p. 1



# OAR Box 

# 1796 Prepped by Keeia Richards



### Document

Number: 

# 36 ) IV-H-6 2
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/31/2008 4:20:37

PM Sheet 36 of 107NOU-22-200 2 12:4 3 P. 2
F'.M ! 11- 1

To ;
Fa x# :
From ; FAX TRANSMISSIO N OFFIC E O F INFORMATIO N AN D REGULATOR YAFFAIR S OFFIC E O F MANAGEMEN TAN D BUDGE T NATURA L RESOURCES , ENERGYAN D AGRICULTUR E BRANC H

72 5 17t h Street , NW , Roo m 10202 Washington , D

C 2050 3 Office : 202-395-3084/Fax : 202-395-728 5 R-M O 3 1



### L\jY)V\ H v

) Ar t Fraa s ) Ric h Therou x ) Ji m Lait y ) Amand a Le e 

# M Am yFarre l I Bryo n Alle n ) Margi e Malanosk i ) Davi d Ranke r ) Rut h Solomo n ) Edmon d To y Date : Pages ; 

# V £

L

. , includin g thi s cove rshee t

fP AAI R pnrKE T

Comments :


### l A ^ 

# ar \ 

# ^ > -I^ ^ Q 

# '^ '



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

F*XSH5ET.M> 8p__

NOU i -22-200 2 12 : 4 4 P

. 02/0 4

1 0 - Pollutio n Contro l Project s 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 PCPExclusion

for a specific application of the project. The source must receive this approval

fromits permitting authoritybefore beginning actual construction of

the PCP. This approval must be conducted

through a SIP-approved permitting process that

conforms to the requirements of 40CFR Parts 51.160and 51.161, including a requirement

fb) a public hearing and 30-daypublic comment

period on all aspects cf the tot is tr action project. Tltis in\,luiiv.swhich would provide for

an opportunityfor

the public and EPA to review and

comment on the environmentallybeneficial analysis and

the air quality impacts assessment. The final rule also contains a process under which we mayevaluate non-listed PCPs for addition to the list

of environmentallybeneficial projects. Once we approve a PCP, we will undergo notice-and-comment rulemaking in order

to pronounce the new technologyas environmentallybeneficial 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 deemadditional

technologies to be environmentally beneficial. We also reserve the right to remove from the list

any project

thatfiiPfilelerminc was erroneouslylisted. Several commenters on the proposal suggested

that we have a clearinghouse for newly added environmentally beneficial PCPs. We agree that

additions to the approved PCPlist 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 mechanismto announce a newly listed PCPwould

not complywith the procedures we must follow under

the Administrative ProcedureQA ct. (OGC ??) 

### 10. 5 Extendin g th e PC P Exclusio n t o Substitutio n o fOD S Comment : 10.5. 1 Suppor t Blanke t Exemptio n On e commente r

(TV-D-147 ) sai dEP Ashoul dexemp t CFC s an dHCFC s fromNSR , jus t a s EP Aha s exempte dsectio n112(r) pollutant s fromtitl e V permi t programs . -Gtvet»||'thi s exxmotionca nb e done , th e commente r believe dther e woul db e n o purpos e t o addressin g OD S unde r th e PC PExclusion
. Accordin g t o th e commenter , ther e i s n o basi s i ntli e statut e for • concludin g tha t

thes e ax e pollutant s t o b e regulate dunde r titl e Io f tli e Act
. Further , ther e i s n o scientifi c o r

polic y rational e for

th e PSD/NS Rstructur e t o appl y t o ODS , becaus e the y hav e n o loca l o r regiona l effect s o ntropospheri c ozon e levels
. Th e commente r adde dtha t

subjectin g Draf t - D o no t quote , cite , cop yo rdistribut e 1-10-1 5 Novembe r4 , 200 2 /EA . • ' NDU'-22-200 2 1 2 = 4 4 P

. 03/0 4

9 -Clea n Unit s United States for about twentyyears, and

were used

in Japan and

Germany for 10years before that. During the early 1980's, a typical FGD removed about 90percent

of the sulfur

froma flue gas stream. Today, modern FGD systems typically average 95to 99percent removal efficiency- less than a 10percent

improvement

in 20years. This

further supports our

disagreement

with the commenters'

assertion that

advances in control

technologyoccur

at intervals less than 10years. 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 90percent control for manyVOC

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 qualifyas 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

appropriatefor

those instances where a BACT/LAER determination of no control

was made, generallyon a cost effectiveness basis. Moreover, allowing a source with no controls to qualifyas 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

aianyexpenses iliat-would 2%m/l& te? qualify~as- a capital'expense by the IRSJiling^vdVieiines, IritipeUive ofwhether-the owner vr rP^j^cU

r1*L operator actuaHyrhooxerttrfilc it as a capital

expenses,) by the IRS

filing guidelines, $/u T/ ( irrespective of

whether the owner

oi' opevatot actuallychuuses tu file it ara-capital

expenses) to N
. ; ° ^ qualify initiallyas a Clean Unit. We believe that application of

add-on controls or

a change to & f 3 ! " C7y ° the source's emissions unit or process to implement

P2 will require research, followed bya 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 P2 techniques are not

an adequate basis

for Clean Unit

status. ^' T° We want to emphasize that

the control

technologydetermination is a balance between the p]/jf} \ y unit's useful

emission control

life and the timeframe in which additional major NSR review is >' « likelyto result

in no added

environmental

benefit. For

this reason, our

rules contain ^ * ^
. <J D requirements that

control technologydeterminations (add-on or P2) must be protective of

air JiJ^M^ / ' qualityand

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 Expiratio n o fth e Clea n Uni t DesignationStatu s Comment : Draf t - D o no t quote , cite , cop yo rdistribut e 1-9-2 6 Octobe r9 , 200 2P. 5

'NOU-22-200 2 12=4 5 P.04/0 4

9 - Clea n Unit s hour s i t take s t o complet e th e batch
. Whe ncomparin g th e emission s before an dafter th e change , the y suggeste dabatc hfacility shoul db e allowe dt o choos e th e highes t hourl y averag e emission s for any batc hmanufacture dany tim e afte r installatio nan doperatio no f th e control s tha t

mak e th e sourc e potentiall y eligibl e for tli e CleanUnit

exemption
. 

### Response : After careful consideration of

the comments received

regarding the proposed

hourty PTE approach, we are not

finalizing the hourlyPTE test as proposed. As suggested bysome 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 qualityprotection. Bythis we are allowing the reviewing authorityto decide the appropriate emission limitation and/or work practice requirements to be included in the source's per

mitran 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 phvsicaln or

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 inaioiNSR if

a sienificant

net emissions'

inettasv. also vccunstatus. We expect the major

NSR or SIP-approved

permit will include short-termand

annual limits for air qualitypurposes, for BACT/LAER (or

comparable control

technology) purposes, and anyother

conditions necessary to protect air quality. Tlie reviewing authorityshould ekailyipes-ify which of

these, limits will be. considered

the emission unit's permitted allowables foi purposes ofmeasuting emissions incicasers under

the Clean Unit

applicability ILSI, a . apposed to other permit limits and conditions tfiat-ctre necessary tu ensure pivpeioperation and maintenance of

the control technology but

are not to be used

in the NSR applicabilityanalysis. 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

anyNAAQS

or PSD increment, and

that there will

not be an adverse impact

on an identified AQRV (an AQRV

that has been identified

bythe 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 - D o no t quote , cite , cop yo rdistribut e 1-9- 8 Octobe r9 , 200 2 s~\

TOTR LP.0 4