p. 1



# OAR Box 1793 Prepped byKeeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 18) ll-F-6 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 18 of 45P. 2



# •»^ s . A-tO-3-7



# ****** tovknmwto o^fcf£ r 

## Pffic eo f

Ai r

## Q ^ Wannjn g

## ^ s 

## J^ n U . S . Environmenta

lProtectionAgency, ~ Researc hTrianglePark,N C 277 U^ FAXNumber : (919)541-550 9 

# FAX TRANSMISSIO

N TO : DfAM B 

### Datr . /^s_w / 

### V

lOOMFANY/OFFICf

i"* " ' ^ 

# QMS VHON B NUMBER '



### FROM : c 

### - c 

### - : 

### -£>eu ^ CaS-iccQ&Qg |FA X NUMBER 

# xVgjo/jss C&UMP/.^£- 7.0 2. -A5ZCmm. j /$£ pHONBNUM_U_ R



### 919-341 - <3^? / COMMENTS : i—— —



# ^%Ans OAAsi 

### . g o CUSISA&T^J. 

### a**,/ y66^r C&K/IVZ+JZS



### &?, V/9 ' 

# * W/<?/r"

Numbe rof Page s (includin gcove rsheet) : ^Pp^^ ' a 

### If yo udi dno treceiv eall th epages, pleas

econtac tth efollowin gperson ; P 3 3

### fSowNuia B — L •' • • I919.341 .P. 3

Th e Applicabilit ySubgrou p o f th e CAAAC' s NS R Reformp t 1? 9, Subcommitte e considere d man yapplicabilit yoptions . Whil e non e o f thes e proposal s garnere d th e ful l Subcommittee' s support , representative s o f Stat e an d loca l regulator s a s wel l a s environmenta l group s expresse d genera l suppor t fo r th e ide a tha t "benign " change s a t existing emission s unit s d o no t nee d t o underg o th c actua l t o potentia l tes t shoul d no t b e subjec t t o and

th e complicate d NS R netting applicabilit yrule s i n everyinotanc c rela .e d t o «-_•__ « a silica* , - e anion s ___«_«, . ^ Ther e wa s als o suppor t fo r th e propositio n tha t th e NS R * * applicabilit ytes t shoul d provid e some deferenc e t o source s tha t hav e alread

yundergon e majo r NSR . Th e EPA , afte r carefu l consideratio n o f thes e discussions , believe s tha t th e bes t approac hfo r a ne wexclusio n i s on e tha t focuse s o n th e existing emission s contro l o f a unit , rathe r tha n th e chang e bein g proposed . Almos t al l stakeholder s identifie d th e goa l o f ensuring tha t modifie d unit s appl ystate-of-the-ar t control s a s bein g o f paramoun t importance . Accordingly , wher e a n emission s uni t alread ymeet s thi s goal , environmenta l concern s associate d wit hpropose d change s ar e likel yreduced . Fo r example , i t i s th e EPA' s experienc e tha t i n manycase s wher e a n existin g well-controlle d uni t trigger s majo r NSR , th e permittin g proces s doe s no t necessaril yresul t i n improve d controls . O n th e othe r hand , wher e th e revie wi s focuse d o n unit s whic hhav e no t PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y ***Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] ** *P. 4

2 9 recentl ybee n require d t o mee t a contro l technologyrequirement , NS R ca n b e expecte d t o resul t i n mor e otringcn t effectiv e * " £ ^ control s and meaningfu l reduction s i n actua l emissions . Similarly , wher e a n entir e facilit yalread ymeet s th e goa l o f th e applicatio n o f state-of-the-ar t control s an d ha s undergon e a n ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s o f it s emissions , environmenta l concern s associate d wit hpropose d change s ar e likel yreduce d i f th e change s remai n consisten t wit hrequirement s impose d byth e p||||m| ^ analysis . Thus , EPAi s als o proposing a "clean" , facilit yexclusio n tha t allow s a majo r stationarysourc e t o mak e change s a t it s facilit yconsisten t wit hPS D o r NS R permit s tha t hav e bee n recentl yissued . 2 . Descriptio n o f th e Clea n Uni t Proposa l Base d o n thes e factors , th e EPAi s todayproposin g a simplifie d applicabilit ytes t fo r change s t o existing emission s unit s tha t alread

yar e well-contro l le d considering th e exten t a per 

### Jyfo& curren t BACT/LAE R revie wfo r a particula r uni t woul d resul t i n r .<-%*. lowe r emission s hav e otat o o f th e ar t cmiooio n controls . I n , ~ £_.* » ~ general , thi s ne w"clean unit " exclusio n wil l allo wState s t o %<** exclud e frommajo r NSR , propose d change s t o existing emission s unit s tha t hav e installe d majo r BAC T o r LAE R withi n th e las t 1 0 o/U year s o r whic hotherwis e qualif ya s a "clean unit. " Unde r thi s exclusion , source s can mak e an ychang e t o a qualifying uni t s o long a s th e chang e wil l no t increas e th e unit' s emission s rat e PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •* •P. 5

3 0 (measure di nterm s o f th e unit' s maximu mhourl yemissions , th e ne wsourc e performanc e standar d(NSPS ) tes t foun da t existin g 4 0 CF R60.14) . Specifically , change s whic hd o no t increas e th e unit' s hourl ypotentia l emission s woul dno t b e considere da physica l o r operationa l chang e an dthu s woul dno t trigge r majo r NSR. 9 Se e propose dsection s 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(i£) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) an d52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) . Th e propose d"clea nunit " exclusio nwoul dbot hsimplif yth e applicabilit ytes t fo r qualifyin g unit s an dincreas e sourc e flexibility . I t woul dals o rewar dsource s tha t inth e recent a r pas t hav e applie dotringcn t control s t o thei r emission s unit s ' A t f* tha t wer e equa l o r comparabl e t o B&C T o r LAER . «*$ , ^ T i°l ^ <9* r ' Ideally , th e chang e i nhourl ypotentia l emission s woul db e assesse dimmediatel ybefor e an dafte r th e change"t o determin e i f

9 Unde r today' s proposal , fo r unit s tha t ar e permitte dt o chang e feedstock s frequently , suc ha s pharmaceutica l manufacturin g an dcertai nchemica l batc hprocesses , th e maximu m hourl yemission s rat e tes t woul db e applie do na pe r feedstoc k basi s t o determin e i f a nemissio nincreas e wil l occur . Fo r example , a uni t whic hha s state-of-the-ar t VO C contro l technolog y an duse s toluen e an dothe r organi c solvent s a s feedstocks , th e hourl ymaximu memissio nrat e o f toluen e befor e an dafte r th e propose dphysica l o r operationa l chang e woul db e assesse da s i f toluen e alon e wa s t o b e full yutilize db yth e uni t befor e an d afte r th e propose dchange . Th e othe r feedstock s woul dals o b e individuall yassessed . Achang e i nfeedstoc k woul dno t trigge r NS Ri f th e contro l technolog ydesigne dt o contro l emission s resultin g fro mth e feedstoc k an dth e uni t wa s previousl y permitte dt o us e th e feedstock . Th e EP Aencourage s suggestion s i ndevelopin g rule s o r guidanc e o nothe r approache s fo r determinin g emission s increase s fo r processe s wit hrapidl y changin g an dmixe dfeedstocks . PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP APOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 6

3 1 a n emission s increas e di d indee d occur . However , thi s ma yno t b e practica l i n man

yinstance s becaus e informatio n necessaryt o establis hth e hourl ypotentia l emission s rat e mayrequir e considerabl e time t o develop o r collect . Therefore , unde r th e propose d provision , th e pre-chang e hourl ypotentia l emissio n rat e mayb e establishe d o r verifie d a t an ytime up t o 6 month s prio r t o th e propose d activit yo r project . Th e EP Asolicit s commen t o n alternativ e period s fo r establishing th e pre-chang e hourl y emission s rate , particularl yperiod s whic hmigh t allo wth e us e o f routin e complianc e emission s test s t o determin e th e emission s rat e (e.g. , annual) . Als o unde r the propose d provision , wher e th e uni t i s subjec t t o a federall yenforceabl e limi t o n operation s o r emission s whic hlimit s the unit' s hourl ypotentia l emission s t o les s tha n th e maximum , physicall yachievabl e hourl y rate , th e unit' s lowe r allowabl e rat e mus t b e use d i n determinin g i f a n emission s increas e wil l occu r a t the unit . 3 . Wha t Constitute s a "Clean Unit " Fo r thi s exclusio n t o function , i t i s necessaryt o distinguis ha well-controlle d uni t fro ma poorl ycontrolle d one . I n othe r words , wha t criteri a distinguis ha uni t eligibl e fo r thi s exclusio n fromon e whic hi s not ? Criteri a whic hallo wa broa d rang e o f unit s t o qualif ycoul d largel ytransformth e existin g applicabilit ysystemint o on e base d solel yo n assessin g

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY •••October 25 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 7

3 2 a unit' s potentia l emissions , wit hth e possibilit yo f a dramati c increas e i n a unit' s actua l emission s withou t undergoin g NSR . Th e EPA-^-

s propose s t o requir e emission s unit s t o hav e a "federall yenforceabl e emission s limit " tha t "i s comparabl e t o th e emissio n limi t tha t . . . woul d resul t froma curren t review " o f tha t particula r uni t unde r the BAC T o r LAE R requirements , whicheve r i s applicabl e t o th e propose d change . (See , e.g. . propose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (ifi).(ii. ) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (2) and 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (2) .) TheEP A envision s tha t thre e type s o f limit s woul d qualify : (1 ) BAC T o r LAE R limit s se t withi n th e las t 1 0 year s fo r th e particula r unit ; " (2 ) | limit s se t withi n th e las t 1 0 years * fo r th e particula r uni t b ya Stat e technologyrevie wprogra mdetermine d b

yEP At o b e equivalen t comparabl e t o th e federa l BAC T o r LAE R programs ; an d (3 ) i i limits

- found o n a case-by-cas e basi s - - afte r notic e and opportunit yfo r publi c commen t - - t o b e equivalen t comparabl e t o th e curren t BAC T o r LAE R limit s tha t woul d otherwis e b e impose d la o n th e sourc e afte r weighin g th e cos t and benefit s o f additiona l « JQJ o r modifie d oontrols , including retrofi t cos t and benefits . a . Unit s wit hBAC T o r LAE R Limit s On e starting poin t fo r determining whethe r a uni t i s well

controlle d i s th e leve l o f contro l require d t o satisf yBAC T (in attainment/unclassifie d areas ) o r LAE R (in nonattainmen t areas) . Fo r unit s whic hhav e recentl yundergon e thes e reviews , re PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 8

3 3 evaluatio n o f th e technolog yshortl yafte r th e sourc e i s constructe d o r modifie d t o determin e i f the technologyi s stil l "state-of-the-art " woul d likel yresul t i n ver ylittl e o r n o incrementa l improvemen t i n emission s control . Moreover , unit s tha t ar e recentl ypermitte d ar e fa r les s likel yt o hav e physicall ydeteriorate d and mor e likel yt o b e running nea r permitte d capacity , reducing th e ris k tha t change s t o th e uni t wil l resul t i n increase d utilizatio n an d increase d actua l emissions . Therefore , th e EPAi s proposing tha t th e ne wexclusio n may presumptivel yappl yt o an yuni t whic hreceive d a BAC T o r LAE R limi t i n a currentl yapplicabl e majo r NS R permi t withi n 1 0 year s o f th e propose d chang e unde r consideration . Se e propose d section s 51.16.5(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (1£ ) (vj (1) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5. ) (i ) and 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5. ) (i ) . I n othe r words , fo r th e firs t 1 0 year s following issuanc e o f a PS D o r nonattainmen t NS R permit , unit s subjec t t o BAC T o r LAE R se t i n tha t permi t ar e eligibl e fo r th e clea n uni t exclusion . A t leas t some member s o f th e Subcommitte e expresse d concer n tha t th e te n yea r perio d i s to o long give n th e improvemen t i n contro l technolog ytha t ca n occu r i n some sourc e categories . Fo r thi s reason , EPAsolicit s commen t o n usin g a shorte r perio d suc ha s five year s a s th e lengt ho f th e Clea n Uni t presumptio n derive d fro ma NS R permit .

PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY •••October 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P. 9

3 4 Durin g consideratio n o f th e Clean Uni t Exclusion , severa l participant s suggeste d tha t unit s subjec t t o maximu m achievabl e contro l technology(MACT ) o r reasonabl yachievabl e availabl e \^A contro l technology(RACT ) shoul d als o automaticall yqualif ya s clea n units . Arecentl yrequire d MAC T emission s limit , whil e no t necessaril yequa l t o BAC T o r LAER , i s likel yt o resul t i n significan t emission s control s suc htha t a BAC T o r LAE R revie w woul d no t necessaril yresul t i n significan t additiona l emission s reductions . However , th e EP Ai s als o concerne d tha t a MAC T limi t coul d b e significantl yles s effectiv e i n limiting volatil e organi c compound (VOC ) emission s tha n BAC T o r LAE R i n many circumstances . AMAC T emissio n limi t mayadequatel ycontro l a toxi c VO C bu t coul d resul t i n emissio n increase s o f pollutant s subjec t t o NSR . Fo r example , a n incinerato r installe d t o reduc e a toxi c VO C wil l increas e nitroge n oxide s (NOx ) emission s emitte d t o th e atmosphere . Th e EP Aals o ha s concern s wit husin g Federa l RAC T limit s t o presumptivel yqualif ya uni t a s a clean unit-:—In nonattainmen t areas , Asinc e RAC T emissio n limit ! i o almoo t alwayo muc hca n b e les s stringen t tha n curren t LAE R an d BACT-T—i nth e EPA ' a view , £*»<- ; ofte n woul d b e log o stringen t tha n a BAC T limit . Further , i n ^ i" some instance s RAC T i s base d o n th e attainmen t need s o f th e are a and no t a specifi c contro l technolog ystandard . Whil e EPA solicit s commen t o n presumptivel yapplying th e clea n uni t PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 0

3 5 exclusio n tes t t o unit s wit hFedera l MAC T o r RAC T limits , th e EPA i s not-incline d t o d o s o acros s th e board . Rather , th e EP A believe s tha t MAC T o r RAC T limit s shoul d b e foun d t o qualif yfo r th e Clea n Uni t exclusio n usin g th e case-by-cas e optio n describe d i n sectio n II.C.3. C below . b . Stat e TechnologyProgram s Equivalen t Comparabl e t o BAC T o r LAE R Ther e ar e man yemission s unit s a t stationarysource s tha t wer e permitte d according t o a State' s mino r NS R permittin g program . Whil e thes e unit s ar e H^ l no t controlle d pursuan t *}/£} subjec t t o a majo r sourc e BAC T o r LAE R limi t pe r se , the ystil l a* mayhav e installe d stat e o f th c ar t control s tha t would'hav e satisfie d majo r sourc e BAC T o r LAE R requirement s a t th e tim e th e permi t wa s issued * Fo r instance , severa l jurisdiction s hav e contro l technologyreview s a s par t o f State , loca l o r triba l mino r NS R program

whic hrequire s ne wo r modifying source s t o mee t emission s level s equivalen t comparabl e t o majo r sourc e contro l technologyrequirement s (BACT o r LAER) . Fo r thi s reason , th e EPA i s proposin g tha t permitting authoritie s maysubmi t mino r NS R contro l technologyrequirement s fo r certificatio n b yth e EP Atha t th e mino r NS R program require s contro l technolog ytha t woul d satisf yth e requirement s fo r th e clean uni t exclusion . Se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(10)(v)(1) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5 ) (ii ) an d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5_ ) (ii ) . Onc e PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 1

3 6 determine d b

yEPAt o b e equivalen t comparable , al l unit s subjec t t o emission s limitatio n establishe d unde r th e jurisdiction' s mino r NS R program

woul d b e eligibl e fo r th e Clea n Uni t exclusio n fo r th e firs t 1 0 year s following issuanc e o f the permit . Thi s coul d als o appl yt o permit s tha t hav e bee n issue d previousl y unde r mino r NS R technologyrequirement s tha t ar e late r determine ^ .^ f t o b e comparabl e t o majo r sourc e BAC T o r LAE R requirements . I n §O e/ suc ha case , th e clea n uni t exclusio n appl yt o th e uni t wit hth e **Q\£ (fr* mino r NS R permit , bu t i t woul d tak e e f feet * onc e BP Aamke s th e if " certificatio n o f comparabilit y{i.e. , th e clea n uni t tes t woul d no t appl yt o modification s tha t haves occurre d prio r t o th e certification ) • Tn e clea n uni t tes t coul d appl yt o th e qulifyin g uni t fo r te n year s afte r issuanc e o f th e mino r sourc e permit . Th e EP Aals o solicit s commen t o n whethe r a shorte r period , suc h a s 5 years , woul d b e mor e appropriate . Th e EP Aals o solicit s commen t o n th e appropriat e standard s fo r EP At o us e i n determining whethe r a permitting authority' s mino r NS R program

contro l technolog

yrequirement s ar e comparabl e t o th e BAC T and LAE R requirements . Th e EPAenvision s tha t a s a minimu m a "pre-certified " mino r NS R program compl ywit h4 0 CF R 51.160-164. 1 0 c . Qualificatio n o f Unit s o n a Case-By-Cas e Basi s

10 I n a separat e rulemakin g EP Ai s revisin

g th e publi c revie

wan d comment requirement s t o giv

e mor e State s mor e flexibilit yin dealin

g withmino r sourc e permits . Se e F

R PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP APOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 2

3 7 I n manycase s a n emission s uni t no t subjec t t o majo r NS R i s constructe d o r retrofitte d wit ha contro l technolog yo r strategy equivalen t comparabl e t o th e bes t control s applie d i n practice . Thi s ma yoccu r whe n a sourc e minimize s emission s i n orde r t o "net " a uni t ou t o f majo r NS R o r applie s control s t o compl ywit h othe r provision s o f th e Act . Fo r thi s reason , th e EPA' s propose d regulation s woul d allo wa sourc e having a limi t o n a n emission s uni t determine d t o b e equivalen t comparabl e t o BAC T o r LAE R fo r th e particula r uni t considering cos t and benefit s o f additiona l o r modifie d controls , including retrofi t cos t and benefit s t o qualif yfo r th e "clean unit " exclusio n o n a case-by-cas e basis . Specifically , a n existing uni t whic hha s no t undergon e a BAC T o r LAE R determinatio n o r comparabl e Stat e technologyrequiremen t ca n als o qualif ya s a "clea n unit * if , i n th e informe d judgmen t o f th e permittin g agency , a curren t 8&C T o r LAS & determinatio n fo r th e uni t woul d no t b e expecte d t o resul t in anylowe r leve l o f ^ - ^ emission s fromth e uni t fo r th e pollutan t in question . The costs , ^A / jr 

# 'iA. benefit s an d technica l consideratio n associate d th e retrofi t « • applicatio n o f additiona l control s t o th e particula r uni t ma yb e considere d b yth e permittin g agencyi n th e evaluation . Sinc e thi s i n effec t ma yrequir e th e permitting authorit yt c engag e i n a technologyrevie wtha t i s simila r BAC T o r LAE R revie wi n orde r t o qualif ya uni t fo r thi s exclusion , th e EP Ai s asking fo r commen t o n othe r approache s fo r qualifyin g units . PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• • 

# A*P.1 3 

## T * Ar-t r fc«-S /0- # "i/*

-

3 8 Onc e a permitting authorit ymake s thi s determinatio n through a proces s involving notic e an d opportunit yfo r publi c comment , th e uni t woul d b e eligibl e fo r th e clea n uni t exclusio n fo r th e nex t fiv e years . A s wit hth e othe r type s o f propose d clea n uni t exclusions , EPArequest s publi c comment s o n th e propose d exclusio n eligibilit yperiod . Se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (10 ) (y ) (3) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5 ) (iii ) and 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(L)(5)(iii) . Th e EPApropose s solicit s comment s o n severa l othe r ^ \ ^ ^ alternativ e base s upo n whic ha permitting authorit ycoul d tak e t o mak e th e determinatio n tha t a uni t ha s a n equivalen t ^^|^r§ip ^ BAC T o r LAE R emission s limitation . Th e firs t woul d b e base d o n a n averag e o f BAC T o r LAE R fo r equivalen t o r simila r source s ove r a recen t perio d o f time (e.g. , mos t recen t thre e years) . Th e second woul d b e base d o n the unit' s contro l leve l bein g withi n some percentag e (e.g. , five o r te n percent ) o f th e mos t recent , o r averag e o f th e mos t recent , BAC T o r LAE R level s fo r equivalen t o r simila r sources . Th e EPAsolicit s commen t o n thes e approache s an d o n th e genera l issue s concerning whethe r an d ho wEP Ashoul d impos e a specifi c methodolog yfo r determining tha t a specifi c emission s limi t i s "comparable " t o th e curren t BAC T o r LAE R limi t tha t woul d resul t froma review . Fo r al l o f th c abov e tests,—th c EPArcaligo o tha t ther e ar o /)ft 0 man ysourc e an

d omissio n uni t catcgoric o fo r whic hBAC T o r LAE R */ _ PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND ^ BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y «/ • •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• * "/oP.1 4

3 9 dctcrmination o d o no t cxiot,—le t alon e recen t determinations . Fo r thca e oourcco,—th e EPApropose s tha t thei r leve l o f contro l £/"• « b e gauge d agains t the contro l leve l associate d wit hBAC T o r LAE R /| ^ fo r emissio n unit s wit hsimila r cmiooio n strea mcharacteristic s 

# p/e Tha t io,—i f th e omiooion o uni t wer e t o underg o a BAC T o r LAE R fayf* Lo revie wtodayo r recently , wha t tcchnologic o woul d b e evaluate d an d wha t ar c th e curren t BAC T o r LAE R lcvcl o associate d wit h thoo c tcchnologico ? Sinc e thi o i n effec t rcquiro o th o permitting authorit yt o engag e i n a BAC T o r LAE R revie wi n orde r t o qualif y a uni t fo r thi o cxcluaion,—th c EPAi o aoking fo r commen t o n othe r approachc o fo r qualifying unito . State s ar e encourage d t o us e th e permitting proces s require d b ytitl e V

o f th e Ac t a s the vehicl e fo r determining an d recording whic hunit s a t a titl e V sourc e can qualif yfo r thi s exclusion. 1 1 Th e permitting authorit ycoul d us e th e titl e V permi t issuance , revisio n o r renewa l proces s a s th e mechanis mfo r making th e case-by-cas e determinatio n (so lon g a s th e opportunit y .** *

1 1 Whil e rule s implementing titl e V addres s ho wth e unit' s majo r NS R permi t an d BAC T o r LAE R limi t ar e incorporate d int o th e titl e V permit , i t i s no t clea r tha t the statu s o f a uni t a s a NS R clea n uni t woul d b e include d i n th e titl e V permi t a s a n applicabl e requirement . Whethe r the statu s o f a uni t a s a NS R clean uni t presumptio n i s a n applicabl e requiremen t i n th e titl e V permi t wil l likel ydepen d upo n ho wthe clean uni t tes t i s adopte d b

yth e permitting authorit y(e.g. , adopte d a s a SI P requirement) . Th e EPAsolicit s commen t o n the bes t approac hfo r implementing an

d coordinating the reviewan d designatio n o f clea n unit s wit hth e titl e V permi t process . PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAFT FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY •••October 25 , 199 5 [file name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 5

4 0 fo r publi c commen t i s provided) . Fo r convenience , one , man yo r al l unit s a t a sourc e coul d b e reviewe d an d subjecte d t o publi c notic e and commen t concurrentl ywit hth e issuanc e o r renewa l o f a titl e V operatin g permit . Fo r unit s eligibl e fo r th e "clean unit " exclusio n du e t o a prio r NS R BAC T o r LAE R determination , o r a determinatio n unde r a progra mfoun d comparabl e b

yEPA , th e titl e V permi t offer s th e opportunit yt o clearl yse t fort hth e statu s o f th e uni t unde r th e Clea n Uni t exclusion . Qualifyin g clea n unit s and th e pollutan t fo r whic hth e determinatio n wa s mad e shoul d b e clearl yidentifie d an d liste d i n th e titl e V permi t a s "clean units " fo r NS R purposes . Unde r today' s proposal , a uni t tha t doe s no t initiall y qualif yfo r th e clea n uni t exclusio n coul d instal l control s meetin g th e criteri a th e EP Aestablishe s fo r well-controlle d unit s and thereb

yqualif yt o us e th e exclusion . Th e control s o r pollutio n reductio n strateg ytha t ar e the basi s fo r th e clea n uni t determinatio n mus t b e i n plac e an d federall yenforceabl e a t th e time th e sourc e relie s o n a n exclusio n unde r thi s provision . S o long a s thes e federall yenforceabl e condition s ar e met , th e sourc e i s fre e t o mak e an ychang e a t th e permitte d uni t including thos e whic hcoul d affec t a unit' s efficiency , capacity , availability , longevit yan d utilization . However , change s whic h woul d brin g int o queotio n cl_l||iiiiiil the origina l emission s £• ' unit' s BAC T o r LAE R contro l leve l o r ai r qualit yimpac t (e.g. , / ^

PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 6

4 1 modifie d stac k parameter s whic hwoul d caus e o r contribut e t o violatio n o f an

yapplicabl e ambien t standard , replacemen t o f th e uni t wit ha differen t typ e o r siz e o f unit , o r reconstructio n o f th e unit ) woul d no t b e allowed . Also , fo r unit s exclude d from majo r NS R unde r thi s propose d revision , th e physica l o r operationa l chang e mus t stil l compl ywit hal l otherwis e applicabl e Clea n Ai r Ac t an d SI P requirement s including an y federall yenforceabl e limit s o n emission s o r operation s and mino r NS R requirements . Finally , th e determinatio n tha t a uni t i s "clean " o r "well

controlled " unde r today' s proposa l i s a n applicabilit ytes t an d i s independen t fro

mth e case-by-cas e determinatio n o f BAC T o r LAE R fo r source s subjec t t o majo r NSR . Whil e contro l technology«\s whic hqualifie s a uni t a s "clean " mayb e * comparable " t o BAC T or ow, e ' 5 LAE Rfo r a particula r uni t considering it s uniqu e circumstances , i t i s no t necessaril yequa l t o BAC T o r LAE R fo r tha t uni t whe n considere d a s par t o f a ne wmajo r facilit yo r majo r modification , an d i n n o wayestablishe s a presumptiv e BAC T o r LAE R fo r tha t unit , sourc e typ e o r category . Further , a fiv e o r te n yea r presumptio n tha t a uni t i s "clean " doe s no t i n an yway"freeze " BAC T o r LAE R determination s i n permitting actions . Th e Ac t require s tha t BAC T an d LAE R b e curren t cao c bycas e determination s fo r source s subjec t t o majo r NS R and th e clea n

PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 7

4 2 uni t too t designatio n canno t Hlii!il i overrid e thi s requiremen t determination . ^^t.[i1%^/^ 4 . Descriptio n o f the Clean Facilit yProposa l ° f^e^rJcS Simila r t o th e clea n uni t exclusion , EPAi s proposin g a n exclusio n fo r change s a t clea n facilities . Thi s "clean facility " exclusio n wil l allo wState s t o exclud e fro m majo r NS R propose d change s t o a n existing majo r stationarysourc e tha t ha s installe d majo r BAC T o r LAE R an d ha s undergon e a n ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s a s appropriat e t o th e are a designation , o r whic h otherwis e qualif ya s a "clean facility. " Se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(11) , 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(M ) and 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(M) . Unde r thi s exclusion , source s ca n mak e an y chang e t o th e majo r stationarysourc e tha t i s consisten t wit hth e PS D o r NS R permit . Th e EPAenvision s thi s t o allo wchange s tha t d o no t includ e adding ne wunit s o r allowing emission s trade s tha t wer e no t evaluate d fo r ai r qualit yimpact s i n th e NS R o r PS D permit . Th e exclusio n woul d allow , however , sourc e t o replac e o r reconstruc t existing unit s s o long a s theycontinu e t o mee t th e contro l technologyan d emission s requirement s establishe d i n th e permit . Thus , suc hreplacemen t o r reconstructio n woul d no t resul t i n a differen t typ e o f uni t than envisione d and covere d b y th e PS D o r NS R permi t an d it s requirements . Th e EPArequest s comment s o n thi s proposa l and whethe r th e determinatio n o f "clean " facilit yshoul d b e mor e stringen t o r PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP

A POLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.1 8

4 3 simila r t o th e "clean " unit . Th e EPAi s proposin g tha t th e qualificatio n fo r thi s exclusio n b e simila r t o tha t unde r th e clea n uni t exclusion . A s proposed , a clea n majo r stationary sourc e i s on e tha t underwen t NS R withi n th e las t 1 0 years . EPA als o request s commen t o n whethe r thi s proposa l shoul d no t allo w unit s o r facilitie s t o b e replace d o r reconstructed . Certainly , Th e addifte/itio

n o f ne wlillllli l unit s no t covere d byth e £* ' " existin g permi t woul d no t b e permitte d allowe d unde r th e «// 7 proposal . bccauo c ouc hchangc o woul d no t b e conoiotcn t wit hth c cxiotin g NS R permit . Similarly , emission s trade s ma yno t b e permissibl e wher e a n differen t ai r qualit yimpac t woul d resul t sinc e th e PS D o r NS R permi t migh t limi t suc hdiffering impacts . D . Revisio n t o the Nettin g Baselin e Today' s notic e describe s and solicit s commen t o n a ne w metho d fo r determining a n existing source' s baselin e emission s fo r purpose s o f determining whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l caus e a n increas e i n emission s an d trigge r NSR . 1 . Introductio n A s discussed , i n orde r t o determin e whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l resul t i n a n increas e i n emissions , i t i s necessaryt o compar e a source' s emission s befor e th e chang e (it s baselin e emissions ) wit hit s emission s afte r th e change . Th e EPA' s existing regulation s generall ydefin e baselin e actua l emission s a s "the averag e rate , i n ton s pe r year , a t whic hth e PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• *4 2

uni t tea t designatio n canno t doe s no t overrid e thi s requiremen t j determination . ^ |6> s c k ^ V L 4 . Descriptio n o f the Clea n Facilit yProposa l y. V/"r \ajovA , Simila r t o th e clean uni t exclusion , EPAi s proposin g an * Xty*" ^ exclusio n fo r change s a t clean facilities . Thi s "clean facility " exclusio n wil l allo wState s t o exclud e fro mmajo r NSR , propose d change s t o a n existing majo r stationarysourc e tha t ha s undergon e majo r NS R fo r th e entir e sourc e withi n th e las t 1 0 years . inotallc d majo r BAC T o r LAE R an d ha a undergon e an ai r qualit y impac t analysi o a o appropriat e t o thc are a dcaignation,—o r whic h othcrwio c qualif ya o a "clean facility. " Se e propose d section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (11) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (M ) an d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (M ) . Unde r thi s exclusion , a majo r source s ca n mak e an ychang e a s long a s th e sourc e woul d stil l be|l| | complianc e wit hit s majo r $S R permit , t o thc majo r otationary oourc c tha t i o conoiatcn t wit hth c PS D o r NS R permit.

—Th e EPA envision s thi s t o allo wan ychange s tha t d o no t includ e adding ne wunit s o r allowing emission s trade s tha t wer e no t evaluate d fo r ai r qualit yimpact s i n the majo r NS R o r PS D permit . Th e exclusio n would,however , allowhoweve r | sourc e t o replac e o r reconstruc t existing unit s s o long a s theycontinu e t o mee t th e contro l technologyan d emission s limitation s rcquirement o establishe d i n th e permit . Thus , suc hreplacemen t o r reconstructio n woul d no t resul t i n a differen t typ e o f emission s PRELIMINAR

YSTAFF WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFICE O

F MANAGEMEN

T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W • DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •••October 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •P.2 0

4 3 uni t than envisione d an d covere d b

yth e PS D o r majo r NS R permi t an d it s requirements . Th e additio n o f ne wemission s unit s woul d no t b e allowe d unde r th e proposa l becaus e suc hchange s woul d no t b e consisten t wit hth e existing NS R permit . However , al l othe r change s consisten t wit hth e term s o f th e majo r HS R permi t woul d no t b e considere d a "physica l o r operationa l change " fo r th e purpose s o f majo r NS R applicability . Similarly . emission s trade s mayno t b e permissibl e wher e a n differen t ai r qualit yimpac t woul d resul t sinc e th e PS D o r NS R permi t migh t limi t suc h differin g impacts , Th o EPAroqucot o commcnt a o n thi o propoaa l an d whethe r th c determinatio n of—"clean"—facilit yahoul d b e mor e otringcn t o r aimila r t o th c "clean " unit . Th c EPAi o propooing tha t th c qualificatio n fo r thi o cxcluoio n b e oimila r t o tha t unde r th c clean uni t excluoion . Ao propoocd,— a clean majo r otationary oourc c i o on e tha t underwen t NS R withi n th e lao t 1 0 years . EP A alo o request s commen t o n thi s approac han d specificall yo n whethe r thi s propose d a i approac hshoul d no t allo wunit s o r facilitie s t o b e replace d o r reconstructed . Certainly,—adding ne wunit o woul d no t b e permitte d unde r the propoaa l bocaua c auc h changc a woul d no t b e conoiatcn t wit hth c cxiating NS R permit . However,—al l othe r changc o conaiotcn t wit hthc tcrmo o f th c majo r NS R permi t woul d no t b e conoidcrc d a "phyoica l o r op e rationa l change"—fo r th c purpooc o o f majo r NS R applicability . Similarly , PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE W• DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EPAPOLIC Y •••Octobe r 25 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master9.17 ] •• •