45CSR14

P ERMITS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAJOR M ODIF ICATION OF M AJOR STATI ONARY SOURCES OF A IR P OLLUT ION F OR THE PREVENTION OF

SIGNIF ICANT DETERIORATION

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

On J un e 1 0 , 2011, the Division of Air Quality (DAQ ) commence d a thirty day public comment period and subsequently held a public hearing on J uly 11, 2011 to acc ept oral comments
on proposed revisions to leg islative rules 45CSR 14. Writt en comments wer e also acc epted through 6:00 PM on Monday , July 11, 2011.

Two people provided substantive verba l comment at the public hearing conce rning proposed rul e 45CSR 14. One commenter submitt ed written comments on proposed rule 45CSR 14. DAQ addre sses these c omments below.

I. COMMENTER: Sierra Club

COMMENT A. The commenter states, “45-CSR-14. PSD Construction Permits. The terms" 2.9 " Baseline Area" and 2.42 " Baseline Date" do not appear to have any application outside of the Plantwide Applicability Limitat ions ( PALS) ? I don't s ee m to see them used anywhere else. How many facilities in W

est Virginia currently have PALs in their permits? How would this a pply to something like the TransGas Coal-to-Liqui ds plant in Mingo County? W e believe that it would make
a lot more sense to get rid of these PALs. Applying pollution emission limits at each emission point would make it much simpler to m onitor these emissions and identify the best control technologies. We rec om m end that t

his ru le be re vised to strike all reference to PALs .”

RESP ONSE A. A PAL is an approa ch that provides owner s or operators of major stationary
sou r c e s, with the ability to manag e fac ility -wide emissions without trig g ering major NSR. The added flexibi lity of a PAL allows industry to respond rapidly to marke t chang es consistent with the g oals of the NSR program. EPA require s that states adopt the PAL provisions of the final counter part fede ral PSD/NS R Rule, Prevention of Significa nt Deterior ation (PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) [67 FR 8 0 1 8 9 ]

. T h at is the primary rea son we are incorporating the PAL p rovisions into 45CSR 14. But the ag ency is also convince d that PAL s benef it the public and t h e en vironment. DAQ can only establish a PAL by using a public proce ss that aff ords ci t i z en s t h e opportunity to com m ent upon the proposed PAL

. This proce ss is designed to assure local communities that air emissions from major stationary source s will not exceed the fac ility -wide cap set forth in the pe rmit unless the source s first meet the major NSR requireme nts.

A PAL provides a more complete perspe ctive to the public beca use in setting a PAL , DAQ acc ounts for all curr ent proce sses and all emissions units toge ther and ref lec ts th e lo n g -term maxi mum amount of emissions it would allow from the source

. Moreove r, to comply with a PAL the source must meet

1monitoring require ments presc ribed in the rules that ensure t h at both DAQ and the public have

sufficie nt informati on from which to deter mine plant wide compliance

. Additionally , the PAL regulations prom o t e v o l u n tary improvements in pollution controls by cre ating an incentive for
source s to control exis ting and new emissions units to maintain a maxi mum amount of operational flexibi lity under the PAL

. Most importantly , for pollutants subject to a PAL , the rule prohibits serial, small , unrela

ted emissions incre ases, which otherwise could have occur red under previous regulations.

The terms “base line are a” and “major and minor source baseline date” do n o t ap p l y solely to a plantwide applicability limit ation under 45CSR 14, but are inhere nt components of West Virg inia’s PSD program. DAQ notes that no permits issued under 45CSR 14 contain a PAL

. A PAL would not apply to the TransG as Coal-to-L iquids plant, as the fac ility is not a major source

. DAQ takes car eful steps to ensure that 45CSR 14 comports to curr ent fede ral counter part languag e and guidance , so that the rule rema ins as stringe nt as the fede ral counter part. DAQ notes that Plant-wide Applica b ility L imit provisions are consistent with curr ent fede ral counter part languag e, and there fore should not be dele ted.

II. COMMENTER: Jim Kot con
COMMENT A. The commente r s ta te s , “S p e c ifically what'

s being done to 45CSR14, there are
a number of minor changes to many terms. In particularly there is (sic) definitions for content such as the baseline area and thebaseline dates. It doe s not appe ar that e ither of thoseterms haveany application to construction permits, exc ept for the conce

pt of the Platt Line applicability, Platt Line Applicability Limitat ion, it' s referred to as the PAL. The PAL conce pt is s o me th i n g that we have been opposed to for quite sometime. It is our recom mendation that in this rule, we simply eliminate that concept all together.”

RESP ONSE A. DAQ r efe rs the commente r to Response IA.

III. COMMENTER: Mary A nn Maul

COMMENT A. The c ommenter states, “I'm an attorney here in Charleston, W est Virginia. I have r ep resented Bill Hughes in a Air Quality current appeal 10-03, for the Air Quality Board, which has been heard, but we have not rece ived a writt en decision on as of yet. In this case the main issue was whether two proposed permits for natural gas compre ssor stations would be considered together, which is also called aggregated or aggregation.”

RESP ONSE A. DAQ notes that scope the comment is an Air Quality Boa rd matter, and not
one rele vant to the proposed revisions to 45CSR 14. DAQ also notes that s o u rc es s ub j ect to the Appea l 10-03 would not be subject to 45CSR 14 for ozone, even if ag greg ated. Marsha ll County is
curr ently designated attainment for the 1997 ozone stan d ards, and there have been no subsequent designations to date.

2