P. 1



# OAR Box 1778
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 30 ) ll-B-5
Docket Number: 

# A-90-0 6

Printed 10/28/20089:50:52 AM

Sheet 30of 276^ P. 2 

# vmjm

DATE : AP R O S 199 0 UNITE D 8TATE 3 ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y REGIO N I I II-B- 5 Interpretiv e Rulin g o nAi r Pollutio nContro l System s Improvement s SUBJECT : (4 0 CF RPart s 51 , FROM : Herber t Barrac k Assistan t Reg i nistrato r fo_ " Polic y and Managemen t
T0 : Willia

m G . Rosenber g Assistan t Administrato r fo r Ai r an d Radiatio n ATTN : Scot t Furlon g Informatio nand Regulation s System s Divisio n(PM-223 )
Th e appropriat e office s i nRegio nX Xhav e reviewe dth e propose d regulation . Regio nI I concur s wit hth e followin g comments : Genera l Comment s Th e regulatio nshoul dmak e clea r tha t th e reduction s o f emission s fro m th e installatio no r improvemen t o f emission s contro l equipmen t ar e no t creditabl e unles s th e reduction s ar e permanen t andfederally-enforceable . Th e Agenc y

migh t als o wan t t o clarif y th e technology-forcin g characte r o f th e NS Rprovision s o f Part s C and D . K o matte r wha t effec t ther e i s o nai r qualit y o r environmenta l harm , th e permit s alway s requir e eithe r BAC T o r LAER . NSP S likewis e requir e some sor t o f technology-forcin g features , althoug hles s source specifi c and no t subjec t t o chang e a s easily . W e sugges t th e rulin g emphasiz e tha t circumventin g BAC T o r LAE Rwil l resul t i n th e polic y

no t bein g applicable . Th e conclusio ntha t th e state s ar e no t boun db y thi s ruling i s confusing . EP A

ha s ha d problem s i nth e pas t wit hstat e interpretation s o f thei r regulations , a s wel l a s regulation s tha t ma y b e identica l t o EPA's . Thi s ma y b e a problem

i na citize n sui t wher e EPA' s vie w woul db e tha t th e regulatio ndoe s no t appl y t o th e sourc e i nquestion . Th e referenc e t o Appendi x8 o npag e 2 9 (an d perhap s elsewhere ) seem s ou t o f place . We understan dtha t Appendi xS coul d no t b e applicabl e t o an

y new source s an

d tha t state s tha t inappropriatel y

include dth e resourc e recover y exclusion s i n Appendi xS int o SI P regulation s hav e bee naske dt o delet e them . Includin g Appendi xS i nthi s notic e implie s tha t i t stil l ha s som e validit y

fo r ne w

sources , and tha t EP A ma y no t hav e bee n correc t t o reques t th e state s t o delet e th e RR F exemptions. ^

—wiwii i u wrmu

«_orw i MM*
. -_' d _£_ 0 Ud6_:

_ 0S6 T'

__d d _IS 0 -- - -0
- :0 1 Z NOI03
- Uy_/Ud_:WO_

_P. 3

Specifl o comment s 1 . Pag e 7 , Sectio nB , firs t paragraphand elsewher e i nth e documen t Th e phras e "maximu

m capacity " i nth e thir dt o las t sentenc e shoul db e replace db y "maximu m physica l capacity" , i.e. , th e highes t capacit y

th e equipmen t i s capabl e o f operating . Thi s i s consisten t wit hJoh nSoitz' s lette r t o Davi dFeltner , date d Februar y

14 , 1990 . Th e secondt o las t sentenc e i s no t entirel y correct . Th e NS R regulation s ar e concerne dwit hnt t •Tnlanlon a lncr-aa- a o f tota l annua l emissions . Therefore , th e sentenc e shoul db e clarifie db y addin g "ne t emission s increase s of " afte r "concerne dwith" . 2 . Pag e 7 , footnot e 1 Th e footnot e shoul db e expande dt o includ e tha t a nhourl y emissio nrat e (kg/ ho r lb/h ) ca nals o b e obtaine dthroug ha stac k test . 3 . Pag e 7 , footnot e 2 Annua l emission s ca nals o b e expresse d a s th e produc t o f th e emission s pe r amoun t processe dand th e amoun t tha t i s processed , a s i nth e cas e o f AP-4 2 emissio nfactors . 4 . Pag e 9 , sectio nD , secondan d thir dsentence s Th e sentence s shoul db e clarifie dtha t unde r NSPS , fo r applicabilit y

purposes , emissio nincrease s ar e determine db y comparin g change s i nth e hourl y emissio nrate s a t naximu m 

### physica l cflp.g-ty . 5 . Pag e 10 , Sectio nD , firs t paragraph Hodification s othe r tha nreplacemen t o f component s o f a nemissio n uni t d o no t constitut e a "reconstruction" , a s define da t 4 0 CF R$ 60.15(b) . Therefore , th e fourt hlin e shoul db e modifie dby Insertin g "consis t o f replacemen t o f component s o f a facilit y and " afte r "modification s which" . 6 . Pag e 11 , Sectio nE , firs t paragrap h I nadditio nt o comparin g actua l emission s befor e and afte r th e modification , "ne t emission s Increase " ca nb e "significant " i f th e Bodificatio nwoul d"construc t withi n1 0 kilometer s o f a Clas s Xarea , an d hav e a nimpac t o nsuc hare a equa l t o o r greate r tha n 1 microgram/cubi c meter. " Thi s sectio nshoul db e modifie ds o tha t i t i s consisten t wit h4 0 CF R52.21(b)(23)(ill) .

W d SEB*W_0_. 2 066 1 •

__dt t EJS 0 _£

_20 Z :0 1 2 N0I03

- WW_/«d_:W__

_P. 4

a

7 . Pag e 12 , lin e 3 Thi s indicate s tha t actua l emission s ar e determinde db y averagin g th e emission s fo r th e 2 year s prio r t o submitta l o f th e permi t application . Wha t th e regulation s requir e i s tha t actua l emission s b e determine dove r th e 2 year s prio r t o oomn.enc.-fnt o f 

## gon..ratio n* 8 . Pag e 25 , lin e i o Thi s portio no f th e discussion , dealin g wit hth e Puept o Rlca n cemen t Co . v . EP A

decision , i s erroneou s an d confusing , i t shoul db e replace dwit hth e followin g sentence :

"I nthi s case , th e cour t note dtha t th e source' s decisio nt o modif y

it s facilit y

wit hmor e efficien t machiner y

coul dresul t i na nincrease dleve l o f productio nan

d a nincrease ddesig ncapacit y an d therefor e a nincrease dleve l o f emissions. " I f ther e an

y question s abou t ou r comments , pleas e contac t Barbar a Pastalove , Chie f o f th e Plannin g an d Evaluatio nBranch , a t FT S 264-3052 . *

S0* d 2_0 « Ud0_:

_066 1 '

__dt l ETS 0 2S 2 20 2 :0 1 2 N0I_3

_UWd'tld3:W__ d