TechnicalAnalysis



## ** TOTAL PAGE.003 

## **NOU-06-1995 16=06 FROM 6 air DALLAS TX. 

### TO 915122395687 P.002/004

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION 

### 6 1445 ROSS AVENUE, SUITE 1200 

### DALLAS, TX 75202-2733



### Ms. Jodena N. Henneke Director 

### NOV 0

# a· 1995

Air Quality and Regulations Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 

# 8

RE: 

### Comments on Proposed Revisions to**30~exas** 

### Administrative code, Chapter 116 

### (Regulation 

## VI) for Control of 

### Air Pollution by 

### Permits for New Construction or Modification, Rule Log 

## Number 95144-116-AI 

### Dear 

## Ms. Henneke: We have reviewed the proposed revisions to Regulation VI which you forwarded to us 

### October 11, 1995. 

### The Texas Natural Resource Conservation commission has proposed to amend Section 116.10, 

### concerning General Definitions and section 116.116, 

### concerning Amendments and Alterations; the repeal of Section 116.117, 

### concerning Distance Limitations; and new section 116.112, 

### concerning Distance Limitations; Section 116.117, 

### concerning Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities; Section 116.118, 

### concerning Qualified Facilities; and Section 116.119 1 

### concerning Demonstrating compliance with Allowable Emission Rate. On 

### the basis of our review of the proposed revisions, we have comments and items of concern which you should address for the public record prior to adoption. our comments 

## and items of concern follow: 1. 

### Page 17, 

### Section 116.10, 

### definition of "net 

### increase in allowable emissions." This definition allows for "up front" netting by allowing a source to use other decreases to offset a proposed increase. If 

### there 

## is no.net increase 

## in allowable emissions, the proposed change is not 

### a modification, and no permit is required. The public record should address the following: A. 

### Creditability criteria for the decreases used to net 

### out of review. The decreases should be enforceable 

### (or verifiable) as a practical matter, not previously relied upon in a Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit or nonattainment permit, and not used in the demonstration of attainment or reasonable further progress in the State Implementation Plan.

R.cyclod/Recyc:lable • Printedllr'itfl·v9Qefablll Oil BasfJdInks on roo" RBCyr;Jed Papsr(40"P()Stooi'ISUITier)**NW-\Ob-l~ lb•~::rr**  t-I"<Uf'l b a1r UHLLH:;:, ll'\. lU



### 2 

### B. The period of time over which the source is to determine the net increase in allowable emissions. The TNRCC should consider a netting window which begins when the source notifies TNRCC of the proposed change and ends when the proposed increase occurs, or another time period that TNRCC determines to be more appropriate. 

# c. Whether the source should include other non-project increases which occur in the netting window. D. That these revisions will not affect applicability of major sources and major**modific~tions** 

### with respect to PSO and the permitting requirements applicable in nonattainment areas. Discussions with the staff of TNRCC indicate that the provisions in proposed Section 116.117(a) and (f) adequately address this concern by ensuring that any project will comply with the Federal Clean Air Act, Title I, Part c {pertaining to PSD) and Part 0 (pertaining to nonattainment areas). The Environmental Protection Agency concurs 

## with TNRCC that this concern is adequately addressed. E. How the proposed change will affect Texas's regulations pertaining to Operating Permits under Title V of the Feaeral Clean Air Act. 2. Page 13, Section 116.10, 

### definition of "allowable emissions," paragraph (E). This paragraph states that for a qualified facility which voluntarily installs emissions control, its allowable emission rate shall be the maximum allowable emission rate prior to the installation of controls. .The public record should address why the allowable emission rate is not the facility's potential to emit after the installation of controls. In addition, 

## if such source retains its old allowable emission rate, the source may not use the reductions to satisfy provisions for netting and offsetting associated with permitting under PSD ana nonattainment area permitting (see 40 Code of Federal Requlations 5l.l66(b) (3}{vi)(b), 51.165(a)(l)(vi)(E) (2), and 40 Code of Federal Regulations 51.165(a)(3)(E)). 3. Page 2, first paragraph. The TNRCC states that it 

### will develop a guidance document concurrently with the proposed rule concerning the identification of relatively equivalent compounds. This guidance will group compounds baaed on similar chemical and effects characteristics. However, TNRCC did not furnish such guidance document with the proposed regulatory changes to Regulation VI. The TNRCC should furnish a proposed guidance document and make it 

### available for public review during the public hearing or address for the public record when the guidance.will be available for public review.
.**:;·,;j~t;·;** 

### .· _

.**·~**·.**~~ ~**  

### ..**~; ~·**  ' : .. 

### ·- /,;,' 

### . "NOV-06-1995 16=07 FROM 6 air DALLAS TX. TO 915122395687 P.004/004



### 3 

### 4. Page 13, section 116.10, definition of "Best Available Control Technology (BACT)." This definition only provides that TNRCC will determine BACT on the basis of the economic reasonableness of reducing 

### or eliminating emissions from the facility. This definition is not consistent with the definition of BACT in section 169(3) 

### of the Federal Clean Air Act and in 40 Code of Federal Regulations 51.166(b)(l2). The TNRCC 

### should consider adopting 

### a definition consistent with the Federal definitions 

## or address in the public record 

## why it is proposing to adopt 

## a different definition 

## and show that the proposed definition is equivalent 

### to the Federal definition. 5. Page 14, Section 116.10, definition 

### of "modification of existing facility." Paragraphs (A) 

### and (B) 

### refer to "insignificant increasesn of emissions. The public record should address what TNRCC considers to be an insignificant increase and the basis for 

### its determination of insignificance. 6. Page 31, Section ll6.117(b) (2). The public record should address any allowable emission rate established 

### in a Maximum Allowable Emission Rate Table is enforceable (or verifiable) as 

### a practical matter. 7. 

### Page 33, 

### Section 116.118(a) (1). The public record should address what is meant by 

### the expression that an "allowable emission rate is inaccurate." Thank you for the opportunity 

### to review and provide comments on these proposed revisions. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Stanley M. 

### Spruiell of my staff at (214) 665-7212. 

### Sincerely yours,

# ~=~~ Chief

_ Air Permits Section bee: Bruce Jones (GRC)

TOTAL P.004

### }rov. 

## 9.1995 11:12AM 

# OPERATIONS INTEGRITY**~N** 

## COMPANY, U.S.A. POSTOFFICE 80X 21tiO • HOUSTON,TEXAS**n252·2~80**

PRODUCTION DEPARTI.IENT



### Ms. Lisa Martin November 9, 1995 

## No. 0379

# ep 2/3 W-9

Proposed Revisions to Definitionsfor Control ofAir Pollution by Permit for New Construction or Modification, 

### 30 TAC 

### 116.10 20Tex Reg 

### 8306, 10/10/95

Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

### Office of Policy and Regulatory Development MC

### 202, P.O. Box 

### 13087 Austin, 

### TX 78711-3087 Re: Rule Tracking Log Number95144-116-AI Dear Ms. Martin: Exxon Company, U.S.A.'s Production Department, a division of Exxon Corporation (Exxon), operates manyoil and gas field production facilities in Texas. As such, some of our production facilities are subjecttothe above captioned rule revisions toTexas Natural Conservation Commission's (TNRCC) Regulation VI, concerning the permitting of sources ofaircontaminants. Exxon Production supports the commentsjointly submitted bythe Texas Midcontinent

### Oil and GasAssociation (TMOGA) and theTexas Chemical Council (TCC). Wewould like to emphasize oursupportforTNRCC's accurate codification ofsection 382.003(9)(G) of Senate Bill 1126 in the definition ofmodification ofan existing facility. This allows an increase in emissions atgrandfathered natural gas processing plants and compressor stations up to the level ofthe maximum designed capacity without being called a modification. Although we understand this rulemaking only intended to address allowable emissions from qualified facilities, Exxon Production urges TNRCC to begin expedited rulemaking as soon as possibleto define allowable emissions from all grandfathered facilities that are not qualified. The outcome ofthis issue will have an impact on theway ourfacilities will betreated underthe operating permits program (Reg XII} and 

### it is imperative thatwork begin soon. In addition, Exxon Production requests the agency to revise Section 116.117(a), regarding Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities, to allow operators to maintain documentation atthe plantsite oratthe nearest manned location ifthe site is unmanned.

,o, DIVISION OF EXXON COP.POF.A TION

## Nov. 9.1995 !1:13AM OPERATIONS INTEGRITY No. 0379 P. 3/3**Ms~**

### Lisa Martin 

### -2- 

### November9, 1995
Exxon appreciatesthe 

### opportunity to

### comment on the 

### proposed revisions and would like to

### express our appreciation tothe

### TNRCC staff

### on the expedited preparation ofthis proposed 

### revision. Sincerely, 

# 0..-.'

# ~**~~** .t...

# ~h.. Neil R. Latimer Environmental Planning Coordinator


### NRUset

# RECE\VED

OFFICE Of POLICY & 

### ENT REGUlATORY oEVELOPM



### Lisa Martin Office of Policy and Regulatory Development MC 202 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Dear Lisa, October 23, 1995

Enclosed are the comments of the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GRASP) on changes to Regulation VI 

### due to Senate Rill 1126. 1) 

### Under 116.10, for the definition of emission rate we are against allowing the highest annual rate for anytime in the past 10 years.**~his** 

### maximizes emissions and ensures that the public will breathe more polluted air at higher concentrations. 2) We 

### are against any use of the term "relatively equivalent compound". We feel this is a way to allow the release of toxic compounds that should be regulated strictly and specifically based on the process proposed. The guidance document must be put out for public input since this will be the determining factor in whether to all a facility tb make changes under 116.116(b)(2). 3) Under 116.10, Allowable emission rate, 

### (E), we are against this provision since it allows installing controls but a maximum emission rate of what occurred be£ore controls. This defeats the purpose of allowing controls since you will have as much potential emissions after controls. are put on as before. 4) 

### Under "'1odification of exist.ing fncility in 116.1.0, 1.re**~vant** 

### under (A) and (B), insignificant defined so that there will be no question as to what this is and so arbitrary and chaning decisions will not occur. Also under (E) we are against the 10 year time frame used. Under (E)(ii) this provision is unworkable because it presumes that you can know what TNRCC would have called**RAC~** 

### 10 years ago. Since TNRCC always talks ahout its case-hy-case BACT you cannot determine what TNRCC would have done 10 yrs. ago. How are local agencies supposed to he able to determine this? This will allow industry to justify after-the-fact poor controls as**BAC~.** 

### We object. 5) 

### Under "relatively equivalent compound" definitibn there are no criteria listed here that defines this term. This is not**accepta~l** 

### to allow such a loose almost case-by-case definition of what this term will he. 

## P.O. BOX30537 • HOUSTON,TEXAS • 77249-0537

### Page 2 6) Under 116.116 and 116.117 we are concerned about allowing many changes to occur over a year's time without notification of TNRCC. How is a local program, which will do SIP inspEctions know if the changes that have been made by the company are in fact those that TNRCC allows? We are against 116.116(a) since no public input will be required and the Executive Director will then be subject to more political pressure without the public having its say. 7) Under 116.118 we are against adjusting a grandfathered facilit allowable emission rate once current BACT is applied. This will allo· more air pollution which means the public's health and welfare will be affected adversely since they will breathe more and higher air pollution levels. You are supposed to be protecting the public health. Further it is not stated how equivalency to established technologies will be established. You nee9 to state in percentage what equivalency is. We request it means at least getting at least 98% of what the total emissions reductions of point and fugitive emissions are with established BACT with no increase in the toxicity of the emissions. Also under 116.118(c) the BACT installation must be with TNRCC's approval and stated this way specifically. We also do not agree that emission point trading of compounds within a grouping may occur without notification of the TNRCC at a de minimis level. If there is greater toxicity or reactivity of a compound in creating ozone then this must not be allowed otherwise you subject the public to more pollution and more dangerous pollution which will hurt its health and welfare. We object! In addition if trading is done without your notification how will you keep track of what is allowed visit by visit of a facility? This makes things more difficult for inspectors and ensures that SIP inspections will be harder to do correctly and will overlook problem areas or violations. If inspectors cannot understand what is happening then they will not enforce the regulation and rules. We request that this entire proposal be withdrawn and rejected and you start all over again. Sincerely,

# ·~**~** 

### Brandt Mannchen GRASP 1705 Michigan #3 Houston, Texas 77006 H713-521-9534, W713-640-4313NOV-09-1995 14:39 FROM HL&P ENVIRONMENTRL TO 8-16-23688-9-1512239 P.02



### November**9~** 

### 1995 Ms. Lisa

### Martin 

### OfficeofPolicyandRegulatoryDevelopment MailCode202 

### P.O.Box 13087 

### Austin, Texas78711-3087 Re: 

### Rules TracldugLog#95144-116--AI 

### CommatsonProposedRevisionsto30T.A.C. Chapter116Regarding ImplementationofSenateBill 1126 

### DearMs. Martin: 

# 8

HoustonLighting& 

### Power Company

### (HL&P) is 

### aninvestorownedelecf;ricutility

### thatprovides 

### service to

### over3.7 

### millionpeople

### withina 5,000

### squaremileareain

### southeastTexas. As

### such, m..&P has

### numerousfacilities and 

### operationswhich are 

### affectedby

### TCKaSNatural Resource 

### CoDSelVation (TNRCC}

### air

### pennittingregulationsand, therefore, 

### appreciates this 

### opportunityto 

### comment on

### the.above>-referenced 

### proposed rule. 

### HL&P

### strongly supportsthe

### intentofSenate

### Bill 1126,

### to

### providemuch**~eater**

### openting flexibility to

### facilities 

### thatsatisfy

### qualifying criteria This

### .flexibility

### will allow

### "qualified&cilities" 

### torespondmore

### quickly to 

### changingconditions andprovidean incentive;

### forupgradingcontrol methods

### on 

### olderfacilities. 

### mAPalso 

### supports the

### TNR.CC'sprocessofinvolvingtheregulated 

### community in

### the

### developmentof theseproposedrules. F'mally, 

### HL&P strongly supportsthe 

### commentstothe abovereferencedproposedrule which

### were submitted by

### the

### TexasMidContinent Oil 

### &Gas

### Association in

### conjunctionwith

### theTexas

### Chemical Council. HL&P

### has participatedinthe drafting ofthesecomments

### andbelievesthatthey

### help to

### clarifytheregulatory intentandaid inthe

### implementationofthe legislativeintent

### ofSenateBil11126. 

### HL&P appreciatesyourconsiderationofthesecomments. Sincerely,

# tJc~ B. C.**Carmine~**

### P.E. Manager, AirResourcesDivision EnvironmentalDepartment 

### CCT/cct

ASubsidiaryofHoustonIndustriesIncorporated TOTRL P.02-**·.~** ··--··-·--·.......--· -·**~-** -·

_ _,.. --------"··--

.. - 

### NOV-09-1995 16!31 PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY

# ~

# ~ PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY A DIVISION OF PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY



### Sweeny

### Refinery &Petrochemical Complex 

### P.O. Box 866 Sweeny,TX 77480

November9, 1995


### LisaMartin 

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 

### OfficeofAirPolicy & 

### Regulatory

### Development Mail Code 202 P.O. Box 

### 13087 Austin. TX 78711-3087 RE: Rules

### TrackingLog#95144-116-AI Dear

### Ms. Martin: 409 491 2828 P.02/04 

# 8

VIAFACSIMILE (512) 239.5687



### Phillips Petroleum Company (Phillips) submits

### the following comments in

### responsetotheproposed changes to

### 30 TAC Chapter 116, published 

### in

### the 

### October 10, 1995 Texas Regtster. Phillips is

### anintegratedpetroleum company 

### "'"ith a numberofexploration, production. transportation, refinin& petrochemical

### andmarketing 

### operations in

### the state ofTexas

### impactedbythisregulation. 

### Phillips generally 

### supportsthe intent

### ofthe proposedrevisions

### butfeels thelanguage 

### is 

### somewhat confusing, especiallygiventhe compleJrity of

### the existingprogram. We respectfully submitthefollowing**su~stions** andrequests 

### for 

### clarification.

• Howdo theproposeddefinitions of§ll6.10

### interact with

### those in

### Section 

### 116.012? Itis confusing

### to have differentdefinitions fur

### "Actual emissions"

### and "actualemissionrate"dependinguponwhether it is major orminorNSR Likewise, "allov.rablcemissions'• and 

### "allowableemissionrate"

### areconfusing. "De

### Minimis threshold test'' is 

### defined in 

### 116.012 and 

### "DeMinimis 

### impacts••are defined 

### .in 116.10but "deminimis" is used 1n 

### 116.117(c) in

### another

### context. ·
• The definition of

### "facility"is 

### vague. ln some cases

### itclearly means aplant, 

### in

### other 

### cases a 

### collection ofemission units andyetinthemajority of

### proposed sections, 

### means a singleemissionunit.


### • Withinthedefinition of"ModificationofExisting

### facility'', theterm "insignificant

### increase•• is unclear. Thistcnn needs to be

### defined.

• Clarification is

### neededregarding the baselineemissions to be

### used in

### calculatingwhetherincreases ·haveoccurred

### which "modify"anexisting facility. Arc 

### they actual, preswnptivc

### actual orallowable 

### emissions? Overv.·hat

### periodoftime 

### arethese calculated?NOV-09-1995 16=31 PHILLIPS 66 CCIMPANY 409 491 2828 P.03/04



### • At a minimum. the

### definition of"Netincrease

### in allowable emissions " nt:eds a 

### semi-colon afterthe 

### word "considering"'. Itwouldbeeven cJcarer if

### the definition were statedbe the "sum of'the stated emissions.


### • Inparagraph 116.116(b)(1)thefirst appearance oftheword "change" sbou1dbereplaced with

..modification". Apermitamendmentshould notbe required if

### no "modification

### ofexistingfacility
.., as 

### defined in Section 116.1

# o. is 

### made. Tiris istruethroughoutthe proposal. In

### the same paragraph, the

### term "various emissions" is vague. Docs this referto 

### specificpollutants orseveral different emissions ofthe samepollutant? Suggestedwordingtoclarify theparagraphis: "(1)Fornon-qualified facilities, it shall

### beunlawful for 

### any personto

### vcuy from 

### any representation orpennit

### condition if

### the

### modificationwill cause

### a 

### change inthe 

### method ofcontrolofemission, or 

### will result

### in a net increase

### inpollutant-specific 

### actual emissions, unless application is 

### made
..."


### • In Section ll6.116(b)(2),the

### first occurrenceofthe word
..change" shouldbereplacedwith "modification"'. Similartotheaboveparagraph. changes to

### qualified facilities 

### \\-illcharenot modifications 

### (such as standardexemptions) shouldnot requirepermitamendments.

• In §116.116(c)(l) 

### add "requjredfor" after "A

### permitalterationis." As

### written. the 

### subparagraphs seemto

### be definingthe words "permitalteration". This is confusing.

• Proposedparagraph 116.116(c)(l)(C) 

### shouldbeeliminated. 

### "Allowableemission"per 116.012 

### includes federal requirements whichmay change. To continuallyupdate all

### RegVIpennits for new rates is

### burdensome. 

### The Reg VI pennittingprogram should be to establishthe standards required by 

### New SourceReview. The TitleVpermit

### programv,ill 

### compile otherapplicable requirements to 

### which the

### facility is subject. lf,

### for some reason, the requirementfor a permitalterationupon a decrease in aJlov.rable emissions is retained, 

### the following 

### wording is 

### suggested: "(c) 

### a modification whichcauses a decrease 

### in allowable emissions."

• In

### paragraph ll6.117(b), 

### Phillips does not 

### supportthe

### wording which 

### makes the

### authorizationforthe 

### change contingentupona future event. The authorizationto makethe change shouldbe

### based onthe fact

### thatthe 

### facility is qualified 

### and meets theotherrequirements precludingnotification. The requirementfor anannual report 

### ofchangesto

### the facilityshouldbe a separaterequirementandnot partofthe authorization for no notification, apriorevent. 

### The requirement_for 

### yet another report shouldbe eliminated altogether since the information is 

### available atthefacility 

### perthe previous paragraph andwill be included at

### permitrenewal. Werecommend eliminatingtherequirementfor an annual report.
• Theuscofthe word "changes"throughoutthe proposalis very confusing. Modification shouldbeused where applicable and where it is not, the**typ~::** 

### ofchanges referenced need tobe clearly

### defined. One example is Section 116.117(e) "All such changes to apermittedfacility
...". Docs this meanchanges as notedwithin §116.117? Or somethingbroader? Phillips strongly supports the increasedflexibility being proposedbythis revision, butdue tothemany overlapping

### tenns and similar requirements between major and minorNSRand PSD requirements coupled

### NOV-09-1995 16:32 

### PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY 409 491 2828 P.04/04

with

### the factthat 

### significantsubstantivedetail to

### beincluded in

### the guidancedocuments is yet

### unavailable, 

### we requestanotherconunent

### period and

### rewriteofReg VI

### along withthe

### guidancedocUIDmits beforetbc rule

### is made

### final. Phillips appreciatesthe opportunityto

### commentonthisproposal

### andespecially 

### valuesthe 

### openprocess with

### whichTNRCC has 

### beenhandli:ns Reg 

### Developmentfor air

### rules. Please contact

### JanLaughlin( 

### 409)491-2277 ofmy staff

### should you

### have anyquestions regardingthe

### above comments. Wewill

### be

### happyto

### assistTNRCC in

### any waypossibleto

### attainworkable, effectiveair regulations

### wbiehprovide environmental protection in

### themost

### cost-effectiveand 

### flexiblemeanspossible. 

### Thank

### you for

### youconsiderationof

### thesecomments.

DFH/JLIJglp 

### Verytruly

### yours. PETROLEUMCOMPANY

er 

### EnviromnentalManager

IDTAL P.lll4

### .. --·· ·... ·.. : 

# 8

TEXAS MID-CONTINENT OIL & 

# GAS ASSOCIATION

Lester Clark,**lreckanrid~** Choirmon Robart L Looney, A1111in Preaident William L Ennis, Aysrin**Vice-Pre~oident** lor Membership Cindy L Morphew; A1111in**Vic~Preidenl** for Environmental Affair1 hnjamin W. Seb
....A11stin Voce-Pr.ident lor Governmental Aflo;,.. Jim Sierra, Austin**Vice·Pre~oidenl** for Finance District Vice-Presidents E. L Arne&, Jr., San Antonio Southwe1t Te.r.a• Danny H. Conklin, Amarillo The Panhandle Dan Allen Hughea, Jr., a...v.15e The I-..Gull Cood A. V. Jon.,, Jr., Albany w..

tCentralle.r.a• W. A. Landreth, Jr., FortWorth Curri1 W. Mewbaume, Tyler Ea11 Te.r.a1 Joaeph 1. O'Neill, Ill, Mid5and The Permian Scnin W. M. Thocker, Jr., Wichita Falla John H. You"l, Hou1tan The UpporG..lfCoo" 

### Ms. LisaMartin Office ofPolicy and RegulatoryDevelopment TexasNatural Resource Conservation Commission 

### 12118 North 

### IH-35 Park 

### 35 Technology Center Building E Austin, Texas 

### 78711 November 

### 9, 1995

Re: Comments on Proposed Revisions to 

### 30 T.A.C. Chapter 

### 116 Regarding Implementation ofSenateBill 

### 1126; Rules TrackingLog

### #95144-116-AI DearMs. Martin: Texas Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association ("TMOGA") appreciates this opportunity to submit the enclosed comments on the above-referenced proposed rule. These comments have been jointly prepared with Texas Chemical Council ("TCC"). TMOGA strongly supports the general intent and many ofthe specific provisions of the proposed rules to implement Senate Bill 

### 1126, which was enacted by the 

### 1995 Texas Legislature and became effective on May 

### 19, 1995. Themajority ofour comments are intended to clarify the regulatory intent and, in some cases, correctly implement the legislative intent of Senate Bill 

### 1126. We encourage TNRCC to incorporate our recommended changes into the adopted rule. TMOGA is a multi-purpose trade assoc1at10n which represents all segments ofthe oil and gas industry operating in Texas. It 

### numbers more than 

### 2,000 members, including 

### 50 ofthe state's largest energy companies. Among many other activities, our members account for approximately 

### 90 percent ofall the oil and gas production in Texas and for approximately 

### 95 percent ofthe refining capacity in Texas. The clear intent ofthe legislature in enacting Senate Bill 

### 1126 was to provide much greater operating flexibility to certain facilities. Specifically, facilities that satisfy the qualifying criteria ofeither a fairly recent air permit or

11 15 Son Jacinto Boulevard • Suite 275 • Austin, Texas 78701-1980 • THE: 512/478-6631 • FAX: 5l2/472-3859 ll.:-....:. --·

### Ms. Lisa Martin TMOGA Comments onProposed Revisions to 30 T.A.C. Chapter 116 November 9, 1995 Page two
the use offairly current air pollution control methods would be allowed to make physical and operational changes without any requirement to obtain a permit or other approval from TNRCC. These "qualified facilities" would be allowed to respond more quickly to changing conditions without the delay ofthe permitting process, while all other facilities would remain subject to the current permitting requirements. In addition to thebenefits to the owners and operators ofthese facilities, this flexibility would provide an incentive for persons to voluntarily upgrade the control methods on older facilities and would allow the TNRCC to more effectively use its resources. We strongly encourage TNRCC to keep this legislative intent in mind as it develops the adopted rule. We wish to express our appreciation to the TNRCC staffwho have worked with the regulated community in developing these proposed rules. This process has allowed a open forum to address the details in implementing the statute. We feel that the cooperative attitude exhibited by the staffin understanding our concerns, and what we hope was our cooperative attitude in understanding TNRCCs concerns, will result in a better rule. We encourage TNRCC to continue to utilize this process in future rulemakings. Your consideration of our comments is very much appreciated. Ifyou have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Cindy Morphew (TMOGA) at 478- 6631 orMikeWhite (Exxon Co., U.S.A.) at 713-425-7525.

RL:ad Attachment /jely,J

# j~J-.frrt-rv-7 Rob Looney

### COMMENTS ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 30 T.A.C CHAPTER 116 REGARDING IMPLEMENTATION OF SENATE BILL 1126 20 Tex. Reg. 8306 (Oct. 10, 1995) Rules Tracking Log #95144-116-AI

Submitted by: TEXAS MID-CONTINENT OIL 

### & GAS ASSOCIATION and TEXAS CHEMICAL COUNCIL

To: TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION OFFICE OF POLICYAND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENT 12118 North IH-35 Park 35 Technology Center Building E Austin, Texas 78711

November 9, 1995

### These comments, preparedjointly by Texas Mid-Continent Oil & Gas Association ("TMOGA") and Texas Chemical Council ("TCC"), address the proposed revisions to 30 T.A.C Chapter 116 regarding the implementation ofSenate Bill1126 [20 Tex. Reg. 8306 (Oct. 10, 1995)]. In these comments, the rule language is indicated by italics, with recommended additions indicated by underlining and recommended deletions indicated by strikeover. Comments regarding our recommended changes follow the rule language. 

### §116.10. Definitions

..Actual emission rate.. Actualemissions_-fale- forpurposes ofthe determination under§116.116(e){1) ofthis title. +the highestanntJa!rate**(eonseetJti~ce** 

### 12 month period) ofemissions ofan aircontaminantactuallvachievedfrom 

### a qualifiedfacilityaehie•.ced within athe 120- month periodpriorto the change. The periodshallstartno earlierthan JantJary 1, 1990. This rate cannotexceedanya{JJ)Iicable federal orstate emissions limitation. Comments: We recommend that these changes be made in orderto make the term consistent with the rule sections to which it is applicable, clarify the purposes for which the term is applicable, and accurately define the term.

· The regulatory intent is thatthis term and definition will be applicable only to the rules dealing with the flexibility provided by S.B. 1126 regarding physical and operational changes to qualified facilities, and specifically to intraplanttrading of allowable and actual emissions from otherqualified facilities. The statute and the proposed rules implementing the statute use the term "actual emissions", not "actual emission rate". To avoid potential confusion and ambiguity, the de·fined term should be the same as the statute and the implementing rules. The de·finition itself clarifies that the term refers to the rate ofemissions. The recommended changes also clarifythatthis definition of"actual emissions" is only applicable to intraplant trading involving actual emissions from otherqualified facilities. The reference to §116.116(e) is a new rule section we are recommending be added to contain the requirements and procedures forthe flexibility provided to qualified facilities. The proposed definition states that actual emissions will be the "highest annual rate", which is too limited. As discussed above, this definition ofactual emissions will be used in intraplanttrading ofemissions to determine whether a change will result in a net increase in allowable emissions orthe emission ofa new air contaminant. The time period or periods for actual emissions will have to match the allowable emissions for which an intraplant trade is needed atthe qualified facility where the change will occur. Ifthe qualified facility at which the change will occur has allowable emissions stated in

### terms ofan annual emissions rate, and an intraplanttrade ofannual emissions is needed, then itwill be necessary to determine the actual annual emissions rate for the other qualified facility involved in the intraplanttrade. However, ifthe qualified facility at which the change will occur has allowable emissions stated in terms of other periods (e.g., hourly emissions rate), and an intraplanttrade is needed for one or more orthese other rates, then it will be necessaryto determine the actual emissions rate for the other qualified facility on the same basis. We have included provisions in our recommended §116.116(e) that clarify this. Finally, we recommend thatthe proposed limitation that the 120-month period for determining actual emissions can start no earlierthan January 1, 1990, be eliminated. It will have the effect of penalizing persons who have**volunt~rily** 

### installed controls or whose facilities have been operating below normal levels since 1990

..The proposed definition will limit the actual emissions to be used as the basis for intraplant trading to any applicable state orfederal limitations. This limitation will preclude the situation where the emissions reductions that have occurred at a facility due to more stringent state orfederal requirements could be used at anotherfacility. The purpose ofthe 120- month period is to allow for the variation in operations that occurs at a plant. To initially cut offthis period at January 1, 1990, serves no additional valid purpose not already provided by the state and federal limitation provision.


### "Allowable emission rate" Allowable**emission§.~-** 

### ARThe authorizedrate ofemissions ofan air contaminant from 

### a facility that eFRits aireontaFRinantsas determinedin accordance with this section. This rate cannot exceed the allowable eFRissJons rate speeiliedbyan}( applicable state orfederal emissions limitationregl:l!ation otherthan tf.1is ef.1apter. (A) Permittedfacilitv
- An alkYilable eFRission rate for

## a peFFRittedfaellityis an enforeeabJeFor

### a facility with 

### a preconstruction permitunderthis chapter. the allowable emissions shallbe the emission limit establishedin**a~** 

### permiton 

### a FRB-XiFRI:JFR a/JowabJe eFRissions rate tableMAERT. plus anyallowable emissions authorizedby

### a standardexemption. (B) Standardexemption facilitv- An a/lowabJe eFRission rate foran BKemptedfaeilityfor

### a facilitv operating under

### a standardexemption. the allowable emissions shallbeis the least ofthe emission§. rate allowedin 

### § 116.211 ofthis title (relating to StandardExemption List), athe emissions rate specifiedin the applicable exemption, or

### a federally enforceable emissions rate establishedon 

### a PI-BlsJJ:m.. (C) Grandfatheredfacility
- ARFor

### a qualifiedgrandfatheredfacility, the allowable**emission~** 

### rate for

### a ql:lalifiedgrandfathoredfaeilityis an shallbe the maximum annualemission§. rate afterthe implementation ofanyairpollution control methods to 

### become 

### a qualifiedfacility. plus 10% ofthe maximum annualemissions rate priorto the implementation ofsuch controlmethods. The maximum annualemissions rate is the emissions rate at the maximum annualcapacityaccording to the physical or operationaldesign ofthe facilitv. data from actualoperations over

### a periodofno more 

### -2-

### than 12 months thatdemonstrates the maximum annualcapacitv. orotherinformation thatdemonstrates the maximum annualcapacity. (D) Standardpermitfacilitv- An allowable emission Fate fEora facility authorizedbystandardpermit, otherthan §116.617(2) ofthis title (relating to Standard Permits List), the allowable emissions shallbeio the maximum emission§. rate representedin the registration forthe standardpermit. 

### (E) Soecialexemption facility. Fora facility operating under

## a soecial exemption. the allowable emissions shallbe the emissions rate representedin the originalspecialexemption request. (EE) 

## AniMallowable emission§.-Fale for

### a qualifiedfacilityshallnotbe acJ.justedbythe 'tlohmtari!yinstallfngvoluntaryinstallation ofcontrols shallbe tho maximf:lm allowable emission rate priorto the instaJ!ation ofthe eontrots. 

### Comments: Forthe same reasons as discussed in our comments on "actual emission rate", we recommend thatthis term be changed to "allowable emissions". The majority ofour recommended changes are to make the rule easierto read and understand and for consistency with other rule sections. Since the principal criterion for the determination ofallowable emissions is the permitting status ofa facility, we recommend thatthe individual paragraphs be labeled to identify the permitting status to which it refers. The recommended changes to paragraph (C), regarding grandfathered facilities, implementthe legislative intentto provide flexibility to grandfathered facilities if appropriate control methods have been implemented. We feel thatthe recommended method ofestablishing the allowable emissions for purposes offuture physical and operational changes at qualified grandfathered facilities represents a reasonable interpretation ofthe statutory term "allowable emissions". Establishing the allowable emissions as the maximum annual emissions rate afterthe implementation ofthe qualifying BACT plus 10% ofthe pre-control maximum annual emissions rate will result in a large decrease in allowable emissions while still providing sufficient flexibility to the grandfathered facility tojustifythe implementation ofthe qualifying controls, which will result in a decrease in actual emissions. For example, ifa grandfathered facility has a pre-control emissions potential of 100 TPY, and the qualifying BACT achieves a 98% reduction in emissions, the resulting allowable emissions would be 12 TPY [100 TPY x (1.00- .98) 

### + 100TPY x.10 = 12 TPY], which is a reduction in allowable emissions of almost 90%. Even ifone assumes the grandfathered facility's actual emissions were only 50% of its pre-control emissions potential, the installation ofthe qualifying BACT would result in a minimum reduction in actual emissions ofmore than 75%.
"BestAvailable Control Technology" BACTBestAvailable Control Technology (BACD- An emissions limitation basedon the maximum degree ofreduction in emissions ofan aircontaminant,**~** 

### -3-

### ooRsidomtioR giveR toconsidering the technicalpracticabilityandthe economic reasonableness ofreducing oreliminating.lhf1. emissions from the facility. 

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made to clarify that BACT is stated in terms ofan emissions limitation and not a specified control method.


### "Grandfathered facility" Grandfatheredfacility
- A facility for which eitherconstruction commencedon or before August30. 1971. orconstruction commencedon orbefore February29. 1972. if 

### a contract was executed to commence construction on orbt(foreAugust30. 1971. 

### Comments: We recommend that this term and definition be added to provide clarity to the proposed rules. The proposed rules use the term "grandfathered facility" without providing a definition forthis key term. Failure to define this term could cause confusion and ambiguity in understanding and implementing the new rules. The recommended definition is simply a summary restatement ofthe provisions in the Texas Clean AirAct.


### "Maximum allowable emissions rate table" Maximum aHowable emissions rate table (MAERT>
- A table included with 

## a preconstruction permitissued underthis chapterthatcontainsestab!fshlRy the allowable emission rates lnoJ1:1ded with aestablishedbythe permitfor

## a facility

. 

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made to allowthe acronym "MAERT'to be used elsewhere in the rules and to provide more clarity regarding what a MAERTis.


### "Modification ofexisting facility" Modification ofexisting facility- Anyphysicalchange in, orchange in the method ofoperation of

.. 

## a facility

... does notinclude: (A) insignificantincreases in

... authorizedbyone ormore boaFCITNRCC exemptions; (B)

.. . 

### (C)

.. . (D)

.. . (E) 

## a physicalchange in, or. .. does notresult in the emissions ofanyair contaminant

... that the facility.; (i)

...


### -4-

### (ii) uses, regardless ofwhetherthe facilityhas received

### a preconstructionpermit orpermitamendmentorhas been exemotedpursuant to 

### § 116.211 ofthis title, an airpollution controlmethodthatis atleastas effective as

## tl1!i. BACT, considering technicalpracticabilityandeconomic reasonableness, that

### #:16 boaffiTNRCCrequired orwouldhave required for

### a facility ofthe same class ortype as 

### a condition

## erolissuing 

### a permitorpermitamendment 120 months before the change will occur; (F)

... (G) 

## a change in

. .. annualemission rate of

## a potlutantanyair contaminantin excess ofthe volume

... is one forwhich: (i)

. . . (ii)

.. . 

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made to update some ofthe terminology and to provide some clarification regarding legislative intent. We recommend that "board" be replaced with "TNRCC" in subsection (A) and (E)(ii) to update the terminology in the rules to re1lect the current organization ofTNRCC. The additional wording in (E)(ii) is recommended to clarify the legislative intent of S.B. 1126 that qualification on the basis of BACT applies to facilities that do notsatisfy the criteria for qualification on the basis ofa permit, permit amendment, or standard exemption.


### "Net increase in allowable emissions" Netinerease ln alf.o•NabJ.e emlsslons .R:Jr

## a qt:Ja#fiedfaciHty

... at the same TNRCC aeeol:lf1tRt:Jmber. 

### Comments: We recommend thatthis term and definition be deleted in its entirety and equivalent provisions relocated to new §116.116(e) that we are recommending be added.


### "Newsource" Newsowvefacility-Anystationarysot:Jrsefaci/ityfor which either 

### ,...the construction ormodffioation ofwhish is commencedafterAugust30, 1971r

.. or, construction commencedafterFebruary29. 1972. if

### a contract was executed

## to commence construction on orbeforeAugust30. 1971forthose sot:Jrces thathad eontraets

## to startbefore At:Jgt:Jst30, 1971, bt:Jtdidnotaett:Jalconstrt:Jction t:Jntilafter March 1, 1972. 

### Comments: We recommend thatthese changes be made for consistency with the recommended new de·flnition for "grandfathered facilities".

-5-

### "Non-qualified facility" Non q1:1a!ifiedfaeility Anyfao#ity thatis not

## a**q~:~a!ffied** 

### faei!ity. 

### Comments: We recommend thatthis term and definition be deleted as unnecessary. The provisions in the proposed rules that only apply to qualified facilities are clearly identified. A facility not being a qualified facility has no special significance otherthan it is not eligible for some ofthe flexibility provided by S.B. 1126. Referring to such facilities as "non-qualified" may tend to have adverse connotations that should be avoided.
"Qualified facility" Qualifiedfacility
- An existing facility thatsatisfies the criteria ofeithersubsection 

### (EW) or

### (E,WiJ underthe definition of"modification ofexisting facili(v"in this sectionha& roeei•lfJd

### a permitorhas been f»<emptedp1:1rs1:1ant

## to S1:1bohapter

### C ofthis eha:pter (relating

## to P6rmitExeFRptions) no oaFfierthan 120 monthsprior

## to a ohange in that faol-Hty; or, that 1:1ses an af.rpol!fltion eontrolmothodthatis atleast

### as etf6etive 

### as BACT that wo1:1!dhave been roq1:1ired forthe same type offael!ity thatreeeived

## a permitno ear:fierthan 120 monthsprior

## to a physiea! oroperationalohange

## to the faeility. 

### If

## a faei!ltyadds eontro!s

## to beeome 

## a q1:1alified faei!fty, those eontrols m1:1stmeete1:1rrent 8/',CTreq1:1froments. 

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made to avoid ambiguity and potential inconsistency in the rules. The term "qualified facility" will be used to refer to those existing facilities that are eligible forthe flexibility provided by S.B. 1126 in Section 382.003(9)(E) ofthe Texas Clean AirAct, and related sections. The criteria to be a qualified facility are provided in Section 382.003(E)(i) and (ii) ofthe Act, and are duplicated in the proposed regulatory definition of"modification ofexisting facility" in 

### §116.10 with only minor clarification to the statutory language. The proposed definition of"qualified facility" uses language that is significantly different 'from the statutory and other regulatory language. Since the proposed definition of"qualified facility" provides no additional clarification, the different language should be avoided: The recommended changes will provide a simple cross reference to the de·finition of"modi·fication of existing facility" so that the exact same language will be used. IfTNRCC feels that it is necessaryto repeat the criteria in the definition of"qualified facility", then we recommend thatthe

## .exact language of (E)(i) and (ii) 

### in the definition of"modification of existing facility" be used following the phrase, "An existing facility that either:". "Relatively equivalent compound" Relativelyequivalentcompound
- A compound thatis in the same gro1:1pfng dl:le to sfmf.lareharaeteristies ande#eets 

### as speeifiedmavbe interchanged with other 

### -6-

### compounds in 

### a mannerapprovedbythe executive directorofthe TNRCC basedon relative characteristics andeffects. 

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made to be consistent with the anticipated manner in which this term will be used. §116.116. Amendments and Alterations Title ofSection §116. 116. Amendments andA!torationsChanges to**Faciliti~s** 

### Comments: The changes are recommended to more clearly indicate the subject matter ofthe section. §116.116(b) (b) Pennitamendments. (1) F-ornon qflalifiodfaollitlos, 

### #/1 shallbe unlawfulforanyperson to vary from anyrepresentation orpennitcondition ifthe change willcause 

### a change in the methodofcontrolofemissions, the characterofthe emissions, orwillresultin an increase in the discharge ofthe various emissions, unless

. .. to GeneralApplication). (2) F-orqflalifiodfaoi!fties

... to GeneralApp!ioation). 

### Comments: We recommend thatthese changes be made to correctly implement the legislative intent ofS.B. 1126. The legislative intent is to provide flexibility to qualified facilities while making no changes to the permitting requirements for facilities that are not qualified facilities. Our recommended addition ofa new §116.116(e) below accomplishes this intent. The deletion ofthe term "non-qualified facilities" is recommended for the same reasons as stated in our comments on this term in the proposed definitions. §116.116(c) Comments: We are not recommending any changes to this section ofthe rule. The proposed rule would add a new subparagraph (C) under paragraph (c)(1). The intent ofthis addition is to clarify that a permit alteration may be used to effect a decrease in the allowable emissions for a facility. The primary reason a person would wantto decrease the allowable emissions for a facility is to use the decrease in an intraplanttrade under §116.116(e)(1). We recommend thatthe preamble to the adopted rules clarify this intent, and also emphasize that a permit alteration is one means to effect a reduction in allowable emissions, especially ifone desires to effect a -7-

### reduction in advance ofany intraplanttrade, but is notthe only means. Other means should include incorporating the reduction in allowable emissions in the notification required under either §116.117(b)(2) or (3). Incorporating the reduction in the notification will make the reduction enforceable, because the reduction becomes a condition to being able to make a change to a qualified facility under §116.116(e). 

### §116.116(d) (d) Standardexemption in lieu ofpermitamendmentoralteration. Notwithstanding anyothersubsections (a), (b}, or(e) 

### ofthis section, nopermit amendmentoralteration is required

... is amendedorreneyved. Comments: The changes are recommended to clarify the intent, simplify the language, and make the subsection consistent with other changes we are recommending to this section. 

### §116.116(e) (e> Changes

## to QualifiedFacilities. Notwithstanding anyothersubsection ofthis section. 

## a physicaloroperationalchange maybe made to 

## a qualifiedfacilityifthe change does notresultin 

## a netincrease in allowable emissions ofanyaircontaminant anddoes notresultin the emissions ofanyaircontaminantnotPreviouslyemitted. (1 > 

### In determining whether

## a change to 

## a qualifiedfacilityresults in 

## a net increase in allowable emissions orthe emission ofanyaircontaminantnotpreviouslv emitted. the effecton emissions ofthe following shallbe considered: (A> anyairpollution controlmethodappliedto the qualifiedfacility, (B> anydecreases in allowable emissions from otherqualified facilities atthe same TNRCC airqualityaccountnumberthathave received

## a preconstruction permitorpermitamendmentno earlierthan 120months before the change willoccur. and (G) 

### anydecreases in actualemissions from otherqualifiedfacilities atthe same TNRCC airqualityaccountnumberotherthan facilities includedin subparagraPh (B> ofthisparagraph. (2) 

### In making the determination underParagraph (1) 

### ofthis subsection. relativelyequivalentcomPounds maybe interchangedin 

### a mannerapprovedbythe executive directorofTNRCC basedon relative characteristics andeffects. (3) 

### Persons making changes to qualifiedfacjlities underthis subsection shallcomply with the aQf)licable requirements of§116. 117ofthis title (relating

## to Notification ofChanges to QualifiedFacilities) and§116.118 ofthis title (relating to PreChange Qualification), (4> 

### As usedin this subsection. the term ''phvsicalandoperational changes"does notinclude: 

## Wconstruction of

## a newfacilitv. and
-8-

### (iiJ changes to procedures regarding monitoring. determination of emissions. andrecordkee,ping thatare requiredbya 

### pennit (q) 

### Uadditionalairoollution controlmethods are requiredin orderfor

## a facility to be

## a qualifiedfacility. such additionalcontrolmethods sballbe atleastas effective as the 8ACTrequiredat the time the additionalcontrolmethods are imPlemented. The implementation ofanvadditionalcontrolmethods shallbe subject to the requirements ofthis chaoter. 

### ((U lntrap/ant trading. Forpurposes ofthis subsection and

### §116. 117of this title. the consideration ofdecreases in allowable andactualemissions from other qualifiedfacilities in accordance with paragraph (1) ofthis subsection shallbe referred to as 

### "intraplant trading". The decreases in allowable andactualemissions shallbe basedon emission rates 

### forthe same time periods (e.g

.. hourlyandannualrates) as the allowable emissions forthe facilitYat which the change

# will OCCUrandfor which an jntraplant trade is desired. Actualemissions shallbe basedon data thatis representative ofthe emissions actuallyachievedfrom 

## a facility during the relevant time period(e.g

.. hourlyorannualram). lntra.plant trading shallestablish newallowable emissions for the otherqualifiedfacility. Comments: We recommend the addition ofa new subsection (e) to consolidate in one location ofthe rules the principal provisions ofS.B. 1126 regarding the flexibility provided to quali·fied facilities to make physical and operational changes. This subsection clarifies that physical and operational changes that satisfythe criteria and requirements ofthe subsection are not subjectto the requirements to obtain a permit amendment, permit alteration, standard exemption, orother limitations and approval requirements. This is the essence ofthe flexibility that is the legislative intent ofS.B. 1126. Forthe most part, the recommended language ofthis subsection tracks the language ofthe relevant provisions ofS.B. 1126, with some changes and additions to clarify the legislative intent. Paragraph (2) incorporates the concept of"relatively equivalent compounds" into the determination ofwhether a change results in a net increase in allowable emissions orthe emission ofa new air contaminant. Paragraph (3) provides the cross reference to the sections ofthe rule that contain the requirements for notification and pre-change qualification. Paragraph (4) contains some clarification regarding the legislative intent ofS.B. 1126. Subparagraph {1) clearly states thatthe flexibility for physical and operational changes cannot be used to construct ofa newfacility, but can only be used to make changes to an existing facility. Subparagraph (2) clarifies that it is notthe legislative intentto use S.B. 1126to change permit requirements regarding monitoring, determination ofemissions, and recordkeeping. Although one might argue that changing recordkeeping·at a qualified facility would not result in an increase in allowable emissions, and therefore appears to fit within the language ofS.B. 1126, the intent ofthe legislators in drafting S.B. 1126was that it was directed at changes such as production rate, throughput, process feedstocks, process operating parameters, and physical configuration ofa facility, and was not directed at ancillary matters such as

-9-

### monitoring and recordkeeping. Subparagraph (2) will clarifythis intentto preclude a misinterpretation ofthe rules. Paragraph (5) 

### contains the provisions of proposed §116.118(c), which we recommend be relocated to this section with some changes. This paragraph states the legislative intentthat ifadditional control methods are implemented at a facility for the purpose ofmaking the facility a qualified facility, the additional control methods must be equivalentto the BACT requirements atthe time the additional controls are implemented. In addition, we recommend thatthe language in proposed §116.118(c) that indicated allowable emissions would be afterthe installation ofthe additional controls should be deleted. The provisions for establishing allowable emissions are clearly stated in §116.10 in the definition of"allowable emissions". Paragraph (6) contains some clarification regarding**i~traplant** 

### trading of allowable and actual emissions. The paragraph in essence defines the term intraplant
·trading as a substitute reference to the statutory provisions allowing the consideration

ofdecreases in allowable and actual emissions at other qualified facilities. The paragraph clarifies thatthe emissions rates used in the intraplant have to be on the same time period basis as the allowable emissions for which a traded is desired (i.e., hourly for hourly, annual for annual, etc.). The paragraph clarifies thatthe determination ofactual emissions rates for intraplanttrading must be based on data that is representative ofthe emissions actually achieved overthe relevant time period. Finally, the paragraph clarifies that ifa reduction in allowable or actual emissions from another qualified facility is used to allow a change to occur, that reduction becomes binding on the facility. §116.117. Notification for Changes at Qualified Facilities Title ofSection §116. 117. Documentation andNotification leFQf

### Changes at/Q 

### QualifiedFacilities 

### Comments: The changes are recommended to make the title consistent with the language ofthe statute and other sections ofthe proposed rules. §116.117(a)

I 

# I' 1111 ff+ 

### fl. " Tf R fl.

. 

## t . G 

## t f I

. I

## a, I m 

### qt:Ja J 

### e**~Ohues** 

## s. a**maln~JR 4JG(;JfRen~;lon**  

### at the p.ant8Jte**s~:~ppsrtiRg** 

### thatPersons makingphysicaloroperationalchanges 

### to qualifiedfacilities underthe provisions of§116.116(e> ofthis title (relating 

### to Changes to Qualified Facilities> shallmaintain documentation at the plantsite aFe B*olfJdedfrom peFFRittingdemonstrating that the changes satisfythe requirements ofthat subsectionper§116.116(b}(2) sfthis title (relating

## ts Amendments andAlterations). This documentation shallinclude

... Parts 

### C and0,._ 

### aneThis documentation shallbe made available to (TNRCC) upon request.

### -10-

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made incorporate a cross reference to our recommended new §116.116(e) and to clarify the responsibility for maintainingthe documentation. 

### §116.117(b). 

### (c). and 

### (d) (b) 

## .".t.o notification is req1:1ired

. .. I'.I:Jflf:JSt 1stofeaeh year, (1) BestAvailable Control

. .. ofthe TNRCC; (2) the fae#ityhas

... goodeng.,ineeFingpraetiees, and 

### (3) the ehange**iRvol'~es** 

### . .. emissions betvlfJe_n faei!ities. 

### (c) Pre ehange noti-fication

... ofthe TI\.'RGG. 

### (d) Post ehange notifieation

... ofthe TAlRGC. 

### (bJ In addition to the documentation requirements undersubsection (aJ. oersons making such changes

## to qualifiedfacilities shallcomplv with the following notification requirements:(1

### J Annualreport. Forchanges to qualifiedfacilities for which there is no intraolant trading in accordance with §116.116(e)(1J ofthis title. no notification to TNRCC is requiredatthe time ofthe change. Instead. an annualreportshallbe submitted

## to the appropriate TNRCC regional office bvAugust 1 ofeach vear which shallinclude allchanges made under§116. 116(eJ during the immediatelvoreceding annualperiodJuly 1 through June 30. Changes for which notification has been previouslysubmitted

## to TNRCC underparagraphs (2J or

### (J) ofthis subsection orwhich have been incorporatedinto the permitforthe facilityneednotbe includedin the annualreport. The annualreportshallcontain the information requiredin paragraph (2J ofthis subsection. The annualreportingperiodfor

### a TNRCC airqualityaccountand the due date ofthe annualreportmaybe changed with the agreementofthe TNRCC regionaloffice. (2J Post-change notification. Forchanges to qualifiedfacilities for which there is intraplant trading in accordance with §116. 116(fi.){1

### J. andsuch intraplant trading is within the limits approvedbythe executive directorofTNRCC. notification ofthe change shallbe submittedon 

### a PI-Eform to the TNRCC office in Austin within 30 davs afterthe change occurs. (3) Pre-change notification. Forchanges to qualifiedfacilities for which there is intraplant trading in accordance with §116.116(e>(1J. andsuch intraplant trading is not within the limits a{){)rovedbythe executive directorofTNRCC. notification ofthe change shallbe submittedon 

### a PI-Eform to the TNRCC office in Austin before the cbange mayoccur. · The change mayoccurafterthe receipt ofwritten notification from TNRCC that there are no objections. or45 days afterthe notification is receivedby TNRCC. whicheveroccurs first. 

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made to consolidate the notification requirements into one subsection, clearly identify the three notification requirements, and to clearly distinguish the notification requirements from the pre_- -11-

### change qualification requirements. These changes should make it easierto understand the requirements ofthe rules. 

### §116.117(e) (ek) Forfacilities thathave received

### apreconstructionpermit. Aa./1**~changes** 

## to a permltledfasl!ityfor which the notificationprocedure ofsubsection (bJ ofthis section has been usedshallbe incorporatedinto lhat**faei!ity's~** 

### permitatsuch time as the permitis amendedorrenewed. Forsuch changes thatinvolve 

## a specialpermit condition. TNRCC mayreissue the Sf)ecialPermitcondition to maintain consistencv with



### .. changes as documented

### in the notification undersubsection (b) ofthis section.



## - Comments: The changes are recommended to clarify the meaning ofthe term "permitted facility" that is used in the proposed rule language and to clarify which changes are required to be incorporated into the permit. The changes also clarify that TNRCC may reissue special permit conditions to be consistent with a change notification. 

### §116.117(0 (fd) Nothing in this

... anyfederalrequirements. Comments: The change to the subsection label is recommended to be consistent with the relabeling recommended to subsections (b), (c), and (d). 

### §116.118. Qualified Facilities Title ofSection 

### § 116. 118. Qf:Ja!ifiedFasllitiesPre-Change Qualification Comments: We recommend that the title ofthis section be changed to more accurately indicate the contents ofthe section. This section contains the requirements and the procedure for some qualified facilities to undergo a pre-change qualification review. 

### §116.118(a) (a) 

### ifeitherofthe following conditions exists. it willbe necessary

### In or:clerlo establish that#lea facilityis a...qualifiedfacilitybefore 

### a Physical oroPerationalchange maybe made underthe notification procedure of

### § 116. 117ofthis title (relating

## to Documentation andNotification ofChanges

## to QualifiedFacilities). pre ehange
-12-

### notilieation on a PI E foFFR shallbe sf:Jbmitted to the Toxas NaturalResol:IFGe Conser;ation Commission (TNRCC) byoortifiedmal!priorto the physioa! oroperational ohange ln tho followl-ng oases: (1) the facilitvis a qualifiedfaci/itv on the basis ofBACT, andthe 

### Best Av-ailable Control Toohno!ogy (BACT}. requirement forthe**facility~** 

### has notbeen previouslvestablishedbythe executive directorofthe TNRCC;...Q£ (2) the facility does nothave aR-allowable**emission~** 

### Falee§fablishedfor an aircontaminantrelevant to the change 

### in a MAERT. Pl-8 form. or

## PI-Eform. orthe allowable emission rateMAERTis inaooi:JfBteincornplete. A MAERTshallbe considered to be complete ifallaircontaminants affected

### by the cbange are includedandall emission points have been identified.



### - Comments: We recommend thatthese changes be made to more clearly describe when it will be necessary for a qualified facility to undergo a review ofthe basis on which it is qualified before the notification procedure in §116.117 can be use to make a physical oroperational change. 

### §116.118(b) (b) The pre-change qualification shallbe made bysubmitting a PI-E form 

## to the TNRCC office in Austin. The facilityshallbe deemedqualifiedin accordance with the PI-Eform physioa! oroperationalohange maybe made aftef!JI2Qfl receipt ofwritten notification from the TNRCC that there are no objections, or45 days afterthe PI-E form is receivedreoelptby

### the-TNRCC ofthe registration forthe ohange, whicheveroccurs

. first. This notifioatlonThe pre-change qualification maybe submittedat the same time

as

## a pre-change notification reqE:Jlrod under

### §116. 117(eb) ofthis title (rolatlng to Notifioat!on for Changes at QE:JalifiedFaoilities) oratanyothertime priorto making

## a physfoa! oroperationalchange to thea qualifiedfacility. 

### Comments: We recommend that these changes be made to clarify the procedure for pre-change qualification. 

### §116.118(c) (o) 

### IfinstalJfng oontro!s

## to beoome a qE:JaJffiedfaoutty, the faoilitymE:JstinstaU BACTand the aJ.'.owable emission rate forthe faoi.J!tyshallbe the maximE:Jm potential emission rate afterthe installation ofoontrols. If

### othorl;fse reqE:Jired, aE:Jthor2ation E:Jnder this ohaptershallbe obtainedpriorto insta!lation ofthese oontro!s. 

### Comment: We recommend thatthe provisions ofproposed subsection (c) be deleted from this section regarding pre-change qualification and moved to our recommended new §116.116(e) as paragraph (5). This will place this provision in a location in the rules that specifically deals with changes to qualified facilities and**~ill** 

### -13-

### make the rule easierto understand. We are recommending changes to the proposed language ofthis subsection (c), and these changes are discussed in our comments regarding §116.116(e). ·



### -14-

# -- -- --

... 

# - TUSERVICES November 9, 1995 Richard L. White**Vic~** Prt'.<idmr.**Envimnm~nral Srn·ic~s**  

### Ms. Lisa Martin TexasNaturalResource ConseiVation Commission Office ofPolicy and RegulatoryDevelopment Mail Code 202 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 RE: Rules TrackingLogNumber 95144-116-AI DearMs. Martin: 

# 8

TexasUtilities Services, Inc. submitsthe following comments onbehalfofTexasUtilitiesElectric Company, Texas Utilities Fuel Company and Texas Utilities Mining Company concerning the proposedrule, 30 TAC Chapter 116. Control ofAir

### PollutionbyPermitsfor NewConstruction or Modification as published in 

### the October 10, 1995 Texas Register on pages 8306-8310. The principal business ofthe Texas Utilities Company System (hereinafter referred to as TU) is the generation and distribution of electrical energy to north,**centra~** 

### east, and west Texas to approximately one-third ofthepopulation and area ofthe state. TU believes the language in the proposed rule concerning the definition of ')lew source" is not consistent with that ofthe statute. In 1971, House Bill 322 included an exemption from the requirementto obtain aconstructionpermit'\\hlch states ')loprovision ofthisAct shall applywhere anyperson, 

### firm, partnership, orcorporation haslet anycontract, orbegun any construction for any addition, alteration or modification to any new or existing facility. Any contracts under this subsection shallhave abeginning constmction date no laterthan sixmonths afterthe effective date of this Act to qualify for this exemption". TUrequests that the language for ')lew source"be changed asnotedbelow: New somce 

### facility- Any stationary source, the construction ormodification ofwhichis commenced afterAugust 30, 197I; or, forthose sourcesthathadfor which a contractshad been let prior to start before 

### August 30, 1971, but did not stari: actaal 

### for which the beginning constructionuntil after Match 

### 1, 1972 date. stipulated in 

### the contract. was after February 29. 1972. TU believes the fu]] 

### 10 year period for actual emission rates should be provided to allow for economic cycJes. Senate Bill 1126 did not put arestriction on theperiodto be considered. TU

Energy Plaza 1601 Bryan Street Dallas,Texas 75201-3411 (214) 812-4444 Fax (214) 812-4365

### requeststhe languagefor "actualemissionrate''be changed asnotedbelow: Actualemissionrate -Thehighest annualrate (consecutive 12-monthperiod) ofemissions from aqualifiedfacility**achiev~d**

### within a 120-monthpetiod priorto the change. Thepetiod shaH statt no eadiet than January 1, 1990. 

### This rate cannot exceed any federal or state emissionslimitation.
Thankyouforthe opportunityto comment. Sincerely, 

# I RichardL. WhiteNOV-00-1'3'35 15:2'3 512 257 0202 J TUTTLE



### YIATELECOPIER 

## Ms. lisa

### Martin TNRCC, MailCode 202 Austin,TX 78711-308

### 7**Novemb~** 

### 9. 1995



### Re: Comments to Proposed Changes to 30T.A.C Chapter 116 

### Dear Ms. Martin: P.02



### Regardingthe changes proposed to 30T.A.C. Chapter I 1 6 (20Tex. Reg. 8306, 10/10/95), 1wouldliketo

### recommend thattheterm "Relatively EquivalentCompound"**(~C)** 

### shouldinclude an option.not a requirement. for a regulated entityto submitmodelinginformationthatwould showno adverseimpacts 

### from the proposed changes. 

### Iunderstandthat

### there are elements 

### in the regulated communitywho opposethe mentionof

### modeling for RECs. However, this**rout~** 

### shouldbe available 'vith appropriate 11'\RCC oversight. An example ofa possible procedurewouldbe thatt.he company seeking the change ;voulduse thelatestEPA Screen Model to demonstrate thatworst-case grot:.nd-level impactswould be acceptable. Or, the 

### companycould revie\"\" 

### an accepta.ble procedure

### v..ith theTNRCC modelinggroup and assure thatthey-.....·ere using**acc~ptable** 

### protocol. Ifthe modeling showedthatthere were no healthimpacts greater 

### than 1 x ESL, all partieswould be assured

### thatnecessary and protective health concerns had been addressed. andthe companyshouldbe able to implementits change. 

### Ifthecompanychose this alternative, it

### could

### likelyimp1c:mcnt its 

### changes signific.antly morerapidly than

## ifthe change were tobe deemed a non-REC change and be required to be processedthrough New Source Review Permitting. In addition, TNRCC resources wouldnotbe needlessly exercised. Thank

### you. Sincerelv,**~**



### John Tuttle

John Tuttle, Attorney 11604 Snow Barn Cove Austin, Te,..os 78750 Office: (51 2) 257·0201 Mobile: (512) 914-2546 Fmr" 1;1;1?'**'~7-n?n?** 

### TOTAL P.02' 

### UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION POLYOLEFINS DIVISION November7, 1995

Ms. LisaMartin Office ofPolicy andRegulatoryDevelopment (Mail Code 202) TexasNatural Resource Conservation Commission P. 

### 0.Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 VIAFAX (512) 239-5687 Re: RulesTrackingLog#95144-116-AI Comments onProposed Changes to Regulation VI (TexasRegister- October 10, 1995) Conunenter=RussellA. WozniakoftheUnion Carbide SeadriftPlant- Seadrift, Texas TNRCC Account CB-0028-T · DearMs. Martin: TheUnion Carbide SeadriftPlant, located in Calhoun County, has thefollowing comments onthe October 10, 1995 proposedchanges to Regulation VIfor TNRCC's consideration:

Portion ofProposed Re211Iation Commentfor Consideration Section 116.10

- General Definitions

- Definition TNRCCuses the phrase "priorto thechange" in ofActual EmissionRate (1st paragraph) this definition and inotherdefinitions. The meaning ofthisphrase needs tobeclearly understood. Does it meanpriortocommencing constructiononanychangeordoes it mean actually emitting athigheremissionrates (i.e. startingup)7 In somecases, theremaybea 6 to 12 month gapbetweenthesetwo dates. 

# 8

Section 116.10

- GeneralDefinitions

- Definition TNRCC uses thephase "federal orstateemissions ofActual EmissionRate (Istparagraph) limitation". Themeaningofthisphrase needsto beclarified. UCC suggeststhefollowing wording for thelast sentence. "This rate cannotexceed any emissionlimitestablished in a Federal or State airpermit orinFederal andorStateair pollution regulations.Portion ofProposed ReEUlation Commentfor Consideration Section 116.10

- General Definitions-Definition The definition for aqualified facility is clear. ofActual EmissionRate

- AllowableEmission However, TNRCC needs to define in Regulation Ratefor a Qualified GrandfatheredFacility

- VIwhatthe allowable emission rate is for a nonParagraph (C) qualifiedfacility. Avariety ofguidance memos continue to leave the regulated community confusedregarding what theallowable emission rates arefor these types offacilities. UCC suggests thatTNRCC develop such a definitionfor non-qualified grandfathered facilities, and incorporate it into Regulation VI. Such adefinition will beginto resolveavery confusing issue forthe regulated**communi~** Section 116.10

- General Definitions -Definition TNRCC uses the term "facility", and then Modification ofExistingFacility

- Exemption (E) proceeds to discuss changes thatdo notresult in a net increase in allowable emissions from the facility. Thetermfacility, as defined in theTexas Clean AirAct, means a discrete oridentifiable structure, device, item etc. (i.e. one tankorone emission point). UCC suggests thatTNRCC clarifythis language such that itis clearthat nettingbetween emissionpoints in agiven operatingunitorplantis allowed as longas each ofthese points meets certaincriteria. Again, the termfacility lends itselftojustone emissionpoint**or~iece of~uipment.**  Section 116.10

- General Definitions

- Definition UCC stronglyurgesTNRCC to prepare a Modification ofExistingFacility-Exemption (E) documentthat is availableto theregulated (ii) communitywhich discusses whatthe BACT requirements wereforfacilities overthe last 10 years so that eachcompany does not have to conductaresearch effortto obtainthis information. Theagency should considermaking this information available on theTNRCCbulletin board. Also, the agency should onlyfocus their efforts onthe more commonBACTissues such as NOx controlsforBoilers, control requirements for flares andfabric filters etc
..Portion ofProposedRe211lation CommentforConsideration Section 116.10

- General Definitions- Definition TNRCC should allow operatingunitsthathave ofQualifiedFacility recently undergone the permitrenewal process, andthathave updatedthe permitconditionsto BAcrornearBAcrlevels to be considered as "QualifiedFacilities" eligibleto use the advantages ofthis particularrulemaking. For example, UCC hasrecently renewed a numberof permits and hasallowed these permitsto be upgradedto currentBAcrornearcurrentBACT levels in mostcases. Theagency shouldbe able torule onthese matters on a case-by-casebasisby.reviewingthe existing permitconditions to see ifatleast 10yearold BACfrequirements are inplace. Section 116.10

- General Definitions -Relatively TNRCC should tryto simplifythis most Equivalent Compound complicated issue. UCC suggests thatthe agency establish 3or4levels ofchemical groupingsfor thepurposes ofnetting. Thebasisforthe groupings couldbethe short-termESL's for each aircontaminant Forexample, group 1couldbe ESL's < 10ppb. Group 2ESL's between 10 and 100ppbv. Then, the agency should allow emission netting amongvarious aircontaminants as longas the**emis~ion** rateofthe more impacting chemicalsdoes not increase (i.e. emission rate of Group 1chemicalscannotbe greaterthan itwas priorto the change, but emissionrate ofGroup 2 couldbe iftheprojectresulted in an overall emission decrease). Section 116.117 Notificationfor Changes at UCC feels that an annual reportofphysical and QualifiedFacilities-Paragraph (b) operational changes is notneeded under paragraph (b). The rule shouldjustrequire documentationforthe life ofthe change tobekept attheplant siteofsuch changes. Shouldthe TNRCCwanta copy ofthis information, they could simply request itas**nc~Cded.** ShouldTNRCC decide that an annual report is necessary, UCC suggests thatthe regulated communityprovidethis informationto a central office inAustin versus the Regional Offices. These reports should notgo to the Regional Offices due to theburden onthese staffs already. Also, UCC suggeststhatthe due datebeJanuary 31st, andthatthe report coverchanges forthe previous calendaryear. Section 116.117 Notificationfor Changes at UCC suggeststhatTNRCC setthe de minimis QualifiedFacilities -Paragraph (c) levels at afairly highlevel so thatthe agency does notreceive alarge numberofpre-change • notifications.Portion of'Proposed Reeulation Commentf'or Consideration Section 116.117 Notificationfor Changes at UCC suggests thatTNRCC considerno postQualifiedFacilities-Paragraph (d) changenotificationfor changesinvolvingtrading belowthedeminimislevel." UCC suggeststhatthe regulated community simply keep records ofthe trade. Paragraphs (a) and (b) would have tobe slightly modifiedto accommodatethis suggestion. General Comment TNRCC shouldestablish a small section ofpermit engineersto workonpre-change notifications, and on some ofthe BACfissues raised inthis proposed rule. A section. similarto theNSR StandardExemption Group, would helpboththe agency andtheregulatedcommunitywiththese new rules.

Please contact me at (5 12) 553-2920with any questionsyou have regarding ourcomments. Thankyou for considerationofthese comments.

R. A. Wozniak Sr. Environmental Engineer EnvironmentalProtectionDept

## Central and South West Services, Inc. 1616Woodall Rodgers Freeway P.O. Box 660164• Dallas,Texas 75266-0164 

### November 10, 1995
Ms. Lisa Martin Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Office ofPolicy and Regulatory Development Mailcode 202 P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Transmittal: By Facsimile RE: Comments on Proposed Rulemaking 30 TAC Chapter 116 Control ofAir Pollutionby Permits for New Construction orModification Dear Ms. Martin: 

# 8

Central and South West Corporation (CSWC) is a public utility holding company that is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. CSWC has four electric operating subsidiaries: Central Power and Light Company (CPL), Public Service Company of Oklahoma (PSO), Southwestern Electric Power Company (SWEPCO), and West Texas Utilities Company (WTU). These companies provide electric service to more than four million people in a widely diversified area covering 152,000 square miles. This area is the second largest served by any electric utility system in the United States. Three of these operating companies (CPL, WTU, SWEPCO) have service territories with facilities located in Texas. Central and South West Services, Inc. (CSWS), a subsidiary ofCSWC, on behalfofits electric utility companies, submits the following comments in response to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission's (TNRCC) request of October 10, 1995, located in the Texas Register, 20 TEXREG 8306-8310. CSWS commends the TNRCC's effort to streamline the regulatory process by revising the definition of modification to allow facilities minimal impact to operations when facility modifications occur. CSWS also appreciates the opportunity to represent the electric utility's concerns during the development ofthe proposed regulations. Primarily, the TNRCC is urged to develop a definition for grandfather rate for nonqualified facilities. Originally, the definitions for actual and presumptive grandfather

AMember of the Central and South West System Central Powerand Light Company• Public Service Companyof Oklahoma • Southwestern Electric PowerCompany Transok, Inc. •WestTexas Utilities Company•CSW Energy, Inc.

### rates were included in 30 TAC 122 (Regulation XII), Federal Operating Permits. However, the TNRCC and industry's Title V Planning Committee have proposed to remove the grandfather definition and requirements from Regulation XII. Many industries, including the electric utilities, are looking for guidance in determining grandfather rates for facilities that do not meet the definition of "qualified" per the referenced proposed rulemaking. For non-qualified grandfathered facilities, determining if planned facility "modifications" invoke the permit requirement can be difficult. Typical operating rates for a power plant can significantly vary from year-to-year, based on energy demand, fuel prices, etc. Utilizing a "grandfather rate" for the basis of determining if facility modifications require a permit would remove a great deal of uncertainty and burden. In addition, compliance determinations and certifications are a substantial portion ofthe Federal Operating Permit (FOP) application. If a grandfather rate definition for non-qualified facilities existed, compliance determinations can be made more accurately and directly. CSWS recommends that a definition of grandfather rate for non-qualified facilities be included in the referenced rulemaking. Currently, the proposed rulemaking contains a grandfather rate definition for the natural gas industry that is based on the emissions associated with operations at the maximum design capacity. CSWS considers this definition to be appropriate for non-qualified grandfathered acid rain units. CSWS appreciates the careful consideration that the TNRCC will 

### give to the above referenced comments and the opportunity to provide our input on the proposed rulemaking. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at (214)777-2896. Sincerely,

# q(mw./IIJO..~ Kathleen A. Young \ 

# 0 Senior Project Administrator CSWS Environmental PermittingINDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY
Reference Number Submitted by

No oral comments were received

## eh_a.nTI 'l 

### /It 

# -58 I J

## :J. C:. 

# Public Hearing Registration Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

- 

# Location:

# ~ Date:**720v~** 

# t/ 19 

## Narne & 

## Mailing Address Representing Making Oral Presentation (circle one)

# ~dd~b**a~r(s~~** Yes 

# e

17,.4'1::/ r\1.**~.f.,<.~.{ £~>-.;y**  IJ 

### (/ I) 

# Ru-**D~Vv~~::t** .S:v;

### Q IZ.C.C
. 

# r:.-**~**

# ;·+r**~**

# 5111fcv-t

# h 

# rJAc Yes

# ~**'D~I(a.;** 1 T'f.**7~-Vf.J** 

### /?J,**<HA-~'- w~"~** 

# / 'l.. .P.'o.8c.J<. 3"750

# ~**8-Htr~rc**••. 

### ,v,rx 77S2Z. C'lt,,'Y..CN Ct:.. 

### v. ::;.A. 

### Yes /

I 

### Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

Yes No

# EVALUATION OF

TESTIMONY

# Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

To:
Thru:
From:
Subject: INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

The Commissioners Date:
ChiefClerk's Office Beverly Hartsock, Deputy Director

# (pi Office ofPolicy and Regulatory Development January 19, 1996

Docket No. 95-1419-RUL. Consideration for adoption of amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter A, concerning Definitions, and Subchapter B, concerning New Source Review Permits. The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCqpermit amendment and alteration criteria and procedures are being modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1126 (74th Legislature, 1995). The modified language will implement Senate Bill 1126, which allows certain facilities to make changes without requiring prior authorization. The proposal was published in the Texas Register on October 10, 1995 (20 TexReg 8306).
In the 74th Legislature, Senate Bill 1126 (SB 1126) amended the Health and Safety Code to allow physical and operational changes at qualified facilities without the necessity ofobtaining an air quality permit or undergoing a complete air quality review. Specifically, SB 1126 amended the following: §382.003(9) by adding three additional exemptions to the definition of modification; §382.0512 by establishing additional considerations the TNRCC must weigh when determining if there has been a modification at a qualified facility; and §382.0518 to reference permit amendments. Revisions to §116.116, concerning Changes to Facilities, establish the criteria by which changes at qualified facilities may be made without triggering the requirements for obtaining a permit, permit amendment, or permit alteration. To make the requirements easier to understand, new §116.116(e) consolidates in one location the principal provisions which cover changes made to qualified facilities. These provisions include the methods for determining the net effect ofemissions increases and decreases, compound interchanges, and intraplant trading of emissions. This section explicitly excludes the construction ofnew facilities orthe lessening ofcontrols from consideration under these new provisions, since neither was intended to be included under SB 1126. It also requires facilities to install current Best Availability Control Technology ifthe purpose ofthe installation is to become a qualified facility. Revisions to §116.117, concerning Documentation and Notification of Changes to Qualified Facilities, establish the requirement for recordkeeping ofall changes made under the adopted §116.116(e) at the facility and the types ofnotification associated with specific scenarios. Section 116.117(a) requires that the records be maintained on-site and that they be presented to the TNRCC upon request in order to properly inspect the changes made at the facility. Section 116.117(a) also identifies the type of information to be included in these records. There are three types of notification required under §116.117(b) for changes to facilities: an annual report, which covers the previous year's changes not notified by the other two means; post-change notification, which covers changes for which there was an intraplant trade of emissions below the reportable limit; and pre-change notification, which covers intraplant trades above the reportable limit. The reportable limit has been established as a screeningTo: The Commissioners From: Beverly Hartsock January 19, 1996 Page 2 approach to allow the commission an opportunity to review certain intraplant trades. Section 116.117(d) was established to replace permit alteration procedures for those permitted facilities making changes pursuant to §116.116(e) that would result in a violation of a permit special condition. This subsection requires a permit holder to identify the permit special conditions that are made invalid by a change made**pursu~t** to §116.116(e) and the necessary revision to the special condition or desire to remove the special condition from the permit. Revisions to §116.118, concerning Pre-change Qualification, provide the conditions under which a facility must establish with the TNRCC that the facility is qualified. This section directs the facility to submit documentation describing the basis for qualification. New §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, relocates the current rule language from §116.117 to this new section. The proposed §116.119, concerning Demonstrating Compliance with Allowable Emission Rate, is recommended to be withdrawn. Such a recommendation has been made because the TNRCC already has the authority to require such demonstrations and to determine the appropriate methodology of demonstrating compliance. A total of 18 parties from industry, environmental, governmental, and public interests submitted written testimony on the proposal. Most ofthe comments were in support ofthe rule proposal. One commenter requested that the proposal be completely withdrawn.EVALUATION OF TESTIMONY

The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) adopts amendments to §116.10, concerning General Definitions, and §116.116, concerning Changes to Facilities; the repeal of §116.117, concerning Distance Limitations; and new §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, §116.117, concerning Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities, and §116.118, concerning Pre-change Qualification. Sections 116.10, 116.116, 116.117, and 116.118 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 10, 1995, issue ofthe Texas Register (20 TexReg 8306). The repeal and §116.112 are adopted without changes and will not be republished. Section 116.119 is withdrawn by the TNRCC.

The TNRCC permit amendment and alteration criteria and procedures are being modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1126 (74th Legislature, 1995). The modified language will implement Senate Bill 1126 (SB 1126) to allow certain facilities the ability to make changes without requiring prior authorization.

Revisions to §116.10, concerning General Definitions, amend the current definition ofnew source (now new facility) and add the proposed new definitions for actual emissions, allowable emissions, Best Available Control Technology (BACT), facility, grandfathered facility, maximum allowable emission rate table, modification ofexisting facility, qualified facility, and source. The proposed definition for non-qualified facility was deleted as unnecessary from the adopted rule. The proposed definitions for relatively equivalent compound and net increase in allowable emissions were also deleted, however the concepts have been incorporated into the adopted §116.116(e). Definitions for

1grandfathered facility, facility, and source were added to the rule to clarify the meanings ofthese terms.

Revisions to §116.116, concerning Changes to Facilities, establish the criteria by which changes at qualified facilities may be made without triggering the requirements for obtaining a permit amendment

or permit alteration. To make the requirements easier to understand, new §116.116(e) consolidates in

one location the principal provisions which cover changes made to qualified facilities. These provisions include the criteria for facility qualification and the methods for determining the net effect ofemission increases and decreases, compound interchanges, and intraplant trading ofemissions. This section explicitly prohibits the construction ofnew facilities or the lessening ofcontrols since neither was intended to be included within the flexibility intended under SB 1126. It also requires facilities to install current BACT ifthe purpose ofthe installation is to become a qualified facility.

Revisions to §116.117, concerning Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities, establish the requirement for record keeping ofall changes made under the adopted §116.116(e) at the facility and the types ofnotification associated with specific scenarios. Section 116.117(a) requires that the records be maintained on-site and that they are presented to the TNRCC upon request in order to make proper inspection ofthe changes made at the facility. Section 116.117(a) also identifies the type ofinformation to be included in these records
.. There are three types ofnotification required under §116.117(b) for changes to facilities: an annual report, which covers the previous year's changes not notified by the other two means; post-change notification, which covers changes for which there was an intraplant trade ofemissions below the reportable limit; and pre-change notification, which covers intraplant trades above the reportable limit. The reportable limit has been established as a screening approach to allow the commission an opportunity to review certain
2intraplant trades. Section 116.117(d) was established to provide another method, in addition to permit alteration procedures, for those permitted facilities making changes pursuant §116.116(e) that would result in a violation of a permit special condition. This subsection requires a permit holder to identify the permit special conditions that are made invalid by a change made pursuant §116.116(e) and denote the necessary revision to the special condition or desire to remove the special condition from the permit.

Revisions to §116.118, concerning Pre-change Qualification, provide the conditions under which a facility must establish with the TNRCC that the facility is qualified. This section directs these facilities to submit documentation describing the basis for qualification.

New §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, relocates the current rule language from §116.117 to this new section. This recommendation is made to allow for a more logical presentation of 30 TAC Chapter 116.

The TNRCC has prepared a Takings Impact Assessment for these rules pursuant to the Texas Government Code, §2007.043. The following is a summary ofthat assessment. The specific purpose ofthe rule is to provide for changes in permitting requirements for existing qualified facilities as allowed by Senate Bill 1126. The rules will substantially advance this specific purpose by making the necessary revisions to current regulations covering changes to facilities and by developing new definitions that assist in the implementation ofthese changes. Further, the amendments incorporate a
new mechanism for notification to the TNRCC ofchanges at facilities qualified for the flexibility provided by SB 1126. Promulgation and enforcement ofthese rules will not affect private real property which is the subject ofthe rules because the permit amendment and notification processes are


### 3considered operational not capital cost borne by the affected parties ofthese rules.

A total of 18 interested parties submitted written testimony on the proposal: Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman); Exxon Company USA (Exxon); Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P); Phillips 66 Company; Texas Chemical Council (TCC); Texas Mid-continent Oil and Gas Association (TMOGA); EC-Applied, Inc.; American Electronics Association (ABA); Central and South West Services, Inc. (CSWS); Enron Operations Corporation (Enron); Amoco; and Union Carbide Corporation (Carbide). Brown McCarroll & Oaks Hartline (Brown) and Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (TU Services) generally supported the intent ofthe proposed revisions, but suggested changes or clarifications. An individual submitted an option for determining "Relatively Equivalent Compound." The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments on the proposal and items ofconcern it suggested be addressed in the public record, but did not indicate support or opposition to the proposal. The City ofDallas submitted comments, but did not support or oppose the proposal. Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP) requested that the entire proposal be withdrawn.



### General Comments. Carbide suggested that a small section ofpermit engineers be created to work

on pre-change notifications, and on some ofthe BACT issues.



### The TNRCC recognizes that staffresources will be necessary to review requests related to this rulemaking.

Exxon, Enron, and Carbide suggested the TNRCC quickly move to address allowable emissions from grandfathered facilities that are not considered qualified. This action will impact the way that

4facilities will be treated under the operating permits program. CSWS wants this issue addressed in this rulemaking and also stated that the grandfathered rate definition for the natural gas industry would be appropriate for non-qualified grandfathered acid rain units. Carbide suggested that TNRCC action on this issue is needed to resolve confusion for the regulated community.


### Currently, grandfather rates are defined in 30 TAC Chapter 122 for the purposes of determining potential to emit for Title V applicability. Discussions have taken place in which it has been suggested that this language be 

### moved from Chapter 122 to 30 TAC Chapter 116. This suggested change, however, is outside the scope ofthis rule proposal. The TNRCC appreciates the concern raised by the commenters.
Phillips 66 suggested another comment period due to the complexity ofthe rules and the overlap between major and minor New Source Review and Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration.



### This proposal does not affect Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration applicability or review. It 

### is necessary to enact this proposal as soon as possible in order to implement the changes to the statute that resulted from the last legislative session. An 

### additional comment period would serve to delay this effort.

TMOGA/TCC provided language for a new subsection, §116.116(e), which covers changes to qualified facilities. The purpose ofthis subsection is to consolidate in one location the principal provisions of SB 1126 regarding the flexibility provided to qualified facilities to make physical and operational changes. These provisions are: net increases in allowable emissions; air contaminants not previously emitted; notification requirements; excluded changes; additional controls for qualification
5purposes; and intraplant trading of allowable and actual emissions. Brown recommended that similar changes be made.

The TNRCC accepts the proposed change and feels that the fonnat is easier to understand. However, it should be noted that the language has not been accepted verbatim.

Eastman, GHASP, EPA, and EC-Applied, Inc. requested that the guidance document undergo public review and comment or at least, the public should be given adequate notice prior to changes to the guidance document.

The TNRCC intends to make draft versions ofthe guidance document available on the TNRCC bulletin board. Concerns and comments will be accepted on the guidance document.

Amoco, Enron, AEA, Exxon, and HL&P supported the recommendations ofTMOGA/TCC.

The TNRCC acknowledges the support from these groups for the changes recommended by TMOGA.

§116.10. General Definitions comments are as follows. Phillips 66 requested that the TNRCC explain the interaction of §116.10 definitions with those in §116.12 specifically for terms such as "actual emissions" and "actual emissions rate."

The newly adopted definitions in §116.10 are relevant in all sections ofChapter 116 with the exception of §116.150, concerning Nonattainment Review as is the case for the current
6

### definitions in §116.10. The definition of "actual emissions" in §116.10 , however, restricts its applicability to § 116.116(e).

TMOGA/TCC and an individual suggested a definition for grandfathered facility from the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) for inclusion in the rule, since it is a tenn used within other parts ofthe proposed rule.



### A defmition for grandfather facility has beenincluded.

Brown recommended that the TNRCC add statutory definitions for "facility" and "source" to the rule proposal.



### The TNRCC agrees and has made the changes to the proposal.
Regarding the definition ofactual emissions rate, Carbide suggested that the TNRCC clarify the phrases "prior to change" and "federal or state emissions limitations."


### "Change" is a term that is currently used in the regulations and is 

### intended to indicate that requirements are to be met prior to commencement ofconstruction ofa'physical change or prior to making an operational change. Federal and state emission limitations would include those limits in federal or state permits orany limit that may apply to a facility in a state orfederal regulation. The TNRCC does not feel that a change is 

### needed to the proposed language to make these terms clear.

7TMOGA/TCC suggested word changes and additions to clarify the definition and make it more consistent with the statute and implementing rules. TMOGA/TCC also suggested this definition apply only to intraplant trading involving actual emissions from other qualified facilities. Further, TMOGA/TCC recommended that the TNRCC add language to the rule which requires intraplant trades to be expressed in the same time periods, e.g., pounds per hour or tons per year.



### The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed changes.

Brown requested the deletion ofthe term "rate" since the language ofthe statute does not use the term. Brown also suggested that the TNRCC add language to the rule which requires intraplant trades to be expressed in the same time periods on emissions.



### The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed changes.

TMOGA/TCC, TU Services, and Eastman recommended that the January 1, 1990, restriction in determining actual emissions be deleted. Eastman supports the flexibility offered by the 120-month window for determining actual emission rates from qualified facilities with no permitted allowable emission rate.



### The TNRCC agrees and has deleted the appropriate language.

GHASP disagreed with the approach for determining actual emission rates which allows facilities to
use the highest annual rate for anytime in the past ten years.

8

### The statute does not specifically speak to the relevant time period for establishing a facility's actual emissions. The statute does use a 120-month period for qualifying facilities based on control technology. Some time period must be used, and therefore the TNRCC feels it is reasonable to follow the 120-month precedent established inthe statute.
Regarding the definition of allowable emission rate, the City ofDallas raised a concern that the rule proposal will reduce agency awareness ofemission changes on a timely basis.



### Notification is required for changes that result in intraplant trading. This provides adequate notice ofsignificant emission changes. Other changes either result in insignificant emission trading or do not exceed previously established allowables. Records ofthese changes must be maintained on-site and must be made available to the TNRCC upon request. Additionally, changes that don't require notification are required to be reported to the TNRCC annually.

GRASP opposed allowing facilities to maintain their maximum allowable emission rate after implementation ofcontrols.



### This rule language is intended to implement the statutory change that allows the consideration of reductions made in determining ifan increase in emissions had occurred.

Brown requested the removal ofthe term "rate" since the language ofthe statute does not use the term and recommended language to clarify the definition.



### The TNRCC agrees and has madethe proposed change.
9Regarding the definition of allowable emission rate for a qualified grandfathered facility, TMOGA/TCC suggested changes and additions to clarify the meaning ofthe definition and make it

more consistent with the statute and implementing rules. For grandfathered facilities installing BACT to become a qualified facility, TMOGA/TCC recommended that 10% ofpre-control maximum annual emissions rate be added to the facility's allowable emission.



### The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed change.

The City ofDallas questioned whether this definition was intended to include the application of control technology for allowable emission rate determinations.



### Yes, the intent was to reflect that a reduction in emission potential had occurred as a result of the additional controls.
Regarding the definition of allowable emission rate for a qualified facility voluntarily installing controls, the EPA requested that the TNRCC explain the approach ofallowing a facility to keep its pre-control allowable emission rate when the facility's potential to emit would be lower after the voluntary installation ofcontrols. Further, the EPA requested that the rule specify that reductions from the old allowable emission rate not be used to satisfy provisions for netting and offsetting associated with permitting for Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment (NA)

areas.



### The purpose ofthis rulemaking is to implement the changes to state New Source Review as a result ofSB 1126. Senate Bill 1126 allows a facility to install controls at the same time physical
10and operational changes are madein order to avoid a "net" increase in allowable emissions.

The TNRCC recognizes, however, that some ofthese changes that are now exempt from the state definition ofmodification may require federal PSD or NA review. The adopted rules require that a facility verify that a change will not require federal review. This rule does not affect federal permitting applicability or requirements. Itis TNRCC's position that the use of reductions to net out ofstate New Source Review does not affect it's creditability for federal review. Therefore, any reduction in emissions that may result at a source is available for netting and offsetting only ifit satisfies the creditability criteria established under the PSD and NA regulations.
Regarding the definition ofBACT, TMOGA/TCC suggested that BACT would be expressed better as
an emissions limitation rather than a specified control technology.

The acronym BACT was included simply to be substituted for the phrase as defmed. The term is not intended to imply a particular control technology, but rather the best level ofcontrol that

canbe achieved considering technical practicability and economic reasonableness. An emissions limitation is established based onthe application ofBACT which is reflected as an allowable emission rate in a permit. The TNRCC does not feel that it is appropriate to define BACT as an emissions limitation dueto various factors that determine each individual facility's emissions limitation.

The EPA recommended that the TNRCC modify the definition ofBACT to make it consistent with the federal definition or explain thejustification for the difference. Further, EPA suggested the
11TNRCC indicate how the different definitions are equivalent.



### The tenn "BACT" added as part ofthis rule amendment is consistent with its use in the TCAA, existing TNRCC regulations, the State Implementation Plan, in the PSD delegation agreement, and in the annual grant agreements with the EPA. The TNRCC believes this represents a long historical understanding ofhow BACT is characterized in Texas.

Brown suggested language to correct the proposed definition since the term being defined is used within the definition.



### It was not the intention ofstaffto defme BACT, as a specific level ofcontrol, but rather to define the acronym BACT as it is used by 

### the TNRCC.
Regarding the definition ofmaximum allowable emissions rate table (MAERT), TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested language changes to specify that the maximum allowable emission rate table is that which is issued with a preconstruction permit.



### The TNRCC agrees and has made proposed change.
Regarding the definition ofmodification ofexisting facility, Carbide and Phillips 66 suggested that TNRCC more clearly define the term "facility" because there is confusion regarding the ability to net emissions. Carbide requests that the TNRCC prepare a BACT guidance document and make it accessible through various media.

12

### The TNRCC agrees and has added the statutory definition for the tenn "facility" to the definitions in §116.10. The TNRCC is in the process ofdeveloping a guidance document that will explain to the regulated community how to detennine ifa physical or operational change at
a facility is exempt from the definition ofmodification consistent with SB 1126. As 

### part ofthis guidance document, the TNRCC will publish a list ofhistorical BACT requirements and will provide guidance on netting ofemissions between facilities. The document will be available through the TNRCC electronic bulletin board and in hard copy upon request.
Phillips 66, EPA, and GRASP requested more clarity on the term "insignificant increase"and the basis for its determination.



### The tenn "insignificant increase" is an existing tenn under the definition of "modification" in the TCAA. The TNRCC is not proposing to change the definition or undertake a new interpretation ofthe existing statute. TNRCC's current mechanism for authorizing insignificant
sources is through standard exemption. As 

### ofyet, there is 

### no established level ofemissions that the TNRCC considers to be "insignificant."

TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested updating the language to reflect the current organization of TNRCC. TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested language to clarify that facility qualification on the basis ofBACT applies to those facilities that do not satisfy the criteria for qualification on the basis of

a permit, permit amendment, or standard exemption. Brown recommended that language be deleted to remove redundancy with the definition ofBACT.



### The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed changes.
13Eastman suggested that other parts ofChapter 116 referencing standard exemptions as modifications be changed to be consistent with the definition of "modification ofexisting facility" in §116.10. Eastman also requested that the definition ofmodification also be changed so that an increase in the hours ofoperations at a permitted or exempted facility would not be considered a modification ifthe additional operating time was previously authorized. Eastman also suggested that the definition be changed as to exclude relatively equivalent compounds from those air contaminantsjudged not to be previously emitted.



### This rulemaking package is intended to implement the changes to the statute that resulted from SB 1126. The portion ofthe definition ofmodification that refers to standard exemptions existed prior to the passage of SB 1126. Itis not stafrs intent to review issues related to the existing statute and the language in Chapter 116 dealing with standard exemptions at this time. Staffdoes not believe that the definition ofmodification needs to be changed to include language that an increase in operating hours at a permitted or exempted facility is not a modification. As 

### long as the facility does not exceed previous representations regarding operating hours, under existing rule language, this would not be considered a modification. The language proposed for the definition ofmodification is directly from the statute. The definition ofrelatively equivalent compound has been deleted andthe concept ofinterchanging equivalent compounds was placed in §116.116(e).

The City of Dallas had a serious concern regarding how the term "insignificant increases" could be interpreted, especially as applied to toxic emissions. The City ofDallas suggested that the TNRCC apply Standard Exemption 118 requirements to these speciated chemicals.

14

### The term "insignificant increase" is an existing term under the definition ofmodification in the TCAA. The TNRCC is not proposing to change the definition orundertake a new interpretation ofthe existing statute. The TNRCC's current mechanism for authorizing insignificant sources is through standard exemption as previously explained.

GHASP indicated that documenting BACT over the past ten years would be unworkable because of the case-by-case approach the TNRCC took regarding BACT.



### To the extent possible, the TNRCC intends to make information available on historical BACT determinations. The rule prescribes in §116.118, pre-change qualification for those facilities for which BACT cannot be documented orthat vary from the historical list. This pre-change qualification allows the agency to consider demonstrations made by the owner/operator that the facilities in question are qualified on the basis ofhaving BACT equivalent to what would have been required 120 months priorto a change.

Enron indicated that this definition could resolve the grandfathered status ofnatural gas facilities.



### The TNRCC agrees that the definition clarifies the types ofchanges these facilities can make without those changes being considered a modification.

Regarding the definition ofnet increase in allowable emissions, TMOGA/TCC recommended the removal ofthis term with the provision that this language be included in their proposed §116.116(e).



### The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed change.
15Phillips 66 requested clarification on which baseline levels ofemissions to use when calculating the net effect of a change to an existing facility.

In determining ifa modification has occurred, there must first be a physical or operational change. A qualified facility is not modified ifa physical or operational change does not result in

an increase above its authorized allowable. Likewise, a facility is not considered modified if sufficient decreases can be found from other qualified facilities so that a net increase in allowable emissions is avoided. Ifthefacility at which the reduction occurs is qualified by pennit, then the reduction must come from the allowable emission rate ofthat facility. Ifthe facility at which the reduction occurs is qualified by BACT or standard exemption, then reductions must come in theform ofactual emissions. Actual emissions, for purposes ofnetting under §116.116 (e)(l), are defined as the highest level ofemissions achieved within 120 months prior to a change.

The EPA recommended that any decreases used for netting purposes not be relied upon in a PSD permit or NA permit, and not used in the demonstration ofattainment or reasonable further progress in the State Implementation Plan. The EPA suggested that the netting window begin when the facility notifies the TNRCC ofthe proposed change and end when the proposed increase occurs. The EPA requested that TNRCC consider the inclusion ofother non-project increases which occur in the netting window. The EPA concurred that the TNRCC has adequately addressed the applicability ofmajor

sources and major modifications with respect to PSD and NA permitting requirements. The EPA requested that TNRCC address the effect the rule proposal will have on the Operating Permits Program under Title V ofthe Federal Clean Air Act.

16It

### is TNRCC's position that the use ofreductions to net out-of-state New Source Review does not affect the creditability ofthese reductions for federal review. Likewise, emission increases netting for out-of-state review purposes are still accountable in PSD/NA netting. Therefore, any reduction in emissions that may result at a source are available for netting and offsetting as long
as they satisfy the creditability criteria established underthe PSD and NA regulations.

The TNRCC believes there will not be a net reduction associated with these changes available to be used in a demonstration ofattainment or reasonable further progress in the State Implementation Plan.

The TNRCC has proposed a simple netting exercise to determine ifa net increase in emissions
occurs as a result ofa physical oroperational change. A netting window for the purposes ofthis demonstration would unnecessarily complicate the process. Each project will require a separate demonstration that a net increase has not occurred, since Texas has a more narrow definition of facility and stricter definition ofmodification than the federal programs. The TNRCC does not
see the benefit ofincluding non-project related increases within a netting window as the EPA has suggested.

The TNRCC appreciates EPA's concurrence that PSD and NA applicability has been adequately addressed inthe rule. The TNRCC acknowledges theEPA's comment.

The TNRCC is unsure ofthe exact effects ofthis rule given the developmental status ofthe Title V Operating Permit Program. However, ifchanges allowed under these rules triggera requirement underthe federal operation permit program for a permit or permit modification,

17

### then those rules will govern for that program.
Regarding the definition ofnew source, TMOGA/TCC and Brown reconunended that the definition of

new source be changed to new facility and suggested language consistent with their suggested definition ofgrandfathered facilities. TU Services made similar conunents with suggested language for the definition.



### The TNRCC agrees to change the definition ofnew source to new facility to be consistent with the terminology used in the statute and in Chapter 116. Inrevising the definition ofnew facility, the TNRCC did not rely solely on the suggested language made by any one ofthe commenters, but believes that the adopted definition is 

### consistent**Wit~** 

### the statute and the spirit ofthe comments.
Regarding the definition ofnon-qualified facility, TMOGA/TCC and Brown reconunended that this term be deleted as unnecessary.



### The TNRCC agrees and has deleted the term "non-qualified facility."
Regarding the definition ofqualified facility, Carbide suggested TNRCC allow operating units that have undergone the permit renewal process to be considered qualified, especially those renewals that have adjusted permits conditions to BACT and near BACT.



### The TNRCC does not agree with the comment since the statute does not make such a provision. Control technology review is not performed at timeofrenewal unless there is a demonstrated

18

### condition ofair pollution. Therefore, a facility that has undergone a pennit renewal may not necessarily meet the requirement ofhaving BACT 

### equivalent to what would have been required 120 months priorto a change.

TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended that TNRCC avoid using language significantly different from that found in the statute and suggested language to correct the inconsistency.



### The TNRCC 

### agrees and has made the proposed changes.

Eastman suggested that any facility which has undergone a BACT review as part of a special exemption authorization within the last 120 months also be considered qualified. Eastman also suggested that the definition be modified to allow for shutdown facilities to be creditable reductions when considering the impact ofa change on net allowable emission levels.



### The TNRCC 

### agrees that special exempted facilities and standardexempted facilities authorized underthe TCAA, 

### §382.057 within 120 months priorto a change are qualified and have revised the rule language appropriately. Emissions from shutdown facilities can be used to avoid a net increase in emissions as long as the shutdown facility would meet the criteria ofbeing a qualified facility at the time ofthe change resulting in the emission increase.
Regarding the definition ofrelatively equivalent compound, Carbide recommended this issue be simplified by having three to four groupings for the purposes ofnetting and Carbide also suggested the TNRCC allow for intergroup trades as long as the emission rate ofthe more impacting chemicals does not increase.
19The TNRCC evaluated several approaches for determining whether a physical or operational change results in a net increase inallowable emissions. The adopted rule does not contain the tenn "relatively equivalent compound." The rule does, however, allow increases in emissions of individual compounds to be offset by equivalent decreases in emissions at the same or another qualified facility. The offset is made by the interchange ofanother compound in the same air contaminant category or an intraplant trade, which is similar to Carbide's suggested grouping. In addition to being in the same air contaminant category, interchanges must offset an increase in emissions by an equivalent reduction in emissions. The equivalence is based on a ratio ofthe effects screening level ofthe compounds. Interchanges may not result in a rate ofemissions that will exceed the allowable for an air contaminant category. This method affords flexibility as suggested by Carbide.

TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested language so that the term could be modified to make it consistent with the practical manner in which the term will be used.

As explained in the previous response, the tenn "relatively equivalent compound" has been deleted. However, the concept ofoffsetting emission increases by equivalent decreases is found in §116.116(e). This approach results in a rule that is more consistent with this approach as suggested by TMOGA/TCC and Brown.

The City of Dallas requested clarification ofthe term "similar characteristics." The City ofDallas indicated that different processes using the same compound will affect the emission rate ofthe compound, thus, the TNRCC will need to take this into consideration when chemical groupings are determined.


### 20

### The tenn "similarcharacteristics" is no longer in the rule due to the removal ofthe tenn "relatively equivalent compound." However, the concept ofequivalence, to which the tenn "similar characteristics" applied, is now found in §116.116(e) and is based on effects screening levels.

GHASP objected to the use ofthe concept because it would allow the release oftoxic compounds that should be strictly regulated.



### The adopted rule will not allow the release oftoxic compounds unchecked nor will the rule relieve the owner from complying with regulations governing the release oftoxic compounds.
EC-Applied, Inc. supported the proposed flexibility to create groupings which allow for facilities to make weekly changes to products and feedstocks without the need for permit amendments or standard exemptions.



### The adopted rule will allow for operational changes cited by the EC-Applied, Inc., but only if the change does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions.

The individual recommended TNRCC include as an option the ability for a facility to submit modeling information that would show no adverse impacts from the proposed change. Eastman suggested the TNRCC consider the collocation of impacts screening as an alternative approach to evaluating the interchangeability ofone compound for another.



### The TNRCC 

### intends to allow facilities to use valid methods for determining ifa change will
21

### result in an adverse impact and is currently evaluating several options. These methods will be discussed in the guidance document. However, the determination ofwhether there has been a net increase in 

### allowable emissions is 

### limited to equivalent emission rates based on relative toxicity as detennined by a ratio ofeffects screening levels.

AEA recommended that the TNRCC refine the definition to specifically allow the interchange of different compounds.



### The adopted rule will allow for the interchange ofdifferent compounds in the same air contaminant category as provided in §116.116(e).

Amoco supported TNRCC's effort to incorporate this concept.



### The TNRCC aclmowledges Amoco's support.

Section 116.116 comments are as follows. TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested that the section title be changed to indicate more clearly the subject matter on the section.



### The TNRCC agrees that §116.116 pertains to more than amendments and alterations for permitted facilities and has madethe proposed change to reflect that this section contains requirements for changes at existing facility, permitted or otherwise.

TMOGA/TCC and Brown provided language for a new subsection, §116.116(e), which covers changes to qualified facilities. The purpose ofthis subsection is to consolidate in one location the


### 22principal provisions of SB 1126 regarding the flexibility provided to qualified facilities to make physical and operational changes. These provisions are: net increases in allowable emissions; air contaminants not previously emitted; notification requirements; excluded changes; additional controls for qualification purposes; and intraplant trading ofallowable and actual emissions.



### The TNRCC agrees and has added a new subsection as §116.116(e) to govern physical and operational changes at qualified facilities. This new subsection will containthe regulatory language to exempt certain changes at qualified facilities from permitting requirements. The definition ofnet increasein allowable emissions will be deleted from the definitions in §116.10 and language will be added to this subsection. This new subsection will also allow for the interchange ofequivalent compound inthe same air contaminant category at qualified facilities. The TNRCC believes that it was theintent ofthe legislature to afford facilities flexibility in making changes. The concept ofinterchanging equivalent compounds is consistent with that philosophy. Notification ofchanges will 

### berequired to allow the agency the opportunity to track changes at facilities to ensure compliance with the rules governing changes at qualified facilities. Language has been added to preclude a claim 

### that a facility would not have to comply with a monitoring or sampling condition underthe excuse thatthe change does not result in an increase in allowable emissions orthe emission ofa new air contaminant. Language has also been added to limit trading to equivalent mass rateunits.

Brown also requested that TNRCC address in the guidance document what constitutes the interchange ofrelatively equivalent compounds "in a manner approved by the executive director ofthe TNRCC." Brown suggested language to replace "air contaminant not previously emitted" with "air contaminant not previously authorized to be emitted." The basis ofthis recommendation is that some permits have
23been issued which include allowable emission rates to authorize the emissions of air contaminants that

were not emitted upon issuance ofthe permit, but may be emitted in the future.



### The TNRCC intends to address in the guidance document what constitutes the interchange of relatively equivalent compound. The phrase "air contaminant not previously emitted" comes from the statutory definition ofmodification. For consistency, the staffrecommends the terms closely agree with the statute.

Regarding §116.117(b)(l), Phillips 66 suggested the word "change" be replaced with "modification." Phillips 66 also suggested language to clarify the term "various emissions."



### The rulemaking is intended to implement SB 1126. Phillip's suggestions address existing rule language and is outside the scope ofthis rulemaking.

TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested modifications that will keep the current permit amendment requirements ofnon-qualified facility changes separate from those requirements ofchanges made to qualified facilities.



### The restructuring ofthe rule to place all requirements related to SB 1126 in §116.116(e) maintains separate procedures for qualified and non-qualified facilities.

Regarding §116.116(b)(2), Phillips 66 suggested the word "change" be replaced with "modification."



### The TNRCC would like to clarify that these rules address two types ofchanges; those that are
24

### modifications and require permit authorization and those that are not modifications. Those changes that do not require authorization will be required to comply with recordkeeping and notification requirements of §116.117 and §116.118 ofthe adopted rules.
Regarding §116.116(c), TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended TNRCC clarify in the preamble that the intent of §116.116(c)(l)(C) is to show that a permit alteration is one means to effect a reduction in allowable emissions, but it is not the only means. TMOGA/TCC and the individual also suggested that incorporating the allowable reduction in the notification required under §116.117(b)(2) or (3) would make the reduction enforceable, since the reduction is a condition ofchanging a qualified facility under their suggested language §116.116(e).



### For a qualified facility, a reduction in allowable emissions may also be accomplished through the pre-change notification or post-notification processes in §116.117(b)(2) or (3). However, for nonqualified facilities, reduction in allowable emissions can only be accomplished through permit alteration. Underthe alteration process, the TNRCC will re-issue a MAERT; while under the notification process for qualified facilities, a PI-E form must be submitted. Reductions in allowable emissions are enforceable because either the permit allowable has been changed and a
new MAERT issued or a PI-E form, which established a new enforceable emission limit, has been submitted with the notification. Where a permitted facility submits a PI-E, the MAERT will 

### be reissued.
Regarding §116.116(c)(l), Phillips 66 suggested adding the words "required for" after "A permit alteration is
..." to alleviate some confusion ofthe proposal as written.



### 25

### The rulemaking is intended to implement SB 1126. Phillips' suggestions address existing rule language and is outside the scope ofthis rulemaking.
Regarding §116.116(c)(1)(C), Phillips 66 suggested this subparagraph be eliminated because ofthe potential volume ofchanges to a permit when federal requirements change. Phillips 66 also suggested replacement language for subsection (c) ifthe TNRCC continued to require a permit alteration for a decrease in allowable emissions.



### This provision was not meant to require that a person submit a permit alteration if

### a new state
orfederal regulation limited a facility's emissions below that which is stated in the MAERT since the rule already provides that the allowable cannot exceed a applicable state orfederal emission limitation. The alteration language was added to allow facilities to make a voluntary reduction in 

### allowable for use by qualified facilities to determine ifthere has been a net increase in allowable emissions.
Regarding §116.116(d), TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested that this exemption be expanded to all subsections in §116.116 and provided minor language changes to simplify this section.



### The TNRCC agrees that this section needs to be changed to make clear that a standard exemption may be used in lieu ofa permit amendment oralteration, but it is not appropriate to include other subsections.

Eastman stated that permit amendments or alterations should not be required for any type ofchange that does not qualify as a modification to an existing facility and provided language to be contained in


### 26§116.116(d) to this effect.



### Tills subsection presumes that a change has occurred at a pennitted facility and in lieu of obtaining a pennit amendment or alteration, the change is authorized through standard exemption. 1bis subsection was originally added to give industry flexibility to make changes rapidly that would otherwise require permit amendment or alteration by use ofa standard exemption. Later these changes must be rolled into the permit. Senate Bill 1126 says that certain changes at qualified facilities are not modifications, andtherefore do not require preconstruction authorization. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that these changes do not require a standard exemption since a standard exemption is a type ofpre-construction authorization.

Section 116.117 comments are as follows. TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested the title ofthe section be modified to make it consistent with the language ofthe statute and other sections ofthe proposed rules.



### The TNRCC 

### agrees and has madethe appropriate changes.

TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended that the proposed language be deleted and suggested new language which consolidates the proposed notification requirements under §116.117 (b)-(d) into one subsection. TMOGA/TCC suggested the language ofthese subsections be changed to clarify and distinguish the notification requirements from the pre-change qualification requirements.



### The TNRCC 

### agrees and suggested changes have been madeto clarify the process. Section
27

### 116.117 has been reorganized and renamed to highlight the docwnentation and notification requirements for changes made pursuant to §116.116(e). Pre-qualification procedures have been separated from the notification procedures and are contained in §116.118, concerning Prechange Qualification. In addition, a requirement for prior notification ofchanges that would conflict with an existing permit special conditions has been added.

GHASP indicated concern regarding the lack ofreal time notification ofchanges made at a facility. Further, GHASP disagreed with the lack ofpublic input into these facility modifications.



### The TNRCC believes that significant changes in emissions will be reported to the agency. The TNRCC believes that the legislature did not intend for these facility changes, which do not amount to a modification, to be subject to agency approval or public input. The public's opportunity for input will be at the time the facility is constructed or modified such that emission increases significantly above the previous allowable.

The City ofDallas requested that the local agencies be copied on all notices to the agency as required in §116.117(b), (c), and (d) documentation ofchanges to the TNRCC. The City ofDallas requested that the local agencies be notified due to their enforcement responsibilities.



### The TNRCC intends to have pre- and post-change notification ofintraplant trades sent to the central office and the annual report ofall other changes sent to the regional office. This information will be available to the local agencies. The TNRCC is willing to work with thelocal agencies to develop a system for communication ofthe facility notifications. Further, the facilities are required to provide information regarding the change upon request ofthe TNRCC.


### 28

### Amoco suggested TNRCC keep the notification for changes at qualified facilities as simple as possible and supported the notification process offered by TMOGA/TCC.

The TNRCC believes that these rules have a simple notification process. The TNRCC has incorporated many ofthe changes suggested by TMOGA/TCC.
Regarding §116.117(a), Exxon requested that operators be allowed to maintain documentation at the plant site or at the nearest manned location ifthe site is unmanned.

The TNRCC recognizes the difficultly ofmaintaining documentation at unmanned sites and has addedlanguage to §116.117(a) to accommodate this request.

TMOGA/TCC suggested language clarifying that the responsibility for maintaining documentation is upon the person or persons making the physical or operational change and that the documentation must satisfy the requirements ofchanges to qualified facilities.

The TNRCC agrees with TMOGA/TCC's request, and has madethe appropriate changes.

Eastman also recommended that the documentation required to be kept on-site include that information relevant and necessary to demonstrate exclusion from the permit process.

The TNRCC believes the current language requires only relevant and necessary information sincethe rule only requires that documentation contain information associated with the change.



### 29Regarding §116.117(b), Carbide, Phillips 66, and Eastman requested that the annual report be deleted. Eastman stated that the annual report is unjustified, since the changes included in an annual report are not considered modifications under SB 1126 and these changes will also be incorporated into the permit upon renewal or permit amendment. Phillips 66 asked that the annual report be eliminated because the records will be available at the facility and subsequently incorporated into the permit upon renewal.

The TNRCC believes that the annual report benefits both industry andthe agency by setting up
a mechanism to trackchanges in order to evaluate whether a permit action should have been required. This is intended to minimize the time both the inspector and plant personnel must spend during site investigations. The TNRCC envisions that this process wiD eliminate potential disagreement between the agency andthe plant as to whether permit violations have occurred and that at time ofpermit renewal this information will be readily available for incorporation into the permit.

Carbide also requested that the documentation ofa change be kept only for the life ofthe change and that any information regarding these changes may be obtained through a request ofthe plant. Carbide suggested that the annual reports be sent to the central office to avoid overburdening the regional office staff and that annual reports cover a calendar year.

The Tl\TRCC believes that it is important to maintain documentation ofthe change as required in the rule to ensure that the commission has the ability to verify that facilities are making changes appropriately. Maintaining documentation for a period longer than the life ofthe change will prevent not having necessary documentation ifa change is questioned at a later date. The

30

### adopted rule requires that annual reports be received by the regional office by August 1 to aid in proper inspection ofthe facility by the TNRCC orlocal agencies. The August 1 deadline for annual reports has been selected to coincide as much as possible with the State Implementation Plan inspection schedule.
Phillips 66 objected to the language which makes the authorization for the change contingent upon including documentation ofthe change in an annual report, a future event. Phillips 66 also objected to the requirement to submit an annual report.



### The rule language has been reorganized to more clearly specify which changes made pursuantto §116.116(e) require notification. However, it should be noted that the requirements in §116.117
are notification requirements only; not an authorization from the TNRCC. The annual report is necessary to maintain the ability ofthe agency to verify a facility's compliance during annual inspections. Changes that have been reported to the agency orthat have been included in a permit action during the year do not have to be included in the annual report.

The City ofDallas suggested that the term "notification" used in this subsection be clarified with respect to the same term used in subsections (c) and (d)

-- that is, pre-change and post-change notifications respectively. The City ofDallas stated that the proposed rules'would be a burden to field investigator activities since annual reports would need to be reviewed. The City ofDallas suggested that the annual report be submitted prior to August 1.



### The TNRCC believes that the changes made in response to the previous comment clarify the notification requirements. The annual report is 

### intendedto assist the investigator by having
31

### documentation ofchanges for which notification was not required readily available in an annual report. The adopted rule requires this report to be submitted by August 1; however, infonnation related to a change may be obtained upon request ofthe TNRCC during a site visit.

The EPA requested that TNRCC address the enforceability ofany allowable emission rate established in a MAERT.



### The TNRCC would like to clarify thattheMAERT is not a stand-alone document. Only facilities with a permit have a MAERT. The MAERT is enforceable and verifiable from a practical standpoint in that a permit includes conditions for demonstrating initial and on-going compliance with allowable emission rates either through direct measurement or through the recording ofa surrogate parameter.
Regarding §116.117(b)(2), Eastman suggested that this paragraph be changed to require documentation to be kept only for those physical or operational changes which are excluded from permitting requirements by remaining below the allowable emission rate. Eastman stated that the existing wording would require additional recordkeeping on those activities which until now have not been required to do so.



### In response to other comments, §116.116 and §116.117 have been changed so that only those changes made pursuant §116.116(e) require documentation and notification. The change alleviates the concern raised by Eastman.
Regarding §116.117(b)(3), Eastman suggested that this paragraph be changed to accommodate the
32exclusion from the notification requirement trades ofemissions between facilities when the facilities have "relatively equivalent locations" or those which vent through a common vent system such that off-site impacts are not significantly affected.



### The TNRCC 

### feels it is appropriateto require notification ofthe trading ofemissions between facilities. The significance ofthetrade will determine whether pre- orpost-notification is required. The TNRCC 

### does not know how many facilities share a common emission point and feel it is inappropriate at this time to write an exclusion as requested. Ifit is found to be a widespread phenomenon, it could be addressed in future rulemaking.
Regarding §116.117(c), GRASP disagreed with no notification for emission point trading of compounds below the de minimis level. GRASP stated that State Implementation Plan inspections will be much more difficult due to emission trades without notification. Carbide suggested that the de minimis level be set high enough to avoid unnecessary pre-change notifications.



### Inresponse to comments made by other commenters, the concept ofde minimis levels no longer exists. Trading ofemissions between facilities will require either pre- orpost-change notification.

Eastman suggested the TNRCC also accept notices sent via other mail delivery methods besides certified mail.



### The requirement for the receipt ofnotification via certifiedmail has been deleted. However, the adopted rule has specific time periods for actions to betaken by the owner/operator orthe


### 33agency. The deletion allows an owner/operatorto use any mail delivery method, but a peJ;"Son should be cautioned to use a method which allows the agency to determine date ofreceipt.
Phillips 66 requested the use ofthe term "de minimis" be clarified relative to the terms "De Minimis threshold test" found in §116.12 and "De minimis impacts" found in §116.10.

The use ofthis term has been deleted.
Regarding §116.117(d), Carbide suggested that trades below the de minimis levels not require post-change notification.

The TNRCC believes it is necessary for the agency to maintain records ofall trades. The TNRCC is willing to reevaluate this requirement once the agency has some experience with trading ofemissions between facilities and alter the notification requirements ifappropriate.

AEA recommended that the post-change notification period be extended to 45 days and the executive director be allowed to set limits within which qualified facilities may notify the TNRCC after the change.

The TNRCC believes 30 days is adequate time to provide notice ofchanges.
Regarding §116.117(e), TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested language to clarify those changes that
are required to be incorporated into the permit upon amendment or renewal.

34

### The TNRCC agrees and has added language clarifies this requirement in §116.117(e).

Amoco supported the TMOGA/TCC comment, which allows TNRCC to reissue special permit conditions to provide the necessary documentation to maintain accuracy in the TNRCC permit program.

When a change affects a permit condition, the owner/operator can use the alteration process or ifthe facility is qualified, the notification procedures in 

### §116.117(d) to revise permit conditions.
Phillips commented that the use ofthe word "change" throughout the proposal is confusing and suggested the use ofthe word "modification" wherever possible.

The term "change" in this proposal refers to physical or operational change. A change may or may not be a modification (see the definition ofmodification). If

### a change to a facility is a modification, permit authorization is 

### required. If

### a change is 

### made pursuant to §116.116(e), the owner/operator is 

### subject to notification requirements ofthis section.

Section 116.118 comments are as follows. TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended that the title of the section be changed to reflect more accurately the contents ofthe section.

The TNRCC agrees and has renamed §116.118, Pre-change Qualification.

GHASP disagreed with adjusting a grandfathered facility's allowable emission rate once current BACT was applied. GHASP objected to the adjusted because it would allow more air pollution.


### 35GRASP requested that equivalency for control technologies be stated in terms ofa percentage ofwhat the total emissions reductions ofpoint and fugitive emission as that which would have been obtained with established BACT. Further, GRASP indicated that BACT equivalency should not increase the toxicity ofemissions. GRASP suggested that the TNRCC include language to require TNRCC approval for BACT installation.



### The rate a grandfather facility can emit after the installation ofcontrols will be adjusted downward; more pollution will not be allowed. Equivalency ofcontrols will be determined by established BACT practices. The addition ofcontrols generally does not increase the toxicity of emissions. The appropriateness ofcontrols will 

### be determined by compliance with the rule. If 

### BACT for a facility is not readily available so that the owner or operator can self-verify that they are complying with the rule, they will be required to provide information fora case-by-case equivalency review.
Regarding §116.118(a), TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended that this subsection be changed and suggested language to describe more clearly when it will be necessary for a facility to undergo a review ofqualifications before a change is made.



### The TNRCC agrees with the comment andhas incorporated the suggested language. The suggested language clarifies that it is 

### necessary for a facility to pre-qualify for purposes of demonstrating that the facility undergoing the change is qualified and to establish an allowable for an air contaminant relevant to the change.
Regarding §116.118(a)(l), the EPA requested that TNRCC address the meaning ofthe expression
36"allowable emission rate is inaccurate."



### The use ofthe word "inaccurate" has been deleted from the rule language. The concept the word was intended to convey was that all air contaminants and all emission points relevant to a change have establishedallowable emissions so that a determination ofwhether that change results in a net increase in allowable emissions canbemade.
Regarding §116.118(b), TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested language to describe more clearly the procedure for pre-change qualification.



### The TNRCC agrees and has made the suggested changes to clarify that pre-change qualification is to be submitted on a PI-E form and can occur anytime, butno later than 45 days priorto a change.

The City ofDallas suggested that this subsection would be clearer ifthe two sentences were reversed. Further, the City ofDallas indicated that the notification referred to in this subsection appeared to be different than the notification required under §116.117(c) and the purpose ofthis different notification be stated.



### The language has been restructured for clarity. Notification required under §116.118 is for determining whether a facility is qualified prior to a change, while §116.117 governs notification ofthe change.
Regarding §l16.118(c), TMOGA/TCC and an individual recommended that this subsection be deleted
37in conjunction with the incorporation ofsuggested language of §116.116(e) covering this topic.



### The TNRCC agrees. The language requiring a facility to implement BACT ifinstalling controls to become qualified is contained in 116.116(e)(5). The language concerning the allowable emission rate for a grandfather facility after implementation ofcontrols is contained within the definition ofallowable emissions for a grandfathered facility in §116.10.

Section 116.119 comments are as 

### follows. Exxon recommended that this section be deleted, as the proposed section goes beyond the intent ofthis rulemaking, which is the implementation of SB 1126. Exxon stated that the TNRCC has the general authority under the TCAA to require methods of demonstrating compliance and that it could be implied by the inclusion ofthis section in this rulemaking that this is a new requirement for qualified facilities.



### The TNRCC agrees with the comment and is withdrawing this section.

Eastman requested that the TNRCC allow companies to develop other methods ofcompliance demonstration rather than being held to only the five listed in the rule proposal.



### The withdrawal ofthis section addresses the comment.

The City ofDallas requested that any information demonstrating compliance with allowable emission rates also be sent to the local agencies.



### The withdrawal ofthis section nullifies the comment.
38The amendment is adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes ofthe TCAA.

39

# STAFF RECOMMENDATIONSSUBCHAPTER A : DEFINITIONS

§116.10. General Definitions.

Unless specifically defined in the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) or in the rules ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or commission), the terms used by the commission have the meanings commonly ascribed to them in the field ofair pollution control. In addition to the terms which are defined by the TCAA, and in §101.1 ofthis title (relating to General Rules), the following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise.

Actual emissions

- For the purposes ofdetermining whether there has been a net increase in allowable emissions under §116.116(e) ofthis title (relating to Changes to Facilities), the highest rate ofemissions ofan air contaminant actually achieved from a qualified facility within the 120-month period prior to the change. This rate cannot exceed any applicable federal or state emissions limitation.

Allowable emissions

- For the purpose ofdetermining whether there has been a net increase in allowable emissions under §116.116(e) ofthis title, the authorized rate ofemissions ofan air contaminant from a facility as determined in accordance with this section. This rate cannot exceed any applicable state or federal emissions limitation.

(A) Permitted facility

- For a facility with a preconstruction permit under this


### 40chapter, the allowable emissions shall be any emission limit established in the permit on a MAERT and any emission limit contained in representations in the permit application which was relied upon in issuing the permit, plus any allowable emissions authorized by a standard exemption.

(B) Standard exemption facility

- For a facility operating under a standard exemption, the allowable emissions shall be the least ofthe emissions rate allowed in §116.211 ofthis title (relating to Standard Exemption List), the emissions rate specified in the applicable exemption, or
a federally enforceable emissions rate established on a PI-8 form.

(C) Grandfathered facility

- For a qualified grandfathered facility, the allowable emissions shall be the maximum annual emissions rate after the implementation ofany air pollution control methods to become a qualified facility, plus 10% ofthe maximum annual emissions
rate priorto the implementation of such control methods, but in no case shall the allowable emissions be greater than the maximum annual emissions rate prior to the implementation of such control methods. The maximum annual emissions rate is the emissions rate at the maximum annual capacity according to the physical or operational design ofthe facility, data from actual operations over a period ofno more than 12 months that demonstrates the maximum annual capacity, or other information that demonstrates the maximum annual capacity. Except where a grandfather facility has been modified, the allowable emissions for the modification shall be determined as a permitted facility.

(D) Standard permit facility

- For a facility authorized by standard permit, other than §116.617(2) ofthis title (relating to Standard Permits List), the allowable emissions shall be the maximum emissions rate represented in the registration for the standard permit.
41.· ···---·· . . . -· --- --·· .-_--- ..

(E) Special exemption facility

- For a facility operating under a special exemption, the allowable emissions shall be the emissions rate represented in the original special exemption request.
(F) The allowable emissions for a qualified facility shall not be adjusted by the voluntary installation ofcontrols.

BACT -Best Available Control Technology with consideration given to the technical practicability and the economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating emissions from the facility.


### Facility

- A discrete or identifiable structure, device, item, equipment, or enclosure that constitutes or contains a stationary source, including appurtenances other than emission control equipment. A mine, quarry, well test, or road is not considered to be a facility.



### Grandfathered facility

- Any facility that is not a new facility since it was constructed prior to the permit requirements ofthis subchapter.



### Maximmn allowable emissions rate table (MAERT) - A table included with a preconstruction permit issued under this chapter that contains the allowable emission rates established by the permit for a facility.



### Modification ofexisting facility

- Any physical change in, or change in the method ofoperation of, a facility in a manner that increases the amount ofany air contaminant emitted by the facility into the atmosphere or that results in the emission ofany air contaminant not previously


### 42emitted. The term does not include:

(A) insignificant increases in the amount ofany air contaminant emitted that is authorized by one or more TNRCC exemptions;

(B) insignificant increases at a permitted facility;

(C) maintenance or replacement ofequipment components that do not increase or tend to increase the amount or change the characteristics ofthe air contaminants emitted into the atmosphere;

(D) an increase in the annual hours ofoperation unless the existing facility has received a preconstruction permit or has been exempted, pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.057, from preconstruction permit requirements;

(E) a physical change in, or change in the method ofoperation of, a facility that does not result in a net increase in allowable emission of any air contaminant and that does not result in the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted, provided that the facility:

(i) has received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment or has been exempted pursuant to the TCAA, §382.057, from preconstruction permit requirements no earlier than 120 months before the change will occur; or

(ii) uses, regardless ofwhether the facility has received a
43

### .........

preconstruction permit or permit amendment or has been exempted pursuant to the TCAA, §382.057,

an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as the BACT that TNRCC required or would have required for a facility ofthe same class or type as a condition ofissuing a permit or permit amendment 120 months before the change will occur;
(F) a physical change in, or change in the method ofoperation of, a facility where the change is within the scope ofa flexible permit; or
(G) a change in the method ofoperation ofa natural gas processing, treating,

or compression facility connected to or part ofa natural gas gathering or transmission pipeline which does not result in an annual emission rate ofany air contaminant in excess ofthe volume emitted at the maximum designed capacity, provided that the facility is one for which:

(i) 

### construction or operation started on or before September 1, 1971, and at which either no modification has occurred after September 1, 1971, or at which modifications have occurred only pursuant to standard exemptions; or
(ii) construction started after September 1, 1971, and before March 1, 1972, and which registered in accordance with the TCAA, §382.060, as that section existed prior to September 1 , 1991.

New facility- 

### A facility for which construction is commenced after August 30, 1971, and no contract for construction was executed on or before August 30, 1971, and that contract specified a beginning construction date on or before February 29, 1972.


### 44Qualified facility

- An existing facility that satisfies the criteria ofeither subparagraph (E)(i) or (ii) under the definition ofmodification ofexisting facility in this section.

Source- A point oforigin of air contaminants, whether privately or publicly owned

or operated.

This agency hereby certifies that the section as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise ofthe agency's legal authority.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 7, 1996.

45

### The repeal is adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes ofthe TCAA.

SUBCHAPTER B: NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMITS PERMIT APPLICATION

§116.117. Distance Limitations.



### This agency hereby certifies that the section as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise ofthe agency's legal authority.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1996.

46The amendments and new sections are adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes ofthe TCAA.

SUBCHAPTER B : NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMITS PERMIT APPLICATION



### §116.112. Distance Limitations.

(a) Lead smelters. Pursuant to the Texas Clean Air Act, §382.053, a permit shall not be issued for a new lead smelting plant at a site located within 3,000 feet ofthe residence ofany individual and at which lead smelting operations have not been conducted before August 31, 1987. This subsection does not apply to a modification ofa lead smelting plant in operation on or before August 31, 1987, to a new lead smelting plant or modification ofa plant with the capacity to produce not more than 200 pounds oflead per hour, or to a lead smelting plant that was located more than 3,000 feet from the nearest residence when the plant began operations.



### 47(b) Hazardous waste permits. Permits for hazardous waste management facilities shall not be issued ifthe facility is to be located in the vicinity ofspecified public access areas under the following circumstances.

(1) No permit shall be issued for a new hazardous waste landfill or land treatment facility or an areal expansion ofan existing facility ifthe boundary ofthe facility or expansion is to be located within 1,000 feet of an established residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park.

(2) No permit shall be issued for a new commercial hazardous waste management facility or the subsequent areal expansion ofsuch a facility or unit ofthat facility ifthe boundary of the unit is to be located within 1 h mile (2,640 feet) of an established residence, church, school, day

care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park.

(3) For a subsequent areal expansion of a new commercial hazardous waste management facility that is required to comply with paragraph (2) ofthis subsection, distances shall be measured from a residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park only if such structure, water supply, or park

was in place at the time the distance was certified for the original permit.

( 4) No permit shall be issued for a new commercial hazardous waste management facility that is proposed to be located within 1 h mile (2,640 feet) from an established residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park, at any distance beyond the facility's property boundaries, unless the applicant
48demonstrates that the facility will be operated so as to safeguard public health and welfare and protect physical property and the environment.

(5) !he measurement ofdistances required by paragraphs (1)

- (4) ofthis subsection shall be taken toward an established residence, church, school, day care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, or dedicated public park that is in use when the permit application is filed with the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. The restrictions imposed by paragraphs (1)
- (4) ofthis subsection do not apply to a residence, church, school, day

care center, surface water body used for a public drinking water supply, a dedicated public park located within the boundaries ofa commercial hazardous waste management facility, or property owned by the permit applicant.

(6) The measurement ofdistances required by paragraphs (1)
- (4) ofthis subsection shall be taken from a perimeter around the proposed hazardous waste management unit. The perimeter shall be no more than 75 feet from the edge ofthe proposed hazardous waste management unit.



### §116.116. Changes to Facilities.

(a) Representations and conditions. All representations with regard to construction plans and operation procedures in an application for a permit, special permit, or special exemption, as well as any general and special conditions attached to the permit, special permit, or special exemption itself, become conditions upon which the subsequent permit, special permit, or special exemption are issued.
49(b) Permit amendments. Except as provided in subsection (e) ofthis section, it shall be unlawful for any person to vary from any representation or permit condition ifthe change will cause a change in the method ofcontrol ofemissions, the character ofthe emissions, or will result in an increase in the discharge ofthe various emissions, unless application is made to the executive director to amend the permit or special permit in that regard·and such amendment is approved by the executive director or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). Applications to amend a permit or special permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and are subject to the requirements of §116.111 ofthis title (relating to General Application).

(c) Permit alterations.

(1) A permit alteration is:

(A) any change from a representation in a permit application that does not involve an increase in emission rates or a change in the character or method ofcontrol ofemissions;

or
(B) any change in a general or special condition ofa permit that does not involve an increase in emission rates or a change in the character or method ofcontrol ofemissions;

(C) a decrease in allowable emissions.

(2) All requests for permit alterations which may result in an increase in off-property concentrations ofair contaminants, involve a change in permit conditions, or affect facility or control
50equipment performance must receive prior approval by the executive director. The executive director shall be notified in writing ofall other permit alterations. Any request for permit alteration shall include information sufficient to demonstrate that the change does not interfere with the owner or operator's previous demonstrations ofcompliance with the requirements of §116.111(3) ofthis title.

(3) Permit alterations shall not be subject to the requirements ofBest Available Control Technology identified in §116.111(3) ofthis title.

(d) Standard exemption in lieu ofpermit amendment or alteration. Notwithstanding subsections (b) or (c) ofthis section, no permit amendment or alteration is required ifthe changes to the permitted facility qualify for an exemption under Subchapter C ofthis chapter (relating to Permit Exemptions) unless prohibited by permit condition as provided in §116.115 ofthis title (relating to Special Conditions). All such exempted changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed.

(e) Changes to qualified facilities. Notwithstanding any other subsection ofthis section, a physical or operational change may be made to a qualified facility ifthe change does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions ofany air contaminant and does not result in the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted.

(1) In determining whether a change to a qualified facility results in a net increase in allowable emissions or the emission ofany air contaminant not previously emitted, the effect on emissions ofthe following shall be considered:

51(A) ariy air pollution control method applied to the qualified facility;

(B) any decreases in allowable emissions from other qualified facilities at the

same TNRCC air quality account number that have received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment no earlier than 120 months before the change will occur; and (C) any decrease in actual emissions from other qualified facilities at the

same TNRCC air quality account number that are not included in subparagraph (B) ofthis paragraph.

(2) The determination ofwhether a physical or operational change would result in a net increase in allowable emissions ofany air contaminant or the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted shall be based onthe allowable emissions for air contaminant categories and any allowable emissions for individual compounds. Ifa physical or operational change would result in emissions ofan air contaminant category or compound above the allowable emissions for that air contaminant category or compound, the amount above the allowable emissions must be offset by an equivalent decrease in emissions at the same facility or a different facility. In making this offset, the following subparagraphs apply.

(A) The offset shall be based on the same time periods (e.g., hourly and annual rates) as the allowable emissions for the facility at which the change will occur.
(B) Emissions ofdifferent compounds within the same air contaminant category may be interchanged.

(C) For allowable emissions for individual compounds, any interchange shall
52adjust the emission rates for the different compounds in accordance with the ratio ofthe effects screening levels ofthe compounds.

(D) For allowable emissions for air contaminant categories, interchanges shall

use the unadjusted emission rates for"the different compounds.

(E) The effects screening level shall be determined by the executive director ofthe TNRCC.

(F) An air contaminant category is a group ofrelated compounds, such as volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, nitrogen oxides, and sulfur compounds.

(3) Persons making changes to qualified facilities under this subsection shall comply with the applicable requirements of §116.117 ofthis title (relating to Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities) and §116.118 ofthis title (relating to Pre-change Qualification).

(4) As used in this subsection, the term "physical and operational changes" does not include:

(A) construction ofa new facility; or
(B) changes to procedures regarding monitoring, determination ofemissions and recordkeeping that are required by a permit.

53(5) Ifadditional air pollution control methods are implemented for the purpose of making a facility a qualified facility, such additional control methods shall be at least as effective as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) required at the time the additional control methods are implemented. Ifadditional control methods are implemented that are not at least as effective as such BACT, the facility may be determined to be a qualified facility only ifthe owner or operator can demonstrate that the control methods were implemented to comply with a law, rule, order, permit, or
can demonstrate that the control method was implemented to resolve a documented citizen compliant. The implementation of any additional control methods shall be subject to the requirements ofthis chapter.

(6) For purposes ofthis subsection and §116.117 ofthis title (relating to Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities), the consideration ofdecreases in allowable and actual emissions from other qualified facilities in accordance with paragraph (1) ofthis subsection shall be referred to as intraplant trading. The decreases in allowable and actual emissions shall be based on emission rates for the same time periods (e.g., hourly and annual rates) as the allowable emissions for the facility at which the change will occur and for which an intraplant trade is desired. Actual emissions shall be based on data that is representative ofthe emissions actually achieved from a facility during the relevant time period (e.g., hourly or annual rate). The allowable emissions from facilities that were never constructed shall not be use in intraplant trading.

(7) The existing level ofcontrol may not be lessened for a qualified facility.

§116.117. Docwnentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities.
54(a) Persons making physical or operational changes to qualified facilities under the provisions of §116.116(e) ofthis title (relating to Changes to Facilities) shall maintain documentation at the plant site demonstrating that the changes satisfy the requirements ofthat section. Ifthe plant site is unmanned, the regional manager may authorize an alternative site to maintain this documentation. This documentation shall include quantification of all emission increases and decreases associated with the physical or operational change, a description ofthe physical or operational change, a description ofany equipment being installed, and sufficient information as may be necessary to demonstrate that the project will comply with the Federal Clean Air Act, Title 1, Parts C and D. This documentation shall be made available to representatives ofthe Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) upon request.
(b) In addition to the documentation requirements under subsection (a) ofthis section, persons making such changes to qualified facilities shall comply with the following notification requirements.

(1) Annual report. For changes to qualified facilities for which there is no intraplant trading in accordance with §116.116(e)(1) ofthis title, an annual report shall be submitted to the appropriate TNRCC regional office by August 1 ofeach year which shall include all changes made under §116.116(e) during the immediately preceding annual period July 1 -June 30. Changes for which notification has been previously submitted by PI-E form to TNRCC under paragraphs (2) or (3) ofthis subsection or which have been incorporated into the permit for the facility need not be included in the annual report. The annual report shall contain a PI-E form for each change. The annual reporting period for a TNRCC air quality account and the due date ofthe annual report may be changed with the agreement ofthe TNRCC regional office.


### 55' ' . ' .**~·· ~.** **··~~**..**·-·-~·--····~·** ......... .

(2) Post-change notification. For changes to qualified facilities for which there is intraplant trading below the reportable limit, notification ofthe change shall be submitted on a PI-E form to the New Source Review Division ofthe TNRCC within 30 days after the change occurs.
(3) Pre-change notification. For changes to qualified facilities for which there is intraplant trading above the reportable limit, notification ofthe change shall be submitted on a PI-E form to the New Source Review Division ofthe TNRCC before the change may occur. The change may occur after the receipt ofwritten notification from the TNRCC that there are no objections, or 45 days after the notification is received by the TNRCC, whichever occurs first.

(4) Reportable limit. The executive director shall establish reportable limits as follows:

(A) an emission rate that is adjusted based on a factor that accounts for a ratio ofthe effects screening levels ofthe different compounds and the difference in location of emissions involved in an intraplant trade; or (B) an emission rate that results in a sum total ofmodeled ground level concentration for the account that shall not exceed two times the effects screening level.

{c) For facilities that have received a preconstruction permit, all changes for which the notification procedure ofsubsection (b) ofthis section has been used shall be incorporated into the permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed.

(d) Ifa physical or operational change at a qualified facility will affect compliance with a
56permit special condition, notice shall be made to the TNRCC prior to the change. The notice shall identify the affected special condition and indicate the change needed or the desire to remove the special condition from the permit. The permit holder is relieved from complying with the permit special condition upon the filing ofthe notice provided the change complies with §l16.116(e) ofthis title.

(e) Nothing in this section shall limit the applicability ofany federal requirement.

§116.118. Pre-change Qualification.

(a) Ifeither ofthe following conditions exists, it will be necessary to establish that a facility is a qualified facility before a physical or operational change may be made under the notification procedure of §116.117 ofthis title (relating to Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities):

(1) the facility is a qualified facility on the basis ofBest Available Control Technology and the requirement for the facility type has not been previously established by the executive director ofthe TNRCC;

(2) the facility does not have allowable emissions established for an air contaminant relevant to the change in a maximum allowable emissions rate table, PI-8 form or PI-E form.

(b) The pre-change qualification shall be made by submitting a PI-E form to the New Source
57Review Division. The facility shall be qualified in accordance with the information contained in the PI-E form after receipt ofwritten notification from the TNRCC that there are no objections, or 45 days after the PI-E form is received by TNRCC, whichever occurs first. The pre-change qualification may be submitted at the same time as a pre-change notification under §116.117(b) ofthis title or at any other time prior to making a change to a qualified facility.

This agency hereby certifies that the section as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise ofthe agency's legal authority.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1996.

58

# '?/!? 

# 1-'- 91-?-1-<J

adopting amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter A,**_J.~~!IIf:a:~~~~~~~:rf~~,cerning** Definitions, and Subchapter B, concerning Permit GIOrtlA. 

## vaqua. Chief

### Clerk Application, and adopting revisions to the State t....**NIUwANour~** Implementation Plan, to modify air permit application**~**ComnwiQn procedures and evaluation criteria to provide more operational flexibility to facilities; Docket No. 95-1419-RUL. WHEREAS, on February 14, 1996, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or Commission) considered revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116, Subchapter A, concerning Definitions, and Subchapter B, concerning Permit Application, and to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) in order to modify air permit application procedures and evaluation criteria to provide more operational flexibility for facilities; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, §382.017 (Vernon's 1992); Texas Government Code Annotated, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001 (Vernon's 1993); and 40 Code ofFederal Regulations, §51.102, the Commission staff, after proper notice, conducted a public hearing on November 6, 1995 to consider revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and to the SIP; and WHEREAS, the Commission staffduly circulated to interested persons, the Regional Administrator ofthe U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all applicable local air pollution control agencies, hearing notices ofits intended action; and WHEREAS, interested persons were invited to submit data, views, and recommendations on the proposed revisions, either orally or in writing, at the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies ofthe proposed revisions were available for public inspection at the Commission's central office and regional offices prior to the scheduled hearing; and WHEREAS, data, views, and recommendations ofinterested persons were submitted to the Commission staff at the hearing and were considered by the Commission staffas reflected in the attached analysis oftestimony; and WHEREAS, the TNRCC finds that said analysis oftestimony includes the names of all interested groups or associations offering comment on the revisions and their position concerning the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, §382.017, gives the Commission authority to make rules and regulations consistent with the policies and purposes ofthe Texas Clean Air Act; and WHEREAS, the Commission finds that the reasonedjustification and factual bases for the proposed revisions are fully set out in the analysis oftestimony; and

### Docket No. 95-1419-RUL Page 2 C. t.e i(Q;X**t.'O•\(t~** ·J;'h·**-!it.~:·t.j** 5**-~! ~~"'~**  rrir.-t!**~·'-~·, '~····!>·.~·.~·~**  ·**.Mttflv~.){lt;•** 1'1(·, ;'c •-,- " ,.)**'~~l!lli ~** **tf.t!ll;~.::•** !\.. ' •' r-. ,.,it'**~~--** •.•

### r**~~** f.e ablfJO.i' jo,
..**hk:•~• h~Q** 

# .IH ft; b(tt;t**it'·~:** '<' '- , l·£dfl '!.i1 •' ·i;!,?,!1'f'•>'V\.:,.")**r~; ev<~r.** ic

.. M tMQFte.t1**~"' ·~·'•·** **~-••t'** WHEREAS, the Commission hereby certifies that the amendments, as adopted, have been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise ofthe Commission·s legal authority.

'· 

# \

..

## ·~**~-** ';-\. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY

### THE~:'~ ..,·

### -~~~,-~:~t;.J,, .l,_



### ..**.l,'T/'-~.;·-·~~~~:.·: !J.~** **~:.:"~ !.t1.i.rf·~~·lt~~**  A ti·
..h)•L.'

..... 1. The revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and the SIP appended to this**Orlier~fe!~~~** kill'ltl adopted and promulgated; ';(_.;,.;:N"**~;o:,) "i'.Ml'lll'ts.~n-~** • .) 2. On behalfofthe Commission, the Chairman should transmit a certified copy ofthis Order, together with the adopted amendments, to the Governor ofTexas for submittal to the Regional Administrator ofthe EPA as a proposed revision to the Texas SIP pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, §110, as amended; and 3. The Executive Director is instructed to file a certified copy ofthe adopted amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 116 with the Secretary ofState pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act.
Issued date: 

# FEB 2R1996

ATTEST:

# ~d.~H.L{- Gloria A. Vasquez, C Cle& TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

# •



# •

.



# • innovative claims at any time the Executive Director has reason to believe that substantive circumstances have changed. (F) The Executive Director will not consider, and the applicant may not rely upon, innovative product claims or other information submitted as confidential on a registration document. (d) Forjlnyproductfor whichanexemption has beengranted or registration filed pursuant to this section, the manufacturer shall notify the Executive Director in writing no less than 30 days prior to any change in the product formulation, recommended product usage directions, orany information which would alter the emissions estimates submitted to the Executive Director in support of the exemption application or registration. (e) If VOC standards are lowered for a product category through any subsequent rulemaking, all innovative product exemptions granted or registrations filed for products in the product category, except as provided in this subsection, shall have no force and effect as of the effective date of the modified VOC standard. This subsection shall not apply to innovative products which have VOC emissions less than representativeproducts using the new VOC standard, for whicha written notificationoftheproduct'semissions status versus the lowered VOC standard has been submitted to the ExecutiveDirectorbeforetheeffectivedateofsuch standard, orto products manufactured prior to the effective date ofthe modified standard under a valid innovative product exemption or registration. (f) IftheExecutiveDirectorbelievesthat aconsumerproduct for which an exemptionhas been granted no longer meets the criteria for an innovative product specified in subsection (a) ofthis section, the Executive Director may modify or revoke the exemption as necessary to assure that the product will meet these criteria. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 15, 1996. TRD-9602218 Kevin McCalla Director, Legal Services Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Effective date: March 7, 1996 Proposal publication date: September 8, 1995 For further information, please call: (512) 239-1970 

# • • • Chapter 116. Control of Air 

### Pollution by 

### Permits for New Construction or Modification The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) adopts amendments to §116.10, concerning General Definitions, and §116.116, concerning Changes to Facilities; the repeal of §116.117, concerning Distance Limitations; and new §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, §116.117, concerning Documentation and Notification of Changes to Qualified Facilities, and §116.118, concerning Pre-change Qualification. Sections 116.10, 116.116, 116.117, and 116.118 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the October 10, 1995, issue ofthe Texas Register(20TexReg 8306). The repeal and §116.112 are adopted without changes and will not be republished. Section 116.119 is withdrawn by the TNRCC. The TNRCC permit amendment and alteration criteria and procedures are being modified pursuant to Senate Bill 1126 (74th Legislature, 1995). The modified languagewill implement Senate Bill 1126 (SB 1126) to allow certain facilities the ability to make changes without requiring prior authorization. Revisions to §116.10, concerning General Definitions, amend the current definition of new source (now new facility) and add the proposed new definitions for actual emissions, allowable emissic,ns, Best Available Control Technology (BACT), facility, grantlffathered facility, maximum allowable emission rate table, modification of existing facility, qualified facility, and source. The proposed definition for non-qualified facility wasdeleted as unnecessary from the adopted rule. The proposed definitions for relatively equivalentcompoundand netincrease in allowable emissions were also deleted, howeverthe concepts have been incorporated into the adopted §116.116(e). Definitions for grandfathered facility, facility, and source were added to the rule to clarify the meanings of these terms. Revisions to §116.116, concerning Changes to Facilities, establish the criteria by which changes at qualified facilities may be madewithouttriggeringthe requirementsforobtaining a permit amendment or permit alteration. To make the requirements easier to understand, new §116.116(e) consolidates in one location the principal provisions which cover changes made to qualified facilities. These provisions include the criteria for facilityqualification andthe methodsfordeterminingthe neteffect of emission increases and decreases, compound interchanges, and intraplant trading of emissions. This section explicitly prohibits the construction of new facilities orthe lessening of controls since neither was intended to be included within the flexibility intended under SB 1126. It also requires facilities to install current BACT if the purpose of the installation is to become a qualified facility. Revisions to §116.117, concerning Documentation and Notification of Changes to Qualified Facilities, establish the requirementfor record keeping ofall changes made underthe adopted §116.116(e) at the facility and the types of notification associated with specific scenarios. Section 116.117(a) requires that the records be maintained on-site and that they are presented to the TNRCC upon request in order to make proper inspection of the changes made at the facility. Section 116.117(a) also identifies the type of information to be included in these records. There are three types of notification required under §116.117(b) for changes to facilities: an annual report, which covers the previous year's changes not notified by the other two means; post-change notification, which covers changes for which there was an intraplant trade of emissions below the reportable limit; and pre-change notification, which covers intraplanttrades above the reportable limit. The reportable limit has been established as a screening approach to allowthe commission an opportunity to review certain intraplant trades. Section 116.117(d)was established to provide another method, in addition to permitalteration procedures, forthose permittedfacilities making changes pursuant §116.116(e) thatwould result in a violation of a permit special condition. This subsection requires a permit holder to identifythe permit special conditions that are made invalid by a change made pursuant §116.116(e) and de

### 21 TexReg 1569 February 27, 1996 Texas Registernote the necessary revision to the special condition or desire to remove the special condition from the permit. Revisions to §116.118, concerning Pre-change Qualification, providethe conditions underwhich a facility must establish with the TNRCC that the facility is qualified. This section directs these facilities to submit documentation describingthe basisfor qualification. New §116.112, concerning Distance Limitations, relocates the current rule language from §116.117 to this new section. This recommendation is made to allow for a more logical presentation of Chapter 116. The TNRCC has prepared a Takings Impact Assessment for these rules pursuant to the Texas Government Code, §2007.043. The following is a summary of that assessment. The specific purpose ofthe rule is to provide for changes in permitting requirements for existing qualifiedfacilities as allowed by Senate Bill 1126. The rules will substantially advance this specific purpose by making the necessary revisions to current regulations covering changes to facilities and by developing new definitions that assist in the implementation of these changes. Further, the amendments incorporate a new mechanism for notification to the TNRCC of changes at facilities qualified for the flexibility provided by SB 1126. Promulgation and enforcement of these rules will not affect private real property which is the subject of the rules because the permit amendment and notification processes are considered operational, not capital cost borne by the affected parties ofthese rules. A total of 18 interested parties submitted written testimony on the proposal: Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman); Exxon Company USA (Exxon); Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P); Phillips 66 Company; Texas Chemical Council (TCC); Texas Mid-continent Oil and Gas Association (TMOGA); ECApplied, Inc.; American Electronics Association (AEA); Central and South West Services, Inc. (CSWS); Enron Operations Corporation (Enron); Amoco; and Union Carbide Corporation (Carbide). Brown McCarroll & Oaks Hartline (Brown) and Texas Utilities Services, Inc. (TU Services) generally supported the intentofthe proposed revisions, butsuggested changes orclarifications. An individual submitted an option for determining "Relatively Equivalent Compound." The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) submitted comments on the proposal and items of concern it suggested be addressed in the public record, but did not indicate support or opposition to the proposal. The City of Dallas submitted comments, but did not support or oppose the proposal. Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP) requested thatthe entire proposal be withdrawn. General Comments. Carbide suggested that a small section of permit engineers be created to work on pre-change notifications, and on some of the BACT issues. The TNRCC recognizes that staff resources will be necessary to review requests related to this rulemaking. Exxon, Enron, andCarbide suggestedtheTNRCC quickly move to address allowable emissions from grandfatheredfacilities that are notconsidered qualified. This action will impactthewaythat facilities will be treated under the operating permits program. CSWS wants this issue addressed in this rulemaking and also stated that the grandfathered rate definition for the natural gas industry would be appropriate for non-qualified grandfathered acid rain units. Carbide suggested that TNRCC action on this issue is needed to resolve confusion for the regulated community. Currently, grandfather rates are defined in 30 TAC Chapter 122 for the purposes of determining potential to emit for Title V applicability. Discussions have taken place in which it has been suggested thatthis language be moved from Chapter 122 to Chapter 116. This suggested change, however, is outside the scope of this rule proposal. The TNRCC appreciates the concern raised by the commenters. Phillips 66 suggested another comment period dueto the complexity of the rules and the overlap between major and minor NewSource Review and Prevention ofSignificant Deterioration. This proposal does not affect Prevention of Significant Deterioration applicability

## or review. It is necessary to enact this proposal as soon as possible in order to implement the changes to the statute that resulted from the last legislative session. An additional comment period would serve to delay this effort. TMOGA!TCC provided language for a new subsection, §116.116(e), which covers changes to qualified facilities. The purpose of this subsection is to consolidate in one location the principal provisions of SB 1126 regarding the flexibility provided to qualified facilities to make physical and operational changes. These provisions are: net increases in allowable emissions; air contaminants not previously emitted; notification requirements; excluded changes; additional controls for qualification purposes; and intraplant trading of allowable and actual emissions. Brown recommended that similar changes be made. The TNRCC accepts the proposed change and feels that the format js easier to understand. However, it should be noted that the language has not been accepted verbatim. Eastman, GHASP, EPA, and EC-Applied, Inc. requested that the guidance document undergo public review and comment or at least, the public should be given adequate notice prior to changes to the guidance document. The TNRCC intends to make draft versions of the guidance document available on the TNRCC bulletin board. Concerns and comments will be accepted on the guidance document. Amoco, Enron, AEA, Exxon, and HL&P supported the recommendations of TMOGA!TCC. The TNRCC acknowledges the support from these groups for the changes recommended by TMOGA. Section 116.10. General Definitions comments are as follows. Phillips 66 requested that the TNRCC explain the interaction of §116.10 definitions with those in §116.12 specifically for terms such as "actual emissions" and "actual emissions rate." The newly adopted definitions in §116.10 are relevant in all sections of Chapter 116 with the exception of §116.150, concerning Nonattainment Review as is the case for the current definitions in §116.10. The definition of "actual emissions" in §116.10, however, restricts its applicability to § 116.116(e).



### February 27, 

### 1996 21 TexReg1570

### ~I

&h

...l,)f'**~**

# •

•

.



# •

.**~.** TMOOAITCC and an individual suggested a definition for grandfathered facility from the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA) for inclusion in the rule, since it is a term used within otherparts of the proposed rule. A definition for grandfather facility has been included. Brown recommended thatthe TNRCC add statutory definitions for "facility" and "source" to the rule proposal. TheTNRCC agrees and has madethe changestothe proposal. Regarding the definition of actual emissions rate, Carbide suggested thatthe TNRCC clarify the phrases "priorto change" and "federal or state emissions limitations.• "Change" is a term that is currently used in the regulations and is intended to indicate that requirements are to be met prior to commencement of construction of a physical change or prior to making an operational change. Federal and state emission limitations would include those limits in federal orstate permits or any limit that may apply to a facility in a state or federal regulation. The TNRCC does notfeel that a change is needed to the proposed language to make these terms clear. TMOOAITCC suggested word changes and additions to clarify the definition and make it more consistent with the statute and implementing rules. TMOOAITCC also suggestedthisdefinition apply only to intraplant trading involving actual emissions from other qualified facilities. Further, TMOOAITCC recommended that the TNRCC add language to the rule which requires intraplanttrades to be expressed in the sametime periods, e.g., pounds per hour or tons per year. The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed changes. Brown requested the deletion of the term "rate" since the language of the statute does not use the term. Brown also suggested that the TNRCC add language to the rule which requires intraplant trades to be expressed in the same time periods on emissions. The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed changes. TMOOAITCC, TU Services, and Eastman recommended that the January 1, 1990, restriction in determining actual emissions be deleted. Eastman supports the flexibility offered by the 120-month window for determining actual emission rates from qualified facilities with no permitted allowable emission rate. The TNRCC agrees and has deletedthe appropriate language. GHASP disagreed with the approach for determining actual emission rates which allows facilities to use the highest annual rate for anytime in the past ten years. The statute does not specifically speak to the relevant time period for establishing a facility's actual emissions. The statute does use a 120-month period for qualifying facilities based on control technology. Some time period must be used, and therefore the TNRCC feels it is reasonable to follow the 120- month precedent established in the statute. Regarding the definition of allowable emission rate, the City of Dallas raised a concern that the rule proposal will reduce agency awareness of emission changes on a timely basis. Notification is required for changes that result in intraplant trading. This provides adequate notice of significant emission changes. Other changes either result in insignificant emission trading or do not exceed previously established allowable&. Records ofthese changes mustbe maintainedon-site and must be made available to the TNRCC upon request. Additionally, changes that don't require notification are required to be reported to the TNRCC annually. GHASP opposed allowing facilities to maintain their maximum allowable emission rate after implementation of controls. This nJie language is intended to implement the statutory chantla that allows the consideration of reductions made in determining if an increase in emissions had occurred. Brown requested the removal of the term "rate" since the lan· guage ofthe statute does not use the term and recommended**la~guage** to clarify the definition. The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed change. Regarding the definition of allowable emission rate for a qualified grandfathered facility, TMOOAITCC. suggested changes and additions to clarify the meaning ofthe definition and make it more consistent with the statute and implementing rules. For grandfatheredfacilities installing BACTto becomea qualifiedfa· cility, TMOOAITCC recommended that 10%ofpre-control maximum annual emissions rate be added to the facility's allowable emission. The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed change. The City of Dallas questioned whether this definition was intended to include the application of control technology for allowable emission rate determinations. Yes, the intent was to reflect that a reduction in emission potential had occurred as a result ofthe additional controls. Regarding the definition of allowable emission rate for a quali· fiedfacilityvoluntarily installing controls, the EPArequested that the TNRCC explain the approach of allowing a facility to keep its pre-control allowable emission rate when the facility's potential to emit would be lower after the voluntary installation of controls. Further, the EPA requested that the rule specify that reductions from the old allowable emission rate not be used to satisfy provisions for netting and offsetting associated with permitting for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment (NA) areas. The purpose of this rulemaking is to implement the changes to state New Source Review as a result of SB 1126. Senate Bill 1126 allows a facility to install controls at the same time physical and operational changes are made in order to avoid a "net" increase in allowable emissions. The TNRCC recognizes, however, that some ofthese changes that are now exempt from the state definition of modification may require federal PSD or NA review. The adopted rules require that a facility verify that a change will not require federal review. This rule does not affect federal permitting applicability or requirements. It is TNRCC's position that the use of reductions to net out of state New Source Review does not affect it's creditability for federal review. Therefore, any reduction in emissions that may result at a source is available



### 21 TexReg1571 February 27, 1996 Texas Registerfor netting and offsetting only if it satisfiesthe creditability criteria established under the PSD and NA regulations. Regarding the definition of BACT, TMOGA!TCC suggested that BACT would be expressed better as an emissions limitation rather than a specified control technology. The acronym BACT was included simply to be substituted for the phrase as defined. The term is not intended to imply a particular control technology, but rather the best level of control that can be achieved considering technical practicability and economic reasonableness. An emissions limitation is established based on the application of BACTwhich is reflected as an allowable emission rate in a permit. The TNRCC does not feel that it is appropriate to define BACT as an emissions limitation due to various factors that determine each individual facility's emissions limitation. The EPA recommended thatthe TNRCC modifythe definition of BACT to make it consistentwith the federal definition or explain the justification for the difference. Further, EPA suggested the TNRCC indicate how the different definitions are equivalent. The term "BACT" added as part ofthis rule amendment is consistent with its use in the TCAA, existing TNRCC regulations, the State Implementation Plan, in the PSD delegation agreement, and in the annual grant agreements with the EPA. The TNRCC believes this represents a long historical understanding of how BACT is characterized in Texas. Brown suggested language to correct the proposed definition since the term being defined is used within the definition. It was not the intention of staff to define BACT, as a specific level of control, but rather to define the acronym BACT as it is used by the TNRCC. Regarding the definition of maximum allowable emissions rate table (MAERT), TMOGA!TCC and Brown suggested language changes to specify that the maximum allowable emission rate table is that which is issued with a preconstruction permit. The TNRCC agrees and has made proposed change. Regarding the definition of modification of existing facility, Carbide and Phillips 66 suggested that TNRCC more clearly define the term "facility" because there is confusion regarding the ability to net emissions. Carbide requests that the TNRCC prepare a BACT guidance document and make it accessible through various media. The TNRCC agrees and has added the statutory definition for the term "facility"to the definitions in §116.10. The TNRCC is in the process ofdeveloping a guidance documentthatwill explain to the regulated community how to determine if a physical or operational change at a facility is exempt from the definition of modification consistent with SB 1126. As part of this guidance document, the TNRCC will publish a list of historical BACT requirements and will provide guidance on netting of emissions between facilities. The document will be available through the TNRCC electronic bulletin board and in hard copy upon request. Phillips 66, EPA, and GHASP requested more clarity on the term "insignificant increase"and the basis for its determination. The term "insignificant increase" is an existing term under the definition of "modification" in the TCAA. The TNRCC is not proposing to change the definition or undertake a \... new interpretation of the existing statute. TNRCC's current mechanism for authorizing insignificant sources is through standard exemption. As of yet, there is no established level of emissions that the TNRCC considers to be "insignificant." TMOGA!TCC and Brown suggested updating the language to reflect the current organization of TNRCC. TMOGA!TCC and Brown suggested language to clarify thatfacility qualification on the basis of BACT applies to those facilities that do not satisfy the criteria for qualification on the basis of a permit, permit amendment, or standard exemption. Brown recommended that language be deleted to remove redundancy with the definition of BACT. The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed changes. Eastman suggested that other parts of Chapter 116 referencing standard exemptions as modifications be changed to be consistent with the definition of "modification of existing facil· ity" in §116.10. Eastman also requested that the definition of modification also be changed so that an increase in the hours of operations at a permitted or exempted facility would not be considered a modification if the additional operating time was previously authorized. Eastman also suggested that the defini· tion be changed as to exclude relatively equivalent compounds from those air contaminants judged not to be previously emit· ted. This rulemaking package is intended to implementthe changes to the statute that resulted from SB 1126. The portion of the definition of modification that refers to standard exemptions existed prior to the passage of SB 1126. It is not staff's t!. _t J intent to review issues related to the existing statute and the 'lir..... language in Chapter 116 dealing with standard exemptions at this time. Staff does not believe that the definition of modification needs to be changed to include language that an increase in operating hours at a permitted or exempted facility is not a modification. As long as the facility does not exceed previous representations regarding operating hours, under existing rule language, this would not be considered a modification. The language proposed for the definition of modification is directly from the statute. The definition of relatively equivalent compound has been deleted and the concept of interchanging equivalent compounds was placed in §116.116(e). The City of Dallas had a serious concern regarding how the term "insignificant increases" could be interpreted, especially as applied to toxic emissions. The City of Dallas suggested that the TNRCC apply Standard Exemption 118 requirements to these speciated chemicals. The term "insignificant increase" is an existing term under the definition of modification in the TCAA. The TNRCC is not proposing to change the definition or undertake a new interpretation of the existing statute. The TNRCC's current mechanism for authorizing insignificant sources is through standard exemption as previously explained. GHASP indicated that documenting BACT over the past ten years would be unworkable because of the case-by-case approach the TNRC6 took regarding BACT.



### February 27, 1996 21 TexReg1572 

### t
.**~**

# •

•

.



# • To the extent possible, the TNRCC intends to make information available on historical BACT determinations. The rule prescribes in §116.118, pre-change qualification forthose facilities for which BACT cannot be documented or that vary from the historical list. This pre-change qualification allows the agency to considerdemonstrations made bythe owner/operatorthatthe facilities in question are qualified on the basis of having BACT equivalentto whatwould have been required 120 months prior to a change. Enron indicated that this definition could resolve the grandfathered status of natural gas facilities. The TNRCC agrees that the definition clarifies the types of changes these facilities can make withoutthose changes being considered a modification. Regarding the definition of net increase in allowable emissions, TMOGAITCC recommended the removal of this term with the provision that this language be included in their proposed §116.116(e). The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed change. Phillips 66 requested clarification on which baseline levels of emissionsto use when calculating the net effect ofa change to an existing facility. In determining if a modification has occurred, there must first be a physical or operational change. A qualified facility is not modified if a physical or operational change does not result in an increase above its authorized allowable. Likewise, a facility is not considered modified if sufficient decreases can be found from other qualified facilities so that a net increase in allowable emissions is avoided. Ifthefacility atwhich the redudion occurs is qualified by permit, then the redudion must come from the allowable emission rate ofthatfacility. Ifthe facility atwhich the redudion occurs is qualified by BACT or standard exemption, then redudions must come in the form of adual emissions. Actual emissions, for purposesof netting under§116.116 (e)(1), are defined as the highest level of emissions achieved within 120 months prior to a change. The EPA recommended that any decreases used for netting purposes not be relied upon in a PSD permit or NA permit, and not used in the demonstration of attainment or reasonable further progress in the State Implementation Plan. The EPA suggested that the netting window begin when the facility notifies the TNRCC ofthe proposed change and end when the proposed increase occurs. The EPA requested that TNRCC consider the inclusion of other non-projed increases which occur in the netting window. The EPA concurred that the TNRCC has adequately addressed the applicability of major sources and major modifications with respect to PSD and NA permitting requirements. The EPA requested that TNRCC address the effect the rule proposal will have on the Operating Permits Program under Title V ofthe Federal Clean Air Ad. It is TNRCC's position that the use of redudions to net outof-state New Source Review does not affect the creditability of these redudions for federal review. Likewise, emission increases netting for out-of-state review purposes are still accountable in PSD/NA netting. Therefore, any redudion in emissions that may result at a source are available for netting and offsetting as long as they satisfy the creditability criteria established under the PSD and NA regulations. The TNRCC believes there will not be a net redudion associatedwith these changes availableto be used in ademonstration of attainment or reasonable further progress in the State Implementation Plan. The TNRCC has proposed a simple netting exercise to determine ifa net increase in emissions occurs as a result ofa physical oroperational change. A netting windowforthe purposes of this demonstration would unnecessarilycomplicate the process. Each projed will require a separate demonstration that a net**incret\~e** has notoccurred, since Texas has a more narrow definition of facility and strider definition of modification than the federal programs. The TNRCC does not see the benefit of including non-projed related increases within a netting window as the EPA has suggested. The TNRCC appreciates EPA's concurrence that PSD and NA applicability has been adequately addressed in the rule. The TNRCC acknowledges the EPA's comment. The TNRCC is unsure of the exad effects of this rule given the developmental status of the Title V Operating Permit Program. However, ifchanges allowed underthese rulestrigger a requirement under the federal operation permit program for a permit or permit modification, then those rules will govem for that program. Regarding the definition of new source, TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended that the definition of new source be changed to new facility and suggested language consistent with their suggested definition of grandfathered facilities. TU Services made similar comments with suggested language for the definition. The TNRCC agrees to change the definition of new source to new facility to be consistent with the terminology used in the statute and in Chapter 116. In revising the definition of new facility, the TNRCC did not rely solely on the suggested language made by any one of the commenters, but believes thatthe adopted definition is consistentwith the statute and the spirit ofthe comments. Regarding the definition of non-qualified facility, TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended that this term be deleted as unnecessary. The TNRCC agrees and has deleted the term "non-qualified facility." Regarding the definition of qualified facility, Carbide suggested TNRCC allow operating units that have undergone the permit renewal process to be considered qualified, especially those renewals that have adjusted permits conditions to BACT and near BACT. The TNRCC does not agree with the comment since the statute does not make such a provision. Control technology review is not performed at time of renewal unless there is a demonstrated condition of air pollution. Therefore, afacilitythat has undergone a permit renewal may not necessarily meetthe requirement of having BACT equivalent to what would have been required 120 months prior to a change.



### 21 TexReg1573 February 27, 1996 Texas RegisterTMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended that TNRCC avoid using language significantly different from that found in the statute and suggested language to correct the inconsistency. The TNRCC agrees and has made the proposed changes. Eastman suggested that any facility which has undergone a BACT review as partofa special exemption authorization within the last 120 months also be considered qualified. Eastman also suggested that the definition be modified to allow for shutdown facilities to be creditable reductionswhen considering the impact ofa change on netallowable emission levels. The TNRCC agrees that special exempted facilities and standard exempted facilities authorized under the TCAA, §382.057 within 120 months prior to a change are qualified and have revised the rule language appropriately. Emissions from shutdown facilities can be used to avoid a net increase in emissions as long as the shutdown facility would meet the criteria of being a qualified facility at the time of the change resulting in the emission increase. Regarding the definition of relatively equivalent compound, Carbide recommended this issue be simplified by having three to four groupings for the purposes of netting and Carbide also suggested the TNRCC allow for intergroup trades as long as the emission rate of the more impacting chemicals does not increase. The TNRCC evaluated several approaches for determining whether a physical or operational change results in a net increase in allowable emissions. The adopted rule does not contain the term "relatively equivalent compound." The rule does, however, allow increases in emissions of individual compoundsto be offset by equivalentdecreases in emissions at the same oranother qualified facility. The offset is made by the interchange of another compound in the same air contaminant category or an intraplant trade, which is similar to Carbide's suggested grouping. In addition to being in the same air contaminant category, interchanges must offset an increase in emissions by an equivalent reduction in emissions. The equivalence is based on a ratio of the effects screening level of the compounds. Interchanges may not result in a rate of emissions that will exceed the allowable for an air contaminant category. This method affords flexibility as suggested by Carbide. TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested language so that the term could be modified to make it consistent with the practical manner in which the term will be used. As explained in the previous response, the term "relatively equivalent compound" has been deleted. However, the concept of offsetting emission increases by equivalent decreases is found in §116.116(e). This approach results in a rule that is more consistent with this approach as suggested by TMOGA/ TCC and Brown. The City of Dallas requested clarification of the term "similar characteristics." The City of Dallas indicated that different processes using the same compound will affect the emission rate of the compound, thus, the TNRCC will need to take this into consideration when chemical groupings are determined. The term "similar characteristics" is no longer in the rule due to the removal of the term "relatively equivalent compound." However, the concept of equivalence, to which the term "similar characteristics" applied, is now found in §116.116(e) and is based on effects screening levels. GHASP objected to the use of the concept because it would allow the release of toxic compounds that should be strictly regulated. The adopted rule will not allow the release oftoxic compounds unchecked nor will the rule relieve the owner from complying with regulations governing the release oftoxic compounds. EC-Applied, Inc. supported the proposed flexibility to create groupings which allow for facilities to make weekly changes to products and feedstocks without the need for permit amendments or standard exemptions. The adopted rule wijl allow for operational changes cited bythe EC-Applied, Inc., but only if the change does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions. The individual recommended TNRCC include as an option the ability for a facility to submit modeling information that would show no adverse impacts from the proposed change. Eastman suggested the TNRCC consider the collocation of impacts screening as an alternative approach to evaluating the interchangeability of one compound for another. The TNRCC intends to allow facilities to use valid methods for determining if a change will result in an adverse impact and is currently evaluating several options. These methods will be discussed in the guidance document. However, the determination of whether there has been a net increase in anowable emissions is limited to equivalent emission rates based on relative toxicity as determined by a ratio of effects screening levels. AEA recommended that the TNRCC refine the definition to specifically allow the interchange of different compounds. The adopted rule will allow for the interchange of different compounds in the same air contaminant category as provided in §116.116(e). Amoco supported TNRCC's effort to incorporate this concept. The TNRCC acknowledges Amoco's support. Section 116.116 comments are as follows. TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested that the section title be changed to indicate more clearly the subject matter on the section. The TNRCC agrees that §116.116 pertains to more than amendments and alterations for permitted facilities and has made the proposed change to reflect that this section contains requirements for changes at existing facility, permitted or otherwise. TMOGA/TCC and Brown provided language for a new subsection, §116.116(e), which covers changes to qualified facilities. The purpose of this subsection is to consolidate in one location the principals provisions of SB 1126 regarding the flexibility provided to qualified facilities to make physical and operational changes. These provisions are: net increases in allowable emissions; air contaminants not previously emitted; notification requirements; excluded changes; additional controls for qualifi

### February 27, 1996 21 TexReg 1574cation purposes; and intraplant trading of allowable and actual emissions. The TNRCC agrees and has added a new subsection as §116.116(e) to govern physical and operational changes at qualified facilities. This new subsection will contain the regulatory language to exempt certain changes at qualified facilities from permitting requirements. The definition of net increase in allowable emissions will be deleted from the definitions in §116.10 and language will be added to this subsection. This new subsection will also allow for the interchange of equivalent compound in the same air contaminant category at qualified facilities. The TNRCC believes that it was the intent of the legislature to afford facilities flexibility in making changes. The concept of interchanging equivalent compounds is consistent with that philosophy. Notification of changes will be required to allow the agency the opportunity to track changes at facilities to ensure compliance with the rules governing changes atqualified facilities. Language has been added to preclude a claim that a facility would not have to comply with a monitoring or sampling condition under the excuse that the change does not result in an increase in allowable emissions or the emission of a new air contaminant

..Language has also been added to limit trading to equivalent mass rate .units. Brown also requested that TNRCC address in the guidance documentwhat constitutes the interchange of relatively equiva· lent compounds "in a manner approved by the executive director of the TNRCC." Brown suggested language to replace "air contaminant not previously emitted" with "air contaminant not previously authorized to be emitted." The basis of this recommendation isthatsome permits have been issued which include allowable emission rates to authorize the emissions of air contaminants that were not emitted upon issuance of the permit, but may be emitted in the future. The TNRCC intendsto address in the guidance documentwhat constitutes the interchange of relatively equivalent compound. The phrase "aircontaminant notpreviously emitted" comesfrom the statutorydefinition of modification. Forconsistency, the staff recommends the terms closely agree with the statute. Regarding §116.117(b)(1), Phillips 66 suggested the word "change" be replaced with "modification." Phillips 66 also suggested language to clarify the term "various emissions." The rulemaking is intended to implement SB 1126. Phillip's suggestions address existing rule language and is outside the scope ofthis rulemaking. TMOOA/TCC and Brown suggested modifications thatwill keep the current permitamendment requirements of non-qualified facility changes separate from those requirements of changes made to qualified facilities. The restructuring of the rule to place all requirements related to SB 1126 in §116.116(e) maintains separate procedures for qualified and non-qualified facilities. Regarding §116.116(b)(2), Phillips 66 suggested the word "change" be replaced with "modification." The TNRCC would like to clarify that these rules address two types of changes; those that are modifications and require permitauthorization andthosethatare notmodifications. Those changes that do not require authorization will be required to comply with recordkeeping and notification requirements of §116.117 and §116.118 ofthe adopted rules. Regarding §116.116(c), TMOGA/TCC and Brown recommended TNRCC clarify in the preamble that the intent of §116.116(c)(1)(C) is to show that a permit alteration is one means to effect a reduction in allowable emissions, but it is not the only means. TMOGA/TCC and the individual· also suggested that incorporating the allowable red!Jction in the notification required under §116.117(b)(2) or (3) would make the reduction enforceable, since the reduction is a condition of changir.g a qualified facility under their suggested language §116.**~** 16(e). For a qualified facility, a reduction in allowable emissions may also be accomplished through the pre-change notification or post-notification processes in §116.117(b)(2) or (3). However, for non-qualified facilities, reduction in allowable emissions can only be accomplished through permit alteration. Under the alteration process, the TNRCC will re-issue a MAERT; while under the notification process for qualified facilities, a PI-E form must be submitted. Reductions in allowable emissions are enforceable because either the permit allowable has been changed and a new MAERT issued or a PI-E form, which established a new enforceable emission limit, has been submitted with the notification. Where a permitted facility submits a PI-E, the MAERT will be reissued. Regarding §116.116(c)(1), Phillips 66 suggested adding the words "required for" after ·A permit alteration is

..." to alleviate some confusion of the proposal as written. The rulemaking

.is intended to implement SB 1126. Phillips' suggestions address existing rule language and is outside the scope of this rulemaking. Regarding §116.116(c)(1)(C), Phillips 66 suggested this sub· paragraph be eliminated because of the potential volume of changesto a permitwhen federal requirements change. Phillips 66 also suggested replacement language for subsection (c) if the TNRCC continued to require a permit alteration for a decrease in allowable emissions. This provision was not meant to require that a person submit a permit alteration if a new state or federal regulation limited a facility's emissions below that which is stated in the MAERT sincethe rule already providesthatthe allowable cannotexceed a applicable state or federal emission limitation. The alteration language was added to allow facilities to make a voluntary reduction in allowable for use by qualified facilities to determine if there has been a net increase in allowable emissions. Regarding §116.116(d), TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested thatthis exemption be expanded to all subsections in §116.116 and provided minor language changes to simplify this section.· The TNRCC agrees that this section needs to l:)e changed to make clear that a standard exemption may be used in lieu of a permit amendment or alteration, but it is not appropriate to include other subsections. Eastman stated that permit amendments or alterations should not be required for any type of change that does not qualify as



### 21 TexReg1575 February 27, 1996 Texas Registera modification to an existing facility and provided language to be contained in §116.116(d) to this effect. This subsection presumes that a change has occurred ata permittedfacility and in lieu of obtaining a permit amendment oralteration, the change is authorized through standard exemption. This subsection was originally added to give industry flexibility to make changes rapidly that would otherwise require permit amendment or alteration by use of a standard exemption. Later these changes must be rolled into the permit. Senate Bill 1126 says that certain changes at qualified facilities are not modifications, and therefore do not require pre-construction authorization. Therefore, it is not appropriate to say that these changes do not require a standard exemption since a standard exemption is a type of pre-construction authorization. Section 116.117 comments are as follows. TMOGAJrCC and Brown suggested the title of the section be modified to make it consistent with the language of the statute and other sections of the proposed rules. The TNRCC agrees and has made the appropriate changes. TMOGAJrCC and Brown recommended that the proposed language be deleted and suggested new language which consolidates the proposed notification requirements under §116.117 (b)-(d) into one subsection. TMOGAJrCC suggested the language of these subsections be changed to clarify and distinguish the notification requirements from the pre-change qualification requirements. The TNRCC agrees and suggested changes have been made to clarify the process. Section 116.117 has been reorganized and renamed to highlight the documentation and notification requirements for changes made pursuant to §116.116(e). Prequalification procedures have been separated from the notification procedures and are contained in §116.118, concerning Pre-change Qualification. In addition, a requirement for prior notification of changes that would conflict with an existing permit special conditions has been added. GHASP indicated concern regarding the lack of real time notification ofchanges made at afacility. Further, GHASP disagreed with the lack of public input into these facility modifications. The TNRCC believes that significant changes in emissions will be reported to the agency. The TNRCC believes that the legislature did not intend for these facility changes, which do not amount to a modification, to be subject to agency approval or public input. The public's opportunity for input will be at the time the facility is constructed or modified such that emission increases significantly above the previous allowable. The City of Dallas requested that the local agencies be copied on all notices to the agency as required in §116.117(b), (c), and (d) documentation of changes to the TNRCC. The City of Dallas requested thatthe local agencies be notified due to their enforcement responsibilities. The TNRCC intends to have pre- and post-change notification of intraplant trades sent to the central office and the annual report of all other changes sent to the regional office. This information will be available to the local agencies. The TNRCC is willing to workwith the local agencies to develop a system for communication ofthe facility notifications. Further, the facilities are required to provide information regarding the change upon request of the TNRCC. Amoco suggested TNRCC keep the notification for changes at qualified facilities as simple as possible and supported the notification process offered by TMOGAffCC. The TNRCC believes thatthese rules have a simple notification process. The TNRCC has incorporated many of the changes suggested by TMOGAffCC. Regarding §116.117(a), Exxon requested that operators be allowed to maintain documentation at the plant site or at the nearest manned location if the site is unmanned. The TNRCC recognizes the difficultly of maintaining documentation at unmanned sites and has added language to §116.117(a) to accommodate this request. TMOGAJrCC suggested language clarifying that the responsibility for maintaining documentation is upon the person or persons making the. physical or operational change and that the documentation must satisfy the requirements of changes to qualified facilities. TheTNRCC agreeswith TMOGAJrCC's request, and has made the appropriate changes. Eastman also recommended thatthe documentation requiredto be kept on-site include that information relevant and necessary to demonstrate exclusion from the permit process. The TNRCC believes the current language requires only relevant and necessary information since the rule only requires that documentation contain information associated with the change. Regarding §116.117(b), Carbide, Phillips 66, and Eastman requested that the annual report be deleted. Eastman stated that the annual report is unjustified, since the changes included in an annual report are not considered modifications under SB 1126andthese changeswill also be incorporated into the permit upon renewal or permit amendment. Phillips 66 asked that the annual report be eliminated because the records will be available at the facility and subsequently incorporated into the permit upon renewal. The TNRCC believes that the annual report benefits both industry and the agency by setting up a mechanism to track changes in order to evaluate whether a permit action should have been required. This is intended to minimize the time both the inspector and plant personnel must spend during site investigations. The TNRCC envisions that this process will eliminate potential disagreement between the agency and the plant as to whether permit violations have occurred and that at time of permit renewal this information will be readily available for incorporation into the permit. Carbide also requested that the documentation of a change be kept only for the life of the change and that any information regarding these changes may be obtained through a request of the plant. Carbide suggested that the annual reports be sent to the central office to avoid overburdening the regional office staff and that annual reports cover a calendar year. The TNRCC believes that it is important to maintain documentation of the change as required in the rule to ensure that the commission has the ability to verify that facilities are making



### February 27, 1996 21 TexReg1576

# •

•

.
.



# • changes appropriately. Maintaining documentation for a period longer than the life of the change will prevent not having necessary documentation if a change is questioned at a later date. The adopted rule requires that annual reports be received by the regional office by August 1to aid in proper inspection of the facility by the TNRCC or local agencies. The August 1deadline for annual reports has been selected to coincide as much as possible with the State Implementation Plan inspection schedule. Phillips 66 objected to the language which makes the authorization for the change contingent upon including documentation of the change in an annual report, a future event. Phillips 66 also objected to the requirement to submit an annual report. The rule language has been reorganized to more clearly specify which changes made pursuant to §116.116(e) require notification. However, it should be noted that the requirements in §116.117 are notification requirements only; not an authorization from the TNRCC. The annual report is necessary to maintain the ability of the agency to verify a facility's compliance during annual inspections. Changes that have been reported to the agency or that have been included in a permit action during the year do not have to be included in the annual report. The City of Dallas suggested that the term "notification" used in. this subsection be clarified with respect to the same term used in subsections (c) and (d)-that is, pre-change and post-change notifications respectively. The City of Dallas stated that the proposed rules would be a burden to field investigator activities since annual reports would need to be reviewed. The City of Dallas suggested that the annual report be submitted prior to August 1. The TNRCC believes that the changes made in response to the previous comment clarify the notification requirements. The annual report is intended to assist the investigator by having documentation of changes for which notification was not required readily available in an annual report. The adopted rule requires this report to be submitted by August 1; however, information related to a change may be obtained upon request of the TNRCC during a site visit. The EPA requested that TNRCC address the enforceability of any allowable**emiss~on** rate established in a MAERT. The TNRCC would like to clarify thatthe MAERT is not a standalone document. Only facilities with a permit have a MAERT. The MAERT is enforceable andverifiablefrom a practical standpoint in thata permit includes conditions for demonstrating initial and on-going compliance with allowable emission rates either through direct measurement or through the recording of a surrogate parameter. Regarding §116.117(b)(2), Eastman suggested that this paragraph be changed to require.documentation to be kept only for those physical or operational changes which are excluded from permitting requirements by remaining below the allowable emission rate. Eastman stated that the existing wording would require additional recordkeeping on those activities which until now have not been required to do so. In response to other comments, §116.116 and §116.117 have been changed so that only·those changes made pursuant §116.116(e) require documentation and notification. The change alleviates the concern raised by Eastman. Regarding §116.117(b)(3), Eastman suggested that this paragraph be changed to accommodate the exclusion from the notification requirementtrades of emissions between facilities when the facilities have "relatively equivalent locations" orthosewhich vent through a common vent system such that off-site impacts are not significantly affected. The TNRCC feels it is appropriate to require notification of the trading of emissions between facilities. The significance of the f.rade will determine whether pre- or post-notification is requin:.d. The TNRCC does not know how manyfacilities share a common emission point and feel it is inappropriate at this time to write an exclusion as requested. If it is found to be a widespread phenomenon, it could be addressed in future rulemaking. Regarding §116.117(c), GHASP disagreed with no notification for emission point trading of compounds below the de minimis level. GHASP stated that State Implementation Plan inspections will be much more difficult due to emission trades without notification. Carbide suggested that the de minimis level be set high enough to avoid unnecessary pre-change notifications. In response to comments made by other commenters, the concept of de minimis levels no longer exists. Trading of emissions between facilities will require either pre- or postchange notification. Eastman suggested the TNRCC also accept notices sent via other mail delivery methods besides certified mail. The requirement for the receipt of notification via certified mail has been deleted. However, the adopted rule has specific time periods for actions to be taken by the owner/operator or the agency. The deletion allows an owner/operatorto use any mail delivery method, but a person should be cautioned to use a method which allows the agency to determine date of receipt. Phillips 66 requested the use of the term "de minimis" be clarified relative to the terms "De Minimis threshold test" found in §116.12 and "De minimis impacts" found in §116.10. The use of this term has been deleted. Regarding §116.117(d), Carbide suggested that trades below the de minimis levels not require post-change notification. The TNRCC believes it is necessary for the agency to maintain records of all trades. The TNRCC is willing to reevaluate this requirement once the agency has some experience with trading of emissions between facilities and alter the notification requirements if appropriate. AEA recommended that the post-change notification period be extended to 45 days and the executive director be allowed to set limits within which qualified facilities may notify the TNRCC after the change. The TNRCC believes 30 days is adequate timeto provide notice of changes. Regarding §116.117(e), TMOGA/TCC and Brown suggested language to clarif9" those changes that are required to be incorporated into the permit upon amendment or renewal.



### 21 TexReg1577 February 27, 1996 Texas RegisterThe TNRCC agrees and has added language clarifies this requirement in §116.117(e). Amoco supported the TMOGAITCC comment, which allows TNRCC to reissue special permit conditions to provide the necessary documentation to maintain accuracy in the TNRCC permit program. When a change affects a permit condition, the owner/operator can use the alteration process or if the facility is qualified, the notification procedures in §116.117{d) to revise permit conditions. Phillips commented that the use ofthe word "change" through· outthe proposal is confusing and suggested the use oftheword "modification" wherever possible. The term "change" in this proposal refers to physical or oper· ational change. A change may or may not be a modification {see the definition of modification). If a change to a facility is a modification, permit authorization is required. If a change is made pursuantto §116.116(e), the owner/operator is subjectto notification requirements of this section. Section 116.118 comments are as follows. TMOGAITCC and Brown recommended thatthe title ofthe section be changed to reflect more accurately the contents of the section. The TNRCC agrees and has renamed §116.118, Pre-change Qualification. GHASP disagreed with adjusting a grandfathered facility's al· lowable emission rate once current BACT was applied. GHASP objected to the adjusted because it would allow more air**pol~** lution. GHASP requested that equivalency for control tech· nologies be stated in terms of a percentage of what the to· tal emissions reductions of point and fugitive emission as that which would have been obtained with established BACT. Further, GHASP indicated that BACT equivalency should not in· crease the toxicity of emissions. GHASP suggested that the TNRCC include language to require TNRCC approval for BACT installation. The rate a grandfather facility can emit after the installation of controls will be adjusted downward; more pollution will not be allowed. Equivalency of controls will be determined by established BACT practices. The addition of controls ge.nerally does not increase the toxicity of emissions. The appropriateness of controls will be determined by compliance with the rule. If BACT for a facility is not readily available so thatthe owneroroperatorcan self-verifythattheyare complying with the rule, they will be required to provide information for a case-by-case equivalency review. Regarding §116.118(a), TMOGAITCC and Brown recommended that this subsection be changed and suggested language to describe more clearly when itwill be necessaryfor a facility to undergo a review of qualifications before a change is made. The TNRCC agrees with the comment and has incorporated the suggested language. The suggested language clarifies that it il; necessary for a facility to pre-qualify for purposes of demonstrating that the facility undergoing the change is qualified and to establish an allowable for an air contaminant relevant to the change. Regarding §116.118(a)(1), the EPA requested that TNRCC address the meaning ofthe expression "allowable emission rate is inaccurate." The use of the word "inaccurate" has been deleted from the rule language. The concept the word was intended to convey was that all air contaminants and all emission points relevant to a change have established allowable emissions so that a determination of whether that change results in a net increase in allowable emissions can be made. Regarding §116.118{b), TMOGAITCC and Brown suggested languageto describe more clearlythe procedure for pre-change qualification. The TNRCC agrees and has made the suggested changes to clarify that pre-change qualification is to be submitted on a PI-E form and can occur anytime, but no later than 45 days prior to a change. The City of Dallal suggested that this subsection would be clearer if the two sentenaes were reversed. Further, the City of Dallas indicated that the notification referred to in this subsection appeared to be different than the notification required under §116.117{c) and the purpose of this different notification be stated. The language has been restructured for clarity. Notification required under §116.118 is for determining whether a facility is qualified prior to a change, while §116.117 governs notification of the change. Regarding §116.118(c), TMOOAITCC and an individual recom· mended that this subsection be deleted in conjunction with the incorporation of suggested language of §116.116(e) covering this topic. The TNRCC agrees. The language requiring a facility to implement BACT if installing controls to become qualified is contained in §116.116(e)(5). The language concerning the allowable emission rate for a grandfather facility after implementation of controls is contained within the definition of allowable emissions for a grandfathered facility in §116.10. Section 116.119 comments are as follows. Exxon recommended that this section be deleted, as the proposed section goes beyond the intent of this rulemaking, which is the imple· mentation of SB 1126. Exxon stated that the TNRCC has the general authority undertheTCAAto require methods ofdemonstrating compliance and that it could be implied by the inclusion ofthis section in this rulemaking that this is a new requirement for qualified facilities. The TNRCC agrees with the comment and is withdrawing this section. Eastman requested that the TNRCC allow companies to de· velop other methods of compliance demonstration rather than being held to only the five listed in the rule proposal. The withdrawal of this section addresses the comment. The Cityof Dallas requested thatany information demonstrating compliance with allowable emission rates also be sent to the local agencies. The withdrawal of this section nullifies the comment.



### February 27, 1996 21 TexReg1578

# ' Subchapter A Definitions 30 TAC §116.10 The amendment is adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCCwith the authorityto adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA. §116.10. GeneralDefinitions. Unless specifically defined in the Texas Clean Air Act (fCAA) or in the rules of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (fNRCC or commission), the terms used by the commission have the meanings commonly ascribed to them in the field ofair pollution control. In addition to the terms which are defined by the TCAA, and in §101.1 of this title (relating to General Rules), the following words and terms, when used in this chapter, shall havethefollowing meanings, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise. Actual emissions-For the purposes of determining whether there has been a net increase in allowable emissions under §116.116(e) of this title (relating to Changes to Facilities). the highest rate of emissions of an air contaminant actually achieved from a qualified facility within the 120-month period prior to the change. This rate cannot exceed any applicable federal or state emissions limitation. Allowable emissions-For the purpose of determining whether there has been a net increase in allowable emissions under §116.116(e) of this title, the authorized rate of emissions of an air contaminant from a facility as determined in accordance with this section. This rate cannot exceed any applicable state or federal emissions limitation. (A) Permittedfacility-For afacility with apreconstruction permit under this chapter, the allowable emissions shall be any emission limit established in the permit on a MAERT and any emission limit containedin representations in thepermit application which was relied upon in issuing the permit, plus any allowable emissions authorized by a standard exemption. (B) Standard exemption facility-For a facility operating under a standard exemption. the allowable emissions shall be the least ofthe emissions rate allowed in §116.211 ofthis title (relating to StandardExemptionList), the emissions rate specified in the applicable exemption, or a federally enforceable emissions rate established on a PI-8 form. (C) Grandfathered facility-For a qualified grandfathered facility, the allowable emissions shall be the maximum annual emissions rate after the implementation of any air pollution control methods to become a qualified facility. plus 10% of the maximum annual emissions rate prior to the implementation of such control methods, but in no case shall the allowable emissions be greater than the maximum annual emissions rate prior to the implementation of such control methods. The maximum annual emissions rate is the emissions rate at the maximum annual capacity according to the physical or operational design ofthe facility, data from actual operations over a period ofno more than 12 months that demonstrates the maximum annual capacity, orotherinformation thatdemonstrates the maximum annual capacity. Except where a grandfather facility has been modified. the allowable emissions for the modification shall be determined as a permitted facility. (D) Standard permit facility-For a facility authorized by standard permit, other than §116.617(2) of this title (relating to StandardPermitsList), theallowableemissions shall be the maximum emissions rate represented in the registration for the standard permit. (E) Special exemption facility-For a facility operating under a special exemption, the allowable emissions shall be the emissions rate represented in the original special exemption request. (F) The allowable emissions for a qualified facility shall not be adjusted by the voluntary installation ofcontrols. BACT-Best Available Control Technology with consideration given to the technical practicability and the economic reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating emissions from the facility. Facility-A discrete oridentifiable structure, device, item. equipment, or enclosure that constitutes or contains a stationary source, including appurtenances other than emission control equipment. A mine, quarry, well test, or road is not considered to be a facility. Grandfathered facility-Any facility that is not a new facility since it was constructed prior to the permit requirements of this subchapter. Maximum allowable emissions rate table (MAERT)-A table included with apreconstructionpermitissued under this chapter that contains the allowable emission rates established by the permit for a facility. Modification ofexisting facility-Any physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a facility in a manner that increases the amount of any air contaminant emitted by the facility into the atmosphere or that results in the emission of any air contaminant not previously emitted. The term does not include: (A) insignificant increases in the amount of any air contaminant emitted that is authorized by one or more TNRCC exemptions; (B) insignificant increases at a permitted facility; (C) maintenance or replacement ofequipment components that donot increase or tend to increase theamountorchangethe characteristics of the air contaminants emitted into the atmosphere; (D) an increase in the annual hours ofoperation unless the existing facility has received apreconstruction permit or has been exempted, pursuant to the TCAA, §382.057, from preconstruction permit requirements; (E) a physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a facility that does not result in a net increase in allowable emission ofany air contaminant and that does not result in the emission ofany air contaminant not previously emitted, provided that the facility: (i) has received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment or has been exempted pursuant to the TCAA, §382.057, from preconstruction permit requirements no earlier than 120 months before the change will occur; or (ii) uses, regardless of whether the facility has received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment or has been exempted pursuant to the TCAA. §382.057, an air pollution control method that is at least as effective as theBACT thatTNRCC required or would have required for a facility of the same class or type as a



### 21 TexReg1579 February 27, 

### 1996 Texas Registercondition ofissuing apermitorpermitamendment 120 months before the change will occur; (F) a physical change in, or change in the method of operation of, a facility where the change is within the scope of a flexible permit; or (G) a change in the method of operation of a natural gas processing, treating, or compression facility connected to or part of a natural gas gathering or transmission pipeline which does not result in an annual emission rilte ofany air contaminant in excess of the volume emitted at the maximum designed capacity, provided that the facility is one for which: (i) construction or operation started on or before September 1, 1971, and at which either no modification has occurred after September 1, 1971, or at which modifications have occurred only pursuant to standard exemptions; or (ii) construction started after September 1. 1971, and before March 1, 1972, and which registered in accordance with the TCAA, §382.060, as that section existed prior to September 1, 1991. New facility -A facility for which construction is commenced after August 30. 1971, and no contract for construction was executed on or before August 30, 1971, and that contract specified a beginning construction date on or before February 29. 1972. Qualified facility -An existing facility that satisfies the criteria of either subparagraph (E)(i) or (ii) under the definition of modification ofexisting facility in this section. Source -A point of origin of air contaminants. whether privately or publicly owned or operated. This agency hereby certifies that the section as adopted has beenreviewed bylegal counsel andfoundto bea valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1996. TRD-9602153 Kevin McCalla Director, Legal Services Division Texas NatLJ"al Resource Conservation Commission Effective date: March 7, 1996 Proposal publication date: October 10, 1995 For further information, please call: (512) 239-1955 

# • • 

# • Subchapter B. New Source Review Permits Permit Application 30 TAC §§116.112, 116.116-116.118 The amendments and new sections are adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistentwith the policy and purposes ofthe TCAA. §116.116. Changes to Facilities. (a) Representations and conditions. All representations with regard to construction plans and operation procedures in an application for a permit, special permit, or special exemption, as well as any general and special conditions attached to the permit, special permit, or special exemption itself. become conditions upon which the subsequent permit, special permit, or special exemption are issued. (b) Permit amendments. Except as provided in subsection (e) of this section, it shall be unlawful for any person to vary from any representation or permit condition if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions, the character of the emissions, or will result in an increase in the discharge ofthevarious emissions, unless application is made to the executive director to amend thepermit orspecial permitinthatregard and suchamendment is approved by the executive director or the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). Applications to amendapermit or special permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and are subject to the requirements of §116.111 of this title (relating to General Application). (c) Permit alterations. (1) A pefrnit alteration is: (A) any change from a representation in a permit application that does not involve an increase 

### m emission rates or a change in the character or method ofcontrol ofemissions; or (B) any change in a general or special condition ofa permit that does not involve an increasein emission rates or a change in the character or method of control ofemissions; (C) a decrease in allowable emissions. (2) All requests for permit alterations which may result in an increase in off-property concentrations of air contaminants. involve a change in permit conditions, or affect facility or control equipment performance must receive prior approval by the executive director. The executive director shall be notified in writing of all other permit alterations. Any request for permit alteration shall include information sufficient to demonstrate that the change does not interfere with the owner or operator's previous demonstrations of compliance with the requirements of §116.111(3) ofthis title. (3) Permit alterations shall not be subject to the requirements ofBestAvailableControlTechnologyidentified in §116.111(3) of this title. (d) Standard exemption in lieu of permit amendment or alteration. Notwithstanding subsections (b) or (c) of this section. no permit amendment or alteration is required if the changes to the permittedfacility qualify for an exemption underSubchapterC ofthis chapter (relating to Permit Exemptions) unless prohibited by permit condition as provided in §116.115 of this title (relating to Special Conditions). All such exempted changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed (e) Changes to qualifiedfacilities. Notwithstanding any other subsection of this section, a physical or operational change may be made to a qualified facility if the change does not result in a net increase in allowable emissions ofany air contaminant and does not result in the emission ofany air contaminant not previously emitted. (l) Indetermining whether a change to a qualified facility results in a net increase in allowable emissions orthe emission ofany air contaminant not previously emitted, the effect on emissions ofthe following shall be considered:



### February 27, 

### 1996 21 TexReg1580

# •

• (A) any air pollution control method applied to the qualified facility; (B) any decreases in allowable emissions from other qualified facilities at the same TNRCC air quality account number that have received a preconstruction permit or permit amendment no earlier than 120 months before the change will occur; and (C) any decrease in actual emissions from other qualified facilities at the same TNRCC air quality account number that are not included in subparagraph (B) of this paragraph. (2) Thedetermination ofwhetheraphysicaloroperational change would result in a net increase in allowable emissions ofany air contaminant orthe emission ofany air contaminant notpreviously emitted shall be based on the allowable emissions for air contaminant categories and any allowable emissions for individual compounds. If a physical or operational change would result in emissions ofan air contaminant category or compound above the allowable emissions for that air contaminant category or compound. the amount above the allowable emissions must be offset byan equivalent decrease in emissions at the same facility or a different facility. In making this offset, the following subparagraphs apply. (A) Theoffset shallbe basedon the same timeperiods (e.g., hourly and annual rates) as the allowable emissions for the facility at which the change will occur. (B) Emissions of different compounds within the same air contaminant category may be interchanged. (C) For allowable emissions for individual compounds, any interchange shall adjust the emission rates for the different compounds in accordance with the ratio ofthe effects screening levels ofthe compounds. (D) For allowable emissions for air contaminant categories. interchanges shall use the unadjusted emission rates for the different compounds. (E) Theeffects screening level shall be determined by the executive director ofthe TNRCC. (F) An air contaminant category is a group ofrelated compounds. such as volatile organic compounds. particulate matter. nitrogen oxides. and sulfur compounds. (3) Persons making changes to qualified facilities under this subsection shall comply with the applicable requirements of §116.117 ofthis title (relating to Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities) and §116.118 of this title (relating to Pre-change Qualification). (4) As used in this subsection, the term "physical and operational changes" does not include: (A) construction ofa new facility; or (B) changes to procedures regarding monitoring, determination of emissions and recordkeeping that are required by a permit. (5) If additional air pollution control methods are implemented for the purpose ofmaking a facility a qualified facility, such additional control methods shall be at least as effective as Best Available Control Technology (BACT) required at the time the additional control methods are implemented. If additional control methods are implemented that are not at least as effective as such BACT. the facility may be determined to be a qualified facility only if the owner or operator can demonstrate that the control methods were implemented to comply with a law, rule. order, permit, or can demonstrate that the control method was implemented to resolve a documented citizen compliant. Theimplementation ofany additional control methods shall be subject to the requirements ofthis chapter. (6) For purposes of this subsection and §116.117 of this title (relating to Documentation and Notification of Changes to Qualified Facilities). the consideration ofdecreases in allowable and actual emissions from other qualified facilities in accordance with paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be referred to as intraplant trading. The decreases in allowable and actual emissions shall be based on emission rates for the same time periods (e.g., hourly and annual rates) as the allowable emissions for the facility at which the change will occur and for which an intraplant trade is desired. Actual emissions shall be based on data that is representative of the emissions actually achieved from a facility during the relevant time period (e.g., hourly or annual rate). The allowable emissions from facilities that were never constructed shall not be use in intraplant trading. (7) The existing level ofcontrol may not be lessened for a qualified facility. §116.117. Documenuuion andNotification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities.· (a) Persons making physical or operational changes to qualified facilities under theprovisions of§116.116(e) ofthis title (relating to Changes to Facilities) shall maintain documentation. at the plant site demonstrating that the changes satisfy the requirements of that section. If the plant site is unmanned, the regional manager may authorize an alternative site to maintain this documentation. This documentation shall include quantification ofall emission increases and decreases associated with the physical or operational change, a description of the physical or operational change. a description of any equipment being installed, and sufficient information as may be necessary to demonstrate that the project will comply with the Federal Clean Air Act, Title I, Parts C and D. This documentation shall be made available to representatives of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) upon request. (b) In addition to the documentation requirements under subsection (a) of this section, persons making such changes to qualified facilities shall comply with the following notification requirements. (1) Annual report. For changes to qualified facilities for whichthereis no intraplant tradingin accordance with §116.116(e)(1) of this title. an annual report shall be submitted to the appropriate TNRCC regiooal office by August I of each year which shall include all changes made under §116.116(e) during the immediately preceding annual period July 1-June 30. Changes for which notification has been previously submitted by PI-E form to 1NRCC under paragraphs (2) or (3) of this subsection or which have been incorporated into the permit for the facility need not be included in the annual report. The annual report shall contain a PI-E form for each change. The annual reporting period for a TNRCC air quality account and the due date of the annual report may be changed with the agreement ofthe 1NRCC regional office. (2) Post-change notification. For changes to qualified facilities for which there is intraplant trading below the reportable limit. notification of the change shall be submitted on a PI-E form



### 21 TexReg1581 February 27, 1996 Texas Registerto the New Source Review Division ofthe TNRCC within 30 days after the change occurs. (3) Pre-change notification. For changes to qualified facilities for which there is intraplant trading above the reportable limit, notificationofthe change shall be submittedon a PI-E form to the NewSource Review Division ofthe TNRCC before the change may occur. The change may occur after the receipt of written notificationfrom theTNRCC that there are no objections, or45 days after the notification is received by the TNRCC, whichever occurs first. (4) Reportable limit. The executive director shall establish reportable limits as follows: (A) anemission rate thatis adjusted basedon afactor thataccounts for aratiooftheeffects screening levels ofthedifferent compounds and the difference in location ofemissions involved in an intraplant trade; or (B) an emission rate that results in a sum total of modeled ground level concentration for the account that shall not exceed two times the effects screening level. (c) For facilities that have received apreconstructionpermit, all changes for which the notification procedure ofsubsection (b) of this section has been used shall be incorporated into the permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed. (d) Ifa physical or operational change at a qualified facility willaffectcompliancewithapermit special condition, notice shall be made totheTNRtCpriorto thechange. Thenotice shallidentify the affectedspecialconditionandindicatethechangeneededorthedesire to remove the specialcondition from thepermit. Thepermitholderis relieved from complying with the permit special condition upon the filing ofthe notice provided the change complies with §116.116(e) ofthis title. (e) Nothing in this section shall limit the applicability ofany federal requirement · §116.118. Pre-cllange Qualification. (a) If either of the following conditions exists, it will be necessary to establish that a facility is a qualified facility before a physical or operational change may be made under the notification procedure of §116.117 of this title (relating to Documentation and Notification ofChanges to Qualified Facilities): (1) the facility is a qualified facility on the basis ofBest Available Control Technology and the requirement for the facility typehas not beenpreviously established by the executive directorof theTNRCC; (2) the facility does not have allowable emissions established for an air contaminant relevant to the change in a maximum allowable emissions rate table, PI-8 form or PI-E form. (b) Thepre-changequalification shall bemade by submitting a PI-E form to the New Source Review Division. The facility shall be qualified in accordance with the information contained in the PIE form after re:ceipt of written notification frcm the TNRCC that there are no objections, or 45 days after the PI-E form is received by TNRCC, whichever occurs first. The pre-change qualification may besubmittedat the sametime as apre-changenotificationunder §116.117(b) ofthis titleoratany other timepriorto making achange to a qualified facility. This agency hereby certifies thatthe rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1996. TRD-9602155 Kevin Mc:Cala Di'ector, Legal Services Division Texas Nattnl Resom:e Conservation Commission Effective date: March 7, 1996 Proposal publication date: October 10, 1995 For further information, pleasecal: (512) 239-1966 

# • • 

# • 30 TAC §116.117 The repeal isadopted undertheTexas HealthandSafetyCode, the Texas Clean AirAct (TCAA), §382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes ofthe TCAA. This agency hereby certifies thatthe rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and foundto be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority. Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1996. TRD-9602154 Kevin McCalla Di'ector, Legal Services Division Texas Natlllll Resource Conservation Commission Effective date: March 7, 1996 Proposal publication date: October 10, 1995 For further information, please caD: (512) 239-1966 

# • 

# • • TITLE 31. NATURAL RESOURCES AND CONSERVATION Part XV. Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority Chapter 449. General Provisions Subchapter F. Above and Belowground Disposal 31 TAC §449.71 The Texas Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Authority adopts new §449.71, relating to above and belowground dis· posal of low-level radioactive waste, without changes to the proposed text as published in the January 2, 1996, issue ofthe Texas Register (21 TexReg 22). Thenewsection isadoptedto informthe publicoftheAuthority's rationale for selecting belowground disposal instead of above· ground disposal. Belowground disposal better protects public health and the environment than does aboveground disposal based on the factors set out in the rule. No comments were received in response to the published rule. Priorto publication, a draft ofthe proposed rule was circulated to interested parties. In response, Dr. Marvin Resnikoff



### FebrUilrJ 27, 1996 21 TexReg1582The Structural Pest Control Board has withdrawn from consid· eration for permanentadoption the proposed amended section), which appeared in the December 19, 1995, issue of the Texas Register(20 TexReg 1 0876). Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 12, 1996. 9602080 Benny M. Mahthis, Jr. Executive Director Structural Pest Control Board Effective date: February 13, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 835-4066 

# • • • Part I. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 115. Control of Air Pollution From Volatile Organic Compounds Subchapter J. 

### Administrative Provisions General Permits 30 TAC §115.950 The Texas Natural Resource ConseJVation Commission has withdrawn from consideration for permanent adoption the pro· posed repealed section, which appeared in the September 5, 1995, issue of the Texas Register(20 TexReg 8910). Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 15, 1996. 9602219 Kevin McCalla Director, Legal Services Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Effective date: February 15, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 239-1970 

# • • • Chapter 116. Control ofAir Pollution by Permits for New Construction or Modification Subchapter B. New Source Review Permits Permit Application 30 TAC §116.119 The Texas Natural Resource ConseJVatlon Comml11ion has withdrawn from consideration for permanent adoption the pro· posed new section, which appeared In the October 1 0, 1995, issue of the Texas Register(20 TexReg 8308). Issued in Austin, Texas, on February 14, 1996. 9602156 Kevin McCalla Director, Legal Services Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Effective date: February 15, 1996 For further information, please call: (512) 239-1966 

# • • 

# •

21 TexReg 1524 February 27, 1996 Texas Register