ANN W. RICHARDS GOVERNOR 

### November 29,1994 Ms. Jane Saginaw

. 

### Region 6

### Administrator Environmental ProtectionAgency 1445RossAvenue Dallas, Texas 75202 Dear Ms. Saginaw: Enclosed are revisionsto 30TAC Chapter 11 6

### which were adopted by the TexasNatural Resource Conservation Commissionon October 19, 1994. A new SubchapterG concerning FlexiblePermits establishesanew type ofpermit called aflexiblepermit. A flexiblepermit will 

### fbnctionas an optional alternativeto the current prewnstruction permit that exchanges operationalflexibilityfor emissionreductions with thefinal goal being a well-controlled facility. Therevisions arebeing submittedto you asproposed revisions to the StateImplementationPlan (SIP). Also enclosed is apublic hearing certificationas required by 40 CFR 51.102(f), a complete record ofthe public hearing, and the accompanying order. I look forward toyour expeditiousapproval of these revisions to the Texas SIP. Sincerely, 

# 66 ANN w.

# RICHARDL Governor

cc: John Hall, Chairman,TNRCC William Campbell, Acting ExecutiveDirector, TNRCC

Po\l Ott~ t Bo\ 12428 AI \I]\, TI\\\ 7871 1 (512) 463-2000 (V~I( t)/(512) 475-3165 (TDD) PI<I\I~L, ,I\ nkoclru I \ItnJohn Hall, Chairman Pam Reed, Commissioner Peggy Garner, Commissioner Anthony Crigsby,Executive Director 

## TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting TexasbyReducing and PreventingPollution



### THE STATE OF TEXAS § 

### COUNTY OF TRAVIS §



### This certify that the attached are true and correct copies of revisions to 30 TAC

, , 

### Chapter 116 and the State Implementation Plan adopted on November 16, 1994 pursuant to 40

- 

### Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), S51.104. Prior to the adoption of the revision, a public hearing was held pursuant to 40 CFR, §51.102(a), and notice of the hearing was given which conformed to the requirements of 40 CFR, S51.102 (d)

## . I am the custodian of the records of the Commission.

To certify which, witness my hand and the seal of the Texas Naturaj: Reso'tirce Conservation Commission, this the 16th day of 

# A& 

# dL1&**- Gloria Vasquez Chief clerk Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas78711-3087 512/239-1000 prinlrd on recycled paper usin6 my haxd inkTEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 3, 1994 REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 116 

### AND THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONCERNING FLEXIBLE PERMITS

### INTRODUCTION

A public hearing was held in Austin on October 3, 1994 to consider revisions to Chapter 116. A new Subchapter G, concerning Flexible Permits, was proposed, which created a new type of permit called flexible permits. A flexible permit will function as an optional alternative to the current preconstruction permit that exchanges operational flexibility for emission reductions with the final goal being a well-controlled facility. In addition, new S116.13 was proposed to add definitions that relate to flexible permits and revisions to S116.110 were proposed to add reference to flexible permits in the permit application requirements for new source review permits.

Written comments were accepted through October 21, 1994. All testimony and comments have been reviewed and seriously considered. This volume contains a complete record of the public hearing and is divided into the following four sections:

o Public Notification and Proposal

o Written and Oral Testimony

o Evaluation of Testimony

o Staff Recommendations

Additional copies of this hearing record are maintained in the TNRCC central office at 12118 North IH-35, Austin, Texas 78753. For further information, contact Gary McArthur at (512) 239-1917.

# PUBLIC NOTIFICATIONAND PROPOSAL

### PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Notification to the public of the proposed revisions was conducted by the following procedures:

1. 

### Publication of the notice of public hearing in the following newspapers on the dates listed:

Austin American-Statesman; September 1, 1994 

### The Baytown Sun; September 2, 1994 

### Beaumont Enterprise-Journal; September 3, 1994 

### El Paso Times-Herald Post; September 1, 1994 

### Fort Worth Star-Telegram;August 30, 1994 

### Houston Chronicle; September 1, 1994 

### The Odessa American; September 3, 1994

2. 

### Publication of the public hearing notice and proposed rule in the Texas Reqister on September 20, 1994.

4. 

### Correspondence forwarding the notice of public hearings to the following officials and agencies:

Speaker of the House Lieutenant Governor Dallas Department of Health and Human Services El Paso City-County Health District

### Fort Worth Public Health Department Galveston County Health District Houston Department of Health and Human Services Harris County Pollution Control Department City of El Paso North Central Texas Council of Governments Houston-GalvestonArea Council South East Texas Regional Planning Commission Arkansas Department of Pollution Control and Ecology Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality New Mexico Air Quality Bureau Oklahoma State Department of Health U. 

### S. Environmental Protection Agency

### EXAMPLE OF 

### NEWSPAPER CLASSIFIED 

### AD Austin American-Statesman September 1, 1994

TEXASN4TLRAl G€sara
. C~RVATTXY cOMV*m WTC€ Cf mU2 HARM BY TH TEXAS N47LR.I IKKXKX CONSERVATlCNCOMMEm 0NCW~f?3~A~T0 mtceame&&en tMt Rlmt I to the recuements d me 1e.m 

# I )_ OW Welv Ammat. 0 ea. %ctm 362.0ii (vernon'r 1 1992): Texor Govanml Cwe 1 

### R$,"ran%i% $072 ol Fed anr CFR) Sec. ton ~1.402~ mfed stma

or Mtud &wce 'C&;at-m Comraoon (IWCuCam) wl Ccn*clO RCL fmcmQ to recave tutrrmv concermg rev,. volatoChaotu t36uwllheS.P The mRCC po~oun 0 nrw S9 ckLpter G, cmermgFlex- Per.

# I

nus Ihe D-d -!el wl C10Ote0 new tvm dcum1CQW a lksBe immvl A lkaC-9 wmt wl tu~~tm or mcotore uterna. pemrt md vl ex* Gro 1 lQnd I*-v lU

# -reductr*sWU)hthetmgwbsqo: r*BCcmtrOlBd fo~lty A te~me b pemrtwl re* mv emtwwe. i COUlnKlmpermtmot Covers mv 2 foCitv rck&a mthe 1b.m~ oer I rril A IOdlv ow u -rota

te&ja-sil;it;& iu fin ine -- the recwl a a uwmten cn mMhbv nle~estea D(MCII tiha.

w&nce wl not muor~lhi hecmg. however. a TWC ston
, member wlw ovdoDlotod0;uu I lheDaWSd30nrute,paloh

heurn OW wl O%W@ DueRml mtue'a otter me hea* - Wnnencuwrentr not pesenteaot the ba mv be mttedto MB ~~FCmtru once n Amln tw Octobtn 7. $996 Motela recetved by me TWCC Demksmmf Sectmby%%% Octabef 7. 1906 wl m c-rea commvnpar lo&"-,$ atm cn me vrcpord Ccoes or : the remme ovawe at the

centrddflce ol TWCbcoted m 42448 NJrtn KJS.~ak JS lech. ndJW Cenla. WQ E. Adn. OW m d TMXC re- oflca Pamn no1 written cments :a

comnodotmnceQwrw,ole~. mp to dtem the heom cartoct the ooency at (5r2) 230- 1450 RecNsrts moJd De mode ar fumoovmcecs . Emma nAurtn.Texm. mAugm23. am*violations of the Texas Regulations for Control of Radiation. 'Ihe violations contributed to an accident that caused a signhicant threat to the health and safety of the public and, the environment and facilitated the possession of radioactive material by a munbu of the gmual public who wes not aware of the presence of the radioactive material. A wpy of all relevant material is available for public iaspecrion at the Bureau of Radiation Control Exchange Building. 8407 Wall Street Austin. Manday-Friday, 8:W am. to 5:W pm. (except holidays). Issued in Augin. Texas. on September 14, 1994. TRD9448033 Sum K. steeg Gm Counsd Toxm Deputmonl d M Fled: September 14, 1994


### Notice of Rescission of Orders Notice is hereby given that the Bureau of Radiation Control. Texas Departmentof Health. nsdndedthe following

. ordax.Pmugency Cease and Desist Ordu and Nolice of Vilation issued June 28. 1994. to North Main Dental Centu. 1925 Stuckwood,Houston. Texas77008.holdu of. Certificate of Registration Number R19088; and Emugency Cease and Desist Ordu and Notice of issued August 4.1994. to 

## west Houston (3hLopfactic Center. 12288 Westheknu. Suite 310. Houston, Turas 77077. holder of Cutificate of Registration Number R17564. A .wpy of all relevant material is available for public inspection at the Bureau of Radiation Control Wge Building. 8407 Wall Street Austin. Manday-Friday. 8:W am. to 5:00 pm. (except holidays). lssued in Wn,Texas, on September 14. 1994. TRD-944- Sum K. stmg Gonoral Counsel Teur Doputmom d Hmlth Red: !%@- 14, 1994 

### Texas Department of Human 

### Seryices Public Notice-Open Solicitation Pursuant to Ti 2. Chapters 22 and 32 of the Human



### . Resources Code and 40 TAC 5192004. in the September 11. 1990. issue of the Tw Register (15 T&g 5315). the Turas Department of Human Semi= ('IDHS) is announcing the reopening of the open solicitation period for ChckcttNumber 053. identifiedin the July 26.1994, issue of the TLUU Register (19 TwrReg 5784). Eotential contractors desiring to mmtruct a Wbed nursing facility in the above refcmccd area must submit a written nply (as desaibed in 40 TAC 9192004) to TDHS. Gary L. Ah. CktSathn. FkviduEnrollment. and Billing Suvices. Long Term Care-Regulatory.Mail Code (3'-976). P.O. Box 149030. Austin. Texas 787149030. Upon receipt of a nply from a potential contractor. TDHS will place a notice in the TLUURegister to announce the closing date of the rcopMed solicitation period. Issued in Mi, Texas, on September 14. 1994. TRD-9448035 N.r Murphy SecWn Muuger. Medh and Pole . sbwlwa Tams Deputmenl of

. HUI~M

. Sorvlwa 4 Filed: September 14, 1994

. . 

### Te.xas Natural 

### Resou* Conservation Commission Notice of 

### Public Hearing (Flexible 

### Permits) Notice isherebygiventhatpursuant to therequirementsof the Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated. 9382.017 (Vernon's 1992); Texas Govqnent Code Annotated, - Subchaptu B. Chapter 2001 (Vernon's 1993); and 40 Codeof Fedual Regulations (OR) 951.lo2of the United States Environmmtal Protection,Agency (EPA) regulations coacahg State Implun~tation P1i(SIP) 

# . the Tuas Natural Resource Conscr)ra!ion Commhian mCC or Commission)will dud apublic hearing to receive.&monycontamingrevisionsto Chapter 116and



### . . the SIP. The 'MRCC proposes a new Subchapter G. concaning Flexible Pumits. ?he proposed subchapter will create a new type of parnit called flexible pumits. A flexible pvmit will function as an optional alternative to the current precoastruction permit that exchanges operational flexibilityforemissionreductionswith thefinalgoalbeing a wellantrolled facility. A flexible permit will nplace any existingp~~rmction pumit that coversany facility included in the flexible permit A facilityownu or opustor may obtain a flexible pumit which will allowphysical and opational changca (within qxdied limits.) as an alternativeto obtaining a new source review pumit or in lieu af amending an existing permit A puson may obtain aflexiblepermitfor a facility.groupof facilities. or catire ~~~~untandanemissionscagwillbeestablishedforthe faditk included within the flexible pmit A public hearing on theproposal will be held Octobu 3. 1994at 1090am. in Room 201s of RJRCC Building E. lacatedat 12118NorthIH-35. Park35 Technology CMttt. Austin. Thehearingis structured for thereceipt of oral or written comments by intercad perm. Individualsmay pnsent oral statments when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audiuace will not occurduring the hearing; however. a TNRCC staff membu will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing andwill answer questions before and after the hearing. Writtea comments not pmeatcd at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office in Austin through October21,1994. Materidreceivedby theTNRCCRegulationDevelopment Section by 400pm. on Octobu 21. 1994 will be considered by the Commission prior to any final aaion on the pmposal Copies of the revision are available at the central &a of the TNRCC located at 12118North1-35,Park35 Technology Center. BuildingE. Austin. and at all TNRCC regional offices. Please mail written commurtr tothe RegulationQevelopment Sdon. Air Quality manning. P.O. Box 13087. Austin. Texas

199~e&eg 7474 September 20, 19W Texas Regr78711-3087. For furthu infodon. contact Garv



### . -- %Arthur at (512) 239-1917. 

# @ Pwnswith disab- who hme spd.l comunica!ion or otha accommodationneeds who art ~Ianninn to ahnd

- --

# -~-

.. the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-1459. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.



### North Central 

### Texas Council of Governments Request for Consultant ProposalsThis~uestbytkN~CentralTexa~~~fGOVanmcnts~~for~tserv~ismedlrnder the prwisio~ of Texas (Evil Statutes. Article 6252-11c. NCKXXi isnqueahgproposalshm CO- to. conduct a trampmion needs tksasmtnt for the city of GrandPrairie. Tutas The consultantwill corrdud a study of the &&g public tramportation systemin cmjmch with systemArmlnaP to detumine iahuentwe. in the current ~ymm. The coxmhntwill ncommend inn* vative strategies to fund capital and opMtiag costs of the proposed public trsnspatation system and in particular. for the eldaly and &led Wt senrtces. thisshrdywillberccommcndcdbytheProjectReview Commitk& The PRC will use evahuuial aituia 8Dd&odo&gyconsistmtwiththescopeofsuvicescontainedin theRequestf& Proposals.TheNCXOG htive Board will reviewthePRC's recomm* and, if found~tah4willisnreanawardofcoatrad ~NcrcoG.inaccordancewithntlevIofthe CivilRiglaAct of 1964.78 Stawe25241Unibd States CodeUXX#to~;Md'Ne49.Codeofr;edual Regulations. Degm d Tnnsportation. Subtitle A. O&#oftheSarrtsy..PartOlre.Nondis' ' " in PedersllyAssisbed Prognmsof the Department of Tmpwtatimissuedpursusattosrrch~haebynotifiesall progcsus thatit will afhmtively as+rc thatin regard to any CQ1trad entertd into pumAat to this advat. dkdvant&~~1taprkwillbeaffdrdedfull to submitpmposals in nsponse to thisinvita- =not~~.p.imtm(trpuadt of race. color, 

### su age, national origin. or dhbiUy in caukation of an award. Due Date. Pqn& must be submithd no later than 12 noon. Whday.Octoixr 5. 1994. tp David A. Faria. priacipal Tr ~.Norh CeatralTutas h~dl of

GOV-k, 616 SipLp hire. k~nd k. or P. 0. Bax 5888. Arliogtcm. Texas 76005-5888. Par moreinfonnazial and copies of the Request for Proposalo. -tact Shirley Heary. (817) 695-9243. ksued Texes. on Seprmhr 8, 1994.

Filed: Sptmbw 12. 1994 

### On-Site Wastewater Treatment 

### Research Council Notice of Workshop TheTexasOn-SiteW~~ TreatmentResearchCouncilwill host a facilitated workshop at 8:U)am. on Thurs- &ye September 22. 1994. at the Austin.Mmbtt at the Cepil.701 Eest 11th Stnet. Austin. Turas 78701. The purposeof this WO- is to provide a public fwum for the discussion of r~ch needs in the field of on-site disposalofdomesticw~tersTheunp~willbe specificallydirectedto reridentiel (singlefamilyand othuwise) and nm-hazardous commercial ap~lica!ions which g.enuate less than 5.000 gallons of -&wage per day (.MMGD). The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

'willprovidea trained facilitator to conductthis wokshop. 

### Persans interested or involved in this subject. including industry. regukors. re& facilities and the general public an invited For additional informafion. lease contact WMUI Saxnuelson at (512) 2394769;'or Ted Johns at (512) 2394776. Lssued in h&~. Tek.on September 13, 1894.

Filed: Seplember 13.1944 

### Public Utility Commission of Texas Notice of Intent 

### to File Pursuant to Public 

### Utility Commission Substantive Rule 

### 23.27 Notics is given to the public of the intent to filewith the Public Utility Conmkion of Texas an application purmant to Public Utility Commission Substantive Rule 2327 for approvalof customer-spedficPLEXAR-Custom Service for Amarillo ISD. Amarillo. Tucas Doclat Title and Number. Applicstion of Southwcslun Bell Telephone Company for Approval of a 722-Station Addition to theExishg P~QcBT-CUS~O~ Swicefor AmarilloISD pursuant to PublicUtility CommissionCommission Substautive2327. Docket Numbu 13408. The Application. Southwestern Bell Tdephonc Company is requesting approval of a 722-stationeddition to the existing b-Custom Service for Amarillo ISD. Tbe gugqhic service market brthis specific SUVict is the Amarillo. Tam area Persons who wish to combent upon the actb sought sbouldcontad thePublicUtility Coinmissial ofTucso. at 7800 ShoalCnekBoulevsrd,Austin. Texas78757. orcall thePublic Utility CommissionPublicInfomation W011 at (512) 4584388. or (512) 458-0221 fot teletypewriter for the deafissued in Austir. Texes. on September 13. 1994. TRD9448010 John M. Wlor 8ecmmq d the Commtukn Publc UIUy Commb.kn d Tam Filed: Sepember 13. 189) ADDITION September 20, 1994 19 TexReg 7475(16) -Hazard R. Fenwick J. Kalish S, Redrnond J. Reeves G. Reid S. Frymoyer J: Functional Restoration With Behavioral Support A One-Year Perspective Study of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients. SPINE 14:157-165. 1989. (17) Wey J. Mayer T. Cox R. Gatchel R. Smith J. Mooney V: Quantifiia-



### . tion of Lumbar Function 5: Reliability of

Range+f-Motion Measures in the Sagittal Plane and In Viva Torm RotationMeasurement Techniques. SPINE 11:31-35. 1986. (18) Leavitt S. Johnston T. BeyuR: The Process of Recovery: Patterns in Industrial Back Injury: Part 1. Costs and Other QuantitativeMeasures of Effort. Industrial Medicine 40:7- 14. 1971. (19) Loebl W: Measurements of Spinal Postuz and Range in Spinal Mwements. Ann Phys Med 9:103 1967. (20) Mayer T. Gatchel R: Functional Restoration for SpinalDimrdus: Tht Sports Medicine Approach Philadelphia. PA, Lea & Febigu, 1988. (21) Mayer T. Gatchel R, KishinoN. tt. al.: Objective Assessment of SpineFunction FollowingIndustrial Injury: A Prospective Study With Comparison Group and One-Year Follow-Up: 1985 Volva Award in Qinical Sciences. SPINE 10:482493. 1985. (22) Mayer T. Gatchel R. KishinoN. et al: A Prospective Short-Term Study of Chronic Low Back Pain Patients Utilizing Novel Objective Functional Measurement. Pain 25:5368. 1986. (23) Mayer T. GatchdR, Mayer H,et al: A Prospective Two-Year Study of Functional Restoration in Industrial Low BackInjury:An ObjectiveAssessmentProcedure. JAMA 258-1763-1767. 1987. (24) Mayer T, Smith S. Keeley J. Mooney V: Quantification of Lumbar Function Part 2: Sapjttal Plane Tnmk Strength in Chronic Low Back Pain Patients. SPINE 10:765-772. 1985. (25) Mayer T. Smith S. Kondrask G. Gatchel R. Carmichael T. Mooney V: QudcationofLumbar Function Part 3: Preliminary Data on Isoldnetic Torso Rotation Testing with Myoelectric Spectral Analysis in Normal and Low Back Pain Subjects. SPINE 14912-920. 1985. (26) Mayer T. Tencu A. Wfmn S. Mooney V: Use of Noninvasive Techniques for Quantification of Spinal Range-of-Motion in Normal Sub jects and Chronic Low-back Dysfunction Patients. SPINE 9588-595. 1984. (27) Mellin G: Mauurunent of Thoramlumbar Posture and Mobility with Myrin hdhorneter. SFQW 11!759-762, 198(5, (28) Nachemsm A. LaRocca H: Editorial. SPINE 12427.429, 1987. (29) Oland G. Tveittn G: A Trial of Modem Rehabilitation for Chronic Low Back Pain and Disability: Vocational Outcome and Effect of Pain Modulation. SPINE 16:457459, 1991. (30) Pamianpour M. Nordin M. Kahanwik N. Frankel V: 1988 Volvo Award in Biomechanics: The Triaxial Coupling of Torque Gwluation of Mwements on the Motor Output and Movement Patterns. SPINE 13:982-992. 1988. (31) Porn M, Leggett S. GravesJ. et al: Effect of Resistance Training on Lumbar Extension Strength. Am J Sports Med 17:624630. 1989. (32) Reed. Presley: The'Medical Disability Advisor. Second Edition; Horsham. PA: LPR Publications. 19% 290. 473. (33) Sachs B. David J. Olimpio D. Scala A. Lecroix M: Spinal Rehabibtion by WorkToleranceBased on Objective Physical Capacity Assessnent of Dysfunction: AProspectiveStudywith ControlSub jects and 12-Month Review. SPINE 15:1325-1332. 1990. (34) Schwarts. 

### D'.. Appropriate Referral to Inpatient vs Outpatient Pain ManagementProgram: A Clinician's Guide. PAIN DIGEST. 1: 2-6. 1991. (35) Smidt G. BlantiedP. Analysis of Strength Tests and Resistive Exercises Commonly Used for Low-Back Disorders. SPINE 12:1.025-1034. 1987. (36) Smith S. Mayer T. Gatchcl R. B& T: Quantification of Lumbar Function 1: Isometric and Multispstd IsokheticTrunk StrengthMeesures in Sagittal and Axial Planes in Normal Subjects. SmNe 10.757-764. 1985. (37) Spcngler. DM. Oucllette. EA.. Battie. M.. Zh, J. (1991) Eleaive discectomy for hamiation of a lumbar disc. THIj JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY. 72-A2. 230-237. (38) Sullivan. MJ-L.. Reesor. K, Mjkail, S.. mu, R.The Treatmentof Depression in ChronicLow Back Pain:Review and Recommendations. PAIN. 50. 5-13. 1992. (39) Thorwnk Kin J: Td Muscle Strength During Constant and Velocity Movcmmt. Scand J Rehab Mtd 14:61-68. 1982. (40) Turner. RS.. Leiding. W.C. (1985). Conelationof the MMPI with lumbosaaal spine fusion dts prospective study. SPINB. 10.10, 932-936. (41) Ward, N,O,, Blmm, V.L., rnedel, R;O, (197@, 

### 'h!Bffwivenw of tricyclic antidepressantsin the treatment of coexisting pain and depression. PAIN, 7, 331-341. This agency herebycertifisthat the proposal has been reviewed by legal course1 and ~wd to wwm the age~s to 

# ( adapt. lssued in Austm, Texas. on Seplember 7. 1944.

Earliest possble date d. ad@i: October 21. 1944 

# + + + TITLE 

### 30. ENVLRONMENTAL QUALITY 

## Part I. 

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 

### 116. Control of Air

, 

### Pollution for New

Construction or Modification The Texas Nahrral ReXNce Catservatbn Commission (TNRCC) proposes new §116.13. an amendmerd lo §116.110. and new ~116.710. 116.711. 116. 716116.18, 116.720-116.72%116.730,116.740,116.750, and 116.760. Maw Of the poposed Sedions will compise a new Subbpter G, concern ing Flex* Permits. as 'part d Chepler 118. concerningContrd dAir Polkrtbn By PemiIts for New Consbudion a Modi New g116.13 is pOposed to define terms minted to flewpermits and 9116.1 10 is amended to incCde reference to flexble perm'ds. The proposed new Sthha@erG hes been devekped in respome to drection tom the Comnssion at the January 21. 1994 pdcy

and bcal programs underthe supervisiond TeskFace21.Thepopdsed~erWn aeateanewtypeofpermitcelledafieW permit. The fieme permitwll fundbn as an optional alternative to the peGarstnrcbbn permits that are ncm arrthaLed in -er 6,concen~ing New some Review Pemits.The lexble permil is designed to exchange llexbilityfa emission recluclias with the finel goel being a welCcontrolled faditv. Only one flexible perml may be issued for a perticub plant site a active account. Hwever, muti emission c8ps. multple irdivi ual emission hiits. a any canbination ~d may be indrded in a Ilexble pennitthen become the conbolliq authorization for ell faciillk bduded in the permit, replacing any eSngpermits thal my have been ep pfi to a0 or part of these faciGties. New 01 16.710. concerning ApplWWy takthe general ternor conditions urder which a ftexble perma can be obtained. New 0116.711, concerning Flexble Pmit ~pplieafiocrlisLsttmaiteriafaaMainingaflexW PemQ and ttm reqrried contents of a flexibbe permaeppScation. New5116.714, concerning Review Schedule referencesthe ex- 

## mil review schedule used in new sarce review pennitsas being eppIicable to fbxble hb. New 51 16.715, Concerning Oeneral and Special Condaions lii condi- ~d~q@cabirayforallRex&k Perm& New 6116. 716. concernin0 Em&- -sion

# -
and iik~id~ Emission Mitiom spedfias how emission caos and indivdual emksioncepsare readjusted. New5116.717, mirO lmplemerlaikn Schedule for AdditionalConbdls requ-kesa new mit to specify 8.n inplementrdion sckltde whenever eddW oonbds ere requredto meet an emission cap. New §116.718. concerning anificent hllkSh defines'sign*- cat emissiors inwasam in terms of the emission cap or-*dual emission liiaabjon. New §116.?20, concerning limiaation on Physicaland Operationel ChanOes precludes hcmeses in achrel emksionsa! taalitii not mered by the I)exble permit unless those faaWiam autharked prrsuantto §116.110. New3116.721. concerning Amenbnentsand Alteratiorsdefmesthetypesddrangestoa MCty Uml requie a pennit amendment or alteration end when mitlen mfication of physicel a cperational changes at a fad'by cavered by a Rexblepennit is requied. New §116.722, axl~eming Distance Limitations, §116.730, amxning Corrpliance History. and 0116.740. Eonaeming PdSc Notice and Canmerd me that the exkting requiements forttresetapicsinSLlbchaplerBalsoapptyto fie- permb. New 51 16.750, concerning Rexble Perml Feessetsfeesfaafleldble perm&. New 0116.760, concerning Flexble Pemid Renewal Wes thst the existing re quieme~fortt~islcrpicinSubchaplerBelso to Rexble permits. Rexbilirywilbepmvidedfaphysicaland operatianai chaqps at taddies brduded in themxZJepermaas bngasthe emission cep(s) or urdnridual ' emission 6- are ndaxcetaded. ki Cheper 116 isarrentty written. physical or opwakdchangescanndbemedeto~f~wilhartpior adlorizatial. The mble pemitting pocesswib esiimle thearrentpraeb%ealhBvitoslbmam lanendment epplii each time an aperatbrralaphysioalchmgeismadeatthe faciRy.The 

### - beneRsdthb op 

### srm --the permating of mas. slrbstantial emisspn re bdiifranthew-oicontrds,and an aVeren evaluetim of emission inpacts. The proposed Sb&apter G will ellon only oneflexblepamilpera#xwrt.Thepermit wil estab&h an emksDn cep,mMiemission caps,or individuel emission FaniiDns. asspecifiedbytheepplicant.tocavff all souces included in the &xi& permit. Short term emission cap(s) or ind~dual emission limii will be based rpon an estimation d ww case namal ern-kbns. Upset and maintenance related emissions will be excluded in thq'calculation of the emission as) or individual emission firnilation. The emissioncap(s) or individual emission limililtion may inckdean insignficanl emissionfactato allow faflexblity. Emission limits will be established on a podhrtant-by-nt basis. The micant may specify which pdlutants are to be irr duded inthe emission as),howwer, the flexible permit must contain an emission cap or individualemission limitation for each pdManl.jndividual emisson limitations may be included inthe permit wen though an emissiar ,'cap may exist for that. pdhdant. and physical changes, other than COfslrdon of new facilities ~ndudingrepiacement faaWms), may be made urdecthe authaav of the flexible ~ermil if the chanaes will re& inan insiinifidant inme& ina$ual emissions. Operationaland Phvsical chancres resulting ina significent in&& will not-be allawed underthe arffhorily d a flexble permit. A change m the due .ofthe emission, i.e.. a new air ccmtam-nant not pwiously emilled from a particularunil a source, will nd be alkwed udr the flexble perma with ad a permit emendmen!.

.. Modeling issues fa tlexible permits inin. be covered by current TNRCC rnodelii gudeGnes. The extent of mod&ng required for Reae perm'& will be determined by a re view of past modeling, any appopriafeambient monilaing, canpIianca histay, and em'ksion redudions due to the imdernentation of contrds. Reductions in emissions yitl be a key fada in deddmgthe edent of any modeG required. The permitlee 

### mrkt measre the emissions by means suchas continuas emission monk tas, initial compliance testing with ongoing COnptianCe determined thr~gh mgi-ng calcubtions based on measured orocess veriabks, parametric or pediclive modeling techniies, or other wocriate technioues. recordsasdefinedby permitccndaiiwill be maintained to demonstrate comp6ancawith emeksion cap(s) and iikvi3- ual emission limitations. In most cases,existing tadiies which have been permitledwithin the last five years will be consaeredto have Bd Available Control Technob~y(BACT)forthepuposesofthese rules. However, facilities which have been pemedwithin the five yeas are nd exduded &om aarrent BACT and impads review. The renewalperiod for a Rexble permit will be 10 yeas to allow for evahmtion d anddtechnology and emission However, the staff may shorten the renewal period for cause. Ex- public notification requhments kr.-ion permits will be made eppliceble to mai pemits. In eccordance with guidance ded from theComnissiona!theJune29.1944a~enda meeting. any nde wed as a result dthis proposal will be reevaluated by the staff wilhin om year of the date 0s approval. The TNRCC staff 'wests comments on the tollowing qxcific issues: stafl in 51 16.716(c)toah ternporeryshutdcmsfor ~p to 12 months withoa reducing the emission cap. We request commenls on whether this is an eppopriate amwnt oftime to be cons- a temporaty shuldorm; siafl requests comments on resetting the emksion cap to more ckrxly reMd the addemissions werthe lieof the fiexible permit attime of renewal; staff requests comments on requiing readjstmnt d the endssiom cap &or hdwidual emission firnitationas a re sull oJ emission reductiocl adivies requred by rules plrruant the Federal CleanM Ad: staff reqkts comments on whettw ern$ sim redudions resuttinafrom the imtalkdii

. --- - - of controls should be illowed to be banked for plrposes ofuse as OW in nonattaimnl areas Stephen Minii wet and Planning Dwiskn.hasdeterminedlhadforeachyeer of the lirsl fiveyear period the proposed seaions are in effect them will be some cost to me and bcal wemmerbs. The casts wouid be wi to review the ~ex&k permit 

### mtions Sincethe flexble permit isoplional,the number dflexblepermit sppEcations my be oftset by a redudion in applications for corr ventional new so- permb.Therefore, it k impossble to estimate the adual fkcal impad. Permit sW resocrrces may be merely bgnsfmed +om conventional perma review to ftexble permit review. Mr- Minickalso hasdetermined thet faeach yeardthefrsttiveyearstheprqxrsedsec ti- are in effect the plbSc benefit anticipated as a resull of implementing the sectionswillbe a redudioninemissDns dall categorbsdwktanband areduction inthe cost of doing business inthe Sate of Texas. The hxal -inplicatiifor facilities and smal businessesaffededby the ruleare elso inde terminate. Since the Reldble perma program ~~,thefeesareonIyreqrriedifan applicant chooses the Rexble pmit @m. These feesare likely tobe bpIy offset by a reduction in preconstruction pennit applications urdec Subchepter B. There is no ansicipated economic cost to persazs who are req- to comply wiih the sediw as poposed. A phk hearingon this proposalwill be held on Odober 3, 1994, at 1090 am. in the Auddaium (Room 201s). Buading E. of the TNRCCCentralOhicelocatedat 12118Nath M5, Wm. Texas 78753. MCc comments. both aal and den, on the propod changes are iwikda! the hearing. likivav ak may present ocel memerlswhen cased rpon inader of regbbetii. Opendiscussion within the ad- will nd o~ar drring the hearing; however. a TNRCC staff member wiabeavaaableto&sasstheproposel30 rninrpespiortothe hearing endwill ananer questkns before and aner the baring. Written unnments not fxesmted a! the hwinpmustbesrrbmitledtotheTNRCC,Office of Air Quatity. Reguletii Dedopmerl See trm. P.O. Bax 13087. Austin. Texas. 78711-3087, no hWthan Odober 21, 1944. Werial received by 4m p.m. on thal date win beconsideredbythe Commission piarto any final &on on the proposed regulation. Capiesdthe proposed regulstiansare available al the R~lation Devekpnenl Section dthe TNRCC Ai Quality Planning Di



### + PROPOSED RUBS September 20, 1994 19 TexReg 7335bcatedcrf 121 18 NMh IH-35, Park35 Techndogy Center. BuWig E, Austin. Texas 78753, and at aU TNRCC Air Roqam re gional Mi. Fafmherinbmatiin,contact Grvy Whuraf (512) 2341917. Persons with disabilities who have special canmrnieation or other accommodation needswl~o are plannii to attend the hearshould contad the agency & (512) 2391458. Requestsshould be madeasfarin as possble. 

### Subchapter A. Definitions

. 30 TAC 0116.13 The newsection is prcpcedunderthe Texas He& and Salety Code (Vernon I=), the TernCleenAi Act VCAA),w.017,which pmvides the TNRCC with the authority to a!@ mles consistent with the policy and puposes d the TCAA The pmposed new section affectsthe Health and mty Code, §382.017. 8116.13. Flexible Permit Definitions. The following words and terms, when used in thisChapter. shallhave thefollowingmaings. unless the conk& dearly indicates othuwise. Bmissions cap-Emission limit for a specific air coataminant based on total emissions of that pollutant adjusted by an Insignificant EhiEmissions Factor from all sourcesthat are included in a flexible permit Eqectcd maximum capacity-The maximumcapacityof a facility according to its physical and operational design and planned operation Individual emission limitation-Emission limit for a specsc air contaminant not coveredby an emissioncap for an individual fadlily-adjustedby an InsignificantEmissibns Factor. Thisagency herebycm%i that the propwal has been reviewed by legal cwnsel and kund to be within the agency's authority to edopl. Issued m Austin, Texas, on Seplember 13. 1994. TRD--8 Muy Ruth Hddor Dlrodor. Lo@ DMdon Tan8 wnl Romrco conr0rvak.n Cmmfmbn fJOSbbdate of edaption: Odcber 21. 1994 Fa hrther infonnetion. please calk (512) PSI 500 

### Subchapter 

### B. New Sour& I 

### Review Permits Permit Application 

# 1 30 TAC 0116.110 The amendmentis pmposed rnderthe Texas Heallh and SafetyCode (Vernon 1952). the TexasCleanAirAct (TCM), B.017, which provides the TNRCC with the aldhority to edopl rides dstent with the poficy and purposes d the TCAA. The proposed amendment Mecsthe Health

. and Safety Code, 982.017. $9116.110.Applicability. (a) Ftrmit to consfsuct Any puson who plans to construct any new facility or to engage in the modiilcation of any &ting facility which may unit air contaminants into the air of this state shall obtain a parit pursuant to 9116.111 of this title (relating to Genual Applications). satisfy the conditions for a standard permit pursuant to the requirements in Subchapter P of tbis chapter (relating to Standard Permits). satisfy the conditionsfor a flexible pegnit pursuant to the requirements in SubchapterG of this chapter (relatingto FlexiblePermits), or satisfy the conditions for exemptfacilitiespursuantto Subchapter Cof tbischap& (relating toPermitExunp tiom) before any actual work is begun on the facility. Modifications to edhg permittedfacilitiesmay behandledhgh the amendment of an urisfing permit or an existing flexible permit. (b)-(e) (No change.) Thiisa~encyherebycwiithattheproposal has been reviewed by legal counsel end faurdtobewithintheagency'sarlhaityto adw. Issued in MiTexas, on Se@ember 13, 1994.

Earliest possble date of edapii: October 21. 1944 For futher information. please d.: (512) ~41500 

### Subchapter 

## G. Flexible Permits Permit Application 30 TAC Qb(116.710, 116.711, 116.714-116.718, 116.720-116.722, 116.730, 116.740, 116.750, 116.760 Thenewsectionsarepmposedunderthe Texas HeaEh and Safety Code (Vemocl 1992). the Terrr~ ChnAi Ad VCM), §382.017. which pdesthe TNRCC with the authority to &is consbtenl with thepolicyendprpasesdtheTCA4 The proposed new sectionsetied the Health adsafety Code. w.017. $116.710.Applicability. (a) Flexible ptrmit. A person may obtain a flexible pumit which allows for physical or operational changes as provided by this subchapter as an altunative to obtaining a new source review permit undu 8116.110 of this title (relating to Applicabi), or in lieu of amending an existing permit unda 8116.116of this title (relating to Amendments and Alterations). A person may obtain a flexible permit pumurnt to 9116.71 1 of this title (relating to Flexible Pvmit Application) for a facility. group of faditks,or accountbefore any actual work is begun, provided howmu: (1) onlyoneflexiblepermit may be issued at an tmmnt sire; (2) modifications to existing facilities covd by a flexiblepermit may be handled wgb the ameudmentof an existing flexible permie; and (3) permitting of a new facility may behandled through the amendment of a flexible permit (b) Operations certification. Any perm who obtains a flexiblepermit under tbis subchapter shall comply with 9116.110(b) of this title. (c) Change in own-. 'Ihe new ownv of a facility, group of facilities. or account shall comply with 9116.11O(c) of this title, provided howexu. that all facilichange ownership at the same time and to
. . thesameperson,orboth thenew ownu and existing&mitholdermust obtain a pwmit altuation allocating the emission csos or individual -0; limitation prior 

### tb the Mu of the permit by the T& Natural Resource Conservation Commision ' ('IN'RCC). After the sale of a facility or facilities, but prior to the transfer of a permit requiring apennit alteration. the original permit holdu remains responsible for uwringcamplianctwith theexistiog fkiblepermitandallrulesandregulationsof the TNRCC. (6) Submittal under seal of registeredprofessid engineer. All appbtbns for a flurible permit or flexible pwmit amendment shall comply with 9116.11qd) of this title. (e) Responsibility for flexible pumit application. The ownu of the facility. group of fdtis.ar accountor the operator of the facility. group of facilities. or account wbis authorized to ac€ for the ownu is nxpnsible for complying with this section, uccgt asprovided by subsection (c) of this section. §116.711. Flexible Permit Application. Any application for a new flexible 

# 1 19 TexReg 7336 September 20, 1994 Texas Register r Ipermit or flexible permi! amendment must indude a completed Form FT-1 GenualAp plication The Ram FT-1 must be signed by an authorized repr&e of the applicant. The Form PI-1 specifies additional support information which must be provided before the applhfionisdeemedcomplete. In order to be grand a flexible pd or flexible permit amendment, the ownu or operator of the pmposed facility shall submitinformation to theTuasNatural Resow Conservation Commission (RTRCC) which demonstratesthatall of the following are met (1) Prokction of public health and welfare. The cmhiw from tb proposedfacility, groupoffacilities. or account as dctuminedpursuant to 91 16.716 of his title (relatingtohisionCaps andIpdivid- ual Bmission Limitations). willcomply with all~l~~dregulationsoftheTNRCCand with the intent of the Taurs Clean Air Act (XAA). inchding protection of the healthadphysicalpropertyoftbepeople.Inconsidering tkisumceof a fladblepermitfar constructionor rnodihticm of any fecility, group of fscilities. or accountwithin 3.000 feet or less of an elementary; junior bigh/mWe, or senior high school, the 

### TMCCshallcollsidu any possibleadverse sbort-ttrmor long-twILl side

### effects that an air contaminant or nuisance odor from the facility, group of fscilities or accountmay have on the individuals attdhg these school facilities. (2) Measunrnent of emissions Thepraposed facility. group of facilities. or account willhave provisionsfor measuring tho anissim of sir -ants so deermirrsd by the Bxautive Dinctor. This may includethe installationofsamplingports on exhaust stacksandcomctionof sampling pladams in mrdancewith guidJiaca in the TNRCC "Complirmce Samplinghhu

### aL" (3) Best Available Control Technalogy(BAC'O. 'Ihefacility. groupof faciU& or ~COOU~~ will utilize BACT, with considedon given to the technical pm&abi€ity and ecoaomic nas~nabluress of reducing or chinating the emissiom from the facility on a facility. group of faditks,or muntbasis. Control technology beyond BACT may be used on certain faciiitiea toprovide the Mission reductions ~tocomplywiththisrrquirement on a group of f.cilities or rrecarat basis. providsd however, that the &sting level of caatrolmay not be lescned for anyfacility. Fornew faditiea,theuseof BACT shalI be drmoxstrated for thc individual facility. (41 NCW ~ource

## mfmace Standatds (NSPS). ?he emissions fnwtachIff-dfrdlityasdcfinedin40 CodeofPedenl~~~(CPR)Put60 will meet at 

### Iwt the rquir~mt~ of any )app~~SF'Saslisted~~1tle40 CFR Part 60. promulgakd by the United States Environmental Protection Agency @PA) purwmt to authority granted under the Fkhal Clean Air Act (FCAA). 0111. a amended. (5) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NBSHAPS) andMaximum AchievableContzolTechnology (MACXI. The missions from each facilityasdefinedin40CFRPart61wiU meet at lasttherequirments of any applicable NBSHAPS. as listed under 40 CFR (C) iden* each source of emissions to be included in the flexible permit and for each source of emissions identify the Emission Point Number (EPN) and the air contaminants uniw. (D) for each emission cap, identify all associated EF'Ns snd provide mission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and the proposed control technolom, Part 61. or any standard. pmmul- (B) for each individual &- @d bg PA Pursuant to mth* OM~ hn limitation, identifythe B~N and pre undu the FCAA. 0112. as amukl.

. vide emission rate

## dcwm based on the (6) Performance dunonstration. Tk proposed facility. group of facilities. or accountwill achievetheperformance specified in the flexiblepumit application, The applicant may be required to submit additional engineuing data after a flexiblepermit has beenissuedin ordu to demonstrate further that the proposed facility. group of facilities. oraccountwill achieve the performance spedied in the fl&ble pumit. In addition. initialcompliance testing 'with ongoing compliaace dekmhedthrough engineering calculatians based on measured process variables. parametric or predictive monitoring. stackmonitoring. or stack test- *kg may be nquirai (7) Nonattainmentreview. If the praposed fdty.group of facilities. or account is located in a nonattainment area. each facility shall comply with all applicable requinmats under the undesignatcd had concaning nonaoainment review in Subchapter B of this chaptu (nlatipg to Nonattaknent Review or Prevmtion of Significant Deterioration Review). (8) Wention of Signif--t Deterioration (PSD) dw. If theproposed facility. group of facilities, or account is located in an attabeat area. each facility shall comply with all applicable requiremento underthe designatedhead conceming PSD in Subchapter B of this chaptu. (9) Air dispwsion modeling or ambimt monitoring. ComputtrLed air dispugion modcliag and/or ambient monitoringmay berequired by theTNRCCFkmib Progrsm to determine 

### the air quality hpacts from the facility, gmup of faciies. or mt. (10) Applimhn content In addition to my ok requirmmts of this chapter. the applicant sbsll: (A) ideotify eachair contaminant for which an emissioncap is desired, (B) identify each facility to be included in the flexible permit; eapaed m&um capacity and the proposed control technology. (11) Proposed control technologyand compliance demonstration. The applicant shall specify the control technology proposedfor eachunit to meet the unission cap and dunonstrate compliance with all emission caps at potential maximum pm duction capacity.
JI16.7I4. Application Review Schedule. The flexible pwnit application will bereviewed by the Tucsp Natural Resource Conservation Commission in accordance with 9116.114 of this title (relating to Application Review Schedule). $116.715. General and Special Condirions. (a) Flexible panits may contain gmaland special canditions.The holders of flexible perm* shall comply with my and all such conditions. Upon a specific finding by the Executive Dir- that an increase of a particular air contaminant could result in a significant impact on the air environment,or could causethefacility. group of facilities. or account to become subject to review under the undesignated headings of Subchapter B of this chapter relating to Nonattainment Review or Revention of Significant Deterioration Re view, the permit may include a special condition which requires the permittee to obtain written approval from the Exemtivc Dinctor beforeconstitrdinga facilityudm a standard exemption or standard permit (b) A pollutant specific emission

. cap or multiple unission caps andlor individual emission limM~ns shall be esCablishtd for each air contaminant for all facilities authorized by the flexible pumit (c) The following general conditions shall be applicable to evvy fkible permit. (1) Voiding of pumit. A flexible pamit or flexible permit amadrnent undcr this subchepta 

### b automgicdly void if the holder fails to -lete construction as specified in the flexible pd. Upon
PROPOSED RULES September 20, 1994 19 TexReg 7337request, the ExecutiveDinctor may grant a maintained at the nearest staffed location (d) There may be additional speone time 12-month cxt,ension of the date to within Texas specifiedby thepermit hdder cial conditions attached to a flexiblepennit complete construction. This section does in the permit application. This information upon issuance or amendment of the permit. not applyto physical or operational changes may include. but is not limited to. emission Such conditions in a flexible pumit may be allowed without an amendment under cap and individual emission limitation cal- more restrictive than the requirements of 3116.721 of this title (mlating to Amend- culations based on a 12-monthrolling basis this title. men& and Alterations). and. production records and operating (2) Construction prognss. The start of construction, construction intemptions dg 45 dayi. and completionof construction shallbe reported to the appropriate regional office of the Twas Natural Resource Conswvation Commission FJRCC) not later than 15 worldng days afk occumnce of the event. (3) Start-upnofification The appropriate Air Program Regional Office of the RTRCC and any local program having jurisdiction shall be notified prior to the ummswnent of operations of the facili

### ties authorid by the p&t in q~ch a manner that a repnxatative of theTNRCC may bepresent Phased construction, which may involve a series of facilities commencing qxdonsat different times. shall provide separate notifica!ion for the mment of opuationsfor eachfacility. (4) SampIing requirements. If sampling of stacks or process vents is requiied theflexiblepermit holdu shallcontact the Source and Mobii Monitoring Sectionof the TNRCC Office of Air Quality prior to sampling to obtain the proper date fonns and ~roudures. AU sampling ad testingprocdurts mustbe approvedbi theExecutiveDirectorand coordiaatedwith tbe appropriate Air Program Regional Of-- fice of the TNRCC. The flexible permit -hokis also mble for providing samplingfacilitiesand condudng the Sampling opuations or contsacting with an indegendent sampling consultant. (5) Equivalency of methods. It shall be the responsibility of the flexible permit holder to demonstrate or otherwist jussity the equivalency of emission control methods. samplingor othvemissionteshg mtbrods,and monitoringmethods proposed as ahnatives to methods indicated in the coditions of the flexible pumit Altemative methods shallbe applied for in writing ad must be reviewed and approved by the Executive Director prior to their use in fulfilling any requirmcnts of the pumit (6) Recordkeqing. A copy of the fkdlc permit along with information ad data &ent to demonstratecontinuous compliance with the mission caps and individrral &on limitationscontained in thefkible permit shall be maintained in a fileat the plant site and made available at the request of personnel from the TNRCC or any airpollution control program having jurisdiction. For facilities that normally opvatb unattended, this information shall be hours. Additional recordkeeping -requirements may be specifred in special conditions attached to the flexible permit Information in the file shallbe retained for atleasttwoyearsfollowing the datethat the information or data is obtained. (7) Maximurn allowable ernission rates. A flexible ~dt covers only those sources of &ons and those a& contaminants listed in the table entitled "Emission Sources-Emissions Caps and Individual Emission Limitations" attached to the flexible permit. Flexible permitted sources are limited to the &on limits and 0th- conditions specified in the table attached to the flexible permit. (8) Emission cap readjustment If a scheduk to install additional controlsis includedin the flexiblepcrmit and a facility subject to such a schedule is taken out of suvice. the emission cap contained in the flexiblepennit will be readjusted for the period theunit is out of serviceto a level as ifno schbdulehad been established. Unless a special provision specifies the method of readjustmmt of the emission cap. a permit alteration shall be obtained (9) Maintenance of emission controL The facW covered by the fle!.xible pennit shall not be operated unless all air pollution emission capture ahd abatement quipment is' maintained in good worldng or& and operating properly during normal facility opuations. Notification for upsets andmaintenance 'shallbe madein accordancewith 8101.6 and 8101.7 of this title (relating to Notification Reqhmtp for Major Upset and Notification Rquiremeas for Maintenance). (10) Compliance with rules. Acceptance of a flexiblepermit by a pennit applicant constitutes an acknowledgement and agreement that the holder will comply with all Rules. Regulations. and Orders of the Cummission issued in conformity with the Texas Clean Air Act and the conditions precedent to the granting of the pumit If more than one state or federal ruleor regulationor flexiblepermit condition are applicable, then the most stringent limit or condition shall govern and be the standard by whichcompliance shallbe demonstrated. Acctptanccincludescansentto the entrance of Commission unployecs and agents into the .pmnipxJ prvniscs at reasonable times to meshgate conditions relating to the emission or concentration of air cantaminants. including compliance with the flexible permit. 5116.716. Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limitntim. (a) Emission caps. *Each mission cap far a specific pollutant will be established as follows: (1) emissions will be dculated for each facility based on application of current Best ~vailable Conmi~0311olo~~ at expeded maximum capacitr. (2) thecalculatedemissionswill be summed (b) Individual vnission limitations. An individual don limitation will be established in the same peait for each pollutant not covered by an mission cap far facilitiescovered by the flexible pMnit In addition. an individual emission Itnitation may be establishedfor a pohtant covered by an emisdon cap when thecxpcad capacity of a facility is less than the expected maximum cap&& to prevent a facility from twxdng aais!iion levels appropriate for the proposed controls. (c) Readjustment of emission cap. If a facility subject to an emision cap is shut down for a period longer than 12 months, the mission cap shall be nadjusted by lowwing the emission cap by an amount that the shut down facility contributed to the original calculation of the emission cap. If a new facility is brought into theflexiblepermit, an missioncap shall be adjusted by modifying the emissions cap 

### -WY. (d) ImignSeant Mlission factor. The unission caps and in- emissions limitationcalculattdpursuant to thisdon may includeanInsignificant EmisdonsFactor which docs not exceed 9.0% of thetotal emission cap or individual unission lLnitation. $116.717.Implementation ScheduleforAdditional Controls. If a facility reqh the installationof additionalcontrolsto meet an emission cep for a pollutant. the flexible permit shall spcdy an implunu1tatiOn schedule for such additional cmtrols. The pumit may also specify how the emission cap will be adjusted if such a facility is taka out of service or fa to install the additional control equipment as provided by the implmentation schedule. J116.718. Sign~xaru Emission Increase. An innease kt Mlissions from bpuationsl or physical changes at an &stTowRegister 

### +ing facility covered by a flexible permit is insigdicant. for the purposes of state new source review under this subchaptu, if the increasedoes not wrcetd eithertheemission csp or individual emission limitation. This section does not apply to an increase in emissions from a new facility nor to the emission of an air contaminant not previously 

### unitted by an existing facility. 5116.720. hitation on Physical and Operananonal Changes. Neither opuational nor physical changes authorized under this subchapter may result in an inutast in actual emissions at facilities not CQVU~~ by the flexible pumit unless those affectedfacilities an authorizedpursuant to 4116.110 of this title (relating to Applicabiity). $116.721.Amendments andAlterations. (a) Wbfe permit amendments. AU reprtsul~ns with regard to construction plans and operation procedures in an application for a =ble permit. as well as any genual and specialprovisions attached become ~difions upon which the subsequent flexible permit is issued It shalt be unlawful for any person to vary from such rep-tation orflexiblepermitprovisionif tbe change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions. the character of the emissions, or will result in a scant increasein ~OI~S, unless application is made to the ExecutiveDirector 

# ) m anidthe flexible prmil in that regard and such amendment is approved by the Ekecutive Director or Commission. Applicationsto amend a flexiblepennit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and an subject to the requhments of 5116.71 1 of this title (relatingto FlwdblePermitAp plimtion). (b) Flexible pdt alterations. (1) A flexible pdt alteration is for anyvariation from a representationin a flexible pemit applicationor a general or special pmvision of a flexible permit that does not rtquire a flexible permit amendment. (2) All flexible permit alteratbm which may involve a change in a generalor spxhlcondition contained in the flexible pennit. or affed control equipment Wormancemust receive prior approvalby the btive Director. The Extcutive Dire&~ shall be notified in writing of all 

### OW kddcpermit alterations within 10 daysofof~lunenting thechange. unless the parnit prwides for a different method of notjfmtbn Any flexible pumit alteration nquest or hotifhlio~ shall include informati= sufficient to demonstrate that the chrngedoesnot interfuewith theowner or operator's previdus demonstrationsof compliance with the requirements of 5116.711 of this title. includingtheprotection of public health and welfare. The appropriate TexasNatural Resource ConservationCommission Regional Office and any local air pollution program having jurisdiction shd be provided copies of all flexible permit alteration documents. (3) Flexible permit altuations shall not be subject to the requirements of Best Available Control Technology identified in 9116.711(3) of this title. (c) Qlanges not requiring an amendment or alteration. The following changes do not quire an amendment or alteration, o;cept that an amendment is required if the change will cause a change in the method of,control of emissions. the chartickt of the unissions. or will result in a significant increase in emissions: (I) a change in throughput; or (2) a change in feedstock (d) Standard exemption in lieu of permit amendment or alteration. (1) Notwithstanding substctions (a) or (b) of this section. no pemrit amendment or alterationis requiredif the changes to the permitted facility qualify for an exunplion under SubchapbzCof this chapter (regarding Pumit Exemptions) unless prohibited by pennit provision as provided in $116.715 of this title (dating t~ Gwwal and Special Conditions).

### AU such exempted changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporatedinto that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended or renewed. (2) Emision incrases authorized by standard exemption at an.existing facility covered by a flexible pennit shall not caust an cxuedance of the unissions cap or individual cmission Limitation. $116.722.Distance Limitations. No fhiblepermitmay be issued unless thedistance and location restrictions found in 9116.117 of this title (relating to Distance Lknitations) are met. $116.730.ComplianceHistory. As part of aflexiblepennitreview. or thereview ofan amendment of a flexible pumit,or renewal of a. existingflexiblepermit, the provisions found in the undesgnated head regarding ComplianceHistoryin SubchaptuB of this chapter shall be applicable to the facility. group of facilitits. or acixuntbeing permitted, amended. or mewed $116.740. Public Notice and Comment. Any person who applies for aflexible permit or an amendment to a flexible permit shall comply with the provisions in the undesignatedheadregarding PublicNotification and Comment Procedures in Subchapter B of this chapter. $116.750. Flexible Permit Fee. (a) Fees required. Any person who applies for a flexible pennit or for an amendment to an existing fludble panit shall remit, at the tjme of application for suchpermit. a fee as setforth in subsection (b) of this section. Fees will not be charged for flexible permit alterations. changes of ownership, or changes of lodon of pumitttd facilities. (b) Fee amounts. The fee to be remitted with a flexible pumit application shallbe based on the total mualallowable emissions from the permitted fdty, group of facilities, or account for which the fl#- ble plrmit is being sought The fee shallbe $2!i per ton with the rninknum fee being $450 and the maximum fee $75.000. For flexiblepermitamendments. thefee shallbe calculated based on $25 pet ton for the incremental emission imcasc with the maximum fee being $75.000. (c) Payment of fees. All pennit fees for a flexible pennit shall be remitied in theform of acheckor money ordermade payable to theTexasNatrual Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and delivered with the application for flexiblepermit or fhible pennit amendment to the TNRCC Office of Air Quality New Source Review Program. Required fees must be receivedbefore the agency willbeginexamination of the application (d) Return of fees. Fees must be paid at thetime an applicationfor a flexible pennit orflexiblepermitamendmentis sub mit&ed. If the applicant withdrawsthe application prior to issuance of the flexible permit or fludble permit amendment. onehalf of the fcc will berefunded. urcept that the entire fee will be refunded for any such application for which a standard exemption is allowed. No fces will

### bt refunded after a deficient application has been voided denied, or after a flexible pennit or flexible pumit amendment has been issued by the agency. $116.760.FlexiblePermit Renewal. Fludble permitswill be renewed in ~tcordanct with Subchapbz D of this chapter (rclahag to Pumit Reaewals). This agency herebycerliWthatthe pUpOd has been rev-wed by legal cwnsel and found to be within the agency's ardbily to adopt. Issued in AWin, Texas. on September 13. 1994.

Eatliest we date of adoption: Odok 21. 1994

. 

### . PROPOSED 

### RULES September 20, 1994 19 TexReg 7339

---, .-

## -- 

# ... 

# .........'.................. '



### ... 

### . ... --..-.:::: 7.. :........... .:., ......................... ... .... .
..... .... ....... ,.?,; ;., .-.7-7.7

... ... ..... 

### ............ 

# ........ :, :

# .;. -

.. :
......................... . .:
. . ' . :., .......:.................

... ...... . .:. ..
.... ... :.., . .John Hall, Chairman Pam Reed, Commissioner Peggy Gamer,Commissioner Anthony Grigsby.Executive Director 

## TEXASNATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION Protecting TermbyReducing andPreventingPollution



### NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BY THE TEXAS NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION COMMISSION

ON PROPOSED REVISIONS TO CHAPTER 116 AND THE STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the requirements of the Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, 5382.017 (Vernon's 1992); Texas Government Code Annotated, Subchapter B, Chapter 2001

(Vernon's 1993); and 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 551.102 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations concerning State Implementation Plans (SIP), the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or Commission) will conduct a public hearing to receive testimony concerning revisions to Chapter 116 and the SIP. The TNRCC proposes'a new Subchapter GI 

### concerning Flexible Permits. The proposed subchapter will create a new type of permit called flexible permits. A flexible permit will function as an optional alternative to the current preconstruction permit that exchanges operational flexibility for emission reductions with the final goal being a well-controlled facility. A flexible permit will replace any existing preconstruction permit that covers any facility included in the flexible permit. A facility owner or operator may obtain a flexible permit which will allow physical and operational changes (within specified limits.) as an alternative to obtaining a new source review permit or in lieu of amending an existing permit. A person may obtain a flexible permit for a facility, group of facilities, or entire account and an emissions cap will be established for the facilities included within the flexible permit. A public hearing on the proposal will be held October 3, 1994 at 10:OO a.m. in Room 201s of TNRCC Building E, 

### located at 12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Austin. The hearing is structured for the receipt of oral or written comments by interested persons. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC

P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 512/239-1000 prinldon rrcyddpapr usingsoybaxd inkPAGE TWO



### staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing. Written comments not presented at the hearing may be submitted to the TNRCC central office in Austin through October 21, 1994. Material received by the TNRCC Regulation Development Section by 4:00 p.m. on October 21, 1994 will be considered by the Commission prior to any final action on the proposal. Copies of the revision are available at the central office of the TNRCC located at 12118 North 1-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Building E, Austin, and at all TNRCC regional offices. Please mail written comments to the Regulation Development Section, Air Quality Planning, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas 78711-3087. For further information, contact Gary McArthur at (512) 239-1917. Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other
, 

### accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearing should contact the agency at (512) 239-1459. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible. Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 13, 1994.

~irector, Legal Services Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 1 

### of 38



### The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) proposes new S116.13, an amendment to S116.110, and new

116.740, 116.750, and 116.760. Many of the proposed sections will comprise a new Subchapter GI concerning Flexible Permits, as part of Chapter 116, concerning Control of Air Pollution By Permits for New Construction or Modification. New S116.13 is proposed to define terms related to flexible permits and S116.110 is amended to include reference to flexible permits.

The proposed new Subchapter G has been developed in response to direction from the Commission at the January 21, 1994 policy agenda meeting. This proposal was developed after considering the positional papers presented by industry, environmental groups, and local programs under the supervision of Task Force 21. The proposed subchapter will create a new type of permit called a 

### flexible permit. The flexible permit will function as

an optional alternative to the preconstruction permits that are
now authorized in Subchapter B, concerning New Source Review Permits. The flexible permit is designed to exchange flexibility for emission reductions with the final goal being a well-controlled facility.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 2 

### of 38



### Only one flexible permit may be issued for a particular plant site or active account. However, multiple emission caps, multiple individual emission limits, or any combination thereof may be included'ina flexible permit. The applicant for a flexible permit may combine existing permitted facilities, grandfathered facilities, and new facilities into the flexible permit. The flexible permit will then become the controlling authorization for all facilities included in the permit, replacing any existing permits that may have been applicable to all or part of these facilities.

New S116.710, concerning Applicability contains the general terms

or conditions under which a flexible permit can be obtained. New §116.711, concerning Flexible Permit Application lists the criteria for obtaining a flexible permit and the required contents of a flexible permit application. New 8116.714, concerning Application Review Schedule references the existing permit review schedule used in new source review permits as being applicable to flexible permits. New 8116.715, concerning General and Special Conditions lists conditions of general applicability for all flexible permits. New 8116.716, concerning Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limitations specifies how emission caps and individual emission limitations are determined and how

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 3 

### of '38

emission caps are readjusted. New S116.717, concerning Implementation Schedule for Additional Controls requires a flexible permit to specify an implementation schedule whenever additional controls are required to meet an emission cap. New S116.718, concerning Significant Emission Increase defines "significant emissions increasew in terms of the emission cap or individual emission limitation. New S116.720, concerning Limitation on Physical and Operational Changes precludes increases in actual emissions at facilities not covered by the flexible permit unless those facilities are authorized pursuant to S116.110. New S116.721, concerning Amendments and Alterations defines the types of changes to a facility that require a permit amendment or alteration and when written notification of physical

or operational changes at a facility covered by a flexible permit is required. New S116.722, concerning Distance Limitations, S116.730, concerning Compliance History, and S116.740, concerning Public Notice and Comment state that the existing requirements for these topics in Subchapter B also apply to flexible permits. New S116.750,.concerning Flexible Permit Fees sets fees for a flexible permit. New S116.760, concerning Flexible Permit Renewal states that the existing requirements for this topic in Subchapter B also apply to flexible permits.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 4 

### of 38



### Flexibility will be provided for physical and operational changes at facilities included in the flexible permit as long as the emission cap(s) or individual emission limitations are not exceeded. As Chapter 116 

### is currently written, physical or operational changes cannot be made to existing facilities without prior authorization.

The flexible permitting process will eliminate the current practice of having to submit an amendment application each time

an operational or physical change is made at the facility. The environmental benefits of this optional program include the permitting of grandfathered units, substantial emission reductions from the installation of controls, and an overall evaluation of emission impacts.

The proposed Subchapter G 

### will allow only one flexible permit per account. The permit will establish an emission cap, multiple emission caps, or individual emission limitations, as specified by the applicant, to cover all sources included in the flexible permit. Short term emission cap(s) or individual emission limitations will be based upon an estimation of worst case normal emissions. Upset and maintenance related emissions will be excluded in the calculation of the emission cap(s) or individual

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 5 

### of 38



### emission limitation. The emission cap(s) or individual emission limitation may include an insignificant emission factor to allow for flexibility.

Emission limits will be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. The applicant may specify which pollutants are to be included in the emission cap(s), however, the flexible permit must contain an emission cap or individual emission limitation for each pollutant. Individual emission limitations may be included in the permit even though an emission cap may exist for that pollutant. Operational and physical changes, other than construction of new facilities (including replacement facilities), may be made under the authority of the flexible permit if the changes will result in an insignificant increase in actual emissions. Operational and physical changes resulting in a
9 

### significant increase will not be allowed under the authority of a flexible permit. A 

### change in the nature of the emission, i-e., a
new air contaminant not previously emitted from a particular unit
or source, will not be allowed under the flexible permit without


### a permit amendment.
Modeling issues for flexible permits will be covered by current TNRCC modeling guidelines. The extent of modeling required for

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 6 

### of 38



### flexible permits will be determined by a review of past modeling, any appropriate ambient monitoring, compliance history, and emission reductions due to the implementation of controls. Reductions in emissions will be a key factor in deciding the extent of any modeling required.

The permittee must measure the emissions by means such as continuous emission monitors, initial compliance testing with ongoing compliance determined through engineering calculations based on measured process variables, parametric or predictive modeling techniques, or other appropriate techniques. Appropriate records as defined by permit conditions will be maintained to demonstrate compliance with emission cap(s) and individual emission limitations.

In most cases, existing facilities which have been permitted within the last five years will be considered to have Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for the purposes of these rules. However, facilities which have been permitted within the last five years are not excluded from a current BACT and impacts review. The renewal period for a flexible permit will be 10 

### years to allow for evaluation of control technology and emission limits. However, the staff may shorten the renewal period for

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 7 

### of 38



### cause. Existing public notification requirements for preconstruction permits will be made applicable to flexible permits.

In accordance with guidance received from the Commission at the June 29, 1994 agenda meeting, any rule adopted as a result of this proposal will be reevaluated by the staff within one year of the date of approval.

The TNRCC staff requests comments on the following specific issues: staff proposes in §116.716(c) to allow temporary shutdowns for up to 12 months without reducing the emission cap. We request comments on whether this is an appropriate amount of time to be considered a temporary shutdown; staff requests comments on resetting the emission cap to more closely reflect the actual emissions over the life of the flexible permit at time of renewal; staff requests comments on requiring readjustment of the emissions cap and/or individual emission limitation as a result of emission reduction activities required by rules pursuant the Federal Clean Air Act; staff requests comments on whether emission reductions resulting from the installation of controls should be allowed to be banked for purposes of use as offsets in nonattainment areas.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 8 

### of 38



### Stephen Minick, Budget and Planning Division, has determined that for each year of the first five-year period the proposed sections

are in effect there will be some cost to state and local governments. The costs would be staffing to review the flexible permit applications. Since the flexible permit is optional, the number of flexible permit applications may be offset by a reduction in applications for conventional new source permits. Therefore, it is impossible to estimate the actual fiscal impact. Permit staff

resources may be merely transferred from conventional permit review to flexible permit review.

Mr. Minick also has determined that for each year of the first five years the proposed sections are in effect the public benefit anticipated as a result of implementing the sections will be a reduction in emissions of all categories of pollutants and a reduction in the cost of doing business in the State of Texas. The fiscal implications for facilities and small businesses affected by the rule are also indeterminate. Since the flexible permit program is optional, the fees are only required if an applicant chooses the flexible permit option. These fees are likely to be largely offset by a reduction in preconstruction permit applications under Subchapter B. 

### There is no anticipated

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 9 of 38

economic cost to persons who are required to comply with the sections proposed.

A public hearing on this proposal will be held on October 3, 1994, at 10:OO a.m. in the Auditorium (Room 201S), Building E, 

### of the TNRCC Central Office located at 12118 North 1-35,Austin, Texas 78753. Public comments, both oral and written, on the proposed changes are invited at the hearing. Individuals may present oral statements when called upon in order of registration. Open discussion within the audience will not occur during the hearing; however, a TNRCC staff member will be available to discuss the proposal 30 minutes prior to the hearing and will answer questions before and after the hearing.

Written comments not presented at the hearing must be submitted to the TNRCC, Office of Air Quality, Regulation Development Section, P.O. Box 13087, Austin, Texas, 78711-3087, no later than October 21, 1994. Material received by 4:00 p.m. on that date will be considered by the Commission prior to any final action on the proposed regulation. Copies of the proposed regulations are available at the Regulation Development Section of the TNRCC Air Quality Planning Division located at 12118 North IH-35, Park 35 Technology Center, Building E, 

### Austin, Texas 78753, and at all

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 10 of 38

TNRCC Air Program regional offices. For further information, contact Gary McArthur at (512) 239-1917.

Persons with disabilities who have special communication or other accommodation needs who are planning to attend the hearings should contact the agency at (512) 239-1459. Requests should be made as far in advance as possible.

The new section is proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code (Vernon 1992), the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), 3382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

The proposed new section affects the Health and Safety Code, 5382.017.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 11 

### of 38

SUBCHAPTER A : 

### DEFINITIONS

5116.13. 

### Flexible Permit Definitions.

Emissions cap 

### - Emission limit for a specific air contaminant based on total emissions of that pollutant adjusted by an Insignificant Emissions Factor from all sources that are included in a flexible permit.

Expected maximum 

### capacity 

## - The maximum capacity of a facility according to its physical and operational design and planned operation.

Individual emission limitation 

## - Emission limit for a specific air contaminant not covered by an emission cap for an individual facility adjusted by an Insignificant Emissions Factor.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution 

### By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 12 

### of 38

The agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 13, 1994.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 13 of 38

The amendment is proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code

(Vernon 1992)

### , the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA)

### , 8382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

The proposed amendment affects the Health and Safety Code, 8382.017.

SUBCHAPTER B : 

### NEW SOURCE REVIEW PERMITS

PERMIT APPLICATION

5116.110. 

### Applicability.



### (a) Permit to construct. Any person who plans to construct any new facility or to engage in the modification of any existing facility which may emit air contaminants into the air of this state shall obtain a permit pursuant to 5116.111 of this title

(relating to General Applications), satisfy the conditions for 

### a standard permit pursuant to the requirements in Subchapter F 

### of this chapter (relating to Standard Permits), satisfv the conditions for a flexible permit pursuant to the requirements in

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 14 of 38

Subchapter G 

### of this chapter (relatinq to Flexible Permits), or satisfy the conditions for exempt facilities pursuant to Subchapter C of this chapter (relating to Permit Exemptions) before any actual work is begun on the facility. Modifications to existing permitted facilities may be handled through the amendment of an existing permit or an existins flexible ~ermit.

(b)-(e) (No change.)

The agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt.

'~ssued in Austin, Texas, on September 13, 1994.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 15 of 38

The new sections are proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code (Vernon 1992), the' Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA)

### , 5382.017, which provides the TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

The proposed new sections affect the Health and Safety Code, 8382.017.

SUBCHAPTER G : 

### FLEXIBLE PERMITS

PERMIT APPLICATION

1116.710. 

### Applicability.



### (a) Flexible permit. A person may obtain a flexible permit which allows for physical or operational changes as provided by this subchapter as an alternative to obtaining a new source review permit under 5116.110 of this title (relating to Applicability), or in lieu of amending an existing permit under S116.116 of this title (relating to Amendments and Alterations). A 

### person may obtain a flexible permit pursuant to 8116.711 of this title

(relating to Flexible Permit Application) for a facility, group

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 16 of 38



### of facilities, or account before any actual work is begun, provided however:

(1) only one flexible permit may be issued at an account site; (2) 

### modifications to existing facilities covered by a flexible permit may be handled through the amendment of an existing flexible permit; and

(3) 

### permitting of a new facility may be handled through the amendment of a flexible permit.

(b) Operations certification. Any person who obtains a flexible permit under this subchapter shall comply with Sll6.110 (b) of this title.

(c) Change in ownership. The new owner of a facility, group of facilities, or account shall comply with §116.110(c) of this title, provided however, that all facilities covered by a flexible permit must change ownership at the same time and to the

same person, or both the new owner and existing permit holder ' 

### must obtain 

### a permit alteration allocating the emission caps or individual emission limitation prior to the transfer of the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 17 of 38



### permit by the Texas Natural Resource conservation Commission

(TNRCC). After the sale of a facility or facilities, but prior to the transfer of a 

### permit requiring a permit alteration, the original permit holder remains responsible for ensuring compliance with the existing flexible permit and all rules and regulations of the TNRCC. *


### (d) Submittal under seal of registered professional engineer. All applications for a flexible permit or flexible permit amendment shall comply with §116.llO(d) of this title.

(e) ~esponsibility for flexible permit application. The
owner of the facility, group of facilities, or account or the operator of the facility, group of facilities, or account who is authorized to act for the owner is responsible for complying with this section, except as provided by subsection (c) of this section.

I 5116.711. 

### Flexible Permit Application. 

### Any application for a new flexible permit or flexible permit amendment must include a completed Form PI-1 General Application. The Form PI-1 must be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant. The

# ex as Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 18 of 38

Form PI-1 specifies additional support information which must be provided before the application is deemed complete. In order to be granted a flexible permit or flexible permit amendment, the
owner or operator of the proposed facility shall submit information to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

(TNRCC) which demonstrates that all of the following are met.

(1) Protection of public health and welfare. The emissions from the proposed facility, group of facilities, or account as determined pursuant to 5116.716 of this title

(relating to Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limitations), will comply with all rules and regulations of the TNRCC and with the intent of the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), including protection of the health and physical property of the people. In considering the issuance of a flexible permit for construction or modification of any faci.lity, group of facilities, or account-. within 3,000 feet or less of an elementary, junior high/middle,
or senior high school, the TNRCC shall consider any possible adverse short-term or long-term side effects that an air contaminant or nuisance odor from the facility, group of facilities, or account may have on the individuals attending these school facilities.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 19 

### of 38

(2) 

### Measurement of emissions. The proposed facility, group of facilities, or account will have provisions for measuring the emission of air contaminants as determined by the Executive Director. This may include the installation of sampling ports on exhaust stacks and construction of sampling platforms in accordance with guidelines in the TNRCC tt~ompliance Sampling Manual. It

(3) 

### Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

# . The facility, group of facilities, or account will utilize BACT, with consideration given to the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions from the facility on a facility, group of facilities, or account basis. Control technology beyond BACT may be used on certain facilities to provide the emission reductions necessary to comply with this requirement on a group of facilities or account basis, provided however, that the existing level of control may not be lessened for any facility. For new facilities, the use of BACT shall be demonstrated for the individual facility.

(4) Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The emissions from each affected facility as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 

### will meet at least the

### Texas Natural Resource conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 20 of 38



### requirements of any applicable NSPS as listed under Title 40 CFR Part 60, promulgated by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to authority granted under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), S111, as amended.

(5) 

### National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT). The emissions from each facility as defined in 40 CFR Part 61 will meet at least the requirements of any applicable NESHAPS, as listed under 40 CFR Part 61, or any MACT standard, promulgated by EPA pursuant to authority granted under the FCAA, 

### S112, as amended.

(6) Performance demonstration. The proposed facility, group of facilities, or account will achieve the performance specified in the flexible permit application. The applicant may be required to submit additional engineering data after a flexible permit has been issued in order to demonstrate further that the proposed facility, group of facilities, or account will achieve the performance specified in the flexible permit. In addition, initial compliance testing with ongoing compliance determined through engineering calculations based on measured

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 21 of 38

process variables, parametric or predictive monitoring, stack monitoring, or stack testing may be required.

(7) 

### Nonattainment review. If the proposed facility, group of facilities, or account is located in a nonattainment
area, each facility shall comply with all applicable requirements under the undesignated head concerning nonattainment review in Subchapter B 

### of this chapter.

(8) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review. If the proposed facility, group of facilities, or account is located in an attainment area, each facility shall comply with all applicable requirements under the undesignated head concerning PSD in Subchapter B 

### of this chapter.

(9) 

### Air dispersion modeling or ambient monitoring. Computerized air dispersion modeling and/or ambient monitoring may be required by the TNRCC Permits Program to determine the air quality impacts from the facility, group of facilities, or account.

(10) Application content. In addition to any other requirements of this chapter, the applicant shall:

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 22 

### of 38



### (A) identify each air contaminant for which an emission cap is desired;

(B) identify each facility to be included in the flexible permit;

(C) identify each source of emissions to be included in the flexible permit and for each source of emissions identify the Emission Point Number (EPN) and the air contaminants emitted;

(Dl 

### for each emission cap, identify all associated EPNs and provide emission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and the proposed control technology;

(El for each individual emission limitation, identify the EPN and provide emission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and the proposed control technology.

(11) Proposed control technology and compliance demonstration. The applicant shall specify the control tech-

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 23 

### of 38



### nology proposed for each unit to meet the emission cap and demonstrate compliance with all emission caps at potential maximum production capacity.

S116.714. Application Review Schedule. 

### The flexible permit application will be reviewed by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission in accordance with S116.114 

### of this title

(relating to Application Review Schedule).

S116.715. General and Special Conditions.



### (a) Flexible permits may contain general and special conditions. The holders of flexible permits shall comply with any and all such conditions. Upon a specific finding by the Executive Director that an increase of a particular air contaminant could result in a significant impact on the air environment, or could cause the facility, group of facilities, or account to become subject to review under the undesignated headings of Subchapter B of this chapter relating to Nonattainment Review or Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review, the permit may include a special condition which requires the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction'ofModification Chapter 116 Page 24 of 38



### permittee to obtain written approval from the Executive Director before constructing a facility under a standard exemption or standard permit.

(b) A pollutant specific emission cap or multiple emission caps and/or individual emission limitations shall be established for each air contaminant for all facilities authorized by the flexible permit ;



### (c) The following general conditions shall be applicable to every flexible permit.

(1) Voiding of permit. A flexible permit or flexible permit amendment under this subchapter is automatically void if the holder fails to complete construction as specified in the flexible permit. Upon request, the Executive Director may grant
a one time 12-month extension of the date to complete construction. This section does not apply to physical or operational changes allowed without an amendment under S116.721. of this title (relating to Amendments and Alterations).

(2) Construction progress. The start of construction, construction interruptions exceeding 45 days, and completion of

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 25 

### of 38

construction shall be reported to the appropriate regional office of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) not later than 15 

### working days after occurrence of the event.

(3) Start-up notification. The appropriate Air Program Regional Office of the TNRCC and any local program having jurisdiction shall be notified prior to the commencement of operations of the facilities authorized by the permit in such a
manner that a representative of the TNRCC may be present. Phased construction, which may involve a series of facilities commencing operations at different times, shall provide separate notification for the commencement of operations for each facility.

(4) 

### Sampling requirements. If sampling of stacks or process vents is required, the flexible permit holder shall contact the Source and Mobile Monitoring Section of the TNRCC Office of Air Quality prior to sampling to obtain the proper data forms and procedures. All sampling and testing procedures must be approved by the Executive Director and coordinated with the appropriate Air Program Regional Office of the TNRCC. The flexible permit holder is also responsible for providing sampling facilities and conducting the sampling operations or contracting with an independent sampling consultant.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 26 

### of 38

(5) 

### Equivalency of methods. It shall be the responsibility of the flexible permit holder to demonstrate or otherwise justify the equivalency of emission control methods, sampling or other emission.testingmethods, and monitoring methods proposed

as alternatives to methods indicated in the conditions of the flexible permit. Alternative methods shall be applied for in writing and must bereviewed and approved by the Executive Director prior to their.use in fulfilling any requirements of the permit.

(6) 

### Recordkeeping. A copy of the f lkxible permit along with information and data sufficient to demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission caps and individual emission limitations contained'in the flexible permit shall be maintained in a file at the plant site and made available at the request of personnel from the TNRCC or any air pollution control program having jurisdiction. For facilities that normally - 

### operate unattended, this information shall be maintained at the nearest staffed location within Texas specified by the permit holder in the permit application. This information may include, but is not limited to, emission cap and individual emission limitation calculations based on a 12-month rolling basis and, production records and operating hours. Additional recordkeeping

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 27 

### of 38



### requirements may be specified in special conditions attached to the flexible permit. Information in the file shall be retained for at least two yezrs following the date that the information or data is obtained.

(7) 

### Maximum allowable emission rates. A flexible permit covers only those sources of emissions and those air contaminants listed in the table entitled "Emission Sources 

### - Emissions Caps and Individual Emission Limitationsv attached to the flexible permit. Flexible permitted sources are limited to the emission limits and other conditions specified in the table attached to the flexible permit.

(8) 

### Emission cap readjustment. If a schedule to install additional controls is included in the flexible permit and a facility subject to such a schedule is taken out of service, the emission cap contained in the flexible permit will be readjusted for the period the unit is out of service to a level
as if no schedule had been established. Unless a special provision specifies the method of readjustment of the emission cap, a permit alteration shall be obtained.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 28 

### of 38

(9) 

### Maintenance of emission control. The facilities covered by the flexible permit shall not be operated unless all air pollution emission capture and abatement equipment is maintained in good working order and operating properly during normal facility operations. Notification for upsets and maintenance shall be made in accordance with S101.6 and S101.7 of'this title

(relating to Notification Requirements for Major Upset and Notification Requirements for Maintenance).

(10) Compliance with rules. Acceptance of a flexible permit by a permit applicant constitutes an acknowledgement and agreement that the holder will comply with all Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the Commission issued in conformity with the Texas Clean Air Act and the conditions precedent to the granting of the permit. If more than one state or federal rule or regulation or flexible permit condition are applicable, then the most stringent limit or condition shall govern and be the standard by which compliance shall be demonstrated. Acceptance includes consent to the entrance of Commission employees and agents into the permitted premises at reasonable times to investigate conditions relating to the emission or concentration of air contaminants, including compliance with the flexible permit.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Polluti.on By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 29 

### of 38



### (dl There may be additional special conditions attached to a flexible permit upon issuance or amendment of the permit. Such conditions in a flexible permit may be more restrictive than the requirements of Title 30 

### of the Texas Administrative Code.

8116.716. Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limitations.



### (a) Emission caps. Each emission cap for a specific pollutant will be established as follows:

(1) emissions will be calculated for each facility based on application of current Best Available Control Technology at expected maximum capacity;

(2) 

### the calculated emissions will be summed.

(b) Individual emission limitations. An 

### individual emission limitation will be established in the same permit .for each pollutant not covered by an emission cap for facilities covered by the flexible permit. In addition, an individual emission limitation may be established for a pollutant covered by

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 30 

### of 38



### an emission cap when the expected capacity of a facility is less than the expected maximum capacity to prevent a facility from exceeding emission levels appropriate for the proposed controls.

(c) Readjustment of emission cap. If a facility subject to an emission cap is shut down for a period longer than 12 

### months, the emission cap shall be readjusted by lowering the emission cap by an amount that the shut down facility contributed to the original calculation of the emission cap. If a new facility is brought into the flexible permit, an emission cap shall be adjusted by modifying the emissions cap accordingly.

(d) Insignificant emission factor. The emission caps and individual emissions limitation calculated pursuant to this section may include an Insignificant Emissions Factor which does not exceed 9.0% 

### of the total emission cap or individual emission limitation.

5116.717. 

### Implementation Schedule for Additional Controls. 

### If a facility requires the installation of additional controls to meet an emission cap for a pollutant, the flexible permit shall specify an implementation schedule for such additional controls.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 31 

### of 38



### The permit may also specify how the emission cap will be adjusted if such a facility is taken out of service or fails to install the additional control equipment as provided by the implementation schedule.

8116.718, 

### Significant Emission Increase. An 

### increase in emissions from operational or physical changes at an existing facility covered by a flexible permit is insignificant, for the purposes of state new source review under this subchapter, if the increase does not exceed either the emission cap or individual emission limitation. This section does not apply to an increase in emissions from a 

### new facility nor to the emission of an air contaminant not previously emitted by an existing facility.

8116,720. 

### Limitation on Physical and 

### Operational Changes. 

### Neither operational nor physical changes authorized under this subchapter may result in an increase in actual emissions at facilities not covered by the flexible permit unless those affected facilities are authorized pursuant to S116.110 

### of this title (relating to Applicability).

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By 

### Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 32 

### of 38



### 5116.721. Amendments and Alterations.



### (a) Flexible permit amendments. All representations with regard to construction plans and operation procedures in an application for a flexible permit, as well as any general and special provisions attached become conditions upon which the subsequent flexible permit is issued. It shall be unlawful for any person to vary from such representation or flexible permit provision if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions, the character of the emissions, or will result in a significant increase in emissions, unless application is made to the Executive Director to amend the flexible permit in that regard and such amendment is approved by the Executive Director or Commission. Applications to amend a flexible permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and are subject to the requirements of S116.711 of this title (relating to Flegible Permit Application)

# .
(b) Flexible permit alterations.

(1) A flexible permit alteration is for any variation from a representation in a flexible permit application or a

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116



### general or special provision of a flexible Page 33 

### of 38



### permit that does not require a'flexiblepermit amendment.

(2) 

### All flexible permit alterations which may involve a change in a general or special condition contained in the flexible permit, or affect control equipment performance must receive prior approval by the Executive Director. The Executive Director shall be notified in writing of all other flexible permit alterations within 10 

### days of implementing the change, unless the permit provides for a different method of notification. Any flexible permit alteration request or notification shall include information sufficient to demonstrate that the change does not interfere with the owner or operator's previous demonstrations of compliance with the requirements of 8116.711 

### of this title, including the protection of public health and welfare. The appropriate Texas Natural Resource conservation Commission Regional Office and any local air pollution program having jurisdiction shall be provided copies of all flexible permit alteration documents.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 Page 34 

### of 38



### (3) ~lexible permit alterations shall not be subject to the requirements of Best Available Control Technology identified in §116.711(3) of this title.

(c) Changes not requiring an amendment or alteration. The following changes do not require an amendment or alteration, except that an amendment is required if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions, the character of the emissions, or will result in a significant increase in emissions:

(1) a change in throughput; or

(2) 

### a change in feedstock.

(d) Standard exemption in lieu of permit amendment or alteration.

(1) Notwithstanding subsections (a) or (b) 

### of this section, no permit amendment or alteration is required if the changes to the permitted facility qualify for an exemption under Subchapter C of this chapter (regarding Permit Exemptions) unless prohibited by permit provision as provided in 8116.715 of this

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 35 

### of 38



### title (relating to General and Special Conditions). All such exempted changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended

or renewed.

(2) 

### Emission increases authorized by standard exemption at an existing facility covered by a flexible permit shall not cause an exceedance of the emissions cap or individual emission limitation.

8116.722. Distance Limitations. 

### No flexible permit may be issued unless the distance and location restrictions found in
S116.117 

### of this title (relating.to Distance Limitations) are met.

8116.730. Compliance History. 

### As part of a flexible permit review, or the review of an amendment of a flexible permit, or renewal of an existing flexible permit, the provisions found in the undesignated head regarding Compliance History in Subchapter B 

### of this-chaptershall be applicable to the facility, group of facilities, or account being permitted, amended, or renewed.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 36 

### of 38



### 8116.740. Public Notice 

### and Comment. 

### Any person who applies for

a flexible permit or an amendment to a flexible permit shall comply with the provisions in the undesignated head regarding Public Notification and Comment Procedures in Subchapter B of this chapter.

8116.750. Flexible Permit Fee.



### (a) Fees required. Any person who applies for a flexible permit or for an amendment to an existing flexible permit shall remit, at the time of application for such permit, a fee as set forth in subsection (b) of this section. Fees will not be charged for flexible permit alterations, changes of ownership,

or changes of location of permitted facilities.

-- 

### (b) Fee amounts. The fee to be remitted with a flexible permit application shall be based on the total annual allowable emissions from the permitted facility, group of facilities, or account for which the flexible permit is being sought. The fee shall be $25 

### per ton with the minimum fee being $450 

### and the maximum fee $75,000. 

### For flexible permit amendments, the fee

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of ModXication Chapter 116 

### Page 37 of 38

shall be calculated based on $25 per ton for the incremental emission increase with the maximum fee being $75,000.

(c) Payment of fees. All permit fees for a flexible permit shall be remitted in the form of a check or money order made payable to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and delivered with the application for flexible permit or flexible permit amendment to the TNRCC Office of Air Quality New Source Review Program. Required fees must be received before the agency will begin examination of the application.

(d) Return of fees. Fees must be paid at the time an application for a flexible permit or flexible permit amendment is submitted. If the applicant withdraws the application prior to issuance of the flexible permit or flexible permit amendment, one-half of the fee will be refunded, except that the entire fee will be refunded for any such application for which a standard exemption is allowed. No fees will be refunded after a deficient application has been voided, denied, or after a flexible permit
or flexible permit amendment has been issued by the agency.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Page 38 of 38 Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction of Modification Chapter 116

P116.760. Flexible Permit Renewal. 

### Flexible permits will be renewed in accordance with Subchapter D 

### of this chapter (relating to Permit Renewals) 

## .

The agency hereby certifies that the proposal has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be within the agency's authority to adopt.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on September 13, 1994.

# WRITTEN AND ORAL TESTIMONY

### INDEX OF WRITTEN TESTIMONY Reference Number W-1 W-2 Submitted Bv Susan Moore, Amoco Production Company Mary E. Kelly, Texas Center for Policy Studies Dael Baughman, Eastman Chemical Company Thomas H. Diggs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 

### G. Michael White, Exxon Company, U.S.A. Brandt Mannchen, Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention B.C. Carmine, Houston Lighting & 

### Power Rob Looney, Texas Mid-Continent Oil & 

### Gas Association Thurman Nance, Phillips 66 

### Company, Borger Strategic Business Unit Dan F. Hunter, Phillips 66 

### Company, Sweeny Refinery & 

### Petrochemical Company Neil J. 

### Carman, Sierra Club, Austin George Smith, Sierra Club, Houston Maureen A. Healey, The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc.OCT 26 

### '34 63: Z*!q RXEHS (PTGS), HOL)



### Amoco Production

### Company 

### October21, 1994 

### hfi.

### JeffSaitas Director,

### New 

### Source

### ReviewProgrm Texas

### Natural Resource 

### Consw&on Commission 

### POBox 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3 

### 087 

### FAX 512 239 1300 

### Dear

### Mi. Saitas: Arnoco'sTexas

### OperatingFacilities appreciatethe

### opportunity

### to commentonthe proposed amendments

### to Regulation

### VI, SubcbapterG 

### "Flexible

### Permit Program".

,

### Amoco co-cbaired the

### TaskForce21 

### Air

### Issues 

### Subgroupthat

### addressed

### this

### issue; 

### we

appreciatethat 

### opportunity, 

### aswell, 

### and we

### fully asupport 

### thecomments

### submittedby the 

### regulatedcommunity

### members ofthat urarkgroup. 

### While we

### have some concerns

### with the

### program,

### overall we 

### cornmendthe 

### ThXCCfor

### its 

### effortstodevelop

### a programthat

### will 

### provide operators more

### flexibility. Again

### we fhlly supportthe

### comments submittedbythe 

### regulated 

### community

### members of the

## TaskForce21

### Air Issuesworkgroup. 

### Thosecommentswill

### notbe repeated 

### here. However, 

### we

### wishto

### highlight someconcems 

### ofparticular

### interestto Amoco. 1. 

### Amoco believesthatit

### is essential for the

### flexibIe

### pernitto 

### dlowemission

### limits establishedon

### apouutant-by-pollutant

### basis. It

### may 

### notbe 

### economic@ fkasible to

### modifyfor 

### all pollutants. Facility o-ners 

### and operators

### will

### be lesslikely to 

### make reductionsunder

### thisvolu!~tary programifit 

### is 

### an "allor

### nothing" type 

### approach. 2. 

### The ability

### to 

### use standardexemptions

### evenifthose 

### exemptionsresult

### in an

### increase

## in the emission cap 

### shouldbe allowed 

### inthe

### flexible

### permit. While 

### we understand

### the concernsofthe 

### TNRCC staff,we 

### do

### notbelieve that

### theflexibility afforded

### by stmdard exemptions 

### should be removed

### becauseof the 

### flexibilityprovided

### in the flexiblepermit. Amoco suggests

### that 

### the TNRCC 

### allowthe use 

### of

### standard exemptions as 

### recommendedand 

### reevaluate this 

### ifnecessary

### during

### the 1

### year review.

### 3. 

## Ifonly 

### one

### flexiblepermit is allowed, it 

### should

## be rnadeclearthat 

### reopenings

### ofthe 

### fl~ble pennit

### foradditions

### or

### modificationsonly

### requirereview

### of

### affecfed facilities.



### I appreciate

### theopportunityto

### work withyou 

### andyour 

### staff

### on

### thisinnovative 

### rulemaking. 

### Pleasecall me at 

### (713) 366-5018

### for anyquestions. 

### Sincerely,

Susan

### MooreKT20 

### '94 84: 35PM 'AX EHS (PT8S1, HOLI



### Mr. J& Saitas Director,

### New Source

### RwiwProgram Texas

### NatmalResourceComationCbmuhion 

### POBax 13087 Au&I, 

### Tm 78711-3087 FAX 512 239 1300 Dear

### Mr.Shs: Attached 

### are cwnmml~ 

### antheprops4SubchapterG. Flexible Pcrxaitssubmated

### onbchmlfaf

### the 

### replatedcommunity

### representativesof& TaskForce21AirIssuesWakgfoup. 

### Portionsof

### theTNRCC'ep@ 

### rule

### have

### bcareprhdcd

### onthe

### followingplrgeswhich

### mntainour 

### canmenu. 

### Reconuncndeddclctiom

### sroindicated

### by a strike. 

### Ibci~rmncn8ed additibnsl

### laqpp 

### is indicated

### inbold. Gad commurts arein italics. 

### I

### appreciate

### theoppormnitytoworkwithyouandywr 

### s&Son tbis

### inaWatiw nrlemaking. Please

### call

### me d(713) 366-5018 for anyquestim.

Susan

### MooreOCT 28 

### '94 04 : 3BPll RPC EHS (PT8S1 r HOU

&lee 

### delete bold

# - add italics- 

### commects on 

### proposed 

### rule

Pespoaseto 

### TNRCCReauest 

### for 

### Commentson 

### Ternporarv

### shutdowns:

.

### Temporary shutdownsupto 12

### months should

### be 

### allowedwithoutreducing

### /readjusting 

### the emission cap. 

### Requirementsto 

### readjust tin

### emission

### capbased

### ontemporary 

### shutdowns

### lessthan 12 

### monthswould 

### be

### undulyburdensomefor boththepermittee and 

### TNRCC,It

### is

### expected 

### that

### many

### units might 

### be included 

## inanmission cap. Temporary

### shutdownsforrepair 

### and 

### maintenance,for 

### mple,

### may be staggered 

### over a

### period 

### oftime. 

### Therefore,it

### is 

### reasonabletoexpect

### that 

### oneunit inthe 

### cap could 

### shutdown,startup, 

### andthen another unit shutdown, 

### and 

### so fcrth. 

### Therefore, the 

### permittee

### would be forced to 

### do 

### frequent adjustments

### afthe

### emission cap. 

### A sourcewould haveto

### reduce 

### its emission 

### cap dueto a 

### temponry shutdown, 

### and then a

### few monthslater 

### the same

### scarce

### wouldhaveto 

### readjust 

### its cap

## when the 

### temporary shutdownwas completed

### and the unit

### was 

### readyagain

### for operation. Instead, we

### believethat twelve

### months 

### isan

### appropriatecut-offto 

### distinguish tempcraiy shutdowns

### from shutdowns that 

### warrant 

### a reduction

### inthe 

### emission cap. 

### As 

### suchwe support

### the TnTRCC 

### proposal to

### allowtemporary

### shutdownsof

### upto twelve 

### months

### in lengthwithout 

### reducing

### orreadjustingthe 

### emissionscap. 

### Resetting-at Renewal Resettingthe emission

### cap at 

### permit renewal

### isinconsistentntththe 

### gods ofa

### flexible permit. 

### Therewill 

### be 

### noflexibility to 

### ma'ke operational 

### or 

### physical 

### changes if

### a.facilityis 

### operating at

### its 

### "allowable" 

### emissionrate 

### on a

### routine

### besis. While the

### program can

### be expected 

### to result

### in someincreases

### in 

### actial emissions; these 

### increases will be

### within 

### the 

### overall constraint ofthe 

### permitted allowable 

### emissions. Furthermore, thest 

### increases 

### would 

### occur only at 

### facilities 

### that are

### well-controlled and

### have acceptable impacts, 

### In addition, the incrc~ses 

### wouId be expected to 

### occur under 

### the currentsystem but 

### only after a 

### review 

### requiring 

### considerable unnecessary

### company 

### and agency 

### resources. Therefore,if

### facilitieswere 

### required to

### resetrheir emissionsat 

### renewal, the 

### benefit

### ofthe

### flexiblepermit would 

### end at 

### renewal 

### and 

### the current practice of submitting 

### an amendment application

### each time 

### an 

### operational or physical 

### changeis made

### would be 

### perpetuated.

### Resettingthe 

### emissions cat, andfor

### individual 

### emission limitation 

### as a result 

### ofemission 

### reductionactivities

### reauired

### bv rules pursuant to

### theFederal

### Clean Air 

### If afacility or source

### already meetsor exceeds

### the 

### limitation 

### specifiedby 

### rules

### pursuantto the

### Federal Clean

### AirAct, then 

### no additional

### action should berequired by the

### facility 

### owner 

### or operator 

# . If,however, 

### zdditionalemissionreduction activities 

### arerequired to 

### complywith 

### such rulesthen, the

### facility owner

### or operator 

### should submit 

### aproposal to 

### readjust

### the emission cap 60 

### days

### beforethe 

### compliance 

### date oftheFederal 

### ruleto

### be effective

### onthe compliance

### date of

### the

### Federalrule 

# . Banking 

### Reductionsfrom 

### existing ficilitjes 

### should

### be availablefbrbanking 

### or as "creditable" reductions. 

### Thepurpose of

### thisproposedrule

### is to 

### dlow a 

### "well-controlledn facility

### theflexibility

### to makesome c.hangesin a 

### streamlined

### fashionwithout 

### requiring apermit 

### or permit 

### amendment. 

### Thispurpose 

### is not hindered

### by 

### allowing

### afacilityto

### use 

### emissionreductjori 

### asoffsets. 

### Instead, the 

### srbilityto 

### use 

### these reductions 

### as offsetsencourages sorirces

### to 

### make reductions. Additionally, since

### there is

### an 

### offset ratio 

### fornon~ttainment a:eas 

### greater than 

### 1-to-1, 

### the environmentwill benefit 

### from enco~1ra5ing these 

### offset 

### transactions. 

### For exanpie,

### theHoustodGelveston

### nonattainment 

### area has 

### a I

### .3-to-1 

### offset ratio which

### meansthat 

### for every 

### ton of

### emission to

### be offset, 

### the facility

### must use 

### 1.3tons 

### ofemissions. 

### Therefore,

### there 

### is an 

### environmental benefit of 0.3 

### tons 

### of emissions

### for each

### ton ofthe new

### project 

### to be offset. Additionally, 

### erjssionredcction credits

### to be sold 

### as offse.tshave 

### a iirnited 

### life ss donetting 

### creditsat 

### cerkinfaci!ities. Furthermore, these emission

### reduction creditsexpire

### when

### thereducti~ns 

### become mandatedby regulation. 

### Also, 

### the

### nonatrai~ment 

### areas need 

### a mechenism for 

### generating orsets so that 

### facilities 

### canuse these offsetsto make any

### necessary changes, If

### the

### regulations

### prevent aflexible 

### permit 

### holder from generating

### offsets through 

### emissionreductions, sources

### will be 

### discouraged fiom 

### seeking a 

### flexible permit. 

### Additionally,

### these offsets

### will

### become more scarcecausing 

### areduction

### in the number of

### envirormentallybeneficial offset

### trades 

### and 

### drasticallyincreasingthe 

### cost of new

### projects and changes

### in the

### nonattainmentarea. 1% 

### believe rhatthis 

### scarcity 

### ofoffsetscouldpractically

### result in 

### aban 

### on new

### projectsinthe HoustodGalveston

### region with

### the associated 

### damageto 

### the economy 

### ofthis area. 

### EstablishjneErnissiorr

### Limits: 

## Any scenario 

### for a 

### "flexiblepermit" should 

### provideincentives

### for innovation, reduce 

### the cost 

### of

### compliance, enhance 

### environmental benefits, 

### and 

### increaseflexibility. It 

### should be 

### a 

### voluntary

### program which

### recognizes the 

### costs associated 

### with 

### compliance. It 

### should 

### value 

### emissionreductions from permitted as 

### well as 

### grandfathered facilities. 

### It should value emission

### reductions whether

### fiom anindividual 

### operatingunit 

### or source, group 

### ofKTZB '94 BJ:3'3Pll QPC EHS (PTSSIrHOU



### sources,the entire plant, 

### or any combination 

### ofpermitted 

### or grandfathered units 

### or 

### sources. 

### It should allowfor establishment

### ofemission 

### limits on a pollutant 

### by pollutant 

### basis or category 

### ofpollutants. 

### Theseconceptsprovide a

### framework which

### outline some

### ofthe 

### goalsEecessary

### for successfitimplementation of

### this program. 

### It 

### is essenti~cl that 

### these 

### elementsareclearly 

### conveyed

### inthetext 

### ofthe

### proposal and 

### inthe 

### preambIe. 

### Many ofour 

### comments are directed to

### provide such

### clarification. 

### Interaction of

### flexible permits 

### with the 

### Title V 

### O~eratina 

### Permits

### Program 

## TNRCC and workgroup

### members have not 

### discussedin 

### detail the 

### interaction 

### ofthe 

### flexible permit wjth 

### other

### federalprograms. 

### However, ingeneral,industry believesthat an indiGdual 

### source

### shouldnot be 

### dzfinedas 

### "major" 

### simply

### because the cap

### is "major". 

### 2'hePexibZepennit

### in md

### ofitselfshouM nottrigger

### additionalfedera? 

### reqztircmenrswhich~+fuuld nof

### orhenvise be 

### imposed Specific Comments on 

### TNRCC 's Pronosed 

### Rules: Subchanter 

### G: 

### FlexiblePermits



### Individual emission

### limitation-

### Elnissionliinit 

### for 

### a specificair contarrjnaninot 

### covered 

### by an emissionc8p 

### for an individual 

### facility adjusted 

### by an 

### lnsignificrtnt

### EmissionsFactor for 

### thespecificsircontaminants and facilities with 

### provisions 

### for 

### future 

### operational and

### physienl flexibiIity. 

### For thespecific air

### contaminant and facilities not 

### desiring modification

### in the 

### flexible permit, 

### the individual emission limit 

### forthe 

### specific

### air contaminant not 

### covered 

### by an emission 

### cap 

### is the permitted 

### or grandfathered 

### emission rate.



### The proposed rule 

### is

### ~rnclenr in terms

### ofihe 

### scope of

### BACT31 ares

### where an

### applicant for 

### ajlexible permit 

### may 

### be reqi~csting limitedflcxibili~ 

### 6y

### havingan entissiancup

### on one 

### specr$c pol~?~tUn? 

### but

### notan

### orher 

### po!?utnnls. An 

### example wuldbe. ia 

### petroleum refinery a?eriring tohaveflexibility 

### in the sulfur 

### content

### offedstocks 

### but 

### operating in 

### compliancewith.existing

### NOx and 

### VOClimits. 

### The 

### VOCand

### hrOx lintits

### sholrld

### rewait2 as

### individual

### emisionlimits 

### 6111 the 

### 502 emissions colrld

### be specified i17 an

### emissions 

### cap. As we

### have statedin 

### the

### pat,fheilexible pennii 

### should

### notforce the creation

### ofplant

### wide capsorplant-wide

### pernritfing. 

### I?shortld, however, ul!ou~f;?ciliry 

### owners

### orKT20 '94 04:39RI GFC EHS (PT8Sjp HOU



### operatorsthe 

### freedom to

### choosewhich poZZufants ?o

### include in

### an emissions cap

### andlor 

### which pollzrlctnts to 

### incl~ide 

### as individ~ral emissia17limits. We 

### propose 

### rhar 116.71 

### I(3) 

### be clarifiedro indicate 

### that

### BACTwould

### be utilizedwirh 

### respect 

### ro the 

### specificair ccnfnminnnfs andfacilitieswhich

### wou?dbe 

### uflectedby $he 

### physical andoperarional~xibility proposed 

### by the

### applicant. 

### This

### couldbe 

### accomplished by inserting appropriate 

### language 111

### Rule 116.71

### l(3) 

### as follows: 

## Thefacility,

### group 

### offacilities, 

### or account 

### will utilize

### BACT,with 

### consideration

### givento 

### thetechnicalpracticability and 

### economicreasonableness

### ofreducing or eliminating 

### the 

### emissionsfromthe f~ciijty on 

### afacility,

### group offacilities, or account

### basis. 

### For any 

### newfacilitiesassociatedwith 

### the flexible 

### permit? BACT

### will 

### be applied with respect 

### to 

### all 

### aircontaminants emitted 

### by thefacility. 

### For existing facilities,BACTwill be applied with respect 

### to thespecific 

### air contaminants

### and facilitieswhose 

### emissions 

### would be affected by 

### the flexibility 

### to be 

### granted by the 

### pennit. 

### Controltechnology 

### beyond..

. 

### .

# .. . Add

### a flew item 

### under exisling 

### itemsI and 5

### ar

## fellows: Applicability of

### NSPS orhiSHhPstandards 

### and any other 

### applicable

### rules 

### and regulations

### of

### TNRCC shall be considered in establishing the 

### emission cap or 

### in 

### settingspecial provisions 

### ofthe 

### flexiblepermit. For 

### a flexible permit, 

### a 

### source/sourceswill bt 

### considered in compliance with 

### these standards 

### if emissions 

### from a11 

### sources covered 

### by 

### the flexible permit 

### arebelow the 

### emission cap and 

### special 

### provisions of the 

### flexible permit 

### are satisfied. 

### 771~ above 

### hgiiage clo~?/ies 

### that conP~ian& 

### is

### bawdon ihe 

### emission

### cop and

### not 

### incfivitabalemission limits. 

### Addi~icnal requircrna71s

### co~?cred 

### by

### NSPS orh'ESHAP 

### (such 

### asthe 

### conaoI eflciency)should

### be 

### coveredin

### ~pscicl pros~isionr 

### ofthe flexible

### pennii. 

### INRCCshould encourage

### EPA srpporr of this

### concept. (10) 

### ApplicationContent (E) 

### for each individual 

### emission limitation 

### ,identi6the

### EPN

### and provide 

### emissionrate calculationsbased 

### on the 

### expected maximum capacity and 

### ihe proposed 

### control technology find for 

### each air 

### contaminant which 

### is not 

### modified as 

### x 

### result

### ofthe flexible permit and 

### for which 

### an emission cap 

### is not

### desired, identify its individual 

### emission limitation, 

### its 

### EPN,and provide 

### emission rate calculations based 

### on grandfathered 

### or permitted 

### limits and 

### the existing control 

### technology. l%is 

### Ionguage clarifies 

### that

### emission linlfis

### con be 

### established on a

### pollutant-by

### pollutant 

### basis; 

### It is consislentwilh 

### TA%CCSrtqffproposal to

### combine operaliorurl 

### flexibiliv 

### and the 

### alternativepemlilring 

### framework doted

### June 22, 1994 

### which

### reads as 

### follows: "Eniissionlimits

### wo:rld

### be established on

### a 

### polltrlmt-by-pollurar7t 

### basis. 

### The upplicazit 

### couldelect to esr'7hZish sozv-ce

### cap.rforall 

### pollzl !antsor 

### any parrinrkar
'

### polltrfan? inchided

### in the 

### flexiblzpermit. 

### "KT20 '01 04:3s'irm HPC EHS 1Plt;lb)~HWU



### Furthennore,language should

### be added to

### ir7dicafethat

### emissionrate 

### calczrlariomdo 

### not

### need to

### beprovided during

### amerximent

### ofa flexible

### permitfor unaflecied

### sources. Xhis

### would

### be a drplicative 

### effortfor 

### lrhe cpplicairt. 

### - 116.71

### 5 General And 

### Special 

### Conditions 

### (8) Emission 

### capreadjustment. 

### If

### a schedule to

### install 

### additional controls

### is included 

### in 

### the

### flexible permit 

### and a

### facility

### subject to 

### such a 

### schedule

### is taken out 

### of

### senice,the 

### emissioncap 

### contained

### in the 

### flexible

### permit will 

### be 

### resdjusted 

## . . All*as 

### required 

### in special provisions 

### of the 

### permit. &Jdw 

### If a 

### special provisiondoes not 

### specifiesthe method 

### cf readjustrn~t 

### ofthe emissioncap, a 

### permit 

### alterationshail be obtained. 75eficililym??kr

### or operatorand 

### Tlt2CCsholrld

### review rhe

### provisions 

### nece~sary to address

### shutdownsfor fucilrries that

### receisc

### aschedule to 

### installcontrols. 116.716 

### Emission Caps 

### andIndividual 

### EmissionLimitations (b) 

### Tndividud emission limitations. 

### An icdividuzl emission

### limitationwill 

### be 

### established in the 

### samepermit 

### for 

### each pollutant 

### not covered 

### by

### an emission 

### cap 

### for

### facilities covered by :c' 

# . .. .. 

## -. , the 

### flexible permit.*



### Theintent of 

### the Iclst

### senlence in 

### is 

### uilclgar, This

### could

### be inie?preted to disallow 

### increases in

### emissionsabove acltrals 

### aven

### qrhose increosesare within 

### theemission 

### cap 

### orindividrml

### emission limit 

### allownh 

### b. Rgclin,

### as~tated in

### ourgeneral 

### comments,rhis 

### is inconsistent wizh 

### the entire 

### notion

### of aflexib[t?yernlit. Fwtherrnore, ?heissue 

### of 

### "emissionlevels

### appropricrtefor the

### proposed controls" 

### should

### not 

### be a

### ccncernsince 

### facilities 

### operatingunderan emisston capwillmeet

### BACT

### and impactsrequirements 

### when 

### theJzxible

### permit isfssued. 

### Hmewr, we

### would

### stip2ort a7

### applicanl's desire to

### limit their

### expectzdrnaximltm 

### capaci2)l

## y they

### desire to

### trse that 

### capacir5,in

### calculntion

### of an 

### individzralemissionlirnii. 

# Ifrhis is 

### the 

### intent, 

### rhen 

### iangi~~gc shot~ld 

### be added in the 

### or 

### in the 

### mle to 

### clarrjy. (c)



## ..... Ea new facility 

### is brought

### intothe 

### flexiblepermit, 

### an emission 

### cap shall

### be adjusted 

### by 

## 1 . . . . ' 

### Increasing 

### the 

### emission cap 

### in accordance 

### with 

### the new 

### source's emission limit for 

### thc 

### specific air contaminant 

### based 

### on the total 

### emission 

### of that 

### pollutnnt adjustcd 

### by 

### an insignificant emfssions factor. 

### This 

### !ar;lpngeclarifies that 

### the 

### cap is

### adjzrstedoniy 

### for the 

### new

### solrrce uddzdto

### rlte 

### cap. 

### Existingsourcesi17 I'he

### capdo not

### repire rnodij?cnrio~t,KT 20 

### '94 03: 39PI.1 RPC EHS IPT85) 1 HOLI

116.716(d) 

### Insignificant 

### EmissionFactor. 

### For the 

### specific

### air con

### t~rninants 

### and facilitieswith 

### provisionsfor 

### operationnl or physical flexibility, the 

### emissioncaps and 

### individual emissions limitation may 

### include an 

### insignificant emissionsfactor



### ..

## . ... .... 

### 116.718 Sirnificant

### Emission 

### 'Increase 

### An increasein emissions from operational or physical 

### changes at 

### sn

### existing facility 

### covered

### by a

### flexiblepermit is 

### insignificant, 

### forthe

### purposes ofstate

### new 

### source review 

### underthis subchapter,

### ifthe increase 

### does not exceed

### either the 

### emissioncap 

### orindividual emission

### limitation. 

### This section 

### does

### not apply 

### to 

### anincreasein 

### emissions from 

### a new facility other than 

### areplrcementfacility

### in accordancewith 

### 116.721(b), notto 

### the 

### emission

### of an air 

### contaminzntnot previously emittedby and 

### existingfzcility. 

### n?ischangealIowsreplacement

## futilitiesrrtil;'ii,vg 

### BACT 

### to be illstalled

### underthe 

### jlexiblepermit. 

### At 

### aminimunl, 

### 1X.riCC sho~rld c~nsider a

### mechanism

### jor a

### streamlinedprocess 

### for owners

### or operotors consm(ctingreplacerne?7t$tcililies lhnt

### meet

### BACTreLpirem2nis. 11

### 6.72 1 

### Amendments 

### and Alterations 

### (b)(2) 

## AU flexible

### permit alterations whic.hmay

### involve a

### changein a 

### general 

### and special 

### provisions contained 

### in

### theflexiblepermjt, or adversely 

### affect

### control equipment 

### performance

### must receive 

### prior approvalby 

### the Executive

### Director. 

### TheExecutive 

### Director shall

### be notified in writing 

### ofreplacement fncilities utilizing best available 

### control technology (BACT) in accordance 

### with 116.711(3) and 

### all other

### flexiblepermit alterations within 

### 10days

### ofimplementing 

### the c,hange..


## ...... (d)(2) 

### Emissionincreases 

### authorized by standard 

### exemptionat 

### snexisting facility coveredby 

### aflzxiblepemh

### &W may

### cause 

### eeedaaeincrease

### ofthe

### emissions 

### cap or individud 

### emission iimitation. unless prohibited by 

### permit provision. 

### Historical~v, 

### permit limits 

### can ejfeclitlcly

### be 

### increased

### using...hrdexemptions. At 

### this

### time theregulutsd

### cornmunip, wi/h

### the 

### zrncertainty ofthis

### ttew

### program, 

### isnor ~sifling to

### relinquish

### zhe abiliw to

### makcs~ch 

### changes inpcmit limits. 

### -4s acompromise, 

### the 

### repdatedcommrlnipslrggests

### ollow~l:z-~g increasesin he

### permit lhlits

### suhjecr to tt5e 

### aht 

### of the

### agency to prohibit such 

### increnses

### on a case-by-coseb'lsis.
In 

### ouropinion,

### there is

### no 

### reason toremove 

### the 

### beneptsachieved

### by stanahrd exemptions simply 6eccluse

### scme degree ofj7exibiIif 

### is obiaincd 

### in 

### ihe ')lr?xiblepennit". 

### The 'Iflexible pennit"programsho~tld 

### notbe designed

### to ";orovide"$!exibiIity in 

### one 

### area 

### and lo 

### 'Z.ernove"flexi 

### bilityfiomexisting 

### XWCC programs.

### October 20, 1994


### Gary McArthur 

### 'RegulationDevelopment 

### Section 

### Ogfice 

### of Air Quality Planning 

### .TexasNatural Resource conservation 

### Corniission PiO. 

### Box 13087 

### Austin, Texas 

### SENT 

### BY FAX 

## 234. fS00



### Re: 

### Co-ments of Texas 

### Center for 

### Policy Studies 

### on 

### Proposed 

### Flexible Air 

### Quality 

### Perxit Rules Dear 

### Mr. McArt'nur: Please 

### accept the 

### following coirments 

### on 

### behalf of the 

### Texas :Center fox 

### Policy 

### Studies xegarding 

### the 'proposed 

### xules for 

### '.Elexibl.e air quality 

### permits (19 

### Tex. Reg. 7334, et 

### seq.). 

### For the 

### reasons 

### set forth below, 

### .the Texas Center 

### for 

### Policy Studies 

### .opposes 

### the adoption 

### of these 

### rules.

. . 

### Oenexal Copmn~n.t;: 

### TCPS was 

### represented on 

### the 

### Air Quality



### W~rking Group of 

### Task Force 21 

### that was 

### asked to 

### examine the 

### flexible permitting 

### issues raised by mOGA, 

### The proposed 

### rules go 

### far 

### bevond 

### the 

### scope of 

### what that work group 

### even 

### considexed 

### in that 

### the 

### rules would ap2ly not 

### only to 

### existing facilities, 

### but 

### also to any 

### new facility. (proposed § 

### 116.110). 

### By 

### extending the flexible permit 

### concept to cew 

### facilities, 

### TNRCC 

### staff has disregarded the 

### work of the 

### Task Sorce 

### and gone 

### far beyond 

### even 

### what the regulated industry 

### was 

### initially 

### requesting. 

### Such 

### action su5stmtially 

### undermines 

### the 

### value and credibility 

### of TSRCC's 

### whole comitment to 

### informed public participation 

### through the advisory conmittee process. 

### The oniy way 

### to compensate 

### for 

### this would 

### be to 

### rewire notice and opportunity 

### for public 

### hearing oa 

## all flexible permits. The 

### initial, 

### limited mandate 

### of the 

### Work Group was to examine 

### rules that 

### while providina for increased 

### nxotection of the enviroxment 

### and 

### hunan 

### healkth, 

### would provide appropriate 

### incentives 

### for companies 

### to bring grand-fathered or 

### other poorly 

### controlled sources under better 

### control. c his 

### aspect 

### of the 

### discussion 

### has been 

### relegated to 

### alaosc 

### a sidelight, 

### as TNRCC 

### permitting staff has 

### used the 

### opportunity 

### to turn Texast 

### wellestablished and 

### fairly effective 

### air 

### quality permitting 

### system upside 

### dovm. Instead 

### of structuring 

### a set of 

### rules to respond to only those proSlens which 

### could clearly be 

### demonstrated by 

### the PeO.Box 26 18 Awti~, 

### Tw 76768 52/4744811 

## *-' 100% figclcdPaper

### industry, TNXC 

### staff 

### is proposing 

### to 

### create 

### a whole 

### new "alternativea permitting 

### framework without an^ 

### evidence that such whole changes 

### are necessary 

### or 

### in the 

### public interest. TCPS 

### subnits 

### that 

### the several aspects 

### of the 

### proposed 

### rules (including 

### emission cap$, 

### allowing 

### new facilities 

### to 

### be cpnstructed 

### under 

### flexlible permits 

### and 

### failure to 

### require BACT 

### for each facility, as 

### that term 

### is defined by the 

### Texas 

### Clean 

### ~ir Act) 

### violate 

### state 

### law. As 

### a 

### final general 

### comment, 

### TCPS 

### believes that 

### TNRCC 

### adoption 

### of these rules could very well 

### throw 

### the 

### whole 

### air permitting and enforcement system 

### into chaos. 

### The proposed 

### rules are extremely vague 

### with 

### respect 

### to the type 

### of information that 

### pennittees can use to 

### demonstrate 

### compliance 

### with multiplefacility or plant-wide 

### emission caps. TNRCC 

### is forsaking clear technology-based psmit 

### requirements for a 

### system that 

### depends 

### on the 

### ability to siniultaneously 

### and 

### accurately measure, at 

### any point 

### in time, 

### emissions from sevsral sources 

### and 

### determine 

### whether, at that point 

### in 

### time, emissions are 

### below the cap. 

### It is our 

### view that such compliance 

### can only be assured 

### if the 

### sources that 

### are 

### subject to 

### the cap 

### have 

### cantinuous 

### emission monitors. The rules do 

### not 

### require the 

### use of CEMs, 

### however. Comments 

### oa 

### Specific 

### Sections of.

### the Proposed ~ules~ 

### Section li6.71O(a) should Se 

### re-stated to 

### make it 

### clear that 

### flexible permits can only 

### be used for 

### sources/facilities at ~ne 

### geographic"g1ant 

### location. 

### Under the existing 

### language, it 

### might 

### be argued that.a 

### company could 

### seek a 

### flexible permit 

### covering facilities 

### in Beaumont 

### and ~?~.Stin 

### together. Section 1J6.13 

### and throughout proposed rules: 

### if 

### there is 

### a d$fference.in 

### the term 

### "facility" and 

### the 

### phrase 

### "individual .f&cilityvhat. difference 

### should 

### be made 

### clear. Section 116.117(a)(6) 

### should be 

### clarified to 

### make it 

### clear that 

### a permit 

### 'applicantmust demonstrate 

### full compliance 

### with all applicable rules and 

### statutory reyuireinents 

### before 

### a permit 

### can be 

### issued, and 

### that the 

### further demonstration 

### [after 

### a permit 

### is issued]-isnot 

### a 

### substitute Lor pre-permit proof. Section 

### 116.711(a)(9) xepresents 

### a 

### major 

### policy 

### shift for the TNRCC inproposing 

### to 

### allow modeling to 

### be used 

### instead of 

### monitoring. By 

### this 

### rule, TNRCC is 

### undernining 

### its 

### ability 

### to _reauir% 

### modeling data. rt 

### is our 

### position that 

### even if good 

### quality, 

### relevant monitoring 

### data is 

### available, modeling should By 

### these 

### comments, TCPS 

### does not 

### waive any 

### objections to 

### the 

### overall legality of 

### the propossd 

### rules, 

### nor do 

### we 

### in any way 

### endorse 

### their adoption.

### also be 

### required. Air quality modeling 

### is a 

### valuable 

### tool that provides the TNRCC 

### with the 

### full range 

### of data 

### needed to 

### make ,fully-informed permitting 

### decisions. TCPS 

### believes 

### this section of 

### the 

### rules should be 

### re-worded to 

### make it 

### crystdl clear that

' 

### modeiing will be 

### required 

### in all appropriate cases. Section 116,916 (c) 

### should be 

### revised to 

### allow only 1 

### months 

### for temporary 

### shut-eowns unless 

### the pernittee can 

### show that..there 

### as .noalteniative 

### to a 

### longer 

### shut-down. The 

### emission cap 

### should 

### remain in effect 

### only 

### during 

### a,shut-down of 

### tha minimum 

### &ration necessary, 

### and 

## Ln no case 

### should 

### the 

### cap remain in effect during : 

### a 

### shutdown of longer than 12 

### months. Section 116.71S(c)(8) 

### is an 

### integral part 

### of any 

### flexible 

### permit 

### rules and 

### must be 

### retained 

### if the rules 

### are adopted. Section 116.721 (c) 

### and 

### (d) show just 

### how difficult 

### it 

### will be to keep 

### track (for 

### enforcement purposes) 

### of exactly 

### what 

### is happening at a large 

### facility 

### that 

### uses flexible permitting. 

## Even if 

### the 

### facility-wide cap 

### or individual emission limit 

### cannot be 

### exceeded 

### by 

### process changes 

### or use 

### of a 

### standard 

### exemption, ig is 

### difficult to 

### understant! how 

### TNRCC 

### will 

### be 

### able to track sources 

### for emission inventory 

### purposes 

### (aswe 

### understand it, 

### the 

### emission inventory is supposed 

### to 

### be based 

### on actual 

### emissions). Before adopting 

### these rules, 27XRCC 

### should clearly 

### outline for both 

### the public 

### ad

### the 

### regulated industry how enforcement and 

### emission inventories 

### will be carried 

### out 

### for facl1ltie.s 

### operating 

### under flexible permits, using 

### specific 

### examples.

Thank you 

### in advance 

### for your 

### consideration 

### of these comments. 

### Sincerely,Texas Eastman Division 

# EASTMAN P.O. Box 7444 Longview.Texas 75607-7444 Phone: (903)237-SbO0 Eastman Chemical Company

October 21, 1994 GazyM&rrr, 

### P.E. RegulationDevelopment Section Oflict 

### Air Quality 

### TtxaNatural Resource Consewation 

### Cammission 

### P.O.Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 

### Re: Pmposed Flexible Permit

### Rule Dear 

### Mr. McAnhar: 

### Texas Esstman 

### Divibian, Eastman Chemical Company (Eastman) is a manufacturer 

### of chemicals and plastics and operates facilities 

### in 

### Harrison and Smith 

### counties. We frequently apply 

### forpermits for 

### new construction and modification, and have a sigrrilicant interest in the proposed rule. Easeman fully endones end supports the comments subxpitfed by the chemicd industry members of the 

### TaskForce 

### 21 Air Issues Workgroup. Ourwncarns withtheproposed mle havebeen 

### addressedin those comments. Eastmiin also believes 

### that 

### TNRCC is 

### demonstrating great vision in the implementation 

### of this new permitting mechanism. 

### The new rule will both improve the economic climate in Texas and duce emissions. This alternative permitting

### framework 

### will increase operationalflexibility

### at sourcesthat 

### are equipped with the appropriate wntrol technology. The regulated community will be 

### in abetter position to quickly 

### respond tonatural market forces aad to special customer requests. 

### In turn, 

### Texas 

### industry wilI 

### be positioned 

### to competemore effectivelyin 

### the global marl;etplacc. However, in allowing the additionai flexibility atlowemitting 

### racilities,the

### WRCCis alsoprovidinganinceruivefor 

### Texas industry to 

### install controls. As 

### a result, emissions to the atmosphere will be reducedand the environmentwill benefit. Tho new flexiblepermitting 

### frameworkis 

### awin-winproposd, 

### ad wc fully support 

### its implementation 

### If you have my questions, please 

### call John Tollescur,

### P-E., at (903) 237-6128. Very truly 

### yours, n

- Datl Baughm~, 

### P.E. Manager, Environmental AffairsUNITEDSTATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIONAGENCY REGION6 1445 ROSSAVENUE, SLllTE 1200 DALLAS,TX 75202-2733 

### [&TI' 

### 3 1 

## 1994

Ms. Jodena N. 

### Henneke I 

### i 7.:. :: .. ..'..2 

### Director ? -.

. . ,:,- ,-:.. La-- -..-__ ' - . \'-" ,- . .. 

### ---.-

. -. . 

## .. Air Quality Planning Division .--2 --:- -2: .:::..I 

# i

---.. 

### Office of Air Quality Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P.O. Box 13087 Austin, TX 78711-3087 Re: Comments on Proposed Regulation for Flexible Permits Dear Ms. Henneke: We have reviewed the proposed revisions to Regulation VI to incorporate provisions for issuing flexible permits. We had earlier provided comments to the permits program on August 19, 1994. Several of our comments were addressed in the proposed regulatory changes. We thank you for reviewing and considering these comments. On the basis of our review of the proposed revisions, we have comments and items of concern that should be addressed in the public record prior to adoption. Our comments and items of concern are as follows: General Comment Item 1. The development of these revisions to Regulation VI has occurred at the same time as activities of the New Source Review (NSR) Reform Subcommittee, which is reviewing recommendations to reform the national NSR regulations. Many of the recommendations under consideration by this national subcommittee are similar to the revisions under consideration for Regulation VI. We want to advise you that it may be necessary to revise your regulations in the future to be consistent with the final regulations resulting from the NSR reform subcommittee. We encourage you to continue your coordination efforts of the national subcommittee to assure consistency between the State and national regulations. This will minimize the need for further revisions of Regulation VI following the adoption of Federal regulations.



# a Recycled/Recyclable 77 (\ Prln1m-I4th SnvlCannla ink an naacr that

### section 116.711. Flexible Permit A~~lication Item 2. Paragraph (1). 

### Protection of Public Health 

### and Welfare. The requirement to protect public health and welfare should be expanded to address that there will be no exceedance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) increments. This should also include requirements to address other air quality impacts which must be addressed under the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA), including but not limited,to,impacts on air quality related values in Class 

### I areas. Section 116.718. Sisnificant Emissions Chanqes Item 3:

. 

### This Section appears to specify that a proposed increase is significant if such increase exceeds the previous permit allowable by 

### a signifj.cant amount. (the potential to potential test). The public record should address how this will satisfy the requirement of §116.711(1) which requires a demonstration that public health and welfare will be protected. The protection of public health and welfare should address th'at the increase will not cause or contribute to an exceedance of the NAAQS or PSD increment. Also, the public record should consider using a lower baseline for determining significant increases whenever air quality modeling which hasbeen conducted in the area has included emissions which are less than the allowable emissions. In closing, you are again advised that the national NSR 

### reform regulations have not been promulgated. Our comments represent our concerns that you should consider for the period prior to the promulgation of these national regulations. Following the final promulgation of these national regulations, it maybe necessary to revise the State regulations to ensure consistency between the State and national rules and regulations. We appreciate the opportunity to review provide c~msnts on these propos'ed revisions. If you have any questions, please call Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell of my staff at (214) 665-7212. Sincerely yours 

# n

Thomas 

### H. ~ig~k J 

# " Acting Chief Air Programs Branch (6T-A)POSTOFFICE BOX 3950 BATTOWN.TEXAS 77522-3950 

# I October 21, 1994 REFININGDEPARfMEM BAYTOWNEFINERY 

### FLEXIBLE

### AIR PERMITS COMMENTS ON PROPOSED RULES File: 30.116.710

Mr. Gary McArthur Regulation Development Section Office of Air Quality P.O. Box 13087 Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Dear Mr. McArthur: 

### Iamwriting on behalf of Exxon Company, U.S.A., Baytown Refinery to submit our written comments onthe proposed rules of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) regarding Chapter 116of Title 30 of the Texas Administrative Code that were published on September 20, 1994, at 19Tex. Reg. 7334. These proposed rules primarily deal with the subject of flexible air permits. The Baytown Refinery, which is located in Baytown, Texas, is a maximum conversion petroleum refinery that processes crude petroleum into usable products such as gasoline, diesel fuel, jet fuel, lubricants, solvents, fuel gases, andfeedstock materials for chemical plants. The Refinery has morethan 1,850 regular employeeswith an annual payroll inexcess of $140 million. In 1993,the Refinery paid over $50 million instate and local taxes. We are commenting onthese proposed rules because they could have a significant impact on the operation of the Refinery since it contains facilities subject to Chapter 11 6. TheTexas Mid-Continent Oil & 

### Gas Association (TMOGA) and the Texas Chemical Council (TCC) will be submitting comments on these proposed rules on behalf of their members. We are a member of TMOGA, and support both the TMOGA and TCC comments and incorporatethem into our comments. In addition, we would liketo makethe following specific comments. Overall Support for Proposed Rule Overall, we strongly support the concept of flexible air permits, and encourage TNRCC to adopt the rules as soon as practicable. The flexible air permit concept has the potential to allowfacilities to be protectiveof the environment and to comply with everA DIVISION OF EXXON CORPORATION

### Mr. Gary McArthur

## - 2 October 21, 1994 increasing air regulations, but ina more cost-effective manner than the traditional "command-and-control" method of regulation. Traditional air permits have tended to constrain the operation of a facility such as a petroleum refinery by placing limits on crude throughput and composition, instead of having the proper focus, which is air emissions. The flexible air permit concept is a step inthe right direction. Under a flexible air permit, the level of air emissions (andthereby the impact on the environment) is set and then the operator isfree to determine how best to runthe facility. We encourageTNRCC to expand this concept to other regulatory areas to allow industriesto maintain corr~petitiveness inthe global marketplace. Although we generally agree with the proposed rules, we do have some concerns and recommendations for improvement. Inour recommendedchangesto the proposed rule language, the rule language is indicated by italics,additions are indicated by underlininq,and deletions are indicated by

### sWewef. Temporaw Shutdowns TNRCC specifically requestedcomments regarding the proposal in 

## 5 116.716(c) that would require the emission cap to be readjusted if a facility that issubject to the emission cap is shut down for a period longer than 12 months. For any number of reasons, including changing market conditions and equipment maintenance and repair, a facility may be temporarily shut downwith the intent to resume operation inthe future. These temporary shutdowns should not affect the emission cap. However, a temporary shutdown may last for longer than 12 months, andwe recommendthat the proposed rule be revisedto provide for longertemporary shutdownswithout resulting ina readjustment of the emissioncap. We recommend that the language of the propose rule be revised as follows to provide that a shutdownof 12 months or lesswill always be consideredto be terr~porary and not result ina readjustment of the emission cap, but that a shutdownof longerthan 12 months may result ina readjustment, but that a readjustment is not required. We also recommend a correction to the word "emissions"to usethe singularform for consistency. (c) Readjustment of emission cap. If a facilitysubjectto an emission cap is shut down for a period longer than 

### 12months, the emission cap

### sbaUm be readjusted



## .. .modifying the emissions cap accordingly. Resettins the EmissionCap at Permit Renewal TNRCC specifically requestedcomrr~ents regarding whether the emission cap should be reset at the time of permit renewalto more closely reflect the actual emissions over the life of the flexible permit. We strongly object to resetting the emission cap for this reason, since itwould be inconsistent with the whole concept of a flexible permit. The llexible permit provides an emission cap, which inessence provides a ceiling on emissions for the facilities subjectto the cap. An operator is allowed to make physical and operational changes that may result in emission increases and decreases so long as emissions do not go higher than the ceiling. This ceiling iswhat provides the flexibility. If the ceiling is lowered over time at permit renewalsto reflect the amount of actual emissions, the flexibility

### Mr. Gary McArthur

## - 3 

### October 21, 1994


### would be eliminated, and the operator would return to the current situation of submitting an amendment application for physical and operational changes. Since facilities that are subject to an emission cap will bewell-controlled and will have acceptable impacts, there is no justification for resetting the emission cap at permit renewal. Readiustmentof the EmissionCap I Individual Emission Limitation for Federal Clean Air Requirements TNRCC specifically requestedcomments regarding requiring readjustment of the emission cap andlor individual emission limitations as a result of emission reduction activities required by rules pursuantto the Federal Clean Air Act. If such a readjustment is required, we recommendthat the procedure should beto requirethat a proposal to readjust the cap or limitation60 

### days prior to the compliance date of the federal rule and that the readjustmentwill be effective on the compliance date. This should provide adequate opportunityfor TNRCC to review the proposed readjustmentand would not implement the readjustment prior to the time that the federal emission reduction is required. 116.1 3. 

### Flexible Permit Definitions The defined term "Emissions cap"should be changed to the singular "Emissioncap"to be consistent with the use of the term throughout the proposed rules.


## . § 

### 116.711. 

### Flexible PermitApplication We recommend that subsection (2) 

### be revised as follows to be consistent with the comparable permitting provision in

## 5 116.11 1(2): 

### (2) Measurementofemissions. Theproposed facility.



### .

## .provision formeasuring the emissionsofsiqnificant aircontaminants


## . . . Sampling Manual." We recommendthat subsection (3) 

### be revised as follows to be consistent with the other subsections: (3) 

### BestAvailable Control Technology. Theproposed facility, group 

### . . .individual facility. We recommendthat subsection (6) 

### be revised as follows to be consistent with 

## 5 116.11l(6): (6) 

### Performance demonstration. Theproposed.



### . .achieve theperformance specifiedin the flexiblepermit ap~lication.In addition



### . . 

### . maybe required.

### Mr. Gary McArthur

## - 4 October21, 1994
116.71 5. General and Special Conditions We recommend that paragraph (c)(8) be revised as follows. It is not clear to uswhether an issue is addressed by this provision that is different from the temporary shutdown provision of 

## 5 116.71 6(c), but inour opinion the logic should bethe same regarding the period of time and the requirementto readjust the emission cap. Please refer to our comments on this issue above. (8) 

### Emission cap readjustment. If a schedule to install additional controlsis included in the flexible permit and a facility subject to such a schedule is taken outofservice for a loeriodlonoer than 12 

### months, the emission cap containedin the flexible permit 

### dmaybe readjustedfor theperiod the unit is outofservice



### . . . shall be obtained. 

### 3 116.716. EmissionCaps and Individual Emission Limitations It is not clear to us from the proposed rule inthis section, the remainder of the proposed rules, nor the preamble, what isTNRCC's intent regarding the form of the emission cap or the individual emission limitations, specifically interms of units and averagingtime. Although the preamble refers to "[slhort term emission cap(s) or individual emission limitations", the proposed rule is ambiguous regarding what will be required. Since this issue is not dealt with at all inthe proposed rule, we recommendthat TNRCC continue the work group regardingthis rule and subsequently develop and proposeda rule that defines and clarifies what will be required. § 

### 116.716(d) lnsianificant Emission Factor This is probably one of the most critical sections of the proposed rule because it ineffect establishesthe level of controls that will be required inorder to obtain a flexible air permit. The end result appears to be a requirementto installwhat can be referredto as "BACT plus 9%". TNRCC has indicatedthat the anticipated environmental benefits of flexible air permits include "the permittingof grandfathered units" and "substantial emission reductionsfrom the installation of controls". The decisionto include a facility or unit in a flexible air permit will be greatly influenced by the amount and cost of the additional ! 

### controls that would be required comparedto the anticipated flexibility benefitsthat will be obtained. If too much additional control is required, the cost of the additional controls could outweigh the flexibility benefits and the facility or unit would not be included inthe flexible air permit. The result would bethat the anticipatedenvironmental benefitsthat TNRCC seeks to achieve would not occur. This is an especially sensitive issue for older, grandfathered facilities or units, where upgrading them to current BACT may be prohibitively expensive or even impossible. Although we do not know at this time whether the proposed "BACT plus 9%" requirementwill be too stringent, it appears to be close enoughto a requirement to install BACT on all facilities that it raises a concern. TNRCC has indicatedan intent to reevaluate the rulewithin one year of the date of approval. We urge TNRCC to specifically includethe

### Mr. Gary McArthur

## - 5 October 21, 1 994 

### insignificant emission factor inthis one-year reevaluationto ensure that the 

### "BACT plus 9%" 

### requirement is not unnecessarily impairingthe use of flexible air permits, andthereby preventingthe achievement of the stated design of the flexible air permit programto "exchange flexibility for emission reductionswith the final goal being a

### well-controlled facility." We welcome the opportunity to provide written comments on these proposed rules, and hope that our comments will assist 

### TNRCC in developingthe adopted rules. Please call me at 713-425-7525 ifyou have any questions. Sincerely,



### G. Michael White

### September 18, 1994

Regulation Development Section Air Quality Planning TNRCC P.O. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Dear TNRCC, 

### I am resubmitting, on behalf of the Galveston-Houston Association for Smog Prevention (GHASP) our comments to Jeff Saitus about the proposed flexible permits. Since the proposal has not changed we request that our comments from 9-9-94 be accepted into the record as our comments regarding this proposal. Thank you. Sincerely,

GHASP 1301 Richmond Ave. T-2 Houston, Texas 77006 H713-521-9534? W713-640-4313

# A) kwh- 

## 116.7/1 1 / 

# -4 13 r+,II 

# *wb~

. -Mr. Gary McArthur Office of Air Quality Regulation Development Section Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission P. 

### 0. Box 13087 Austin, Texas 78711-3087 Re: Comments on Chapter 

### 116

## - Control of Air Pollution forNew Construction orModification Dear Mr. McArthur: Houston Lighting & Power Company (HL&P) is an investor owned electric utility serving a 5,000 square mile area of southeast Texas. As owner and/or operator of 11 generating stations with various permitted facilities, HL&P operations would be impacted by the creation of a flexible permits program as proposed to be included in the TNRCC rules as SubchapterG of Chapter 116. We respectively submit the following comments to the proposed rules as published in the September 20, 1994 edition of the Texas Register. HL&P fully supports the TNRCC concept of creatingthe flexiblepermit as a means of providing an optional alternativeto the preconstruction permits now authorizedin Subchapter

### B, concerningNew Source Review Permits. HL&P believes that for the flexible permit to be beneficial, flexibility needs to be maximized to the fullest extent possible so as to encourage participation. As well as increasing flexibility, the program should be totally voluntary and provide incentives for innovation, reduce the cost of compliance, and enhance environmentalbenefits. Establishment of an overly burdensome program will not only discourage participation but reduce possible environmental benefits. In addition to the above, HL&P supports the comments of the regulated community representatives of the Task Force 21 Air Issues Workgroup submittedby Susan Moore of Amoco. Houston Lighting & Power Company appreciates the opportunity to review the proposed regulations and provide comments for your consideration. Sincerely,

Manager, Air Resources Division Environmental Department

A Subsidiary ofHouston Industries Incorporated

# TEXAS MID-CONTINENT OIL 

# & GASASSOCIATION

Lester Clo& Breckenridge Choimn Robert L Looney, Austin 

# -- President JohnJ. CalwlAustin Vice-President lor Communication, WhlSom L Enni~ Austin 

### October 21, 1994
Kce-President for Membership Gndy L Morphew, Austin Vice.Pma&nt for EnironmenlolAffoin &niarnin W. Sebne, Arntin Wce-President 

### ChairmanJohn Hall
for GovernmentalAffoin 

### TexasNatural Resource ConservationCornmission Jim Sierm, Avrfin Vice-Presidenl lot Finonce 

### P.O. Box 13087 

### Austin, Texas 7871 1-3087 District Vice-Presidents
E. LAm Jr- Son Antonio 

### Dear ChairmanHall:

Danny H. ConlrL* Amarillo The Ponhondle &rl Harkir* Corpvr Chrid The Lower GulfCoast A. V. Jam Jr. Albany West CentmlTexos W. A LondnhJr. Fort Worth Yorlh CentrolTcxos CurtisW. Mewbourn., Tyler EortTeiol JosephL O'Nell Ill. Midland The Permion hrm W. MRocker, Jr. Wvchita FoL Norlh Teros JohnK Young, Houston The Upper Gulf Cwrr 

# ppqi/

PERMITS PROGRAM 

### [

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on flexible permits. Texas Mid-Continent Oil and 

### Gas Association has appreciated the opportunity to work with the TNRCC on this and other issues impacting our members. We recognizethe effort that your staffand our members have put into [ 

### developing this proposal, and look forward to opportunities to work together in the hture. Please do not hesitate to call if we can provide hrther information. sincere?,

YEARSOFSERVICE. 

### RL: cg ACHIEVEMENT, UNITY 

### Attachment 

# &$jc
ob ooney

1115Son Jocinlo Boulevard 

## .Suite 275 

## .Aushn. Texos 78701.1980 

## .TELE: 512/478-6631 

## . FAX: 512/472-3859&delete


### . bold

# -add Italics- oommentson proposed rule
General Commtng

&wnsetoTNRCCReaucstfirCommentsonTem~oraw shutdowns: Temporary shutdownsup to 12monthsshould be allowed withoutreducingIreadjuslingthe cmission cap. Requirements Loreadjust an emission capbased on temporary shutdowns lessthan 12monthswould be undulyburdensome for borhthe pennitteeand TNRCC.It is expeatdthat many units mightbe included 

### in an cmission cap. Temporary shutdownsforrepair and maintenance,forexample, 

### maybe staggcrad over a periodofrim. Therefore, it

### is teasonableto expectthat oneunit in the capcould shutdown, startup, andthcn anotherunit shutdown, and soforth. Therefore,thepennittccwouldbcforcedto & frequent adjustmenu oftheemissioncap. A sourcewouid haveto reduce itsemissioncap dueto a ~rnporary shutdown,and then afcwmonthslab the samesourcewould laan

### tomdjonits capwhen rhc temporary shutdownwascampletedand theunit was readyagainforoperation. Mead, webelievethat twelve monthsis an appropriate cutoffta disting~ish temporary shutdownsfrom shutdownsthat wanant 

### a reduction in the aissioncap. As suchwe supporlthcTNRCCproposal to allowtemporary shutdowns afup 

### totwelve months in length without rtducing orreadjustjng the emissionscap. Reswnseto TNRCCRcauest for CommenGon ActualversusAllowable emid-: Pesettinv atRenewal Resetting tbe emissioncap atpermit renewal isinconsistentwiththegoals ofa flcxiblepermit Therewill benoBcxibiIityto makeoperationalorphysical changes ifafacility isoperatingatits "allowabk" emissionrate ona routinebasis. Wlc theprogram canbe cxp#tedto mlt in someinneascsin actual emissions; theseinacases willbewithin theowtallconsVaintofthe permitted allowabk emissions. Furthermore, thcst increasmwould occur only atfacilitltsthatarewell-controlled andhave acceptJIe impacts. In addition, theincreaseswould be expectedto occurunderthe current system but only aftcra rcview requiringconsiderableunnccessau company and agency rerourcc~. Therefore, iffaalitieswerercquind to mettheir emissionsatrenewal, thebencfit oftheflexible permit would end 81renewal andthe currentpracticeof submitting 

### an amendment applicationeachtime an operational orphysical change is madewould beperpetua~ed. Resettingthoemissionscap and/or individual emissionlimitationas a result ofemissionrcbuction activjties remiredbv mlcs~ursuanr to thePdcra1CleanAir Aq If afacilityorsouroe alreadymeets or cxccedsthe limitauon spccincdby ruIapursuantto theFedd CleanAir Act, 

### thenno additional action shouldbe requirdby rhefacilityowner QToperator. If, howenr, additional crnission reduction activities arc required to compIy with mchrules thcn, the facility owner or operatorshould submitaproposalto nadjuathc cmissioncap 60daysbeforerht compliance daleoftheFederal ruleto be cBectivc on the compliancedateofthcFederalmle


### . Banking Fteductionsfrom existingfaciliriesshouldbe availableforbankingoras "creditable' reductions.Thepurpose ofthisproposed rule is to allow a "wellcontrolled"facility theflexibility to make somc changes in a streamlinedhhionwithout requiring

### a permitorpcrmit amendment. Thispurpose isnot hindered by allowing a hilityto useemission reductionsas

### offsets. Instead,the abilityto use these reductions

### as offsetsencouragessourcesto makcreductions. Additionally, since there is anofkt ntiofbr nonattainment arcas gmtet

### than I-to-1, the environmentwillbenefitfiomencouragingthese offset uansacuons. For mplq theHoustordGdvestonnonattainmentareahas

### a 1.340-1&set ratio which 

### meansthat

### for R'QY tonofcmission tobe offset, thefacilitymustuse 1.3tonsofemissions. Therefore, there isanenvironmentalbenefit of0.3 tons ofemissionsfor eachton ofthenewprojecttobe offset. Additionally, emission rcductioncreditsto

### bc soldas 0flkt.shavea limitedlifcasdonettingcredits at certainfacilirics. Funhermore,these emissionreduction creditsexpirewhen thercduaionsbecome rnandakdby regulation. Atso, thenonattainment arcasneed a mechanismfor generatingafFseusothat faciliticscanuscthese offsetsto make anynecessarychanges. 

### Ifthe regulationsprevcnt a flexiblepermit holderfrom generating offsets through emissionreductions, sourccswillbe discouraged fromseekinga flexible permit. Additionally, these &sets willbeoomemore scamcausingareductioninthenumber ofcnvironmontally beneficial off- trades and drastically increasingthe costofnewprojectsand changes

### h thc nonattainrnent area. We belicvethat this scarcitvofoffsets couldpracticallyresultinaban on new projccrsintheHoustordGalvestonrcgion withthe associateddamaicto the ;conorny 

### ofthisarca )?stablisMna EmissionLimug Any scenario fora "flexible permit"shou1d provide incentivesfor innovstion. reducethc cost of complianw, cnhanceenvironmentalbenefits. and incrcaseflwibiliry. It shouldbe avoluntary pro whichrecognizes the costs associatedwith compliance. It should value emissionreductionsfrom pennjttedas well asgrandfatheredfacilities. Itshouldvalueemission reductionswhethcr 

### froman individual operating unit or source, group ofsources,the entireplant, or any ambination ofpe grandfathered units or sources. It shouldallowfor establishmentofcmissionlimits on 

### apollutant pollutantbasis or category ofpollutants. Thesecanceptsprovideaframework which outlinesomeofthe goalsnecessary for sucocssful ..-.. implcmrntation of

### thisprogram. Itis essentialthattheseelemtnts

### aredwrlyconveyedinthe textofthc proposal andinthepreamble. Many 

### ofourcommentsaredirected to provide suchclarification. Uteraction offlexible was with theTitlc V OoeratinePermits Program TNRCCand workgroupmembershavenot discussedin dctail the interactionofthe flexiblepennit with otherfederal programs. However,in ~ral, industrybelieves that anindividual source should not

### bt defined

### as "major" simply becausethecapis "majorm. Theflexiblepermlt in andofitse~should nottrigger additionalfiderol reqicinmenhwhichwould notothorwissbe imposed. $necific Commcnts on 

### TNRCC 's Prorioscd Rules: Subchanter G: FlexiblePermits

Individual cmission limitation- Emissionlimitfora specificair contaminantnot coveredby an emission cap for anindividual facilityadjustedby an InsignificantEmissionsFactor forthe specific air contnminrats and facilitics with provisionsfor future operational and physical flexibility. Forthe specific aircootaminnnt and facilitics not dulring modificstlon intheflcxiblc pcnnit, the individual emission limitfor the specific aircontaminant not covcrcd by an emission cap isthe permitted or grandfathered ernisfion rate.Refir to 116.71l(3)for additlor~al commen~clarijcafion. 116.7 11 FlexiblePmi t Applicatio~l The propossd rule isunclearIn terms ofthe scope of R4fl

### m caseswhere an applicant for ajlexlble pennit may be requestinglimifedjlexibilitybyhaving anemissloncopon one specijicpl~utunt burnot onotherpollufants. An examplewould be apetmleum refinerydarlring tohaveflerlbili@in thesvlfir contentof feed stocks butoperatingIn compliancewitharlstingNOx and VOClimiu. The VOCandNOx limftsshouldremainasinrtividuaJemissionlim/tsbutthe SO2emim.onscouldbespecifaedin a ernissISSIons cap. As wehavestated inthe pad, thej7eziblepermit shouldnotforcr heoreotionofplanl-wide oopsor plant-wide psnnltting. It should, however,allow fncflityownersoroperatorsthe peedom to choose which pollutants to includeIn an emissionsoap and/orwhichpollutants to inolude asindividual emission limits. We propose that 116.711(3)beclarijicrdto indicatethatR4CI wouldbe unlizedwflhrwpectto tho spcovcair conturninantsand facilities whichwouldbe afleotcdby thephysical andoperationolji'exibiliry proposed bytheapplicant This couldbe ammplished byirrxningappropriatefunpage inRule 116.711(3) as follows: Th+fidily,mup&facilities, or account wiU utilize

### BACT,with consideration givento thckhnical practicabilityand economicreasonablenessofreducingor eliminatingthcemissimfiamthciscil facility,group offaciliues, or accountbasis. Foranynew facilities associated with theflexible 

### BACT will be applied with rcspcct to nll aircontnminnnts emittedby thefncility. Forexlsti facilities,BACT will be applied with rcspcct to thespecificaircontaminants andfacilities w emissionswould be affcctcd by theflexibility to be granted by the pcrm1t Conuoltechno1 beyond.,..,. Add a newibmunderexistingitem 4and 5as folfqws: Applicabilityof

### NSPS orNESHAP sfandardsand any 

### otherapplicable rules and regulatio TNRCCrhall be considered 

### in ertablithingthecmiuioa rapor Insetting special prwitio fleriblepcrmit. Foraflexible pennit, a source/rourcts willbeconsidcred In compllmce standardsif cmissionsfrom ail sources covcred by thenaiblcpcmit ambelow the emission cap -..

### . 

## _ . .-_...-

. . and spccial provisions oftheflexible permit an satldcd. Theabove language clarij?esthatcompliance isbased ontheenllssloncopandno! individual emission limits. Addlfional requlramentscoveredby ASPSorNESIMP (a&ar/he control~Ificienoy) should be covered inspecialprovisions ofrhe flexible permit. TNRCC jhould encourageERA support ofth:'s concepr. (10) Application Content (E) for eachindividualemissionlimitalion 

### ,idenlifytheEPNand provideemissionratecalculations based on the expected maximum capacity and thc proposed controltcchnology andforeach air contrmlnantwhich isnot modifiedas JI result oftheflexiblepermit and forwhich an emission cap is not desired, Identify Itsindividual emission limitatton, itsEPN,rnd provide tmlssion rate calculations based on grstndfathcrcd or pcrmiltcd limitsand theexistingcontroltcchnology.This laquage clar$es thot emission limitscar1 be established on apollutant-bppollutant basis; It is consistentwith TMZCCZstaflpropsal ro combine operational/Iau'bilifyandbealrernan'w permitting fiamcwork dated June 22, 1994 whiah readsasfillows: "Emissionlimitswould be established on a pollutanf-by-pollutantbasis. The appliconrcould electto establish source caps/orall pollutants ofany particularpollufant ~ncluded in the flexible pcrmlt. " Furthermore,langwgashouldbe added to indioottthatemission rate oalcukatlonsdonot need tobe provided during amendment ofa fkxlble pemir for una1eot8d soufoes. Thiswouldbe a duplicalive e?ortfif the applicant. 116.715 Gencral And SmialConditions (8) Emission capreadjusunent. Ifa schedule to innall additional controls is included intheflexible permit and afacility subjectto sucha scheduleis taken out ofservice, the emission cap contained inthe flexiblepermitwillbe readjusted 

### & 

## . . as required in ~pccial provisions of thepermit. hies Uaspecialprovision docsnot specifiathe method ofreadjustment oftheemissioncap, a permitalteration shallbe obtained. Thejiaoilityowneror operatorand TMiCCshould review the provisions necessav toaddress shutdowns jiorjiacillties thatreceivea schedule to install cuntrols.

116.716 

### El

allowable. Again, as$ratedin ourgeneral comments,thisisinconsishnt with the entirsnotion 0f.a jlcxible pennit. Furthennore,the issue of "emissionlevelsappropn'ate fir theproposed controls" should notbe a ooncernsince fadlities operating underan emissioncap will meetBACTand impacts requirementswhen the jlexlble pertnit isissued. However, we wouldsupport an appliaant's desire to limittheir expectedmaximumcapaciry 

### I/ they desire to use thatcopacifyin oalclrlorion of an individualemlssion limit. Ifthis isrhe intent, rhea languageshould be addedin thepreamble orIn [herulsfoclarifl. (c) 

## ,....Ifa newfacilityisbrought into the flexiblepcrrnit, an emission cap shallbe adjustedby medi+q



## . . -Increasing the emlssion cap in accordancewith thenew source's cmission limitforthe specificaircontaminantbascd on thetotal emission of thatpollutant adjusted by an insignificant cmiuionsfactor. This language o/ari/rss thotthe cap isa$vsfed only for the newsource added ro the oap. Existing sources in the cap do norrequiremodr;licorion. 116.716(d) InsignificantEmissionFactor. For thespecific afrcontaminrnts and facilities with provisionsforoperational orphysical flexibility, the cminioncaps and individual cmjssions limitation may include an insignificantemissionsfactor


### ..........116.718 SidficantEmissionIncrease An increaseinemissionsfrom operational orphysicalchnguatan existingfacility coveredby a flcxiile permitis insignificant,forthepurposes of state new som revicwunder this subchapter, if thcincrease does aot cxcecdeithcrthe emissioncap or individual emission limitation. 

### This section doesnot applyto 8.nincrease in cmissionsfroma newfacility othcrthan

### a rcptrcemcntfacilltyin rccordancewith 116.721(b), nor tothe cdssionofanair contsminantnot previously emittedby and existingMlity. This change allows replacement facilltles utilizingBACT to be installedunder the/lexibkpermit. At aminimum, TNRCCshouldoonsideromechanismfor astreamllnedprocsss for ownersor operators conshucfingreplacemcnt/acilitles thatmeetBACTrequfremenk. 116.721mendmcnts

### and AItmations (b)(2) AI1 flexiblepermit altentions whicbmay involve

### a changeina gemralandspecialprovisions contained In theflexiblcpennit, or advcrscly affectoontrol equipmentperformancemust rdvc prior approval by theExecutiveDirector. The ExecutiveDircftor shallbe notified inwriting ofrcplrcemeat facilitiesutilizing bcst avallablccontroltechnology (BACT)in accordmnccwith 116.711(3) and all otherflexiblepennit alterationswilhin 10daysofirnplemcndngthe change

## ........ (d)(2) Emission increasesauthorizedby standardexemptionat anexisting facilitycwcrcdby 

### aflexiile permit

### &&iw may causean wncrcase 

### af

the cmissionscap or individual emissionlimitation 

### unlessprohibited bypcrmft provision. Historically.permit limitscan eflectlvelybe inoreoseduslngstandordexemptions. At thistime the regulatedcommunify, with the uncertainlyolrhlsnewprogronr,

### fs nor wlllfngto rellnqulsh the abilivto make such changes inpermit limits. As a compromlsc, the regulatedoommuni~ suggestsallowing increasesin thepermit limitssubject to theright ofrhe agency toprohlbit such increnresona om#-bycasebosls In our opinfon,there isno reasontoremove the benefisachievedbyslandurd exemptionssimplybemuse soma degree ofJexlbili& isobtainedIn the Yexible permitm. The yexiblepenit"progrrrm shouldnot be designed

### to "prwidenfledbili& in one area andto nremov~"~~~iblliryfrom existing

### TNRCC programs.

### PHILLIPS 66 

### COMPANY A DIVISION OF PnlLLlPs PETROLEUM COMPANY



### Borger Strategic 

### Business 

### Unit P.O. 

### Box 

### 271 Borger, 

### TX 79008

October 20, 1994 

### Sublect: Comments

## on Proposed

### Amendments to 

### Reg

## VI, "Flexible Permlt Prooram*


### Texaa Natural Resource 

### Conservation Commlsslon Office 

### of Air Quality 

### Regulation Development Section 

### P.0, Box 13087 Austin, 

### TX 78711-3087 FAX: 

### 51

### 2 239-1

### 500

Thls Is 

### In responseto

### theTNRCC 

### proposaltoamend 

### 30TAC Chapter 11 6

### to

### authotlze flexlble permits (19 

### TR 

### 7334

# - 7340). 

### Phjlllps 66 Company's Borger Strategic Business 

### Unit supports the 

### TNRCC effort to develop

### ffexlblepermits, and urges

### the TNRCC to proceedwith issuance 

### of the proposed regulation 

### with certaln changes. Specific comments 

### and suggestlons appear below. 

### Pjease contact 

### Glendon Jett 

### st 

### 806 275-2126 

### if you 

### have any questions 

### about our comments 

### or need further lnformatlon. The Borger 

### Strategic 8usiness Unit Includes

### a refinery

### and NGL 

### processing center, 

### a specialty chemicals 

### plant (Philtex), 

### and 

### an 

### engineering plastics 

### plant (Ryton). Compliancewith envlronmentairegulations

### ingeneral, andair regulations

### inparticular, 

### consumes considerable time and money. Air regulatlons further Impact the profltabllity of our plant, because we're limited 

### in our 

### abilty to 

### improve our 

### plant 

### or respond 

### to customer demands by 

### ilmltations 

### In our exlsting permits 

### and the constraints 

### of TNRCC Reg Vl 

### (30TAC Chapter 

### 116). The 

### necessity for obtaining 

### permits or 

### permlt amendments to 

### make minor changes 

### In

### our operations, 

### even 

### when emisslons are unchanged or 

### decreased, is especially 

### onerous. 

### We endorse the concept 

### of emisslons 

### caps, 

### under which physlcal 

### and operational 

### changes can be 

### made as 

### long as 

### the cap 

### 1s observed. We also support 

### the concept ofphased 

### Implementation

### of BACT, 

### sothat capital for pollution control equipment 

### can 

### be budgeted and raised over a 

### perlod of years. 

### We 

### believe that ernisslons caps 

### coupled wkh phased BACT 

### will 

### promote 

### a siqnlflcant 

### improvement In alr 

### quallty 

### at 

### a reasonablecost, while increasingthe competitiveness 

### of Texas 

### industries,

### We understandthat the newpermit programwlll be developmental, 

### andthat changes 

### In the regulattons will 

### be 

### desirable or necessary as experience 

### Is gained wlth filing, processing 

### and complying wlth flexible permits, 

### Accordlngly, we 

### support the proposed regulation as 

### drafted with 

### the following 

### exceptions. Proposed 

### 1 16.710(a)

### (1 

### 1 would allow

### only 

### oneflexi'ble 

### permit at

### an account slta, This appears reasonablefor 

### integratedpetroleumfacllIties 

### and perhapsfor 

### large chemlcal plants, However, 

### our Phlltex/Ryton Complex consists 

### of a 

### numberoftotally separate (nonlntegrated) unlts. While it 

### appears desirable to cover some or all 

### of these unlts underflexible permlts, 

### making them fit into

### a slngle permit will needlessly complicate thedevelopment, processing

### and enforcement

### of the permit. 

### We suggest

### that TNRCC allow the 

### separateflexible perrnlts 

### for nonintegrated units, 

### We're concerned about 

### how

### the EnhancedMonitoring rule

### (40CFR 

### 64) 

### will 

### be applled to

### flexlble permlts. Ifthis rulewill be applied

### toall emissionpojntsthat 

### are part

### of an emissions cap 

### (whenthe emfssions 

### cap constkutss 

### a "malor" source), it 

### will ilmltthe utllity ofthe cap 

### concept. It's conceivablethat 

### the monitoring

### wlll cost 

### morethanthe controls underthis 

### scenario. 

### We requestsome 

### clarificationthat 

### enhanced monltorlng 

### will 

### apply only 

### tothe 

### soutces within 

### anemissions cap which by

### themselves 

### would 

### be 

### subject to the rule. Since proposed 

### 40 CFR 64 contains language that 

### seems 

### to subject all 

### sourceswlthin

### an emissionscaptothe rule, TNRCC will 

### have

### tocoordinate wlth EPA 

### to 

### make thls 

### clarification. 

### We don't understand the meaning 

### or intent of the last 

### sentence of 

### proposed 

### 'I16.71

### 6(b). We urgethat this sentence be dropped altogether, Following

### are responses 

### to 

### issues specifically 

### put forward by

### TNRCC: 

### 1)Should temporary shutdowns for 

### upto 

### 12 months 

### be allowedwlthout reducing

### the 

### emissions cap? Response: We 

### thlnk temporary shutdowns 

### in responseto business condltlons 

### should be 

### allowed, In addjtlon, 

### we thlnk 

### that permanent shutdowns that 

### are made speciflcalfy to achieve an emissions cap 

### should be allowed, 

### with no subsequent reduction 

### inthe 

### cap. For example, In 

### order 

### to meet

### the NOx

### and CO cap, our most economical option may be

### to replacesome 

### old engineswith 

### electrlc

### or 

### steam 

### drivers.' Thls would yleld the 

## same (probably 

### more) envlronrnental 

### benefit 

### as retrofiting the 

### engines wlth 

### controls, but perhaps at a 

### lower cost. The replacement power would be provlded 

### either by 

### our exlsting steam system (which

### is figured Into the

### cap)or 

### an off-slte commercial power plant, elther

### of which provldes moreefficient 

### and less polluting energy, 'The shutdown 

### of the engines should be recognized 

### as a 

### legitimate way to 

### achleve the emisslon 

### cap, 

### 2) What 

### Is an appropriate amount of 

### tlme to 

### be 

### considered a 

### temporary shutdown? Response: We 

### think 

### shutdowns for at 

### least up

### totwo 

### years should 

### be 

### allowed. Thls 

### is consistent wlth current policy 

### of examlnlng 

### two previous years 

### of operating 

### and emlsslons data for setting baselines. 

### Business cycles that 

### influence such shutdowns usually 

### last longer 

### than 

### a year, 

### often longer than two 

### years. Amending permlts inOCT-28-1994 14: 13 FROM



### response

### to business cycles would be 

### lnefflcient for bothTNRCC 

### end 

### industry. 

### 31 Should emlssiona caps be 

### reset [e,g., 

### lowered] to more closely reflect actual ernlssionsduring 

### permit renewals? Response: We're very 

### muchopposedto

### thls. The emlssions 

### caps 

### Inthe 

### flexible permits will 

### be set based

## on.BACT. Companios

### should not be punishedfor 

### achievingemission ratesthatare lower than BACT. 

### Such a 

### pollcy willpromote a 

### "use 

### It or Lose ita 

### mentality, and 

### may actually encourageplentsto emlt close to their limits 

### in order 

### to maintain flexibility. 

### Currently, 

### we prefer 

### to operate with 

### a comfortable 

### margin

### andtry 

### to 

### minimizeemissions. If

## emisslons capsare ~oing 

### to be 

### reset during renewals, It 

### should only be 

### done to 

### reflect the currentBACT, consideringthe age 

### of 

### the units, thetechnologicaland 

### economic reasonableness,

### and off-site impacts 

### of 

### the existing 

### emissionscaps. 

### 4) Should emissions 

### caps be 

### edjusted for emissions reductions pursuant to the 

### FCAA? Response: Thls appears

### reasonable. 

### We would prefer it 

### be

### done during perrnlt renewals, 

### ratherthan 

### havingto go 

### throughan 

### amendment exerclse every

### time a 

### new federal rule affecting the 

### plant Is issued. 

### We understand

### that a flexible perrrlit 

### does not exempt 

### us from 

### applicable 

### federal 

### and state regulations. 

### 51 Should emissions reductions resulting

### from 

### instaliation of 

### controls be 

### allowed 

### to be banked for 

### purposes 

### of use as offsets in nonattainment areas? Response: 

### We befiovethat emissions reductions 

### undertakento achieve the emissions 

### cap, that are 

### nototherwise requiredbystate 

### lawunderthe 

## SIPfor

### theexpress purposeofachieving 

### NAAQS's, 

### should be 

### sllowed 

### as offsets for 

### both PSD 

### and nonattalnmont netting.



### Your favorable consideration

### ofour 

### commentswill 

### be 

### greatly appreciated. Ingeneral, Phlllips also 

### supports the positions of 

### TCC 

### and TMOGA 

### on 

### these issues. We 

### do appreciate the efforts of TNRCC to 

### streamline and rationalize the 

### sir permitting process in 

### Texas.



### Thurman Nance Complex 

### Manager

## PHILLIPS 66 

## COMPANY A DIVISIONOF PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY

Sweeny Refinery & Petrochemical Complex 

### P.O. BOX 

### 866 - Stveeny, 

### TX 77480



### October 

### 19, .I994

Texas Naturzl 

### Resource Conservation Commission 

### Office of 

### Air 

### Qualit), P.O. Box 13087 

### Austin, 

### TX 78711-3087 

### BY FAX 

### (512)239-1500



### RE: Comments 

### on proposed

### Amendments to 

### Reg. VI, Subchapter G 

### "FIexiblePermit Program" 

### Dear Agency Representative: Phillips Petroleum 

### company, Sweeny 

### StrategicBusiness 

### Unit appreciates the 

### opportunilyto submit 

### for your consideration,rhe following

### commenrs related to 

### proposed amendments 

### to 

### Reg,

### VI, Subchapter

### G,"Flexible Permit 

### Program". The Sweeny 

### Business Unit 

### includes 

### a refine~y, petrochemica1 complex 2nd 

### terminals 

### which are affected 

### by this 

### regulation. Phillips 

### Sweeny Complex 

### commends 

### the TKRCC 

### for the proposal to increase the 

### operational flexibility

### of 

### Texas faciliriesby adding 

### an oprionalflexiblepermit 

### program. The ability

### to 

### make operztionzl

### changes in 

### a timely manner 

### wi?hrespect 

### to market and 

### competitive conditions

### is vital to our facilities. This proposal is hn 

### excellent attempt to 

### eliminate

### unnecessary constraintsonour 

### organizationand operational delays, while assuring that 

### emission limitations are met. 

### We do 

### have several 

### comrnenrs,however, which we 

### feel would 

### improve the 

### proposal and 

### increase utilization of the program. Your 

### considerationofthe 

### followingcomenrs 

### is greatly appreciated. Eliminate the 

### requirement for only 

### one flexiblepermit per plant site or active 

### account. 

### The desire to 

### consolidate

### ino as 

### fewpermits zs 

### possible is 

### understandable, but 

### we feel the 

### program will have rhc 

### greatest flexibility if facilities ca~ 

### organize heir

### permits

### by functionally-reiated prccess units. For example, our Sweeny 

### facilitymight 

### desire to acquire separatepermits 

### for: ethyleneunits, 

### NGL units, refinery 

### units and the San Bernard Terminal These are dl

### currently 

### in 

### one 

### TNRCC account. Ar a minimum, we 

### would request the 

### ability to align flexiblepcrmjts 

### with the 

### Title V 

### operating permits we 

### will be 

### acquiring. That is, 

### allow one flexiblepermit per Reg Xll 

### permit instead of 

### per plant site or 

### account.

## - 'Phillips strongly supports the allowance of 

### temporary shutdowns without reducing/readjustlng the mission cap. We 

### also feel that increasira 

### rhe shutdownperiod 

### to 2 

### years would improve flexibility 

### and 

### is reasonable for operations which 

### depend more 

### heavily 6n 

### specificmarket conditions, 

### such as small batch 

### processes and specjalty chemicals. 

### Emission 

### caps should be 

### reset at renewal only upon installation of additional required controls affecting cmissions within 

### the cap. Facilities should

### not be 

### penalized for operating below 

### che established 

### cap, particuIarly 

### since the 

### operating scenario in 

### use may 

### change as allowed by 

### the permit. This 

### is precisely the advantage of 

### having a

### flexible permit; not having 

### to amend or alter tbc 

### permit upon changingoperating

### scenarios. Actual cmissions 

### shouldNOT bc used to 

### alter emission Iimitauons or caps. This defeats the purpose 

### of 

### the flexible

### permit. Emissionreductions resultingfrom the 

### installationof controls should be allowed 

### as offsets for 

### PSD and 

### nonattainrnent nerting and 

### any other banking scenarios which are 

### otherwise creditable. One area of concern which 

### could derail the entire 

### f!exible

### pennit program is 

### the proposed requirement in 

### 40 

### CFR 

### Part 64 that 

### Enhanced Monitoringbe done 

### on 

## 4sources within an 

### emission cap if 

### thc cap 

### is "major"for that pollutant. Two 

### suggestions which 

### rnay "heIp" alleviate 

### some concern (but not 

### necessarilyresolve 

### all issu~ until Part 

### 64 is final) 

### are the 

### following: 1. 

### InSsaion 116.716(6), the 

### intent

### of the 

### second sentence 

### is unclear. Ourproposal is that 

### cbe second sentence

### read 

# . . . 

### "In addition,

### an individual 

### emissionlimitation may be 

### established for a pollutant covered by 

### an emission mp 

### for 

### any 

### emissionunit(s) selected by the 

### applicantm. 

### In light 

### of the Part 64 

### requirement, the 

### only apparent workable solution is to 

### alIow the applicantto 

### arrange any 

### number of 

### 'source caps" 

### and individual 

### emission limitations withinthe 

### flexiblepermit. 

### This would 

### allow *e 

### appIicant, for 

### example, to establish 

### a "source wpm for NO, for a 

### number of 

### small combustion 

### sourceswhich would .?a sum to the 

### threshold quantity

### for Enhmed Monitoringand also have another 

### "source 

### cap" for other sources if the sac pollutant which would 

### be major 

### and requireEnhancd Monitoring. 

### To be absoluteiy 

### clear, it 

### is imperative (in 

### light 

### of the 

### Part 64 

### proposal) that the applicantbe allowedto establisn 

### any number of source caps and 

### individual emission lirni2tions for 

### a specificpollutant within the flexiblepennit. TO

### require 

### a facility to 

### include all emissions 

### of a pollutant 

### in the 

### sum yielding the 

### 'source 

### cap" totaI will make 

### the permit 

### much less 

### flexible an 

### in some cases, 

### unusable. 2. A 

### provision 

### needs to 

### be incIuded outlining how source.may be 

### removed from the 

### flexiblepermit (back into 

### an NSR 

### permit). 

### This will be 

### necessary if the Enhanced 

### Monitoring provisions are not revised. 

### The flexiblepermit should 

### not require emission 

### units to be 

### "once-in-ztways-in"panicularly in light 

### of 

### the fact that 

### it is an 

### 'qtional permitn. 

### In Section 116.715

### (c) (6), last senzence; please add "Requ.iredW 

### before Infonnation.Phillips

### has pardcipated 

### in TCC 2nd 

### TMOGA work groups and futly supports the comments of those 

### organizations. 

### We appreciate the opportunityto 

### participarc 

### in the 

### regulatorydevelopment process. Thank

### you 

### foryour considerationof these 

### comments. 

### Should 

### you have 

### any questions, please 

### feel free co 

### contact JanLaughlin, 

### (409)491-2277. 

### Very truly 

### yours, PEELIPS 

### PETROLEUM COMPANY



### Dan F. 

### Hunter Enviro~xnental 

### Manager.- :.-. 

# I,C)NE S"jf64FE:

. .. .. 

## P.~.:Hrii 1931.. 

### :Ir~%tia; 

## T.&,( 78767 (I)c~bb,ji. 

### 2

## 1, ..19%

. . 

### Jef'fSaitis,

### SYI{. Program. 

### Natural 

### Hc.l~ource 

### Comervation Camnliasic~i: 

## Y.0. Box 13687

_ .. 

### Austh, 

### Texas '7.87

### 2.1-3037 

## '&~~~~~ 

## Re: Comments

. .

### on Ropawd

### F'idble

### PermitKdesfor 

### &g, W,

### Subchlp:ter 

## G

. .. . 

### . .. 

### Ilear 

### Jeff:

. 

### - Issues,

### on Emissioll 

### Caps

# -- 12 

### month shut 

### down is

## mm, 'jiSrfically, most

### plant 

### turrm~unds are 

### tercporary hut doh 

### hpring fn,& 

### ii-kw..&$d'.fa

. 

### . 

### perhaps 

### 3

# - 4'kerlcJ. 

### 12 months 

### is abaolu?ely too 

### lo~.g tu

### be a

### te&~or$ijr..h&tdown. 

### 12 t

. . 

### months iic 

### a 

### xn&,ii>r sh~t 

### down 

### nad nut a minor temporary'c?r;iil,

. \%k.caxi.ilo?t 

### 6;tpport 

### a definition 

### of t+.~rrp~rary as 

### being 

### 12 months.



### . . Resetting enli,ssjorls

### cap! 

### 'l'he 

# -mu:w,:fo wr- kjogely 

### resemble 

### the actu3X 

### emissions 

### ovsr the life 

### ofthe. 

### 1l~:Si.Ble 

### permit:gn

. .

## btixime uf' 

### renewal. Trtichg

### or"emissia~is might.& 

### sirnpl~r 

### ifthe czp,iy. 

### c;iiiaer .@:&g 

### actual 

### levels. 

### Sniisions cap

### xbbuse 

### mny occurifitis 

### not s'LF~c~!~ 

### deGhe.&arid. 

### ?qi;lated.

: ., 

### Readjustinoritof

### emissions raps!, 

### 'J'NRCC, weds to

### re(~giG:h rn.~*uatn'lent

## of

. . ... 

### the cap 

### snd'or-iudividud

### emissi~n ti,mitn'iicn

### reix';hee to

### the 

### reducticrdy

. 

### ,.. rilwiciiitod 

### 'by 

### the FCAA. ' 

## ;Isicng as 

### the

### Reg.VI, subchapter Q

### rilies &.e. 

### ~o~i~iterit;dt;h?,bc!

. .. 

### F(>;W. und &re 

## is no conflictwith 

### fed. 

### rags.,thon 3,

### reariiuafl.;ieh.f 6fjt:t-i~'~ap i5a god

. 

### .

.. . 

### idea.

. .

. . 

### Bankir-lgo'f 

### reducti~ns &om add-on controls 

### nlu:jc

### be .stric~,i~

, , +: 

### ~r;rfli:ia:t&&
.,.. .,. 

### if it is: to
. ... 

### be allowed it 

### sl!,.bat, Of re&,, , 

### . . . 

### .ntfS 

## as, ' . :.

. . 

### especially

### near

### clusters ind~i;lw 

### E£oustonmi$ CIi&;?el 

## ,P;;;;lL

. 

### . .. 

### Arthur, 

### Bec;umont, Orzinge,etc. 

### Banking is a

### bad ides

### mtil 

### at;b@nment 

## ik

. ..
.. ' 

### a.ccompl,isSed, ' 

### 'In:sprue 

### of

### these cornrrrunities, VJC 

### wish to 

### xik~i,,-e

### .v(r:i:E.h y6~.grtive 

### concerns 

### over aiivir~unexltal justice 

### issues in 

### thiv

### flexible 

### gkm~,i<*pya~!lccause

. .. 

### too 

### little

### attencion'ig

### p~id to

### cun1uI.t3tiye/are~-wide irrl'pactsi. 

### Thiij 16 

### sa6th.e~ prin1al3~ reason 

### far dissillowingany 

### tanking until all

### mminuilitirs havocil&g :iiG.$lbc$ 

### deseme 

### under the 

### law.

. .

. . Iiesport R!jiy pours:

.. . 

### . .



### Neil 

## J..i;713rnlan: 

### Ph.D. Clean -4ir

### Program Directcr

. . 

### Lone Stem maptdr

### of 

### the Sierra Clui~

. .

. . cc: 

### Dr. C;r?o:ye 

### Smith, Air 

### Quaii,cyChair? Sierra Club

# LONE STAR
6014, Woodbrook Houston, TX 77008 Oct 14, 1994 Regulation Development. Div. TNRCC Dear Friends: Re: Subchapter G Flexible Permits. We would like to see some strengtheningof the proposal to better protect public health and welfare. We would propose 'a clear definition of "maximum expected capacity" 

# . It is inappropriate to make reductions from an existing facility,. bank and sell the credits for sustained emission levels as a part of this alleged pollution reduction program, particularly in a non-attainment area. Where is the environmental benefit since the industry will be given a growth factor plus a 10% cap bonus and the current emissions will live on in another new source. We would propose that a line be added to: 116.717 Emissions reductions made under this permit will not be available for banking and sale or for netting outside the facility's flexible permit. Provision should be made to provide additional controls that may be mandated by changes to federal or state regulation and to.adjust the cap downward when rules are changed as for SIP revision or NESHAP requirement. We would suggest: 116.716 (c) The cap will be adjusted-downwardwhen rules and regulations mandate new controls on sources under the cap. In review of permit renewals, 116.760 At the time of permit renewal, allowable emissions should be adjusted downward to 10% over the actual maximums observed over the previous permit period. Yoys truly, /


# - GeorgeKm. 

# .-

., , - 

### ith Chair, Air Quality Committee

"When we try to pick out anything by itself. we find it hitched to everything else in the universe." John Muir 

## @ recycledpaper1275 K Street, N.W., Suite 400 Washington, D.C. 200054006 (202) 371-5200 FAX (202) 371-1022



### October 21, 1994 1;1 'I :I !\I ii'71 

# '1 fi OCT 

## 2 6 1994 

# ly! The Society of the



### Ms. Mary Ruth Holder Director, Legal Division Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission 12100 Park 35 Circle Austin, Texas 78753 Plastics Industry, Inc.



### Dear Ms. Holder: a- ,.,, ,-;: , .,. .: . ,:3



### .. sc\- : ,..:.-.. -:: ra' ,:.. ',..Af:F:



### The Society of the Plastics Industry, Inc. (SPI) 

# ' appreciates the opportunity to provide comments to the Texas Natural Resource Commission regarding Subchapter 

### G.Flexible Permits, which affect the Health and Safety Code $ 

### 382.017. ~~!i:,-:+\:~..;-

. 

### -..,,'.. .\.,:U'- 

# _ .-_---

SPI supports the Department's efforts to streamline the permitting process as provided for in the proposed rulemaking concerning flexible permits. However, SPI requests that the Department provide further clarification on two points in order to assure affected facilities have the most complete understanding of the rulemaking as possible. The first point concerns $ 

### 116.721 Amendments and Alterations, and in particular, the time frame for which a response by the Department would be expected for facilities seeking flexible permit alterations. In paragraph 2, the Department requires that "(t)he Executive Director shall be notified in writing of all other flexible permit alterations within 10days of implementing the change." The Department does not provide for a timeframe for which the Executive Director must respond to such notification. Furthermore, the Department does not indicate whether or not such a facility would incur a penalty if the Administrator later determined that the permit alteration were not in line with the requirements of the flexible permit. SPI requests that the Department clarify the timeframe for response by the Executive Director (i.e. 7 or 14 days), as well as whether or not facilities would incur penalties, if the Executive Director determined that the change was not within the confines of permit requirements. A 

### facility should be given the opportunity to amend or

1 

### SPI is a 2,000 member not-for-profit trade organization representing all segments of the plastics industry in the United States. The Society's members include processors and manufacturers of plastics and plastics products, suppliers of raw materials, processors, and converters of plastic resins and manufacturers of accessory equipment for the plastics industry. Founded in 1937, SPI is the major national trade association of the plastics industry.

### The Society of the Plastics Industry Pg. 2 make the changes in order to meet permit requirements. The second point concerns 

## 5 116.711 (Z), Flexible Permit Application, and in particular, the provision concerning the measurement of emissions. The Department requests that facilities applying for a flexible permit will "have provisions for measuring the emissions of air contaminants as determined by the Executive Director. This may include the installation of sampling ports on exhaust stacks and construction of sampling platforms..


## ." 

### While the Department's provision is written in a flexible manner, SPI would like the Department to

, 

### note that some facilities, such as batch processi~ig operations, may not be.able to measure their emissions at the stack or at sampling platforms. Emission factors, engineering calculations or other methods may be more appropriate for plastics processing. The Department should allow emissions to be calculated using emission factors, engineering calculations or alternative methods to measure and monitor emissions. SPI fully supports the Department's efforts and believes that clarification of these two issues will add further guidance to those facilities seeking a flexible permit. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 202-371-5276. Sincerely, WiL2L.L- 

# n 

# %
Maureen A. 

### Healey Director, Federal Environment and Transportation Issues

### INDEX OF ORAL TESTIMONY

Reference Number Submitted bv

No oral comments were presentedFLEXIBLE PERMITS HEARING I 

# Public Hearing Registration Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
Location: Austin 

# Date: October 3, 1994 

## Making Oral

Presentation 

## (circle 

## one) Name & 

## Mailing Address Representing

l-



## hs4 SH& 

### LTD h) 

### \I[ 

### COUL-S T y

### S~~ZL~O
I I hJ Ik -3-01 8 

## g~e P~~~~~~ Po ~SOI 

### z- (

### srb 

## ha11 w.-f-%; 7s-C 

## ~J~LX Kfif~a yj 

## ~d A 304JfiF~~ 

## P/Mc~ pi?, /4/~6r*'a-~>,, 

### fX 77337 

## oRw H-Y 

## ~RGO G-f--q+v 

## M./// 

## fk, 

# Ua&hJs D- 77 ?SO 

# Dh &fi-Cer PO hx y 

# /exdrJMSVUU~OUC

## X

## /721//~ ih 

## c 

# MI flu-.r A& 

## LYes 

# Q

Yes

Yes 

# @

Yes 

### 5 

### %mh.42'fx 

## 7 75i5 

# @

Ocx 

### 47'r Kt5 C~~-O/P 7~ 7G 

### 5-67 

### Tom

## Bder i537<flgmcnkf 

### 9~. 

### (#&B 

## 3239 f?ccas?lm 

## ,, 777977
Ki eL,e\rCt'& 

# *~~;tt *Q .c. 

### w IOD 

### Q~LY,R 

# w-q',


# 6 Lli 7610

# *---, Fd

# 1 -2~ ((63 

### '7G2-c/ 

### 7

f 

### TY 7~347 

## @is&- &so ~crc~g3jr



### . /

Q:\ 

## ChS-rX



## T'rC\


### TXJ Yes

Yes 

# (3

Yes 

# @

Yes

Yes 

# a2 FLEXIBLE PERMITS HEARING 

### - 

# Public Hearing Registration Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission

Location: Austin 

# Date: October 3, 1994


## Name & 

## Mailing Address


## EUILE L.

## F~cIA~E 7610 

## '?KuWtJV OW9 75247
Yes

yes 

# 'E

Yes 

# 0

Yes 

# @

Yes 

# pGJ

Yes 

### No

Yes 

### No

Yes 

### No

Yes 

### No

Yes 

### No

Yes 

### No 

# At;,, Gump

,baro

### Jipm &vv;rort. 

### Cwp

&/37~ h 

# rn L.

# A)-~~L'-c BASK Representing


## ~7 I~~DUWWV, 

## lac



# ~czkCjj5~~r 77Ti41 

# "" 

# n&3-/I&f 602 b//e



## 7, 775-41 

## Making Oral Presentation



## (circleone)

Yes 

# @

fi&~ K

# EVALUATION OF

TESTIMONY

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 1 

### of 67

The Texas Natural ~esource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or Commission) adopts new 5116.13, concerning Flexible Permit Definitions, an amendment to 5116.110, concerning Applicability, and a new Subchapter GI Flexible Permits, containing new

§5116.710, 116.711, 116.714-116.18, 116.720-116.722, 116.730, 116.740, 116.750, and 116.760. Sections 116.13, 116.710, 116.711, and 116.716 are adopted with changes to the proposed text as published in the September 20, 1994, issue of the Texas Register

(19 TexReg 7334). Sections 116.110, 116.714, 116.715, 116.717, 116.718, 116.720-116.722, 116.730, 116.740, 116.750, and 116.760
are adopted without changes and will not be republished.

The new S116.13 adds definitions that relate to flexible permits, and the revision to 5116.110 adds reference to flexible permits as
an applicable requirement. The new Subchapter G has been developed in response to direction from the Commission at the January 21, 1994 policy agenda meeting. The proposal was developed after considering the position papers presented by industry, environmental groups, and local programs under the supervision of Task Force 21. The new subchapter will create a new type of permit called a flexible permit. The flexible permit will function as an optional alternative to the preconstruction permits that are now authorized in Subchapter B, concerning New Source Review Permits. The flexible permit is designed to exchange flexibility for

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 2 of 67

emission reductions with the final goal being a well-controlled facility.

In the proposed rule preamble, the TNRCC staff requested comments
on the following specific issues: in §116.716(c), temporary shutdowns be allowed for up to 12 months without reducing the emission cap and is 12 months an appropriate amount of time for a shutdown to be considered temporary; should the emission cap more closely reflect the actual emissions over the life of the flexible permit at time of renewal; should readjustment of the emissions cap and/or individual emission limitation be required as a result of emission reduction activities required by rules pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA); 

### and should the rules allow emission reductions resulting fromthe installation of controls to be banked for purposes of use as offsets in nonattainment areas.

A public hearing on this proposal was held on October 3, 

### 1994, in Austin. Written testimony was received from the following commenters: Amoco Production Company; the United States Environmental Protection Agency; Exxon Company USA; Phillips 66 Company - 

### Sweeny Refinery; Phillips 66 Company 

### - Borger Facility; Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI);Texas Mid-continent Oil & 

### Gas Association; Eastman Chemical Company; Houston Lighting & 

### Power and Texas Center for Policy Studies. Amoco's comments represent

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 3 

### of 67



### the Task Force 21 

### Air 1ssues Subgroup that addressed the flexible permits issue. Galveston Houston Association for Smog Prevention and Sierra Club 

### - Austin and Houston made specific comments and suggestions, but did not generally support or oppose adoption of these rules.

The followins discussion addresses seneral comments.

One commenter stated that flexible permits should allow emission limits to be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. 

### If only one flexible permit per site is allowed, then reopening of the permit for modifications should be limited to review of the facilities affected by the change.

The rules provide that emission limits will be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis, Each pollutant for which flexibility is sought will have an emission limit established; either an emission cap or an individual emission limitation. All other pollutants will be restricted to the previous permit allowable or grandfathered rates, When multiple facilities have been consolidated into a single permit, and the consolidated permit is reopened for consideration of an amendment, relating to one or more facilities authorized by that permit, the permit is not considered reopened with respect to facilities for which an amendment,

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 4 

### of 67

revision, or modification is not sought as provided in the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA)

### , 9382.0511 (e)

# .

A commenter noted that the ability to claim standard exemptions should be retained under the flexible permit.

The rules have a very limited restriction on the ability to claim standard exemption. There is no restriction for new facilities; a
new facility may be constructed under standard exemption, but it will not be included in the flexible permit unless a permit amendment is requested to do so. The rules also allow a facility included in the flexible permit to claim a standard exemption, provided that the emissions from the exempt facility do not cause

an exceedence of the emissions cap or individual emission limitation. Any increase above the emission cap or individual emission limitation, whether by standard exemption or otherwise, is a significant increase which requires a permit review. Allowing the emissions cap to float upward with each new standard exemption will eventually invalidate the initial permit review. The Commission must maintain the ability to determine that the facilities under the flexible permit will comply with all existing rules and not cause an ambient impact problem.



### Another commenter encouraged TNRCC to continue coordinating with

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 5 

### of 67

the national new source review committee for future Chapter 116 

### revisions to assure consistency with the federal regulations.

The TNRCC 

### intends to continue coordinating any needed revisions to the flexible permit rules to be consistent with any changes to the federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment review programs.



### One commenter made several general comments on the proposed rules. First, that the rules should allow more than one flexible permit per site, since some large facilities may wish to combine functionally related process units into one permit. Second, flexible permits should parallel the Title 

### V program. Finally, the rules should contain a provision outlining how sources may be removed from a flexible permit. Since this action may be needed to resolve enhanced monitoring requirements if the enhanced monitoring provisions are not revised.

The staff's original proposal to the Commission, which initiated the flexible permit rulemaking process was based on the premise that only one flexible permit would be allowed per site. As discussed in the proposed rule preamble, similar process units may be combined by creating separate emissions caps under the flexible permit. The Title V program in Texas has been established as a

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 6 

### of 67

separate permit, not combined with the state new source review
program. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to combine flexible permits with Title V. A permittee may remove a facility from a flexible permit by requesting an amendment or alteration of the flexible permit. Then, separate Chapter 116 authorization would be required for the facility removed from the flexible permit.



### One commenter suggested clarification of the applicability of the enhanced monitoring rules under 40 

### Code of Federal Regulations

(CFR) Part 64 

### to the flexible permit. The commenter argued that if the federal rule is applied to all emission points under an emission cap, it could result in such excessive monitoring costs that the flexible permit would not be economically feasible.

The applicability of the enhanced monitoring rules under 40 CFR Part 64 is not within the control of the TNRCC. The commenter did
not provide any support for its argument related to monitoring costs. 

### his issue is beyond the scope of the proposed rules.



### Another commenter stated that a definition of maximum expected capacity 

### is needed.

The Commission believes that the term "expected maximum capacitym

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 7 of 67

is adequately defined in 5116.13.



### A commenter stated that the proposed rules go far beyond the scope of the Task Force 21 work group which originally conceived of the flexible permit concept. The commenter argued that there was no intention in the original work group to include new facilities in the flexible permit. Public notice and opportunity for hearings on each flexible permit is the only way to compensate for this action.

The rule language proposed is within the scope of the Task Force 21 

### Workgroup as well as the proposal made by staff to the Commission. However, consensus was not reached by the workgroup on all items. New facilities were included because it was generally felt that to exclude them from the flexible permit would not be equitable to facilities that are already well-controlled. Public notice is provided for within the rule language.



### A commenter stated that the original mandate of the Task Force 21 work group was to examine rules that would provide incentives for companies to improve controls at grandfather facilities while providing for increased protection of the environment and human health. The commenter stated that TNRCC has exceeded this mandate without demonstrating that these changes are necessary or in the public interest.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 8 

### of 67



### See the response to the preceding comment. The Commission would reply that the public interest will continue to be served by this

new permitting mechanism, since new facilities are required to meet Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and demonstrate acceptable off-site impacts. The Commission believes that the biggest benefit to the state is the reductions achieved by controlling older grandfathered facilities.



### One commenter stated that several aspects of the proposed rules violate state law. Examples are emission caps, allowing new facilities to obtain flexible permits, and failure to require BACT for each facility as defined in the TCAA.

The Commission has reviewed the state law relative to these issues and has determined that the proposed rule language complies with the requirements of the TCAA. There is no restriction in the TCAA

on the use of an emission cap in an air quality permit. The TCAA requires new facilities to obtain a permit and authorizes TNRCC to issue permits for multiple facilities at the same site. The proposed rules require that the facility, group of facilities, or account utilize BACT as required by the TCAA. The permitting of multiple facilities, as opposed to a single facility, raises additional issues and complications. The TCAA allows the TNRCC to develop different requirements andmethodologies to account for the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 9 

### of 67



### additional complexities found when permitting multiple facilities.



### A commenter stated that in order to demonstrate compliance with the proposed rules, it will be necessary to simultaneously and accurately measure emissions from multiple sources to determine, for any point in time, that the total emissions are below the cap. The only way to assure compliance with the cap is to install continuous monitors. The proposed rules do not require Continuous Emission Monitors (CEMs).

The rule language does not require CEMs. The Commission believes that engineering calculations based on measured process variables, parametric or predictive monitoring, stack monitoring, or stack testing are all appropriate methods to demonstrate compliance with the emission cap or individual emission limits. However, the Commission intends to require appropriate methods and in some cases CEMS may be required to ensure compliance with all caps and individual emission limitations.



### The followins discussion addresses the responses to TNRCCfsissues list for which TNRCC solicited comments in the proposed rule preamble.

Response to the TNRCC request for comments resardins temporaw

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 10 of 67

shutdowns is as follows.

A commenter noted that the 12-month allowance for temporary shutdowns without adjusting the emissions cap is reasonable and should be retained in the final rule. Another commenter stated that the temporary shutdown provision should be expanded beyond 12 months, and recommended the revision of 8116.716 (c) to specify that shutdowns less than 12 months will not require adjustment of the emission cap, but that shutdowns beyond 12 months may require adjustment. Two commenters stated that the shutdown period should be extended to two years. The following reasons were given to support this position. It will improve flexibility for operations which depend on market conditions, such as batch processes and specialty chemicals. Business cycles that influence such shutdowns usually last longer than one year. A two-year shutdown would be consistent with the current policy of examining two previous years of operating and emissions data for setting baselines. Also, permanent shutdowns that are made specifically to achieve the cap should be allowed without reducing the cap. Another commenter stated that a 12-month shutdown is too long to be considered temporary and should be considered a major shutdown.

For purposes of this subchapter, the Commission supports a 12-month time frame in determining whether a shutdown is temporary or

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 11 of 67

permanent. This period of time is sufficient to include most maintenance activities and shutdowns due to upsets without requiring submissions of excessive paperwork. This does not relieve the permit holder of the responsibility of reporting under the appropriate 30 TAC Chapter 101 rules. The Commission does not agree that a shutdown lasting more than 12 months should be considered temporary. The Commission has considered all of the
comments regarding this issue and believes that 12 months is the most reasonable period of time to allow for a temporary shutdown.



### Response to the TNRCC recruest for comments reqardinq reducinq allowable emissions to actual emissions at renewal is as follows.

One commenter stated that resetting emission caps during permit 'renewal is, inconsistent with the goals of flexible permits. Increases in actual emissions would occur only at well-controlled facilities, with acceptable impacts. Another commenter stated that to lower the emission cap would not be consistent with the concept of a flexible permit, because the cap is the mechanism that provides flexibility. 

### A commenter stated that emission caps should be reset only upon installation of additional required controls on
sources within the cap. Sources should not be penalized for operating within the cap. This defeats the purpose of the flexible permit. One commenter stated that companies should not be punished

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116. 

### Page 12 

### of 67



### for achieving emission rates that are lower than BACT which is used to establish the cap in the first place. A "use it or lose itN policy may encourage plants to emit close to their limits to retain flexibility and avoid a reduction in the cap. Caps should only be reset during permit renewal to reflect changes in BACT. One commenter stated that the emission cap must be reset at renewal to more closely resemble actual emissions over the life of the permit. Emissions cap abuse may occur if it is not strictly defined and enforced.

The Commission does not believe that an automatic reduction of the emission cap or individual emission limitation is warranted at renewal. However, the Commission does believe that it would be appropriate at renewal to review the emission cap and individual emission limitation to evaluate whether it has been set at a proper level, in accordance with the TNRCC air permit renewal guidance document. Automatically reducing the emission cap or individual emission limitation at renewal would unnecessarily limit the flexibility this program was developed to provide. The emission cap and individual emission limitations are subject to an impacts review at the time of permit issuance and renewal. Since the use of standard exemptions cannot be used to increase the emission cap, any additional increas'e in the emission cap will require a permit amendment and be subject to a health effects review at the time 

### a

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 13 

### of 67

permit is amended.



### Response to the TNRCC recruest for comments resardins adiustments in .emissioncaps for reductions rewired by FCAA rules is as follows.

One commenter stated that if a facility already complies with the rule, no further reduction should be required. However, if a reduction is needed for compliance, then the facility should be allowed to submit a request to adjust the emission cap 60 

### days prior to the compliance date of the federal rule. A commenter stated that the permittee should be required to submit a proposal 60 

### days prior to the effective date of the federal rule to readjust the cap in compliance with the new federal standard. Another commenter stated that this appears to be a reasonable requirement, but that it should be performed at permit renewal time to avoid frequent amendments whenever a federal rule is changed or added. A commenter stated that the cap should be adjusted relative to emission reductions mandated by the FCAA.

The Commission believes that the emission cap should be adjusted for emission reductions required by new regulations or changes to existing regulations. Such reductions are generally intended to address specific air quality concerns where an additional reduction in the amount of emissions is needed to improve or maintain air

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 14 

### of 67



### quality. If the emission cap is not reduced, then the emissions reductions required by rule still would be available for other facilities under the cap and no real reduction in emissions would be achieved. Such a result would entirely defeat the purpose of the new regulation and would hinder the state's ability to address

an air quality concern, including bringing all nonattainment areas into compliance by the specified deadlines. The adjustment to the emission cap should be made at the time the permit is amended, or within 60 

### days of making the change if no permit amendment is required.



### Response to the TNRCC reauest for comments resardins whether reductions from existins facilities should be available for bankinq credits applicable to nonattainment area offsets is as follows.

One commenter believes that such credits should be allowed because they provide a greater than one-for-one reduction. Also, nonattainment areas need a mechanism for generating offsets to allow continued development. Another commenter stated that emission reductions from installation of controls should be allowed

as offsets for PSD 

### and nonattainment netting and other banking rules. A commenter stated simply that such credits should be allowed. Another commenter stated that the banking of emission reductions in nonattainment areas should not be allowed. That

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 15 

### of 67



### commenter is concerned'overenvironmental justice issues, because too little attention is given to cumulative area-wide issues.

The Commission feels that it is not appropriate to treat emission reductions obtained through the flexible permit process any different than those obtained under the current regulatory process. If the reductions meet the creditability criteria specified in applicable regulations, the reductions should be available for use.



### The followincr discussion addresses comments resardins R116.13, 

### Flexible Permit Definitions.

One commenter suggested additional language for the definition of individual emission limitation 

### in 5116.13. 

### The definition should be revised to clarify that it will provide for future operational and physical flexibility, and that specific air contaminants and facilities not modified in a flexible permit are limited to their grandfathered rate or permit allowable.

It may be possible that a modification to a facility will affect only a single pollutant, such as a change in sulphur content in the fuel to a combustion device. The permit for such a modification would authorize the change and provide new permit limits for this pollutant. However, other pollutants, such as oxides of nitrogen

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By 

### Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 16 of 67

(NO,) and carbon monoxide (CO) may remain unaffected by this modification and the existing limitations for these pollutants would remain unchanged. When such a modification is authorized by a flexible permit, the authorization and limits for those unaffected pollutants are not included in the flexible permit. Thus, it is possible that, for some facilities, certain pollutants will be covered by a flexible permit and the unchanged pollutants will be covered by the existing authorization. No change to the rule language is needed to support this interpretation.



### One commenter suggested a minor correction to the definition of emissions cap 

### in 8116.13 by 

### dropping the l1sI1 from the word nemissionsNto be consistent with the use of the term throughout the rule.

The Commission agrees with the proposed change and has revised the rule language as suggested.



### A commenter suggested that the term "insignificantemission factorn 

### be defined in S116.13.

The term "insignificant emission factor" is a factor to allow for

an insignificant emission increase, not to exceed 9.0%, 

### in the calculation of the emission cap to provide for flexibility if such

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 17 of 67

emissions will not result in adverse off-property impacts. The Commission believes that the term is defined in context by its use



### A commenter suggested that any differences between the terms "facility" 

### and "individual facility" 

### be clarified in 5116.13.

The term Itindividualfacilityn in 5116.13 is intended to make clear that an individual emission limitation applies to a single facility

as opposed to an emission cap applying to multiple facilities.

In addition, the requirement in 5116.711 (3) to utilize BACT for existing facilities will be based on a facility, a group of facilities, or an account. The term "individual facility" in the last sentence of 5116.713(3) is needed to make clear that BACT for

new facilities may not be demonstrated on a group of facilities or account basis, but must be demonstrated for each new facility. The Commission does not believe that the suggested change is needed.



### The followins discussion addresses comments resardins 8116.110, Applicabilitv.

One commenter expressed concern about the impact of the addition of flexible permits in S116.110. The commenter argued that there

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 18 of 67

could be serious enforcement problems for this type of permit, and that there is a potential for emissions to creep upward due to determinations of insignificant emission factors and cumulative impacts from nearby sources. Also, the permit term .for all flexible permits should be limited to five years in subsection (c)

# .

The addition of flexible permits in 1116.110 makes it clear that a flexible permit is one of several types of permits that can be obtained to satisfy the TCAA. The Commission disagrees that flexible permits will create serious enforcement problems due to emission creep or cumulative impacts. Emissions cannot exceed the emission cap or individual emission limitation without amending the flexible permit and subjecting the changes to a permit review. The TCAA provides that permits are to be renewed every ten years. Except Itfor causen a shorter term may be imposed. The Commission

sees no reason to limit the term of all flexible permits to five
years. If a justifiable cause exists for a particular permit, the Commission intends to limit the term of the permit as appropriate.



### The followins discussion addresses comments resardins 8116.710. Ap~licabilitv.

A commenter suggested revising §116.710(a) (1) to allow for more than one flexible permit per site for nonintegrated units.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 19 

### of 67

AS stated previously, the staff's original proposal to the Commission, which initiated the flexible permit rulemaking process, was based on the premise that only one flexible permit would be allowed per site. As discussed in the proposed rule preamble, similar process units may be combined by creating separate emissions caps under the flexible permit. Due to potential complexities in the compliance and permitting areas, as well as the uncertainties of this new program, the Commission strongly believes that the concept of a single flexible permit should be retained in the rule.



### One commenter suggested revising §116.710(a) to make it clear that

a flexible permit can only cover sources at one geographic location.

The Commission agrees that there should be only one flexible permit
per site. The Commission agrees to the suggested clarification by adding new paragraph (4) in §116.710(a).



### A commenter contended that S116.710 (a)(3) 

### should not allow new
sources to obtain a flexible permit, especially in nonattainment
areas.

New facilities were included because it was generally felt that to

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 20 

### of 67

exclude them from flexible permits would not be equitable to facilities that are already well-controlled. The Commission believes that the biggest benefit to the state is the reductions achieved by controlling older, grandfathered facilities. The Commission never envisioned that the flexible permit process would be limited to older facilities. The Commission feels that the public interest will continue to be served by this new permitting mechanism since new facilities are required to meet BACT and acceptable impacts. The flexible permits system is designed to address concerns in nonattainment areas.



### The followins discussion addresses comments resardins 5116.711, Flexible Permit Application.

One commenter suggested that 5116.711 (1) specify that there can be

no exceedance of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards or PSD increments and that it include requirements to address other air quality impacts under the FCAA.

No change to the rule is necessary. These issues are already addressed by L116.711 (I), (7), and (8)

# .

A commenter suggested revising §116.711(2) to allow calculation of emission rates as an alternative to stack testing.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 21 of 67

The stack testing provision of §116.711(2) does not require stack sampling as the sole means of compliance determination. For the performance demonstration, engineering calculations and other methods can be suitable substitutes to stack testing, as stated in 1116.711 (6)

# . The Commission will work with the applicant to determine the best means to demonstrate compliance. Section 116.711(2) allows the Executive Director to require stack sampling

as deemed appropriate. Therefore, the proposed rule language already addresses the concerns raised by this commenter.



### A 

### commenter suggested the following minor changes to §116.711(2),

(3), and (6) for consistency with other sections of the rule: add the word significant

## " be£ore "air contaminants" in paragraph (2); 

### add the word flproposedw be£ore acility" in paragraph (3); 

### and add the word vapplicationu after ltpermit" at the end of the first sentence in paragraph (6)

## .

The term nsignificantll has a specific meaning within this subchapter. It would be inappropriate to use this term in paragraph (2), since it may restrict the agency's ability to require a demonstration of compliance. The Commission agrees with the second comment to add the word nproposedmin paragraph (3), and has made the suggested change. However, nproposedw means facilities proposed for inclusion in the flexible permit.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 22 

### of 67

Regarding the third comment, the first sentence in paragraph (6) requires demonstration that the source will achieve the performance specified in the permit application. The second section of this sentence requires the applicant to submit additional information to demonstrate the source will achieve the performance specified in the permit. The commission feels these two performance demonstrations are reasonable and necessary and is opposed to the suggested change.



### A commenter suggested revising S116 -711 (3) 

### to clarify that BACT applies to all air contaminants for new facilities covered by the flexible permit. Existing facilities must only apply BACT for the air contaminants and facilities that are given operational flexibility under the flexible permit.

The TNRCC agrees that §116.711(3) applies to all air contaminants for new facilities. Additionally, existing facilities must apply BACT only for the air contaminants and facilities that are given operational flexibility. However, a demonstration must be made that the facility is not modified for the other pollutants and the applicant must be able to make that demonstration on an ongoing basis. No rule change is necessary to allow for that interpretation.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 23 

### of 67



### he commenter also suggested the revision of §116.711(4) and (5) to state that individual sources subject to New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) standards will be considered in compliance with the applicable standards if emissions from all sources covered by the permit are below the emission cap.

The TNRCC does not have the authority to relieve a permittee from meeting applicable federal requirements.



### One commenter made several comments regarding S116.711. The commenter stated that: paragraph (1) should consider cumulative impacts at a facility; paragraph (2) 

### should require actual measurement of emissions; paragraphs (4) and (5) should not allow exceedences of NSPS or NESHAP standards; paragraph (6) should not allow predictive emissions monitoring; actual emission measuring instruments are needed to accurately measure the emissions; paragraph (9) 

### should consider cumulative impacts from the facility in modeling requirements; and define potential maximum production capacity 

### in paragraph (11) 

## .

Paragraph (1) requires a health review to be conducted for all pollutants brought into the permit. Paragraph (2) does require actual measurement of emissions when the Executive Director

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 24 

### of 67

determines it is necessary. Paragraphs (4) and (5) require compliance with all applicable NSPS and NESHAPS. The Commission does not agree with the comment regarding paragraph 

### (6), since engineering calculations and predictive emissions monitoring are acceptable methods for determining compliance in many cases. See comments in reference to paragraph 

### (1) for comment regarding paragraph 

### (9). Potential maximum production capacity should be the expected maximum capacity as defined in 

### S116.13. The Commission agrees to revise the term in paragraph 

### (11) from "potential" to 'Bexpectedfl maximum capacity

# .

One commenter suggested revising §116.711(6) 

### to clarify that an applicant must demonstrate full compliance with all applicable rules and statutory requirements before a permit can be issued. The commenter recommended that §116.711(9) 

### be revised to clarify that monitoring will not replace modeling and that modeling will be required in all appropriate cases.

Section 

### 116.711 (1) requires a demonstration that an applicant will comply with all rules and regulations of the TNRCC and with the intent of the TCAA. The Commission feels that acceptable monitoring data is a valid mechanism for demonstrating approvable impacts. The proposed language does not preclude the Commission from requesting modeling when appropriate.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 25 

### of 67

A commenter suggested revising §116.711(10) to clarify that emission limits can be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis as specified by the applicant. Also, the commenter contended that emission rate calculations do not need to be provided for unmodified sources under application for an amendment.

The suggested change is not necessary or appropriate. Section 116.711 (10) specifies information to be included in a permit application. Section 116.716 clearly provides that both emission caps and individual emission limitations will be established for specific pollutants. The TNRCC agrees that emission rate calculations do not need to be provided for unmodified sources. However, information may be requested to demonstrate that these

sources are not being modified. Therefore, the Commission opposes the suggested language that would preclude requesting such information.



### The followins discussion addresses comments resardins ,5116.715, General and Special Conditions.

A commenter suggested revising 5116.715 to require the special provisions of a permit to specify the terms for readjustment of an emissions cap whenever a unit is removed from service while under schedule to install emission controls.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution 

### By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 26 of 67

The Commission agrees 'that the terms for readjustment of the cap should appear in the special conditions of the permit and will include such terms on a permit-by-permit basis. However, if they

are not included in a permit, the rule language addresses how the Commission intends to readjust the cap. The amount of reduction in the emission cap and the length of time of the readjustment should
not be left to negotiations on a case-by-case basis. No change to the proposed rule language is needed.



### One commenter made several comments regarding S116.715: in subsection (a) 

## , define significant impact 

### and make executive director.approva1 and public input mandatory rather than optional; include local programs in the startup notification in subsection

(c)(3); 

### provide for public input in determining equivalency of methods in subsection (c)(5); 

### recordkeeping in subsection (c)(6) should be required for five years; there was no table provided as referenced in subsection (c) (7); 

### and define reasonable times 

### in subsection (c)(10)

## .

Due to the number of compounds and variety of circumstances that

can be involved, it is impossible to define significant impact with
any more specificity. All permits do not require a special condition restricting the use of standard exemptions or standard permits beyond the restriction on the use of a standard exemption

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 27 of 67

in §116.721(d). Standard exemptions and standard permits are subject to public notice during rulemaking. The rule language does state that all local programs will be notified of start-up conditions. The Commission will review and perform the evaluations of equivalency of methods. The two-year requirement for recordkeeping is being kept to maintain consistency with current practices. The agency maintains its own records regarding the compliance history of a facility that are sufficient for the compliance history review. The nEmission Sources 

## - Emissions Caps and Individual Emission Limitations" table is not part of the rule language, but will be included in a final permit. The TCAA, S382.015 provides that the TNRCC may enter public or private property at a reasonable time to conduct inspections and investigations related to air quality.



### A commenter suggested revising §116.715(c)(6)by adding "requiredI1 before "informationN in the last sentence.

The Commission feels the change would not enhance the paragraph's intent and, possibly could confuse the reader.



### A commenter suggested revising §116.716(b) (erroneously stated as §116.716(6) to allow individual emission limitations to be established for any emission unit covered by the permit. This may

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 28 of 67



### help alleviate the concerns that the new 40 

### CFR Part 64 

### will require enhanced monitoring on all sources within an emission cap if the cap is major for a given pollutant. It would allow an applicant to arrange a source cap for a number of small sources that would not sum up to the threshold that triggers enhanced monitoring.

Based on the Commission's current understanding of the proposed requirements in 40 CFR Part 64, this comment does not accurately reflect the proposed requirements for enhanced monitoring. Thus, the Commission does not believe that the suggested changes are
necessary.



### One commenter suggested revising 8116.715 

### (c)(8) to be consistent with the recommended changes to 8116.716 

### (c) 

## , i.e., allowing shutdowns in excess of 12 

### months without readjusting the cap. Another commenter stated that paragraph (8) 

### is an essential part of the rules and must be retained.

These subdivisions were intended to address separate issues and do not need to be revised for consistency. Section 116.715(c) (8) addresses readjustment of an emission cap for a facility subject to scheduled installation of controls. This paragraph addresses the difference in the emissions cap before and after installation of

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 29 

### of 67

emission controls. Subsection (c) addresses adjustments to the emission cap for shutdowns that exceed 12 months' duration. The Commission agrees with the comment that paragraph (8) should be retained in the adopted rule.



### The followins discussion addresses comments resardins 5116.716, Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limitations.

Two commenters suggested deleting 5116.716 (b)

## . The sentence could be interpreted to disallow increases in emissions above actual levels even if those increases are within the emission cap or individual allowable levels. That would be inconsistent with the concept of a flexible permit. Since a facility under flexible permit will be required to meet BACT and impacts review, there should be no concern about "emission levels appropriate for the proposed 

### control^.^

The intent of the last sentence of 1116.716 

### (b) is to place additional restrictions on a facility when proposed controls are not BACT for the facility when operated at its maximum potential capacity. For example, BACT for a sulfur recovery unit (SRU) operating at more than two long tons of sulfur per day is currently

more stringent than for an SRU operating at less than two long tons of sulfur per day. If an applicant represented expected maximum

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 30 

### of 67

sulfur production of less than two long tons per day, TNRCC 

### would include an individual emission limitation for the SRU to ensure that production could not exceed two long tons of sulfur per day without installation of appropriate control technology. Additional restrictions could also be appropriate when unacceptable impacts would result if the facility used all of the flexibility provided by the cap. Such an individual emission limitation would not necessarily prohibit an 

### increase in actual emissions, although it would prohibit an increase in emissions above the individual emission limitation which could prevent that specific facility from using any available emissions under the emission cap.


### A commenter suggested adding language to §116.716(b) that would allow an applicant to limit its expected maximum capacity if the applicant desires to use that capacity to calculate an individual emission limit.

The expected maximum capacity of a facility is determined in part by the planned operation of that facility and is totally within the control of the applicant. (See the response to the preceding comment for the intent of this language.)



### One commenter suggested revising 8116.716 (c) to require that the emissions cap be adjusted downward when rules and regulations

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 31 of 67

mandate new controls on sources under the cap. Another commenter suggested revising subsection (c) to allow only one month for temporary shutdowns unless the permittee can demonstrate that there is no alternative to a longer shutdown. According to that commenter, the existing cap should only be retained for a minimal shutdown, and in no event should it extend beyond a 12-month shutdown. A commenter suggested a revision to subsection (c) for clarification that the emission cap is adjusted only for a new source added under the cap, and stated that existing sources in the cap do not require modification.

The Commission has added a new subsection (e) to clarify the requirement to adjust the emission cap when a facility, under a flexible permit, is affected by a change to an existing regulation.
As stated in the response to the issues list portion of this preamble, the Commission has considered all of the comments regarding the temporary shutdown issue and believes that 12 months is an appropriate period for a shutdown allowance. In most cases when a new facility 

### is added, the emission cap will be increased as suggested by the commenter. However, the current language provides the Commission the needed flexibility to adjust the cap as appropriate to account for all possible cases.



### One commenter suggested revising §116.716(d) by adding the phrase

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 32 

### of 67

"For the specific air contaminants and facilities with provisions for operational or physical flexibilityM at the beginning of the first sentence.

All pollutants brought into the flexible permit will be afforded operational and physical flexibility. For those pollutants for which flexibility is not sought, they will remain outside the flexible permit. Therefore, the Commission believes the proposed change is not needed.



### A commenter stated that 8116.716 does not address the issue of short term emission caps which is mentioned in the preamble. This issue should be clarified in the rule.

The rule allows for the use of any units or averaging times that

are appropriate for the compounds and resulting off-site impacts. The Commission expects to continue the current practice of having both short term and long term emission limits.



### One commenter stated that the language in 5116.716 (d) seems to require installation of a level of controls referred to as "BACT plus 9.0%." 

### This may become too stringent a requirement for older and grandfathered units. This appears to be a requirement to install BACT on all facilities included in the flexible permit.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or ~odification Chapter 116 

### Page 33 

### of 67



### Such a requirement would impose such an unreasonable economic burden on an applicant, that a flexible permit may not be a viable option. This requirement should be reevaluated within one year of adoption to determine if it is reasonable. Another commenter stated the opposite position that the 9.0% 

### emission allowance in subsection (dl is too high. The commenter believes that the cumulative impacts for a major source could be great.

The flexible permits program is an optional program that may not be suitable for all facilities. The TCAA requires BACT for all new and modified facilities. These rules allow for the calculation of

an emissions cap that includes an insignificant emissions factor to provide flexibility. The applicant, then, may propose controls necessary to meet that cap. A fundamental premise of this process is that flexibility would be given in exchange for a wellcontrolled facility. In response to the comments by the last commenter, the insignificant emission factor may not exceed 9.0%. 

### The impacts will be evaluated at the final emission cap total. An 

### insignificant emission factor will be adjusted accordingly if the health effects review dictates lower emissions. The TNRCC 

### agrees that cumulative impacts could be significant and that is why all facilities will be evaluated under the flexible permit to ensure acceptable off-site impacts.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 34 

### of 67

The f ollowins discussion addresses comments resardins 3116.717, Imvlementation Schedule for Additional Controls.

A commenter stated that the emission cap adjustment in 8116.717 should be mandatory, not optional.

Section 116.715 (c)(8) requires an adjustment to an emission cap for the shutdown of a facility subject to a schedule to install controls. This provision allows the Executive Director additional authority to place conditions in the permit to address these situations,



### One commenter suggested revising 5116.717 by adding a statement that prohibits banking, sale, and/or netting of emission reductions made under a flexible permit. The commenter argued that such actions would be inappropriate, especially in nonattainment areas, for a program which is allegedly designed to reduce emissions.

The Commission does not agree with the suggested change, The Commission feels that it is not appropriate to treat emission reductions obtained through the flexible permit process any differently than those obtained under the current regulatory process. Additionally, if the reductions meet the creditability criteria specifiedin applicable regulations, the reductions should

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or ~odification Chapter 116 Page 35 

### of 67

be available for use.



### The followincr discussion addresses comments resardins 8116.718. Siqnificant Emission Increase.

A commenter suggested revising 8116.718 and 8116.721 (b) to allow replacement facilities which utilize BACT to be constructed under the flexible permit.

New facilities, whether they are replacement facilities or not, may 

## . be authorized under a flexible permit without the suggested revisions. As with any new facility, a replacement facility must meet all of the applicable requirements of this subchapter, including the use of BACT, to obtain a flexible permit.



### One commenter suggested revising 8116.718 to assure consistency with the requirement to protect public health that is stated in 8116.711(1). Section 116.718 seems to imply that the requirement to protect public health is only triggered if an emission increase exceeds the permit allowable by a wsignificantN amount. The commenter recommended the TNRCC consider using a lower baseline for determining significant increases whenever modeling includes emissions that are below permit allowables.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution 

### By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 36 of 67

The rule requires that impacts be evaluated at the proposed emission cap which includes an insignificant emissions factor. Thus, any increase in emissions above the emission cap or individual emission limitation is a significant increase which would require a permit amendment and reevaluation of the impacts and demonstration that applicable PSD and nonattainment (NA) requirements are met. The Commission believes that all applicable PSD/NA requirements will be met under these rules. However, the Commission will review the rule further and initiate additional rulemaking as necessary.



### A commenter suggested defining 

### insignificant in 8116.718 with a numerical figure.

Given the variety of facilities and pollutants anticipated to be authorized through flexible permits, it is impractical to define "insignificantn in terms of a numerical value.



### The followins discussion addresses comments resardins 8116.721, Amendments and Alterations.

A commenter stated that permit alterations in 8116.721 should not be allowed without public notification. Also, the cumulative impacts of multiple alterations should be added to determine if

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 37 of 67

additional controls are needed. Paragraph (3) should require BACT.

Alterations allow minor changes to permits that do not increase emissions, change the method of control, or change the character of emissions; .therefore,public notice and control technology review

are not necessary. Because of the minor nature of the alteration
process and since the emissions cap cannot be exceeded, cumulative impacts and additional controls are not warranted during the review of an alteration.



### A commenter suggested revising S116.721 (b)

### to specify that facility alterations which may change a general or special provision do not require prior approval unless they 'Iadverselyn affect control equipment performance.

The current language provides the Executive Director the opportunity to review a change to a facility made under a permit alteration to determine if the change nadversely" affects control equipment performance. Additionally, permit conditions may need to be revised by the permit engineer to reflect the change.



### One commenter suggested revising 5116.721 (dl to allow the use of standard exemptions under a flexible permit.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 38 

### of 67

The Commission disagrees with the commenter's suggestion. See the response to the second comment in the general comments addressed at the beginning of this preamble.



### A commenter stated that S116.721 (c) and (d) are examples of the difficulty TNRCC will have in enforcing the flexible permit rules. The TNRCC should explain to the public how enforcement and emissions inventories will be accomplished for facilities operating under a flexible permit. Specific examples should be given.

The Commission expects to have better tools for enforcement, such as recordkeeping and emissions monitoring, under the flexible permit rules, and the compliance staff will continue to enforce the rules as they have in the past. The holder of a flexible permit will be required to maintain data sufficient to demonstrate compliance with the emissions cap and individual emission limitations contained in the flexible permit, and this information will be available to TNRCC field staff and/or local programs.



### One commenter suggested revising 8116.721 to clarify the time frame for response by TNRCC to a permit amendment or alteration application. The commenter recommended a response time of seven to 14 days. Also, the commenter suggested the rule specify whether any penalties are assessed for exceeding the limitations for an

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 39 

### of 67

alteration or amendment.

The TNRCC is currently developing proposed rules in a new Chapter ,281 that will address time frames for permit review. It would be duplicative to address the same issues within this rulemaking. Whether penalties are assessed for a violation is determined on a case-by-case basis by the enforcement staff. Typically, the staff responds to all alteration requests; however, it is the permit holder's responsibility to verify individual compliance with all applicable rules and regulations.



### The followins discussion addresses comments resardins 8116.750, Flexible Permit Fee.

A commenter stated that, in S116.750, fees should be charged for alterations, ownership changes, location changes, and standard exemptions to recover staff resources for these activities.

The Commission has developed the flexible permit fee structure to be consistent with the existing fee system for new source review permits.



### The followins discussion addresses 5116.760, Flexible Permit Renewal.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 40 of 67

A commenter suggested 'revising 8116.760 to require adjustment, at renewal, of emissions to 10% over the actual maximum emissions that occurred during the period prior to renewal.

This issue was addressed in the portion of this preamble regarding responses to the TNRCC 

### issues list.



### The new section is adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA)

### , 8382.017, which provides TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

# STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 41 

### of 67



### SUBCHAPTER A : 

### DEFINITIONS

5116.13. 

### Flexible Permit Definitions.

Emission cap 

### - Emission limit for a specific air contaminant based on total emissions of that pollutant adjusted by an Insignificant Emissions Factor from all sources that are included in a flexible permit.

Expected maximum capacity 

## - The maximum capacity of a facility according to its physical and operational design and planned operation.

Individual emission limitation 

### - Emission limit for a specific air contaminant not covered by an emission cap for an individual facility adjusted by an Insignificant Emissions Factor.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 42 of 67



### This agency hereby certifies that the section as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on November 16, 1994.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 43 

### of 67

The amendment is adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), 5382.017, which provides TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

SUBCHAPTER B : 

### NEW 

### SOURCE REVIEW PERMITS

PERMIT APPLICATION



### 5116.110. Applicability.

(a) Permit to construct. Any person who plans to construct any new facility or to engage in the modification of any existing facility which may emit air contaminants into the air of this state shall obtain a permit pursuant to 5116.111 of this title

(relating to General Applications), satisfy the conditions for a standard permit pursuant to the requirements in Subchapter F 

### of this chapter (relating to Standard Permits), satisfy the conditions for a flexible permit pursuant to the requirements in Subchapter G of this chapter (relating to Flexible Permits), or satisfy the conditions for exempt facilities pursuant to Subchapter C of this chapter (relating to Permit Exemptions) 'before

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 44 

### of 67

any actual work is begun on the facility. Modifications to existing permitted facilities may be handled through the amendment of an existing permit or an existing flexible permit.

(b)-(el (No change.)

The agency hereby certifies that the section as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on November 16, 1994.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 45 

### of 67

The new sections are proposed under the Texas Health and Safety Code, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), 8382.017, which provides TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the policy and purposes of the TCAA.

SUBCHAPTER G : FLEXIBLE PERMITS

PERMIT APPLICATION



### S116.710. Applicability.



### (a) Flexible permit. A person may obtain a flexible permit which allows for physical or operational changes as provided by this subchapter as an alternative to obtaining a new source review permit under 8116.110 of this title (relating to Applicability), or in lieu of amending an existing permit under 8116.116 of this title (relating to Amendments and Alterations). A person may obtain a flexible permit pursuant to 8116.711 of this title

(relating to Flexible Permit Application) for a facility, group of facilities, or account before any actual work is begun, provided however:

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 46 of 67

(1) only one flexible permit may be issued at an account site;

(2) 

### modifications to existing facilities covered by a flexible permit may be handled through the amendment of an existing flexible permit;

(3) 

### permitting of a new facility may be handled through the amendment of a flexible permit; and

(4) a flexible permit may not cover sources at more than one account site.

(b) Operations certification. Any person who obtains a flexible permit under this subchapter shall comply with S116.110 (b) of this title.

(c) Change in ownership. The new owner of a facility, group of facilities, or account shall comply with §116.110(c) of this title, provided however, that all facilities covered by a flexible permit must change ownership at the same time and to the
same person, or both the new owner and existing permit holder must obtain a permit alteration allocating the emission caps or individual emission limitation prior to the transfer of the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission. Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 47 

### of 67

permit by the Texas ~atural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC). After the sale of a facility or facilities, but prior to the transfer of a permit requiring a permit alteration, the original permit holder remains responsible for ensuring compliance with the existing flexible permit and all rules and regulations of the TNRCC.

(d) Submittal under seal of registered professional engineer. All applications for a flexible permit or flexible permit amendment shall comply with §116.110(d) of this title.

(e) Responsibility for flexible permit application. The
owner of the facility, group of facilities, or account or the operator of the facility, group of facilities, or account who is authorized to act for the owner is responsible for complying with this section, except as provided by subsection (c) of this section.

8116.711. Flexible 

### Permit Application. 

### Any application for a new flexible permit or flexible permit amendment must include a completed Form PI-1 General Application. The Form PI-1 must be signed by an authorized representative of the applicant. The Form PI-1 specifies additional support information which must be

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 48 

### of 67

provided before the application is deemed complete. In order to be granted a flexible permit or flexible permit amendment, the

owner operator of the proposed facility shall submit information to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) which demonstrates that all of the following are met.

(1) Protection of public health and welfare. The emissions from the proposed facility, group of facilities, or account as determined pursuant to S116.716 of this title

(relating to Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limitations), will comply with all rules and regulations of the TNRCC and with the intent of the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), including protection of the health and physical property of the people. In considering the issuance of a flexible permit for construction or modification of any facility, group of facilities, or account within 3,000 feet or less of an elementary, junior high/middle,

or senior high school, the TNRCC shall consider any possible adverse short-term or long-term side effects that an air contaminant or nuisance odor from the facility, group of facilities, or account may have on the individuals attending these school facilities.

(2) 

### Measurement of emissions. The proposed facility, group of facilities, or account will have provisions for measur-

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 49 of 67



### ing the emission of air contaminants as determined by the ~xecutive Director. This may include the installation of sampling ports on exhaust stacks and construction of sampling platforms accordance with guidelines in the TNRCC "Compliance Sampling Manual.

(3) 

### Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

## . The proposed facility, group of facilities, or account will utilize BACT, with consideration given to the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions from the facility on a proposed facility, group of facilities, or account basis. Control technology beyond BACT may be used on certain facilities to provide the emission reductions necessary to comply with this requirement on a group of facilities or account basis, provided however, that the existing level of control may not be lessened for any facility. For new facilities, the use of BACT shall be demonstrated for the individual facility.

(4) Federal New Source Performance Standards (NSPS). The emissions from each affected facility as defined in 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60 will meet at least the requirements of any applicable NSPS as listed under Title 40 

### CFR Part 60, promulgated by the United States Environmental

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 50 

### of 67

Protection Agency (EPA~ pursuant to authority granted under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), §111, 

### as amended.

(5) 

### National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) and Maximum Achievable Control Technology

(MACT). The emissions from each facility as defined in 40 

### CFR Part 61 will meet at least the requirements of any applicable NESHAPS, as listed under 40 

### CFR Part 61, or any MACT standard, promulgated by EPA pursuant to authority granted under the FCAA, 5112, as amended.

(6) Performance demonstration. The proposed facility, group of facilities, or account will achieve the performance specified in the flexible permit application. The applicant may be required to submit additional engineering data after a flexible permit has been issued in order to demonstrate further that the proposed facility, group of facilities, or account will achieve the performance specified in the flexible permit. In addition, initial compliance testing with ongoing compliance determined through engineering calculations based on measured process variables, parametric or predictive monitoring, stack monitoring, or stack testing may be required.

(7) Nonattainment review. If the proposed facility,

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 51 of 67

group of facilities, or account is located in a nonattainment area, each facility shall comply with all applicable requirements under the undesignated head concerning nonattainment review in Subchapter B of this chapter.

(8) 

### Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review. If the proposed facility, group of facilities, or account is located in an attainment area, each facility shall comply with all applicable requirements under the undesignated head concerning PSD in Subchapter B of this chapter.

(9) 

### Air dispersion modeling or ambient monitoring. Computerized air dispersion modeling and/or ambient monitoring may be required by the TNRCC Permits Program to determine the air quality impacts from the facility, group of facilities, or account.

(10) Application content. In addition to any other requirements of this chapter, the applicant shall:

(A) identify each air contaminant for which an emission cap is desired;

(B) identify each facility to be included in the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 52 

### of 67

flexible permit;

(C) identify each source of emissions to be included in the flexible permit and for each source of emissions identify the Emission Point Number (EPN) and the air contaminants emitted;

(Dl 

### for each emission cap, identify all associated EPNs and provide emission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and the proposed control technology;

(El for each individual emission limitation, identify the EPN and provide emission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and the proposed control technology.

(11) Proposed control technology and compliance demonstration. The applicant shall specify the control technology proposed for each unit to meet the emission cap and demonstrate compliance with all emission caps at expected maximum production capacity.

2116.714. Application Review Schedule. 

### The flexible permit ap-

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 53 

### of 67



### plication will be reviewed by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission in accordance with S116.114 

### of this title

(relating to Application Review Schedule).

1116.715. 

### General and Special Conditions.



### (a) Flexible permits may contain general and special conditions. The holders of flexible permits shall comply with any and all such conditions. Upon a specific finding by the Executive Director that an increase of a particular air contaminant could result in a significantimpact on the air environment, or could cause the facility, group of facilities, or account to become subject to review under the undesignated headings of Subchapter B of this chapter relating to Nonattainment Review or Prevention of Significant Deterioration Review, the permit may include a special condition which requires the permittee to obtain written approval from the Executive Director before constructing a facility under a standard exemption or standard permit.

(b) A pollutant specific emission cap or multiple emission caps and/or individual emission limitations shall be established for each air contaminant for all facilities authorized by the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 54 of 67

flexible permit.

(c) The following general conditions shall be applicable to every flexible permit.

(1) Voiding of permit. A flexible permit or flexible permit amendment under this subchapter is automatically void if the holder fails to complete construction as specified in the flexible permit. Upon request, the Executive Director may grant
a one time 12-month extension of the date to complete construction. This section does not apply to physical or operational changes allowed without an amendment under P116.721 of this title (relating to Amendments and Alterations).

(2) 

### Construction progress. The start of construction, construction interruptions exceeding 45 days, and completion of construction shall be reported to the appropriate regional office of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) not later than 15 working days after occurrence of the event.

(3) 

### Start-up notification. The appropriate Air Program Regional Office of the TNRCC and any local program having jurisdiction shall be notified prior to the commencement of operations of the facilities authorized by the permit in such a

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 55 

### of 67



### manner that a representative of the TNRCC may be present. Phased construction, which may involve a series of facilities commencing operations at different times, shall provide separate notification for the commencement of operations for each facility.

(4) 

### Sampling 'requirements. If sampling of stacks or process vents is required, the flexible permit holder shall contact the Source and Mobile Monitoring Section of the TNRCC Office of Air Quality prior to sampling to obtain the proper data forms and procedures. All sampling and testing procedures must be approved by the Executive Director and coordinated with the appropriate Air Program Regional Office of the TNRCC. The flexible permit holder is also responsible for providing sampling facilities and conducting the sampling operations or contracting with an independent sampling consultant.

(5) 

### Equivalency of methods. It shall be the responsibility of the flexible permit holder to demonstrate or otherwise justify the equivalency of emission control methods, sampling or other emission testing methods, and monitoring methods proposed

as alternatives to methods indicated in the conditions of the flexible permit. Alternative methods shall be applied for in writing and must be reviewed and approved by the Executive Director prior to their use in fulfilling any requirements of the

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission ' . 

### Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 56 

### of 67



### permit.

(6) 

### Recordkeeping. A copy of the flexible permit along with information and data sufficient to demonstrate

. 

### continuous compliance with the emission caps and individual emission limitations contained in the flexible permit shall be maintained in a file at the plant site and made available at the request of personnel from the TNRCC or any air pollution control program having jurisdiction. For facilities that normally operate unattended, this information shall be maintained at the nearest staffed location within Texas specified by the permit holder in the permit application. This information may include, but is not limited to, emission cap and individual emission limitation calculations based on a 12-month rolling basis and, production records and operating hours. Additional recordkeeping requirements may be specified in special conditions attached to the flexible permit. Information in the file shall be retained for at least two years following the date that the information or data is obtained.

(7) 

### Maximum allowable emission rates. A flexible permit covers only those sources of emissions and those air contaminants listed in the table entitled "Emission Sources 

### - Emissions Caps and Individual Emission Limitations" attached to

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 57 

### of 67



### the flexible permit. Flexible permitted sources are limited to the emission limits and other conditions specified in the table attached to the flexible permit.

(8) 

### Emission cap readjustment. If a schedule to install additional controls is included in the flexible permit and a facility subject to such a schedule is taken out of service, the emission cap contained in the flexible permit will be readjusted for the period the unit is out of service to a level

as if no schedule had been established. Unless a special provision specifies the method of readjustment of the emission cap, a permit alteration shall be obtained.

(9) 

### Maintenance of emission control. The facilities covered by the flexible permit shall not be operated unless all air pollution emission capture and abatement equipment is maintained in good working order and operating properly during normal facility operations. Notification for upsets and maintenance shall be made in accordance with S101.6 

### and S101.7 

### of this title

(relating to Notification Requirements for Major Upset and Notification Requirements for Maintenance).

(10) 

### Compliance with rules. Acceptance of a flexible permit by a permit applicant constitutes an acknowledgement and

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 58 

### of 67



### agreement that the holder will comply with all Rules, Regulations, and Orders of the Commission issued in conformity with the Texas Clean Air Act and the conditions precedent to the granting of the permit. If more than one state or federal rule regulation or flexible permit condition are applicable, then the most stringent limit or condition shall govern and be the standard by which compliance shall be demonstrated. Acceptance includes consent to the entrance of Commission employees and agents into the permitted premises at reasonable times to investigate conditions relating to the emission or concentration of air contaminants, including compliance with the flexible permit.

(d) There may be additional special conditions attached to a flexible permit upon issuance or amendment of the permit. Such conditions in a flexible permit may be more restrictive than the requirements of Title 30 

### of the Texas Administrative Code.

8116.716. Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limitations.



### (a) Emission caps. Each emission cap for a specific pollutant will be established as follows:

(1) 

### emissions will be calculated for each facility

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 59 

### of 67

based on application of current Best Available Control Technology at expected maximum capacity;

(2) the calculated emissions will be summed.

(b) Individual emission limitations. An 

### individual emission limitation will be established in the same permit for each pollutant not covered by an emission cap for facilities covered by the flexible permit. In addition, an individual emission limitation may be established for a pollutant covered by

an emission cap when the expected capacity of a facility is less than the expected maximum capacity to prevent a facility from exceeding emission levels appropriate for the proposed controls.

(c) Readjustment of emission cap. If a facility subject to
an emission cap is shut down for a period longer than 12 months, the emission cap shall be readjusted by lowering the emission cap by an amount that the shut down facility contributed to the original calculation of the emission cap. If a new facility is brought into the flexible permit, an emission cap shall be adjusted by modifying the emissions cap accordingly.

(d) Insignificant emission factor. The emission caps and individual emissions limitation calculated pursuant to this

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 60 

### of 67



### section may include an.InsignificantEmissions Factor which does not exceed 9.0% 

### of the total emission cap or individual emission limitation.

(el An 

### emission cap will be readjusted downward for any facility covered by a flexible permit if that facility becomes subject to any new state or federal regulation which would lower emissions or require an emission reduction. The adjustment will be made at the time the flexible permit is amended or altered. If an amendment to a flexible permit is not required to meet the
new regulation, then within 60 

### days of making the change, the permittee must submit a request to alter the permit and include information describing how compliance with the new requirement will be demonstrated.

8116.717. Implementation Schedule for Additional Controls. 

### If a facility requires the installation of additional controls to meet
an emission cap for a pollutant, the flexible permit shall specify an implementation schedule for such additional controls. The permit may also specify how the emission cap will be adjusted if such a facility is taken out of service or fails to install the additional control equipment as provided by the implementation schedule.

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 61 

### of 67

5116.718. Significant Emission Increase. 

### An 

### increase in emissions from operational or physical changes at an existing facility covered by a flexible permit is insignificant, for the purposes of state new source review under this subchapter, if the increase does not exceed either the emission cap or individual emission limitation. This section does not apply to an increase in emissions from a new facility nor to the emission of an air contaminant not previously emitted by an existing facility.

5116.720. Limitation on Physical and Operational Changes. 

### Neither operational nor physical changes authorized under this subchapter may result in an increase in actual emissions at facilities not covered by the flexible permit unless those affected facilities are authorized pursuant to S116.110 

### of this title (relating to Applicability).

5116.721. Amendments and Alterations.



### (a) Flexible permit amendments. All representations with regard to construction plans and operation procedures in an application for a flexible permit, as well as any general and

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 62 of 67

special provisions attached become conditions upon which the subsequent flexible permit is issued. It shall be unlawful for any person to vary from such representation or flexible permit provision if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions, the character of the emissions, or will result in a significant increase in emissions, unless application is made to the Executive Director to amend the flexible permit in that regard and such amendment is approved by the Executive Director or Commission. Applications to amend a flexible permit shall be submitted with a completed Form PI-1 and are subject to the requirements of S116.711 of this title (relating to Flexible Permit Application)

# .

(b) Flexible permit alterations.

(1) A 

### flexible permit alteration is for any variation from a representation in a flexible permit application or a general or special provision of a flexible permit that does not require a flexible permit amendment.

(2) All flexible permit alterations which may involve

a change in a general or special condition contained in the flexible permit, or affect control equipment performance must receive prior approval by the Executive Director. The Executive

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By 

### Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 63 of 67

Director shall be noti'fied in writing of all other flexible permit alterations within 10 days of implementing the change, unless the permit provides for a different method of notification. 

### Any flexible permit alteration request or notification shall include information sufficient to demonstrate that the change does not interfere with the owner or operator's previous demonstrations of compliance with the requirements of S116.711 of this title, including the protection of public health and welfare. The appropriate Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Regional Office and any local air pollution program having jurisdiction shall be provided copies of all flexible permit alteration documents.

(3) Flexible permit alterations shall not be subject to the requirements of Best Available Control Technology identified in §116.711(3) of this title.

(c) Changes not requiring an amendment or alteration. The following changes do not require an amendment or alteration, except that an amendment is required if the change will cause a change in the method of control of emissions, the character of the emissions, or will result in a significant increase in emissions:

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 64 of 67

(1) a change in throughput; or

(2) a change in feedstock.

(dl Standard exemption in lieu of permit amendment or alteration.

(1) Notwithstanding subsections.(a) or (b) of this section, no permit amendment or alteration is required if the changes to the permitted facility qualify for an exemption under Subchapter C of this chapter (regarding Permit Exemptions) unless prohibited by permit provision as provided in S116.715 of this title (relating to General and Special Conditions). All such exempted changes to a permitted facility shall be incorporated into that facility's permit at such time as the permit is amended

or renewed.

(2) Emission increases authorized by standard exemption at an existing facility covered by a flexible permit shall not cause an exceedance of the emissions cap or individual emission limitation.

8116.722. Distance Limitations. 

### No flexible permit may be

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 65 

### of 67



### issued unless the dist.ance and location restrictions found in
S116.117 

### of this title (relating to Distance Limitations) are met.

5116.730. Compliance History. 

### As part of a flexible permit review, or the review of an amendment of a flexible permit, or renewal of an existing flexible permit, the provisions found in the undesignated head regarding Compliance History in Subchapter B 

### of this chapter shall be applicable to the facility, group of facilities, or account being permitted, amended, or renewed.

5116.740. Public Notice and Comment. 

### Any person who applies for

a flexible permit or an amendment to a flexible permit shall comply with the provisions in the undesignated head regarding Public Notification and Comment Procedures in Subchapter B 

### of this chapter.

5116.750. Flexible Permit Fee.



### (a) Fees required. Any person who applies for a flexible permit or for an amendment to an existing flexible permit shall remit, at the time of application for such permit, a fee as set

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 Page 66 of 67

forth in subsection (b)'of this section. Fees will not be charged for flexible permit alterations, changes of ownership, or changes of location of permitted facilities.

(b) Fee amounts. The fee to be remitted with a flexible permit application shall be based on the total annual allowable emissions from the permitted facility, group of facilities, or account for which the flexible permit is being sought. The fee shall be $25 per ton with the minimum fee being $450 and the maximum fee $75,000. For flexible permit amendments, the fee shall be calculated based on $25 per ton for the incremental emission increase with the maximum fee being $75,000.

(c) Payment of fees. All permit fees for a flexible permit shall be remitted in the form of a check or money order made payable to the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and delivered with the application for flexible permit or flexible permit amendment to the TNRCC Office of Air Quality New Source Review Program. Required fees must be received before the agency will begin examination of the application.

(dl Return of fees. Fees must be paid at the time an application for a flexible permit or flexible permit amendment is

### Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Control of Air Pollution By Permits For New Construction or Modification Chapter 116 

### Page 67 

### of 67



### submitted. If the applicant withdraws the application prior to issuance of the flexible permit or flexible permit amendment, one-half of the fee will be refunded, except that the entire fee will be refunded for any such application for which a standard exemption is allowed. No fees will be refunded after a deficient application has been voided, denied, or after a flexible permit

or flexible permit amendment has been issued by the agency.

8116.760. Flexible Permit Renewal. 

### Flexible permits will be renewed in accordance with Subchapter D of this chapter (relating to Permit Renewals)


### .

The agency hereby certifies that the sections as adopted have been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the agency's legal authority.

Issued in Austin, Texas, on November 16, 1994.I~I~SIAICOFTEXAS 

### COUNTYOF

### TRAVIS I hereb certifythat thla I3 a true and 

### mnen mpl 

# TEXASNATURAL RESOURCE CONSE~R-BI b~~WQ%tion Commission dam, the 

### original of which I8 filM Inthe permanent records 0

. 

### Commission. GivenundermyhMdnd

### tn@ 

### matofofficeon )rW 21

DOCKET NO. 94-0715-RUL Glo* A vesqiez, Chief clerk0 Texag NaturalResource COnservatl 

### n 

### o mission WEREAS, pursuant to the Texas Health and Safety Code Anno?a$e?i, s382.017 (Vernon's 1992); Texas Government Code Annotated, subchapter B, Chapter 2001 (Vernon's 1993); and 40 Code of Federal Regulations, 851.102, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC or Commission), after proper notice, conducted a public hearing on October 3, 1994 to consider revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and the State Implementation Plan (SIP); and WHEREAS, the Commission duly circulated to interested persons, the Regional Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and all applicable local air pollution control agencies hearing notices of its intended action; and WEREAS, interested perso* were invited to submit data, views, and



### .. recommendations on the pitoposed revisions, either orally or in writing, at the hearing; and WHEREAS, copies of the proposed revisions were available for public inspection at the Commission's central office and regional offices prior to the scheduled hearing; and =REAS, data, views, and recommendations of interested persons were submitted to the Commission at the hearing and were considered by the Commission as reflected in the attached analysis of testimony; and WHEREAS, the TNRCC finds that said analysis of testimony includes the
names of all interested groups or associations offering comment on the revisions and their position concerning the proposed revisions; and WHEREAS, the Texas Health and Safety Code Annotated, 8382.017 gives the Commission authority to make rules and regulations consistent with the policies and purposes of the Texas Clean Air Act; andWHERKAS, the Commission finds that the reasoned justification and factual bases for the proposed revisions are-fullyset out in the analysis of testimony; and WHER~S, the Commission hereby certifies that the revisions, as adopted, have been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a valid exercise of the Commission's legal authority. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDERED BY THE TNRCC THAT: 1. The revisions to 30 TAC Chapter 116 and the SIP appended to this Order are hereby adopted and promulgated; and 2. The Executive Director is instructed to transmit a certified copy of this Order, together with the adopted revisions, to the Governor of Texas for

. submittal to the Regional Administrator of the EPA as a proposed revision to the Texas SIP pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, 8110, as amended; and 3. The Executive Director is instructed to file a certified copy of the adopted revisions with the Secretary of State pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act. PASSED AND APPROVED at the regular meeting of the TNRCC on this



### .. the 16th day of November, 1994.

BY: v

.. ATTSST : 

# b*'& 

# a. 0 &q*/ Gloria A. VasWez, Chieintends to work with the TCPlA to @ate the entire section on mobile homes in the Phnof Operation and to add a new section on mobile homes in the TCPlA Manual. Such amendment will indude clnent definitions, clnent construction standards, and current rating methods and will be adbessed in a separate rulemaking proceeding. COMMENT: One commenter questioned whether the fi& tier of counties shouM include Orange County since recenlty revised, wadedwind resistance standarcts for new HUD-code manufactured homes applies to Orange County along with the 14 counties listed in the preamble to the plrblished rule. RESPONSE: The Department does not be Swe that Orange County should be included inthe first tier of countiesbecausethe eligibility for countiesto be placed inthe designated calastrophe area is nd basedon wind zones established by HUD. Counties can only be phced inthe de~ig~ted catastrophe area by wtitiwlina the Commissioner for a hevimto make a determinationwhether windstorm -and hail insuance is ndreasonablyavaihble toa substantial number of ownek of insuable property within such a county slrbjed to unusually frequent and severe darnage resulting fromwindstams ada haiktorrns.Thus, this is nda slrbjxt that can be addressed in this rulemaking proceeding. The amendment is adopted pursuant to the lnsurance Gode. Articles 21.49 and 1.03A, and the Governmenl Code §§2001.004 et seq. Article 21.49, 55(c) of the lnsuance Code provides that the Comm'mioner of Insuance by rule shalladopt the TCPlA planof operation with the advice of the TCPlA board of directors. Section 5(9 of Artide 21.49 provides that any interestedperson may petition the Commissioner to modify the plan of operation in accordance with the Administrative Procedure Act (Government Code title 10, Subtitle A. Chapter 2001). Section 8D@) of Aiiile 21.49 provides that liability limits for insurable prcq~rty that is not covered under $8D(a), which specifies liability limits for dwellings and buiuings and the corporeal movable property, shaU be establishedby the plan of operation. Article 21.49, §8D(c) provides that the Comm'sioner, as part of the annual rate hearings, shall adjust the liability limits, including the limits set by 58D(a), for inktion at a rate that reflects any change in ' the BOECK Index or other index that may accuately refled changes inthe cost of construction or residentialvalues inthe catastrophe area. Article 21.49. 55, subsedions (c) and (I)and gD(c) bytheiterms delegate the foregoing authoriiy to the State Board of Insuance. However. under Article 1.02 of the Insurance Code, as amended by the 73rd Texas Legislature in House Bill 1461 (Acts 1993, TJd Legishtue, Regular Session, Chapter 685. 51.01). a reference inthe Insurance Code or another insuance law to the StateWad of lnsuance means the Commusionet of Insurance or the Texas Department of Imuance. as consistent with the respective pen and duties of the Commissioner and the Department under Article 1.02. Section 1.23(c) ol House Bill 1461 provides that on September 1. 1993. the Ebard shall relinquish authority over all areas of adivity of the Texas Department of lnsuance excep the promulgalionand appoval ofratesand policy fm and endorsements and hearings, proceedings, and rules rehtedto these activities; such authority shaU be exercised by the Board until no later than September 1. 1994. Section 1.23(d) of House Bill 1461 provides that on and aner the date a Commissioner ol lnsuance is appointed under subsection (a) of 51.23 the Commissioner shall cooperale with the Board to assume the authority gantedto the Board under subsection (c) of 51.23 and shall dopl rules as necessary to govern those act~dies. ~txtiion 1.23(d) further provides that as soon as possble after the appointment of the Commissioner under 51.=(a) but nd later than September 1, 1994, the Commissioner shall assume the authority ganted tothe Board under$1B(c). Pmuant to Board Order Number 60574. November 29, 1993, the State Board of Insurance transferred the authority ganted to the Bcard under §l.P(c) of House Bill 1461 to the Commissionerof Insuance,eHedive December 16, 1993. Article 1.OA, as enacted by the 73rd Texas Legislature in House Bill 1461 (Acts 1993. 73d Legishtue, Regular Sessii, Chapter 685, 51.in). provides that the CmmWoner of lnsuance may adopt rules and reguhtions, which must be for general and uniform appriion, for the conducl and execution of the duties and functions of the Texas Department of lnsmnce only as authwized by a statute. The Government Code 552001.004 et seq (Admin7&atke Rocedure Act) authwize and requie each state agencyto dopl rules of practicesetting falh the nature and requiement of available procedures andjo presabe the procedues for adoption of rules by a slate agency. 65.4001. Plan of Operaion. (a)-(el (No change.) (f) Mobile Homes. (1)-(2) (No change.) (3) Underwriting requirements. Inorder for a mobile home to be insured by the association, it must meet the following underwriting requirements: (A)-(J) (No change.) (K) Catastrophe insurance shall notprovide insurancecoverage for any one insurable risk in excess of $84.000 on the mobile home and on household goods contained therein. which shall include all personal property usual to a residence of the insured and the insured's family. (L) The limit of liability for mobile homes shallbe adjusted annually for inflation at a rate that reflects any change in the BOECK Index or other index that may accurately reflect changes in the cost of conshction or residential values in the catastrophe area. Such adjustment shall be made by the Commissioner as part of the annual rate hearings heldpursuant to Article 5.101 of the Insurance Code. (4) (No change.) This agency hereby cdities that the rule as adopted has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a val'd exercise of the agency's authaity. 

# fIssued in Austin, Texas, on November 17, 1994. TRD-9451079 D. J. Powers Chlef CbR and Oeneral Counsel Texas Department of Iwrance Ellective date: December 8, 1994 Proposal publication date: Augusl 9, 1994 For further informalion, please call: (512) 463-6327 

# + + 

# + TITLE 

### 30. ENVIRONMEN

### TAL QUALITY 

### Part 

### I. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Chapter 

### 116. Control of 

### Air Pollution for New Construction or 

### Modification The Texas Natural Resouce Conservation Commission(IT4 RGC or Comm'sion) adopts new 5116.13. concemina Flexible Permit Definitibis, an amendmeri to 51.16.110, concerning Applicability, and a new Subchapter G, Flexible Permits, containina new §§116.710, 116.711 ,- 116.714-i16.718, 116.720-116.722, 116. TJO, 116.740, 116.750, and 116.760. Sections 116.13, 116.710, 116.711, and 116.716 are adopted with changes to the proposed tea as pub fished inthe September20.1944, issue of the Texas Register (19 TexReg 7334). Sedions 116.110. 116.714. 116.715, 116.717. 116.718, 116.72G116.722.116.730, 116.740, 116.750, and 116.760 are adopted without changes and will not be repllblished. The new 5116.13 adds definitiisthat relate to flexible permits, and the rwison to 5116.110 ad& reference to flexible permits as an applicable requiement. The new Subchapter G has been developed in response to diedion from the Commission at the Januuy21. 1994 policy agenda meeting. The proposalwas developed after consideringthe position paperspresented by industry, emionmental wow. and local programs under the slpecvisionof Task Force 21. The new slrbchapter will aeate a new type of permit caned a Rexible permit. The Rexible permit will function as an optional ahematke to the preconsbvdion permits thal are now authorized in Slrbchapler B, concerning New Souce Review Permits. The flexible permit is designed to exchange flexibility fa emission redudions with the final goal being a. wellcontrdled facility. In the proposed rule preamble. the TNRCC stall requested comments on the folbwing specik issues: in $116.71qc), temporary shutdowns be allowed la up to 12 months 

# C.

19 TexReg 9360 h'orember 25, 1994 Texas Regisler twithout reduang the emission cap and is 12 months an approwe amount of time for a shutdowntobe corn'&red temporary; should the emission cap mae dosely reflect the actual emissions over the life of Ihe flexible permit el time of renmal; shoukl readjustment of the emissions cap andla individual emission limital'onbe requied as a resun of emissionreductionactivil'i requiredby rules individual emission limitation. Any increase above the emission cap or individual emission limitation, whether by slandard exemp tion or otherwise, is a significant increase which requies a permit review. Allowing the emissions cap to Roal upwardwith each new standard exemption will eventually iwalidate the inilii pennil review. The Commission must maintain the ability to determine that the pursuant to the Federal ~iean ~r Act facilities under the flexhe permit will comply - (FCAA); ad should berules allow emission with all existing rulesand not cause an ambireductions resultinp from the installation of ent imduoblern.

. 

### . mnads oftsets in tononanainment

be

# -* la areas. pum Of as Another mmmenter encouraged TNRCC to continue cuudinating with the national new A commenter stated that the proposed rules 

### I go far beyondthe scqx of the Task Face 21 work group which originally conceived of the Rexble permit concept. The commenter argued that there was no intentionin the aigi

# i

nal work golpto include new facilities in the Rexble permit. Public nolice and omunity lor hearings on each llexible permit is the only wav to camensate fa this adion. 1 The rule hnguage prwed iswithin the scope of the Task Force 21 Workgroup,as well as the proposal made by staff to the Commksion. However, consensus was not reached bv the workarouo on all items. New I A public hearingonthis poposa[was heldon souce review cornminee for future Chapter faciliities wkeinclud&l &cause itwas October 3, 1994,in Austin. Wrinen testimony 116 revisions to assure cornistency with the ally felt lhat to exdude them from the flexible was received from the fdlowingcommenterr: federal reguhtioru. permit would not be equitableto facilities that Amoco Prcd0Ct'~)nCompany; the United States Environmental Prolection Agency; Exxon Company USA: Phillips 66 CompanySweeny Refinery; Phillips 66 CompanyBorper Facility; Society of the Plastics Idusby (SPI); Texas Micontinent OilL Gas Assoc'ktion; Eastman Chemical Company; Houston Lighting & Paver ad Texas Center for Porky Studies. Arnoco's comments represent the Task Force 21 Ai Issues Subgrolp that aeessedthe liexble permits issue. Galveston Houston Associalion faSmog Revention and Sierra CbbAustin and Holston made specific comments and suggestions, buldid nd generallysupportor qposadop tion of the rules. The lollowing d'sarssion addresses general comments. One commenter stated that Rexble permits should aflow emission limits tobe established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. If only one kxble permit per site is allowed, then reopening of the permit for rncdif~ions hould be limited to review of the facilities affected by the change. The rules prwi& that emission limits will be established on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. Each pollutant for which llexibiliity Is sought will have an emission limit established; either an emission cap a an individual emission limitation. All dher pollutantswill be restricted to the previous permit allowable or gandlathered rates. When multiple facilities have been consolidated into a single pennit, and the comol'ited permit is reopened fw consaeration of an amendment, relating to one a more facilities authaized by that permit. the permit is nol considered reopened with respecl lo facilities fa which an arnendment, revision, a mcdification is ndsought as prw'ded in the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA). p62.0511(e). A commenter noted that the ability to chim The TNRCC intends locontinue cdinaling are already well-controlled. Public notice is an,, needed revisions to the flexble provided fawithin the rule language. rulesto be consistentwithany chan~esto the A commenterstatedthat the original mandate federal Prevention 01 Significant Deterbation of the Task Fam 21 work group was to (PSD) and nomainment review programs. examine rules that would provide incentives for companiesto improve controlsal grandfa- One mrnenter made several general thW fadlilies while providing for increased ments on the proposed rules. Fint, thal Ihe rules should allow more than one Rexble protection of the ewionment and human

. health. The commenter stated that TNRCC permit pet site, since some large faciiities maywish to combine rehted pre has exceeded this mardate without demon-


### . cess units into one second, flex& strating that these are necessary or ! : permits shculd parallel the ~itk v pogam. in the PMicinterestFinally, the rut& shwM contain a provision outlining how sources may be remwed from a flexble permil. Since this action may be needed to resobe enhanced monitoring re quiements if the enhanced monitoring prwk sions are ndrevised. - 

### - The stafPs aiginal proposal to the Commission, which inil'ied the flexble permit rulemaking process was based on the premise that only one RexiMe permit would be allowed per site. As discussed in the pre posed rule preamble, similar process units maybe corntinedby creating separate emissions caps under the flexible permit. The Rle V program inTexas has been established as a separate permit, not combined wlh the state new souce review program. Therefore, it would not be apprqxiate locombine flexi. Me permits with Tile V. A permittee may remwe a faciri from a llex~hle permit by requesting an amendment a alteralion of the flexible permit. Then, separate Chapter 116 authorirationwouldbe requied lathe facility remwed from the flexble permit. One commenter suggestedclarificationof the epplicak'riyof the enhanced monitoring rules under 40 Cade of Federal Regulations(CFR). Part Mto the flexble permit. The commenter argued that ifthe federal rule is applied to all emission pints under an emission cap, it could result in such excessive monitaing cods that the Rexble permit wwld not be See the responselotho preceding comment. The Commission would reply that the public interestwill continue lobe served by this new permitting mechanism, since new facililies are requied to meet Best Available Control Technology (BACT) and demonstrate abceptable off-site impacts. The Commission believes that the biggest benefi to the state is the reductions achieved by controlling older wandfathered facililies. One commenter stated that several aspeds of the proposedrulesviolate state law. Exarnples' are emission caps, allowing new facili- , ties to obtain flexble permits, and failwe to require BACT for each facility as defined in the TCAA. The Commission has reviewed the state law rehl~e to these issues and has determined thal the proposed rule language complies ' with the requirementsof the TCAA. There is no restriclidn in the TCAA on the use of an emission cap in an air quality permit. The TCAA requies new facilities to oblain a permit and authorizes TNRCC to issue permits for multiple facilities at the same site. The proposed rules requie that the faciliy. group of facilities, or account utilize BACT as requied by the TCAA. The permilting 01 multiple facilities, as opposed to a single facility. raises additional issues an3 complications. The TCAA allows the TNRCC to develop stanjard exemtiorn should be retained un- nc~omicallv feazble. different requirements and methdologies to --- ~- 

# . der the nex~G pinnit. account tor the additio~l comp~exitiG fwnd The app(imilw of Ihe ethnced monitaing when permining facirflies. The rules have a very limited restridion on rules under 40 CFR Part GI is not within the the atiliyto claim standard exerrption. There control of the TNRCG. The cornmenfer did A commenler stated thal in crdef to demonis no restrictionfa new faciliies; a new facil- nd povide any sopporl for its argument re strate compliance with the prwo~ed rules, it ity may be constructed under standard ex- hted to monitoring costs. This issue is be- will be necessarylosimultaneously and accuemdiion. kn it will ndbe included in the yond the scope of the proposed rules. rately rneasue emissions froin multiple

. . smr&s to determine. for any point in time, r'ble 

### hrmr a permit is Another mmknerstated that adsfinition of that the bsMr 

# ,... requests do so. The rules allow a maximum expeded capadw is needed. faaliiinduded inthe flexble permit to claim The only way to asue compliance with the a st;mdard exemption, pro&ded that the The Commission believes that the term 'ex- cap is to install continwus monitors. The emissions from the exempt facility do not pecled maximum capacity' is adequately de- poposed rules do no1 require Coniinuous cause an exceedenceofthe emiss'im cap or fined in $116.13. Emission Monitas (CEMs).



### + ADOPTED RULES November 25, 1994 19 TexReg 9361Me permit. Thus, it is possble that, fa some facilities, certain pdlulanls will be covered by a flexble perma and the mhanged pollutants win be covered bythe existing authorization. No change to the rule language is needed I0 suppal this interpetation. One commenler sugg&ed a minu Con=- lion to the definition d emissions cap in 5116.13 by drqqing the '6' from the wad 'emissions- to be consislent with the use of the term thowhout the nde. The Commission agees wilh (he propcued chamand hes revisedthe rule language as suggested. A cmmenter suggested tha the term 'insignibcant emission fadW be defined in 5116.13. The tern 'insignificant ernission fadd is a fador to alOw lor an insignifii emission increase, rwt to exceed 9.0%. in the dcuhlionof the emission cap to providefor flexbility ifsuch emissionswil not result in &verse &popem impacts. The Comm'&6f~beSevesth8t the term isdefined inconlea by ils use in §116.716(d). A mmenter sugQesIed that any diffffences between the terms 'facility' ard 'indivaual fadrif be cmedin 5116.13. The term 'indiiual facilii' in 5116.13 is intended to make dear tMan ind'widual emissiwr lilation aFpris to a singb facility as opposed to an emjaion cap applying to multple facilities. In addition, the requirement in 51 16.711(3) to utilize BACT for extiling faaliies win be based on a facility. a qorp of facilities, or an accwnt. The term 'inbnridual facilii in the last sentence of 5116.713(3) is needed to make clear that BACT la nw facilities may not be demonstratedon a goq of lacitiities or accarrd basis, but mlsl be demonstrated for each new faaly. The Commissiondoes not beIieve that the suggested change is needed. The following disarssion addresses cornments regarding 5116.110, Applicak'li. One ccmmenter expessed concern about the impact of the eddiionof flexblepermits in 5116.1lo. The commenter argued that there could be serious enlacement problems for this type of pennit, and that there is a potential fa emissions to ueep ward due to deleaninations of irtsi~nifknt emission lactas and C€~tII~htive knpads from nearby sarces. Atso, the permit term faall flexible permits should be lrnited to five years in subsection (c)


### . The addition of flexble permits in 5116.110 makes it dear that a fkxble permit is one of severaltypes of pennitsthat can be oblained to salisfy the TCAA. The Commission disagrees that flexblepermits win create serious enforcementproblemsdue to em'ssiion aeep a cumulative impects. Emissions cannot exceed the emission cap or individual emission limitationwithout amenfinothe flexblepermit and sut!+cling the changes to a permit review. The TCAA providesthat permits are to be renewed every ten years. Except 'for cause' a shuier term may be imposed. The Commission sees no reason to limit the term of all kxblepermits to rive years. If a justifit able cause exists faa particular pennit, the Commission intends to limit the tenof the permit as appcopriate. The fdkwing discussion addresses corn ments regarding 5116.710. &Iicabilii. A commenter suggested revising §116.710(a)(l) to alkw for more than one flexible permit persite for nonintegratedunits. As stated previously. the staffs original pre psalto the Commission, which initiied the flexible permit rulemaking process, was based on the premise that only one flexble permit wwld be alkwed per site. As discussed inthe proposedrule preamble. similar process unih may be combined by creating cuhtions and other melhods cen be suitable skslituies to sla& testing. as stated in 5116.711(6). The Commission win work with the epplicant to determine the bast means lo demu-strate compliance. Win 11 6.71 l(2) albws the Execul~e Diedato require stadc sampling as deemed appqxiate. Therebe, the proposed rule language already eddresses the concerns raised by this cmmenter. A commenter suggested the following mim chges lo 5116.71l(2). (3). and (6) faansistency with other sadions of the chapter: edd the wad 'significanl' befae 'ai cantednards' in paragraph (2); edd the word 'propow befae 'facilitf in paragaph (3); and edd the word 'ecrpriion' aRer 'permir at separate emissions caps under the flexble the en3 of the finisentence in pariQraph(6). permit. Due to potential complexities in the mnpliance and permittingareas, 8s well The tm 'signifiant* has a SWcfic man in^ the uncertainties of this new program, the within this mapl~. H would be inappropriChtnmissi strongly believes that the a- ate to use this term in paravaph (2),since it cept of a single fkxble permit should be may restrict the agency's ability to requie a retained in the rule. demonstration of compliance. The Commission aweswith the secord comment to add One cmmenter suggested revising g116.710(a) to make it dear that a flexble permit can only cover scuces at one geogaphic location. The Commissionagreesthat there should be only one flexble permit per site. The Corn mission agrees to the suggested chritication by adding new paragraph (4) in 5116.710(4. A commenter contended Ihal ~116.710(a)(3) should nd atbw new solrces to obtain a &%Me permit, especially in nonattainmeni areas. New facilities were-indoded because it was generaly fen that to exclde them from flexiMe permitswwld rotbe equlableto facilities that are alreadywekcontrolled.The CommisGon believes thal the biggest benetit lothe state isthe reductiomachieved by controlling older. wandfathered faaliies. The Comrnission never envisionedthat the flexble permit pocess would be limited to dder taalies. The CanmGsim feels that the public interest will mniinueto be servedby this new permitting mechanism since new facilities are requied to meet BACT and acceptable impads. The flexble permits system is designed to address concern in nonattainrnent areas. The ldkwing discussion addresses corn ments regarding §116.711, Flexible Permit &Qlication. One commenter suggested that 5116.71l(1) specify that there can be no exceedanca of the NationalAmbient AKQualiiy Stardardsor PSD increments and that it indude requiements to a&ess other air quality impacts under the FCAA. the w& -proposed' in para- 01, and has made the suggested change. Honever, 'prop& means facalies poposed for b+ cksion in Ihe fiexible permit. Rewig the thid comment, the frst sentence in paragaph (6) requires demonstration that the sourcewill achieve the performancespecified in the ~ertnit amriion.The sed section olthis'sentencerequiesthe applicant to s&- rnit addilional information to demonstrate the sourcewill achieve the performancespecified in the permit. The commission feels thesetwo perfwmance demonstrations are ressonaMe and necessary and is qp0s.d to the soggested change. A commenter suggested revisicg 51 16.711(3) to clarifythat BACT @res to allai contaminants for newfaalaiescovered by the Rexble permit. Exisling facilities must only appfy ' BACT la the aicontaminants and facilities. that are given operational fiexitilily under the flexble permit. The TNRCC awe6thal 5116.711(3) applies to all air contaminantsfanew faaliies. Addi tionally, existing faaliiies must wy BACT only fatheair contaminantsandfaariiesthat are given operatioral flexibility. However, a demu-shatiin must be made that the facility is nd modified lathe other ponutantsand the applicanl must be able to make that demonstration on an ongoing basis. No rule chwe is necessary to alkw fathat interpetath. The commenter ab swted the revisim of $116.71l(4) and (5) to state tha! ind'~dual sources subjecl to New Sarce Performance Standards (NSPS) or Natio~tEmksii Standards lor Hazardous A? Pollutants (NESHAP) standards will be considered in No change to Ihe rule is necessary. These compliance with the w&e standards H issues are ahady ad&& by emissions horn all sarces covered by the 5116.711(1), 0, an3 (8). pennil are bekw the emission cap. A commenter suggested revising5116.71l(2) The TNRGC does not have the authority to to allw calculation of emission rates as an relieve a perminee horn meti~ applicable anemalive to stadc testing. federal requirements. The stack testing provision of 5116.711(2) One commenier made several comments redoes not requie stack sampling as the sole gardicg 81 16.711. The commnler stated means of compliance determination. Fathe that: paragraph (1) should consaer wmuhperfamance demonstration, engineering cat- tive impads at a facility; paragaph (2) should

ADOPTED RULES November 25, 1994 19 TexReg 9363requie actual measuement of emissions; perit~raph(4) and (5) should nd albw exceedences of NSPS or NESHAP slaw dards; paragaph (6) should ndallow predictive em'sions monitoring; actual emiss'm measuring instments are needed to accurate measwe the emissions; param (9) should consider cumubtive impacts from the facJrty in modeling requirements; and define wlenlial maximum production capacity in Par& (1) requies a health review to be conducted faall pollutants brought into the permil. Parapraph (2) does require actual measurement of emissiins when the Executive Directordetenninesit is necessary. Paragmphs (4) and (5) require compliance with all &ie NSPS and NESHAPS. The Comm&m does hot agree with the mment rewigperagaph (6), since engineering cakulal'ms and pedidive emissions monk

,torinp are accepable methods for determining compliance in many cases. See cpments in reference to paragraph (1) for comment regarding paragraph (9). Potential maximum poduction capacity shouki be the expeded maximum capacity as defined in 5116.13. The kmission agees to revise the tenn in paragaph (11) from 'potential' to 'expect& maximum capacity. One commenter suggested revising §116.711(6) to chrify that an applicant must demmtefull compliance with all appliible rules and statutory requirements before a permacan be issued. The commenter remmended that $116.71l(9) be revised to clarify that monituing will not replace modelingand that modelingwill be requied in all appropriate cases. Section 116.71 l(1) requies a &monsbpation thalan appliiwill complywith all rulesand regulationsof the TNRCC and with the intent of the TCAA. The Comm'sion feels that acceptable monituing data is a valid mechanism for demonstrating apprwable irrpacts. The proposed hnguage does not pedude the Commission from requesting modeling when appropiate. A commenter suggested revising 5116.71 l(10) to chrify that emission limits 

## can be aslablished on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis as s~ecified by the amticant. Atso. the comment& contend& that emission ratecalculations do ndneed to be povided for uw modified swrces under application for an amendment. The soggested change is nd necessary or appropiate. Section 11 6.71 l(10) specifies information to be included in a permit application. Section 116.716 dearty povides thal both emission caps and individual emission Emilationswill be established for spea'hc pol Mants. The TNRCC agees. thal emission rate calculations do not need to be pwided for unrnodisoucas. Hmever. information may be requested to demonstrate that these sarrces are nd being modified. Therefore, the Cmmiss'in opposes the suggested hnguage that would pedude requesting such inlormation. The following discussion adckesses comments regarding 9116.715. General and Spe ciaf Condiions. A commenter suggested revising $116.715 to require the speaal pcwisiom of a permit to specify the terms for readjustment of an emissions cap whenever a unit is remwed from sewice while under schedule to install emission controls. The Commission agees that the tenns for readjustment of the cap should appear in the special conditions of the permit and will indude such terms on a permit-by-permitbasis. However, if they are ndincluded in a permit, the rule language adckesses how the Commission intends to readjust the cap. The amount of reduction in the emission cap and the length of time of the readjustment should not be left to negotiations on a case-by-case basis. No change to the paposed rule lanpuape is needed. One commenter made several comments regarding $116.715: in subsection (a). define significant impad and make executive diector appwal and public input mandatory rather than optional; include local pogams in the startup ndifiion in slrbsection (c)(3); povidefor ptblic input indetermining equivalency of methods in subsection (c)(5); redkeeping in suMm (c)(6) should be required for five years; there was no table povided as referenced in subsection (c)O; and define reasonable times in slrbsection (c)(10). Due to the number of compoundsand variety of arcurnstances that can be involved, it is impossible to define significant impact with any more speafcity. All permits do rol requie a special condition restrictingthe use of standard exemptions or standard permits beyond the restriction on the use of a standard exemption in 5116.72l(d). Standard exew tions and standard permits are subject to public ndice duing rulemaking. The rule language does state that aU bcal pogams will be notified of start-up conditions. The Commission will review and perform the evaluations of equivalency of methods. The twoyear requirement for recordteeping is being kepl to maintain consistency wlh current pactices. The agency maintains its omrecads regarding the compliance history of a facility that are suffiaent fa the compliance history review. The 'Emission SourcesEmissionsCaps and Individual Emission Limitations' table is not part of the rule bnguage, but will be included in a final permit. The TCAA, 982.015 povides that the TNRCC may enter public or private poperty at a reasonable time to condud inspections and investigations rebted to aiqualiy. A commenter suggested revising TY1 6.715(c)(6) by adding 'required' before 'information' in the bst sentence. The Commission feels the change would not enhance the paragaph's intent and,possbly could confuse the reader. A commentersuggested revising$116.716@) (erroneously staled as $1 16. 71q6)) to alkw individual emission limitations to be estab liihed for any emission unit cwered by the permit. This may he@alleviate the concerns that the new 40 CFR Part 64 will requie enhanced monitmng on all sourceswithin an emiss'in cap if the cap is major for a given pollutant. I! would ancm an epplicant to arrange a souce cap for a number of small sources that would nd sum up to the thesh old that triggers enhanced monitoring. Based on the Commission's current understanding of the pqxsed requirements in 40 CFR Part 64, this comment does not accurately rekd the poposed requiements for enhanced monitoring. Thus, the Commission does rol believe tM the suggested changes are necessary. One comrnenter suggested revising $116.715(~)(8) to be consistent with the recommended changes to $116.716(c), i.e., alkwing shutdcmns in excess of 12 months without readjusting the cap. Another commenter stated that paragaph (8) is an essential part of the rules and must be retained. These mivisionswere intendedto ackkess separale issues and do nd need to be revised faconsistency. Section 116.715(c)(8) adbesses readjustment of an emission cap for a faany sllbjecl to scheduled installation of controls. This paragraph &jesses the diierence in the em'sions cap before-and afler instalhtion of emission controls. Sub section (c) addresses adjustments to the emission cap for shutdcmns thal exceed 12 month' duration. The Commissiin agrees with the comment that paragaph (8) should be retained in the adopled rule. The following dscussion adckesses comments regarding 5116.716, Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limilations. Two commenters suggested deleting §116.716@). The sentence couki be interpreted to diilcm increases in emissions above actual levels even if those increases are wilhin the emission cap or individual aC kwable levels. That wwki be inconsistent with the concept of a flexble permit. Since a facility un&r flexble permitwill be requiredto meet BACT and impacts review, there should be no concern about 'emission levefs appre We for the pqxsed mots.' The intent of the last sentenceof 5116.716@) is to place addiiional resbictions on a facility when proposed controlsare not BACT for the facilitywhen operated at its maximum paler+ tial capacity. For example, BACT for a sulfu reawery unit (SRU) operating at more than two long tons of suHu per day is currently more sbingent than for an SRU operating at lessthan two bngtons of sulfur perday. If an applicant represented expected maximum Sulfu poduction of less than two long tons per day. TNRCC would include an indivaual emission limitationfor the SRU toensue that pcduction cwld ndexceed two longtons of sulfu per day without instalbtionof amrocxiate ccatrd t&hnotcgy. ~dditiona~ resi&iins cwldalso be amromiatewhen unaccedable inpacts would ;&un if the facility used a0 of the fkxik'lity prwided by the cap. Such an individual ernission limitation wwki not necessarily pohbi an increase in actual emissions, although it would prohbii an increase in em'65ions above the individual em'ssion limitation which could pevent that specifc facility from using any available emissions under the emission cap. A commenter suggested adding language to 5116.716@) that would ahan applicant to timil its expected maximum capacity if the

- 19 TexReg 9364 No~ember 25, 1994 Tern Register 

### +applicant desires to use that capacity to calculate an ird'Nidual emission limit. The expected maximum capacity of a facility is determined in pad by the planned operation d thal fadlity and L totalty within the contrd 01 the eppkant. (See the raspon- to the preceding comment fa the intent of this language.) One commenter suggesfed revising $1 16.716(c) to requirethat the emissions cap be edjuled &nward when rules and regulations mandate new mhokon souces under the cap. Another commenter suggested revising Subsection (c) to albw only one month fa temporary shdwns unless the permittee can democskate that there is no anemaliveto a bnger shutdorm. Accadingto that mmenter,the existing cap shouH mty be retainedfor a minimalshutdwn, and inno even1 should il exlend beyond a 12-month shutdown. A mmentersuggested a revision to subsection (c) fa cbFification that the emission cap is adjusted only for a new wee adbed unjerthe cap,and statedthat existing sources in the cap & nu requie mod'iion. The Commission has added a new subsection (e) to chrify the requiementto adjustthe emissioncap when a facilily, under a flexible permit, ir aH&ed by a cha~e to an existing regulation. As stated in the reqmme to the issues list pation of this peamble,the Commission has considered an ol the comments regarding the tempaary shutdwn issue and berives that 12 months is an appropriale period for a shvldown albwance. In most caseswhen a new faciMy is ded,the emission cap will be increased as suggested by the cmmerder. Hcwever, the currenl language povides the Commission the needed flexbilii to adjust the cap as apprgriate lo account fa all posrbk cases. One commenter suggested revising $116.716(d) by adding the phase 'FIX the specific ic contaminants and faciliiies with povLiisfor operational or physical nexibility' at Ihe beginning of the first senlence. All pollutants brought into the fkxble permit willbe afforded cperalionalardphysicalflea'- tiri. Fa those polllnants for which flexbilly is not wgM, they will remain outside the fkxble permit. Therefore. the Cornmisson bermves the prop~~ed change is nU needed. A commenter staled thal 91 16.71 6 does not address the issue of shul lerm emission caps which is mentioned in the preamble. This issue should be chrified in the rule. The rule allo~s fa the use of any units or averaging times that are appcopriale fa the compounds and resulting OH-site impacts. The Commission expectsto continue the current practice of having bdh shorl tm and bng term emission limits. One commenter laled that the language in $1 16.716(d) seems to require installatiionof a level of controls referred to as 'BACT pllrs 9.0%: This may become tw stringent a requiement for ober and grandlathed units. This appears to be a requiement to inslall BACT on all fadlilies induded in the flexible perml. Such a requiement would impose such an unreasonable economic burden on an appliit,that afkxble permit may not be a viable option. This requiement should be reevaluated within one year of adoption lo delermine ii I is reasonable. Anolher commenter stated Ihe crpposite position that the 9.0% emission atbwancs in slrbsedion (d) is too high. The commenter believes thal the cumuwwe impads lor a major source could be geat. The Lxble pennits progam is an optional pogamthat may nd be suitable for an faaliities The TCAA requies BACT for all new and modified faciliiies. These rules alow for the calculation of an emissions cap that indudes an insignifit emissions fada to provide Rexbility. The applicant, then, may propose conhds necessary to meet that cap. A fundamental premise of this procsssis that kxibifi would be given in exchange faa ' well-controlled facili. In response to the comments by the last commenter, the insig nifii emission fador may nu exceed 9.0%. The impads will be evaluated at the final emisu' cap total. An insignifimntemissim factor will be adjusled accadingly if the heatth effects review diiates lower emissions. The MRCC awes thal cumulative impads cwld be signilkant and lhat is why ell facflities will be evalualed under the fiexible permit to ensure acceptable offsite impads. The fdlowinq discussion addresses corn ments reganjig $1 16.717, Implementation Schedule for Addilionat Contrds. A commenter stated that the emission cap adjuslmentins116.717 shouldbe mandatory, nd optional. Secliin 116.715(c)(8) requkesan adjustment to an emiuion cap Iw the shutdown of a facility subject to a schedule lo install contrds. This prwisiin aliws the Exeartive Drmor addlionatauthority to phce coFdiions in the permit to eddess these slualiom. One commenter suggested revising$1 16.717 by adding a statement that prohibits banking, sale, andlu netting of emission reductions made under a Rexble permit. The Mwnmenler argued thal such adionswouklbe inappopriale. especially in pnattainment areas, for a poQam which is allegedly designed to re duce emissions. The Commku'on does not agree with the suggesled change. The Cornm.~ssion leek that it is nU appopiate to heal emission reductions obtained thrwgh the flexible permit process any differently than those 

# * tained under the current reguhtay process. Addiionally, if the reductions meel the aedit- &ili aileria specified in applicable regulatins, the reductions shwld be available for use. The following discussion addresses corn ments rewing$116.718, Significant Emission Increase. A commenter supgested revising $1 16.718 and §116.721@) to allw replacement fatirk ties which utilize BACT to be construcled under the flexble permit. New facilles. whelm they are repbcemenl facilities u nu, may be auihorized under a IkxiMe permit without Ihe suggesled revk ~WS. AS with any new facilily, a repbcement fadlity must meet all olthe applicable requiements of this Subcha@er,includingthe use of BACT, to obtain a flexible pennit. One cm'menter suggested revising51 16.718 ,to asswe consistency with the requiemenlto poted puMc health that is stated in $1 16.71l(1). Seclin 116.718seems lo imply that the requiementto prdedpublic healthis only biggered il an emission increase exceeds the permit albwaMe by a 'significant' amount. The commenter recommended the TNRCC consider using a lmer baseline lor determining signifcant inaeases whenever modeling includes emissions that are bebw permil abwables. The rule requies thal impads be evaluated at the prcpwid emission cap which includes an insignifmt emissions facfa. Thus, any increase in emiss'ins above the emksion cap or individualem*&ion limitation is a sipnifit increasewhich would requie a perh amendment and reevaluation of the irrpads and demonstration thal applicable PSD and nonanainment (NA) resuiemenls are met. The Commksii believes that all applicable PSDMA requirements will be met under these rules. Hwever, the Cwnmivion will review the rule Mher ard inliate additional rulemaking as necessary. A commenter suggesteddefining insignificant in §116.718 with a numerical figure. Gwen the variety of facilities and pollulanls anticpatedto be authaized through flexible permits, it is impadicalto define insignificant in terms of a numerical value. The following discussion dresses comments regarding$1 16.721, Amendments and Alterations. A commenter staled thal permit atterations in $1 16.721 should nUbe alhed without pub fic nUifi.in. Also, !he cumuhi'ie impacts ol muKple alterations should be edded to determine if &itioMI mntrok are needed. Paragaph (3) should require BACT. Alterations allw minor changes to permits that do nuincrease emksions, change the method of control, or change the charadff of emissions; therefae, public notice and conholtechndogy review are ndnecessary. Because of Ihe minor nat~re 01 the alteration process and since the emissions cap cannot be exceeded. CUm~htive impads and additional controls are not wananted duing the review of an alteration. A commentersuggestedrevising$1 16.721@) to specify that facility alterations which may change a general or special provisiondo not require @a approvalunless they 'aduerself affect control equ'pment perlormance. The cment language providesthe Executive Directorthe -unity to rwiew a change to a facility made under a perma alteration to determine if the change 'adverself aHeds control equipment pedonnance. Addiionalty. permit cmdiiions may need bbe revised by the permit engineer to refled the change. One commenter suggesled revising §116.721(d) to albw the use of standard exemptions under a Lxible permit. The Commission dkagees with the commenlcr's sugpestion. See the response

+ MOPTED RULES November 25, 1994 19 TexReg 9365to the second comment in the general comments eddressed at the beginningof this peamble. A commenter slated that $116.721(c) and (d) are examples of the diKculty TNRCC will have in enforcing the flexible permit rules. The TNRCC should explainto the public hw enforcement and emiuions inventories will be accomplished for facilitiw operating under a flexible permit. Speafc examplesshouldbe given. The Commission expects to have better took for enforcement, such as recordkeepingand emissions monitaing, under the tlexible permlrules, and the compliance staff will continue to enforce the rules as they have in the pest. The hdder of a Rexble pml will be requiredto maintaindata suKcient to demonstrate compliancewith the emissions cap and individual emission limitations contained in the fkable permit, andthis informationwillbe available to TNRCC field siafl andlor local programs. One mmentersuggested revising5116.721 to clarity the time frame for response by TNRCC to a permit amendment or alteration application. The commenter recommended a response time of seven to 14 days. Also, the commenter suggested the rule specify whether any penalties are assessed for exceeding the limitations for an alteration CW amendment. The TNRCC iscurrently developingpoposed rules in a new Chapler 281 that will address time frames for permit review. H would be duplicaliiveto addressthe same issues within this rulemaking. Whether penalties are assessed for a violation is determined on a caseby-case basis by the enforcement stafl. Typically, the stafl responds to all idleration requests; however, it is the permit holdeZs responsibilily to verity individual compliance with all applicable rules and regulations. The following discussion addresses comments regarding $116.750, Flexble Permit Fee. A cwnmenter stated that, in $116.750, fees should be charged for alterations, wnership changes, focalion changes, and standard exemptions to recover slafl resources for these activities. The Commission has developed the flexible permit fee structure to be consistent with the existing fee system for new source review permits. The following discussion addresses $116.760. Flexible Permit Renewal. A commenter suggested revising $116.760 to requre adjuslment, at renewal, of emissions to 10% wer the adual maximum emissions that occurred duing the period prior to renewal. This issue was addressed in the portion of this preamble regarding responses to the TNRCC issues lit. 

### Subchapter A. Definitions

30 TAC $116.13 The new section is adopted under the Texas Health and Safety Code. Texas Clean AiAd (TCAA), 982.017, which povides TNRCC with the aulhority to edop( rules consistent with the @icy and purposes of the TCAA. $116.13.Flexible PermifDefinitions. The following words and terms. when used in this chapter. shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly indicates othenvise. Emission cap-Emission limit for a specific air contaminant based on total emissions of that pollutant adjusted by an Insignificant Emissions Factor from all sources that are included in a flexible permit Expected maximum capacity-The maximum capacity of a facility according to its physical and operational design and planned operation. Individual, emission limitation-Emission limit for a specific air contaminant not covered by an emissioncap for an individual facility adjusted by an Insignificant Emissions Factor. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopled has been reviewed by legal counsel andfound to be a valid exerase of the agency's authority. Issued in Austin. Texas. on.November 16, 1994. TRD-9451'071 Mary Ruth Holder Dlmdor. LqdDMsbn Toxas Naurd Rosourco

.

### . CoI-Se~atbn Commibsbn Efledive date: December 8, 1994 Prcrposal -publication date: September 20, 1994 For Mher information, please call: (512) 2341966 

### Subchapter 

### B. New Source Review Permits Permit Application

30 TAC $116.110 The amendment is adopled under the Texas Healthand Safety Code. Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA), Q82.017, which povides TNRCC with the authaity to adopt rules consistent with the @icy and rwpwes of the TCAA. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopled has been reviewedby legal counsel and found to be a valid exerase of the agency's authaity. Iswed in Austin. Texas. on November 16, 1994. TRD-9451072 Mary Ruth Holder Diredor. LqdDMsion Toxas Naurd Resource Comervatbn Commkbn Efledive date: December 8, 1994 Proposal publiion date: September 20. 1994 For fulher information, please call: (512) 2341966 

### Subchapter 

### G. Flexible Permits Permit Application

30 TAC $6116.710, 116.711, 116.714-116.718, 116.720-116.722, ' 

# (- 116.730, 116.740, 116.750,

, 116.760 The new sedions are poposed under the Texas HeaHh and SafetyCode, Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA). 982.017. which povides . TNRCC with the authority to adopt rules consistent with the poky 

### end ptqksof the TCAA. $116.710. Applicabilify.

. . (a) Flexible permit. A person.may obtain a flexible permit which allows for physical or operational changes as provided by this subchapter as an alternative to obtaining a new source review pennit under 5116.110 of this title (relating 

### td Applicability), or in lieu of amending 

### a? existing permit under 5116.116 of this title (relating

, to Amendments and Alterations). A person - may obtain a flexible pennit pursuant to
. 5116.711 of this title (relating to Flexible Permit Application) for a facility. group of facilities. or account before any actual work is begun. provided however: (1) only one flexible permit may be issued at an account site; (2) modifications to existing facilities covered by aflexible permit may be handled through the amendment of an existing flexible permit; (3) permitting of a new facility may behandled through the amendment of a flexible pennit; and (4) a flexible permit may not cover sources at morethan one account site. (b) Operations certification. Any person who obtains a flexible permit under this subchapter shall comply with: 5116.110(b) of this title.. ' . (c) Change in ownership. The' new.

. owner of a facility. group of facilities. or account shall comply with 5116.11qc) of this title. provided however. that all facilities covered by a flexible permit must change ownership at the same the and to the same person. or both the new owner and existing permit holder must obtain a permit alteration allocating the emission caps or individual emission limitation prior to the transfer of the permit by the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commis$on (TNRCC). After t!!e sale of a facility or facilities, but prior to the transfer of a permit requiring a permit alteration, ,the original permit holder remains responsible for ensuring compliancewith the existing flexible permit and all rules bd regulations of the TNRCC.

- 19 TexReg 9366 November 25, 1994 Texas Register +(d) Submittal under seal of registered professional engineer. All applications for a flexible permit or flexible Dumit amendment shdi comply with $116.i10(d) of this title. (el Responsibii for flexible permit application The owner of the facility. group of fadlities. or account or the operator of the fadlity, group of facilities. or sccount who is authorized to act for the owner is responsible for complying with this section, except as provided by subsection (c) of this section. $1 16.711. Flexible Pernit Application. Any application for a new flexible permit or flexible permit amendment must include a completedForm PI-1 GeneralAp plication. The

### Form PI-1 must be signed by an authorized rcgre~~tative af the applicant. Tht Form PI-1 specifics additional support information which must be provided before the applicationis deemedcomplete. fn order to be granted a flexible permit or flexible permit amendment the owner or operator of the proposed facility shall submitinformation to the TexasNatural Resource Conservation Commission


### . (TNRCC) which demonstratesthat allofthe following are met (1) Protection of public health and welfare. The emissions from the pro- 

# ) posed facility,group of facilities,or account as dettrmined pursuant to 8116.716 of this title(relatingto Emission Csps and Mvidual EmissionLimitations), will comply with all rules and regulations of the 

### TMCCand with the intent of the Texas Clean Aii Act (TCAA), including protection of the health and physical property of the people. In considezing the issuanceof a flexiblepermit for construction or modification of any facility. group of fadlitits, or account within 3.000 feet or less of an elementary, junior higlslmiddle, or senior high school. the TNRCC shall consider any possible adverse short-tum or long-term side effects that an air contaminant or nuisance odor from the facility. group of facilities, or account may have on the individuals attending thest school facilities. (2) Measurement of emissions. Theproposed fscility,group of facilities. or accountwill have provisions for measuring the emission of air contaminants as determined by the Executive Dimtor. This may includethe installation of sampling ports on exhaust slacks and construction of sampling platforms in accordance with guidelines in the TNRCC "Compliance Sampling Manual." (3) Best Available Conk01 Technology (BAO.Theproposed facility. 

## ) proup of facilities. or acraut d utike BACT, with consideration given to the technical practicability and economic reasonablencss of reducing or eliminahg the emissions from the facility on a proposed facility. group offacilities. or account basis. Control technology beyond BAnmay be used on certain facilities to provide the mission reductions necessary to comply with this requirement on a group of facilitics at account basis, provided however. that the existing levelofcontrol may not be ltsstocdfor any facility.For new facilities. the use of BACT shall be dunonstratedfor the individual facility. (4) Fedual New Source Pcrformance Standuds (NSPS). The emissions from each affected facility asdefined in 40 Codeof FcderalRegulations (CFR).Part 60 will meet at least the rcquirunents of any applicable NSPS as listed wdu Title 40 CFR Part 60. promulgated by the United States Environmental Rottction Agency (EPA) pursuant to authority granted under the Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA). 5111. as amended. (5) National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NJ3HAPS) and MaximumAchievableConk01Technology (MAq.The missions from txch facility as dcfmd in 40 CFR Part 61 will meet at least the requirementsof any applicable NESHAPS. as listed under 40 CFR Part 61. or any MACT'standard. promulgated by EPA pursuant to authority granted under the FCAA,9112, as amended. (6) Performance demonstration. 'Iheproposed facility,group of facilities, or ~ccount will achievethe performance specified in the flexiblepermit application The applicant may be required to submit dditional engineering data after a flexiblepermit has been issued in order to demonskate further that the proposed facility. group of facilities, or accountwillachieve the performance specified in the flexible permit In addition. initial compliance testingwith ongoing compliance detemtined through engineering calculations based on measured process variables. parametric or predictive monitoring, stack monitoring. or stack testing may be required. (7) Nonattainment review. If the proposed facility, group of facilitk, or account is located in a nonattainment area. each facility shall comply with all qplicable requirements under the undesignattd head concerning nonattainrnent review in Subchapter B of this chapter. (8) Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review. If the proposed facility. group of facilities, or account is locatcd in an Bttainment am,each facility shall comply with all applicable requirements under the undwignated head concerning PSD in Subchapttr B of this chapter. (9) Air dispersion modeling or ambient monitoring. Computerized air dispersion modeling ador ambient monitoring may be required by the TNRCC Permits Rogram to determine the air quality impacts from the facility, group of facilities. or account. (10) Application content. In addition to any other requirements of this chapter. the applicant shall: (A) identify each air contaminant for which an emission cap is desired, (B) identify each facility to be included in the flexible pumit; (C) identify each source of emissions to be included in the flexible permit and for each source of emissions iden* the Emission Point Number (EPN) and the air contaminants unitted; (D) for each emission cap. iden* all associated EPNs and provide emission rate calculations based on the expected maximum capacity and theproposed control technology; (E) for each individual unission limitation, identify the EPN and provide emission rate calculationsbased on the expected maximum capacity and the proposed control technology.



# . (11) Proposed control technology and compliance demonstration. The applicant shall specify the control technology proposed for each unit to meet the unission cap and demonstrate compliance with all emission caps at expected maximum production capacity. 2116.716. Emission Caps and Individual Emission Limirarions. (a) Emission caps. Each emission cap for a specific pollutant will be estab lished as follows: (1) emissions will be calculated for each facility based on application of cumnt Best Available Control Technology at expected maximum capacity; (2) the calculated emissionswill be summed (b) Individual emission limitations. An individual emission limitation will be established in the same permit for each pollutant not covered by an emission cap for facilities coveredby the flexiblepermit. In addition. an individual mission limitation may be establishedfor a pollutant covered by an emission cap when the expected capacity of a facility is less than the expected maximum capacity to pment a facility from exceading unission levels appropriate for Ihe proposed controls. 

# 1 + ADOPTED 

### RULES November 25, 1994 19 TexReg 9367(c) Readjustment of emission cap. If a fdtysubject to an emission cap is shut down for a period longer than 12 months, the emission cap shall be read. justed by lowering the emission cap by an amount that the shut down facility contributed to the original calculation of the emission cap. If a new facility is brought into the flexible pennit. an emission cap shall be adjusted by mdfybg the emissions cap accordingly. (d) Insi,dicant emission factor. 'Ihe emission caps and individual emissions limitation calculatedpursuant to this section may include an Insignificant Emissions Factor which does not exceed 9.0% of the total emission cap or individual emission limitation. (e) An emission cap will be readjusteddownward for any facility covered by a flexible permit if that facility becomes subject to any new state or federal regulation which would lower emissions or require an emission reduction. 'Ihe adjustment willbe made at the time the flexible permit isamended or altered. If an amendment to a flexible permit is not required to meet the new regulation.thenwithin 60 days of making the change. the permittee must submit a request to alter the permit and include information desaibing how compliance with the new requirement will be demonstrated. This agency hereby certifies that the rule as adopled has been reviewed by legal counsel and found to be a vald exercise of the agency's aulhuity. Issued in Austin, Texas, on Nwember 16, 1994. TRD-9451073 Mary Rulh Holder Direaor. Legal Division Texas Nalural Rebourn Conservation Cornrnissbn Effective date: December 8, 1994 Proposal pbrdion date: Seplerrber 20. 1994 For Mher information, please call: (512) 2391966 

# + + + Chapter 290. 

### Water Hygiene Drinking Water Standards Governing Drinking Water Quality and Reporting Requirements for 

### Public Water Supply Systems 30 TAC 68290.109, 290.113, 290.119, 290.120 The Texas Natural Resouce Conservation Commission (Cornrnission) adopts amendments to 55290.109, 290.113. 290.119. and new 5290.120, concerning &inking water standards, applilcable reporting requiemnts for pblicwater systems (PWS) and leadand cow standards. Sedions 290.109, 290.113, and 290.119 are adopled without changes to the proposed text and will nd be republished. Sedion 290.120 is adopted with changes to the proposedtext as publinhed in the Seplernber 23, 1994. issue of Ihe Texas Register (1 9 TexReg 7495). The Commission received comment' lelters from the US EPA Region 6 Water Supply Branch. The Light Company (Houston Lighting and Power). Dallas Water Utiliies, Fort Worth Water Department and Harris County Municipal Utility District Nurrber 255. The comment is adckessed inthis order concerning several sectiom of the proposal. One commenter recommended the fdkwing changes in ader to bring the state proposed standards into conpliance with federal reguhtions. The commenter ndedthat the proposed rule must indicate that large water systerns (serving mae than 50,000 people) meet State established water quality parameters befae being &dared to have optimized mosion contrd. The Cornrnission agees and has modified §290.120(h)(4)(G) accadingly. One commenter noted that the prcposed rule did not contain hnguage to allow water systems that continueto exceed lead and copper action levek to be in conpliance ifthey operate within State sppcified water quality parameters. The commission agrees and has modified §290.120(h)(4)(H) accordingly. One commenter pointed oul that the State rule rnust contain hng~age stating that the water system is requied to meet specified water qudiy parameters in each monitoring period inwder to remain in compliance. Section 290.120(9 (l)(K) has been so modified. One commenter notes that 5290.120(9(2)(8) rnust not only require heatment of source water but al& s&cii a schedule for this activity. The commissionagees ardthe section has been so mcdified. One commenter contends that $290.1 200(3) rnust contain specific hnguage defining the term 'conhd' in rehtion to lead service lines that are located within a water system. Language used in the federal rule has been incorporated into this section. One commenter noles that 5290.120(1)(1)(E) does nd contain the phrase 'samples shall be representative of water quality throughout the diitrbulion systern'. This section has been modified accadingly. One commenter feek that a word has been omitted from $290.109(a)m(D) between 'detection of a contaminant' and 'be wanted when, in fact, the proposed wording in bold face type isto be deletedfrom the text, resuning in a complete statement. No change is necessary. One commenter contends that malland medium water systems could become noncompliant with 5290.120(9(1)(8) because of inconsistenciesin the wading found in the proposed rule and that of c~rrentcorrespondence used by the agency to notify systems as to when they must begin waler quality parameter monilaingfollowing a leadlcopper exceedance. The Commission awees with the proposal and appropiate hnguage changes to the rule have been made. One commnter feels that the action level printed for copper in the last line of §290.120(a)(3) is not corred. The commission agrees and has conected the typograph ical ma. One commenter nded that a change is requied in 5290.120(e)(2) to chrify the frequency and Ihe number of sample sets requied duing reduced monitoring. The Commission agees and appropiale word'ig has been drafled into the rule. One commenter feels that it is possble fa public education regardingthe exceedance of a lead or copper action level to be requied before results of confirmation samprig can be obtained. Since the proposed language of $290. 120(e)(4) allows 60 days fdbwing the exceedance notification in which to .conduct public education, and since thistime hame is speafied in the federal rule, it is recommended that no wading change be made because adequate time for rece'pt of confirmation results is provided. One cwnmenter feek that language in $290.120(1)(1)(B) requiresdarifiiionsince it appearsthat water quality parameter monitoring could be required of a water system prior to official notifidion by the Commissionthat an action lwel has been exceeded. Sicethe notificationof adion levelexceedance a nonexceedance accompaniesthe mailingof anaC ysis results to each system, it is unlkely that this situation could arise. This concern was addressed as part of a previous comment and no further wading change is reccnnmended. One commnter again refers to the hnguage of 5290.120(9(1)(B) relating to the point in time afler a system has been notified of a lead a copper action level exceedance at which the systern is required to begin water quari parameter monitoring. This concern was previwsly meded and no further change in wading is necessary. One commenter notes a typographical emor inthe System Siecolumn of Table 3 located in 5290.120(9(1)@). This notation is coned and a change has been made. One commenter noles that procedues fa delivery of @tic education materialsby mntransient non-community water systems as ouilined in 5290. 120(g)(3) is coned only for community water systems and the citation refening to the federal rule should be changed to 40 Code of Federal Regulations. §141.85(~)(4). The requiemntsd&bed in that sedion of the federal rule are appropriate for non-hansient non-community water systems and this change has been made. One commenler Cels that chrircation of $?90.120(k)(l)(B) is necessary to distinguish between first &aw tap monitoiingand dishC bulion point-of-entry monitoring. The Commission agrees with this assertion and wording in the sedion has been amended to clarify this point. One commenter nded that m mention was made of the manner in Which new water systems ore to be broogM into cmplh~e



### - 19 TerReg 9368 November 25, 1994 Texas Register +

### Legislative Budget 

### Board Executive and Legislative Budget Office Joint Budget Hearing Schedule Appropriations Requests for the 1996-1997 Biennium (For the period of August 29-September 2, 1994) Agency D&me Place: National Guard Armory Board August 29, 1994. 8:30 a.m.. National Guard Armory Board. Camp Mabry. Building 64, Board Room. Austin; University of Texas Systun. University of Texas at Austin. Univusity of Toras of the Permian Basin. Univtrsity of Texas at El Paso. August 29. 1994. 9: 00 a.m.. University of Tocas Systm Office, Ashbel Smith Hall. Sand Floor Conference Room. 201West Seventh Sheet. Austin; Vetcrans Commission. August. 29. 1994. 10:00 am.. Room 101. John H. Reagan Building. 105West 15th Street. Austin; Funeral Service Commission, August 29. 1994. 11:00 a.m.. Room 103. John H. Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin; Library and Archives Commission. August 30. 1994. 9:00 a.m.. Room 101. John H. Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street, Austin; Board of Tax Professional Examiners. August.30.1994.10:00 a.m.. Room 103. John H. Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin; Offiiof the Public Utility Counsel. August 30. 1994. 10:00 a.m.. Room 109. John H. Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin; Historical Com-

. mission. August 30. 1W. 1:30 p.m.. Room 103. John H.

Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin. Agency DaWl"iie Pk: University of Houston System. - University of Houston. University of Houston-Downtown. University of Houston-Clear Late. University of HoustonVictoria. August 31. 1994. 8:30 a.m.. Univusity of Houston. Hilton Hotel. Room 210. Houston; Commission on the Arts. August 31. 1994,900 a.m.. Room 101. John H Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin; Public FianceAuthority. August 31.1994.900 a.m.. Room 109. John H. Rcagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin; Credit Union Department August 31. 1W.9:00 a.m.. Room 106. John H. Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin Racing Commission. August 31.1994.2:00 pm.. Capitol Extension. State Capitol Building. Room E1.026, Austin; Officeof AdministrativeHearings. August 31.1994,2:00 pm.. Room 106.John H. Reagan Building. 105West 15th Street. Austin, Texas Southem University. August 31, 1994. 3:00 p.m.. Texas Southern Univenity. 3100ClebumeAvenue. Houston; Reservation Board, Seg tunk 1. 1994. 9:00 a.m.. Room 103. John H. Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin. Agency Da.WTime Placc. Univusity of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center. University of Texas Medical Branch. Univusity of Texas Health Scienm at Houston. September 1.1994.9:00 am.. UT M.D. Anderson Cancer bkr.1100HolcombeBoulevard.Tenth Floor. Copeland Coafucncc Room. Houston Real Estate Commission. Septunbu 1. 1994. 10:W a.m.. Room 101. John H. Reagan Building. 105West 15th Street. Austin; Appraiser Licwsing and CcrlSicationBoard. Septunbu 1. 1994.200p.m.. Room 101. John H. Reagan Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin; Texas Commission on Law Enforcement OffkStandardsand Education. September 1, 1994.2:00 pm..Room 106.John H. Reagan Building. 105Wwt 15th Street. Austin; Public Utility Commission. Septernbu 2, 1994, 1: 30 p.m.. Room 103. John H &an Building. 105 West 15th Street. Austin. Issued in Austin, Texas. on August 19, 1994. TRDW6874 Don Oreen Speclal AmbW LeglrLLlvo Budgot Board Filed: August 19, 1944 

# + + + Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission Correction of Errors The Texas Natural Resource Conswation Commission adopted amendments to 55116.110. 116.115.116.1 16. The rules appeared in the August 2. 1994. issue of the Tcuu Register (19 TexRcg 5965). Due to submission in 6116.1 15(b). the two'refmctsto the date of March 31, 1994. should instead cite the date August 16. 1994. The Texas Natural Resource Cowation Commission adopted the qealto 5114.11. The rule appeared in the August 2. 1994. issue of the Tuar Register (19 TwtReg 5906). In the,preamblethe word "heavyduty"should read "heavyduty". Due to publishing error in 5114.11(g)(l)(A) the text should read "(A) Light-Duty Vehicle Ekhaust Emission Standards Egun 1: 30 TAC 5114.1l(g)(l)(A)" and the comaponding table should have been labeled as Fm 1: 30 TAC 5114.ll(g)(l)(A). Due to publishing mr in 5114.ll(g)(l)(B) the twd should read "(B) NMOG Exhaust Emission Standards for F%ldble and Dual-Pueled Vehicles Fm 230TAC 5114.11(g)(l)(B)" and the corresponding table should have been labeled as Fw 2: 30 TAC 5114.1l(g)(l)(B). Due to submission mr in 5114.11(g)(2)(A) the text should read "LEV and ULEV missions standards for heavyduty vehicles

## ...." Due to submission uror in 5114.11(g)(i)(3) the should have read 

### "... installer of the ahnative fuel systuns of vehicles utilized by the fleet; andm Due to publishingmr 8114.110(2)(A) shouldhave read "...fleet percentage rqukments of subsection (d) of this section; Egun 3: 30 TAC 8114.11&)(2)(A)" and the cornsponding figure should have been labeled accordingly. Due to publishingerror5114.1 1(k)(2)(B) shouldhave read "...meet missions standards more stringent than the LM ernission standards; and Fwre 4: 30 TAC 5114.11Q(2)(B)" and the corresponding figure should have been labeled accordingly. Due to publishing error 6114.11&)(2)(C) shouldhave read "...cutified levcls,of evaporativemissions less than five grams per test.

19 TexReg 6792 August 26, 1994 Texas Register 

### +