P.1 

OAR Box 1778 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

30) ll-B-5 

Docket Number: 

A-90-06 

Printed 10/28/2008 9:50:52 AM Sheet 30 of 276 
^ 

P.2 vmjm 

DATE: APR OS 1990 

UNITED 8TATE3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION II II-B-5 

Interpretive Ruling on Air Pollution Control Systems Improvements 

SUBJECT: (40 CFR Parts 51, 

FROM: Herbert Barrack 

Assistant Regi nistrator fo_" Policy and Management 

T0: William G. Rosenberg 

Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation 

ATTN: Scott Furlong 

Information and Regulations Systems Division (PM-223) 

The appropriate offices in Region XX have reviewed the proposed 

regulation. Region II concurs with the following comments: 

General Comments 

The regulation should make clear that the reductions of emissions 

from the installation or improvement of emissions control 

equipment are not creditable unless the reductions are permanent 

and federally-enforceable. 

The Agency might also want to clarify the technology-forcing 

character of the NSR provisions of Parts C and D. Ko matter what 

effect there is on air quality or environmental harm, the permits 

always require either BACT or LAER. NSPS likewise require some 

sort of technology-forcing features, although less sourcespecific and not subject to change as easily. We suggest the 

ruling emphasize that circumventing BACT or LAER will result in 

the policy not being applicable. 

The conclusion that the states are not bound by this ruling is 

confusing. EPA has had problems in the past with state 

interpretations of their regulations, as well as regulations that 

may be identical to EPA's. This may be a problem in a citizen 

suit where EPA's view would be that the regulation does not apply 

to the source in question. 

The reference to Appendix 8 on page 29 (and perhaps elsewhere) 

seems out of place. We understand that Appendix S could not be 

applicable to any new sources and that states that 

inappropriately included the resource recovery exclusions in 

Appendix S into SIP regulations have been asked to delete them. 

Including Appendix S in this notice implies that it still has 

some validity for new sources, and that EPA may not have been 

correct to request the states to delete the RRF exemptions.^ 

—wiwiii u wrmu «_orwi MM* . 

-_' d _£_0 Ud6_:_ 0S6T '_ _dd _IS0 -- - -0 - :01 Z NOI03- Uy_/Ud_:WO__ 
P.3 

Speciflo comments 

1. Page 7, Section B, first paragraph and elsewhere in the 

document 

The phrase "maximum capacity" in the third to last sentence 

should be replaced by "maximum physical capacity", i.e., the 

highest capacity the equipment is capable of operating. This is 

consistent with John Soitz's letter to David Feltner, dated 

February 14, 1990. 

The second to last sentence is not entirely correct. The NS R 

regulations are concerned with ntt •Tnlanlona lncr-aa-a of total 

annual emissions. Therefore, the sentence should be clarified by 

adding "net emissions increases of" after "concerned with". 

2. Page 7, footnote 1 

The footnote should be expanded to include that an hourly 

emission rate (kg/h or lb/h) can also be obtained through a stack 

test. 

3. Page 7, footnote 2 

Annual emissions can also be expressed as the product of the 

emissions per amount processed and the amount that is processed, 

as in the case of AP-42 emission factors. 

4. Page 9, section D, second and third sentences 

The sentences should be clarified that under NSPS, for 

applicability purposes, emission increases are determined by 

comparing changes in the hourly emission rates at naximum 

physical cflp.g-ty. 

5. Page 10, Section D, first paragraph 

Hodifications other than replacement of components of an emission 

unit do not constitute a "reconstruction", as defined at 40 CFR $ 

60.15(b). Therefore, the fourth line should be modified by 

Inserting "consist of replacement of components of a facility 

and" after "modifications which". 

6. Page 11, Section E, first paragraph 

In addition to comparing actual emissions before and after the 

modification, "net emissions Increase" can be "significant" if 

the Bodification would "construct within 10 kilometers of a Class 

X area, and have an impact on such area equal to or greater than 

1 microgram/cubic meter." This section should be modified so 

that it is consistent with 40 CFR 52.21(b)(23)(ill). 

W d SEB* W_0_.2 0661 •_ _dtt EJS0 _£_ 20Z :01 2 N0I03- WW_/«d_:W___ 
P.4 

a 

7. Page 12, line 3 

This indicates that actual emissions are determinded by averaging 

the emissions for the 2 years prior to submittal of the permit 

application. What the regulations require is that actual 

emissions be determined over the 2 years prior to oomn.enc.-fnt of 

gon..ration * 

8. Page 25, line io 

This portion of the discussion, dealing with the Puepto Rlcan 

cement Co. v. EPA decision, is erroneous and confusing, it 

should be replaced with the following sentence: 

"In this case, the court noted that the source's 

decision to modify its facility with more efficient 

machinery could result in an increased level of 

production and an increased design capacity and 

therefore an increased level of emissions." 

If there any questions about our comments, please contact Barbara 

Pastalove, Chief of the Planning and Evaluation Branch, at FTS 

264-3052. * 

S0*d 2_0« Ud0_:_ 0661 '_ _dtl ETS0 2S2 202 :01 2 N0I_3_ UWd'tld3:W__d