p. 1



# OAR Box 1793 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 9 ) ll-F-5 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/3/2008 11:31:54

AM Sheet 9 of 45P. 2

7 

### &*m * <k > 0>»AVW< Q 

### C- . 

# thi s get s t o th e right person ?

orrzes O P MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T

OFFICE OP XNFOBKATXO N AM D REGULATOR

YATFAXJI S

DATE : ,
_SENDER : 

# A.FLA

T O I 

# J^UAc/^b/i Ornery^ AGENCY : PROM : 

## RECXFXENT' S PA

XMO. I (&)sV/z$£02— RECIPIEN

T TELEPHON

E MO . I fc 

### TOTA L NUXBE RO P PAGES , INCLUDIN

GCOV nSHEET : COKKENTS l

tf «*J«->n»M»ir * w~wmjt w-yr.li . WWV«M I ••Mi l ^^^

_, - 

### EMTS f *J^Ul>tf~fAii

<JAtt VLQf J'Vftg? / U x 1*1 , fed ''iA *A

fl£ B*<LT/LAER DTE : Z P YO

O D O 

### iJ-JiE t M O A S POSSIBLE . VERIFICATION MO. t20*095-734 0 OXRAFAXMO. f

202OS5-72I 5P. 3

2 7 projec t exclusio n wit h a ne wpollutio n contro l projec t exclusio n fo r al l .sourc e categories. 8 C . Th e "Clea n Unit " an d "Clean Facility " Exclusio n 1
. Introductio n Th e Applicabilit ySubgrou p o f the CAAAC' s NS R Refor m 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 and loca l regulator s a s wel l a s environmenta l group s expresse d general ' suppor t fo r th e ide a tha t "benign " change s a t existin g emission s unit s d o no t nee d t o underg o th e actual-to-potentia l tes t an d th e complicate d NSR . nettin g rule s i n everyinstance
. 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 som e 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 h fo r a ne wexclusio n is

- on e tha t focuse s o n th e existin g emission s contro l o f a'unit , rathe r tha n

1 I n th e WEPC O Rule , th e EP Aals o create d specia l ne w sourc e performanc e standar d (NSPS ) treatmen t fo r certai n repowerin g project s an d provide d limite d NS R exemption s fo r • temporar yand permanen t Clea n Coa l Technolog yprojects , and fo r certai n "veryclean " units
. Se e e.g. , existin g sectio n H 51.16 6 (bM2 ) (iil ) (i ) , (j.. ) an d (Js ) ] • Al l o f thes e change s implemente d specia l provision s i n the Clea n Ai r Act . Amendment s o f 1990
. I n th e rule , th e EP Aals o amende d it s NSP S regulation s (4 0 CF R par t 60 ) t o allo wa'utilit yt o us e a s it s pre-chang e baselin e it s highes t hourl yemission s rat e achieve d durin g th e 5 year s prio r t o th e propose d physica l o r operationa l change
. Th e change s implementin g th e NSP S baselin e chang e ar e neithe r discusse d no r affecte d b ytoday' s rulemakin g proposal
. PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** • Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 4

2 8 '•'.' • th e chang e bein

g proposed . Almos t al l stakeholder s identified th e goal , o f ensurin

g tha t modified unit s appl y state-of-the-ar t - control s a s being of paramoun t importance . Accordingly , wher e an emission s uni t alread y meet s thi s goal , environmenta l concern s associated wit hproposed change s are likel y reduced . Fo r example , i t i s th

e EPA' s experienc e that i nman y case s wher e a

n existin g well-controlle d uni t trigger s majo r NSR , th e permitting proces s doe s no t necessaril y resul t i nimprove

dcontrols . O

nthe othe r hand , wher e th e review , i s focuse

do nunit s whic hhave no t recentl y

bee nrequired t o mee t a contro l technolog y requirement , NS Rcanbe expected t o resul t i nmor e stringent control s an d meaningfu l reduction s inactua l emissions . Similarly , wher e a nentir e facility

alread y meet s th

e goa l
o f th e applicationo f state-of-the-ar t control s an dha s undergon e a nai r qualit y

impac t analysi s of . it s emissions , environmenta l
concern s associated wit hproposedchange s ar e likel y reducedi f th e changes.remai nconsistent,wit hrequirement s impose db y th e analysis . . Thus , EP A i s als o proposin

g a "clean " facility exclusiontha t allows a majo r stationar y sourc e t o mak e change s at it s facilit y

consisten t wit hPS D or NS Rpermit s tha t have bee n recentl y

issued . 2 . Descriptionof th e Clea nUni t Proposa l Base d o nthese ' factors , th e EP A i s toda

y proposin

g a simplified applicabilit y tes t for change s t o existin g emission s
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O

F MANAGEMENT AN

D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 J ** *P. 5

2 9 unit s tha t alread

yhav e state-o f .-the-ar t emissio n controls
. I n •general , thi s ne w"clea n unit " exclusio n wil l allo wState s t o exclud e frommajo r NSR , propose d changes.t o existin g emission s unit s tha t hav e installe d majo r BAC T o r LAE R o r whic h otherwise
. qualif ya s a "clea n unit. " Unde r thi s exclusion , source s ca n mak e an ychang e t o a qualifyin g uni t s o long a s th e chang e will , no t increas e th e unit' s emission s rat e (measure d i n term s o f th e unit's
. maximu

m hourl yemissions , th e ne wsourc e performanc e standar d (NSPS ) tes t found a t existin g 4 0 CF R 60.14)
. Specifically, , change s whic h d o no t .increas e th e unit' s hourl y potentia l emission s woul d no t b e considere d a physica l o r operationa l chang e and thu s woul d no t trigge r majo r NSR; 9 Se e propose d section s 51.16 5 (a)(1 ) (v ) (C ) (10 ) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) Uii)'(L )
and 52'.2 1 (b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L )
. Th e propose d "clean unit " exclusio n

9 Unde r today' s proposal , fo r unit s tha t ar e permitte d t o chang e feedstock s frequently , suc h a s pharmaceutica l manufacturin g an

d certai n chemica l batc h processes , th e maximum hourl yemission s rat e tes t woul d b e applie d o n a per . feedstoc k basi s t o determine.i f a n emissio n increas e wil l occur . Fo r example,

- a uni t whic h ha s state-of-the-ar t VO C eontro l technology and use s toluen e an d othe r organi c solvent s a s feedstocks , th e hourl ymaximu

memissio n rat e o f toluen e befor e an d afte r th e propose d physica l o r operationa l chang e woul d b e assesse d a s i f toluen e alon e wa s t o b e full yutilize d b ythe

- uni t befor e and afte r th e propose d change
. Th e othe r feedstocks'woul d als qb e individuall yassessed
. Achang e i n feedstoc k woul d no t trigge r NS R i f th e contro l technologydesigne d t o control , emission s resultin g from

th e "feedstoc k an

d th e uni t wa s previousl y permitte d t o us e th e feedstock
. Th e EP Aencourage s suggest16n s i n developin g rule s o r guidanc e o n othe r approache s fo r .determining emission s increase s fo r processe s wit h rapidl y changin g and mixe d feedstocks
.

i ' - " . • PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 6

.3 0 woul d bot h simplif yth e applicabilit ytes t fo r qualifyin g unit s an d increas e sourc e flexibility
. I t woul d als o rewar d source s tha t hav e applie d stringent , control s t o thei r emission s units
. Ideally , th e chang e i n hourl ypotentia l emission s woul d b e assesse d immediatel ybefor e and afte r th e chang e to . determin e i f
a n emission s increas e di d indee d occur . However , thi s ma yno t b e practica l i n manyinstance s becaus e informatio n necessar yt o establis h th e hourl ypotentia l emission s rat e ma yrequir e "tonsiderabl e tim e t o develo p o r collect
. Therefore , unde r th e propose d provision , th e pre-chang e hourl ypotentia l emissio n rat e
ma yb 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 establishin g th e pre-chang e hourl y emission s rate , particularl yperiod s whic h migh 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 th e 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 which'limit s th e '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 rate , mus t b e use d i n determinin g i f a n emission s increas e wil l occu r a t th e unit
. "

. 2.
. Wha t Constitute s a ".Clea n Unit " Fo r chi s exclusio n t o function , i t i s necessar yt o . * distinguis h a well-controlle d uni t fro ma poorl ycontrolle d one . PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 7

"3 1 • • I n othe r words , wha t criteri a distinguis h a uni t eligibl e fo r thi s exclusio n from on e whic h i s not ? Criteri a whic h allo wa broad-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
a unit' s potentia l emissions , wit h th 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 proposes.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

••^-^aaaaa.^-aaaa^.^^^^m^^ ^ th e emissio n limi t tha t . . .woul d resul t from' a current-review " unde r th e 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 ) (20 ) (ii) , 51.166(b)(2 ) (ii D (D.(2 ) and 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(L)(2). ) Th e EP Aenvision s tha t thre e type s o f limit s woul d qualify : (1 ) BACT , o r LAE R limit s se t withi n th e las t •1 0 years ; (2 ) limit s se t bya Stat e technolng yrf v ie wprogram determine d b

yEP & t'n h e equivalen t t o th e federa l BAC T o r LAE R programs,- , an d (3 ) limit s foun d o n a case-by-cas e basi s - - afte r notic e and opportunit yfo r publi c comment

- r - t o b e equivalen t t o BAC T oi : LAE R limits
. a . Unit s wit h BACT.o r LAE R Limit s On e startin g poin t for
. determinin g 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 attainmenc/Unclassifie d areas ) o r LAE R (in nonattainmen t areas)
. Fo r unit s whic h hav e recentl yundergon e thes e reviews , re PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D
• BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 8

3 2 evaluatio n o f th e technologyshortl yafte r th e sourc e i s constructe d o r modifie d t o determin e i f th e 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 , units , tha t ar e recently-permitte d ar e fa r les s likel yt o have " physicall ydeteriorate d an d mor e likel yt o b e runnin g nea r permitte d capacity , reducin g 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 EP Ai s proposin g tha t th e ne wexclusio n ma y presumptivel yappl yt o an yuni t whic h receive 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 sections
. 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (W (x ) (1 ) / 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (£ ) & )
and 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L)(£ ) (i)
. I n othe r words , fo r th e firs t 1 0 year s followin g 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 lon g .give

n th e improvemen t i n contro l technologythat.ca n occu r i n som e sourc e categories
. Fo r thi s reason , EP Asolicit s commen t
o n usin g a shorte r perio d suc h a s five year s a s th e lengt h o f th e Clea n Uni t presumptio n derive d fron i a NS R permit
.

PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AND BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y *** . Jul y5, , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P. 9

. * I .-•

3 3

Durin g consideratio n o f th e Clea n Uni t Exclusion , severa l participant s suggeste d tha t unit s subjec t t o maximu machievabl e contro l technology(MACT ) o r reasonabl yachievabl e contro l technology(RACT ) shoul d als o automaticl yqualif ya s clea n units
. Arecentl yrequire d MAC T emission s limit , whil e no t necessaril y equa l t o BAC T o r LAER , i s likel yt o resul t i n significan t ^mission s control s suc h tha t a BAC T o r LAE R revie wwoul 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 limitin g volatile

organi c compoun d (VOC ) emission s tha n BAC T o r LAE R i n many circumstances.
. AMAC T emissio n limi t ma yadequatel 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 h usin g Federa l RACT . limit s t o presumptivel yqualif ya uni t a s a clea n unit
. I n nonattainmen t
areas , a RAC T emissio n limi t i s almos t alway s muc h les s stringen t tha n curren t LAE R and , i n th e EPA' s view , ofte n woul d b e les s stringen t tha n a BAC T limit
. Further , i n some instance s RAC T i s base d o n th e attainmen t need s o f th e are a an d not, a specifi c contro l technologystandard
. Whil e EP Asolicit s commen t o n presumptivel yapplyin g th e clea n uni t exclusio n tes t t o unit s
PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FO R OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 . [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 0

',... " 3 4 • wit hFedera l .MAC

T or RAC T limits , th e EP A i s no t inclined 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 be foun d t o qualif y

for th e Clea nUni t exclusio

n using th

e case-by-cas e optiondescribedinsectio nII.C.3. C

. below . • . .',-'*- , : " ' b . Stat e Technolog y Program

s Equivalen t t o BAC T or LAER , Ther e ar e man

y emission s unit s a t stationar

y source s that
wer e permitte d accordin g t o a State' s mino r NS Rpermitting program . Whil e thes e unit s are . no t controlle dpursuan t t o a BAC T
or LAE Rlimit , the

y stil l ma

y hav e state-of-the-ar t controls . For instance , severa l jurisdiction s hav e contro l technolog y reviews a s par t o f State , loca l or triba l mino r NS Rprogra m whic h require s ne

w o r modifyin

g source s t o mee t emission s level s equivalen t t o majo r sourc e contro l technolog y requirements.(BAC T
or LAER) . For thi s reason , th e EP A i s proposin

g tha t permitting authoritie s ma

y submi t mino r NS Rcontro l technolog y requirement s fo r certificationb

y th e EP A tha t th

e mino r NS Rprogra

m require s contro l technolog

y tha t woul d satisfy.th e requirement s for th e clea nuni t exclusion . Se e proposed section s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (Ifi ) (£ ) (1 ) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5 J (ii ) an

d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (£• ) (ii ) . Onc e determined b y EP A t o be . equivalent, ' al l unit s subjec t t o emission s limitatio nestablished under.the jurisdiction' s mino r NS Rprogra m woul d be eligibl e for th e CleanUni t exclusio nfo r th e firs t 1 0 year s followin g
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 1

3 5 issuanc e o f th e permit
. Th e EPA'als 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 appropriate ' standard s fo r EP At o use'i n determinin g whethe r a permittin g authority' s mino r NS R programcontro l technologyrequirement s ar e "comparabl e t o th e BAC T and LAE R requirements
. Th e EP Aenvision s tha t a s a ' minimu ma ''pre--certified " mino r NS R programcompl ywit h 4 0 CF R 51.160-164
. c . Qualificatio n o f Unit s o n a Case-By-Cas e Basi s 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 h a contro l technologyo r strategy equivalen t t o th e bes t control s applie d i n practice
. Thi s ma y occu 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 havin g a limi t o n a n emission s uni t determine d to.b e equivalen t t o BAC T o r LAER.t o qualif yfo r th e "clea n unit " exclusio n o n a case-by-cae e basis
. Onc e a permittin g authorit ymake s thi s determinatio n throug h a proces s involvin g notic e an d opportunit yfo r publi c comment , the.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 c wit h th e othe r type s o f propose d clea n uni t exclusions , EP Arequests.publi c comment s o n th e propose d exclusio n eligibilit yperiod , ffee propose d section s
PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D . BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Jul y5,199 5 -- - [fil e name : Masters.29 ] •• •P.1 2

3 6 51.165(a ) (l)(v ) (C ) (Ifi ) (v ) Q ) , 51.16 6 (b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (1 ) (iii ) an d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (£ ) (iii) . Th e EP A propose s severa l alternativ e base s uponwhic ha permittin

g authorit y

coul d tak

e t o make th

e determinatio

ntha t a uni t ha s anequivalen t BAC T or LAE Remission s limitation . The firs t woul d be based o na naverage o f BAC T or LAE Rfor equivalen t
o r simila r source s ove r a recent perio d o f tim

e (e.g. , mos t
recent thre e years) . The secon dwoul db

e basedo

nth e unit' s contro l leve l bein g withi nsom

e percentag e (e.g. , fiv e or . ten percent ) o f th

e mos t recent , or average o f th e mos t recent , BAC l 

# #1 > i£i c

# . rJ*\

n s limi t i s u . "

• or LAE Rlevel s .fo

r equivalen t or simila r sources. . Th e EP A solicit s comment o nthes e approache s an d o nth e genera l issue s concernin

g whethe r an

d how.EP

A shoul dimpos e a.spe c methodolog

y for determinin

g tha t a specifi c emission s "comparable " t o th

e current BAC T or LAE Rlimit . Fo r al l o f th

e abov e tests , th

e EP A realize s that , ther e ar e man y sourc e an

d emissio

nuni t categorie s for whic hBAC T or LAE R determination s do no t exist , let alon e recent determinations . For . thes e sources , th e EP A propose s tha t thei r leve l o f contro l b e gauged agains t th e contro l leve i associated wit hBAC T o r LAER for emissionunit s wit hsimilar-emissio nstrea m characteristics . Tha t is , i f th

e emission s uni t wer e t o undergo a BAC T o r LAE R revie w toda y or recently , wha t technologie s woul dbe evaluated
an d wha t ar e th

e current BAC T or LAE Rlevel s associated with ;
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 IEP A POLICY ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 [fil e name. : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 3

3 7

. thos e technologies ? Sinc e thi s i n effec t require s th e permittin g 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 s exclusion , th e EP Ai s askin g fo r commen t o n othe r

• approache s fo r qualifyin g units
.

' State s ar e encourage d t o us e th e permittin g proces s require d bytitle' V

o f th e Ac t a s th e vehicl e fo r determinin g and recordin g whic h unit s a t a titl e V sourc e ca n qualif yfo r this

exclusion. 1 0

. Th e permittin g 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 makin g th e caee-by-cas e determinatio n (s o long a s th e opportunit y fo r publi c commen t i s provided)
. Fo r convenience , one , manyo r al l unit s a t a sourc e coul d b e reviewed'and subjecte d t o publi c notic e and commen t concurrentl ywit h th 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 "clea n .

- 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 programfoun d comparabl e byEPA , .th e titl e V permi t offer s th e opportunit yt o clearl yset.fort h th e

1 0 Whil e rule s implementin g .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 th e 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 th e statu s o f a uni t a s a NS R clea n uni t presumptio n i s a n applicabl e requiremen t i n th e titl e V permi t wil l likel ydepend upo n ho wth e clea n uni t tes t i s adopte d byth e permittin g authorit y(e.g. , adopte d a s a SI P requirement)
. Th e EP Asolicit s commen t o n th e bes t approach'fo r implementin g and coordinatin g th e revie wan d designatio n o f clea n unit s wit h th e titl e V permi t process .
PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y •** * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name. : Master6.29 ] •* *P.1 4

3 8 H
_• • statu s o f th e uni t unde r th e Clean.Uni t exclusion
. Qualifyin g clea n unit s and th e pollutan t fo r whic h th 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 "clea n 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 meeting.th e criteri a th e EP Aestablishe s fo r well-controlled. ' . unit s and thereb

yqualif yt o us e th e exclusion.• • Th e control s o r

... . i pollutio n reductio n strategytha t ar e th e 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 lon g a s thes e federally'enforceabl 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 includin g thos e whic h coul d affec t a unit' s efficiency , capacity,
. availability , longevit yand utilization
. However , change s whic h would'brin g int o questio n th e 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. , modifie d stac k parameter s whic h woul d caus e o r contribut e t o violatio n o f an y applicabl e ambien t standard , replacemen t o f th e uni t wit h a • 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 frommajo 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 h al l otherwis e applicabl e Clea n Ai r Ac t and

PRELIMINARY STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP AFOLIC Y *'* * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 5



# 1 "? •3 9 SI P requirement s includin g an yfederall yenforceabl e limit s o n emission s o r operation s and mino r NS R requirements.

- Finally , th e .determination tha t a uni t i s "clean " o r "well

controlled " unde r today' s proposa l 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 subj'ec t t o majo r NSR . Whil e contro l technologywhic h qualifie s a unit' ^ a s ' ".clean " ma yb e comparabl e t o BAC T o r LAER , i t i s no t necessaril y equa l to'BAC T o r LAER , an d i n n o wa yestablishe s a presumptiv e BAC T o r LAER . 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 ywa y"freeze " BAC T o r LAE R determination s i n permittin g actions
. Th e Ac t require s tha t BAC T
and LAE R b e curren t case-by-cas e determination s fo r source s subjec t t o majo r NS R and th e clea n uni t tes t canno t overrid e thi s requirement
. 4
. Descriptio n o f th e Clea n Facilit yProposal
. Simila r t o th e clea n uni t exclusion , EP Ai s proposing , 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 frommajo r NS R propose d rLt %* t • " change s t o a n existin g majo r stationarysourc e tha t ha s installe d AP^Hjk ' majo r BAC T o r LAE R and ha s undergon e a n ai r qualit yimpac t \ analysi s a s appropriat e t qth e are a designation / o r whic h otherwis e qualif ya s a "clean facility. " Se e propose d section s 5l'.165(a ) (1 ) (y ) (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 PRELIMINAR Y STAF F WORKING DRAF T FOR OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE W * DOE S NO T REPRESENT OFFICIAL EP APOLIC Y ** * Jul y5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Mastar6.29 ] ** * 

# M.P.1 6

4 0 • chang e t o th

e majo r stationar

y sourc e that i s consisten t wit hth e PS D o r NS Rpermit . The EP A envision s thi s t o allo w change s tha t do no t include addin g ne w unit s o r allowin

g emission s trade s tha t
wer e no t evaluated fo r ai r quality

impact s i nth

e NS Ror PS D permit . The exclusio nwould , allow , however, ; sourc e to"replac e o r reconstruc t existin g unit s s o lon

g a s the

y continue t o mee t th e contro l technolog

y an d emission s requirement s establishedi nth e

. permit . Thus , suchreplacemen t or reconstructio nwoul d no t resul t i na differen t typ e o f uni t tha

nenvisioned an

d covered b

y th e PS D or NS Rpermi t an dit s requirements. . The EPA - request s comment s o nthi s proposa l an dwhethe r the determinationof "clean " facility shoul dbe mor e stringen t o r simila r t o th

e "clean " unit . Th e EP A i s proposin

g tha t th

e qualificationfor thi s exclusion.b e simila r t o tha t unde r th e ' cleanuni t exclusion . A s proposed , a clea nmajo r stationar

y sourc e i s one tha t underwen t NS Rwithi nth e las t 1 0 years . EP A als o request s comment o nwhethe r thi s proposa l shoul d no t allo w unit s o r facilitie s t o b e replace

dor reconstructed . Certainly, ' addin g ne w unit s woul d no t b e permittedunde r the . proposa l becau.se suchchange s woul dho t b e consisten t wit hth e existin

g NS Rpermit . Similarly , emission s -trade s ma y no t be permissibl e wher e a ndifferen t ai r quality ' impac t woul d resul t sinc e th e .PS D
or NS Rpermi t migh t limi t suc hdifferin

g impacts . D . Revisiont

o th e Nettin

g Baseline , 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 A POLICY '•*' * Jul y

5 , 199 5 [filename : Master6.29 ] ** *P.1 7 

# Wouldyo u kindf y se e tha t thi s get s t o th e right person ? C^ADILW ^ 

# C

. / ^2k?* ]

OFFIC E O F KAXASBCEHT AXD IUDOE T OFFICE O

F ZKFORKATIO

H AH B REGULATOR

YAFFAIR S

OATE : _ TO l
_ _ AOENCY : FRO M ,j. SENDERS 

# , A /?£ « J^k^'clsSp/c

OmGft\^)

REGIMENT'

S FA X MO. I ^iS^SS£

_ RZCIFIEN

T TELEPHON

E NO. I TOTA L NUXBE RO F 9 A6EJ OOdXK G COVZ RSHEET !

_ _

„ 

# eo»CDCTf i ^l^/J-'Tfocfa nor fad Ul* ib-fa****
SACT/LAeJf, <~irHuvut re*da*d rt* *cY b rt/^c ^ v** " *•« * W* k" * i 2 F YO

U O O MOT^CEfV E AL

L TB E PAGES, YLEXS

E QKL L A S SOO N R O AS FOStZBLE . VERIFICATIO

N NO. t302-39S-734 0 OIR A FA X MO. I a02-)RS-72l 5 

# *7^*" ^



# 'A- A

L//-L^ . 'P.1 8

©-K 5
unit s tha t already/hav e state-of--the-art emissio ncontrols j I n 'general , thi s ne

w "clea nunit " exclusio

nwil l allo

w State s t o exclude fro

m majo r NSR , proposed changes.t o existin g emission s unit s tha t have installed majo r BAC T o r LAER Ao r whic hotherwise , qualif y a s a "clea

nunit. " Unde r thi s exclusion , source s can mak e an y chang e t o a qualifyin g uni t s o lon

g a s the chang e will , no t increas e th

e unit' s emission s rat e (measure di nterms o f the unit' s maximu

m hourl y emissions , th

e ne w sourc e performanc e standard (NSPS ) tes t foun d at.existin

g 4 0 CF R60.14) . Specifically, , change s whic hd o no t .increas e th

e unit' s hourl y potentia l emission s woul d no t be considereda physica l or operationa l chang e an d thu s woul d no t trigge r majo r NSR. 9 .'Se e propose d section s 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(1£) , 51.166(b)(2)(iii)(L )
an d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) . Th e proposed "clea

nunit " exclusion

9 Unde r today' s proposal , for unit s that ar e permitte dt o chang e feedstock s frequently , suc ha s pharmaceutica l manufacturing an

d certai nchemica l batchprocesses , the maximu m hourl y emission s rat e tes t woul dbe applie d o na pe r feedstoc k basi s t o determine i f a nemissionincreas 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 d use s toluene an

d othe r organi c solvent s a s feedstocks , th e hourl y maximu m emissionrate.o f toluen e befor e an

d afte r th

e propose d physica l o r operationa l change woul dbe assesse da s i f toluene alone wa s t o be full y utilizedb

y th e uni t befor e and . afte r th

e propose d change . The othe r feedstock s woul dals q b e individuall y

assessed . A

change i nfeedstoc k woul dno t trigge r NS Ri f th

e contro l technolog y designe

d t o control , emission s resultin

g fro m the"feedstoc k an

d th e uni t wa s previousl y permitte d t o us e th e feedstock . Th

e EP A encourage s suggesti6n s i ndeveloping rule s or 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 d mixe d feedstocks .
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** *


### 3//* ^P.1 9

.3 0 woul d bot hsimplif y th e applicability

tes t for qualifyin g unit s an d increas e sourc e flexibility - I t woul d als o reward source s tha t hav

e applied (stringen p control s t o thei r emission s .units . Ideally , the chang e in.hourl y potentia l emission s woul d b e assesse d immediatel y befor e an

d afte r th

e chang e to . determin e i f
anemission s Increas e di dindee doccur . However , thi s may no t b e practica l i nman

y instance s becaus e informatio nnecessar

y t o establis hthe hourl y potentia l emission s rat e may requir e considerabl e tim

e t o develo

por collect . Therefore , unde r th e propose d provision , th e pre-change.hourl y potentia l emissionrat e may b e established or verified at an y tim e u p tb6 month s prio r t o th e propose d activity or project . Th

e EP A solicit s comment on alternativ

e period s for establishin g th e pre-chang e hourl y emission s rate , particularl y period s whichmigh t allo w the us e o f routine complianc e emission s test s to determine the emission s rat a (e.g. , annual) . Als o unde r th e proposedprovision , wher e th e uni t i s subjec t t o a federall y enforceabl e limi t on operation s o r emission s which'limit s th e unit' s hourl y

potentia l emission s t c les s thanth e maximum , physicall y achievabl e hourl y rate,:the unit' s lowe r allowabl e rate , mus t b e use d i ndetermining i f a namission s increas e wil l occu r at th e unit. "

. 1 , T-Jha

t Constitute s a "-Clea nUnit " Fo r chi s exclusiont o function , i t i s necessar y t o . distinguis ha well-controlleduni t fro m a poorl y

controlledone .
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMENT AN D . BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ) ** * 

# f HP.2 0



### "'3 1 • • • I nothe r words , wha t criteri a distinguis ha uni t eligibl e fo r thi s exclusio nfro

m on e whic hi s not ? Criteri a whic hallo w a broad-rang e o f unit s t o qualif y coul dlargel y

transform

th e existin g applicabilit y system int o on e base dsolel y o nassessin g a unit' s potentia l emissions , wit hth e possibilit y o f a dramati c increas e i na unit' s actua l emission s withou t undergoin g NSR . Th e EPA' s proposes.t o requir e emission s unit s t o hav e a v "federall y

enforceabl e emission s limit " tha t "i s comparable , t o J<ty ^" th e -emissionlimi t tha t . . .woul dresul t fro m ' a current - review." . 0 ? V C * unde r th e BAC T o r LAE Rrequirements , whicheve r I s applicabl e t o \ ^ th e propose dchange . (See , e.g. . propose dsection s r % 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C)(i£ ) (ii), , 51.16 6 (b)(2 ) (iii ) (D.(2 ) an d" • 52.21(b ) (2) . (iii ) (L ) (2 ) . ) Th e EP A envision s tha t thre e type s o f limit s woul dqualify : (1 ) BAC T o r LAE Rlimit s se t withi nthe^las t 1 0 years ^ (2)qlimitya7set A 

### b y a Stat* * t^ ff 

### " nr> 1 ft 

### ffY y 

### ^vie w progra m

. determiro- j ^ YB p & 

### +'n h p

### equivalen t t o th e federa l BAC T o r LAE R programs; , an dOKlimitffiffoundo na case-by-cas e basi s - - afte r notic e andbpportunit y fo r publi c comment - -» - t o b e equivalen t tb^*- 2


### - BAC T oi : LAE Rlimit/fi T i \ ^ 0V 

### \A o&er^sz, \)*eL>»f&£eA ©r v -H-.^ . pacfcicuU r •"T ,i ." ~ ... . „*_- / T>TaT 5 T 

### , ; ' un't-f c a-P4rey

> uJeCflkV. ^ refero-pi

t cos4 ; a . Unit s wit hBACT . o r LAE RLimit s , r

### -\ 0 - - v j On e startin g poin t for . determinin g whethe r a uni t i s well controlle di s th e leve l o f control.require dt bsatisf y BAC T (in

' attainment/tinclassi f ie dareas ) o r LAE R(innonattainmen t areas ) . • Fo r unit s whic hhav e recentl y undergon e thes e reviews , re PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D '•.'• • BUDGE T REVIE W

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : MasterS.29 ] ** * 

# n i f

### r P.2 1

. . .

• 3 4 . wit hFedera l MAC T o r RAC T limits , th e EP A i s no t inclinedt o do • 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 be foun d t o qualif y

for th e Clea nUni t exclusion using the case-by-cas e optiondescribed i nsection•'II.C.3. c

. below . ".'..'"*•"• • b . Stat e Technolog y Program

s Equivalen t t o BAC T or LAER , Ther e ar e man

y emission s unit s at stationar y source s tha t
wer e permitte d accordin g t o a State' s mino r NS Rpermitting program . Whil e thes e unit s are . no t controlle dpursuan t t o a BAC T
or LAE Rlimit , the

y stil l ma

y hav e state-of-the-art'controls . For instance , severa l jurisdiction s hav e contro l technolog y reviews a s par t o f State , loca l or triba l mino r NS Rprogra m whic h require s ne

w o r modifyin

g source s t o mee t emission s level s equivalen t t o majo r sourc e contro l technolog y requirements.(BAC T
o r LAER ) . Fo r thi s reason- , th e EP A i s proposin

g tha t permitting authoritie s may

submi t mino r NS Rcontro l technolog y requirement s for certificationb y th e EP A tha t th

e mino r NS Rprogra

m require s contro l technolog

y tha t woul d satisf y th e requirement s for th e clea nuni t exclusion . Se e proposedsection s 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (Ui ) (x ) (1 ) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (5 J Ui ) an

d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (£ ) (ii ) . Onc e determined b y EP A t o be . equivalent , al l unit s subjec t t o emission s limitatio nestablished under,the jurisdiction' s mino r NS Rprogra m woul dbe eligibl e for th e CleanUni t exclusio nfor th

e firs t 1 0 year s followin g
PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLICY •* * Jul y

5 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] ** * 

# mn/P.2 2

Specifically , a

n exisitin g unit

whic hha s no t

undergon e aBAC T o r

LAE Rderterminatio n o r Stat e equivelent proces s ca

n als o qualif

y a s a"clean unit " if

, i n th e informe djudgemen t o f th e permittin g agency , acurren t BAC T o r

LAE Rdeterminatio n fo

r th e unit woul dno t

b e expecte d t o resul t i n an y lowe r level o f emission s fromth e unit

for th e pollutan t

i n question

. Th e costs , benifit s andtechnical consideratio n associate dwit hth e retrofi t

applicatio n o f

additional control s t o th e particual r

unit ma y b e considere db

y th e permittin g agenc y i

n th e evaluation

. -s > .j-

. 

# \J°~ ^^

t/11 /P.2 3

"
- 3 5 • ••.••'" ' issuanc e o f th e permit . The ' EP A als o solicit s commen t o nwhethe r
a shorte r period , suc ha s 5 year6 , woul db e mor e appropriate . Th e EP A

als o solicit s commen t b nth e appropriate ' standard s fo r EP A

t o use'i ndetermining.whethe r a permittin g authority' s mino r NS Rprogra m control.technolog y requirement s ar e comparabl e t o th e BAC T an d LAE Rrequirements . Th e EP A envision s tha t a s a ' minimu m

a ' , pre--certified " mino r NS Rprogra m compl y

wit h4 0 CF R 51.160-164 . c . Qualificatio no f Unit s o na Case-By-Cas e Basi s .I nman y

case s a nemission s uni t no t subjec t t o majo r NS Ri s constructed.o r retrofitte dwit ha contro l technolog y o r strateg y equivalen t t o th e bes t control s applie di npractice . Thi a ma y
occu r whe na sourc e minimize s emission s i norde r t o "net " a uni t
ou t o f majo r NS Ro r applie s control s t o compl y wit hothe r provision s o f th e Act . Fo r thi s reason , th e EPA' s propose d regulation s woul dallo w a sourc e havin g a limi t .as . sn ,emiB'siorw_-

_ *r9r \h.t* p«M"t" - t**.\«.

r w.n, x uni t determine dt o b e equivalen t t o BAC T o r LAEtPfc o qualit y to r /co*si*teM - $ 

### th e "clea n unit " exclusio n o n acase-by-cas e basis^ f Once acps>\r

«.w4 ' b£*e-£-"h s permittin g authorit y make s thi s determinatio nthroug ha proces s involvin g notic e an d opportunit y fo r publi c comment , the.uni t woul db e eligibl e fo r th e clea nuni t exclusio nfo r the\nex t fiv e years. . A s wit hth e othe r type s o f propose dclea nuni t exclusions , EP A

request s publi c comment s o nth e propose d 'Tn-sect ' *jeL& exclusio neligibilit y period . S&&. propose dsection s * jj j ^_ i

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 A POLIC Y ** * Jul y

5,-199 5 -- - [fil e name : Master6.29 ] •• • 

# if ' A /P.2 4

er\ 

### Jroposesjaeveral^alternativ e base s upo n whic h a — ' A dkfr*a.r- . . . ' . 3 6 • a 

### 51.16 5 (a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (lfi ) (v ) (1) , 51.16 6 (b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (£ ) (iii ) an d 52.21(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (L ) (£ ) (iii ) . r Th e EP . permittin g authority coul dtak e t o mak e th e determinatio ntha t a uni t ha s a nequivalen t BAC T o r LAE Remission s limi t a t i5n . Th e firs t woul db e base do na naverag e o f BAC T o r LAE Rfo r equivalen t o r simila r source s ove r a recen t perio do f time (e.g. , mos t recen t thre e years ) . Th e secondwoul db e base do nth e unit'. s contro l leve l bein g withi nsom e percentag e (e.g. , fiv e or . te n percent ) o f th e mos t recent , o r averag e o f the mos t recent , BA ' o r LAE Rlevel s .fo

r equivalen t o r simila r sources. . Th e EP A solicit s commen t o nthes e approache s an d o nth e genera l issue s concernin g whethe r and how.EP A shoul dimpos e a.specifi c . methodolog y

fo r determinin g tha t a specifi c emission s limi t

r^ H -fcUx V \Aovlc**. rest-- "comparable " t o th e (current)BAC T o r LAE Rlimit ^ ^ ^ ^ clt f 

### ^ ^\ ^ \ Fo r al l o f th e abov e tests , th e EP A realize s that , ther e ar e man y sourc e an d emissio nuni t categorie s fo r whic hBAC T p r LAE R determination s d o no t exist , le t alon e recen t determinations . For . thes e sources , th e EP A propose s tha t thei r leve l o f contro l b e gauge dagains t th e contro l leve l associate dwit hBAC T o r LAE R fo r amissio nunit s wit hsimilar-emissio nstrea m characteristics . PciiFFTcirTou r• ~ : .- — 

### Tha t is , i f th e emission s uni t wer e t o underg o a BAC T o r LAE R
A • . • . • 

### revie w toda y o r recently , wha t technologie s woul db e evaluate d an dwha t ar e the^current)BAC T o r LAE Rlevel s associate dwith ; 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 A POLIC Y ** * Jul y 5 , 199 5 [fil e name. : Master6.29 ] ** *

% / -P.2 5

f^HouS- S v\eu} ; Use r

T^VX " © k

£Cs.q&3S~ 3 7 thos e technologies ? / Sinc e thi a i neffec t require s th e permitting authorit y

t o engag e ina BAC T o r LAE Rrevie w i norde r t o qualif y a uni t fo r thi a exclusion , th e EP A i s askin

g fo r comment onothe r approache s for qualifyin g unit 6 State s ar e encouragedt o us e th e permittin

g process , required b y title' V

o f th e Ac t a s th

e vehicl e for determinin g an d recordin

g whic hunit s a

t a titl e V

sourc e ca

nqualif y

fo r thi s exclusion. 1 0 . The permittin g authority

coul dus e the titl e V permi t issuance, , revisio nor renewa l proces s a s th e mechanism

for makin g th e caee-by-cas e determinatio n(s o lon g a s th e opportunit y for publi c comment i s provided) . For convenience , one , man y o r al l unit s a t a sourc e coul db e reviewed'an

d subjectedt o publi c notic e an

d comment concurrentl y wit hth

e issuanc e o r renewa l o f a titl e V operatin

g permit . For unit s eligibl e for th e "clean , unit " exclusiondue t o a prio r NS RBAC T or LAE Rdetermination , or a determinationunde r a progra m foun dcomparabl e b

y EPA , .th

e titl e V permi t offer s th

e opportunity

t o clearl y

set.fort hth

e

10 Whil e rule s implementin g .title V

addres s ho

w th e unit' s majo r NS Rpermi t an d BAC T or LAE

Rlimi t ar e incorporatedint o the titl e V permit , i t i s no t clea r tha t th e statu s o f a uni t ae a NSR . cleanuni t woul d b e included.i nth

e titl e V

permi t a s a

n applicable , requirement . Whethe r th e statu s o f a uni t a s a NS R. cleanuni t presumptioni s a napplicabl e requiremen t i nth e titl e V permi t wil l likel y depen duponho

w th e cleanuni t tes t i s adopted b

y th e permittin

g authority

.(e.g. , adoptedas ' a SI P requirement) . The EP A solicit s comment o nth e bes t approach'fo r implementin

g an d coprdinatin

g th e revie w an ddesignationo f clean unit s wit hth

e titl e V

permi t process . PRELIMINAR

YSTAF F WORKIN

GDRAF T FO

ROFFIC E OF MANAGEMEN T AN D : BUDGE T REVIE

W * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA

L EP A POLIC Y •** * July.5 , 199 5 [fil e name . Maater6.29 ] ** * 

### \0(n/P.2 6



### • 3 8 , '
t 

### statu s o f th e uni t unde r th e Clean.Uni t exclusion . Qualifyin g clea nunit s andth e pollutan t fo r whic hth e determinatio nwa s . 'mad e shoul db e clearl y identifie dan

dliste di nth e titl e V permi t a s "clea nunits " fo r NS Rpurposes . • . •*(£? . Unde r today' s proposal , a uni t tha t doe s no t initiall y . \ 

# -At- H .qualif y fo r th e clea nuni t exclusio ncoul dinstal l control s meetin g th e criteri a th e EP A establishe s fo r well-controlle d 

# Mc . unit s an dthereby

qualif y

t o us e th e exclusion.• • Th e control s o ^ ^-^ H 

### W 

### c / pollutio nreductio nstrategy tha t ar e th e basi s fo r th e clea n/ ^X 4


### - \£- / o&fl • V uni t determinatio nmus t b e i nplac e an dfederall y

enforceabl e a t 7 ' , C 

### V th e time•th e sourc e relie s o na nexclusio nunde r thi s provision , { * 

# '•ft

' S o lon g a s thes e federally'enforceabl e condition s ar e met , th e gpH u sourc e i s fre e t o mak e any chang e a t th e permitte duni t includin g 

# w.
thos e whic hcoul daffec t a unit' s efficiency , capacity, . y J ^ J

' • ' tf F 

### availability , longevit y andutilization . However , change s whic h\°^ i

### -

• • f ? '•. ' . . 

### woul dbrin g int o questio nth e origina l emission s unit' s B^C T o r Q , LAE Rcontro l leve l o r ai r qualit y impac t (e.g. , modifie dstac k parameter s whic hwoul dcaus e o r contribut e t o violatio no f any applicabl 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 no f th e unit ) woul dno t b e allowed . Also , fo r unit s exclude dfro m majo r NS R .'unde r thi s propose drevision , th e physica l o r operationa l chang e

. . mus t stir. l cbmpl y

wit hal l otherwis e applicabl e Clea nAi r Ac t an d
PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKINGDRAF T FOROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN D BUDGE T REVIEW

* DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIAL EP A POLIC Y ** * Jul y

5 , 199 5 [fil e name ! Master6.29 ] ** *

: •w . 

### IVP.2 7



### " -3 9 : ~" S I P requirement* , includin g an y federall y

enforceabl e limit s o n emission s o r operation s an dmino r NS Rrequirements. . Finally , th e determinatio ntha t a uni t i s "clean " o t "well controlled " unde r today' s proposa l i s independen t fro m th e case by-cas e determinatio no f BAC T o r LAE Rfo r source s subjec t t o majo r NSR . Whil e contro l technolog y whic hqualifie s a unit' , a a ' ".clean " ma y

b e comparabl e t o BAC T o r LAER , i t i s no t necessarily - <

—for-Bwc-f c Uin.l t t\S a. ^et J 4 w*..* t ' > •cii-ci^s+^C^ S 

### equa l t o BAC T o r LAER . an di nn o wa y establishe s a presumptiv e •fo r -t^o-A : **-*>•.~t , s«*w.r^ . -jjyf C or <zxJct.s»ry

^^^_ ^ .- ' 

### BAC T o r LAER . Further , a fiv e .o r te nyea r presumptio ntha t a j uni t i s "clean " doe s no t i nan y wa y "freeze " BAC T 6 r LAE R determination s i npermittin g actions . Th e Ac t require s tha t BAC T a n dLAE Rb e curren t case-by-cas e determination s fo r source s subjec t t o majo r MS Ran dth e clea nuni t .t-efc . canno t overrid e thi s geejuia ? ementr t 4 . Descriptio no f th e Clea nFacilit y Proposal . Simila r t o th e clea nuni t exclusion , EP A i s proposin g a n exclusio nfo r change s a t clea nfacilities . Thi s "clean ' facility " . exclusio nwil l allo w

State s t o exclud e fro m majo r NS Rpropose d•/D *^A %e't^ 

### change s t o a nexlatin g majo r atationar y aourc e tha t ha a inatalle d0p* .As * majo r BAC T o r LAE Ran dha a undergon e a nai r qualit y impac t analysi s a s appropriat e t qth e are a designation, " o r whic h• 'y X ' otherwis e qualif y

a a a "clea nfacility. " Se e propose dsection s i© ^ ^ f 

### * \ 51.165(a ) (1 ) (v ) (C ) (il) , 51.166(b ) (2 ) (iii ) (M) . an d•• • ^ „V>.,1 . 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(M) . Unde r thi s exclusion , source s ca nmak e anyip t dju ••'••• • ' • v^ x 

### PRELIMINAR YSTAF F WORKIN GDRAF T FO ROFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN T AN DX HV^ * BUDGE T REVIEW . * DOE S NO T REPRESEN T OFFICIA L EP A POLIC Y^\ 0 

### (^ •* * Jul y 5 , 199 5 -- - [fil e name : Ma s te r 6. 2 9 ] ** * • '^jb^ C « 

## [V