P. 1 1


# OAR Box 1840 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 24 ) IV-H-3 0 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/14/20081:25:30PM

Sheet 24 of 27P. 2 

### A-90-3 7 IV-H- 3 0 

# NS RRefor m- Comment

s fro mOM B 11/5/02

• ' ;

' ['• 

# ummm

EP A AI RDOCKE TP. 3

NUV-ldb-200 2 13:4 7 P.31/3 1

Interna l an

dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quota , cite , copy* o r distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2 emission s units , th e PAL wil l continu e L u Li e i neffactyqu r sourc e mus t compl ywith, a source-wid e multi-unit.emission s ca p equivalen t t o emissio nlevel s unde r th e PAL . Afte r a PAL expire s and you r reviewin g authorit yissue s a revise d permit , -a- physica l o r operationa l chang e a t an-i-ndividua l emission s uni t mast-b e evaluate d -bo 1 determin e whethe r thi s chang e -wil l resul t i na majo r modification.—I f a nemis&iun s uni t i s using a staLe-of-the-aiL*contro l t&clmulugyt o reduc e emissions , i t mayb e abl e t o qualif yto-us e th e Clea n Uni t applicabilit ytes t t o determin e whethe r a majo r modificatio nwil l occu r fromth e physica l o r operationa l i^ B change.—fle e Sectio nV o f today' s preambl e fo r a detaile d discussio no nth e requirement s -fo r beim j designate d a Clea n Unit . — change s wil l n o longe r b e evaluate d unde r th e PA L applicabilit yprovisions . Notwithstandin g th e expiratio no f the PAL , yo u mus t continu e t o compl ywit hanystat e o r Federa l applicabl e ^requirement s fo r a specifi c emission s uni t (for instanc e fo*^^>> BACT , RACT , NSP S etc. ) tha t becom e applicabl e a t an ytim e T > Vv^- S before , durin g o r afte r th e PAL effectiv e period . Ky \ft r How e we i Whe nth e PAL expires , VXJU nee d no t eompl ^ wit haxiyn e ( ^ oJ vo f th e limit s establishe d pursuan t t o 4 0 CFR51.166(r ) (2 ) 4 0

TOTA L P.3 1P. 4
P 30/3 1 NOU-05-200 2 13=4 7 r ' Jtf l J i

interna l an dDeliberativ e Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o r distribute . bctobe r 29 , 200 2 consisten t wit hth e permittin g procedure s fo r issuin g th e initia l PAL . A s par t o f thi s publi c process , th e reviewin g authorit ymus t provid e a writte nrational e fo r it s propose d PAL level . I f you r source' s PT E ha s decline d belo wth e PAL level , th e reviewin g authorit ymus t adjus t th e PAL downwar d s o tha t i t doe s no t excee d you r source' s PTE . I naddition , th e reviewin g authorit yo r JAna r ily

- ma y rene wth e PAL a t th e sam e leve l withou t consideratio n o f othe r factors , i f th e su mof , th e baselin e actua l emission s fo r al l emission s unit s a t you r sourc e (a s calculate d usin g th e definitio no f "baselin e actua l emissions " a t 4 0 CF R 51.165(a ) (1 ) (xii ) (B) , 51.166(b)(21) , and 52.21(b)(21 ) a s amende d b ytoday' s fina l rules) , plu s a namoun t equa l t o th e significan t leve l i s equa l t o o r greate r tha n8 0 percen t o f th e PAL level . ..However , i f th e baselin e actua l emission s plu s a namoun t equa l t o th e significan t leve l i s les s tha nfr&%80 percen t o f th e PAL level , th e reviewin g authorit yma yse t th e PAL a t a leve l tha t i t determine s t o b e mor e representativ e o f th e source' s baselin e actua l emissions , o r tha t i t determine s t o b e appropriat e considerin g ai r qualit yneeds , advance s i n contro l technology , anticipate d economi c growt hi nth e area , desir e t o rewar d o r encourag e th e source' s voluntar yemission s 15 7P. 5

NUV-Wb-200 2 13=4 7 P.29/3 1

Xateraal an

d Deliberativ

e Draft

- Do no t quote , cite , copy , or distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2 th e effectiv e periu d u l Lhe PAL yo u canno t rel yo n othe r majo r Nfl

RprovisionaBYstem s ar e appropriat e t o demonstrat e complianc e regarding you r PA L pollutan t (for example , exemption s frommajo r modification s o r netting ) .

- wit hyou r PAL ?

— Wha t informatio nabou t you r propose d dat a collectio n system s mus t b e submitte d t o vou r reviewin g authorit y fo r approval ?

•

_ Wha t recordkeepin g retirement s mutst vou r permi t contai nt o demonstrat e complianc e wit hvou r PAL ? £ Wha t reportin g requirement s fo r vou r PAL mus t vou r permi t contain ? a . Ho wd o monitorin g requirement s fo r emission s unit s unde r a PAL diffe r fromthos e fo r emission s unit s tha t ar e no t unde r a PAL ? Typically , whe na nemissionlimitatio n applie s o na unit-bv-uni t basis , th e monitorin g mus t b e sufficien t t o provid e dat a tha t demonstrat e emission s d o no t excee d th e )licabl e limi t fo r a particula r unit . Unde r thi * traditiona l Approach f i f anemission s uni t ha s t o mee t a NSP S VO C limi t o f 9 ppm . th e mo mfcorinqnee d nnl y demonstrat e vo c emission s ar e n o highe r tha n 9 pp mbu t not
16 7P. 6

NOU-05-200 213=4 6P.28/3 1

Interna lan dDeliberativ eDraft - Dono tquote , cite , copy , d rdistribute . October29 , 2002 a tan yprecis eleve lbelo w9 pp m(fo rexample . 7ppm . 8 ppm)
- i n contrast , unde r a VO C emission s actua l PAL , th e VO C emission s from

eac hemission s uni t must B b e | tniantified (i n tov ) , generall yeac hmont ha g th e su mo f th e previou s 1 2 month s o f VO C emissions . Thus , i t become s necessar yt o requir e monitorin g tha t quantifie s th e emission s from eac h emission s uni t t o ensur e „th e annua l limi t i s enforceabl e a s a practica l matter . A s a result , th e monitorin g requirement s fo r emission s unit s unde r a PA L ma vb e mor e stringen t tha nfo r thos e emission s units i no t unde r a PAL . I nmanyinstances , you r emission s unit s ma vhav e monitorin g suitabl e fo r determining complianc e wit ha uni t specifi c emissio nlimitatio no na periodi c basis , i n accordanc e wit htitl e V requirements , bu t eve ntha t monitorin g freguenc yo f dat a collectio nma vno t b e •ie s a 12 - rpont: hrollin g total . Thus , eve ni f vou r emission s unit' s rt yiii9] : '- tor i nt l r meet s th e titl e V requirement s i n4 0 CF R 70.6(a)(3)(j)(B ) o r 70.6(c)(1) . VO Umus t upgrad e tha t monitorin g i f vo u reques t a PAL and th e existin g monitorin g doe s no t mee t th e minimu mrequirement s o f th e PAL regulations . 

### 16 6 •P. 7

NOU-05-200 2 13:4 6 P . 27/3 1

Interna l andDeliberativ e Draft

- D o not
- quote , cite , copy, ' o r distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2 appropriate , vo u an d vou r reviewin g authorit yshoul d conside r th e contributio no f emission s fro mth e emission s uni t i nrelatio nt o th e PAL , th e siz e o f th e emission s unit , an dth e marcri no f complianc e o f th e emission s unit . I n addition , i f th e emissio nfacto r approac hi s taken , th e emission s uni t shal l operat e withi nth e designate drang e o f us e fo r th e emission^factor . Th e owne r o r operato r o f a significan t emission s uni t tha t relie s o n a n emission s facto r t o calculat e PA L pollutan t emission s shal l conduc t validatio ntestin g usin g othe r monitorin g approache s (i f technicall ypracticable ) t o determin e a site-specifi c emission s facto r withi n6 month s of . PA L permi t issuance . unless,th e reviewin g authorit y determine s tha t testin g i s no t required . A nemission s uni t i s considere dsignifican t i f th e emission s uni t ha s th e potentia l t o emi t th e PA L pollutan t i namount s greate r tha n thos e liste di n4 0 CF Rpar t 51.165(a)(1)(ac) . I f a significan t emission s uni t wishe s t o us e Paratnehs r
" ^ -am iSSSG*W—WBS!!=±—Z ==S=_—_VI AV°^ V r^ " / Mon i torinq

- performanc e testin g neede dt o provid e th e y ^1 TTi f correlatio nbetwee nth e monitore dparamete r an d th e yOV

/ 0 sj O .V^J / emisslon s mus t b e conducte dwithi n6 month s o f th e PA L
^1X9^jpermi t issuance , i f a significan t emission s uni t wishe s t o

' vA ) / us e CEMS f al l Installation , certificatio nan d testin g mus t ^ ^

- -__

_= ., 

## fAr l (W*" 7 \^^Y 17 7 

# ^AP. 8

NOU-05-200 2 1 3 = 4 6 P.26/3 1

Interna l and Deliberativ e Draft

- D o no t quote , oite , copy , o r distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2

• , Th e analytica l technique s o r method s use d £ , Th e resu l t s o f th e analyse s

• . Eac hemission s unit' s operating condition s durin g th e testin g o r monitorin g _

. • Asummaryo f tota l monthl yemission s fo r eac hciin l i-g g i-u.*

- emission s uni t a t th e majo r stationarysourc e fo r eac h calenda r mont h

_Acop yo f anvrepor t submitte d t o th e reviewin g authorit y

• . Alis t o f th e allowabl e emission s and th e dat e operatio nbega nfo r anvne wemission s unit s adde d t o th e ma-io

r stationarysourc e Yo u mus t als o recor d al l period s o f deviation , includin g th e dat e an d tim e tha t a deviatio nstarte d and stoppe d and whethe r th e deviatio noccurre d durin g a perio d o f startup , shutdown , o r malfunction . Yo u mus t retai nrecord s o f al l require d testin g an d monitorin g data , a s wel l a s supporting information , fo r a t leas t 5 year s fromth e dat e o f the monitorin g sample . measurement , report , o r application . Supportin g informatio n include s al l calibratio nand maintenanc e record s and al l origina l strip-char t recording s fo r continuou s monitorin g instrumentation , and copie s o f al l require d reports . 18 3P. 9

NOU-05-200 2 13 - 4 5 P.25/3 1

interna l an

dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy, ' or distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2 Th e definitio n o f ^modification " se t fort hi n sectio n 111(a)(4 ) o f th e Ac t i e fundamenta l t o determinin g majo r NS R applicability . ^Pursuan t t o th e Act , th e termmodificatio n mean s "an

yphysica l chang e i n o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operatio n o f a stationar ysourc e whic hincrease s th e amoun t o f anyai r pollutan t emitte d b ysuc hsourc e o r whic hresult s i n th e emissio n o f anyai r pollutan t no t previousl y emitted. " Th e statute , however , doe s no t prescrib e th e methodolog yfo r establishin g a stationarysource' s emission s baselin e from

whic hemissions , increase s ar e measured . Whe n a statut e i s silen t o r ambiguou s wit hrespec t t o specifi c issues , th e relevan t inquir yi s whethe r th e agency' s interpretatio n o f th e statutor yprovision s i s permissible. OB Chevron . USA . Inc . v . NRDC . Inc. . 46 7 U.S . 837 , 86 5 (1984 ) . Accordingly , EP Ah-asi s exercising it s discretion ^ / r - J ftenroere

d wit hit s experience ? t o develo p reasonabl e alternative s t o determin e NS Rapplicabilit ytha t ar e consisten t wit hth e statutor yprovision s an d Congressiona l inten t underlyin g th e NS Rrequirements . W e believ e tha t th e PAL regulation s adopte d todayrepresen t a permissibl e constructio n o f th e Act . 2 . Ar e PAL s consisten t wit hth e concep t o f ta contemporaneity"?
19 1 

# OP.1 0

NOU-05-200 2 13=4 5 P.24/3 1

Interna landDeliberativ eDraft - D ono tquote , cite , oopy , o rdistribute . Octobe r29 , 200 2 ensur e tha t eac h10-yea r termrepresent s a distinc t "contemporaneous " period . Th e renewa l proces s i s designe d t o preven t decrease s tha t occurre d outsid e o f th e curren t 10-yea r PAL terr

a frombein g use d t o offse t increase s durin g tha t term . ^A t renewal , th e reviewing authorit ymus t conside r whethe r decrease s hav e occurre d a t you r sourc e becaus e o f complianc e wit hnewl yapplicabl e requirements . Thus , fo r example , i f th e complianc e dat e fo r a ne wRAC T requiremen t occurre d durin g th e initia l terr a o f th e PAL , and th e reviewin g authorit yha s no t alread yadjuste d th e PAL 

# t

0 ^

downwar d t o accoun t fo r tha t requirement , i t mus t d o s o a t ^WJ O renewal . Mor e generally , th e reviewing authorit y"IS"" /

o determin e a t renewa l whethe r th e PAL i s stil l reasonabl yrepresentativ e o f baselin e actua l emission s and provid e a writte nrational e fo r publi c commen t i f i t determine s tha t a nadjustmen t i s warranted . A s par t o f thi s process , th e reviewin g authorit ymus t adjus t th e PAL downwar d i f you r source' s curren t PT E i s belo wth e PAL level . W e believ e tha t thi s adjustmen t i s importan t fo r ai r qualit yplannin g purposes . /^Additionally , th e reviewin g authorit yma yrene wth e PA L a t th e same leve l i f you r source' s baselin e actua l emission s plu s th e significan t leve l ar e equa l t o o r greate r tha n8 0 percen t o f th e PA LP.1 1

NOU-05-200 2 13:4 5 P.23/3 1

• Internal an d Deliberativ

e Draft

- Do no t quote , oite , copy ; or distribute . level/ ; Conversely , i f you r source' s baselin e actua l emission s plu s th e significan t leve l ar e les s tha n 8 0 percen t o f th e PAL level , th e reviewin g authorit yma yse t th e PAL a t a leve l tha t i t determine s t o b e mor e representativ e o f th e source' s baselin e actua l emissions , o r tha t i t determine s t o b e appropriat e considerin g ai r qualit y needs , advance s i ncontro l technology , anticipate d economi c growt hi n th e area , desir e t o rewar d o r encourag e th e source' s voluntar yemission s reductions , o r othe r factor s a s specificall yidentifie d b yth e reviewing authorit yi nit s writte n rationale . _W e recogniz e tha t fluctuation s i n baselin e actua l emission s wil l occu r a t mos t source s a s par t o f th e norma l busines s cycle . W e als o recogniz e tha t requirin g th e reviewin g authorit yt o adjus t th e PAL downwar d i f you r source' s baselin e actua l emission s d o no t equa l 10 0 percen t o f th e PAL leve l coul d creat e a nincentiv e fo r yo u t o maximiz e you r baselin e actua l emissions , i n addition , mos t source s d o no t emi t a t a leve l jus t belo wth e maximu m allowabl e leve l bu t rathe r buil d i na margi nt o preven t accidenta l exceedances . However , th e PAL shoul d b e reasonabl yrepresentativ e o f baselin e actua l emission s s o tha t i t ca ncontinu e t o serv e a s th e baselin e fo r calculatin g a nemission s increase . W e hav e balance d thes e 

### 19 9P.1 2

NOU-05-200 2 13:4 4 P • 22/3 1

Interna l 'an

dDeliberativ e Draft

- D o no t quote , cite , copy , o r distribute .

Octobe r 29 , 200 2 attainmen t i f you r actua l emission s t o th e atmospher e ar e lowe r durin g a SI P plannin g yea r tha ni na subsequen t year . IndusfcrvSom e commenter s generall yoppos e an yperiodi c reviewin g o r adjustmen t o f a PAL . The ybeliev e tha t suc ha n approac hwoul dlimi t operationa l flexibility , discourag e efficienc yimprovements , an d creat e disincentive s fo r voluntar yreductions . Regulator yggenciesHowever . othe r commenter s generall ysuppor t a napproac htha t woul drequir e a periodi c adjustmen t t o PALs . W e continu e t o hav e concern s wit ha napproac htha t woul dallo wa PA L t o b e renewe dwithou t an yevaluatio no f th e appropriatenes s o f th e curren t PA L level . W e believ e suc ha napproac hwoul db e contrar yt o th e Act , an d contrar y t o th e court' s decisio ni nWEPC O v . Reilly ' 89 3 F . 2 d 901 , 90 8 (7 t hCirc . 1990) . I nWEPCO , th e cour t determine dtha t on e statutor ypurpos e o f th e NS Rrequirement s i s *t o stimulat e th e advancemen t o f pollutio ncontro l technology, "
an dthat , "allowin g increase dproductio n(an d pollution ) throug hth e extensiv e replacemen t o f deteriorate dgeneratin g system " withou t triggerin g NS Rrevie wwoul dcreate , "vista s o f indefinit e immunit yfro mth e provision s o f .. . PSD. " W e believ e today' s rule s avoi dthi s inappropriat e outcome , b yr«ejEtS£s § th e reviewin g authorit yt o conside r

f*k fi .isJor^vh-f ^ 

### 21 9NOU-05-200 2 13M 4 P . 21/3 1

Internal-an

dDeliberative Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o r distribute .

Octobe r 29 , 200 2 ma yallo wyo u t o retai n unuse d emission s credit s tha t woul d otherwis e b e availabl e fo r economi c growt hi nyou r area , w e believ e tha t managin g a narea' s economi c growt hi s th e primar yresponsibilit yo f th e State . A s such , th e State , throug hyou r reviewin g authority , shoul d hav e discretio n t o manag e th e growth " incremen t fo r you r area . I f you r Stat e wishe s t o encourag e economi c growth , the ni t may , a t it s discretion , reduc e you r PA L fo r tha t reason . Conversely , i t ma ydecid e tha t encouragin g economi c growt hi s no t a priorit yfo r th e are a and concurrentl yfind n o othe r concern s tha t warran t a downwar d adjustmen t i nyou r PAL . Afte r furthe r reflection , w e als o believ e tha t i t i s inappropriat e fo r u s t o mandat e i nal l case s a prescribe d methodologyfo r adjustin g PAL s base d o nou r concer ntha t a PAL syste m

ma yinterfer e wit ha State' s abilit yt o pla nfo r attainment . W e believ e tha t th e concer nregardin g plannin g fo r attainmen t is ; no t uniqu e t o a PAL system . Mos t jjnportantl\^iotftin qi nthi s rxrle reduce s th e State' s discretio ni n developin g plan s t o attai nand maintai nNAAQS . Unde r ou r majo r NS Rapplicabilit ysystem , yo u coul d increas e you r emission s ove r you r historica l actua l emission s b y increasin g utilizatio no r hour s o f operation.. . I f thi s occurs , ther e ma yb e a discrepanc ybetwee n th e amoun t th e 

### 22 2P.1 4

NOV-05-200 213:4 4P.20/3 1

Interna l'an dDeliberativ eDraft - D ono tquote , cite , copy io rdistribute . October'2.9 , 200 2 Stat e carrie s i n th e emission s inventoryand th e amoun t tha t yo u emi t t o th e atmosphere . State s shoul d b e cognizan t o f thes e issue s an d tak e appropriat e measure s i nthei r SI P plannin g procedure s t o assur e tha t emission s fro manymajo r stationarysource , includin g a PAL participant , ar e properl y characterize d i nth e emission s inventory . And finally , w e agre e wit hindustrycommenter s tha t i f
w e wer e t o mandat e a nadjustmen t becaus e you r baselin e actua l emission s di d no t equa l 10 0 percen t o f th e E2_hlevel , i t woul d encourag e yo u t o increas e productio nand emissions . An d suc ha noutcom e woul d b e counte r productive . W e hav e accordingl yprovide d you r reviewin g authorit yth e abilit yt o add a reasonabl e operatin g margi nt o you r baselin e actua l emission s a t th e tim e o f renewal . Thi s operatin g margi nwa s discusse d previousl yi nsectio nII.D. 7 abov e - "Shoul d a PAL includ e a reasonabl e operatin g margin? " 10 . Shoul-dAre certai nne wemission s unit s tha t ar e adde d unde r a PAL-b e require d t o mee t some leve l o f emission s control ? W e solicite d comment s o nwhethe r w e shoul d requir e yo u t o contro l emission s fromne wemission s unit s tha t ar e adde d unde r a nestablishe d PAL . Severa l -tudutojasy.commenters believ e tha t BAC T o r LAE Rshoul d no t b e require d fo r thes e 

### 22 3 

## *>!

> *SW>J JW ^ r^J^^[P.1 5

NOU-05-200 213:4 3 P.19/3 1

» Interna laa dDeliberativ eDraft - D ono tquote , cite , copy / o rdistribute . Octobe r29 , 200 2 interes t i nsuc ha napproac hfromth e variou s stakeholder s wit hwhomw e hav e met . Accordingly , w e ar e no t including anyprovision s i nou r fina l rule s t o implemen t a narea-wid e PAL system . However , w e ar e no t precludin g suc ha program either . I f a Stat e currentl yha s o r want s t o pursu e a n area-wid e PAL program , the ni t mus t demonstrat e tha t it s programi s equivalen t t o o r mor e stringen t tha nou r fina l rules . 14 . Whe n shoul d modelin g o r othe r type s o f ambien t impac t assessment s b e require d fo r change s occurrin g unde r a PAL ? I nou r 199 6 proposal , w e requeste d commen t o n whe n modelin g o r othe r ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s i s neede d fo r change s occurrin g unde r a PAL t o demonstrat e protectio no f NAAQS , increment s and AQRV . On e environmenta l commente r recommend s modelin g o r othe r type s o f ambien t impact s assessmen t wheneve r a chang e i nemission s occurre d unde r th e PAL . On e Federal * agencycommente r recommend s tha t Federa l Land Manager s (FLMs ) b e consulte d wheneve r change s unde r th e PA L ar e propose d t o determin e whethe r a nimpac t analysi s fo r advers e impac t o n AQRV woul d b e necessary . Severa l OtaL e ag-rriciea , including OTAPPAcommenter^ Q recommend modeling wheneve r a significan t chang e occurred , bu t als o recommend tha t EP Adefin e 23 1P.1 6

NOU-05-200213:4 3 P.18/3 1

Interna lan dDeliberativ eDraft - D ono tquote , cite , oopy , o rdistribute . Octobe r29 , 200 2 an d codif yi ntoday' s rule s qgi s no t applicabl e t o Clea n Unit s becaus e th e Clea nUhit s ar e subjec t t o a nalternativ e majo r NS Rapplicabilit yrequiremen t fo r calculatin g emission ^ increase s whe nchange s ar e made . A s w e discus s i ndetai l i nV.c. 3 o f thi s preamble , th e ^substantiall ya s effective " tes t fo r source s i n nonattainmen t area s muB t conside r onl yLAE Rdetermination s excep t tha t emission s unit s i nnonattainmen t areas , tha t wen t throug hmajo r NS Rpermittin g whil e i t wa a designate d a n attainmen t are a fo r tha t regulate d NS Rpollutan t and receive d a permi t base d on, a qualifyin g ai r pollutio n contro l measure , automaticall yqualif ya s Clea nUnits . I f you r emission s uni t receive d er-Clea n Uni t designstioriatatu s whil e th e uni t wa s locate d i na n attainmen t are a and th e area' s statu s subsequentl ychange s t o nonattainment , you r emission s uni t retain s th e Clea nUni t designationstatu s unti l expiration . However , t o re-qualif y a s a Clea n Uni t (se e sectio nV.C.9) , th e uni t wil l hav e t o mee t th e requirement s tha t appl yi nnonattainmen t areas .

3 . Ho wd o yo u qualif y&^ r a s a Clea n Uni t designation ? An yemission s uni t permitte d throug hmajo r NS R automaticall yqualifie s fo r tl'nina s a Clea nUni t designation , 24 2P.1 7

NOU-05-200 2 13=4 3 P.17/3 1

Interna l an

dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quote , cite , oopy , or distribute .

. October.29 , 200 2 

### retroactivel ydesignate ' a nemission s uni t whos e control s wer e installe di n199 9 a s a Clea nUnit . However , you r reviewin g authorit yma ynot , i n2007 , retroactivel y designat e a nemission s uni t whos e control s wer e installe di n 200 5 a s a Clea nUnit . A s fo r emission s unit s tha t wen t throug hmajo r NS Rreview , Clea nUni t statu s fo r emission s unit s permitte dthroug hSIP-approve dprogram s othe r tha n majo r NS Rdoe s no t begi nunti l th e Clea nUni t effectiv e date . 1 

### I f yo u ar e applyin g fo r a retroactiv e Clea nUni t designation , today' s fina l rule s allo wyou r reviewin g authorit yt o compar e you r emission s contro l leve l t o th e BAC T o r LAE Rleve l tha t woul dhav e applie da t th e tim e yo u begi nconstructio no f you r emission s unit . However , i n ntmiyjjora e cases , suc ha comparabilit yanalysi s will-ma yb e difficul t fo r yo u t o demonstrat e becaus e o f lac k o f sufficien t informatio nfro mwhic hyou r reviewin g authorit y^& ***y ca nmak e a reasone ddetermination . I f thi s i s th e case . Jbf *^5<_\$=*' the nyo u wil l hav e t o demonstrat e tha t you r emission s / control s ar e comparabl e t o a BAC T o r LAE Rlimi t froma \ nJAJ) subsequen t o r curren t date . l f 

### ^ l ^NA./V ^ 

### W> ^ i\Jc^-J^ 7 . whe nca nI begi nt o us e th e clea nUni t trjest ? Th e exac t effectiv e dat e depend s o nth e circumstance s 25 4P.1 8

NOU-05-200 213:4 2P.16/3 1

# Interna l -an dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quote , cice , copy, , o r distribute . Octobe r ,29 , .200 2 . previously-installe d uni t demonstrate s tha t th e emissio n limitatio n achieve d b yth e emission s unit' s contro l technologyi s comparabl e t o th e BACT/LAE Rrequirement s tha t applie d a t th e time th e contro l technologywa s installed , the nth e Clea n Uni t designatio nexpire s 1 0 year s fromth e dat e tha t th e contro l technologywa s installed . Fo r al l othe r emission s unit s (tha t is , previously-installe d unit s tha t ar e demonstrate d t o b e comparabl e t o curren t BACT/LAER , ne wunits , and unit s tha t re-qualif ya s Clea nUnits) , th e Clea nUni t designatio nexpire s 1 0 year s fromth e effectiv e dat e o f th e Clea n Uni t designation . I naddition , fo r al l emission s units , th e Clea nUni t designatio nexpire s anytim e th e owne r o r operato r fail s t o compl ywit hth e provision s fo r maintainin g th e Clea nUni t designatio ntha t ar e include d i nth e fina l rules . Whe nyou r Clea nUni t designatio nexpires , yo u ar e subjec t t o th e majo r NS Rapplicabilit ytes t a s i f you r . emission s uni t teacenever beei4g = BQf c a Clea nUni t - i nmos t case s th e "actual-to-projected-actual " tes t describe d , / , earlie r i nthi s preamble* . Th e permitte d emission s level s establishe d fo r th e Clea nuni t d o no t expire . 9 . Ca nI -re-qualif yfo r th e Clea nUni t designation ? Yo u ma yre-qualif yfo r th e -Clea nUni t designatio n 

### 25 9P.1 9

NOU-05-200 2 13:4 2 P.15/3 1

Internal. an dDeliberativ eDraft-D ono tquote , oite , oopy , o xdistribute . Octobe r29 , 200 2 designation . D , Lega l Basi s fo r th e Clea nUni t Tes t A s discusse d above ; th e Clea nUni t Applicabilit yTes t woul d provid e a nalternativ e emission s tes t mgttno d fo r evaluating NSR-applieabilitvdeterminin g i f a significan t increas e i nemission s ha s occurre d afte r a physica l chang e o r chang e i nth e metho d o f operatio na t unit s tha t ar e designate d a s "clean. " W e believ e tha t w e hav e th e authorit yt o allo wthes e specifi c type s o f unit s t o us e a differen t applicabilit ytest.—I n most * "Situations , th e purpose s o f th e CA Aar e bea t carrie d ou t b yevaluatin g NS R applicabilit ybaae d on - a facility' s actua l emission ^ however , w e believ e tha t Clea nUnite,-are a specia l category fo r whi-U

i a differen t metho d i s justified . I nAlabama Powe r Co . v . Costle . 036-P.2 d 32 3 (1979) / th e cour t addresse d requirements-fo r manyaspect s o f N5 R applicabilit yt o modification s o f existin g souioey;—Th e GA-f t ifcselfTh

e CA Ai s silen t o nwhethe r increase s i nemission s fo r purpose s o f determinin g whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e constitute s a modificatio nmus t b e measure d i n term s o f actua l emissions , potentia l emissions , o r som e othe r currency . Th e cour t i nAlabama Poweir diri'-wrr-t

-

• squarel yanswer 1 Lhi s question , althoughcertai n& t a . Lente n La 

### 27 2P.2 0

NOU-05-200 2 13:4 2 P.14/3 1

Interna l an

dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quote , .cite , oopy , or distribute . October.29 , 200 2 

### offset , o r th e reviewin g authorit ywil l hav e t o sho wtha t thes e emission s wil l no t interfer e wit hth e State' s abilit y t o achiev e attainment . Fo r Clea nUnit s tha t hav e emissio nlimitslimitation s and/o r wor k practic e requirement s establishe dthroug h program s tha t fulfil l relevan t majo r NS Rstatutor y requirements , w e believ e tha t th e alternativ e wa yt o estimat e emission s increase s t o evaluat e applicabilit yse t fort hunde r th e Clea nUni t tTes t i s appropriat e an d consisten t wit hCongress' s intent . Apro-iec t a t a Clea n Unit s tha t exceedwoul drequir e a revisio nt o th e emissio n limitslimitation s o r wor k practic e requirement s establishe d throug hpermittin g program s tha t mee t th e requirement s o f th e Ac t o r tha t woul dalte r an vphysica l o r operationa l characteristic s tha t forme dth e basi s fo r th e permittin g action , mus t g o throug hpermitting , i l Lheyremai nbelo w thus e ei.ubi.bio

nlimits , the yca nmak e change bwithou t ubtainiixyj i ne wpermitapermittin g process . Th e reviewin g authorit ymus t hav e alread yrequire dstate-of-the-ar t pollutio ncontro l technolog y(or , throug ha capita l *, n

### L » expcnditure ninvestmen t . it s pollution-preventio nv*' equivalent) , conducte dth e require dai r qualit yanalyse s base do n th e emission s leve l i nth e permit , and provide dth e 27 6P.2 1

•



# t NOU-05-200 2 13:4 1 P.13/3 1

Interna l 'an

dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy ; o r distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2 environmentall ybeneficia l presumptio n fo r tha t applicatio n o f th e technology . JT f yo u the nprocee d wit hth e project ^ withou t obtaiipaig

_ ' a majo r NjSR^ermit , yo u eanTb e subjecJK"to \ enforcemen t actiqn^jirfde r th e atithorityo f 

### th e CAA . ^ J~ " Finally , i t shoul d b e note d tha t commenter s o nth e propose d rul e liste d severa l example s o f specifi c project s the ybeliev e w e shoul d ad d t o th e lis t o f presumptivel y environmentall ybeneficia l projects . However , som e o f thes e suggeste d PC P scenario s woul d neve r trigge r NS Rbecaus e ther e woul d no t b e a significan t increas e i n emissions , from eithe r th e collatera l o r primar ypollutant . Fo r example , on e commente r sai d tha t w e shoul d conside r th e terminatio n o r decommissionin g o f a nemission s uni t a nenvironmentall y beneficia l technology . W e hav e neve r require d a uni t t o underg o NS Rbefor e terminatin g operation ; consequently , ther e i s n o nee d fo r a PC P Exclusion . Commenter s raise d othe r scenario s bu t provide d fe wexample s and insufficien t detai l fro mwhic hw e coul d dra wanyconclusions . W e believ e tha t th e PC P Exclusio nwil l benefi t onl ya subse t o f al l PCP s undertake na t existin g sources , i npar t becaus e mos t contro l project s wil l no t caus e a nemission s increas e o f any criteri a pollutan t and , thus , wil l no t trigge r NSR . A s
31 7.NOU-05-200 2 13:4 1 P.12/3 1

Interna l an

dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quote , cite , oopy , or distribute . bofcobe r 29 , 200 2 project s and bot har e alreadyliste d a s presumptivel y environmentall ybeneficial . However , some commenter s pointe d ou t tha t ther e ar e fa r mor e end-of-pipe , add-o n technologie s tha t ar e liste d a s environmentall ybeneficia l and recommende d tha t w e includ e mor e -P-Zpollutio n preventio n technologies . Althoug hw e full ysuppor t and encourag e •Pgpollution preventio nproject s and strategies , specia l car e mus t b e take n i nevaluatin g a -P-rpollutio n preventio nprojec t fo r -arth

e PC P Exclusion . •pa-Pollutio npreventio p project s ten d t o b e dependen t o nsite-specifi c factor s and lac k a historica l recor d o f performance , whic hprove s problemati c i n decidin g whethe r the yar e environmentall ybeneficia l whe n applie d universally . W e believ e tha t bot hadd-o ncontro l device s and -Papollution preventio nproject s hav e equa l chance s o f bein g presume d environmentall ybeneficial , bu t w e hav e mor e dat a and histor ywit hth e add-o ncontro l equipmen t and thi s i s whyth e lis t include s mor e o f thos e type s o f pollutio nstrategies . P2*Pollution preventio nproject s ca n stil l qualif ya s a nenvironmentall ybeneficia l PCP , bu t the y mus t b e evaluate d b yHa s t o confirmthei r environmenta l benefits . d . Ho war e contro l technologie s and PS-pollution , preventio n strategie s adde d t o th e presumptivel yenvironmentall y 32 2P.2 3

NOU-05-200 213:4 1 P.11/3 1

Interna lan dDeliberativ eDraft - Ho no tquote , cite ; copy, 1 o rdistribute . Octobe r-29 , 200 2 fo r calculatin g girths'emission s increas e for * th e typ e o f emission s unit-involve d i nthe project.—Fo r a nexistin g EU3QU , emissio nincrease s shoul d b e determine d usin g th e actual

- to
- representative-actual-annua l test.—Po r othe r existin g emissions

- units , yo u shoul d us e th e actual-t o future-actua l test . Fo r replacemen t units , th e acfcual-to

puLeiiLia l tes t mus t b e used , an d fo r project s involvin g multiple*types-o f emission s units , yo u shoul d us e th e hybri d l emission s test.—Al l o f thes e test a are . Thi s tes t Mi s discusse d i n sectio nI I o f today' s preambles—Thi s formaL ^ . 1



# «TA ^

• and i s consisten t wit hth e remainde r o f today' s rul e

revisions , whic hdirect s use-o f thes e test a t o determin e th e TM* emission s consequenc e o f a project . f . Ho wd o vo u perfor mth e emission s calc-al-u-Bcalculatio n fo r switche s t o a less-poten t amoun t o f ODS ? W e hav e determine d activitie s o r project s undertake nt o accommodat e switchin g t o a nOD S wit hles s potentia l fo r stratospheri c ozon e damag e ar e presumptivel yenvironmentall y beneficial , a s lon g a s th e productiv e capacit yo f th e eguipmen t doe s no t increas e a s a resul t o f th e activit yo r project . Po r determinin g you r emission s befor e and afte r th e change , yo u mus t perfor ma weighte d compariso n o f th e 

### 32 5P.2 4

NOU-05-200 213:4 0P.10/3 1

Interna lan dDeliberativ eDraft - D ono tquote , Oite , copy, ' o rdistribute . Octobe r29 , 200 2 availabl e t o th e genera l public ) . I f th e ai r qualit y analysi s show s tha t a resultin g violatio ni s foreseeable , , you r projec t canno t receiv e th e PC P Exclusion . y^wMr~0r ^ 'i 7 ' Manyindustr ycommenter s complai ntha t th e propose d Ai r Qualit yAnalysi s and Clas s I provision s fo r th e exclusio n wer e overl yburdensom e and neede d t o b e eithe r eliminate d o r streamlined . W e agre e i npar t wit hthi s point , eve nthough
w e strongly , contend tha t ther e nee d t o b e safeguard s t o protec t agains t misus e o f th e exclusio nwit hproject s tha t wil l no t provid e positiv e environmenta l results . Althoug h today' s fina l rul e contain s th e cor e safeguar d t o preven t a n advers e ai r qualit yimpact , a modelin g exercis e i s no t necessaril ywarrante d i nal l cases . Whil e yo u ar e no t require d t o notif yth e FL Mo f any Federa l Clas s I are a locate d nea r you r facilit ya s a prerequisit e fo r proceedin g wit ha PCP , yo u mus t determin e whethe r anyAQRV s hav e bee nidentifie d i nthes e areas . FLM s hav e identifie d AQRV s fo r manyo f th e Federa l Clas s I area s and mad e thi s informatio navailabl e o na dedicate d we bsite v (Th e spec-i-fic websit e i* & currentl yundergoing rcpaixa , B U instea d us e www2.nature.nps.govl.- r I f n o AQRV s hav e bee n identifie d fo r a particula r Clas s I area , you r demonstratio n i s simpl ya statemen t tha t n o AQRV s exis t i nClas s I area s 

### 33 1NOU-05-200 2 13=4 0 P.09/3 1

Internal an

d Deliberativ

e Draft

- Do no t quote , cite , oopy , o' r distribute . October-29 , 200 2 relie f fo r thos e project s tha t creat e a ne t environmenta l benefit , and thu s w e shoul d no t concer nourselve s wit ha source' s motivatio nfo r undertakin g theirit s project . Therefore , b ytoday' s rul e revisions , eve ni f a project' s prinjarryspurpos e i s no t t o reduc e emissions , a s lung asi t /can s fill/qualif yfo r th e PC P Exclusio ni f i t i s shown t o s&t s th e environmentall ybeneficia l and t o hav e n o ai r qualit yimpact,—the n i t ca nqualif yfo r th e PC P Exclusiontest s se t fort hi ntoday' s regulations . c . Ho wd o th e liste d PC P technologie s compar e t o BAC T o r LAE Rdeterminations ? Th e lis t o f presume d environmentall ybeneficia l technologie s contain s severa l contro l strategie s tha t d o no t qualif ya s BAC T o r LAER . Fo r example , installing lo wN0 a burner s o nlarge-size d turbine s woul d rarel yconstitut e a n acceptabl e BAC T level . However , thes e project s ar e presume d environmentall ybeneficia l and ar e eligibl e fo r a one-tim e onl yeth e PC P Exclusio nfrommajo r NS Rbecaus e thes e control s ar e cleane r tha nth e existing equipmen t i s withou t th e controls . I naddition , th e PC P Exclusio nonl yapplie s t o source s tha t ar e installin g PCPs , an d no t t o th e installatio no f ne wemission s unit s o r change s tha t increas e th e capacit yo f th e unit , bot ho f whic hwoul d b e potentiall y 33 6NOU-05-200 2 13:4 0 P.08/3 1

Intama l an

dDeliberativ

e Draft - D o no t quote , cite , copy , o r distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2 consisten t wit hreasonabl e engineerin g practice s and wit h th e basi c applicabilit yrequirement s fo r th e exclusio n (i.e. , bein g environmentall ybeneficia l and havin g n o ai r qualit yimpacts) . Thi s mean s tha t yo u hav e a lega l responsibilit yt o operat e i na manne r tha t i s consisten t wit hyou r analysi s o f th e environmental ^ benefit s and ai r qualit yimpact s analysis , an d tha t yo u wil l minimize f -i. ^ rrs e fjLtuuL i pom-Tiblr » collatera l pollutan t increase s withi nth e physica l configuratio nan d operationa l standard s usuall y associate d wit hth e emission s contro l devic e o r strategy . 4 . Wha t ar e th e implication s o f no t complyin g wit hth e PC P Exclusio nprocess ? Tb e PC P Exclusio ni s a mechanis mfo r bypassin g th e majo r NS Rpermittin g requirements . I f yo u d o no t compl y wit hth e step s necessar yt o acquire * an*-equalifvfo r th e pe p Exclusio nunde r th e term s o f th e PC P provisions , yo u ca n becom e subjec t t o majo r NSR.—I- f -your-proj-ec t result s i na significan t ne t emissions-increas e and yo u fai l t o acquir e a PC P Exclusion*; , -yo

u ar e i nviolatio no f th e Ac t an d wil l b e subjec t t o enforcemen t actio nand penaltie s pe r 3ectio n 11 3 o f th e CA

Aand subject't o citize nsuiLa . VII . Liste d Hazardou s Ai r Pollutant s Th e 199 0 Amendment s t o th e CA Aa t 112(b)(6 ) exempte d 34 6 •NOU-05-200 2 13=3 9 P.07/3 1

internal an

d Deliberativ

e Draft

- Do no t quota ; cite , copy , o r distribute . Octobe r 29 , 200 2 P-ax-tCF R52.21 , ou r ownPS D permittin g program . Ou r decisio n i s base d primaril yo n ou r belie f tha t th e NS Rprogra m wil l wor k bette r a s a practica l matte r an d wil l produc e bette r environmenta l result s i f al l fiv e o f th e ne wapplicabilit y provision s ar e adopte d and implemented . W e and ou r stakeholder s investe d unprecedente d amount s o f time , energy , an d resource s i ndecidin g ho wbes t t o improv e th e NS R program . Afte r wel l ove r a decad e o f sustaine d effort , w e believ e tha t w e hav e found effectiv e solution s t o man yo f th e program^ s mos t intractabl e problems . W e hop e tha t makin g th e ne wprovision s par t o f ou r bas e program s wil l provid e incentiv e fo r thes e provision s t o b e adopte d o na widesprea d basis . Notably , eve nwithou t th e men u approach , sStat e and loca l jurisdiction s hav e significan t freedomt o customiz e thei r NS Rprograms . Eve r sinc e ou r curren t NS Rregulation s wer e adopte d i n1980 , w e hav e take nth e positio ntha t state s ma ymee t th e requirement s o f -Pgart 5 1 "wit hdifferen t bu t equivalen t regulations. " 4 5 Fed . Reg . atFjf t 52676 . Severa l •s-States have , indeed , implemente d program s tha t wor k every bi t a s wel l a s ou r ownbas e programs , ye t depar t substantiall yfromth e basi c framewor k establishe d i nou r rules . Agoo d exampl e i s Oregon , wher e th e SIP-approve d progra mrequire s al l majo r source s t o obtai nplantwid e permit s no t unlik e th e PAL s tha t wer e ar e finalizin g today . 35 6 #



## if