P. 1



# OAR Box 1875

Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 78 ) ll-F-2 5

Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:49AM

Sheet 78of 86P. 2 

### OCT-2 1 - 1C;D 3 OAQPS/D C FA X NO

. 20 2 

## A-90-1 9

ll-F-2 5

Octobe r 20 , 199 2 Davi d Rivkin : Here' s a marku

p o f you r length

ypreambl e insert , whic h doe s tw o things : first , i t conform s i t to th e agreement yo

u reache

d wit h Ra y( a cop

yo f whic hi s attached ) . Second , i t incorporate s change s OAQP S developed t o make i t technicall y accurate . Pleas e le t m e kno w i f yo u have an

y proble m withthes e revisions .

Ala nEcker t

OPTIONA L FOft U B

« (T-*Q)

T o FA X TRANSMITTA L [f w"J
J^oo W fcvfa'fX OWtJAeanc

y
F « I 

### V52-(^3 / MS N 7S40-ei-S!7_T3« a filo*\ £ckcrf '_4-&~6>3JZZ p « #
50M-IO I etNCVU

. SCfiVCt S AOMMMnurtO NP. 3 

### OCT-21-9 2 WE D 10:5 3 OAQPS/D C FA X NO

. 202260045 1 P
. 0 3

EPA' s propose d covere d portion s o f a broade r averaging , rul e allow s anaveragin g approac hfor HO N - a plant . ££ £ pp . . EP A i s also^p»«p©ft&ag proposal , a s se t fort hbelow . Significantly , thi s latte r averagin g echam e i s no t being propose d a s an alternativ e t o th e averagin g approach , describe d above . Rathor , th e two approache s ar e entirel y complimentary . However , becaus e th e lega l issue s pose d by th e broader*averagin g schem e diffe r appreciabl y

fro m thos e implicate d by th « mor e narro

w averagin g proposal , EP A

believe s tha t a separat e discussio no f th e forme r i s warranted . Th e broa d averagin g propooa l relie s upo ntk» lega l theory£j ^ dovclu'p^U"D, y

Utut r whic hwoul d permi t complianc e wit hth e HO N KAC T standar d (or , fo r tha t matter , with--'an y othe r MAC T standar d t o b e develope d b y

EPA ) b

y averagin g emlesion s fro m point s locate d anywher e withi na nentir e contiguou s facility , whic hcontain s HON-covere d processin g units . ErA'believe s tha t thi s approac hj c • legall y

permi-qolbl c unde r saction—112-o f th e clea n Ai r ftct» TTTTtrniflmanr

c n f T>1 0 m M

mmlf l HIT H rif%n1 1 -i n il l 'o'rahl

q polir y oensequences v Havin g ^udieru-lly- analyse d Sootlo n 1 » an d it s lagialatlve 1 hiotory ^ -EPA , conclude d tha t ther e i e a difference - betwee nth e ter m "source"in a categor y o r subcategory, M

use d i nSectio n11 2 (d) , an d th e term

"source,* 1 use d i nSectio n11 2 (i) . T O begin . with , Er A

believe a tha t th o uco-o f differen t word c by eongrao g i n thes e tw o oubawotluiB ' Wdb . uu t accidenta l and-rofloote d a well thought-ou t Congressiona l intent.—noad c cit e Specifically , fo r purpose s o f establishin g emission s standard s unde r subsectio n11 2 (d) , Congres s expecte d EP A t o identif y

specifi c productio nlines , piece s o f equipment , etc. , locate d withi nmajo r stationar y source s o r are a sources , and to trea t the na s source s onl y fo r th e purpose s o f subsection s 11 2 (d ) (3 ) (A ) an d (B) , %.*._. fo r th e purpose s o f determinin g wha t ar e th e averag e emissio nlimitation s achieve d by

th e bes t performin g twelv e percen t o f existing ^ source s o r averag e emissio nlimitation s achieve d b y th e five bee t performin g sources , sinc e th e ter m sourc e wa s use d i nth e subsectio n11 2 (d ) fo r a distinc t and uniqu e purpose , th e relevan t statutor y languag e contain s a qualifyin g se t o f word s - "i na categor y

o r subcategory " -appende d t o th e wor d "source. " *icuJ d ollo- » £P

A ft, acrtiudw* Significantly , i nsubsectio n11 2 (i) , th e relevan t statutor y languag e contain s th e ter m "source " —

a fac t that^EFf t hellouur. j oloarl y

reflcoto d tho oongreeeional—Inten t that ) fo r purpose s o f subsectio n11 2 (i) , -the-fcggW3=geugc g .was t o b e use d A n its . traditiona l moaning^whic hencompasse s a nontir o plant . I t woul<y . b e lmlufu l L

u 11.al l oevegcrlrutittulLrLloHi j ulm u CP A dof4n« d th l frtrin wurc o to includ e a n onfclr a facility . Thi s readin g i s supporte d b y th e fac t tha t th e definition s o f statutory terns , se t fort hi n subsectio n11 2 (a) , contai nth e traditiona l definition s o f suc h term s a s "majo r source" , "stationar y source" , etc . Unde r the - /Vv' s EPA ' 3- J L

u L u toj> y construction , th e statutory languag e "an

y emission s standard , limitation , o r regulatio npromulgate d unde r

fP. 4

OCT-21-9 2 WE

D 10:5 4 OAQPS/D C FA X NO

. 202260045 1 P.0 4

thi s (112 ] sectio n an d applicabl e t o asource " describe s al l o f th e existin g MAC

T standards , establishe d unde rsubsectio n 112
- (d) , an d applicabl e t o asource , vhic h contain s withi n i t "source s i n acategor y o rsubcategory " (j_.e._
. productio n lines ; piece s o f

equipment , e_£c.. ) covere d b y suc h MAC T standards . -EP A n^oo n^to o «>*»L , t n 1L » "KAi-l y reductions " rule , i t adopted— aplanl-wiflt f definltion'-u f

auatitf^—se j S<>

" F R37> -3* 2 - fJun c 13 , 1001 ) a n eail y indicatio n tha tth e agcne y believe d tha ta n entir e rronlr i jii"" 1 ' * fnHIH' y ^*"i« * »» » r»r.nm'^nraV

i t-n h » W_.

. •flouge e fu rpurpose s of, complianc e wi-t h th e requirement s of
jucLic m 11 3 > EP

A also , i s mindfu l o f th e fac ttha ti tha a traditionall y enjoye d wid e latitud e i n comin g u p wit h divers e definition s o f

th e ter m "source, - dependin g o n wha tregulator y objective s wer e implicated . Thi s cangreo o i o vei l awar e o f thkfi . fact^ . an d EPA' s considerabl e discretio n I n thi s are aha s bee n CWZ T airirma d b y th e courts." ^ hoed * eifcocu . I n Ui e presen tliietanco j

- • EP

A believe s tha tth o .statutor y analysi s describe d ahmrp , ra n he mintiftiBe aunda rth o firfl L piun u of 1 UI B Chevro n analysis ^ Alternatively > thi s lega l theor y ca n b e aupporte d b y th o ful l weigh to f

Chevro n dlccrotion , availabl e to-BP A unde rSec tio n 113- . cV W ac&cJZ OirrsnisJ- ov > ushiM»radcpk*r\ <£ i ^ fcutoookr- QAVUgX**] yafA4<xccK

^ • tJnder*-«e~ broada-averagin g approach , EP

A woul d make no TM*"—change s i nthe way . i t ha s identifie d categorie s an

d subcategorie s o f source s i nthe HO N an d devise

d appropriat e emissio nstandard s for them , no r i

nthe wa

y i t woul d prescrib

e future emissio

n standard s fo r othe r emissio ncategorie s or subcategories . Fo r complianc e purposes , however , i f a nowner o r operator doe s no t wis ht o .contro l a particula r HON-covere d emissio

npoint t o the leve l tha t woul d resul t inth e complianc e wit hth e relevan t HO

N emissionstandard , the extr a emissions fro m tha t point coul d b e offse t b

y emission s reduction s greater tha nwha t i s require

d b y an y standard then£

neffec t unde r Sectio n11 2 a t on e or mor e othe r emissionpoint s withi nth e entire stationar

y source . I n addition , emission s averagin g woul d b e allowe

d acros s al l the emission point s withi nth e entire plant , includin g th e SOCM I sourc e categor

y aa wel l a s point s no t ye t covere d b y an y MAC T standard . A s such , emission s fro m proces s vents , wastewate r operation , storag e vessel s an

d transfe r operations coul d b e average d amon g themselve s o r wit hothe r emission s point s withi nth e entir e stationar

y source , i norde r t o provid e a s muc

hflexibilit

y a s possible . However , distinctio nwoul d be made betwee nemissio

n point s physicall y

simila r t o emissio npoint s covere

d under the HO N o r an y othe r MAC T an

d al l other emissio npoints . For th

e former , t o participat e i nth e averagin

g scheme , the

y mus t compl y wit hwhateve r complianc e routine s hav e bee nestablishe

d unde r th

e SOCM I HO N

o r othe r relevan t MACT , Fo r th e latter , t o participat e i naveraging , th

e sourc e mus t petitio nEP A t o establisha

n appropriat e complianc e routine . To b e sure , onc e EP

A establishe s suc ha complianc e routin e fo r an y ne w typ e o f a nemissio

npoint .P. 5 

### OCT-21-9 2 WE D 10:5 5 OAQPS/D C FA X NO

. 202260045 1 P,0 5

al l simila r emission s point s locate dwithi nan y source s ca n participat e i n th e averaging , s o long a a the y us e th e EPA approve dcomplianc e routine . EP A solicit s commen t als o on how i t woul dverif y

th e baselin e fo r unregulate demissio npoints , and how i t woul dstructur e th e averagin g complianc e proces s t o assur e th e standar da s a whol e remain s enforceable . On e possibilit y t o conside r woul db e t o us e th e averag e emission s fro m suc hemissio n

. point s ove r some representativ e time perio da s thei r baselines . &**n*J-} r

### +/& <ipexJ^e<Jd*f

yzeftatid

» o U^aJ

OuuJtinotuXt

fet^, (w w potU*^ u*f>U<:*farv <r , VncWir w rvuM

una WIXAM

ja^ct* ^ fa^ 

### son*. av<^f

X. a 

### explaine dahaqo. , whil e equipment , leak s ar e include dint o SOck i sources , the y

carjno j a t thi s time b e irtolude di n emission s average - Unde r thi s alternative , EPA woul dexpeditiousl y

develo p • i i . method s t o assig nallowabl e emissio nlevel s t o particula r lea k los 

### ** 4 

### "' * point s o r group s o f lea k points>>and # eve n.withou t awaitin g fo r an y individuai^petitions , woul dsim^arl y develo pmethods-vfor calculatin g emission s fro m type s o f emissio npoint s no t regelate d b y HON . w Unde r th e broad^ ^ averagin g approach , emissio nreduction s fro m emission s point s no t covere dby th e HO N

woul db e usabl e t o generat e credits , subjec t t o th e previously , discusse dlimitation s andan y limitation s adde di n an y othe r MAC T standar dapplicabl e t o th e releyan t emissio npoints . Credit s coul db e generate da t any tim e from'non-HON . emissio npoint s "unti l the y becom e subjec t t o a MAC T standard . Whe nthe y become subjec t t o a MAC T standard , th e futur e valu e o f reduction s a t thos e emissio npoint s woul db e governe db y

th e emissio nstandard s require dby th e ne w

MACT . State ddifferently , th e offset s availabl e fro m suc hpoint s woul d hav e t o b e recompute dusin g th e ne w baselin e establishe dfo r them . Eac hfutur e MAC T standar dmus t contai na floo r calculation * T o th e exten t tha t point s covere db y thes e late r standard s haveCfc^ej palready * controlle dfo r th e purpose s o f participatin g i n a n averagin g scheme , tha t relate s t o th e complianc e wit ha n earlie r standard , th e floo r fo r th e late r fnw 

### f standard*© * b e nor* " stringent . A s futur e MAC T standard s ar e adopted , EP A

woul dattemp t t o maximiz e averagin g opportunitie s an dtherefor e minimize'complianc e delay s an d costs . EP A believe s tha t th e broa daveragin g scheme, describe d above , provide s significan t polic y benefits . T o begi nwith, i t woul denabl e source s t o achiev e th e same environmenta l gains , a s unde r th e mor e narrow averagin g proposal , bu t a t significantl y f reduce dcosts , second,' ^ by inducin g source s to.mak e oout effeotiv e reductlon o throughou t entir e facilities , EP A woul dbe i na-toettor positio nt o establis hsubsequen t MACTa.—I nfaet T

### —&a ~ •al l oaces , whe nauc hItACT c are-establishe dundo g quboaotinn j T ? - ^
' fd^ . th e MAC T "floor"^would.b a tighte r tha notherwis e woul dhav e ,"£• , bee nth e cas e i f th e emissio npoint s outsid e o f th e already %„, ^ covere dMAC T categorie s woul dhav e staye duncontrolled . Last , ^j ^ bu t no t least , EP A

believe s tha t th e utilizatio no f th e broa d<£ . averagin g schem a ma y resul t i n th e discover y o f emissio npoint s 'y withi nfacilitie s tha t otherwis e migh t hav e bee noverlooke db y EP A an d et a te"regulators.
. J Thi s las t poin t i s supporte db y th e S . \ (^positiv

e experienc e wit hth e broa daveragin g scheme s i n th e Stat e A 

## 1 )% ^M e^feU^K j m* C 

### T ^ndc^s -vJtL <K ^JLtu-^cL

a^^Uu, & ^< X



# 7 

# t\P. 6 

### OCT-21-9 2 WE D 10:5 6 OAQPS/D C FA X NO

. 202260045 1 P,0 6

/ o f California

. Ray , se t fort h belo w i s th e appropriat e languag e fo r th e las t substantiv e languag e insert

. I t i s a s follows : "(ii ) Informatio n reasonabl ysimila r t o informatio n regardin

g emission s averagin g require

d b y an y standar

d proposed unde r Section112 . Th e Administrator ma y reques t an

y reasonabl y related supplementa l informatio nwithi n3 0 day s afte r submission. "


## ta:S*J~£).P. 7 

### OCT-21-9 2 WE D 10:5 6 OAQPS/D C FA X NO

. 202260045 1 P
. 0 7

Inser t A Whil e equipment leak s ar e include d i nSOCM I sources , the y canno t a t thi s tim

e b e include

d i nemission s averages . Equipmen t leak s are no t include d because : (l ) th

e negotiate

d standar

d doe s no t requir e an

y fixe d performanc e level ; an d (2 ) n o practica l metho d currentl y

exist s t o verif y

performance . Under thi s alternative , EP A

woul d develop method s t o assig nallowabl e emissio nlevel s t o particula r lea k point s or group s o f lea k points , an

d woul d similarl y

develo p method s fo

r calculatin

g emission s fro

m emissio

npoint s no t regulate d b y th e HON . The Administrato r seek s comment o nmean s t o verif y

an d documen t th e emissio nperformanc e level s achieve d fo r situation s wher e equipmen t leak s ar e included i nanaverage . Commenter s shoul d include a descriptio no f the complianc e verificatio n procedur e tha t woul d be use

d an d wha t dat a need s t o b e supplie

d t o suppor t th e suggested system . Comment s ar e als o requeste d o ntype s o f non-SOCM I emissio

npoint s tha t might b e include

d i nbroade r averages .P. 8 

### OCT-21-9 2 WE D1 0 = 5 7 OAQPS/D C FA XNO . 202260045 1 P . 0 8

inser t B Severa l factor s mus t b e considere

d i nimplementin

g thi s alternativ

e approach . First , th e averagin

g approachallow

s inclusio

no f point s tha t wil l b e regulate d b y subsequen t MAC T standards . I ncalculatin g residua l ris k unde r sectio n112(f) , shoul d al l point s i nth e initia l averag e be include d i none ris k calculatio

neventhoug

hsom e o f thos e point s wil l no t b e subjec t t o th e standard s unde r 112(d ) unti l a late r date ? Second , i t woul d requir e a determinatio no nthe permissibilit y

o f interpollutan t trades . Thi s concerni s alread y bein g evaluated for VO C HAP s i nthe SOCM I sourc e category . Th e alternativ

e approachwoul d further complicat e thi s issu e b y addin g dissimila r categorie s (e.g. , industria l coolin g towers ) emittin g dissimila r pollutant s (e.g. , chromium) . Sinc e the HO N currentl y

addresse s onl y

organi c HAP s significan t change s woul d b e necessar

y t o accommodat e non-VOC HA P controls .