p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1778 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



## Document

Number: 

# 212 ) ll-J- 5 Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/2008 9:51:01 AM Sheet 212 of 276P. 2

1 'Ar~.J*



# { 

# H2-M MONDAY , JUN E 19 , 1978" 5 

# PAR T V



# ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

- . - - *- « 

# L'L ^am LA

. . t j££'iS2£* H ; 

# 197 7 CLEAN AI R ACT ; PREVENTIO N O F SIGNIFICAN T AI R QUALIT Y DETERIORATIO N Stat e Implementatio n Plans ; Requirement s 

# i l l

i - . 

# tt u


# i

! h

i i

• ?

' t 

# i l ( I .! (P. 3

2639 4 iHSULATION S 

### - a
EP A ha s include dth e sh©r£-fc@r mcri

teri ao f pounds

- pe r

day @ Fps ? to®? fc@ -•>nsur e tha t seasona l O

F iateF)M£8@a

t

. eratio n o

f source s ^&MaEMWQ'SIB

- 'ican E short-ter memissisa s will b e subjec t t o review
. Industrie s whic h commente duniforml y fel t tha t th e Agenc y was withou t

legal abilit y t

@ im

plemen t th e short-ter mcriteria , Th e ac t doe s not , however
. us e o f short-ter mcriteri aaad
. seem s t o requir e thei ? us o te case s where short-ter mtassmeagg an dN-AAQS " hav e bee s sseaMtetefl , The

- short-ter mcriteri awe«y M aot e appl y unde r

th e regsalsti©a

g ^ISieF Q a © counterpar t

incremen t

O Fstaada M ha dbee n established
. Sfcat aageae y commeat s agree dtha t

start-te^ i eri«

- teri awouldb

® a aimporta&g cad

i aGge3 = sar y saechasLss at

© ass M te S&

G prate©

- tio n o f short-ter mincrement s a&$ a& > tiona l ambiea t

ai r quality s£&Ma?ds
. v. ottaaa i issss?^©Kr s Th e regulation s promasleoted l toda y Incorporat e severa l othei ? re^te ? ex emptions
. Thes e esemptiaa s will streamlin e the
. revie w prass s o ® tha t th e review will focu s o athes 3 osnaree s o f rea l ai r quality sigaifieaaeG
. Th e exemption s aye effesfciv o oal y whe n th e pubU s ha s bees aafforde da a opportunit y t o eommea t

© aaa y mats
ria l determinations
. Als©

„ prsssstto ao

f incremen t i s ass?*re

dby , ftest , &@

S al

lowin g areview esemptie atha t migh t affec t aci&m l

are a© Fa s a?e o wher e

- i applicabl e inesMmea

t i s Jsae's& i t @ b e olate dand
. seeoad , by 22P A (a ? ta s jtat e whe n implemeafcia s &W3>1 peri

odicall y reviewia g th e agEgscate ate qualit y impact s o

f unre^le^- M sotsseei
. Suc h periodi c review s o

f aessBSate im

pacts , a s mentione dabowQ i shaff l fee subjec t t o publi c coramaa S aa da a©p = portunit y for

publi c heasiag
. Ad^M@®

= ally , th e relevan t

impas s ©

2 esafestaa s o f al l previousl y uarev4e^7G^ l SMSgvS ) mus t b e Include di n th e EQvhQZ/ <a f as y sourc e subjec t

t o am&ie®

6 afc ? tepasS pleratioa , S^lasisas
. occurrin g fo r les s fchas 2 yeas s &&

. one . locatio n woul d generall y b e considered , temporary
.

sage; ? period s o

f tim e considere dt o b e tempo


# r Unde r

th o firsf

e es^ag«^@® , as© ' majo r sourc e subjec t

ta nfiaaotgatesiGiaf

i offse t requirement s fo

p a - mr&MMns pollutan t whic h woul dJboagisvsf

t a © eieo ® ai r are ai s no t

sufejes t t ® JI32Q ) ffQ^fe'cy fo r tha t polluting,
. Wsn&sn <&& s&sk o sourc e woul db e pointie r ®& Q a@s>o&

= tainriien t requiremsat s asaaM

l teg@sa LAER
. alimitatio am®i? 9 otMsgeaS tha n BACT , an dwoual

deaow s tha £ th e sourc e woul dno t

eosafisfeaiS s violatio n o

f an y Sinc e th e source clea n ai r area , ambieag revie w wossl d b e unnecessary t o forestal l aa y sigaMi

can t detertoratlog k Temporar y souree s ar e a2s ® esemg t from, ful l PS D review , sia@a
. thef e am bien t ai r impact s ar e short-Mved „ Tem

porar y emission s include , bu t ar Q a© 6 limite dto
. thes afromapilst
. plaafe , portabl e faciliey , coasameete a© B es t ® a£&af

e rar y (such a ath e emissions , relate dt o th e constructio ao

f powe r plant s o r othe r Iarg s $ousces) » bu t

shoul db e deal s wit h o aaesse-by-cas e basis
. Ad

di^©aaUy , oae @ aportabl e facility ha s receive daPS O permit
. It
. ma y relocat e wlthsu t uadsss@iag PS D revtew r Pro- ®Ma&> Ths S 6&

o ssiase e notifie s th e re vle'olSa g agsEs y oi suc h relocatio n 3 0

- £S5T 3 i av/l-vrrrs&rio th©
. proposed

- reloca

fclesarjQ-islA fe^e§6 a©

- clas s I are aan d n © CJJS Q ^7£IGS7

3 thQ iasemen t

i s know n emission s fro mth e !!s M a® 6 excee dallowabl e eMssi@a & T& Q Aseas^ s p?@p@8e

dPS D regula

Uvm ste-gs-e

l thag
. if
. a aemittin g uni t asss^g s ^er @ modifie ds o a s t o

emission s b y 25 0 •SB @s ? yea ? (10

® ton s fo r

certai n th e uni t b e re availabl e contro l eve ai f accompanyin g withi n th e sourc a totall y O££SG-

J th e ne w emiasiona
. In

diMstf f peysicHs ' eritisize dthi s proposa l a s o a\m&i2h,®zi2£& extensio n o f th e situation s wher e n o sssaia s ai r

qualit y woul d essM aMtos aearefixl revie w o f th e icatlon " l n th e PS D sn dconsideratio n o f th s p©t@a&a

l ai ? qualit y effect s o

f isfe§s@®re

e p@Hutaaf

c tradeoffs , th e Afroa@ y ha s Reside dt

© adop t aregular iQ-ty? schem e tha t

i apar t accommo date aiadtasaoT' s esps^se dconcerns . T&Q s@o$2iM,@m appl y th e definitio n ®2' lx wM$gMMm(° t

@ fehe entir e sourc e (pJk3a6J „ •(JJUSE! , Sh e resul t

tha t if ne t sssafajfegQt n &@go i g^ @ sourc e d o no t

In

ersos Q wfeciii
. c

mGs&rtin g imi t l are - •wm$s&, i<Mt

zmmai woul dno t

requir e fjsff i ^LSS > FS\7I!Q^7
. Thi s exemptio n W®B M a@ S fe og^asE^l e a s t o BAC T I n sJteJ»g5o«3 •tjMjso cv

- aiajo r »•"•»<*•• > i s oSaiGi a£ © ©i ? S o irseenstructe da t

a smsssm, wlfiioffiiQ! ? fea© additio n I s t o re ptes agssssteis agss^aetio n capacity * o r "S^ Q Agss@ y feeMe^es tha t thi s ap - £F@Q@ & i s eeiasisteae

- wit h Congreaa * ES Q © 2 6& G ee^M i "^©^108^0 ^ l n se&

- ttim .^.eei2KC3
. Ia
. adoptin g tha t see 6i@E! , @a 9 o f ihe November

197 7 ."tech

ste i aa desaformia g amendments" , t o t& s IBTS ameadmeats^
. Congrea asai d mra hsnoria g th e conferenc e eoa f ormln g the
. termln

olQrjy/'Zs it s mo i aseeSSo n 111 , th e pro vfe!(3 H o ane-rrr

sous , s e performanc e standards
. A t

th e tim e th e conferee s an da t th e tim e amendments

- wer e en i n sectio n 111

_ b y EP A regula

GDUSSQ owner s an dopers ilicatlo n o f ne w s©T!22f@ Q pejjTiQsmoaos standard s t o change dexistin g facilitie s whos e emis

sion s woul dincrease , i

f tha t increas e wer e totall y offse t

elsewhere i n th e source . Althoug h th e SP A interpreta

- -io n wa s overturne dby aUnite d State s cour t

o f appeal s i n earl y 1973 (ASARCO V

. EPA, 1 1 ER C 112

9 (D.C
. Cir.))
. ther e i s n o reaso n t o believ e tha t th e Congres s i n lat e 1977 di dno t regar dth e definition , whic h ha dexist

eda s law sinc e 1975 , a s bein g well

suite dt o it s purpose s i ath e PS D pro gram . Unde r th e regmMiaaa , sourc e owner s o r operator s wh

© clai mt o b e undertakin g amodiilcatto B exemp t fro mth e PS D progra mbecaus e o f in

trasourc e tradeoff

s wi M typicall y no t b e allowe dto obtai acredi t fo r reduc

in g emission s fro mstaes s whil e In

creasin g emission s fro m?e® f monitor s o r othe r low-ie^e l emissio n points
. Stael c an dnonstasi s emission s general

l y hav e ver y differen t

impact s o n ai r qualit y i n area s nea r

asource . Sinc e th e PS D progra mi s i<imatsly con cerne dwit h effect s o aai r quality , EP A doe s no t fee l boun dt o appl y mechani

call y th e vn-AEARCO ess e definitio n o f "modification " i n seetio a111
. asec tio n directe dtomr dtechnology , s o a s t o frustrat e th e ai r

quality protectio n purpos e o f PSD
. Th e effect s o

f treatin g "modifica

tions " a s discusse dabov e wil l b e tha t modification s t o existin g facilitie s wil l no t requir e installatio n o

f bes t availa

bl e contro l technolog y determine do n acase-by-cas e basis , i

f th s owne r

o r operato r demonstrate s tha t

zer o ne t emission s woul datten dth e change
. Th e dela y an despgns e tavolvedi n thos e determination s will , therefore , b e avoided
. An y applicabl e ne w sourc e performanc e standard s will , however,
. appl y t o modifie dfacilitie s i n accord

anc e wit h th e ASARCO decision
. Th e Administeaso r

intend s t o us e th e followin g criteria , i n determinin g whethe r an o ne t increas e exemptio n fo r amodifie dfacility fro mth e BAC T requiremen t

woul dapply : (1 ) Al l emis

sio n reduction s fro msource s include d i n th e baselin e wil l b e credite dt n term s o f actua l emission s usin g rea sonabl e assumption s fo r operatin g conditions , excep t

i n tw o eases . Wher e aSI P reviaio s wa s pendin g a s o f Augus t 7 , 1977
. th e applicabl e SE P a s late r relaxe dwoul drepresen t th e ba

selin e fo r creditin g emi^io areduction
. Change s i n allowabl e emission s will , als o b e use dt o credi t

reduction s fro m majo r constructio n whic h commence d befor e Januar y S , 197S
. bu t wa s no t ye t operatin g b^Augiast

7 , 1977
. For* emissio n reduction s fro mmajo r con structio n previousl y approve dt o con sum e portion s o

f a n increment , allowa

bl e emission s a s expresse di n th e PS D permi t wil l b e th e basi s fo r

determin

in g reductio n credit
. (2 ) All reduction s mus t b e enforceabl e (£.&.

» containe di n th e permit ) an dpropose di acosjune

PEsaaad
. cs©88?on , v@ t cs, w® , US—MOHDAV, JUN I W , twn''Lf-~ f Federal Registe r /

Vol . 44 . No . 17

3 / Wednesday . Septembe r 5 . 1979 / Propose d Rule s

- • - __ . —.. . __ - _—,_ . _. . 5193 S creditabl e emissio n reduction s t o thos e : a tth e sam e tim e a s th e lio n increase s bein g offse tThis , ever, woul d undercu tth e incentiv e t o upgrad e controls , sinc e i ti s no t alway s possibl e fo ra sourc e owne rt o effec tth e necessar y reduction s a t exactl y th e righttime . Althoug h th e ter m "contemporaneous' ' appear s t o preclud e a formal , open-ende d bankin g syste m fo rpreviously-achieve d emissio n reduction s e tth e sam e source , iti s no t s o limite d a s t o require simultaneou s offsetting . Requiring source s t o continu e operatio n of

obsolet e equipmen tsimpl y t o preserv e offse tcredi tmake s littl e econpmi c orai rquality sense . T o provid e som e latitud e fo rcreditin g emissio n reductions . EP

A i s proposin g t o credi tan y reporte d reductio n tha twoul d occu rafte rth e effectiv e dat e of th e promulgate d regulation s butbefore th e propose d emissio n increase s ar e schedule d t

o occur . Fo rshutdown s an d curtailments occurrin g befor e thes e regulation s ar e promulgated , offse t credi tma y b e retaine d if th e sourc e files a notic e withi n 9 0 day s afte r promulgatio n recordin g th e previou s shutdow n o rcurtailmen tA follow-u p notic e woul d als o b e require d t o documen tth e constructio n schedul e fo r th&jncreas e t o b e offse tan d t o ensur e ge applicabl e offset s ar e eabl e unde rth e SIP . Failur e t o ' suc h a timetabl e o rt o compl y with i twil l preven tus e o f th e earlie r emissio n reduction s t o offse tthat increase . This , i n turn , ma y require th e affecte d owne roroperato rt o obtai n a NS Rpermit . 3. Emission Offset

Baseline. • Additiona l guidanc e i s necessar y o n ho w t o determin e i f

propose d emissio n reduction s ata stationar y sourc e are sufficien ti n typ e an d amoun tt o offse t prospectiv e emissio n increase s a tth e sam e source , assumin g th e change s ar e contemporaneous . Th e basi c rul e containe d i n th e regulation s i s thata ne w increas e i n a source' s potentia l t o emi toccur s wheneve rth e su m o f increase s minu s th e su m o f th e decrease s i s greate rthan zero . Th e siz e o f th e increas e o rdecreas e fo ra particula remissio n uni ti s generall y determine d b y th e differenc e betwee n th e unit' s potentia l t o emi tbefor e an d afte r tb e chang e o rserie s o f

changes . A s mentione d i n "Potential T o Emit " -h e Administrato rbelieve s tha tpotentia l r mission s o f

a n existin g sourc e ca n b e n o greate rtha n it s actua l emissio n rapacity . I

f a sourc e i s n o longe r i!l y abl e t o operat e a tit s l a desig n capacity , it s potentia l fis limite d accordingly . Fo ra ourc e physicall y constraine d from operatin g a tmaximu m capacity , offse t credi twU l b e base d o n it s potentia l emissions , takin g int o accoun tphysica l constraint s o n operatio n a tmavirmi m capacity . Fo rexample , a n obsolet e uni t whic h ha s bee n shutdow n fo rsevera l year s du e t

o sever e operationa l difficultie s woul d no toffe ran y offse t credi tt o ne w construction . I f potentia l emissio n calculation s di d no taccoun t fo r physica l incapabilitie s inheren ti n - th e operatio n of

existin g sources , a sourc e coul d offse tne w usabl e productio n capacit y wit h ol d unusabl e productio n capacit y an d thereb y avoi d preconstructio n review . A commo n resul twoul d b e significan tan d unreviewe d increase s i n actua l emissions . If

thi s wer e permitted , increment s an d standard s coul d b e severel y impacte d o reve n exceeded . Thi s polic y continue s a philosoph y whic h wa s implici ti n severa l requirements o f

th e a»*.«H-i

g PS D regulation s an d offse truling . Fo r example , unde rexistin g regulations an d today' s proposa l a source's operatio n ove ra one - t o two-yea rperio d i s considere d i n calculatin g tha siz e o f a n emissio n reduction. I

f a sourc e ha s no t bee n operatin g a tful l capacit y fo ra significan tparto f

th e one - t o two-yea r period , i ti s considere d t o b e physicall y incapabl e of

operatin g a tful l capacit y an d it s emissio n reduction credi twil l b e calculate d base d o n it s operatio n fo rth a one - t o two-yea rperiod . A sourc a owne r o roperator/ns y overcom e th e presumptio n o f

physica l incapabilit y i f h e show s tha ti twa s no tphysica l incapability tba tcause d th e lo w productio n rates . Physica l incapabilit y include s situation s wher e on s par to f a n existin g sourc e canno tb e use d a tit s ful l capacit y becaus e it s capacit y i s large r relative t o th e res to f

th a assodata d units , an d therefor e it s outpu ti s limite d b y th e capacit y o f

th e othe runits . I n addition , i f

a pla n i s unsaf

e fo ra certai n .leve l o f operatio n o rha s obsolet e o r wom-oo tcomponent s whic h canno tb e rootinel y replaced, it s potentia l t o emi t woul d b e limite d b y thes e conditions . Unde rth e proposa l emissio n reductions mus tb e reported t o th e permittin g authority t o receive future offse tcredi t(se e "Notification") . EP A woul d accordingl y allo w ful l credi tfo ra systemati c phase-dow n o rproductio n curtailmen ta ta sourc a i f i ti s reported i n advanc e t o th e permittin g authority . - Industr y woul d b e allowe d t o phas e i n orderl y growth withou trunnin g highl y polluting , obsolet e unit s a tful l operation , simpl y t o accru e ••••»•*•a-iT'iT ' offse tcredi t A n adjustmen tt o th e potentia l emission s rul e i s neede d i n a cas a wher e potential emission s are greate rtha n allowabl e emissions , i n suc h a case , n o credi tma y b e take n fo rreducin g potential emission s dow n t o allowabl e emissions . Thi s adjustmen ti s neede d t o implementCongress ' inten ta s interprete d i n Alabama Power, tha t offset s shoul d b e permitte d a s an . incentiv e t o upgrad e ai rpollutio n controls . Sli p op . a t21 . Wher e th a Improvemen

ti n contro l technolog y woul d b e legall y require d unde rth e SIP . th e sourc e shoul d no tb e permitte d t o tak e credi tfo rmakin g th e legall y required decrease . Thi s approac h appear s i n th e offse truling , whic h was . endorse d b y Congress . Th e 1977 Amendment s provid e tha tth e emission s baselin e fo rcalculatin g offset s unde rth e rulin g mus tb e th e stat e pla n .requirementi n effec ta tth e tima th a sourc e applie s fo ra permi tSe a sectio n 129(a)(1 ) o f

th e 197 7 Amendment s (not * unde r4 2 US.C

7502(a)(1)) . In addition , allowin g offse tcredi tfar independentl y required reduction s ' woul d mak e i tdifficul tfo rth a SIP to reduce tota l emission s i n a n are a what * standard s o rincrement s ar e violated . I C suc h offset s wer e allowed , a sourc e tha t cam e into complianc e wit h a require d emissio n limitatio n coul d the n us a th a sam e reduction t o offse tincreaaa * i n emittin g capacit y suc h tha tn o ne t increas e woul d occur . Tota l emission s fo rth e sourc e woul d remai n th a sam * an d th e violatio n woul d stil l exis tTh * propose d regulations woul d avoi d thi s unacceptabl e resul tb y prohibitin g th a sourc a from takin g credi tfo rsuc h a reduction. "Allowabl e emissions " ar e define d a s th e mos tstringen tof

(1 ) an y ne w sourc e performanc e standar d o rstandar d fo r hazardou s pollutant s applicabl e t o th * .constructio n unde rreview,* (2 ) applicabl e SIP emissio n limits , o r(3 ) th e emissio n rat e specifie d a s a n enforceabl e permi tcondition . Wher e there ar e an y enforceabl e emissio n limits tha tmus tb e complie d with i n th e ' future , an d whic h ar e differen tfrom tb * limi tcurrentl y required , th e mos t stringento f

th e presen tan d futur

e emissio n limitation s i s use d i n determinin g th e allowabl e emissions . T o continu e existing * regulations an d policies , th e Administrato rintend s tha t eac h candidat e reduction mee tal l o f th a followin g criteria : (1 ) Itmus tb e enforceabl e unde rth a applicabl e SIP . eithe rthrough a SI P

' H m th a applicabl e patfonnanc a standard o r standard farhazardou s pollutaai s rate tt o tha standard thata particula rsourc s l a subfacl t o an d no tno w standard s o r ravtsion a c i axistta f standard s whic h affac tth a rslavan tsovie tcategor y bu ttha twoal d no tappl y t o th

a particula r aoorca .