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 fortrying 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 ofthe SIP. Therefore, for a 110(1) demonstration to be required, EPA mustthink that the change would interfere with some other requirement ofthe Clean Air Act. Iwould need to know which requirement the change is interfering with before I can draftthe 110(1) demonstration.

With that said, the change only covers a permitting requirement. It does not change any emission limits (another argumentthat it is not interfering with maintaining the NAAQS -sincewe are in attainment with all the NAAQS, it is not preventing attainment). Sources will be subject to the NSPS limits whetherwe adopt them or not, or whetherwe issue a permit forthe source or not.

NDAC 33-15-14-02.13(0) exempts oil and gas production sources from permitting requirements unless they are major sources underTitle V (i.e. PTE 100tpy or more of criteria pollutants or 10/25 ofairtaxies). Sources subject to NSPS Subpart 

### 0000 (including tanks, fuel burning equipment, etc.) that are part ofoil production facility, as defined in NDAC 33-15-20, are currently exempt from the permitting requirements unless they are part ofa major source underTitle V. NDAC 33-15-20-01.m includes separators and treaters (fuel burning equipment) as part ofthe production facility. To date, we have not issued a permit for an oil and gas production facility (no major sources). We do register all ofthem under NDAC 33-15-20-02. Even ifwe issued a permit covering a source that is subject to Subpart 

### 0000, we would not enforce the requirements ofSubpart 

### 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 (otherthan 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 ofthe SIP and do not interfere with any requirements ofthe Clean AirAct.

If I can provide anything else, let me know.

1Tom Bachman, 

### P.E. Manager; AirQuality ImpactAnalysis Program NO Dept. ofHealth (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, Iam having difficulties convincing my colleagues thatthe subject revision is nota relaxation ofthe SIP by conveying the substance ofthe rule revisions and informationfrom my conversations with you overthe past few days. I have suggested thatthe airquality analysis we did forthe Fort Berthold FIP may provide relevant information along the lines ofa 110(1) demonstration. The issue is being elevated to EPA headquarters for review. Ifyou are willing, Ithink itwould be useful ifyou could email me a summary ofyour rationale on why the permitting revision is nota relaxation. Please include confirmation thatemission limits in current permits are not more stringentthan those limits imposed by NSPS regulations (assuming that is true) as well as yourthoughts on treatment offuelburning sources belowtitleVthresholds but above 25 tpy (ifthese are located at an oil & gas production facility, these are subject to 13-15-20, subpart 0000, and what ifany otherstate requirements, HAP?). Let me know ifyou have questions.

Thanks, Gail

Gail Fallon Environmental Engineer Air Quality Planning Unit US EPA, Region 8 Denver, CO (303) 312-6281

2