P.1 

OAR Box 1790 

Prepped by Keeia Richards 

Document Number: 

238) ll-F-28 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/31/2008 12:43:17 PM Sheet 238 of 250 
P.2 

•f Mr 

•»i-rs^g 

IT- F- ss- . 

Integrated Implementation Group (MD-12) 

Infonnation Transfer and .Program Integration Div. 

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

FAX Number: (919)541-5509 

KOMPANY/OFF1CE 

_______ _ 

7r che H-t-hu.. 

£74 £>QC_ 

[PHONE NUMBER 

|FAX NUMBER 

2.C& &JT17C 

FROM: 

NAJkfl*^ 

'&t\ *• ^S" (^risy~<~~f> U 

IPHONE NUMBER 

919-541- D^l I 1 

COMMENTS: 

. /TCU) LO G<nA^ &*&ut <%•£_ u)e ar-C c<~5, 

Jorl&JP Lycftzk. Wt 

iw 

_?^__u^ 

^-t- ^ 

*A 

- g ^ vers7ev^s_ jW " Aja-^e- ii^t^ 

•q^e lA^JyerlruemJ UP 4Z> ~K<?- UTA

ida*"*^ 5kc-^^>x. /^< ? Set*se/J tjf/f £e 7?rd «£ 

33U^p4 

]HNumber of Pages (including cover sheet): 

INAME 

If you did not receive all the pages, please contact the following person: 

p-HONB NUMBER 

919-541-
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Proposed Rule 

A. The "Clean Unit" Exclusion 

* Revised package presents no 

substantive changes in the actual test: 

some editing 

A simplified applicability test for changes to 

existing units that already have state-ofthe-art controls. 

Changes which do not increase the unit's 

hourly potential emissions would not be 

considered a physical or operational 

change and would not trigger major NSR 

What is a "clean unit"? 

an emissions unit that has a federally 

enforceable emission limit comparable 

to the emission limit that would result 

from a current review under the 

BACT/LAER requirements 

Current Rule 

The existing NSR program does not include the 

"Clean Unit" exclusion. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

three limits would qualify: 

o BACT or LAER limits set within the 

last 10 years 

o limits set by a State technology 

minor new source review program 

determined by EPA to be equivalent 

to the federal BACT/LAER programs 

* o Revised package allows States to 

qualify a technology on a caseby-case basis, to be comparable 

to BACT/LAER limits. The 11/94 

package was more prescriptive. 

' August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

B. The "Clean Facility" Exclusion 

* Subsumes the non-emitting unit exclusion of 

the 11/94 package 

Allows States to exclude from major NSR proposed 

changes to an existing major stationary source that 

has installed BACT or LAER and has undergone an 

air quality impact analysis within the last 10 years 

C. Netting Baseline 

A more flexible and lenient method for 

computing "netting baseline" emissions. 

Based on source's highest level of 

utilization and not necessarily highest 

emission rate. 

Based on the source's average rate at which the 

unit actually emitted the pollutant. This reflects 

actual operating hours, production rates, and types 

of materials processed, stored, or combusted during 

the prescribed time period. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Utilization level (capacity factor) is the 

highest consecutive 12-month period in the 

10 years preceding the proposed change. 

In nonattainment areas and ozone 

transport regions, the baseline cannot 

begin prior to November 11, 1990. 

Source must use the current allowable 

emission rate (e.g., Ibs./MMbtu) taking into 

consideration Federal or State emissions 

restrictions (RACT, NESHAP, MACT, 

BACT, LAER, NSPS, etc.) imposed over 

the 10 year period. 

"Netting baseline" is the current allowable 

emission rate multiplied by the utilization 

level. 

"Actual emissions" as of a particular date equal the 

average rate at which the unit actually emitted the 

pollutant during a 2-year period which precedes the 

particular date and which is representative of normal 

source operation. The Administrator may allow the 

use of a different time period upon determination 

that is it more representative of normal source 

operation. For an electric utility steam generating 

unit, actual emissions are the representative actual 

annual emissions of the unit for any 2-year period 

out of the preceding 5 years. 

The Administrator may presume that source-specific 

allowable emissions for the unit are equivalent to 

the actual emissions of the unit. Allowable 

emissions account for applicable Federal standards, 

SIP emissions limitations, or federally enforceable 

permit conditions. 

"Netting baseline" is the actual rate of emissions 

from the unit averaged over a 2-year period. 

' August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

D. Pollution Control Projects 

Proposing general exclusion from major 

NSR: 

Add-on controls 

Fuel switches to cleaner fuels 

Pollution prevention projects 

* • Revised package proposes essentially 

to broaden the WEPCO exclusion to all 

source categories. It creates a 

presumption that add-on-type and 

simple fuel switching pep projects are 

environmentally beneficial. Although 

proposal calls for comment on deleting 

the WEPCO exclusion in the face of 

adopting the broader general exclusion, 

the actual provisions of the WEPCO 

PCP exclusion are retained in and by 

the proposed revisions. 

There are currently no exclusions for add-on 

controls or fuel switches. Pollution control projects 

(not including pollution prevention projects) at 

electric utilities are exempt. There are currently 

exemptions for temporary clean coal technology 

demonstration projects and for permanent clean 

coal technology demonstration projects that do not 

increase the potential to emit. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Includes all exclusions under 

WEPCO 

Includes temporary and permanent 

projects of all types at State's 

discretion 

Allows emissions determination of 

increases based on comparison of 

"representative actual annual 

emissions" before and after the 

project applies generally. 

Implementation safeguards: 

Environmentally beneficial test for 

pollution prevention projects 

Permitting authority given the 

responsibility for decision on the 

Cause or contribute test/air quality 

impact assessment 

These safeguards are applied to the electric utility 

exclusions, but do not include consideration of 

AQRVs in Class I areas. 

' August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

E. Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 

Proposing regulations to allow and facilitate • Current rules make no provisions for PALs. 

States issuance of voluntary sourcespecific PALS. 

A permitting authority may choose to adopt 

an area-wide PAL approach 

A PAL permit allows the source to make 

any change provided it does not violate its 

plantwide emissions limit 

F. Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology 

The WEPCO rule is explicitly limited to utilities and promulgated an actual-to-future-actual methodology 

for all changes at a utility, except for new units. In the final rule, EPA indicated it would consider 

adopting this methodology for all source categories in a subsequent rulemaking. 

EPA solicits comment on three alternatives for the future actual methodology: 

leaving the scope the same; applicable only to utility units 

extending the methodology to all source categories 

eliminating the methodology 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

G. Proposal of CMA Exhibit B 

* Revised package unchanged 

EPA agreed to propose and take final 

action on a methodology for determining 

whether a source has undertaken a 

modification based on the source's 

potential emissions 

Under this methodology, sources may 

calculate emissions increases or decreases 

based on either the existing actual 

emissions or on potential emissions, 

measured in terms of hourly emissions 

Sources could use this potential-topotential test for both NSR applicability and 

for calculating offsets, netting credits, and 

other emission reduction credits. 

A serious drawback of this approach is that 

it would allow unchecked consumption of 

increment by old, grandfathered to the 

exclusion of new, more efficient and less 

polluting sources. 

The current basis for net emissions increase is 

actual emissions. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

8 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

IV. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

A. EPA is proposing to codify core criteria for 

BACT determinations: 

All of the available control systems for the • Current rules do not specify these criteria, but 

source, including the most stringent, must current policy calls for their use. 

be considered in the determination 

The selection of a particular control system • Current rules do not specify these criteria, but 

as BACT must be justified in terms of the current policy calls for their use. 

statutory criteria and supported by the 

record, and must explain the basis for the 

rejection of the other more stringent control 

candidate system 

B. Codifying the Existing "Top-Down" BACT Determination Policy in Federal NSR Regulations 

EPA requests public comments on alternative methods for determining BACT. 

The proposed Federal regulations would serve a template for State and local agency rules. 

Announces Case-Study Report that will provide additional guidance on determinant factors. 

C. Improve Content and Management of RACT/ 

BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

* EPA will propose in a separate - Current rules do not require submittal to the RBLC. 

rulemaking mandatory submittal of 

BACT determinations to the RBLC bv 

the permitting authority within 60 days 

of permit issuance. 

• August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package ** 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Most of the improvements to the RBLC 

require allocation of additional resources. 

D. Streamlining BACT/LAER Determinations 

BACT/LAER determinations need only 

consider technologies "demonstrated in 

practice." 

"Demonstrated in practice" includes: 

all technologies required and reported 

through existing regulatory programs 

and those that, while not identified in 

the regulatory arena, meet specific 

criteria for determining their availability 

and appropriateness for consideration 

in a BACT/LAER analysis 

Current rules do not make detailed requirements 

with regard to a cutoff date. Current EPA policy 

calls for consideration of available control 

technologies for BACT, including emerging 

technologies, until the time that a final NSR permit 

is issued. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

10 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

any technology that has been 

(1) installed and operating continually 

for at least 6 months on an emissions 

unit which has been operating at least 

at 50 percent of nameplate capacity; 

and (2) whose performance has been 

verified with a performance test or 

performance data while operating 

either at a load that coincides with the 

operation of the emissions units 

served by the control device at their 

potential to emit, or at 90 percent of 

the control technology's design 

specifications. 

Proposal authorizes the permitting authority • Cut off in current policy is when final permit is 

to cut off consideration of additional control issued. 

technologies identified after the permit 

application has been determined complete 

unless a commenter meets minimum 

documentation criteria. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package ** 

11 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Minimum documentation criteria 

Name and location of the source 

utilizing the technology 

Manufacturer and type of control 

device 

Date technology was installed and 

operational 

Performance requirements 

Resulting test or performance data 

Complete Application Criteria 

New name for Source Information 

EPA is proposing minimum criteria 

upon which the permitting authority 

should base its completeness 

determination: 

Thorough BACT or LAER analysis 

additional impact analyses 

Class I area analyses 

PAL applicability 

undemonstrated technology waiver 

provisions 

FLM review and coordination 

registration on applicable bulletin 

board 

statewide compliance for 

nonattainment 

Current rules require that sources submit all 

information necessary to perform any analysis or 

make required determinations, including a 

description of the source, a schedule for 

construction or modification, information necessary 

to determine BACT, meteorological and 

topographical data, and air quality and growth 

impacts. 

' August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

12 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Proposing reforms to the existing Innovative 

Control Technology (ICT) waiver 

New name -- "Undemonstrated Technology 

or Application" (UT/A) waiver 

New definition -- "any system, process, 

material, or treatment technology that 

shows substantial likelihood to operate 

effectively and to achieve either: 

(a) greater continuous reductions of air 

pollutant emissions than any demonstrated 

system, or (b) comparable emission 

reductions at lower cost, lower energy 

input, with lesser non-air environmental 

impacts, or with other advantages that are 

defined and mutually agreed on a casespecific basis to justify the use of UT/A 

provisions." 

Expanding applicability of UT/A waiver to 

nonattainment areas. 

UT/A waiver must contain a reference 

emission control performance objective of 

the UT/A and the otherwise applicable 

BACT or LAER standard. 

Referred to as innovative control technology (ICT) at 

51.166(s) 

Current definition--"any system of air pollution 

control that has not been adequately demonstrated 

in practice, but would have a substantial likelihood 

of achieving greater continuous emissions reduction 

than any control system in current practice or of 

achieving at least comparable reductions at lower 

cost in terms of energy, economics, or non-air 

quality environmental impacts." 

ICT waivers are limited to PSD areas. 

' August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

13 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Permitting authority is required to include in • 

the UT/A permit both "marginal" and 

"gross" failure emission limits. 

Contingency measures must be 

identified for failure modes. 

"Gross" failure emission limit is an 

enforceable emission limit 

Provides permitting authority the flexibility 

to either permit the UT/A at its "marginal" 

failure emission level or require the source 

to install technology capable of achieving 

the appropriate reference emission limit. 

EPA requests comment on possible 

methods for creating incentives. 

An UT/A that "grossly" fails is required to 

either replace or retrofit, on an expeditious 

schedule, such that the source achieves 

the applicable BACT or LAER standard 

within 18 months. 

Duration of UT/A waiver 

2 years from date of start-up or; 

5 years from date of permit issuance. 

ICT must achieve a level of continuous emission 

reduction equivalent to BACT. There is no 

distinction between marginal and gross failure. 

No marginal failure provisions. 

If the ICT fails to meet the required level of 

emission reduction, the source has up to 3 years to 

meet the requirement. 

Duration of ICT waiver 

- 4 years from date of start up; or 

- 7 years from date of permit issuance 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

14 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Consistent with the CAA, establishes a limit 

on the issuance of UT/A waivers to that 

necessary to demonstrate the performance 

of a technology or application. 

G. Pollution Prevention (PP) 

Reaffirms existing Agency policy on • No specific mention of pollution prevention, 

pollution prevention (May 28, 1992 memo) 

which provides guidance on incorporating 

pollution prevention into the Agency's 

ongoing programs. 

Revised package retains position that 

existing regulations and the PCP 

exclusion provide satisfactory 

consideration of PP initiatives 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package ** 

15 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Class I Areas See attachment for details of 

revised OMB Package 

• Proposing several revisions to improve 

coordination among the FLMs, permitting 

authorities, and permit applicants. 

A. Defining Air Quality Related Values and 

Determining Adverse Impacts 

EPA is proposing general definitions for 

"air quality related value" and "adverse 

impact on air quality related values." 

EPA is affirming that FLMs must have 

sufficient latitude to address impacts on an 

area-by-area and on a permit-by-permit 

basis. 

EPA is encouraging FLMs to identify 

AQRVs on a regional or national basis 

where appropriate, and to establish general 

procedures for identifying AQRVs. 

EPA is proposing to authorize FLMs to file 

a notice when it is believed that a 

proposed source may have ah adverse 

impact on a Class I area. 

These terms are not defined in current rules. 

No specific mention of FLM with regard to 

monitoring requirements or impact analyses. 

51.166(p)(2) simply states that FLMs have 

affirmative responsibility to protect their AQRVs. 

FLMs may present a demonstration that emissions 

would adversely affect AQRVs. 

' August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

16 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

EPA is proposing that the FLM be required 

to provide pertinent information on AQRVs 

and methods to analyze potential impacts, 

where available, to PSD permit applicants 

upon request. 

EPA is creating an electronic database for 

the compilation of available Class I 

information. 

B. Proposing Pre-Application Coordination with 

FLMs through Early Notification and 

Involvement 

Permitting authority required to notify the 

FLM within 30 days of being informed that 

a proposed source intends to locate within 

100 km of a Federal Class I area. 

Propose requiring permitting authorities to 

provide an opportunity for FLMs to 

participate in any pre-application meetings 

with prospective PSD applicants planning 

to locate within 100 km of a Federal Class 

I area. 

The FLM will receive summary notification 

of sources beyond 100 km. 

FLMs are not required to provide such information. 

Notification of FLMs is not required. 

Permitting authorities are not required to include 

FLMs, although FLMs have the responsibility to 

protect AQRVs in Class I areas. FLM review occurs 

after the permitting authority makes its preliminary 

determination. 

Notification of FLMs is not required. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

17 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Propose Improving Coordination During 

Permit Application Review 

Require the permitting authority to notify 

FLMs when a permit application is received 

from each source proposing to locate 

within 100 km of a Federal Class I area. 

Proposing to establish publicly accessible 

electronic database for PSD permits to 

facilitate FLM review of sources beyond 

100 km 

Require a summary of each PSD 

permit application be entered into this 

database. 

FLM will have at least 7 days from the 

date of registration on the database to 

request the entire permit application 

FLM will have at least 30 days from receipt 

of permit application for review prior to 

issuance of a completeness determination 

by the permitting authority 

• The permitting authority must consult 

with the FLM and try to resolve any 

information deficiencies prior to issuing a 

completeness determination. 

Notification of FLMs is not required. 

The only mention of FLM review is after the 

permitting authority's preliminary determination. 

Permitting authority is not required to consult with 

FLM. 

August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

18 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

Proposing that permitting authorities 

coordinate with FLMs in the preliminary 

determination regarding the PSD permit. 

• The FLM or designated representative or 

adjoining State must file a notice alleging 

adverse impact (in the case a source's 

application indicates no significant impact 

on increment) in order to obligate source 

to conducting further increment or AQRV 

analysis. 

• EPA is proposing to provide for 

consideration of the FLMs adverse impact 

determination for any AQRVs, not limited 

only to visibility. 

• EPA is proposing that the FLM be allowed 

60 days to make the adverse impact 

demonstration, and that the permitting 

authority use a 60-day period to consider 

the FLMs demonstration prior to making 

the preliminary determination. 

Only require consideration of visibility impacts. 

FLM is given 30 days. 

' August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

19 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

E. 

• EPA is proposing to establish 

considerations for a permitting authority's 

rejection of an FLM's adverse impact 

demonstration. 

Scientific/Technical basis 

Importance of the AQRV and nature 

of the adverse impact 

Mitigation 

• EPA is proposing a general consultation 

provision between the permitting 

authority and the FLM when a 

disagreement arises. 

• EPA is proposing to require that the 

permitting authority include a summary if 

issues raised by the FLM for the public 

record 

Proposing to allow a source to provide 

emission offsets, a reduction in emissions or 

some combination of both to mitigate its 

adverse impacts on a Class I area in order to 

obtain a PSD permit. 

Post-construction ambient monitoring may be 

required in Class I areas to determine the 

effect of emissions on AQRVs. 

No criteria for rejection of FLM analysis are 

specified. 

No consultation is required. 

No summary of FLM issues is required 

Mitigation is not specifically addressed. 

Post-construction monitoring is required for air 

quality impacts at the discretion of the permitting 

agency. 

:

 August 7, 1995 Outline based on June 29, 1995 package 

20 
P.23 

Changes to Control Technology Sections A/0 

8/8/95 

1. Removed the technical guidance discussion for LAER 

from the preamble and eliminated the procedural 

language from the regulations. We retained a 

placeholder for certain LAER regulations that are 

planned for proposal in the Part C & D rulemaking. 

2. Modified the Definition of "Demonstrated in 

Practice" to include all criteria that makes a 

technology a mandatory candidate for BACT or LAER, 

either required in a regulation or major source permit 

or successfully installed, operated and documented. 

3. Inserted additional technical support for criteria 

for the successfully installed, operated and documented 

test in the definition of "Demonstrated in Practice." 

4. Inserted that State regulations may specify BACT 

methodology other than Top-down, but it must satisfy 

proposed core criteria, which are: 

Universe of technologies to be considered must 

include the best that have been demonstrated in 

practice. 

Rejection of Technologies more stringent than the 

alternative selected must be supported by statutory 

factors and must be documented for the public 

record. 

5. Clarified in Preamble the subtle difference between 

cut-off date for introduction of new technology and 

date by which something should have been demonstrated 

in practice for mandatory consideration by applicant 

6. Clarified requirements for Completeness in Regs and 

Preamble discussion 

7. Incorporated specific public information 

requirements for core criteria regulations in regs and 

preamble 
P.24 

8. Provide in the Federal regulations an absolute cutoff date at close of the public comment period after 

which applicants bear no burden to consider new and 

emerging BACT/LAER that is identified after that date. 

This modifies current policy set in several memos that 

BACT/LAER can be established up-to permit issuance. 

States will be left to establish a final cut-off