Fallon, Gail 

From: 

Sent: 

To: 

Subject: 

Gail: 

Bachman, Tom A. [tbachman@nd.gov] 

Thursday, September 19, 2013 1:45PM 

Fallon, Gail 

RE: NO SIP revision changing NSPS permitting requirement for minor sources 

Thanks for trying to help on this issue! 

The NSPS are not established to attain or maintain compliance with the NAAQS- EPA 

has argued this point many times! Also, the NSPS are not part of the SIP. Therefore, 

for a 11 0(1) demonstration to be required, EPA must think that the change would 

interfere with some other requirement of the Clean Air Act. I would need to know 

which requirement the change is interfering with before I can draft the 11 0(1) 

demonstration. 

With that said, the change only covers a permitting requirement. It does not change 

any emission limits (another argument that it is not interfering with maintaining the 

NAAQS -since we are in attainment with all the NAAQS, it is not preventing 

attainment). Sources will be subject to the NSPS limits whether we adopt them or not, 

or whether we issue a permit for the source or not. 

NDAC 33-15-14-02.13(0) exempts oil and gas production sources from permitting 

requirements unless they are major sources under Title V (i.e. PTE 100 tpy or more of 

criteria pollutants or 1 0/25 of air taxies). Sources subject to NSPS Subpart 0000 

(including tanks, fuel burning equipment, etc.) that are part of oil production facility, as 

defined in NDAC 33-15-20, are currently exempt from the permitting requirements 

unless they are part of a major source under Title V. NDAC 33-15-20-01.m includes 

separators and treaters (fuel burning equipment) as part of the production facility. To 

date, we have not issued a permit for an oil and gas production facility (no major 

sources). We do register all of them under NDAC 33-15-20-02. Even if we issued a 

permit covering a source that is subject to Subpart 0000, we would not enforce the 

requirements of Subpart 0000 since we have not adopted it and EPA has not 

delegated it to us (same is true for any other NSPS we do not adopt). This paper 

exercise would do nothing to assure the NSPS standard is met! 

Regarding State HAP limits in permits (other than 112(g) and 112U) limits), EPA has 

considered them to be "not Federally Enforceable" and are "State Only" requirements. 

Therefore, State HAP requirements are not part of the SIP and do not interfere with 

any requirements of the Clean Air Act. 

If I can provide anything else, let me know. 

1 
Tom Bachman, P.E. 

Manager; Air Quality 

Impact Analysis Program 

NO Dept. of Health 

(701) 328-5188 

From: Fallon, Gail [mailto:fallon.qail@epa.gov] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2013 9:23 AM 

To: Bachman, Tom A. 

Subject: ND SIP revision changing NSPS permitting requirement for minor sources 

Tom, 

I am having difficulties convincing my colleagues that the subject revision is not a relaxation of the SIP by conveying the 

substance of the rule revisions and information from my conversations with you over the past few days. I have 

suggested that the air quality analysis we did for the Fort Berthold FIP may provide relevant information along the lines 

of a 110(1) demonstration. The issue is being elevated to EPA headquarters for review. If you are willing, I think it would 

be useful if you could email me a summary of your rationale on why the permitting revision is not a relaxation. Please 

include confirmation that emission limits in current permits are not more stringent than those limits imposed by NSPS 

regulations (assuming that is true) as well as your thoughts on treatment of fuelburning sources below title V thresholds 

but above 25 tpy (if these are located at an oil & gas production facility, these are subject to 13-15-20, subpart 0000, 

and what if any other state requirements, HAP?). Let me know if you have questions. 

Thanks, 

Gail 

Gail Fallon 

Environmental Engineer 

Air Quality Planning Unit 

US EPA, Region 8 

Denver, CO 

(303) 312-6281 

2