p. 1



# OAR Box 1875
Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 11) ll-F-2 4

Docket Number: 

# A-90-1 9

Printed 12/1/200811:12:49AM

Sheet 77 of 86P. 2

10/20/S- 2 13:0 4 ©

OFFIC E O F T"H 6 VIC E PRESIOGM T WASHINGTO N



### FAX COVE R SHEE T 

# TO : 

# /CUA / ( 

# 4 f ^

Numbe r o

f page s (indudin g oove r sheet) : OATE : TIME :

MESSAGE :

_*•.<•

_ 

## A-90-1 9 ll-F-2 4

I f yo u hav e an yquestion s o rproblem s wit h thi s transmission , pleas e call

. Phon e numbe r f2Q2)456-622 2

______ _ 

### t?

, :

_ f

1 1 ••!•• •I l__ l , •' •'.'{P. 3

! ^i-0/20-/9 2 13:0 4 S @00 3

&

EPA' s proposed rul e allows a n averagin

g approac hfo r vpv - covered portion s o f a plant , ss £ PP - • EP * i 8 als o proposing a broade r averagin g proposal , a s ee t forthbelow . Significantly , thi s latte r averagin g schem e i s no t bein

g proposed a s an alternative t o th

e averagin

g approach , described above . Rather , th e tw o approache s ar e entirel y complimentary . However , becaus e th e lega l issue s posed b y the broade r averagin g schem e diffe r appreciabl y

fro m thos e implicate

d b y the mor e narro

w averagin

g proposal , EP

A believe s tha t a separat e discussio n o f th e forme r i s warranted . Th e broad averagin

g proposa l relie s uponthe lega l theory , developed b

y EPA , whic hwoul d permi t complianc e wit hth e __f> N MAC T standard (or , for tha t matter , wit h'an y othe r MAC T standard t o b e develope d b

y EPA ) b y averagin

g emission s fro

m point s located anywher e withi na

n entir e contiguou s facility , whic hcontain s HOH-covere d processin g units . EP

A believe s tha t thi s approac hi s legall y permissibl e unde r sectio n 11 2 o f the CleanAi r Ac t Amendment s o f 199 0 an d woul d als o resul t i ndesirabl e polic y consequences . Having,carefull y

analyzed Sectio

n 11 2 an

d it s legislative history , EP

A concluded tha t ther e i s a differenc e betwee nth e ter m "sourc e in a categor y o r subcategory, " used i nSection 11 2 (d) , an d th e ter

m "source, " use d i nSectio n11 2 (i) . T o l^egi n with , EP

A believe s tha t the us e o f differen t word s b y Congres s i n thes e tw

o subsection s wa s no t accidenta l an d reflecte d a yell thought-ou t Congressiona l intent , need s cite . Specifically , for purpose s o f establishin g emission s standard s unde r subsection 11 2 (d) , Congres s expected EP A t o identify

specifi c productionlines , piece s o f equipment , etc. , locate d withi nmajo r stationar y source s o r are a sources , an d t o trea t the

m a s source s onl y

fo r th e purpose s o f subsection s 11 2 (d ) (3 ) (A ) an d (B) , i__j_u

, *o r the purpose s o f determinin g wha t ar e the averag e emission limitatio n achieve d b

y the bes t performin g twelv e percen t o f existin g source s or averag e emission limitatio n achieved b

y th e fiv

e bes t performin

g sources , sinc e th e ter m sourc e wa s used i n th e subsection 11 2 (d ) for a distinc t an d unique purpose , the , relevan t statutor

y languag e contain s a qualifyin g se t o f word s - "i n a categor

y or subcategory " - appende d t o the wor d "source. " Significantly , i nsubsectio n11 2 (i) , the relevan t statutor y languag e contain s th e tern "source " — a fac t that , EP

A believes , clearl y reflected the congressiona l intent that , fo r purpose s o f subsection 11 2 (i) , the ter m sourc e wa s t o b e use d i nits i traditiona l meaning , whic hencompasse s anentir e plant , ji t voul d bo . helpfu l t o lis t severa l regulation s wher e EPA defined th e ter

m aou^c e t o includ

e a n entir e facility . Thi s readin g i s supported b y th e fac t tha t th

e definition s o f statutor y terms , se t Ifort

hi n subsectio

n 11 2 (a) , contai n the traditiona l definition s q f such term s a s "major source" , "stationar y source" , etc . Undei i th e EPA' s statutor

y construction , the statutor y languag e "an

y emission s standard , limitation , o r regulatio npromulgated unde r" " " P 4

10/_073 2 13:0 5 ®

__ . 12100 4

thi s £112 ] section an d applicabl e t o a source " describe s al l o f th e existing MAC T standards , established unde r subsectio n1|1 2 (d ) , an d applicabl e t o a source , whic hcontain s withi ni t "source s i na categor y or subcategory " (j.e, . production lJ|nen , piece s o f equipment , etc . _covered b y suchMAC T standards . EPA als o note s that , i nit s "earl y reductions " rule , i t adopte d a plant-wid e definitio no f source . §sa. 5 6 FR27 , 34 2 (Jun e 13 , 1991 ) —a n early indicatio

ntha t th e agenc

y believe d tha t a n entir e contiguou s facility could , b e considered t o b e a sourc e fo r purpose s o f complianc e wit hthe requirement s o f Section 112 * EP

A als o i s mindfu l o f tbe fac t tha t i t ha s traditionall y

enjoye d wide latitude i n comin g u p wit hdivers e definition s o f the ter m "source, " dependin g o nwha t regulator

y objective s wer e Implicated . Thi s congres s i e wel l awar e o £ thi s fact , an

d EPA' s considerabl e discretio n inthi s are a ha s bee n affirme d b

y th e court» . need s cites . i n the presen t instance , EP A believe s tha t the statutor y analysi s describe

d above , can b e sustaine d unde r the firs t pron g o f the Chevro

nanalysis . Alternatively , thi s lega l theor y can b e supporte

d b y th e fpl l weigh t o f Chevro

n discretion , availabl e t o EP A unde r Sectip

n 112 .

Unde r it s broa

d averagin

g approach , EP A

woul d mak e n o change s i n th e way i t ha s identifie

d categorie s an

d subcategorie s o f source s l n th e HO N an d devised appropriat e emissio n standard s fo r then , no r i n the wa y i t woul d prescribe futur e emissijo n standard s fo r othe r eaissio n categorie s o r subcategories . ' Fo r complianc e purposes , however , i f a n owne r o r operato r doe s no t wis ht o contro l a particula r HON-covered emissio npoin t t o th e leve l tha t woul d resul t i n the complianc e wit hthe relevan t HON emissio n standard , the extr a emission s fro m tha t poin t coul d b e offse t b

y emission s reduction s greate r tha nwha t i s require d b y an y standard the n i n effec t unde r Sectio n 11 2 a t on e o r m?r e othe r emissio n point s withi nthe entir e stationar y source ; I n addition , emission s averagin g woul d b e allowe

d acros s all!the emission point s withi nthe entir e plant , includin g th e so<jat ! sourc e category

a s wel l a s point s no t ye t covere d b y an y #AC T standard . A a such , emission s fro m proces s vents , wastewate r operation , storag e vessel s an d transfe r operation s coul d b e averaged i amon g themselve s o r wit hothe r emission s point s withi n th e entir e stationary

source , i

n orde r t o provid e a s muc hflexibility a a possible . However , distinctio n woul d b e mad e betweenemijssio n point s physicall y

simila r t o emissio npoint s covere

d unde r th e HON o r an y othe r MAC T an

d al l othe r emissio n points . For

i th e former , t o participat e i nthe averagin g scheme , the

y mus t compl y wit hwhateve r complianc e routine s have bee n established Ujnde r th e SOCM I HO

N o r othe r relevant MACT . Fo r the latter , t o participat e i n averaging , th e sourc e mus t petition EP A t o establis haj

n appropriat e complianc e routine . T o b e sure , onc e EP A establishe s suc ha complianc e routin e for an

y ne w type o f a

nemissionpoint ,P. 5

10/20/9 2 13:0 6 © 12100 5

al l simila r eaission s point s locate d withi nan

y source s ca

r participat e i nth e averaging , s o lon g a s the

y us e th e EPA approved complianc e routine . EP A solicit s commen t als o onho w i t woul d verif y

th e baseline fo

r unregulated emission points , and ho w i t woul d structur e th e averagin

g complianc e proces s t o | assur e the standard a s a whol e remain s enforceable . On e possibilit y t o conside r woul d b e t o us e the average emission s fro m suchemission point s ove r som

e representativ

e tim e period a s thei r baselines . A s explaine d above , whil e equipment , leak s ar e included int o SOCM I sources , they canno t at thi s tim e b e included i nemission s average . Unde r thi s alternative , EP A woul d expeditiousl y pevelop method s t o assignallowabl e emissio nlevel s t o particula r lea k point s o r group s o f lea k points , and , even.withou t awaitin

g for an y individua l petitions , voul d similarl y develop method s co r calculatin

g emission s fro

m type s o f emissionpoint s no t regulate d b y HON . Unde r th e broad averagin g approach , emissio n reduction s fro

m emission s point s no t covere d b y the HO N woul d b e usabl e t o generat e credits , subjec t t o the previousl y discussed limitation s an d an y limitation s added i n an y othe r MAC T standard applicabl e t o th e relevan t emissio npoints . Credit s coul d b e generate d a t an y tim e fro m non-HO N emissio

n point s unti l the

y becom e subjec t t o a MAC T standard . Whenthe y becom e subjec t t o a MAC T standard , th e futur e valu e o f reduction s a t thos e emissio npoint s w^ul d b e governe d by

th e emissio

nstandard s required b y th e ne w MACfT . State d differently , th e offset s availabl e fro m suc hpoint s woul d have t o b e recomputed usin g the ne

w baselin e established fo r them . Eac hfutur e MAC T standar d mus t contai na floo r | calculation . T o the extent tha t point s covered b y thes e late r standard s have been alread y controlle

d fo r th e purpose s o f participating i n an averagin g scheme , tha t relate s t o the [ complianc e wit ha n earlie r standard , the floo r fo r th e late r standard b

y b e mor e stringent . A s futur e MAC T standard s ar e adopted , EPA

woul d attempt t o maximis e averagin g opportunitie s an d therefor e minimis e 'complianc e delay s an

d costs . j

EPA believe s tha t th

e broa d averagin

g scheme , describe d above , provide s significant polic y benefits . T o begi nwith , i t woul d enabl e source s t o achiev e the sam

e environmenta l gains , a s unde r th e mor e narro w averagin

g proposal , bu t a t significantl y reduced costs . Second , b y inducin

g source s t o mak e cost effective reduction s throughou t entir e facilities , EP A wcjul d b e i n a bette r position t o establis hsubsequen t KACTs . I nfact , i n al l cases , whe n suchMACT s ar e established unde r subsection 11 2 (d) , th e MAC T "floor " woul d b e tighte r tha

n otherwis e wovl d have bee n th e cas e i f the emissio npoint s out3ide o f th e alread y covered MAC T categorie s voul d hav e staye d uncontrolled . Last , bu t no t least , EP

A believe s tha t the utilizationo f th e broad averagin

g schem

e ma y resul t in th e discover y o f emissio

npoint s withi n facilitie s tha t otherwis e might hav e bee n overlooked b y EP A an d stat e regulators . Thi s las t poin t i s supported 1j> y th e positive experienc e wit hth e broa d averagin

g scheme s i

nthe Stat eP. 6

10/20/S 2 13:2 9 

## o

&

o f California

. Ray , se t fort h belo w i s th e appropriat e languag e fo r tjh e las t substantiv e languag e insert

. I t i s a B follows : "fii ) Informatio n reasonabl ysimila r t o informatio n regardin g emission s averagin g require d b yan y^andar d TM unde r Sectio n 112

. Th e Administrato r ma yreques t an y relate d supplementa l informatio n withi n 3 0 day s afte r submission. " • w " i , 

### propose d reasonabl y [goo i