p.1 

OAR Box 1796 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

36) IV-H-62 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37 PM Sheet 36 of 107 
NOU-22-2002 12:43 

P.2 

F'.M ! 11-1 

To; 

Fax # : 

From; 

FAX TRANSMISSION 

OFFICE OF INFORMATION AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS 

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET 

NATURAL RESOURCES, ENERGY AND AGRICULTURE BRANCH 

725 17th Street, NW, Room 10202 

Washington, DC 20503 

Office: 202-395-3084/Fax: 202-395-7285 

R-MO 3 1 

L\jY)V\ Hv 

) Art Fraas 

) Rich Theroux 

) Jim Laity 

) Amanda Lee 

MA my Farrel I 

Bryon Allen 

) Margie Malanoski 

) David Ranker 

) Ruth Solomon 

) Edmond Toy 

Date: 

Pages; 

V£ 

L 

., including this cover sheet 

fPA AIR pnrKET 

Comments: 

l A ^ 

ar\ 

^ > -I ^ ^ Q'^' 

^ci^^/^ l y>LvJ^tciy 

^L 

F*XSH5ET.M>8 
p__ 

NOUi-22-2002 12: 44 P. 02/04 

10 - Pollution Control Projects 

Non-listed P2 projects may also be considered using the case-by-case determination 

mechanism... In this case, the permitting authority must consider the net environmental benefit of 

a non-listed project and approve requests for the PCP Exclusion for a specific application of the 

project. The source must receive this approval from its permitting authority before beginning 

actual construction of the PCP. This approval must be conducted through a SIP-approved 

permitting process that conforms to the requirements of 40 CFR Parts 51.160 and 51.161, 

including a requirement fb) a public hearing and 30-day public comment period on all aspects cf 

the tot is tr action project. Tltis in\,luiiv.swhich would provide for an opportunity for the public and 

EPA to review and comment on the environmentally beneficial analysis and the air quality 

impacts assessment. 

The final rule also contains a process under which we may evaluate non-listed PCPs for 

addition to the list of environmentally beneficial projects. Once we approve a PCP, we will 

undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking in order to pronounce the new technology as 

environmentally beneficial Once "listed, " a subsequent project could be presumed 

environmentally beneficial unless case-specific factors or impacts would indicate otherwise. We 

will maintain and update the list as we deem additional technologies to be environmentally 

beneficial. We also reserve the right to remove from the list any project thatfiiPfilelerminc was 

erroneously listed. 

Several commenters on the proposal suggested that we have a clearinghouse for newly 

added environmentally beneficial PCPs. We agree that additions to the approved PCP list need 

to be available to the public as soon as possible following approval; however, since rulemaking 

will be used to add new PCPs to the approved list, no additional public notice will be necessary. 

BAlso, use ofa wcboagcweb vase or clearinghouse as the sole mechanism to announce a newly 

listed PCP would not comply with the procedures we must follow under the Administrative 

ProcedureQA ct. 

(OGC ??) 

10.5 Extending the PCP Exclusion to Substitution of ODS 

Comment: 

10.5.1 Support Blanket Exemption 

One commenter (TV-D-147) said EPA should exempt CFCs and HCFCs from NSR, just 

as EPA has exempted section 112(r) pollutants from title V permit programs. -Gtvet»||'this 

exxmotioncan be done, the commenter believed there would be no purpose to addressing ODS 

under the PCP Exclusion. According to the commenter, there is no basis in tlie statute for • 

concluding that these axe pollutants to be regulated under title I of tlie Act. Further, there is no 

scientific or policy rationale for the PSD/NSR structure to apply to ODS, because they have no 

local or regional effects on tropospheric ozone levels. The commenter added that subjecting 

Draft - Do not quote, cite, copy or distribute 1-10-15 November 4, 2002 

/ 
EA. 

• 

' NDU'-22-2002 12 = 44 P. 03/04 

9 -Clean Units 

United States for about twenty years, and were used in Japan and Germany for 10 years before 

that. During the early 1980's, a typical FGD removed about 90 percent of the sulfur from a flue 

gas stream. Today, modern FGD systems typically average 95 to 99 percent removal efficiency -

less than a 10 percent improvement in 20 years. This further supports our disagreement with the 

commenters' assertion that advances in control technology occur at intervals less than 10 years. 

It also confirms the reasonableness ofa 10-year duration for Clean Unit status. 

We agree with those commenters who were concerned that Clean Unit status would be 

based on BACT/LAER determinations that result in no controls. We agree that "no controls " 

does not equate to a well-controlled unit. In most cases, BACT/LAER will result in significant 

emission decreases (such as 90 percent control for many VOC coating sources). In rare 

circumstances, however, the outcome ofa reviewing authority's BACT or LAER determination 

may result in an emissions limitation that the source will meet without using a control 

technology (add-on control or P2 technique). Under our new rules, sources will not qualify as a 

Clean Unit in such circumstances. We do not believe that an emissions unit qualifies for Clean 

Unit status unless it has state-of-the-art controls that reduce emissions. Therefore, Clean Unit 

dasignationsiatiis is not appropriate for those instances where a BACT/LAER determination of 

no control was made, generally on a cost effectiveness basis. Moreover, allowing a source with 

no controls to qualify as a Clean Unit opens ihe door for circumvention of the CAA * 

requirements. More specifically, our new rules also require sources to make an investment i^&wWc 

(d0med?^£tny)^pen8cs that^uld^qualify,a^ mup\wtment (defined ai any expenses iliat-would 2%m/l& te? 

qualify~as- a capital'expense by the IRSJiling^vdVieiines, Iri tipeUive ofwhether-the owner vr rP^j^cU r1*L 

operator actuaHyrhooxerttrfilc it as a capital expenses,) by the IRS filing guidelines, $ /uT / ( 

irrespective of whether the owner oi' opevatot actually chuuses tu file it ara-capital expenses) to N .; °^ 

qualify initially as a Clean Unit. We believe that application of add-on controls or a change to & f3! "C7y° 

the source's emissions unit or process to implement P2 will require research, followed by a Prtwvto 

retooling or reformulation of the emissions unit or process. Such changes will require the \&hwby(, "f^ 

source to have at least some investment. We believe P2 techniques have the potential to reduce M^n / ^ ^ 

emissions and we do not want to discourage use of such options. Therefore, we disagree with 

those commenters who believed P 2 techniques are not an adequate basis for Clean Unit status. ^' T ° 

We want to emphasize that the control technology determination is a balance between the p]/jf} \y 

unit's useful emission control life and the timeframe in which additional major NSR review is >' « 

likely to result in no added environmental benefit. For this reason, our rules contain ^ *^ . <JD 

requirements that control technology determinations (add-on or P2) must be protective of air JiJ^M^ /' 

quality and under go public review. We believe these requirements ensure appropriate control ^ y. V^ TM " 

determinations and environmental benefit, encourage the use of state-of-the-art controls, and .«,. y£) 

allow sources to recover the costs of installing controls. 

9.6 Expiration of the Clean Unit DesignationStatus 

Comment: 

Draft - Do not quote, cite, copy or distribute 1-9-26 October 9, 2002 
P.5 

'NOU-22-2002 12=45 P.04/04 

9 - Clean Units 

hours it takes to complete the batch. When comparing the emissions before and after the change, 

they suggested a batch facility should be allowed to choose the highest hourly average emissions 

for any batch manufactured any time after installation and operation of the controls that make the 

source potentially eligible for tlie Clean Unit exemption. 

Response: 

After careful consideration of the comments received regarding the proposed hourty PTE 

approach, we are not finalizing the hourly PTE test as proposed. As suggested by some 

commenters, we are instead promulgating the Clean Unit des 1gnat iontest based on sourcespecific allowable emissips^^ ^^ ^ ^kh\ ^ J^ \ " 

With regards to those comments expressing concern about potential increases due to the 

use of allowable emission levels as the NSR trigger for Clean Units, we believe that reviewing 

authorities are in the best position to determine the emissions level that is protective of air 

quality for a given emissions unit and to establish emissions limits, as well as operational limits 

and other permit terms and conditions (i.e., work practice reaiuremfnis), that will ensure air 

quality protection. By this we are allowing the reviewing authority to decide the appropriate 

emission limitation and/or work practice requirements to be included in the source's per mi tran 

exceedance of which will cause. If a project at an emissions unit with Clean Unit status causes 

the need for a change in the emission limitations or work practice requirements in the permit for 

the unit that were adopted in conjunction with BACT or LAER. or the project would alter anv 

phvsicalnor operational characteristics that formed the basis for the BACT or LAER. 

determination, then the emissions unit to lose loses its Clean Unit designation and go though 

inaioi NSR if a sienificant net emissions' inettasv. also vccunstatus. We expect the major NSR or 

SIP-approved permit will include short-term and annual limits for air quality purposes, for 

BACT/LAER (or comparable control technology) purposes, and any other conditions necessary 

to protect air quality. Tlie reviewing authority should ekai ly ipes-ify which of these, limits will 

be. considered the emission unit's permitted allowables foi purposes ofmeasuting emissions 

inci casers under the Clean Unit applicability ILSI, a. apposed to other permit limits and 

conditions tfiat-ctre necessary tu ensure pi vpei operation and maintenance of the control 

technology but are not to be used in the NSR applicability analysis. 

In addition, regardless of how the emission unit qualifies as a Clean Unit (BACT/LAER 

or comparable controls), the source requesting Clean Unit desiznanonstatus for an emissions 

unit will be required to show during the permitting process that it will not cause or contribute to 

a violation of any NAAQS or PSD increment, and that there will not be an adverse impact on an 

identified AQRV (an AQRV that has been identified by the FLM, such as visibility) in a Class I 

areas. 

We agree with those commenters who stated that emission units that have gone through 

control review and installed state-of-the-art controls should not have to account for every 

Draft - Do not quote, cite, copy or distribute 1-9-8 October 9, 2002 

s~\ 

TOTRL P.04