ATTACHMENT F 

/1 

' 

I 

INDIANA 

DATE: 

TIME: 

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOA.."illr----------, 

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL teeP v 1 

July 1, 1998 

7:00 p.m. 

PLACE: Northwest Indiana Regional 

Planning ~ommission 

6100 Southport Road 

Portage, Indiana 

The above proceedings were recorded and 

trw~scribed by Kay Dornburg, Court Reporter and 

duly commissioned officer of the State of Indiana. 

KAY DORNBURG 
q 

~ 

~ 

' ~ CHAIH.Ll\iAN: 

2 Joh..."l Walker 

" ~ BOARD MEMBERS: 

4 Marlow Harmon 

5 Randy Staley 

6 J·oh.t.-,. Bacone 

7 Thomas Anderson 

8 Steve Rogers 

9 Rachel McGeever 

10 Tom Rarick 

11 Timothy Method 

12 Felicia George 

13 Janet McCabe 

14 George Ewing 

15 Jeff Bowe 

16 Howard Cundiff 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 
l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

I 25 

35 

The first one -- public hearing regarding 

final adoption of .amenlli~ents to 326 IAC l ~~d 

326 IAC 2, minor new source review progrruu. 

This is a public hearing before the Air 

Pollution Control Board of the State of Indiana 

regarding final adoption of amendments 326 IAC 

1 and 326 IAC 2, minor new source review 

program. 

I will now introduce Exhibit 1 as the 

proposed rule and Exhibit lA, the proposed 

changes, into the record of this public 

hearing. 

Is there anyone from the Department who 

would like to comment on the proposal? 

FELICIA GEORGE: 

I will briefly, and then I will hand that 

over to Paul Dubenetzky. 

This rule, as you can see by the fact 

that it is the biggest part of this pretty 

hefty board packet, has been in the works for 

quite a while and is basically the result of 

well over a year of intensive work by the folks 

in both our deparL~ent --and I'd like to thank 

right now, Paul Dubenetzky, Roger Letterman, 
36 

1 

~ Doug ~Jagner. 

2 They have all worked really hard-, 

3 especially Roger and Paul, to pull together a 

4 very difficult group of re~Jlations w~d make 

"' ~ some sense out of them. 

6 For anybody who works with Article 2 of 

7 the Air Rules, which are the permitting ~les, 

8 you know that those rules were in a state of 

9 disarray caused by the fact that they were10 continuously amended over time. 

11 And they weren't pulled together all in 

I 

' 12 a piece. So, what we tried to do in this rule13 making was accomplish several different 

14 results. 

15 One of those results, obviously, was to 

16 make the Office of Air Management's approach to 

17 permitting a little more logical and make the 

18 rule itself -- formatting it in a logical way 

19 w~d formatted in a -r..-:ay that the applicability, 

"" ~v which is permitting at times is the most 

21 difficult to lli~derstand part, much more clear 

22 and lli~derstw~dable for everyone. 

23 The second thing would be to streamline 

24 the review process of changes at existing 

25 plants, especially those which have little or 
, I 

37 

l no environ.,.11ental inrpact, and wher-e the usa of 

2 these resources would be better st~~ped for the 

3 source of review that would result from 

4 reviewing projects tbat did have environmental 

5 impact. 

6 An·other primary result would be the 

7 attempt at integrating our operating permit 

8 program and our construction permit program. 

9 And although, because these are -- some 

10 of these have to mesh with federal programs, we 

11 constraints. I think that the 

resulting rules did accomplish that. 

13 And the other thing was to allow sources 

14 to have approval which after they got them 

15 would allow for much more flexibility in the 

16 operation of their plants. 

17 Once again_, I think the rul a 1 as it is 

18 now proposed to you for final adoption, does 

19 actually achieve in large measure all of those 

20 results that we desired. 

21 So, with that said, and with once again 

22 our thanks to the people that were stakeholders 

23 as well as staff of the Office of Air 

24 Management, I'm going to turn this over the 

25 Paul Dubenetzky, Permits Branch Chief, to go 
38 

into a little mora detail about that ~ule~ 

2 

3 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

4 I might have to go back and forth here 

5 because as Felicia and as you know, there's a 

6 lot of material to go through. 

7 We 1 ve been working on this for well over 

8 a year. And it's been a lot of work, but we 

9 think that. what the new rules does do, it does 

10 protect air quality, continue to protect air 

11 quality; and it balili,ces public participation 

12 with the ability for sources to make 

13 environmentally solli,d changes in a manner that 

14 doesn't get in the.way of doing business. 

15 The public participation is still there 

16 for places where the Agency has to exercise 

17 judgement in the establishment of provisions in 

18 a permite 

19 And it's also there for any significant 

20 decreases in emissio~s from existing sources. 

21 Very little was done in the way of 

22 streamlining -- well, some things were done for 

23 streamlining new sources 1 but in most cases the 

24 new source requirements are not that·much 

25 different than they are now. 
("( 

39 

But there is a clarification on a new 

2 source end ;;;hat operating permit they go into. 

3 For existing sources the rule takes 

4 advantage of the fact that the sources will 

5 have-- I'm nat sure if this is more 

6 distracting or less distracting, the microphone 

7 take advantage of the fact that the permit 

8 is there. 

9 So, we don't have to treat the applicants 

10 as if they were ignorant of our rules because 

11 they have the permits that lay out most of the 

12 rules. 

13 And we can also use the permit's built-in 

14 opportunities for operational flexibility. And 

15 we've written the rules· to take advru~tage of 

16 that. 

17 One o£ the things I think people started 

18 to become very aware of as they went through 

19 this process with us is that there's an overlay 

20 of federal requirements. 

21 And the federal requirements fer both new 

22 source review and the federal requir~~ents for 

23 operating permits affects sources in different 

24 ways. 

25 It turns out, it affects them pretty much 
40 

1 deperident on the operating permit program 

2 they 1 re in. 

3 some things are easier to de l.n 

4 the rules for smaller sources than they are for 

5 larger sources be-cause cf the prescriptive 

6 nature of the federal requirements and the 

7 process that has to be there for change. 

8 So, for smaller sources that are in the 

9 operating permit program, by definition they're 

10 small. The changes in the sources are small, 

11 and things are pretty easy to take care of in 

12 the rules. 

13 The higher level sources that have a 

14 potential to emit more major sources -- major 

15 source -- but the permit prevents them from 

16 doing that -- aren't as environmentally 

17 significant, ru,d the permits themselves the 

18 permit itself already has an emission cap built 

19 into it that helps to make changes easier to 

20 accomplish .. 

21 And it also means by definition they 

22 aren't subject to federal new source review 

23 boards. 

24 Title V, of course, is -- there's an 

25 awful lot of federal requirements that you have 
41 

to work with in prcviding operational 

2 flexibility. 

3 So, the federal rules far changes in 

4 ope.rating permits is very prescriptivea &""'ld, 

5 in fact, conflicts with some of the things that 

6 we ~hink make common sense. 

7 And also, there's a-- most major 

8 sources, almost any change that's done there is 

9 potentially subject to the Clean Air Act 

10 requirements for prevention of significant 

11 deterioration or non-attainment review. 

12 So, these put some borders on how much 

13 operational flexibility you can have. 

14 We believe with -- we do have a number Of 

15 provisions including emission caps that do help 

16 even with Title V sources. 

17 So, once you have a permit you have now, 

18 instead of the many Feli.cia mentioned, there's· 

19 many att~upts to provide some operational 

20 flexibility in the rules. 

21 There's now four ways a permit gets 

22 changed. 

23 One are just administrative amendments 

24 where you just do them. &~d they are for the 

25 most part pretty much what they are, 
1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

•• 

13 

14 

15 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

42 

administrative in nature -- address ch~~ges, 

name changes and that sort of thing. 

There is notice-only provisions which are 

cha..""lges most which the permit already 

contemplates or are very low level where the 

source notifies us and then can make the change 

within ten Days. 

Minor operating permit amendments are in 

many cases similar to what we call 

registrations today. 

In fact, the one area where we can speed 

up the process for approval is that you 1 re 

still in the level that corresponds to 

registration, there's a 45-day time frame 

rather than the current 60-day time frame for 

making those decisions. 

&,d then the significant modification 

which is the full process that says you have to 

get pre-construction approval before you make a 

change. And there's a 30-day public comment 

period before you can make the change. 

So, that's in place now. But there's 

four bins of changes that happen. 

So -- but some of the places where we've 

helped clarify a rule is -- one reason it 1 S 
.( 

43 

, 

~ difficult to for applicability to be 

., 

~ difficult in a rule is environmental 

.., 

~ significance is based on how much you emit . 

4 And how much you emit is not necessarily 

~ 

v something that r s easily k....~on·IL It takes some 

6 tecru~ical work to determine. 

., 

' B~t one of the things that we did is 

8 provide more than 40 types of changes that we 

9 have predetermined the emissions are low. 

10 So, they're just listed there so that 

11 somebody can see if I make this type of change, 

12 if I put this kind of e~uipment in this certain 

13 size, then the Agency has already predetermined 

14 that the emissions are low and I don't have to 

1 ~ 

~;:> hire a high-priced consultant to do that for me 

16 cr submit an application to the Agency ~~d wait 

17 for the Agency to do it. I can look in the 

18 rule and tell that I'm exempt. 

19 We've also provided provisions for 

20 lifetime replacements. So, if you're replacing 

21 a piece of equipment that's similar to 

22 equipment that's already in your permit, your 

23 permit already tells you what you have to do to 

24 follow the rules, then under -- if you have a 

. ! 25 cap in your Title V permit or if you're a FESOP 
44 

, 

~ where you already have a cap, in most cases 

.., 

~ that's a notice-only change . 

3 You just say I'm replacing a piece of 

,, 

~ equipment under my pre-existing permit 

5 conditions. 

6 That's the type of thing now we r~, 

7 through the process as if you've never heard of 

8 the rules, and we've got to tell you all ever 

9 again and tell the neigr~ors all over again 

10 what they already know. 

11 In the Title V program that had to be 

12 elevated to be a minor modification rather than 

13 notice-only if there is no cap. 

14 But, again, minor modifications is a 45-

15 day process to begin construction rather than 

16 the potentially 120-day now. 

17 Another change is -- and this is where we ~,,, 

18 have a different -- well, we actually don't 

19 have a difference of opinion with EPA on this 

20 issue. 

21 But highly regulated sources that after 

22 their -- after they comply with the rule, their 

23 emissions are lew, in the state program and in 

24 one of the bills that was introduced to provide 

25 operational flexibility, when you're regulated 
' I 

l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

I 12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

by a national emission· standard for hazardcus 

air pollutants or a new source performance 

standard, the requir~uents are already pretty 

much spelled out in the rule. 

All the requirem~~ts are spelled out in 

detail. How you demonstrate that you're in 

compliance with the rules is already spelled 

out in detail. 

45 

There's little value added to the permit 

process there, so in mw~y cases we've provided 

we've made that a lower level program again 

so it's a notice-only if it doesn't change PTE. 

It can be -- it may elevate up to minor 

mod if it does. 

The EPA has proposed to make a change in 

the Title.V rules as well. The current Title V 

rules call many of those --.call many of those 

types of changes a so-called Title I ch~~ge 

because those federal requirements are in Title 

I. 

The sections that begin with one in the 

Clean Air Act, and so therefore, Title V rules 

contemplate that a storage tank that's subject 

to an NSPS that everybody's known about for 

twenty years and it's one pound a month, it's a 
2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

'7 

, 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46 

big deal to have to have to go through a lot of 

changes before you can actually use it 

you're a Ti.tle V sourca .. 

. ., l~ 

They proposed to change that rule, but 

they told us they would not be able to approve 

our rule if we jumped the gun on that change. 

So, we were not able to provide we had 

to provide a different process for Title V 

sources then. Notice-only, but still it's a 

45-day notice, or a 45-day wait maximum. 

So, those are some of the changes we had 

in the rules. 

Another major thing I need to talk about 

before I go through the always exciting part of 

rule-making going through some of the change 

sheets between proposed ru~d final adoption. 

&,d that is to talk a little bit about a 

statute that became effective today that we 

supported because it helped go along with our 

rules and provide for changes to be able to be 

made more quickly thw, in scme cases they 

otherwise would be. 

That had to do with the effective date of 

a permit decision by the DeparL~ent. 

Turns out that most already prior to the 
I 

47 

1 statut2:, most decisicns by the Depart:nent 1..;ere 

effective i.rr~.~.-nediately. 

3 issued, a source cw~ begin using that permit. 

4 So, all of our construction permits, our 

5 higher level permits, with some narrow 

6 exceptions in the PSD program, in the state 

7 program those are effective immediately. 

8 Our current ~egistrations ara effective 

9 immediately. So, the bulk of our program for 

10 approving any exemptions are exempt, so you 

11 don't need our approval. So, they're effective 

12 even before you apply. 

13 So, most of the things that we have 

14 traditionally done are effective immediately. 

15 But some of the newer changes that had 

16 worked into the rules were not because they 

17 were not contemp-lated by the· statute .. 

18 And the administrative orders and 

19 procedures act and the envirolli~ental permitting 

20 act worked together to say that unless you're 

21 exempt, like registrations are, or you're a 

22 permit that went through -- your permit is 

23 defined by statute, which is cne that has gone 

24 through 30 days public comment and had some 

25 other procedural re~uirQ~e~ts ~n ita 
48 

l Then ru,y other decision has to wait or 

2 18 days. 

And so, the major things that needs 

4 construction permits or subject to public 

5 notice would happen immediately, but some 

6 smaller things that weren't specifically 

7 exempted by statute had to wait for 15 days. 

8 The General Assembly has now empowered 

9 the Air Board to decide what types of permit 

10 decisions -- actually, all the environmental 

11 boards -- what kind of permit decisions can be 

12 effective immediately. 

13 And the rules in front of you today would 

14 say that all of our decisions are effective 

15 immediately. 

15 That r s not ;r;hat they said for the most 

17 part. That's pretty much for the -- the bulk 

18 of cur actions are. effective immediately 

19 anyway. 

20 For instw,ce, some of the things now 

21 the registration. If we didn't chw,ge the 

22 rule, it would be effective immediately. 

23 But now we don't call them registrations 

24 of an existing source; we call them permit 

25 modifications. \'i"i thout this statute chw,ge 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

., 

' 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

those would have to wait 15 days. 

So, same decision. Just because we 

changed the name of it would have to wait 15 

days if the statute ha~~'t been enacted* 

But what the board is required by statute 

to consider before adopting the rule are three 

factors -- environmental significance, federal 

requirements and public participation, the 

opportunity for public participation. 

So, the narrow rule -- the narrow area 

that ~~e' re asking for a change in effective 

dates are minor modifications for operating 

permits. 

Everything else, there isn't really a 

change in the effective dates that are already 

in the statute. 

Our significant mods are already 

effective immediately. And exemptions and 

things that are notice-only are already 

effective immediately. 

So, these things that are minor mods are 

in there because their environmental 

significance is low. They don't conflict with 

any federal re~Jirements because there either 

are no federal re~Jirements or in the case of 
, I 

50 

the Title V sou.rcas, the federal .r-equirement 

says there has to be public participation. And 

3 we've raised that up to be called significant 

4 modification. 

5 Sor there are no minor mods that the 

6 federal rules or Title V would require public 

7 participation. 

8 So, that leaves the things that are in 

9 there. Like I said, currently things that are 

10 currently registered don't have ~~y public 

ll participation. We issue those direct final 

12 now. 

13 The 1265 exemptions -- the so-called 1265 

14 exemption ~Jalifications under the statutes. 

15 Those currently have a brief public co~~ent 

16 period, and I've never received a co~~ent on a 

17 1265 exemption qualification in the two and a 

18 half years, or three years we've been using 

19 those provisions. 

20 

21 TIMOTHY METHOD: 

22 You will now. 

23 

24 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

25 And on minor modifications we 1 ve issued 
/( 

1 

3 

;I 

~ 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51 

over fi£~y mlnor modifications to FESOPs that 

provide -- cur~ently provide a public comment 

period kind of after the fact. 

But, once again, I've never received a 

public comment en one of those. 

So, we think that there really isn't ~~Y 

graat need for -- well, that fa-ct that this 

issue has to do with, they're effective 

immediately. There was not public 

participation in -- prior to the decision. 

But there is public participation in the 

case of -- after we make any decision they're 

still subject to notification of the public. 

So, the public is notified of every 

decision that r s made after the fact.. &YJ.d 

people still always have their ability to 

object to a decision ru~d request of stay of the 

permit lli~der those procedures. 

So, that was kind of long but it's an 

important point because we were having to --

when we tried to move things down to minor 

modifications, in some cases it was going to 

take longer to get the approval than we would 

have if we had had them as a significant 

modification. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

'7 

' 

8 

9 

52 

So, in short thera 1 s only a handful of 

cases where this effective date is being 

changed to being effective immediately~ 

But, like I said, we had very 1 very, 

very, very little interest in those types of 

changes in the past. 

I think before I -- especially Qn that, 

maybe -- and especially since it is so 

important -- before I gat into the rest of 

10 these changes I'll asR if there's any comments 

11 regarding the effective immediately revision. 

12 Or are there any questions I can answer 

13 regarding that revision? 

14 

15 CHAIR.'1A.~ JOHN \'/ALKER: 

16 Any questions from the board? 

.17 (No response.) 

18 

19 CHAI~~ JOHN WALKER: 

20 No? No questions. Continue on. 

21 

22 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

2 3 Thank you, Mr .. Chai rm.an. 

24 I' 11 get to the more fun part here. 

25 What I'm working from is kind of a 
I 

l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53 

s~Th~ary of the changes that you have ..i.. .. l..l. front 

of you to the rules. 

And there's two chw~ges there. There's 

two types of changes indicated in the version 

of the rule that you had on the table when you 

came here today. 

The ones that are -- and this is set up 

here. But where there's a single underline, 

you have already seen that in your board packet 

that ~;as mailed to you. 

When there's a double un-derline there 1 s 

some changes that we've worked on since we 

mailed out the board packet. 

of those. 

And there's a few 

I'm not going to distin~~ish between them 

as I go through this 44-page change sheet. 

But what I will do on the 44-page change 

sheet is indicate -- many of tht=-se things truly 

are clarifications in grammar or wording, and 

if there's any-- I will be mentioning those. 

I may use the word mundane for many of 

them. If there's m~ch in the way of substance 

to th-e chw""lge, though, I' 11 mention that. 

And I think there's one amendment that 

I'm going to offer up as I go through this as well. 
'I 

1 

~ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54 

So, starting on page 3 of the rules that 

you have in front of you, on page 3 and 4 

there's some gr~~ar and clarity that's added 

to the definition of a modification. 

And I think substituting 11 Which 11 and 

''that 11 and 11 have'' and 11 increases 11 and "of any" 

and npotential to emit" -- substit~ting those 

kinds of words on it. 

All of that was truly just for grammar 

and clarity and really didn't have any 

underlying requirement that we were trying to 

get at. 

On page 4 where we substituted for 

"federal rules" -- the specific federal rule 

that we were talking about as far as having 

exemptions to this cost analysis, that's shown 

in Rule 40 CFR, part 60. 

On page 5 we have a change regarding 

definition o£ a source that we're using to make 

consistent again and trying to make our minor 

source program consistent with the federal 

rules and to carry .on to be consistent with the 

major operating permit rules which included 

this definition to accomplish that. 

On page 6 there's a couple of changes. 
1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

., 

' 

B 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55 

·One has to de-with p~oviding a little more 

criteria for that minor physical changes. And 

there's also-- this is in 2-1.1-1. 

And in item 5 -- I'm not sure how this 

lists things; I think there are sub-sections. 

But in the list, list 5, we're clarifying the 

exemptions . 

On page 7 we have inserted a definition 

for plant-wide applicability limit which •~e use 

that's in there for a couple of reasons. 

One is that we changed the idea of what 

an emissions cap was to plant-wide 

applicability limit and provide a definition 

there. 

Also on page 7, we have added a clause 

that says "as of the effective date of this 

rule. 11 

Page 8, we clarified the mobile sources 

aren't subject to air permitting. 

Page 9, we have some pretty mundane 

changes regarding modification approval w~d 

making a proper size using LSA format and 

clarifying an exemption from the article. 

Page 9 has a clarification, again 

regarding the insertion of the phrase 
' { 

·\ 

56 

11modificaticn approval" and the -- the insert 

2 on 5 we have split out the requirements for 

3 registered sources that used to be combined 

4 with minor operating permits. So, that was 

5 made to be consistent with that change. 

6 Page 10, there's a couple of more 

7 insertions of minor modifications approval and 

8 clarifying that sources must be exempt from 

9 both registration and operating permit. 

10 And there's another modification approval 

11 inserted after permit. 

12 On page 11 there's a couple of changes 

13 that have a little bit of meaning there. 

14 So, the first change that deletes the 

15 broad reference to section 4 now cites specific 

16 sub-sections that cite to L~e new set of 

17 provisions for woodworking operations that we 

18 think do a better job of defining potential to 

19 emit and have -- address what we believe are 

20 many of the EPA's concerns regarding that 

21 particular SSOA. 

22 And the second change will delete clause 

23 J and K. It is because those two clauses, 

24 "boilers and engines have emissions that are 

25 greater than 25 tons." 
, I 

57 

--··' 

1 

~ On page 11 we substitute "andn for ''or. rr 

') 

~ &~d on page 12 we are adding -- is 

3 in response to EPA comments that they want to 

" ~ make sure that the pre-establisrJnent on PTE 

" v meet their requirements. And they don't want 

"-u those to be effective unless they recruit them 

"' ' into the SEP. 

0 

u ~~d sc we're still working with them, 

9 improving that part of the SEP, but in the 

10 meantime they requested we include that in the 

11 language to make sure it was federally 

12 approvable. 

13 On page 12 we make a -- we missed a place 

14 where part of this rule-making -- we never 

15 intended this rule-making to change the 

16 requirements for major resource review either 

17 under PSD or under the non-attaiTh~ent 

13 provisions. 

19 And this is a place where we needed to 

20 cite to a non-attainment provision. 

21 Also on page 12, clarifying -- this is an 

22 expanded version of the term "modification 

23 approvals after permits," to clarify that term. 

24 On page 12 we also had a couple of places 

25 where through the rules where changing the --
58 

1 we were changing the emission level from what 

2 was in the proposed rule on sources that have 

3 -- the difference between being exempt and 

being subject to minor modifications when 

you're regulated by Article 8. 

6 We're -- instead of using 15 pounds per 

7 day to be consistent with -- to be consistent 

8 with federal rules, we've changed in many cases 

9 to five pounds per year of PTE. 

10 And the ones -- and then in here we're 

11 making we're saying that applies to 

12 that's the level that's used for anything that 

13 either doesn't have rules that apply or have 

14 rules that apply that are pretty 

15 straightforward. 

16 But if you need to use control equipment 

17 to comply with the rule, then we feel that it's 

18 necessary, just as we did original,ly, to leave 

19 that in a program where we can establish 

20 compliance monitors provisions with that rule. 

21 Now on page 12 and 13 -- this is where I 

22 need to grab the other set of rules. 

23 As we have continued to work, we are --

24 between working with EPA to make changes that 

25 we think make sense or are consistent with 
! ·. l 

59 

1 1265, now Senate Bill 206, thera's some 

2 language regarding laboratory or R & U 

3 facilities that EPA had ww,ted us to strike, 

4 ~~d we now think we have language that will 

5 satisfy them and still provide this exemption 

6 for most sources. 

7 So, I' 11 ask you to bear •~ith me when you 

8 see that we proposed to strike it. We propose 

9 to bring it back. 

10 And so -- but we still propose to -- what 

11 I guess I'm offering up as an amendm~:mt here is 

12 to bring it back and then strike "new sources 

13 or" and just leave this exemption for 

14 modifications of existing sources. 

15 And then there's some clauses there that 

16 establish the criteria for which this R & D 

17 exemption applies, and we would ask that those 

18 all remain, with the exception of E. 

19 And E, to satisfy federal requirements 

20 regarding potential to emit as opposed to 

21 actual emissions. 

22 We propose to substitute instead language 

23 that just says it is not subject to 326 IAC 2-2 

24 or 326 IAC 2-3. 

25 Later on this provision -- this exemption 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50 

-- I think -- Rogar 1 you might have to help me 

out here since you 1 ve been working en those 

will acLually show up as a notice-only 

provision. 

And that 1 s where the applicant would be 

able to show that the PTE will be, in fact, 

below -- in most cases these are BOC sources or 

NOC sources -- will be below the 40-ton 

threshold that's generally the threshold that 

EPA cares about. 

I think Roger is going to have some other 

amendments later that we'll offer up. 

So, is that clear enough for now, or 

should I walk through that one more time? 

One more time? 

So, starting on page 12, which I really 

don't have. But on the bottom of page 12 and 

at the top of page 13 we're saying leave all 

that language in there with the exception of 

the first three words that say, "new sources 

or,n and we strike that. 

So, this provision is only available to 

modification of existing sources. 

Then everything stays in, including the 

clause that describes the criteria and -- with 
1 

., ~ 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

2l 

22 

23 

24 

25 

61 

the exception of E, and we strike that line and 

instead insert the-l~~~~age lliider clause, 

capital E, "is not subject to 326 IAC 2-2 or 

326 IAC 2-3." 

That's the end of the amenlli~ent. 

The explanation is 2-2 --I'll do it one 

more time. 

Roger's got some renumbering and then 

there's some other places that that's used that 

we need to reinsert some numbers. 

Just a little point of backgrolli~d 

currently the state statute, 1265, and which 

was superseded by Senate Bill 206, just says 

these types of changes are just flat cut 

exempt. 

That they can be. made and as long as 

actual emissions are below 25 tons per year of 

any regulated air pollutant or below ten tons 

per year of any single half, you can just make 

the change. 

That's the problem with the EPA because 

they're concerned about the potential to emit. 

Any new equipment that >muld go in with 

potential to emit greater than thresholds that 

trigger federal requirements, they won't be 
( 

1 

2 

3 

5 

6 

7 

3 

9 

lD 

ll 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

able to approve~ 

So -- and they don 1 t agree that after the 

fact showing of actual emissions is t·he same as 

limiting potential to emit ahead of time~ 

So, we think by addressing that and 

saying you can't trigger the federal 

requirements and then making it a notice-only 

type of provision, that provides the Agency 

with demonstration that the potential to emit 

is, in fac~, below ~hese levels, just like the 

rest of the rule is based on som~body being 

able to present that their potential to emit is 

below these levels~ 

And that should satisfy us -- or that 

will satisfy us and EPA concerning concerns 

about potential to emit. And that 40-ton level 

will still fit. 

What actu~lly happens with this type of R 

& D facilities that are small -- most of the 

problem with R & D -- these types of R & D 

facilities is that they're operated in such a 

way that it's very difficult to know with any 

kind of reasonable certainty what the PTE is. 

So, you use a lot of assumptions to 

provide some worst-case estimates that ends up 
i( 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

, .. , .... 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

over-blowing what the emissions actnally are~ 

So 1 the statute has said well, go ahead 

and we 1 ll figure out later that tha actual 

emissions are small. 

63 

But EPA says no, we need to base it on --

go ahead and base it on the worst-case 

decisions but do it on a potential basis. 

And so, we take the 40-tons -- that level 

is 40 tons, and that will still provide a lot 

of flexibility and probahly similar flexibility 

that the 25-tons actual and ten-ton actual 

would have had. 

There are -- these types of provisions 

aren't -- the reason why there's not a ten-ton 

half limit in there is the top of operations 

aren't subject to a~y existing NESHAP or half 

requirement or even the new source for half 

requirement. R & D facilities are specifically 

exempted from those regulations. 

But there's not a lot of point to having 

them go through the permit process anyway 

.because there's not much to say ahout them, 

un·less it's the federal PSD requirements. 

HOi-lARD CUNDIFF: 
64 

l B-2 at the bottom of page 12 --

2 

3 U~IDENTIFIED SPECTATOR: 

4 Last line of page 12. 

5 

6 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

7 I just had to find page 12. Right. 

8 So, we • d strike 11new source II, there as 

9 well. Thank you, Howard. 

10 Provided modifications the "new source 

11 or" comes out in both places. 

12 Anybody want to run through that one more 

13 time? 

14 

15 TOM RARICK: 

16 The numbering changes of that as well? 

17 

18 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

19 Yeah, there' 11 be numbering changes that 

20 are consistent with that. 

21 Like I say, elsewhere in the rule we have 

22 to put back in the reference to that exemption. 

23 Or at least those provisions. 

24 Okay, let's get back to some mundane 

25 things. 
/ ( 

65 

Page 18, therers a place where we moved 

the word "consistlt for consistency and for 

3 grammar .. 

4 On page 23 we're deleting some 

5 subdivisions-- I'm sorry. It's on page 19 and 

6 20. 

7 \1/e' re deleting provisions because wood8 working -- the description of those woodworking 

g activities are being moved and they show up in 

10 a source of specific operating agreement. 

11 On pages 25 and 26 we had had a comment 

I2 that when you read this exemption about 

I3 miscellaneous equipment and it referred to the 

14 term ~emissions" that when you looked at the 

15 list and you locked at emissions, it was pretty 

16 difficult to figure out what it meant. 

17 So, we've clarified that. What we meant 

18 is that sometimes there's some miscellaneous 

19 type of equipment that's used but you can't 

20 you can't somehow try to suck in some other 

Zl piece of equipment that is an emission source 

22 and say that it was part of this miscellaneous 

2:3 equipment. 

24 So, we hope -- we think that provision is 

25 now more clear to its meaning with respect to 
1 

2 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

g 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

1g 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

miscellaneous e~uipment exemption. 

On page ZS we're corracting a grammar to 

replace norrr with ftandrr and to insert a ttwith* rr 

&>d on pages 26 and 27 there's some 

changes in grammar to revision ~;d operating 

permits and tamporary ezemptions. 

Then on-- I'm sorry. That's on pages 26 

and 27. 

And on page 28 we're inserting a existing 

exemption that's in the existing rule that got 

left out of this part. So, this exemption 

already exists in the current rule. It's been 

in the rule for a couple of years, and we 

wanted to make sure it stayed in the rule, so 

that continues on. 

Page 30 is another one of those inserting 

"modification approval" after the term 

"permit." 

Again, on page 30 there's a couple list 

things. These types of changes, modification 

approvals, registration modification approvals. 

Therers an insert regarding the 

commissioner providing notice to COlli,ty 

executives and executives of a city and those 

sorts of things. That's an existing Indiana 
,,.( 

,. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

g 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

13 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

Code requirement in the statute that we put 

_into the-- I don 1 t r~meruber l! this is an 

insert or a better rewording oi the statutory 

requirement. 

But in any case, this is in there to 

conform with existing statutory requirements. 

And then the last change in moving 

subdivision 3 is to clarify for style and 

grammar. 

And on page 31 we have corrected a cite 

to a section rather than a rule. And we've 

also provided a cross-reference to the types of 

modifications we are talking about in public 

notices. 

On page 32 this, again, is language 

that's more consistent with the existing 

statutes. 

Pages 32 and 33, there's some changes to 

correct rule cites with replacing rrF't with rrGrr 

and replacing "C" with no.'r 

Therera another one on-- therers a 

number of those on page 33. And there's also 

in there inserting that term nmodification 

approvq.l" after "proposed permit." There's a 

couple of those as well. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

"7 

' 

3 

g 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

There's some other grwT~atical chru,ges 

there raga~ding units and units and groups~ 

On page 34 we needed to update this 

requir~ent to include a complete cite of· 

federal NESHAPs and where they resided in the 

Indiana Rules. 

So, we've included IAC 20. Previously, 

we only had 14 because that's where all the old 

NESHAPs are. The new NESHAPs are now in 20, so 

we included them there. 

On page 34 we also forgot to put the 

footnote of where to obtain copies of the 

federal regulations. 

Page 26 is some more -- another one of 

those insert the modification approval, and 

then some corrections of rule cites. 

Again, some more citation corrections on 

page 36. And we included on page 36 that A-3 

-- we included a time frame for approving 

source of specific operating agreement that's 

consistent with the current time frame for 

approving registrations. 

Also on page 36 there's more cite 

changes. 

We removed -- the next page -- the next 
. I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

set of changes-- I'm sorry-- shows up on page 

41. 

And we have co~~ected sections cites w~d 

removed some redundant language and used better 

.terms for governmental units. 

On page -- shoot, I don't have written 

down here the page number. Must be on page 42. 

We've added a section 326 IAC 2-1.1-11, 

compliance requirements. And all this does is 

insure that the commissioner can require a 

stack test of sources regardless of their type 

of permit program they're in. 

We've been -- there's been some confusion 

over that over the years because we've changed 

some of the permit rules. So, this just goes 

back to ou~ longstanding ability to require a 

stack test when one is necessary regardless of 

what permit program you're in. 

On page -- sta~ting on page 42, we 

this is the emission cap program, and we moved 

this from the FESOP rules to the Title 5 rules 

--or I'm sorry. We've taken them out of the 

FESOP and Title V rules and put it in a general 

provision. 

So, the bulk of this language was already 
,( 

70 

l in the rules that you proposed except that it's 

contained in the individual permit rules. 

3 One of the things that had to be changed 

4 here is that when it was in the FESOP rule, for 

5 the most part, the caps were based on potential 

6 to emit; and in the Title V rule they had to be 

7 based on past actual emissions. 

8 So, that language kind of had to be 

9 worked into this because we took some minor 

10 differences between the two groups and put them 

11 into one provision. 

12 The one -- then there's a new -- there is 

13 a new provision in the -- that wasn't in the 

14 proposed rule regarding the application to make 

15 a change, where one of th~ things we've done to 

16 make changes lli~der the cap -- the way we do 

17 permits now is the source just tells us what 

18 they're going to do and we identify all of the 

19 applicable requirements and tell them what they 

20 have to do to comply with the applicable 

21 requirements and all that kind of thing. 

22 That's why our permits take a while to 

23 do, because sometimes we have to do all the 

24 work. 

25 So, under the cap program that burden 
' I 

1 

" ~ 

3 

A 

~ 

5 

6 

7 

' 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

,.., 

~' 

18 

- 19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

71 

shifts tc the a~plicant so that the applic~~t 

says I 1m going to make a change under my cap, 

I'm going to make it qJickly, but here's my 

identification a...':l.d everything that applies to 

me~ 

And then we have the ability to review 

that as opposed to start from scratch. So, 

that's been included. This is the one 

provision that wasn't in the rules that you 

proposed. 

On page 53 -- once again, we forgot the 

footnote to where to get copies of the Code of 

Federal Regulations, so we put that in there. 

We've corrected on page-- I'm sorry; I 

keep forgetting to give page numbers. 

So, now we get all ·the way to page 60. 

And after the cites, the 326 IAC 2-5.1, we're 

inserting "and" instead of' "or 11 to clarify 

that .. 

And on page 66 I think we've already got 

the cite to where to find the Code of Federal 

Regulations, so we had to put the asterisk in 

the places where we cited the Code of Federal 

Regulations. 

So, we've included the asterisk at the 
/I 

l 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72 

end of subdivision 1 and subdivision 3~ 

On page 66 we -- regarding people who are 

applying for a new source that's going to end 

up being registered, we're clarifying in the 

cites to 2-9, 2-10 and 2-11 that if you're in 

those programs, you just stay there. 

Actually, I take this-- I'm sorry 5-1 

5.1-1 is a new section regarding changes in 

the registration. 

So, this is just clarifying that if 

you're in a different program and you make 

changes that you will still be in that program; 

you're not subject to this·requirement. 

On page 70 we've added the ability to 

request additional information or notice of 

deficiency to applications to changes at 

registration. 

I should have said -- I hadn't finished 

the changes on page 68, but it's just changing 

using the term "and" or the word "and" 

rather than 11 or." 

Also on page 68, I believe, regarding 5. 

section 2 (a) 1C and 1D. Once again, that's 

to make that ch~~ge regarding allowing sources 

that aren't very heavily re~~lated lli~der 
/( ! - 73 

... 1 Article 8 to be exempt if they have potential 

') 

w to emit less than five tons per year. 

3 But they remain a minor modification if 

4 they are regulated and need air pollution 

5 control equipment to comply. Then they need to 

6 get a minor mod if they're over 15 pounds per 

7 day. 

8 On page 71 we've included -- currently 

9 when a source gets registered, they get 

10 registered from us and then they're just done 

11 and the registrations never expire and they 

12 . I 

never reapply. 

13 And we've had problems in the past where 

14 something that got registered a long time ago 

15 and both the source -- well, the source hasn't 

16 really paid that much attention to that and not 

17 renewed it, not reviewed its regulatory 

18 requirements. 

19 So, just like any other operating 

20 approval that we've issued, we've established 

21 an expiration date -- a five-year expiration 

22 date on registrations and a requirement that 

23 they be renewed. 

24 On page 71 also, we've deleted 

25 production-related information because 
··( 

74 

1 

~ registrations don't have restrictions on that 

2 type of -- on that. 

3 Production-related information does not 

4 need to be reported because registrations by 

5 definition don't need any -- don't need to 

6 limit production. 

7 So, we're not requiring reports on 

8 something that's not -- that we've not had to 

9 limit. 

10 Page 71, there's also a change in 3(a) to 

11 replace uar 11 with .nand." 

12 And on page 72 there's a couple places in 

13 this rule where we clarify that emissions units 

14 that are medical waste incinerators are subject 

15 to federal requirements need to get operating 

16 permits and aren't eligible for a lower level 

17 of approval. 

18 Also on page 72 we've replaced the 

19 opligation of a source to prepare an 

20 application before they begin operating or to 

21 actually obtain a construction permit. 

22 Page 73 has a mundane clarification 

23 making sure we use the plural form of 

24 "pollutant." 

25 Page 75 has some changes on adding 
'' ( 

75 

1 registrations to permits. It deletes "or 

2 registrations" and it deletes -- changes a 

., 

~ cite. And it changes a couple of cites there 

4 to clarify the intent of those provisions. 

5 

6 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

7 Paul, pardon me. It's getting kind of· 

8 late here. Would you mind if we took a five9 minute break? 

10 

11 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

12 You know what? I was just going to ask 

13 you if I could do that. About three more 

14 changes. So, I'll gladly stop now. 

15 

16 CHAI~~ JOHN WALKER: 

17 Is that okay with the board? 

18 

19 (Recess was taken.) 

20 

21 JANET McCAEE: 

22 The board has heard from Paul and heard 

23 Paul go through a number of changes in permits 

24 that the Department is making to the proposed 

25 rules .. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

These comments and the rest of the 

comments that the Department is offering 

tonight is the result of three things. 

76 

One is comments that we received from the 

public during the public comment period, 

comments that we received from U.S. EPA that we 

need to approve these rules, and comments and 

clarifications that the Department feels are 

appropriate to approve the rule as we move from 

proposed to final. 

Paul is going to go through some of the 

remaining changes, very specifically, ones that 

are substantive that he wants to provide an 

explanation on. 

There are a number of other changes that 

fall into the categories of clarifications or 

corrections of typographical errors, citations, 

the sorts of things that you've already heard 

about. 

We would be happy to provide further 

explanations to the board on any of these 

changes at the conclusion of Paul's remarks. 

I want to make sure that everybody has 

the opportunity to understand what all those 

cha1'1ges are. 
77 

1 They're all fully documented on the 

~ 

~ change sheet that you have before you that's 

3 been introduced into the record. 

4 So, make sure that you do raise any 

5 questions on the changes after Paul is through. 

6 

7 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

8 Thank you. 

9 

10 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

11 Thank you. 

12 Now, to start off, I actually have to 

I 

13 correct a mistake on page 71. 

14 This statement by me, the rule is 

15 correct. We actually -- we had proposed that 

16 registrations be renewed, and instead of 

17 "renewal" -- I had mentioned we had problems 

18 with registrations, that they kind of got sat 

19 on the shelf. 

20 So, ins.tead of renewal, we've included a 

21 requirement that an individual provide an 

22 annual notice, that they check that 

23 registration that they're still in compliance 

24 with it. 

25 And we felt L~at that got to the problem 
(' 

-I 

78 

~ ' without having to go through a full application 

2 review and reissu~~ce. 

~ 

~ So, I'm sorry I misstated that in the 

4 first go-through. 

5 So, what that change does is that it 

6 removes the requirement that the applications 

7 be renewed, but it includes a requirement that 

8 somebody keep track of it on a year-to-year 

9 basis. 

10 So, as Janet said, there's a -- really, 

11 the bulk of these changes we have worked 

12 through most of what they're about. 

13 And in some cases it includes language 

14 that you already have that you just moved 

15 somewhere else to help format the rule better. 

16 An example of that -- and this is the 

17 type of thing I'm not going to go over and over 

18 again. 

19 But on page 77 we have inserted a new 

20 rule for the operation and modification of 

21 existing registered sources which had been kind 

22 of combined or really was difficult to get to 

23 the way it was proposed. 

,24 So, we separated that out for registered 

25 sources. . I 
(( 79 

1 

L Page 80 has a new section that talks _ 

2 about modifying a registered source. Again, 

3 that wasn't there because it was kind of hidden 

4 with operating sources. 

5 Registered sources has some notice-only 

6 changes. 

7 And they have to provide a notice to us 

8 and we may require higher level approval for 

9 substantive changes that would require them 

10 moving up into the regular operating permit 

11 program. 

12 So, that's all been added to operating 

13 under a registration. 

14 Page 84 is where we picked up operating 

15 under -- operating under a minor operating 

16 permit, making changes under an operating 

17 permit. 

18 We've got a number of clarifications on 

19 applicability. 

20 We've got some deletions where we've 

21 broken out the requirements for registration, 

22 taking them out. 

23 Again, we've added the requir~~ent that 

24 if you'r~ a medical waste incinerator subject 

25 to the NESHAP, you can't get a lower approval 
,., I. 

I I 80 

1 than a minor operating permit. 

2 The other language, again, we've already 

3 talked about it being a similar to tbe original 

4 approval for grammatical changes. 

5 6-1, same types of things. 

6 6.1 --much of that is still the same 

7 types of changes we've talked about before in 

8 getting a new permit. 

9 On page 92 -- page 92 is where we do want 

10 to offer an amendment regarding those research 

11 and development facilities, so this is one we 

12 want to take just a little bit of time on to 

13 make sure we get this clear. 

14 Where we had proposed to insert 

15 requirements regarding these R & D, this is a 

16 place where we want to take that out. 

17 So, we want to delete this language in 

18 number 16 under D-16. There isn't any other 

19 renumbering that needs to be done because it's 

20 the last of the list. 

21 That has the effect of taking it out of 

22 the -- takes it out of the minor modification. 

23 And then we pick up again with more 

24 clarification and rewording to be consistent 

25 with the statutes. 
,,, .. 

( ( 81 

1 And we have included in D 2-6.1, 6-F, we 

2 have inserted some new l~~guage. 

3 And let me find that in the version I 

4 have here. 

5 It's on page 93. 

6 Roger, that's on 93? 

7 There's some language at the top of 93 

8 that says that when we provide a copy of a 

9 revised permit, the permit's effective 

10 immediately. 

11 But by issuing an approval that triggers 

12 requirements for us to notify the public and 

13 provides the public an opportunity to object. 

14 And then there's other changes, again, 

15 that are similar to the ones we talked about 

16 before. 

17 On the bottom of page 95 we've scratched 

18 out language that describes the type of change 

19 that just couldn't happen to a source covered 

20 by this type of permit. 

21 To -- not to confuse anybody, we've 

22 deleted that provision. 

23 Again, we continue on with changes that 

24 are very consistent with what we've done before 

( 

25 -- correcting cites, more clarifications. 
.I 

1 

" ~ 

., 

~ 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

We move into 2-71 and it's still, again, 

many of these changes. 

One of the things that we've done with 

this rule is that there's a number of 

provisions that are very similar to each other 

that occur in each different rule. 

So, the people -- one of the formatting 

changes that make it easier for you when you 

have a permit that you don't have to look at 

all 200 pages. You just find the rule that 

applies to you and everything, for the most 

part, is self-contained. 

And that's why there's so much 

duplication. When there's a change that's 

made, it ends up being made three or four or 

five times throughout the rules. 

Then at the end -- the format of the rule 

makes it easier for the people deciding what 

needs to be done to make a change. 

So, in 2-7 there's many -- again, these 

are all changes that are similar to the ones 

we've talked about, or changes that just --

truly just clarify the existing language. 

One of the things on 2-7-10.5(c)1 -- bear 

with me while I try to find the page number. 
( 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

I 25 

You may have already Iound it before I did. 

UNIDENTIFIED SPECTATOR: 

Page 144. 

PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

Okay. Thank you, Roger, for the 58th 

time this year. 

83 

So, this is where we had changed some 

language to -- this is part 70 rule, so these 

are the Title V rules. And we needed to have. 

some special 1an~uage here that had -- where we 

had to clarify the fact that there's kind of 

two separate approval processes. 

So, there's an approval to construct 

under Title V, and then there has to be a 

separate approval to operate that takes a 

little longer to get than the approval to 

construct. 

And this -- we made some clarifications 

in this. 

Help me out, Roger, on the clarifications 

to --

Since we knew that most people that were 

constructing were not going to do the extra --
( 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

weren't going t6 go through the process that 

made them wait for the full amount of time 

before they construct, they could do the same 

thing. 

84 

If they wanted to wait to get the final 

the federal approval to operate, they could 

get their approval to construct if they just 

wait themselves. 

We stripped out some of the two-part 

approval language. The object of two different 

tracks -- we stripped that out because the --

to make that rule a little shorter and because 

the source can get the same thing by just 

choosing not to construct themselves when they 

get the approval. 

So, that same change was made on page 140 

that does .that. 

On page 145 there is the -- the nurr~er 10 

needs to be deleted to be consistent with the R 

& D provision that we just talked about. 

And number 11 needs to be renumbered to 

number 10. 

Also, in the section regarding minor 

modifications there were -- in these kinds of 

changes there were some changes that needed to 
( 

1 

• 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85 

be consistent with EPA requirements for Title V 

sources. 

\ve have some changes later on that go 

hand in hand with the changes that we made in 

that two-part system that we already talked 

about. 

There's some clarifications or taking 

language out that couldn't possibly to a source 

in this permit program. 

Again, some of these changes regarding 

the two-step process. 

And then in H, we have provisions for 

sources who have not yet received the Title V 

permit or Part 70 permit. That's 10.5(h). 

So, these are provisions that allow some 

actually, even address what a source -- we 

talked about being able to -- recognizing that 

people were going to have permits that had 

changes to be made under your -'- starting with 

the fact that you have a permit. 

We've got about two and a half years 

before we get all the Title V permits issued, 

so we needed some provisions that would allow 

people to make changes prior to getting their 

Title V permit. 
;'' : 

 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

So, those are the -- inserted in page 

149. 

Page 151, we've made some changes. 

Again, consistent with hew we've had to move 

some things arou.~d out of administrative 

amendments and up to some higher levels. 

On page 153 for minor modifications for 

currently, under the current FESOP rules and 

Title V rules, we provide for public notice of 

minor mods even though the source is approved 

to operate under that application. 

And it's just a matter of EPA objecting 

to our decision under the Title V process. 

So -- and we've been public-noticing 

minor mods and FESOP. Again, this same thing, 

a source applies, they qualify for a minor 

modification, they can operate under that 

modification. 

And we've been. spending a lot of time 

public-noticing those types of changes that 

aren't required under the federal rules. 

~~d we haven't been getting any comments 

on it anyway. So, we have deleted the 

requirement for public notice of a chw~ge 

that's already been implemented under the minor 
'J 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

mod. 

Again, these minor mods once they become 

effective are subject to the AOPA requirements 

which requires that we notify the individuals 

directly in their homes of a change that 

happens at a modified source. 

There's some rule cite changes and 

statute changes. 

There's some requirements that for the 

most part are carried over in other 

requirements. 

Some of these extraneous -- or not 

extraneous. They're footnotes that we forgot 

to include that tells people where to get 

copies of the Code of Federal Regulations on 

177 and 178. 

And then there's another place where we 

need to delete the permitting requirements for 

these R & D facilities. That's on page 178. 

Number 17 is one of those things that can 

just be taken out of this provision because 

it's taken care of elsewhere. ~>d, again, it 

has to do with being allowed to make small 

changes at research and development facilities 

for existing sources. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14. 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

Page 179 starts with FESOP, and pretty 

much all of these changes are either similar to 

what we just -- they're all similar to what we 

just went through with Title V. 

So, they're either the same or they're at 

a lower level of approval because there's more 

flexibility in the FESOP program than there is 

with the Title V program. 

So, all of these changes we have already 

went through. 

On page 191 -- this regards wood-working 

operations which is a pretty important 

industry, especially in the southern part of 

the state. 

But there's also wood-working operations 

all around the state. 

For those that are well-controlled with 

baghouses, we had provided a source specific 

operating agreement that provided for a lot of 

operational flexibility. 

But EPA had some problems approving that, 

and there are some problems with the existing 

subsection B. 

So, we've included subsections C and D 

that provide better limitations of potential to 
(( 

89 

1 emit and ha, ... e tv-10 different cut-offs for two 

2 different size baghauses. 

., 

~ The content is similar to what v-vas in the 

4 existing rule and what you had included in your 

5 proposed rule. 

6 This has more detail in more detail 

7 that we think will address EPA's concerns 

8 regarding potential to emit. 

9 So, as we work with them on their 

10 problems with the source specific operating 

11 agreement -- and the fact that there's a lot of 

12 

( changes that occur at these wood-working 

13 operations that would otherwise -- could 

14 otherwise need to be -- go through a permit 

15 process that has not much impact on the 

16 environment, we've provided a much more 

17 detailed -- requirements that are, again, to 

18 limit potential to emit. 

19 So, those have been added in pages 191 

20 through 193. 

_,, 

~~ 

22 JOHN BACONE: 

23 Paul, when the wood-working industry saw 

24 these, did they have any changes? 

25 
90 

1 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

2 No. We ~·Jorked with them before we put 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

them together, so we had ~- we had worked 

pretty closely with -- we worked real closely 

with the major wood-working people in the 

·state. 

8 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

9 They're aware of this? This has a double 

10 underline, which you --

11 

12 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Right. Because we've been working with 

them since you proposed the rule to get 

something -- again, this is similar, very 

similar in concept to B, but has the -- the 

main thing it has is that there's more specific 

requirements for them. 

And this actually is similar to what 

we're putting in permits now anyway to limit 

potentials to emit for the FESOP sources that 

re~Jires them to check the baghouse 

periodically and make sure it's operating 

properly, fix it if it's not, and has some 

additional provisions regarding how-; they do 
,. i 

91 

1 what we call visible observations which means 

...,._._- 2 look at the baghouse exhaust and if it looks 

3 dif£erent than it normally does for more th~" 

4 six minutes, then that's another indication 

5 that you need to make a change. 

6 So, there's more detailed requirements 

'7 

' for making sure that the baghouse is operating 

8 properly that we included. 

9 And we've worked with the wood-working 

10 industry. We've worked with them like we did 

11 the FESOPs and established this level of 

12 compliant =nitoring with wood-working 

13 baghouses. 

14 And we think it serves well to make sure 

15 that those types of baghouses are, in fact, 

16 small sources of emissions. 

17 

18 JANET McCABE: 

19 Paul, there's a word left out in 

20 subsection F, subdivision 3. After the words 

21 "sixty-five" and before the numeral, the word 

22 11 thousand" should be included.· 

23 

24 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

. r 25 

\ 

Is that on page 194? 
92 

1 JJL~ET HcCABE: 

2 

3 

Page 194, at tha top of the page. 

4 TOM fu~DERSON: 

5 What was the chw~ge, Jaa·1et? 

6 

7 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

It's at the top of 194 under F-3. Right 

under the 3 we left out the word 11 thousand. 11 

So, we say sixty-five and then parenthetically 

we say sixty-five thousand. 

One of the things on page 197 -- one of 

the things.I forgot to mention in the overview 

was greater use of the general permits. 

So, a general permit is just a permit 

that we find out that we issue over and over 

again to similar type of sources. The only 

thing that's changed is the name of the 

permittee. 

\ve think that by developing a general 

permit program will still allow us to issue an 

environmentally solli~d permits, but the process 

is much shorter to allow us to issue them, 

cover people legally, but allows them to make 

changes quickly. 
93 

You had already proposed that. We 

clarified the applicability that the rule does 

not apply to permit issued lli~der 2-7 and 2-8, 

Roger? 

ROGER LETTERMAN: 

Yes, 2-7 and 2-8 both. 

PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

So, the general permit provisions are 

already contained in 2-7 and 2-8, and those 

provisions are what apply to them. 

This is for people that those provisions 

are not already in the rules that you adopted, 

or that you proposed. 

There's some clarifications to the 

applicability to interim operating permits. 

And clarifying of cites. And the other 

parts were similar provisions. 

Again, including cites in 6.9 and the 

FESOP rule and the Title V rule on page 202. 

Here is one of those places on page 202 

where we have included that the commissioner's 

decision is effective immediately. 

Then there's some more language on page 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

204 regarding portable sources. 

And we've added this. We had a problem 

with FESOPs that we issued types,of sources 

that do routinely move, like asphalt plants and 

concrete batch plants. 

And we needed to clarify that, one, you 

can't operate two plants that are covered by 

two minor sources at the same location. 

If an asphalt company owns the property, 

has a plant there that's covered by a FESOP 

limited to 99 tons, they can't bring in another 

one of those plants that are limited to 99 tons 

under its own FE,SOP and put it on their same 

property. 

Because now you've got one source that 

has a potential to emit over a hundred tons, 

and that's illegal. 

So, what we've added here is language 

about alternative operating scenario that 

allows for us to write into FESOP perhaps 

asphalt plants are just real good examples --

that ~, asphalt company could have us write 

their FESOP that contemplates alternative 

operating scenarios that on my property I may 

operate one plant ,that's limited to a hundred 
( 

·.I, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

tons, or less than a h1h,dred tons, and I might 

operate two plants. 

1 1 11 have conditions written in these 

permits so that when I put them together, I 

know they're under a hundred tens. 

And so, we've included some l~~guage that 

clarifies that you don't have to go up to a 

higher level if we've got your original permits 

written so that you're still a minor source 

when we put you together. 

So, ·;~e 've added this l~~guage regarding 

being able to address this in advance by 

writing alternative operative scenarios in the 

permit. 

Both the FESOP rules and the Title V 

rules have always included provisions to use 

alternative operating scenarios. 

And as we've worked with the Asphalt 

Paving Association and the Mineral Aggregate 

Association, we felt that if we did more work 

with them on writing alternative operating 

scenarios into their permits that they'd have 

the ability to move them around like they did 

prior to Title v. 

And we needed to provide -- provide for 
( ,., ___ 96 

, 

• that these rtlles here in subsection 3-B. 

') 

~ And then there's a correction to an 

3 internal cite, and that pretty much covers the 

4 changes. 

5 

6 CHAIRMA,.,.,- JOHN WALKER: 

7 Thank you. 

8 

9 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

10 You're welcome. 

11- -

12 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

Are there any questions from the board? 

15 JEFF BOWE: 

16 Would you like to entertain those 

17 ~~endments that Paul suggested now or later? 

18 

19 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

!0 I have some gentlemen waiting from the 

public to make comments. I'd like to get them 

2 on. Maybe we can do it all at once. 

3 Comments will be given approximately five 

4 minutes to provide testimony. 

At this time I would like to call Mr. 
97 

Jeffery from IMA. 

BLAKE JEFFERY: 

Thank you,. Mr. Chairman. I'm Blake 

Jeffery. I'm the director of environmental 

affairs for the Indiana Manufacturers 

Association. 

I hw"ded the chairman comments to be 

submitted for the record and request to be 

submitted in the record on behalf of the 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association. 

Gerry Hays, unfortunately, had to go to 

. ! Europe for a few weeks so he could not be here 

tonight. 

On behalf of the American Automobile 

Manufacturers Association, we just want to 

acknowledge the effort of the staff to revise 

the complex and lengthy rule and the fact that 

they've worked with all interested parties to 

get this far. 

We do support the options of the rule 

today. We L~ink there are a lot of good points 

to emission cap permits. We think it's 

beneficial to a lot of existing plants to 

construct and modify equipment without delay 
----.--

98 

and without impact en air quality and ~Jill 

combine the more streamlined permit system fer 

Title V sources, plus provides clarification 

requirements for construction and operations of 

the plant. 

I think that we all understand that we de 

learn from experience, however, and rules based 

upon prior experience. 

I think we're going to learn a lot about 

how to streamline and continue to move this 

process for~ard for the next couple of years. 

So, we would like to see this rule come 

back before the board in a year or two as we 

have learned some things and we can make better 

changes in the process. 

With that as the only caveat, we do 

support the rule today and we appreciate the 

effort on everyone's part to get us to this 

point. 

Thank you. 

CHAIID-1AN JOHN WALKER: 

Thank you. We'll now have Mr. Bernie 

Paul from Eli Lilly and Company. 

! 

/ 
1 

2 

3 

4 

!j 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

99 

BERNIE PAUL: 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. r•m Bernie Paul 

from Eli Lillye 

My background is-- I'm one of the 

airheads at Lilly. I spend a lot of time 

looking at these regulations. 

And on behalf of Lilly I'd like to 

support your final adoption of these rules 

tonight. 

Lilly is a company that has to make a lot 

of changes quickly. We are -- the 

pharmaceutical industry is characterized by a 

lot of change. Most of you have heard me say 

that before. 

We operate mostly in small flexible 

equipment. So, the rule changes that are being 

proposed tonight have a lot of benefit for 

operations like ours, so we are here to support 

them. 

Before I get any further into my 

testimony, I would like to recognize the 

tremendous effort of the staff that has pulled 

together to bring this rule before you. 

It's one of the most complex aspects of 

the Clew' Air Act, and I think you have 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

recognized how complex that can be. 

But Paul, Roger and the others have 

really worked hard to pull this rule together. 

And I think they -- as Felicia mentioned 

earlier, I think they need to be recognized for 

their effort. 

We strongly support the emission cap and 

advance approval provisions that are in this 

rule. 

Emissions cap is one of the things that 

the Agency has put in this rule that 

demonstrates its ability to provide flexibility 

to companies without harming air quality. 

This innovative type of permit allows 

compw,ies to make changes without having to go 

through some sort of prior review as long as 

their emissions stay below a set level, a cap, 

if you will. 

And this will be very helpful to 

companies like Lilly. We've been engaged in 

disc-u.ssions with the Agency about these types 

of permits for several years. And they're 

being tried out in other states, and we think 

they will be very helpful for the Indiana 

companies as wella 
( 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

We also believe that the provisions for 

the small sources and the FESOP sources are a 

great improvement over the current system for a 

couple of reasons. 

One, because they streamline the 

processes for those folks and they utilize the 

combined construction and operating permit 

review system. 

We think that will be very helpful to the 

small sources who may not have the resources to 

understand permitting as well as some of the 

folks in the larger sources. 

We generally support the Title V 

provision, but with some reservations. 

These provisions have been ·Subject to 

these provisions have been the ones subject in 

this rule-making where it has been 

exceptionally difficult to find opportunities 

to simplify and streamline the progrm~. 

And most of that has been mentioned 

earlier because of constraints imposed by 

federal construction permits and federal 

operating permits and the fact that there has 

been a good job of trying to do the best they 

can to find opportunities to simplify and 
;' ( 102 

1 streamline. 

2 And that's why we support the rule. 

., 

~ But I do want to note that many of the 

4 important provisions as they affect the Title V 

5 sources have been worked out after preliminary 

6 adoption by this board. 

7 And a lot of the language before you 

8 tonight c&~e even after a version of the .rule 

9 was published in the Indi&,a Register a couple 

10 months ago. 

11 The rest of the rule went through a lot 

12 of discussion with an external work group. And 

13 I've mentioned before in these meetings that we 

14 thir~ the external work group provides a lot of 

11': 

~~ opportunity for people to fully flesh out the 

16 issues. 

17 Unfortunately, the Title V provisions did 

18 not go through that process. 

19 We think as complex as they are, as 

20 difficult as they are, they would have 

21 benefitted greatly form that type of process. 

22 As a result, I want to say we still 

23 support the rule, but we would seek a 

24 co~~itment from the board &,d the Agency to 

25 continually monitor the effectiveness of this 
/ 

!. \ 103 

1 rule as it's being implemented. 

2 And at some point if we can identify more 

., 

~ opportunities to simplify or streamline the 

4 Title V provisions, we think it would be 

5 appropriate for the board to bring this up 

6 again at a later date. 

7 This may be especially true once and for 

8 all EPA finishes some rule provisions that 

9 they're doing to both the Title V and their 

10 construction permit rule. 

11 So, this isn't -- I don't want people to 

12 think that this is the end of the chapter for 

13 this rule because I think, as Mr. Jeffery 

14 mentioned earlier, it will probably be 

15 appropriate in a year or two once the federal 

16 rule provisions are done and once we've had 

17 some experience in implementing this new 

18 program to go back ~~d make the fine-tuning 

19 improvements on it. 

20 With that, I'll answer any questions the 

21 folks may have. 

22 

23 CHAIR11A..'I JOH.'l" \vALKER: 

24 Any questions from the board? 

25 (No response.) 
• 

104 

1 We- have one other co~~ent. Mr. Bruce 

2 Carter, please come forward. 

3 Ex·cuse me, are you the president of 

4 

5 BRUCE CARTER: 

6 I'm president of Bruce Carter Associates. 

7 It's a consulting firm. Let me clarify. 

8 This is the first time I've had a chance 

9 to speak to the board. Thank you, Mr. Chairman 

10 and board members who are giving me a chance. 

11 I also want to comment on the tenacity 

12 and dedication of the staff of IDEM. Paul 

13 Dubenetzky and Roger Letterman have been great 

14 helps as we began to put these rules together. 

15 And as you can tell, it's very complex. 

16 I'm here really to support the rule as a 

17 whole and encourage you to adopt the rJle. 

18 But specifically, I'd like to highlight 

19 one provision. It's already been mentioned, 

20 but I want to throw my two cents in, too. 

21 The source-wide cap program is a very 

22 effective tool for streamlining. 

23 I represent over a hundred industries 

24 the Indiana area, most of them smaller 

25 industries. This will be a very, very 
105 

effective tool for small, dyn~T<ic, growing 

companies to make changes under a source-wide 

cap without having any detrimental 

environmental impact. 

The rule is adapted and patterned after 

the federal new source rule modifications that 

address plant-wide applicability limits ~~d 

source-wide caps. 

I just want to make note that that 

project, that rule-making, is in progress as we 

speak. 

So, as that rule-making comes down from 

the federal government, we may see some 

additional provisions that we can adopt and 

incorporate into these r~les. 

So, there may be a time we'll be coming 

back to you,and asking for ch~~ges to make it 

more consistent and more effective. 

Source-wide caps are being used at 

various states around the country, and the 

source-wide caps have found to be very 

effective. 

So, I not only speak for -- I'd just like 

to speak on behalf of my clients and encourage 

your adoption of the rules. 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

106 

Thank you. 

-~. 

CHAIR."!AN JOHN i'iALKER: 

Thank you very much. 

The board will now here from Charlotte J. 

Read. 

8 CHARLOTTE READ: 

9 Thank you. Assista."'"lt director of the 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

Save the Dunes Council. 

Looking through what we've gone through 

tonight and my attempts to read a couple of 

earlier versions of the r~le, it's a very 

complex -- and I guess my first question to the 

board is, is this logical outgrowth, or is this 

just amending and changing right up to the, 

literally the 9th hour and 22nd minute? 

I also have a question on the status of 

part 70 EPA program approval. 

I am concerned about the impact of the 

audit privilege debate going on between EPA and 

IDEM when we' re talking about cha."'"lges, and we 

like to hear from the staff whether this has an 

impact. 

Am I going to know what these cha."'"lges 
, I 1,;1 

107 

1 are? If somebody has gone through the kind of 

2 analysis of part 70 permits, Title V permits 

3 should require and they have sources that they 

4 haven't disclosed and I might think that they 

~ " are not good for the public health and the 

6 environment. 

.., 

' Paul Dubenetzky, at my urging, did come 

8 up to Northwest Indiana in April, and there was 

9 some sort of a -- hardly an external work 

10 group . I mean, •~e ' re so external to 

11 Indianapolis that we had very little 

12 opportunity virtually no opportunity -- to 

13 participate in what is admittedly an extremely 

14 complex set of revisions to allow the permit 

15 rule. 

16 The one thing that Paul did here for some 

17 of the citizens was a concern about 

18 registrations. 

19 We had a couple of impacts of 

20 registrations that have been cr~llenged. The 

21 Agency dilli~'t think they were a big deal. The 

22 people that were affected by the registration 

23 approval, after they found out about it, were 

24 concerned. 

25 &~d having read through and trying to 
('! 108 

1 

~ fell~# the changes tonight, frankly I am in 

2 absolutely and total confusion as to whether 

., 

~ there ia public notice for registrations, when 

A 

~ it occurs, when it doesn't occur. 

5 If you just glance through the sections 

6 that refer to registrations, it says in some 

7 places yes, registrations will require public 

8 notice; and in other places, it doesn't. 

9 I'm totally confused and I'm concerned. 

10 I also do object to the fact that the 

11 change that has been deleted, the revision to 

12 make registrations last only for five years 

13 put a limit on registrations for five years 

14 that will be replaced by an annual report. 

15 I don't think that's wise permitting. I 

16 would urge the board to ask the staff or work 

17 with the staff on how much rules like this --

18 or if you will look at the external work group 

19 participants, they're pretty much big 

20 industries, consultants and trade associations. 

21 Doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong; 

22 doesn't necessarily mean it's right. 

23 And the people who will bear -- who will 

24 have to live with these caps and changes and 

25 flexibility are not being represented in the 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

109 

rule-making. 

We are still waiting up here for the big 

Title V permits to be issued, and the public 

participation that was promised way back four 

or five years ago when there was a work group 

just on the part 70 rules that Indiana was 

developing. 

Now, you' re amending them. We ha·•en' t 

had much information as far as I am concerned 

about Title v, especially Title V and FESQP. 

They're complex. They are given 

opportunity for flexibility. But as Paul said, 

this is a balance between public participation 

and operational flexibility. 

1 think there's a lot of operational 

flexibility, and the people who want it have 

had an opportunity to participate in the r~lemaking. 

The people that might be concerned about 

participation have not been represented. 

I urge you to do a better job. I 

certainly would urge that you look at this rule 

with all of us. 

And those of us who can make it do~~ to 

Indianapolis to see how this rule is actually 
110 

1 functioning, whether the public is being 

2 benefitted by the flexibility or if we are 

3 being cut out of the process and suffering from 

4 flexibility that shouldn't be allowed, 

5 especially when we don't fu~ow about it in many 

6 cases. 

7 So, I don't object. I can't support, but 

8 you have heard certainly heartfelt concerns. 

9 

10 CHAIRMAN JOlL~ WALKER: 

11 Thank you, Charlotte. 

12 

13 CHARLOTTE READ: 

14 And I would urge you to table the rule. 

15 

16 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

17 Is there anyone else who would like to 

18 testify on the proposal? 

19 

20 GEORGE EWING: 

21 May I ask a question? 

22 

23 CHAI&~l JOHN WALKER: 

24 Sure. 

25 
.( 111 

, 

• GE-ORGE EWING: 

~ ~ How would you like to participate in this 

, 

~ rule-making? 

4 

~ " CHARLOTTE READ: 

6 At least have I mean, we presented --

'7 

' 

8 GEORGE EWING: 

9 Would you go to the microphone? I have a 

10 hard time hearing you. 

11 

12 CHARLOTTE READ: 

13 At least probably in the course of -- I 

14 don't know how often the external work group 

15 met. If you were meeting over a year -- I 

16 would expect at least once a month -- maybe one 

17 or two of thosa ~eetings. 

18 The implications of these changes for, 

19 you know -- we have heard that it will maybe 

20 simplify the process. Simplification isn't 

21 always bad. 

22 But simplification to benefit the 

23 process, the polluters or the public? I don't 

24 knew. 

25 I c~~·t tell from these rules. 
... 

I I 112 

1 ... ~ So, I would hope at least may!e one out 

., 

~ of every four or five external work group 

., 

~ meetingso In some way, whether it's video4 conferencing or as the Water Board is now doing 

5 with the triennial review -- Office of Water 

6 Management. 

7 Providing at least some travel assistance 

8 to people willing to come down and struggle 

9 through that stuff. 

10 Title V is not new. I spent a lot of 

11 time about four or five years ago lli~til going 

12 down to Indianapolis was just too much . 

. I 

13 By the way, I did.forget to thank you for 

14 coming up here. I am pleased that I didn't 

15 have to drive 350 miles round-trip to talk to 

16 you. And I think -- please do come up again. 

17 But remember, the public participation 

18 process is very, very important. I think 

19 you' 11 end up with better rules because 

20 theoretically the rules are here to protect the 

21 public health and the environment and not just 

22 to provide flexibility and streamlining fer 

23 those people who do apply for the permits. 

24 

25 GEORGE EWING: 
. ( 

113 

1 In a recent rule-making there was a 

2 change to which you did participate? 

3 

4 CHARLOTTE READ: 

5 Yes. 

6 

.., 

' GEORGE EWING: 

8 All right. 

9 

10 CHARLOTTE READ: 

11 That was a much simpler rule and one that 

12 the Council -- Save the Dunes Council -- had 

13 urged the board and urged the Department to do 

14 -- the sinter plant rules which were signed 

15 yesterday. 

16 We tracked that for about four years. 

17 Compared to this, that was a piece of cake. 

18 And it was a one-time process, one-time 

19 pollutant. It's right here and we see -- we 

20 see the object of the rules every day as we 

21 drive through Northwest Indiana. You probably 

22 saw it today when you drove up for your visit. 

23 That was relatively easy. 

24 It was a big commitment on the part of my 

25 organization, and I think when the rules 
114 

1 finally went to the board, I think I had been 

2 either on conference call or in Indianapolis 

3 three times in one month because it was so 

4 important, benefits. 

5 While not the perfect rule that we would 

6 have wanted, it's still improvement. We made 

7 the commitment, and we'd like to do that 

8 wherever possible. 

9 But this is a hundred more magnitude more 

10 complex than the sinter plant rule, but we'll 

11 give it a try. 

12 

13 CHAI&~~ JOHN WALKER: 

14 I'll recognize Tom and then Jeff. 

15 

16 TOM ANDERSON: 

17 The question of the public meeting when 

18 Paul came up, I don't know, a couple of months 

19 ago, eight weeks ago, something like that? 

21 CHARLOTTE READ: 

22 Which we appreciate. 

23 

24 TOM ANDERSON: 

25 The language that was discussed was --
(( 115 

1 which version was it? 

2 In other words, had the public had an 

3 opport~,ity to -- my question is probably to 

4 Paul. 

5 Has the public had aqy opportunity to 

6 re£lect on the language that apparently was 

7 worked on? 

8 

9 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

10 The history o£ the external work group is 

11 -- we invited a lot o£ people to those 

12 meetings. It was a broad --

13 

14 CHARLOTTE READ: 

15 I probably was invited. 

16 

17 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

18 I understand that. 

19 And so in April -- we came up in April, 

20 we came up with the version of the rule that 

21 the Air Board had provided, that was the 

22 version we came up with in April and were 

23 prepared to discuss. 

24 I'm sorry-- were prepared to discuss and 

~~ ~v 

. I 

to lay the framework, perhaps, for some of the 
I 

116 

~ ' changes that have grown out of that~ 

2 At that meeting, I think we mainly had 

., 

~ people there that ha~~·t been engaged before, 

4 and it was difficult, I'd have to say, to jump 

" ~ right in where Roger and I were, for instance. 

6 But we did come up. 

7 We had also had a meeting later that 

a evening where we tried to, at a more 

9 fundamental level, explain what air permitting 

10 is about. 

11 In fact, we had, as Charlotte mentioned 

12 -- I woul~~·t say the DeparL~ent thought it 

13 wasn't a big deal -- but one of these 

14 registrations that had gotten a lot of 

15 attention. 

16 But I came up to two public meetings up 

17 here and had another meeting down in 

18 Indianapolis to address those concerns. 

19 We invited those people to our Northwest 

20 Indiana meeting, both the one in the morning 

21 where we discussed the rule and also that 

22 evening we held kind of a workshop where we're 

23 trying to get better in our outreach efforts 

24 and explain what permits are about and aim it 

25 at tr£ general public. 
: I 117 

1 

~ It 1 s been difficult -- it's been 

2 difficult for us to get -- even the 

3 enviroTh~ental and general public people ~~ow in 

4 Indianapolis -- to get engaged in this rule5 making and come to the meetings, so we have 

6 been inviting them. 

7 We've be~~ inviting a number of people 

8 that have participated in environmental rule9 making in Central Indiana to come to the 

10 meetings as well as people all around the 

11 state. 

12 I appreciate -- we all appreciate today 

13 probably, you know, the difficulty of travel, 

14 but we have been inviting them and trying to 

15 get interest. 

16 We've gotten very little in the -- I 

17 don't believe we've gotten WiY written comments 

18 from the general public types on this rule. 

19 So, we believe -- the Department's been 

20 trying to we've got the formal process 

21 established by statute with all the Indiana 

22 Register notices and that sort of thing. 

23 We've been using this informal process of 

24 work groups including coming up to Northwest 

25 Indiana -- less than one out of four times, but 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

118 

we did come up. 

And it always has been difficult to --

I've got lots of experience with people who are 

interested in permit decisions, individual 

permit decisions that they can see and feel. 

It's been difficult to get the general 

public engaged in rule-making. That's a lot of 

work and fairly complex. 

We think that -- again, one of the things 

that we were looking at as a department and 

holding the line on was that emission increases 

-- real emission increases are still going to 

require permits and require public notice. 

And so, if it's -- the caps and that sort 

of thing work for sources who have a lot of 

dynamic change and things they have to do. 

But as far as becoming bigger and bigger 

emitting facilities, then that's not what the 

caps are about for the most part, but the 

flexibility provided in the permits are not to 

both the small sources and the large source. 

To get there, you generally need some 

kind of permit that includes the full public 

process and the ability for people to comment, 

the ability to ask them to come to their 
( ( 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

( 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

~~--· 

119 

neighborhood to talk about the permit, which we 

do. 

So, this rule has been hard. Tomorrow is 

my 25th anniversary of working in this field, 

and it's a very difficult subject and I 

appreciate that it's hard for the general 

public to sort of get interested and to get 

engaged in it. 

But we've been working real hard. We've 

been working with the people that have --

anybody that's interested, we've been working 

with. 

That's about all I have to say about the 

public process. 

JEFF BOWE: 

On that same issue, this facility here 

which is beautiful, by the way -- are there 

facilities equipped for tele-conferencing or 

video-conferencing for meetings like this? 

CHARLOTTE READ: 

It's been suggested by-- as one way to 

do it. But I don't know where the facilities 

are. The one at the university might have, but 
120 

1 that wouldn't step some of the problaTAs. 

2 But a plain English description of PTE? 

3 

4 PAUL DUBENETZKY: 

5 One thing I will mention about these 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

rules is that I've got to go back and work 

with my staff to understand all the rules. 

So, the sixty people in my office have to 

learn how to implement these rules over the 

next three or four months. 

And we intend to be putting together 

workshops and, again, for any kind o£ 

interested party. I'll be glad to work with 

Charlotte i£ we get engaged on 

I know that I'm going to need to be going 

out a.."J.d have people go out either from my group 

or from the office of voluntary -- or the 

Office of Tech."lical Assistance or one of the 

other offices that I work with on all these 

activities to put on workshops both for the 

regulating community and -- again, we go out to 

the general public and try to provide more in 

the way of plain English type descriptions of 

what this rule is about and what permits are 

about. 
121 

1 And that's the role of everybody that's 

2 engaged in the process the applicant and the 

., 

~ general public and the Agency, to try to 

4 supplement the rules so that people can 

5 understand it again. 

6 My process works best when the applic~~ts 

7 understand what comes out of it. And working 

8 with the public works better when the public 

9 understands what it's about --what the process 

10 is about. 

11 And I intend to try to get better and 

12 better at doing it. I think we are better at 

13 doing that, both from the regulating commu.~ity 

14 and the public side in the air program than we 

15 were five years ago. 

16 And we continue to want to improve and if 

17 we get people more and more understanding 

18 permits and engaged in it. You know, if 

19 there's a problem that they want us to solve 

20 with a permitting rule, whether it's the public 

21 or the regulating comm~~ity, they'll be better 

22 able to come for~ard and talk to us about what 

23 that is. 

24 There's federal rule-making that's been 

25 stalled for two or three years that's out 

'1. 
i 

1 

• 

2 

3 

A 

7 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

..,, 

~~ 

22 

..,., 

~~ 

24 

25 

122 

there. Any day, any day it's going to come . 

It's one of the reasons why we need an 

extension to the rule and the deadline for you 

guys adopting this rule was waiting for the 

feds to move so that we could make our-move 

consistent with them. 

That hasn't happened, so we've gone 

ahead. It will happen and when it does happen, 

we will have to come back. And we'll be coming 

back to change -- to change our rules. 

And hopefully, we'll be at a better place 

in working with the public when we do that and 

do things -- again, finding ways to improve. 

The formal process isn't real good for 

the general public. So, finding ways to 

improve the informal process, we'll go out and 

work with people and hopefully better address 

Charlotte's concerns. 

CHAIRMAN JOHN lvALKER: 

ThanK you . 

JEFF BOWE: 

I'm not sure my meeting question got 

~~swered. I would like to suggest that the 
( 123 

1 Agency actively look into a permanent video-

~ 

~ ccnferencing solution. Certainly, driving up 

~ 

~ here and showing all of this is a burden for 

4 the citizens. 

5 To make the meetings in Indianapolis, I 

6 think, would be a good move on the Department's 

~ 

I part to set up a permanent, not just for the 

8 area's issues but for the other issues as well. 

9 

10 ~~~LOTTE READ: 

11 You've got $2 million, enough money to 

12 build a conference room. It would certainly 

13 solve one problem which is the distance. 

14 Thank you. 

15 

16 CHAIRtUL~ JOHN WALKER: 

17 Okay. There being no other testimony, 

18 back to you. 

19 Jeff, you had proposed that we act on 

20 Dubenetzky's amendment, or ch~~ges? 

21 

22 JEFF BOWE: 

23 I was going to go ahead and bring the 

24 ~~endments -- I COlli~ted four. I think four 

25 amendments that Paul was recommending for the R 
I ( 124 

1 & D facilities. 

'1 

~ I have them marked as page 12, 92, 145 

3 and 178. 

4 

5 JA.~ET McCABE: 

6 Two additional changes that are 

7 recommended on pages 13 and 194? 

8 

9 JEFF BOWE: 

10 That is correct. On page 13. 

11 

12 CHAI&~ JOHN WALKER: 

13 Tom, did you get all of those changes? 

14 

15 JEFF BmvE: 

16 The one on 194 doesn't actually fall 

17 under the R & D, I don't believe, Jor~. I 

18 would be happy to include that in my amendment 

19 if that would speed the process along. 

20 

21 CHAIRMAN' JOHN WALKER: 

22 Do we need a motion for that? 

23 

24 JA.~ET McCABE: 

25 I think the board can make a motion to 

: 
I 

125 

1 adopt all of the amendments tonight,· the ones 

2 that are written and the additional ones. 

., 

~ 

4 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

5 Okay. Do you ww,t to make that motion to 

6 adopt the amendments that were written and the 

7 ones that were presented to the board tonight 

8 on the final adoption of amendments to 326 lAC 

9 

10 

11 JEFF BOWE: 

12 I'll move that. 

13 

14 STEVE ROGERS: 

15 Second. 

16 

17 CHAIR."1AN JOHN WALKER: 

18 All those in favor say aye. 

19 (Response. ) 

20 

21 CHAIR.'11l.N JOHN WALKER: 

22 All those opposed? 

23 (Response.) 

24 

25 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 
/I 

126 

1 The ayes have it. 

2 The board moves to final adoption of 

3 amendments to 326 IAC 1 and 326 IAC 2. 

4 I'd like a motion now to final adopt the 

5 rule as amended. 

6 

7 JEFF BOWE: 

8 I have a couple of unclear questions 

9 still. 

10 Charlotte asked a question about 

11 registrations actually --

12 

13 CHARLOTTE READ: 

14 It's just not clear. I would appreciate 

15 and I don't want to hold you up any more --

16 if somebody in the next thirty days could write 

17 a summary of this is when you get it, this is 

18 when you don't. 

19 That would satisfy me until the next time 

·"""""'- 20 we --

21 

22 TOM ANDERSON: 

23 Beyond the standpoint as a board member, 

. ' 

24 I have no idea right now. We've gone for two 

25 and a half hours, close to three hours now, and 
I 

. I 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

I have really no idea what's in this rule, 

which is why I had to vote against the 

amendment. 

127 

Obviously, it's a very difficult -- a 

very complex rule. We've had a ton of changes 

at the last minute. 

I don't think anyone in this room could 

tell right now whether -- what's a public 

notice. 

I think this is depriving the public of 

notice somewhere. I'm not clear what's being 

deprived. 

But clearly, I've heard a couple of 

explanations of public notice. 

As a representative of the environmental 

community, I object to reducing the 

availability of the public to know what's going 

on. 

Paul mentioned specifically a couple of 

registrations for patrolling coke being burned 

in the utility boilers and manufactured gas byproducts as being burned in the utility boiler 

as registrations. 

That meant a lot of outrage over being, 

in effect, notified after the fact. And that 
( 128 

1 

~ there's a difficulty. 

2 And I know some of these things are minor 

3 registrations, but at the same time some of 

4 these are maybe not for minor registrations. 

5 The public is being deprived. So, until 

6 I have ·a better understanding, I can't, you 

7 know, just can't support the r~le. 

8 Thank you. 

9 

10 CHAI~~ JOHN WALKER: 

11 Any other discussion or conunent? 

12 

13 HOWARD CUNDIFF: . 

14 Do we know for a fact that all of the --

15 there have been a lot of deletions and 

16 additions. I'm just worried that with·a lot of 

17 these deletions and additions there may be 

18 something screwed up in one part. 

19 So, would it be proper to, when we do go 

20 for a vote, have opportunity for editorial 

21 changes that may result from that? Would there 

22 be a need for that, or are we sure that 

23 everything's been taken care of? 

24 

25 JANET McCABE: 

I 

c 
I 129 

1 

~ There is a process of correcting cbvious 

2 errors, t}pographical errors, through fu~ errata 

., 

~ process that will be eA~lained to you. Those 

4 would be corrected that way. 

5 

6 CHAIRMAN JOHN '-IALKER: 

7 Okay. No other discussion? 

8 Is there a motion to final adopt the rule 

9 as amended? 

10 

11 HOt-lARD CUNDIFF: 

12 So moved. 

13 

14 CHAIP~ JOHN WALKER: 

15 Second? 

16 

17 RANDY STANLEY: 

18 Second. 

19 

20 CHAIRMAJi JOHN WALKER: 

21 We'll now have roll call. I'll poll the 

22 board. 

23 Mr. Anderson'? 

24 

25 TOM ANDERSON: 
130 

No. 

2 

3 CHAIRt'iAl'i JOHN ~·lALKER: 

4 Mr. Bacone? 

5 

6 JOHN BACONE: 

7 Yes .. 

8 

9 CHAIRMAN JOHN \llALKER: 

10 You said yes? 

11 

12 JOHN BACONE: 

13 Yes. 

14 

15 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

16 Mr. Bowe? 

17 

18 JEFF BOWE: 

19 Yes. 

20 

21 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

22 Mr. Cu...."'ldiff? 

23 

24 HOW&~ CUNDIFF: 

I 

25 Yes. 

'' 
131 

CHAI&~ JOHN WALY~R: 

2 .Mr. Ewing? 

3 

4 GEORGE EWING: 

5 No. 

6 

7 CP~IP~1 JO~~ WALKER: 

8 Mr. Ewing votes no. 

9 Mr . Harmon'? 

10 

11 MARLOW HARMON: 

12 Yes. 

13 

14 CHAIRMAN JOHN WALKER: 

15 Mr. Harmon votes yes. 

16 Mr. Rogers? 

17 

18 STEVE ROGERS: 

19 Yes. 

20 

21 CHAIP~'1AN JOHN \\TALKER: 

22 Mr. Rogers votes yes. 

23 Mr. Staley? 

24 

Rfu~DY STALEY: 
132 

' ~ Yes. 

2 

.., 

~ CHAI~~~~ JO~~ WALY~R: 

4 As a matter of record, we have six yeses, 

5 two noes. I'm not voting. 

" v The motion to final adopt the rule as 

7 ameilded passes. 

8 This is a public hearing regarding 

9 preliminary adoption of amendments to 326 IAC 

10 2, 326 IAC 6-1, 326 IAC 7-4, sulfur dioxide and 

11 particulate matter emissions at the D. H. 

12 Mitchell Generating Station in Lake County. 

13 This is a public hearing before the Air 

14 Pollution Control Board of the State of Indiana 

15 regarding preliminary adoption of amendments to 

16 326 IAC 2, 326 IAC 6-1, and 326 IAC 7-4, sulfur 

17 dioxide and particulate matter emissions at the 

18 D. H. Mitchell Generating Station in Lake 

19 Cou..'"lty. 

20 I will now introduce Exhibit 2. 

21 

22 JP...NET McCABE: 

23 It's here somewhere. 

24 

25 CHAIRMAN JOH:N WALKER: 

' .. 
( 

1 

,., 

<. 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 . I 

152 

STATE OF INDIANA ) 

) ss: 

PORTER COUNTY ) 

C E R T I F I C A T E 

I, Kay Dornburg, being a qualified and 

competent court reporter, and Notary PUblic in and 

for the County of Porter, State of Indiana, do 

hereby certify that heretofore, to-wit: on the 1st 

day of July, A.D. 1998, at the Northwest Indiana 

Regional Planning Commission, 6100 Southport Road, 

Portage, Indiana, a meeting of the Air Pollution 

Control Board of the State of Indiana was held. 

I further certify that the proceedings 

were reduced to writing by means of machine 

shorthand, and afterwards transcribed upon a 

computer, and that the foregoing is a true w~d 

correct transcript of the proceedings, as aforesaid. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREO~, I have hereunto 

my hand this :f9c day of ~~:;C 

A.D. 1998. I·,) .~ 

1\CC!f~~~ 

Kay Dornburg, 

Court Reporter and Notary Public 

set 

I 

/ 

American Automobile Manufacturers Association 

t'llihCHRYSLER 

W CORPORAnoN 1!!1 General Motors 

I 

.,RRY A. HAYS 

Regulatory Affairs Manager 

Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky 

July 1, 1998 

Mr. Paul Dubenetzky 

Chief, Air Permits Branch 

Office of Air Management 

Indiana Department of Environmental Management 

Indiana Government Center North, Room 1001 

1 00 North Senate A venue 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

Dear Mr. Dubenetzky: 

The American Automobile Manufacturers Association (AAMA), whose member 

companies are Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company and General Motors Corporation, is 

submitting the following comments regarding the Indiana Air Pollution Control Board's 

(APCB's) proposed final adoption of rules pertaining to Minor New Source Review on July 1, 

1998. We request that the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) include 

this letter in the official record at the July 1, 1998 hearing. 

P.J\MA appreciates the effort the Agency has put into the NSR package over the past 18 

months and, in particular, applauds Roger Letterman and his willingess to work with the 

regulated community on these difficult issues. We believe that some progress has been made in 

terms of streamlining the air construction permit process. We also believe the Agency should 

continue to find new and better ways to make it easier for sources to obtain an air construction 

permit. AAMA stands ready to work with the Agency on future modifications to the rule. 

AAMA' s primary concern with the rule is that a Title V source be able to operate prior to 

obtaining a Title V operating permit modification. Based on the existing rule language found in 

326 lAC 2-7-10.5, it is our understanding that a source will be able to operate newly constructed 

equipment if the change is a minor modification. However., some of the rule language seems 

inconsistent on this point. Therefore, AAMA recommends that the following language be added 

to 326 IAC 2-7-10.5: "For a source that has a final Part 70 permit and requested only a 

preconstruction approval, the source may begin operation in accordance with section 12 of 

HEIDQUARI£RS 

1401 H Street, H.W. Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20005 

202•326•5500 FAX 202•326•5567 

REGULITORY AFFAIRS OFFICE 

101 West Ohio Street, 20th Floor, Indianapolis, IN 46204 

ll1•684•688t FAX 317•684•6880 

1 
{ 

this rule." In addition, AAMA reconuuends that all other references fotmd in 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 

with respect to operation of a modification be amended to mirror this language for consistency. 

These changes will make it cieat that sources will be able to operate a minor modification once 

construction has been completed. 

Finally, because the rule is extremely complicated, AAMA strongly reco!nmends that 

IDEM develop guidance to help explain the rule to sources. Such guidance should include flow 

charts so that a source can clearly identifY which permit process applies for various types of 

modifications. 

AAMA appreciates the opportunity to conuuent on the proposed final adoption of the 

NSR rule. If you have any questions regarding any of the issues that are addressed herein, I can 

be reached at (317) 684-6881. 

Sincerely, 

Gerry Hays 

Regulatory Affairs Manager 

2 
( 

Proposed Rules 

Sec. 2. (a) The survey shall. at least every other calendar 

year, publish a roster showing the names and addresses of 

the licensed professional geologists. 

(b) Each licensed professional geologist is responsible for 

maintaining with the :mrvey a cun:ent mailing address. A 

notification made by the board under IC 25-17.6 and this 

article is complete if delivered to the address provided by the 

licensed professional geologist under this subsection. (Board of 

Cerriftcarion for Professional Geologiscs; 305 lAC 1-4-2) 

SECTION 2. SECTION 1 of this document takes effect 

January 1, 1999. 

Notice of Public Hearing 

Under 1C 4-22-2-24. nocice is hereby given char on June 26, 

1998 at 10:30 a.m., at che indiana Geological Survey, 6il 

North Walnuc Grove, Room S·20I, Bloomingcon, Indiana che 

Board of Certification for Professwnal Geologiscs will hold a 

public hearing on proposed new rules co govern cescing, 

certification, a code of conduce, and discipline of licensed 

professional geologiscs. Copies of these rules are now on file at 

the Indiana Geological Survey, 6il Nonh Walnuc Screec, 

Bloomingcon, indianaandLegislacive Services Agency, Indiana 

Govemmenc Cencer-South, 302 West Washing con Screec, Room 

EOII, Indianapolis, indiana and are open for public inspeccion. 

John R. Hill 

Assistant Director 

Board of Cenification for Professional Geologists 

TITLE 326 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

Proposed Rule 

LSA Document #98-95 

DIGEST 

references to new rule citations. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-4 

concerning woodworking operations. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-6, 

326 lAC 2-10-1. and 326 lAC 2-11·1 to update references to 

new rule cttations. Adds 326 lAC 2-12 concerning general 

pennits. Adds 326 lAC 2-13 concerning interim approvals: 

Adds 326 lAC 2-14 concerning ponab1e sources. Amends 326 

lAC 4-1-1 and 326 lAC 6-1-11.1 to update references to new 

rule citations. Repeals 326 lAC 2·1-1, 326 lAC 2-1-2, 326IAC 

2·1-3, 326 lAC 2-1-3.1, 326 lAC 2-1-3.2, 326 lAC 2-1-3.3, 

326 lAC 2-1-4, 326 lAC 2-1-5,326 lAC 2-1-6,326 IAC2-1- · 

7 .1, 326 lAC 2-1-8, 326 lAC 2-1-9, 326 lAC 2-1-10, 326IAC 

2-l-11.1, 326 lAC 2-1-12, 326 lAC 2-1-13, 326 lAC 2-4, 326 

lAC 2-5, and 326 lAC 2-8-11. Effective 30 days after 

with the secretary· of state. 

HISTORY 

First Notice of .Comment Period: February 1, 1996, "'"' .... '" 

Register (19 lR 1205). 

Second Notice of Comment Period: August 1, 1996, 

Register (19!R 3219). 

Notice of Rescheduled Public Hearing: October 1. 1996, 

Register (20 lR 220). 

Republication of Second Notice of Comment Period and 

First Hearing: November l, 1997. ~daana Register (21 JR. 

First Public Hearing: Opened February 4, 1998, and 

until March 4, 1998. 

Preliminary Adoption: March 4, 1998. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS UNDER IC 13-14-9-4.5 

IC 13-14-9-4.5 states that a board may not adopt a rule 

13-14-9lhat differs substantively from the draft rule published 

IC 13·!4-94, until the board has conducted a third coinmleOI:pe~ 

that is at least twenty-one (21) days long. 

This proposed (preliminary adopted) rule is substantively 

from the draft rule (published with Second Notice of 

Period) published on November 1, 1997, at 21 IR 801. The 

Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is ~~-~~:g 

comment on the entire proposed rule (preliminanly adopted) 

proposed rule contains numerous changes from the draft 

mak.e the proposed rule so substamively different from the 

that public comment on the enure proposed rule is ad,•isable.'l 

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 

Amends 326IAC 1-2 concerning definitions. Adds 326IAC 

2-1.1 to establish general provisions. Amends 326IAC 2-2 and 

326 lAC 2-3 to update references to new rule citations. Adds 

326 lAC 2-4.1 concerning major sources of hazardous air 

pollutants. Adds 326 lAC 2-5 .I concerning construction of new 

sources. Adds 326 lAC 2-6.1 concerning minor sources. 

Amends 326 lAC 2-7 to include provisions for the establishment of emission caps and to provide procedures for Part 70 

sources to obtain approvals to modify the source. Amends 326 

lAC 2-8 to include provisions for the establishment of emission 

caps and to implement streamlined pennit revision procedures 

and a unitary permit system. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-1 to update 

This notice requests the submission of comments 

including suggestions for specific amemlm1ents to th<lSese<:tioDS.J 

comments and the depamnent's response thereto will be 

the board for its consideration at final adoption under 

Mailed comments should be addressed to: 

#96·1 (NSR Amendments) 

Janet McCabe, Chief 

Air Programs Branch 

Office of Air Management 

Indiana Department of Environmemai Management 

P.O. Box 6015 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015. 

Hand delivered comments will be accepted by the"rec:eptioais!J!! 

at the tenth floor reception desk., Office of Air M>l!lal!01011;!: 

North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, Indiana. 

Indiana Regisrer, Volume 2I, Number 8, May 1, I998 

3036 
1 . 

_, • 

·''"' ~""""'·-

ri 

~ . ·n 

-~·. 

~ .•. 

'~ 

J 

- ~nl 

~nl 

"'' mg 

~~e 

j;al 

:ule 

;ulc. 

h"" 

ed W 

.. 9.6. 

1"\,' 

COMMENT PERIOD DEADLINE 

Comments must be postmarked or hand delivered by May 21. 

!998. 

SUMMARY/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE SECOND 

COMMENT PERIOD, AUGUST 1, 1996, TO SEPTEMBER!, 1996 

IDEM requested public comment from August I. 1996, lo 

September 1, 1996, on the draft rule language. IDEM receive 

comments relative to this rulemaking from the foUowing panies by rhe 

comment period deadline: 

· Amoco Petroleum Products, (APP) 

Bethle~em Steel Corporation, (BSC) 

""'Bruce Carters Associates, (BCA) 

Eli Lilly and Company, (LL Y) 

'ESSROC Mater~als lnc., (EM!) 

General Electric Company, (GE) 

o:c:.-!rtdi>tna Oil Marketers Association, Inc, (IOM) 

~'ol~:~~~~:li: Power & Light, (!PL) 1

rJ is a summary of the comments received and IDEM's 

;;~~~~';; Given the cornplexity of the proposed rule, IDEM 

defer action on the bulk of the rulemaking and proceed wuh 

ponion of the rulemaking related to HEA 1265. (APP) 

~c'Co.mnll!~>r: 1neproposed change of the definition of "modifica.uon" 

addition of the definition o_f "furure actual emissions" may 

increase the permitting worKload for lhe agency and the 

community. For example, under the current rules a source 

111t11111~erutilizes equipment may increase operation of the equipment 

actual emissions from the equipment up to the permitted 

emission rate witholl[ triggering permit review requireHowever. under the proposed rule this scenano would trigger 

revieW requirements because the increased urilizauon would 

increased actual emissions. (APP. LL Y) 

t,(COinlrll!nt: Under the proposed definition of "modification~ IDEM 

clarify what happens \vhen the source determines after the 

lharthe physical or opera_tional change did result in an increase 

actual emissions. (APP) 

'""'"'lfelrl! IDEM should clarify !he proposed definition of 

idiliication to state that increases of acrual emissions to levels that 

below allowable emJssions are exempt from any permitting 

tlinom,ents. (APP) 

~:;';~~The proposed revision to the definition of modification 

t with case law that requires an agency to use the past 

~tn ~Otu:repor:ential rest to determine emission increases resulting 

:!:~:~~~: if historic emissions do nm provide a reliable 

future emissions. (LL Y) 

The term "source" should be substirured for the term 

· in the definition of modification so lhat projects which do 

acl1:J.al emissions, but which. involve changes to a source, 

to use the future actual test contained in the definition of 

~~'"""· (LL Y) 

;_a.,.nr: It is unclear how the acrual-to-futt.Jre-acwal rest proposed 

~ileliniti<ln of "modificauon" effects the permitting applicability 

Which are based. on allowable emissions. (LL Y) 

-IIU!nt: In the proposed definition of modification, the character-

"!IMI.~ti<nc15llanges that trigger new applicable requirements as 

~ is not appropriate because New Source Rev1ew is 

"''lllliltd With emissions increases and the potential impact on air 

identifying applicable requirements. (LLY) 

Proposed Rules --r · 

Comment: The record keepmg requirements in the definition c 

modific3tion is overly broad because it would apply to changes whic 

would not have tnggered New So.urce Review in the -first place 

(LLY) 

Comment: Record keeping requirements should not be imposed i1 

a definition. (LLY) 

Comment: The proposed definiuon of "future actual emissions" i~ 

based on an hourly emissions rate which is an inappropriate rate fm 

batch operations because oflh.e widely fluctuating natu~e of emissions 

associated with such processes. (LL Y} 

Comment: The requirement to base the future acmal emisstons rate 

on the unit's physical or operational constraints and federally 

enforceable limits undermines the usefulness of lhe future actual rest 

because the requirements closely resemble pofenrial emissions. (LL Y) 

Comment: IDEM should ensure that the proposed revision to the 

term "modificafion" is consistent with the final language in EPA's 

NSR reform rule. (GE) 

Commenr: IDEM should clarify thar the proposed definition of 

"modifica~ion" involves comparing the acruaJ emissions before the 

change to the acrual emissions after the change. (GE) 

Comment: In the proposed defmition of~ modification", IDEM uses 

the phrase "furore actual emissions" to describe the emissions of a 

pollutant not previously emitted. The use of this phrase is confusing 

and should be deleted. (GE) 

Comment: In the definition of modification. IDEM proposes to 

characterize as a modification, changes that trigger a new app!irequirement. IDEM should nm add this phrase unless IDEM e{ 

lhe purpose of lhe language. (GE) · 

Comment: In IDEM's proposed subdivision (3) in the definition of 

modification, the tenn "soUrce" should be changed to wfacilit:y" to be 

consistent with rhe use of the rerm "facility" earlier in the definition. 

The tenn "modification" used in proposed subparagrapl:l (3) should b 

changed to "change" because this use of the term "modification" in the 

definition of "modification" is circular and creares confu,sion. (GE) 

Comment: fDEM should clarify the definition of "modification" to 

emphasize that only the post-change emission resulting from rtle 

modifica1ion should be compared ro the pre--change calculation of 

"future actual emissions". (GE) 

Comment: IDEM should adopt an enforcement policy to not 

penalize a source if future actual emissions exceed the pre~hange 

acrua{ emissions so long as lhe pre-change calculation of furure acrual 

emissions was reasonable. (GE) 

Comment: IDEM's definition of future acrual emissions should 

recognize that NSR will not apply unless there is a causal link between 

rhe proposed change and any post~hange increase in emissions. (GE) 

Comment: rn .the proposed detlnition of modification, record 

keeping is required to demonstrate that a physical or operational 

change did not result in an increase ofacruat emissions. This prov1s1on 

is overly-broad and should be targered to affect only those changes 

thar would ordinarily need a pennir. (BSC) 

Comment: The provision in the Modification Exemption Qualification that states modifications resulting in an increase in any of the 

lis red HAPs do not qualify for the streamlined approval procedure will 

severely limit its applicability because benzene and polycyclic organ,ir 

materials (POM) are ubiquitous. To remedy this. IDEM should se( 

threshold value for increases in the listed HAPs. Modificatiorls 

resulting in increased HAP emissiOns below the threshold would be 

eligible for the Modification Exemption Qualiticalion. (APP) (GE) . Q 1. fica don category for Comment: The Modification Exempnon ua 1 1 

Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number B. Mav 1 · 1998 

3037 


TITLE 326 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

LSA Document #98-95 

Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July 1, 1998 

SUMMARY/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM THE TIDRD COMMENT PERIOD 

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) requested public comment 

from May 1, 1998, through May 21, 1998, on IDEM's proposed rule language. IDEM received 

comments from the following parties: 

Bruce Carter Associates 

Chrysler Corporation 

Eli Lilly & Company 

General Electric Company 

(BCA) 

(CC) 

(ELC) 

(GE) 

Following is a summary of the comments received and IDEM's responses thereto. 

Comment: The definition of "modification" should be revised to only include reconstruction 

that increases the potential to emit. 326 lAC 1-2-42(3) should be revised to read: 

"(3) Reconstruction of one (1) or more existing emission units that have increases the 

potential to emit of any regulated air pollutants." (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the language accordingly. 

Comment: The current language under 326 lAC 1-2-65 defines reconstruction as "an emission 

unit shall be considered to be reconstructed when the fixed capital cost of the new components 

exceed fifty percent (50%) of the fixed capital cost of a comparable entirely new emission unit." 

There are several new source performance standards (NSPS), including Subpart 000, Subpart 

VV, and Subpart XX, have identified certain replacement parts that should not be accounted for 

in determining the new component cost for the affected source category. The proposed rule 

language is consistent with the federal defmition of reconstruction and should include a 

qualifying statement to reflect the exceptions in federal rules. (BCA) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has included language to address federal rules. 

Comment: The emission thresholds for permitting requirements are in tons per year, except for 

sources emitting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and subject to 326 lAC 8 provisions that 

have a threshold expressed in pounds per day. The permitting rules are based on potential to 

emit which is an annual calculation, but the applicability under 326 lAC 8 is based on the 

potential emissions defmition. It appears that the reasons to keep the pounds per day are to 

maintain consistency and to alleviate any concern that a source may construct a new source or 

modify an existing source that is subject to 326 lAC 8 without permitting review. A source or a 

6/16/98 (rwl) I 
Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July l, 1998 

modification of a source that is subject to the provisions of 326 lAC 8 is subject to the rules and 

must comply with those rules regardless of whether a permit or permit revision is issued. There 

appears to be little, if any, benefit to having the different permitting threshold and all of the 

thresholds should be in tons per year to be consistent. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM believes that there are situations where it is appropriate to have different 

permitting thresholds, such as situations where air quality or adequate compliance monitoring 

may be of concern. However, IDEM will provide the Air Pollution Control Board with rules that 

replace the pounds/day threshold for volatile organic compounds with a tons/year threshold and 

more specifically addresses the types of sources or modifications subject to a particular threshold. 

Comment: The rules should provide that an owner or operator of a Part 70 source may 

undertake emergency and preventative maintenance activities necessary either for safety purposes 

or to protect equipment or the environment without having to fust obtain approval from the 

commissioner. The currently proposed rules have deleted key language that previously provided 

for such actions by an owner or operator. These provisions should be restored or the definition 

of "modification" should be further modified so an emergency reconstruction or maintenance 

activity not subject to other requirements is not unnecessarily delayed. (GE) (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has included the same language concerning emergency repair and 

replacement in 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 that was included under the minor source (326 lAC 2-6.1-6) 

and FESOP rules (326 lAC 2-8-11.5). 

Comment: The current rules provide for certain temporary operations and experimental trials 

to be exempted from permitting requirements under 326 lAC 2-1-1(b )(3)(C). These provisions 

should be included in the new rules and should be applicable to all source categories (GE) (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has included the provisions for temporary operations and 

experimental trials, currently at 326 lAC 2-1-1(b)(3)(C), in the new rules under the exemptions at 

326 lAC 2-l.l-3(g). 

Comment: It is not clear whether a modification approval issued under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 is 

considered a registration, permit, or operating permit revision under 326 lAC 2-1.1-2. There are 

several other references to registrations, permits, or operating permit revisions in 326 lAC 2-1.1 

and without clarification that the 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 "modification approvals" are an operating 

permit revision the rule could be read as precluding or not addressing Title V source 

modifications. Either new rule language or a discussion in response to these comments should 

clarify that obtaining approval under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 satisfies the requirements set forth in326 

lAC 2-1.1. (GE) (ELC) 

Response: The language under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 is intended to provide Part 70 sources with 

options for preconstruction approval and either, an approval to construct or an operating permit 

revision. The language under 326 lAC 2-1.1 has been revised to clarify that no further 

procedures or approvals are required for sources utilizing 326 lAC 2-7-10.5. 

6/16/98 {rwl) 2 
Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July I, 1998 

Comment: The use of permitting exemptions as a means of eliminating administrative burdens 

that have no environmental benefit is supported. The rule contains an appropriate list of such 

exemptions. (CC) 

Response: IDEM agrees. 

Comment: 326 lAC 2-1.1-8(a) lists the time the state has allotted for the processing of permit 

applications. The time allotted is excessive and will cause significant, unneeded delays with 

important projects. The rule allows for extensions to the processing time by the applicant and the 

time should be shortened except under exceptional circumstances in which an extension could 

occur. It is recommended that the two hundred seventy (270) days to process federal NSR 

permits be shortened to one hundred eighty (180) days and the one hundred twenty (120) days for 

minor permits be shortened to ninety (90) days. (CC) 

Response: The time periods included under 326 lAC 2-1.1-8 are the same time periods that are 

currently included under 326 lAC 2-5 that became effective state rules in 1993 and were codified 

by the General Assembly in 1994. The time periods are appropriate maximum timeframes for 

the types of review that are needed. The office of air management is obligated to refund fees for 

permit actions that exceed these timeframes and the number oflate decisions is currently 

approaching zero. Decisions are typically made much earlier than the maximum allowed by law. 

Comment: The definitions of"Allowable emissions" in 326 lAC 2-2-1 and 326 lAC 2-3-1 

should be modified to allow the use of an applicable standard set forth in 40 CFR 63 if that 

standard is the most stringent standard. (GE) 

Response: The definition of allowable emissions comes from the federal new source review 

rules. The federal defmition has not changed and IDEM does not believe that a change is 

appropriate until the federal regulations that are the basis for 326 lAC 2-2 and 326 lAC 2-3 are 

revised. 

Comment: 326IAC 2-5.1-1(2) and 326 lAC 2-6.1-2(2) exempt from those rules any sources 

operating pursuant to a Title V permit, but do not exempt a source that has filed a Title V permit 

application and is awaiting the issuance of the permit. These provisions should exempt those 

sources that do not have a final Title V permit, but have filed the permit application. The issue 

should be clarified in other areas of the new rules, if applicable. (ELC) 

Response: Currently, Title V sources awaiting action on a permit application are still subject 

to the permits and registrations that were issued under 326 lAC 2-1-2 or 326IAC 2-1-4. The 

new rules would be not differ from this approach. A new source that did not opt to have a 

combined construction permit and operating permit issuance under 326 lAC 2-5.1, would operate 

under the operating permit terms in accordance with 326 lAC ~-6.1 until the Title V permit is 

issued. If a source would be exempted, it would not have the ability to use the permit revision 

procedures under 326 lAC 2-6.1-6. This could be detrimental to the source and IDEM believes 

that the source should operate under an enforceable permit and not the Title V permit application 

6/16/98 (rwl) 3 
Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July 1, 1998 

that is not enforceable. Existing sources would not be subject to the new source provisions of 

326 lAC 2-5.1 and 326 lAC 2-6.1-3(d) contains language that states that a Part 70 source that has 

submitted a Part 70 application has satisfied the requirements of 326 lAC 6.1. 

Comment: 326 lAC 2-5.1-3(b) should be changed to accurately refer to the requirement 

referenced in subsection (a) as follows: 

"(b) Any person proposing the construction of a new source and required to prepare ru:1 

application obtain a construction permit under subsection (a), including .... " (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language accordingly. 

Comment: The citation in the last line of326 lAC 2-5.1-3(e)(5) appears to have a 

typographical error and should be changed to 326 lAC 2-l.l-3(d)(1) through (33). (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will make the change accordingly. 

Comment: The language under 326 lAC 2-6.1-6(b)(l) should be clarified as follows: 

"(1) the repair or replacement results in a potential to emit for each regulated pollutant that 

is less than or equal to the potential to emit of the equipment or the affected emissions 

uuit. .. " (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language. 

Comment: The language under 326 lAC 2-7-5(16)(B) should be changed to set forth that only 

necessary monitoring, testing, reporting, and record keeping requirements are to be included in 

the permit. (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language accordingly. 

Comment: The rule language under 2-7-10.5 does not include a provision under current law 

that allows for an exemption for like kind replacements. This is a crucial provision to 

streamlining the permitting procedures and should be included as a notice only type change for 

Part 70 sources. There are several other streamlining options that are available for minor or 

FESOP sources, but are not available under the proposed rules for Part 70 sources. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees that where possible the rules should be consistent across the 

permitting programs. The rules for Part 70 sources must meet federal requirements under 40 

CFR 70 and any changes to the rules must be approved by the U.S. EPA as part oflndiana's Part 

70 operating permit program. This situation may cause inconsistencies between the permit 

programs, but IDEM has worked with the U.S. EPA to provide as much streamlining as possible 

for Part 70 sources. 

Comment: 326 lAC 2-7-1 0.5(c)(5)(C) should be clarified by stating that the control device is 

an air pollution control device. (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language accordingly. 

6/16/98 (rwl) 4 
Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July I, 1998 

Comment: The language under 326 lAC 2-7-lO.S(k) is not clear concerning whether an owner 

or operator of a Part 70 source is required to take further action or if the mentioned incorporation 

is automatic. The language also mentions "modification approval" and not a permit. The 

language should clarify the process to be followed. (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will attempt to provide clarification where needed. 

Comment: The inclusion of the emissions cap concept is supported and will be an effective 

tool for managing eruissions while miniruizing any delays in modernizing manufacturing 

facilities in the state. The option for setting an emissions cap in the context of a prevention of 

significant deterioration (PSD) review should be retained. This option allows new and totally 

rebuilt facilities a practical option for creating a cap. There is concern with the rule language 

under 326 lAC 2-7-20(a)(l). The rule language allows a source to make changes without prior 

approval, if "the changes are not modifications under any provisions of Title I of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA)." This could be interpreted to indicate that the eruissions cap is not the basis for 

determining federal new source review (NSR). The rule should be clarified to make clear that 

the emissions cap is intended to determine federal NSR applicability. (CC) 

Response: The definition of a Title I modification is dependent on federal regulations. While 

it is IDEM's intention that the emissions cap limit would be the basis for federal NSR 

applicability, the rules must be consistent with federal regulations and cannot allow for 

circumvention of those regulations. 

Comment: The proposed establishment of emission cap concepts is a positive step and is 

especially supported for Part 70 sources. Businesses need a mechanism that assists in balancing 

production, emissions, and timeliness for their processes and it is hoped that IDEM will continue 

to search for new and innovative ways to use eruission caps in a way that increases flexibility 

while being protective of the environment and public welfare. (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees. 

Comment: The terminology concerning emissions caps should be revised to avoid potential 

confusion among sources with plants is several states and to have national consistency. Emission 

caps should be referred to as plant-wide applicability limits (PALs). This term is used by the 

U.S. EPA and other states. (BCA) 

Response: IDEM agrees that the term PALs is used at the federal level and a definition of a 

PAL will be included under 2-1.1-1. IDEM is retaining the term emissions cap and emissions 

cap program because the proposed rules would allow for the establishment of emissions caps at a 

lower level than the entire plant. 

Comment: The rule has been structured to separate different permit program requirements into 

separate rules or sections. The rule language associated with PALs should be incorporated into a 

separate section to reduce confusion for the sources that are interested in using this option. 

6/16/98 (rwl) 5 
(BCA) 

Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July I, 1998 

Response: IDEM agrees and has placed the provisions for emissions cap programs under the 

general provisions, 326 lAC 2-1.1. 

Comment: The current rule language only provides the option for a PAL to be included in a 

Part 70 or FESOP permit. The rule language should be revised to provide this option for sources 

with any operating permit whether a state minor operating permit, Part 70, or FESOP. (BCA) 

Response: The definition of a PAL as proposed by the U.S. EPA and included at 2-1.1-1(12) 

and the provisions under 326 lAC 2-1.1-12 require the PAL to be federally enforceable. The two 

permit programs that are available at this time are the Part 70 and FESOP programs. In addition, 

the establishment of an emissions cap program that may include a PAL requires more effort 

during the permit application review and IDEM believes that the FESOP program is more 

appropriate to account for the increased effort associated with emissions caps or PALs. IDEM 

has revised the applicability of the FESOP program to allow sources that are not subject to Part 

70 to apply for a FE SOP. 

Comment: The rule language should be clarified to state that construction of new emission 

units or installation of equipment is not subject to state or federal NSR as long as the source's 

activities do not cause emissions above the pre-established emissions cap. (BCA) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will attempt to clarify the language where necessary. While the 

language does refer to preconstruction or modification approvals or operating permit revisions 

that include both state and federal new source review, the applicability offederal new source 

review is dependent on federal regulations. 

Comment: The notification requirements for changes that are made under a PAL should be 

streamlined and simplified. The items to be required should include a description of the physical 

or operational changes, the units affected, the proposed schedule for such change, new rule 

applicability, other non-PAL criteria pollutants affected, and a certification that the change will 

not result in emissions greater than the PAL. (BCA) 

Response: IDEM will review the notification requirements and will attempt to simplify the 

requirements. 

Comment: The rule language under 326 lAC 2-5.1-3(g)(2) states that operating permit 

revisions are not necessary for sources with modifications, reconfigurations, or other "minor 

physical changes" that do not result in an increase in the potential to emit. IDEM should define 

"minor physical changes" to avoid conflicts that may arise due to differing opinions or 

interpretations between IDEM and regulated industries. (BCA) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will provide a definition under 326 lAC 2-1.1-1. 

Comment: The applicability of the proposed rules to Part 70 sources, while seemingly 

6/16/98 (rwl) 6 
Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July I, 1998 

addressed in the rules, is complicated and not straight forward. Guidance or explanatory 

information concerning the new rules and the Part 70 permit process would be valuable and a 

flow diagram concerning source modification would also be valuable. (GE) 

Response: IDEM agrees and anticipates that guidance and outreach concerning the new rules 

will be needed and necessary. 

Comment: The rule language under 326 lAC 2-13-l(a) is unclear concerning whether or not 

this applies to sources that have submitted a Part 70 permit application but do not have an 

effective Part 70 permit. IDEM should clarify that the owner or operator of a Part 70 source with 

registrations, construction permits, or operating permits may apply to modify the source under 

326 lAC 2-13. (GE) 

Response: IDEM does not believe that the clarification is necessary. The proposed rule 

language under 326 lAC 2-6.1-3(b) recognizes the validity of the current operating permits, in 

that, the source is not required to apply for a new operating permit until the current operating 

permit is about to expire. The current and the new rules both recognize that a previous permit 

can continue to be valid, even after the expiration date, if the owner or operator has submitted a 

permit renewal application has been submitted in accordance with the rules. A Part 70 source 

would have been subject to the current operating permit requirements and should have been 

issued a permit. The ability to use 326 lAC 2-13 is based on having a valid operating permit and 

so, whether or not a source is subject to Part 70 is not critical, the possession of a valid operating 

permit is the criteria that must be met. 

Comment: The proposed language under 326 lAC 2-13 should be changed to clarify that a 

source can qualify under 326 lAC 2-13-1 when constructing a new emissions unit at an existing 

source. This is an important need for businesses that need to quickly begin construction of a new 

unit not previously covered by an operating permit. The following changes are suggested: 

"This section applies to any person who operates an existing source under valid operating 

permits issued by the commissioner and who proposes to modify a source or construct a 

new emission unit at the existing source and such modification or construction requires 

an operating permit revision or other approval by the commissioner in accordance with 

this article, excluding the following:" (GE) 

Response: While the IDEM believes that the proposed revisions to the defmition of a 

modification under 326 lAC 1-2-42 along with the phrase "modify the source" would include 

construction of new emissions units, the language will be revised to provide better clarity. 

Comment: There is a discrepancy under 326 lAC 2-13-1 (i)(2). The verbage states "Thirty", 

butthe number is "(31)". (GE) 

Response: The language should read "Thirty-one" and will be corrected. 

Comment: Because a significant number of sources will not be receiving their final Part 70 

6116/98 (rwl) 7 
Rc398095 

MinorNSR 

July 1, 1998 

permits for some time, the rules should provide separate provisions for those sources that have 

not yet received a final permit. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has provided new language under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 addressing 

permitted and unpermitted sources. 

Comment: The rules under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 should provide an alternative permitting process. 

The rules provide significant streamlining but the provisions requiring the signature of a 

responsible official, even though the source may not have received a final Part 70 permit, is 

burdensome. An alternative procedure should be provided where the responsible official's 

signature is not required. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM has revised the rule language to allow less stringent procedures for a source 

that is only requesting an approval to construct. 

Comment: The two (2) startup notifications under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 should be deleted. The 

source will be notifying the agency with the application of the modification and again when an 

administrative amendment to the Part 70 permit is requested. If the language is retained, the 

source will be providing four ( 4) notifications. 

Response: IDEM agrees and will delete the notification language under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5. 

Comment: The rule language under 326 lAC 2-7-5(11) and (16) should include references to 

326 lAC 2-7-10.5 to clarify that source modifications are not required for changes under an 

emissions cap or in accordance with an advance approval. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language accordingly. 

Comment: In several sections of the proposed rules, the rules refer to the trading of emission 

increases and decreases as the primary characteristic of emissions cap permits. This is an 

antiquated view of emission caps and should be deleted. In most cases, sources will probably 

just adjust the processes and emissions to comply with the cap and will not actually trade 

emissions. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees that the emissions cap program is not solely dependent on emission 

trading and will attempt to clarify the language accordingly. 

Comment: The proposed language under 326 lAC 2-8-10(a)(ll) requires an administrative 

amendment for changes under an emission cap at FESOP sources. The proposed language 

addressing emission caps already requires notification under 326 lAC 2-8-15(a)(3) and the 

administrative amendment provisions are redundant and burdensome. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will delete the language under 326 lAC 2-8-1 O(a)(l1). 

6/16/98 (rwl) 8 
ATTACHMENT G 

Proposed Rules 

Sec. 2. (a) The survey shall. at least every other calendar 

year, publish a roster showing the names and addresses of 

the licensed professional geologists. 

(b) Each licensed professional geologist is responsible for 

maintaining with the ~urvey a cu~ent mailing address. A 

notification made by the board under IC 25-17.6 and this 

article is complete if delivered to the address provided hy the 

licensed professional geologist under this subsection. (Board of 

Certifica!ion for Professional Geologists; 305 lAC 1-4-2) 

references to new rule citations. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-4 

concerning woodworking operations. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-6, 

326 lAC 2-10'1. and 326 lAC 2-!1-1 to update references to 

new rule citations. Adds 326 lAC 2-12 concerning general 

permits. Adds 326 lAC 2-13 concerning interim approvals: 

SECTION 2. SECTION 1 of this document takes effect 

January 1, 1999. 

Notice of Public Hearing 

Under IC 4-22-2-24, n01ice is hereby given thai on June 26. 

1998 at /0:30a.m., at the Indiana Geological Survey, 611 

Nonh Walnuz Grove, Room S-201, Bloomington, Indiana the 

Board ofCenijicazion for Professional Geologists will hold a 

public hearing on proposed new rules to govern resting, 

cenification, a code of conduct, and discipline of licensed 

professional geologists. Copies of these rules are now on file at 

the Indiana Geological Survey, 611 Nonh Walnut Streez, 

Bloomingzon, JndianaandLegislative Services Agency, Indiana 

Government Center-South, 302 West Washington Street, Room 

EOI 1, Indianapolis,lndiana and are open for publicinspection. 

John R. Hill 

Assistant Director 

Board of Certification for Professional Geologists 

TITLE 326 AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD 

Proposed Rule 

LSA Document #98-95 

DIGEST 

Amends 3261AC 1-2 concerning definitions. Adds 3261AC 

2-1.1 to esrablish general provisions. Amends 326 lAC 2-2 and 

326 lAC 2-3 to update references to new rule citations. Adds 

326 lAC 2-4.1 concerning major sources of hazardous air 

pollutants. Adds 326 lAC 2-S .1 concerning construction of new 

sources. Adds 326 lAC 2-6.1 concerning minor sources. 

Amends 326 lAC 2-7 to include provisions for the establishment of emission caps and to provide procedures for Part 70 

sources to obtain approvals to modify the source. Amends 326 

lAC 2-8 to include provisions for the establishment of emission 

caps and to implement streamiined permit revision procedures 

and a unitary permit system. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-l to update 

Adds 3261AC 2-14 concerning portable sources. Amends 326 

lAC 4-1-1 and 326 lAC 6-1-11.1 to update references to new . 

rule citations. Repeals 326 lAC 2-1-1, 3261AC 2-1-2, 3261AC 

2-1-3, 326 lAC 2-1-3.1, 326 lAC 2-1-3.2, 326 lAC 2-1-3.3, 

326 lAC 2-1-4, 3261AC 2-1-S, 326 lAC 2-1-6, 326 lAC 2:1-

7.1, 326 lAC 2-1-8, 326 lAC 2-1-9, 326 lAC 2-1-10, 3261AC . 

2-H l.l, 326 lAC 2-1-12,326 lAC 2-1-13, 326 lAC 2-4, . 

lAC 2-S, and 326 lAC 2-8-11. Effective 30 days after"'"'"""'"' 

with the secretary of state. 

IDSTORY 

First Notice of .Comment Period: February 1. 1996, 

Register (19 IR 1205). 

Second Notice of Comment Period: August 1. 1996. 

Register (19 IR 3219). 

Notice of Resc'heduled Public Hearing: October 1. 1996, 

Register (20 IR 220). 

Republication of Second Notice of Comment Period and 

First Hearing: November 1.. 1997. ~diana Register (21 IR 

First Public Heaiing: Opened February 4, 1998, and 

until March 4, 1998. 

Preliminary Adoption: March 4, 1998. 

PUBLIC COMMENTS UNDER JC 13-14-9-4.5 

IC 13-14-9-4.5 states that a board may not adopt a rule 

13· ]4-9 that differs substantively from the draft rule pul>l"ishc:d uodi, 

IC 13-14-9-4. until the board has conducted a third Comment 

that is at l~ast twenty-one (21) days lcing. 

This proposed (preliminary adopted) rule is sut>Samti.vel.y ditl't~~ 

from the draft rule (published with Second Notice. of C01:ruDi!![ 

Period) published on November 1. 1997. at 21 IR 801. The 

Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) is 

comment on lhe entire proposed rule (preliminarily adopted) 

proposed rule contains numerous changes from the draft 

make the proposed rule so substantively different from the 

that public comment on the entire proposed rule is 

REQUEST FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS 

This notice requests the submission of comments · 

including suggestions for specific amendments to 

comments and the depamnent' s response thereto will 

the board for its consideration at final adoption under 

Mailed comments should be addressed to: 

#96-1 (NSR Amendments) 

Janet McCabe, Chief 

Air Programs Branch 

Office of Air Management 

Indiana·Departtnent of Environmental Management 

P.O. Box 6015 

Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015. · 

Hand delivered comments will be accepted by the··,, eccptic•oiSill! 

at the tenth floor reception desk, Office of Air MaiOOI!Clll 

North Senate A venue. Indianapolis, Indiana. 

Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number 8, May I, 1998 

3036 
J 

iC 

:er 

od 

~nt 

~nt 

"" \ng 

~!le 

.hat 

:ule 

:1llc• 

'"" ,, 10 

.. 9-"· 

l't.' 

COMMENT PERIOD DEADLINE 

Comments must be postmarked or hand delivered by May 21, 

1998. 

SUMMARY/RFSPONSE TO COMMENTS FROM TIIE SECOND 

COMMENT PERIOD, AUGUSTI,l9%, TO SEPTEMBER t, 19% 

IDEM requested public comment from August 1. 1996, to 

September 1, 1996, on the draft rule language. IDEM receive 

comments relative to this rulemaking from the following parries by the 

comment period deadline: 

· Amoco Petroleum Products, (APP) 

Belhlehem Steel Corporation, (BSC) 

"''Bruce Carters Associates, (BCA) 

Eli Lilly and Company, (LLY) 

·' ESSROC Materials Inc., (EM!) 

General Electric Company, (GE) 

Oil Marketers Association, Inc., (IOM) 

·.Indianapolis Power & Light. (IPL) 

is a summary of the commems rece1ved and IDEM's 

thereto: 

Given the compiexity of the proposed rule, IDEM 

defer action on the bul,k of the rulemalcing and proceed with 

the portion of me rulemaking related to HEA 1265. (APP) 

"'''Cll·nu:~'"' The pi-oposed change of the definition of nmodification" 

addition of the definition of "furore acruaJ emissions" may 

increase lhe permitting workloa9 for the agency and the 

community. For exatitpJe, under Ute currem rules a source 

~~::·,~~:~;':;~;~~;~~;'";may increase operation of lhe equipment ii: from r.he equipment up to the permitted 

emission rate. without triggering pennit review requue~ 

ioijiS •. Ho,we.ver, under lhe proposed rule this scenario would trigger 

revieW requiremenlS because the increased utilization would 

in increased actual emissions. (APP. LL Y) 

IClii'mnumt:. Under the proposed definition of "modification'' IDEM 

clarify what happens ·when the source determines after the 

!1"1!• thallthe phy,;ic:!l or operational change did result in an mcrease 

••mn"' a<:tt!<al emissions. (APP) 

IDEM should clarify the proposed definition of 

dification to srate that mcreases of acrual emissions w levels that 

below allowable emissions are exempt from any permitting 

~=~~.(APP) J.(1 The proposed revision to the definition of modification 

lf'tonflict with case Jaw that requires an agency ro use the past 

future potential rest to determine emission increases resulting 

modification if historic emissions do not provide a reliable 

-predicting furure emissions. {LL Y) 

..,...,,nt: The term "'sOurce" should be substituted for the term 

. ln the definition of modificadon so that projects which do 

actual emissions, but Which involve changes to a source, 

able to use the future acruaf test con rained in the definition of 

. (LLY) 

It is unclear how the acrual-to-furure~actnal test proposed 

llll<ietit>iri<m of "modification" effects !lie permitting applicability 

Which are based on allowable emissions. (LL Y) 

Fli"'""•nt: In the proposed definition ofmodificadon, the character-

·~llliQ''of changes that trigger new applicable requirements as 

is not appropriate because New Source Review is 

With emissions increases and the potential impact on air 

identifying applicable requirements. (LLY} 

Proposed Rules --r·· 

Comment: The record keepmg requirements in lhe definition ( 

modific3tion is overly broad because it would apply to changes whic 

would nor have tnggered New Source Review in the -first place 

(LLY) 

Comment: Record keeping requirements should not be imposed i1 

a definition. (LLY) 

Comment: The proposed definition of "future actual emissions" i~ 

based on an hourly emissions rate which is an inappropriate rate for 

batch operations because of the widely tlucruating natn~e of emissions 

associated wir:h such processes. (LLY) 

Comment: The requiremem to base the 1future actual emissions rare 

on the unit's physical or operational constraints and federally 

enforceable limilS undermines the usefulness of the future actual test 

because rhe requirements closely resemble potential emissions. (LL Y) 

Comment: IDEM should ensure that the proposed revision to the 

tenn "modification" is consistent with the final language in EPA's 

NSR reform rule. (GE) 

Comment: rDEM should clarify that lhe proposed definition of 

"modifica~ion" involves comparing the actual emissions before the 

change to the actual. emissions after the change. (GE) 

Comment: In the proposed definition of "modification", IDEM uses 

the phrase "furure acrual emissions" to describe the emissions of a 

pollutant not previously emitted. The use of this pb.rase is confusing 

and should be deleted. (GE) 

Comment: In the definition of modification, IDEM propose~ t() 

characterize as a modificarion, changeS that trigger a new app{H. 

requirement. IDEM should not add this phrase unless IDEM e{ 

the purpose of the language. (GE) '. 

Comment: In IDEM's proposed subdivision (3) in the definirion of 

modification, the tenn ''soUrce" should be changed to "facility" to be 

consistent with the use of the term "facility" earlier in the definition. 

The term "modification" used in proposed subparagrapi) (3) should b 

changed to "change" because this use of the tenn "modification" in the 

definition of "modification" is circular and creates confusion. (GE) 

Cqmmenr: IDEM s.hould clarify the definition of ~modification'' to 

emphasize that only the post-change emission resulting from the 

modification should be compared to the pre-change calculation of 

"future acrual emissions''. (GE) 

Comment: IDEM should adopt an enforcement policy to nor 

penalize a source 1f future actual emissions exceed the pre-change 

actual emissions so tong as the pre-change calculation offurure actual 

emissions was reasonable. {GE} 

Comment: IDEM's definition of future actual emissions should 

recognize that NSR will not appLy unless there IS a causal link between 

!.he proposed change and any post-change increase in emissions. (GE) 

Comment: In the proposed definition of. modification, record 

keeping is required to demonstrate that a physical or operational 

change did nor result in an increase of actual emissions. This provis1on 

is overly~broad and should be targeted to affect only those changes 

that would ordinarily need a permit. (BSC} 

Comment: The provision in the Modification Exemption QuaJifica~ 

tion that states modifications resulting in an increase in any of the 

listed HAPs do nor qualify for the streamlined approval procedure will 

severely limit its a-pplicability because benzene and polycyclic organjrt 

materials (POM) are ubiquitous. To remedy this, IDEM should se( 

threshold value for increases in the listed HAPs. Modificatioil:s 

resulting in increased HAP emissions below the threshold would be 

eligible for the Modification Exemption Qualificanon. (APP) (GE) . . Q J'ficalion category for Comment: The Modification Ex:empuon ua 1 1 

Indwna . R . V.olume 21. "u·-"er B. Mav. 1' 1998 egwer, '" "~ 

3037 
\ 

Proposed Rules 

lodifications that are repairs or replacements is redundam because the 

definition of modification already exempts repair. (APP) 

Comment: IDEM should reevaluate the entire NSR rules to develop 

a strucrure and system !.hat achieves IDEM's obJectives bur is based 

on more straightforward rules. (LL Y) 

Commenc: Trivial activities should be exempted from minor New 

Source Review. (LL Y, GE) 

Comment: Sources subject to a case-by--case MACT determination 

are precluded from using the Modification Exemption Qualification 

process. The exclusion should apply to the faciliues making up the 

modification, not the source. (LLY) 

Comment: To provide more operational flexibility. !.he Modification Exemption Qualification category that applies to repair or 

replacement of equipment should apply 10 changes Ih.at will not 

increase potential emissions rather than the current restriction that the 

change cannot increase furore acrual emissions. (LLY) 

Comment: IDEM should consider a more streamlined process than 

what is currently proposed. For example, the rules should allow the 

source to submit a standard noti_fication to IDEM and publish notice 

in the local paper contemporaneously and IDEM should eliminate the 

stan·up notice which must be submitted fifteen days after the source 

begins operatiQn the modification. (LLY) 

Commenr: The tenn ~allowable emissions" is confusing and 

inconsistent with the structure of the existing NSR rules. IDEM should 

eli~inare the term "allowable emissions" and base permitting and 

registration requiremenlS on the federal definition of hpotential to 

emit". (LL Y) 

Comment: IDEM should remove the emergency replacement 

provisions from the definition of nmodification" and create similar 

provisions elsewhere. (LLY) 

Comment: IDEM should clarify in the regulations that no pennit 

application is necessary for projects which fall below the exemption 

levels stated in the regulations. (LLY, GE) 

Comment: Temporary construction or contractor activities not 

directly involved with the primary business activity of the source 

should be exempted from permming reqUirements. (LLY) 

Commenr: The exemption for temporary operations and e::r;perimen· 

t.al trials curremly contained in the rules needs to be reevaluated in 

light of the other changes being proposed to the minor NSR rules. For 

example, IDEM should consider eliminating the expenmental trial 

provisions in favor of the proposed exemption for R&D projects. 

(LLY) 

Comment: IDEM should revise its current definition of "potential 

emissions" to incorporate recem EPA guidance on calculating 

potential to emit, clarifying that integral physical and operational 

constraims are to be taken into account even wirholl[ enforceable 

permit conditions imposing: the constrainlS. (LLY, IPL) 

·Comment: IDEM current regulations governing Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration pennining (325IAC -2-2) require a source to 

obtain a PSD pennit before the owner/operator commences construe· 

tion. Federal regulations require a PSD permit before acrual construction is commenced. (40 CFR 21.21). IDEM should amend 1ts state 

regulations to conform to the federal regulations. (LLY) 

Commenr: IDEM should amend lhe definition of "significant" 

found in the state PSD regulations to conform to the changes proposed 

by EPA in the July 23,1996. That rulemaking proposes to delete the 

emission rates for asbestos, beryllium, mercury and vinyl chloride, 

clarifies that HAP emission increases are not subject to PSD and 

creases new thresholds for municipal waste combustor organics, 

municipal waste combusmr melals and ozone depleting substances. 

(LLY) 

Commenz: IDEM should clarify m lhe state PSD regulations and 

lhe Nonauainmem New Source Review regulatiOns that environmentally beneficial pollution control projects are exempt from these 

regulations. (LL Y) 

Comment: IDEM should simplify the NSR rules by basing the 

applicabilicy of the rules on the cype of project being proposed. (LL Y) 

Commenr: IDEM should use annual emission rates as the basis for 

determining which category of permitting is necessary. (LL Y) 

Comment: IDEM should clarify that "facility" means the federal 

emissions unit concept and "source" means plant-wide. (LLY) 

Comment: Write rule language in positive action terms rather than 

negative. (LL Y) 

Comment: Minimize the number of review processes to which a 

project may be potentially subject. For example, IDEM could have the 

following cypes of review processes: Full public notice and comment 

prior to commencmg construction, operation; agency review prior to 

construction, operation: notice to agency prior to operation; no 

process required priOr to construction. operation. (LL Y) ~-· ',j'~ 

Commem: IDEM should consider the following factors when 

determming the process that should be associated with a project: 

potenual or acrual emission increase, pollutants involved and area . ·· 

attainment sta.rus, complexity of .NSR process, need for NSR to 

tions, need for air quality assessment. (LLY) 

Comment: IDEM should attempt to integrate the NSR and 

requirements. (LL Y) 

Comment: IDEM should consider incorporating 

permitting conceplS mto state minor NSR, such as a unitary ""'"'"'". 

system, advanced NSR and emission caps. (LLY, BCA) 

Commenr: Modification Exemption Qualification, pr<>posed.~ 

lAC 2-1-l.l(b)(l)(C) contains a typographical error. 

"emission~ should be added to the end of the phrase. (IPL) 

Comment: IDEM should ask the General Assembly to ex1:en1i 1111 

expiration date of HEA 1265 for another year. (GE) 

Comment.· IDEM should delete the reference to 

contained m the malfunction rule (326 lAC 1-6·1) and replace it 

a citation ro lhe state construction permit rule 325 lAC 2-1-3). 

Commenr: In subdivision (1) of -the definition of ~:~!~=~ IDEM should replace the phrase "Modification does not il 

n A physical change or change in the method of opera•tion.dl>el 

include~. This will promote conformity with federal r~::u~::;~ Commenr.· In subdivision (1) of the definition of 

IDEM should delete the phrase "or components thereor 

phrase adds no substance to the definition. (GE) 

Comment: In subdivision (1) of the definition of modifi~ 

restriction in paragraphs (\)(A) and (1)(B) on the 

pair/replacemeJ;lt that potentially are not 

deleted. (GE) 

Comment: In paragraph (1)(C) of the definition of 

IDEM should clarify that it is no[ the control 

pmential to emit, but rather it is the facility 

controlled by the control equipment that has a ~:;':~~::; Comment: Subdivision (2) of the definitio~ of 

unnecessary. It requires that an application for a penn.it o:r te~ 

be made if the reconstructed/replaced facility has a p<>lctt1'a.' 

greater than the thresholds in 326 lAC 2-1. However, 

already provides for exactly that. (GE) 

Indiana Regisrer, Volume 21, Number 8, May I, 1998 

3038 
Comment: IDEM should revise the Pollution Prevention Project 

rule to include switches to less pollutmg soJvem. coating, refrigeranc 

or Jess toxic YOC, or another project undertaken to reduce emiss1on 

of regulated air pollutanc.. <GE) 

Comment: IDEM should review and clanfy the proposed mod !ilea· 

tion exemption qualiticauon rules. (BSC) 

Comment: The proposed amendmenrs are confusmg and vague and 

because of that confusion and vagueness. rhey fail to accomplish the 

stated purpose of the rulemaking, to identify and eliminate state 

pennining requiremen[S where analogous review is required under the 

Title V or federally enforceable state operating permit program. 

IDEM should review the proposed rule and attempt to clarify it. 

(EM!) 

Conurumt: IDEM should clarify in the Pollution Prevention Project 

rule that increases or decreases in emissions shall be based upon the 

. __ :."i; estimared post-project hourly emiss10ns rate and projected capacity 

"" utilization patterns. (GE) ,:;~!.' 

; .. :;'~·· Comment: The exemptmn from slate pennining requirements for 

-"" ,:J?:. commercial gasoline stations should be revised. The term "gasoline 

~~~- dispensing facility~ should be substiruted for the tenn "commercial 

gasoline stations" in order to promote consistency with the tenninolo-

.. o;. gy found in olher air management rules. (10M) 

Response: The agency has reviewed and considered the comments 

- received. Due the significance of the comments and the magnitude of 

.. L the changes that will be required to address me comments. IDEM has 

'?i:"· decided that the changes should be incorporated into new draft rules 

·. and the revised draft rules republished in another second notice of 

~:::::: period. This will allow interested panies to rev1ew and fl on the revised draft rules. 

!SVIMMARY/I!lESPOINSE TO COMMENTS FROM TilE SECCOMMENT PERIOD, NOVEMBER I, 1997, TO DECEMI, 1997 

The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) 

f~~~~!·' ~~e~ a second nouce of comment period and requested public 

j from November 1, 1997, through December l, 1997. on 

~EM's draft rule language. IDEM received comments from the .. ,<following panies by the comment period deadline: 

~·American Automobile Manufacrurers Association. (AAMA) 

~~~ Amoco Petroleum Products. (APP) 

Asphalt Pavement Association of Indiana. Inc .. (APA) 

Jl Corporation, (CC) 

·;) DeRolf Environmental Consulting Agency, Inc .. (DECA) 

0, Lilly and Company, (ELC) 

"'' Electrtc Plastics. (GEP) 

Chamber of Commerce, (ICC) 

the Manufacturing Association. (IMA) 

rc· Petroleum Marketers and Convenience Score Association, 

_be 

.1\JP• 

.as a 

.. ~ 

,GEl 

Universny, (PU) 

is a summary of the comments received and ·IDEM's 

thereto: 

~""''nr: IDEM is proposing a unitary permit system that would 

;l~~~c~'~s~::~::n and operating permit approval process in order .! ine permit amendment procedures for aiJ panies. The 

:"""'llPropo,sed rule language does not include Title V sources in the 

pennit system. The integration of the unimry permit system 

Indiana TitJe V program should be delayed until the U.S. EPA 

I'roposed Rules 

has completed the proposed revisions to the Pan 70 program. t1' 

the unitary pennit system Wl[h the Title V program could nt .n 

delays in permit issuance and construction projects. Under a unitary 

permit system. a source could not begm construction until the Title V 

pennit revision had been completed. Widl the current rules, -a source 

could apply for and receive an approv~J to begin construction and lhen 

apply for a Title V permit revision. (CC) (GEP) 

Comment: The proposed rules do not address me creation of a 

merged permitting program for Title V sources. While it is true lhe 

U.S. EPA is in the process of revising the Pan 70 rules, it is clear that 

the U.S. EPA allows merged or uni£ary constrUction and operating 

pennit programs. An importam issue is when is construction allowed 

and when can operation begin. The preferred option would be a 

merged program that uses an operating pennit rev_ision as lhe 

mechanism for rev1ew and approval, but includes a s'plit process that 

allows for construction upon completion of agency review and 

operation to be allowed only ·after the operating pennit has been 

revised. A merged or unitary permit system that would not aJiow a 

source to begin construction until the operating permit was revised is 

not supportable. (ELC) 

Comment: The current rule language does not apply to major 

sources and any NSR refonn shoUld include Title V sources. This 

does not have robe accomplished under a unitary permit system If the 

umtary system requires U.S. EPA review and approval prior to 

beginning construcuon. IDEM should develop a· process by which 

construction begins while awaiting for U.S. EPA approval prior to 

operation. (ICC) (IMA) 

Response: The draft rules did not include Title V sources under,~ 

unitary permit- system because of the pending changes to the feq· 

Pan 70 rules and the uncertainty with the provisions to be includ~~.. 

the final federal Pan 70 revisions. IDEM does recognize the concerns 

about providing Title V sources the same streamlining and integration 

afforded to minor sources in this rulemaking. IDEM has included 

draft rule language under the Pan 70 permit rules at 326 lAC 2-7-

10.5. Source modifications in an effon to providePan70 sources with 

a mechaniSIJI to take advantage of the source modificadon provisions 

for minor sources. IDEM will continue m work with interested panies 

to create rule language !.hat would be as consistent as possible With 

anticipated changes at lhe federal level and would also prov1de a 

transitional program for Title V sources to make changes at the source 

wilhout delays m construction lhat are unwarranted, given rhe 

environmental impacts of the expected change or need for public 

notice and comment. 

Commenr: The creation of a unitary permit system is supponed and 

could provide significant benefits to the regulated community and 

IDEM, as long as the permit review and approval process is not 

lengthened. Several issues should be clarified prior to proceeding 

further w1th draft amendments. Is lhe unitary penn it system only for 

minor sources and FESOPs? How does the utiitary sysrem interface 

with Title V and sources with applications pending approval? Why are 

non-attainment new source review for minor sources and major 

sources of hazardous air pollutants excluded from lhe applicability of 

the unitary permit system'? (AAMA) 

Response: As currently written, lhe unitary pennit system is 

directed at minor and FESOP sources and does not interface wilh lhe 

Title V program. As indicated by the previous response, IDEM is 

working to include new language or rule sections that would pro vi~ 

a better link between the unitary permit system and Title V. MinO. 

sources in non-attainment areas are included to the extent that when 

Indiana Regisrer, Volume 21, Number 8. May 1, 1998 

3039 
Proposed Rules 

.1 source first rece1ves an operating permit. it becomes pan of the 

umffiry permit system. The severe ozone nonattammem area in 

northwest Indiana IS an area where the major source rhresholds are 

significantly lower than other areas. In Lake and Poner counties. a 

source would be considered a minor source if the pmemial to emit was 

less !.han twenry-five (25) tons per year of mtrogen o~ides or volatile 

organic compounds. This would mean lhat the source would receive 

a registranon. nm a permit. Unless the source expanded to the point 

that lhe potential to emit was greater than twenty-five (25) tons per 

year of nitrogen oxides or volatile organic compounds. it would 

continue m operate under the registration. A major source of hazardous air pollutams would not be included at lhis .time because the 

source would be required to obtain a Title V permit. However, rhe 

source would be included at such time as rule language is fmalized to 

include Title V sources. 

Commenz: Any construction activity should be allowed in advance 

of a registration or permit. The proposed rules at 326 lAC 2-1.2-3(b), 

326 lAC 2-1.2-4(a), 326 lAC 2-1.3-6(!), 326 lAC 2-1.3-6(h)(2)(B) 

should be revised to only require that a source have a pennit before 

stan-up. (APP) 

Response: The imerim permit rev1sion ~pproval rule allows for 

construcuon prior to a permil revision. The interim approval applies 

only to modifications of existing sources that would be covered by 326 

lAC 2-6.1 (previous citation was 326 lAC 2-1.3), 326 lAC 2-7, or 

326 lAC 2-8. A new source regulated under 326 lAC 5.1 (previous 

citation was 326 lAC 1.2) should be reviewed and approved prior to 

construction of the source. 

IDEM believes rhat review and issuance of a permit in advance of 

commencement of construction is generally in the public imerest as 

well as the interest of the company. Having agency approval, as well 

as public review. prior to the commencement of construction provides 

a level of assurance that the consrmcuon can proceed unimpeded and the 

company will not have to alter or cunail the consrmction activities. 

Rule Structure 

Commenr: The proposed rules should be reorganized to assist an 

individual who is, not well-versed in permitting rules. The following. 

changes are recommended: 

• To the extent practicable, all permitting requirements that apply to 

a. pamcular type of source should be consolidated in one place. In 

situations where one (1) provision applies to several types of 

sources. lhe provision could be placed in a separate rule that is 

invoked from another rule. 

• Revise the general provtsions to include 1·anguage that generally 

describes the rule structure and location of the different provisions 

for different types of sources. 

• Similar provisions should be in close proxtmicy and at the same 

level of hierarchy. New source taxies control (326 lAC 2-1.2-6) 

should be placed in its own rule similar to 326 lAC 2-2 and 326 

lAC 2-3. both of which provide technology requirements similar 

to the provisions of the proposed 326 lAC 2-1.2-6. 

• Move the interim permit provisions from 326 lAC 2-1.1 to a new 

rule, 326 lAC 2-13. 

• Move the general pennit prov1sions from 326 lAC 2-1.1-6 and 

create a new rule within Article 2 that addresses general permits. 

Include provistons under the various permit rules that allow for the 

incorporation of general permits into those permits. 

• Move the emissions cap provisions in 326 lAC 2-1.1-S(d) to 

appropriate provisions in rules 326 lAC 2-7 and 326 lAC 2-8. 

• Consolidate the exemptions. espectally those exemptions common 

to new source permitting and pennit revistons. under a more 

centralized location. Any spectfic exemptions that are applicable 

to a single permitting rule can be included within that rule. (ELC) 

Comment: The rule is currently organized in such a way that it is 

difficult for a person to understand and the rule should be re-suuCtured to try and eliminate rhis problem. (ICC) 

Response: IDEM agrees that one of the purposes of the rulemaking 

was to provide more understandable rule language. The draft rule has 

been restrucrured m an effort to provide rules that are easier to follow 

and are more understandable. 

Emission Caps 

Comment: IDEM has developed rule language that would allow 

permits to include an emissions cap and would not require a source to 

obtain a registration or construction pennii for any changes dlatdo not 

cause emissions to exceed the cap. It is recommended dlat IDEM 

clarify that changes ffiade under the emissions cap would not trigger 

federal review, as well as state preconsU1lction permit review. (CC) 

Response: IDEM agrees that one of the purposes of the emissions 

cap is to alleviate the need to acquire prior approval for source 

modifications that will comply with the cap. The language under 326 

lAC 2-7-5, 326 lAC 2-7-20, 326 lAC 2-8-4, and 326 lAC 2-8-15 has 

been revised to reference operating pennit revisions that include both 

state and federal review. IDEM will continue to discuss the emissions 

cap provisions with the U.S. EPA to confinn that the program meets 

federal requirements and wi.ll apply to federal as well as state 

preconstruction review. 

Commenr: IDEM has proposed several means by which to 

emissions cap limit for a source. It is recommended that IDEM 

accept pennined allowable emissions as the basis for an emissions 

where a source can demonstrate that BACT -equivalent controls 

place. Allowing well control1ed emission sources with. 

equivalent emission reduction technologies in place to base the 

allowable emissions would render the proposed emission cap 

effective tool. IDEM should also allow a source to base the em1issioll15 

cap limit on the highest acrual emissions for one (1) year out 

previous ten (10) as opposed to the proposed language that 

require a source to use the highest two (2) years out of the 

five (5). This would address rhe represemiveness of the two (2) 

five (5) approach and would allow a source to select a year 

representative of acrual operations. (CC) (AAMA) 

Response: IDEM has revised the rule language for the 

cap program to provide generic requirements that would allow 

flexibility with the establishment of an emissions cap. 

language is found under 326 lAC 2-7-4 and 326 lAC 2-7-5 

sources and 326 lAC 2-8-3 and 326 lAC 2-8-4 for sources 

und.er a federally enforceable state operating permits 

IDEM has revised the rule language concerning the enli.ssi!D.•:~ 

basis to include the calculation of acruai emissions using 

out of ten (10) years. IDEM believes having the emissions 

on the PSD allowable or the actual emissions with an 

is consistent with federal guidance. IDEM h.as 

additional option as a basis for an emissions cap that IS'',._,..._, 

permit limitation less than major source applicability· ThiS 

necessary for FESOP sources that would not have lhe 01Jil011• 

use a cap based On PSD allowable emissions, because in 

all cases a FESOP would not be subjec! to PSD. 

Commenr: IDEM has proposed that a source 

emissions cap must submit acrtlal emissions data for ~e 

(5) years. The proposed basis for the emissions cap IS 

Indiana Regiscer. Volume 21, Number 8, May 1, 1998 

3040 
-- ) 

allowable or one (l) or two (2) years of acrual emissions. Gathering 

additional mformation for other years is unnecessary if the informauon 

wUl not be used to establish the emissions cap. (CC) (.A..AMA) 

Response: IDEM agrees that the information to be supplied should 

more accurately reflect the purpose of the information and has revised 

the language under 326 lAC 2-7-4 and 326 IAC 2-8-3 accordingly. 

Co~nt: The draft rule language addressing Ihe estabiishmem of 

an emiss1ons cap included in 326 lAC 2-l.l-9(c) is wo prescriptive 

and overly restrictive. The rule language should address only the basic 

strUcture and function of an emissions cap. The specific provisions for 

the cap, inciuding the proper function of the cap, compliance 

;,l.' measures. and enforceability of the cap, should be left to the derails 

"-!: in the permit. Specific concerns with the draft rule language include 

'~' · lh.e resu1ction of only one (1) cap per pollutant. narrowly focused 

· · levels for establishment of the cap (Prevenuon of Significant Deterio- $..: 

~t· ration (PSD)), daily record keeping, and the restriction that a cap may 

Jh~: only be established for pollutants previously emitted. Aexibility would 

1.:: .·_~i.} be maximized by allowing more than one (1) cap per pollutant and 

';._ ~: having a cap apply to only a ponion of the plant. The emission cap 

~ -·~- may be sought for reasons other than avoiding PSD requirements. The 

r 

.r 

J 

10 

.01, 

.. 

.. ~- record keeping requirements should be sufficient to demonsuate 

:~:: compJiance with the emissions cap and nor focused on daily records. 

. ·:<- A source should be allowed to request an emissions cap for pollutants 

·-- not currently emiaed, when the source could emit those in the furure. 

·. (ELC) 

, Response: IDEM agrees that allowance should be made for the 

. establishment of several caps within a source and that the rule 

)angw1ge regarding comphance determinations can be simplified. The 

language has been revised to allow more flexibility, to allow a 

to request multiple emissions caps, and has been moved from 

Ml:le,,e,ll Prov·isil>ns under 3261AC 2-l.lto the relevant application 

pennitcontent sections of the Pan 70 (3261AC 2-7-4 and 2-7-5) 

FESOP rules (326!AC 2-8-3 and 2-8-4). The agency understands 

comment concerning establishment of a cap for pollutants not 

ow•i011slv emitted and would like to discuss this issue further wilh 

gt,inu~es.ted panies. IDEM's approach is consistent with that taken by 

EPA and other stares. lhat all focus on establishing an 

. -<.'..... emissions cap based on acrual or allowable emiss10ns of pollutants 

't',currently emitted. As mentioned previously, IDEM has taken an 

...;·.~nal step by including a source-wide limitation less than major 

·~ ICat:e applicability as another option for the basis of an emissions cap. 

-~Comnumt: The language under 326 lAC 2-l.l-9(c)(3) should be 

.. 4~ed concerning the lang~ge about one (1) emission cap for each 

~ru~nt emmed. Does tlus mean each regulated pollutant or 

, .. dous air pollutant (HAP) or bmh? (APP) 

~~-"':-.-!_.Response: An emissions cap could be established for each regulated 

~~nt emitted by the source. A source lhat emitted several 

. -~ted pollutants could have a cap for one (1) or more of the 

:~ts. If the source emined panicuJa[e matter and HAPs, the 

·~could request a cap on lhe paniculate matter or HAPs, or both, 

:~ing on the source. 

•F.IIIertm Permits 

·:fi:,Commenz: The exclusion from the eligibility for an interim penn1t 

·.l;lr-consnuction or modifications in nonanainment areas that would 

.".--_tbose pollutants for which the nonanainmem designauon is based. 

~~d be changed. The language should be rev1sed ro only exclude 

.-~ NSR sources or major NSR modificauons in nonaaainment 

(CC) (AAMA) 

~:Omm.nt:· Projects should only be excluded if they would emit 

Proposed Rules 

those pollutants for which the nonanainmem designation is based jrexcess of the amount that would trigger the requirement fa( 

permining action for that pollutant. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the language under 326 

lAC 2-13 accordingly. 

Comment: The current language for interim permirs under 326-IAC 

2·1.2·5 excludes maJor sources of hazarc;ious air pollutant (HAP) 

emissions from being eligible for an interim permit. By adding iliis 

exclusion, IDEM would be preventing sources that curren[iy have 

access to the interim permit process from being able to take advantage 

of the bene filS of the interim permir process. IDEM should delete this 

e<clusion. (CC) (ELC) (AAMA) 

Response: IDEM has revised the proposed language, now included 

a~326 lAC 2-13, to clarify that a modification that would be subjec1 

to the new source taxies conuol rules (included at 326 lAC 24.1) 

could nor use the interim permit procedures. Federal law precludes 

construction of facilities subject to this program. This Would not 

preclude a major source of hazardous air pollutants from using the 

interim permit process- for other eligible modifications. 

Co~m: It is recommended that the draft language under 326 

lAC 2-l.l-5(d) and (i) be revised 10 allow interim pennits to take 

effect automatically without agency action, as does the current rule . 

(ELC) 

Response: IDEM does not agree and believes that the interim 

permits should have the same approval or denial requiremen_t that 

other permitting actions have, although the time periods would be 

much shoner. Allowing the interim permits to become effective unless 

denied does not give others· the opportunity to appeal the agency's 

action. or in this case inaction. However, the denial of the interiJT 

pennit by the agency would be appealable by the source. IDt 

believes that all panics should have the same opporrunities, includh.'"' 

the opportuDity to appeal. 

Coi7U1U!nt: While the interim permit provisions allow for cons[fUction within a shonened time period, there are no provisions for 

allowing operation until IDEM completes iiS review. This is especially 

true if the review periods under 326 lAC 2·5-2(a) are not me[. The 

conditions of the interim pennit are such as to preclude major new 

source review applicability and assure compliance with all other state 

and federal rules and should provide a framework for compliance with 

all substantive rules. The rule language should be revised to allow for 

relief from having to wait to begin operation after resources have been 

spenr m complete construction. The following shoUld be added to 326 

lAC 2-1.1-5 (previously 3261AC 2-1-3.1): · 

(k) If an inrerim permit has become effective and if the applicant 

has applied for an operating permit modification under 326IAC 2-

1.3-6 and the operating permn modification has not been issued or 

denied within the time period specified in 326 lAC 2-5-2(a), then 

the applicant may operate the modification under ihe tenns of the 

interim penn it until such time that the operating permit modifica· 

tion is issued or denied. During. this time, the depamnem shall not 

take enforcement action against the applicant for operating without 

a valid operating pennit. (DECA) · 

Response: IDEM believes thafit would be inappropriate to allow 

a source to begm operation without agency revtew and approvaL If a 

discrepancy or mistake is discovered, the agency would haVe to deny 

the permit revision after the source has been operating the modification. This would put the agency and the source in a difficult positioP 

especially since the source may have to shut down operations ~· 

modify the operation. Discussions with the U.S. EPA have indicait.~. 

Indiana Regiscer, Volume 21. Number 8, May 1, 1998 

3041 
·Proposed Rules 

·.hat allowing a source to operate without any approval would not 

receive U.S. EPA approval. 

Comment: The language under 326 lAC 2~1.1-S(a) should be 

revised. The proposed rule references conrroldevices. Comrol devices 

are not emissions units and are only relevant when required by law. 

In addition. the references to registrations (326 lAC 2-1.2-2) and 

permits (326 lAC 2-1.2-3) are incorrect. The proposed language 

should be revised as follows: 

" .... who proposes to construct or modify either an emisstons unit 

ef.~ ~that meets Ihe cmeria for a registration under 326 

lAC 2-1.2-3 or a constructlon permit under 326IAC 2-1.2-4 at the 

same locauon or a control device required by applicable law, 

excluding the following: .... " (GEP) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the rule language. The 

revised language is now under 326 lAC 2-13-l(a) and has also been 

revised to delete ri:ferences to registrations and construction pennits 

and replace these te-rms with a reference to pennit revisions. This 

change reflects the Unitary permit system that is being proposed. 

Applicability 

Comment: The applicability detenninations would be easier to use 

if all emiss1on thresholds were expressed in tons per year. The 

thresholds should also be established at twenty-five percent (25%) of 

the PSD significance thresholds. U.S. EPA has indicated that minor 

NSR de minimis levels can be set it the twenry-five percent (25%) 

level. In addition.lhe phrase "any other regulated pollutant~ should be 

deleted and a specific list of pollutants of concern should be added in 

its place. (ELC) (AAMA) (APP) 

R.sponse: Where appropriate under 326IAC 2.-1.1-3, 326IAC 2-

5.1, 326IAC 2-6.1. and 326!AC 2-8-11.1. the applicability thresholds are expressed as tons per year. Due to applicability thresholds for 

certain rules: IDEM has retained the pounds per day threshold. IDEM 

agrees that pollutants of concern should be identified and has included 

revised language to list those pollutants. 

Commenr: The language under proposed 326IAC 2-1.2-2 and 326 

lAC 2-1.3-2(a) shOuld be clarified to indicate lhat these rules (new 

sources and minor source operating pennits} do not apply to Title V 

or FESOP sources. (ELC) (GEP) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the proposed language that 

is now included under 326IAC 2-5.1 and 326 lAC 2-6.1. 

Comment: IDEM should minimize the number of terms used to 

dtscribe the types of proJeCts that trigger review under the permit 

process and should minimize the various terms used to refer to an 

emission source. (AAMA) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will seek. to minimize the number of 

terms wherever possible. 

Comment: It appears that the proposed rule language would require 

a source to maintain emission records on all exempt units. This would 

be contrary to the treatment of these units under the Title V program, 

especially in light of the "White Paper for Streamlining Development 

of Part 70 Permit Applications". July 10, 1995. Due to the low actual 

emissions of these units and the difficuhy ln. measuring the emissions, 

IDEM should not require sources to maintain records for their exempt 

emission units. This is unnecessary and impractical. CPU) 

Response: The proposed language is not meant to require the 

maintenance of records for exempt units. However, the proposed 

language is included to make sure that sources understand that as time 

goes on and the source evolves, the source may be required to move 

to another operating penn it program. 

CoTTJ~T~ent: The meaning of the first sentence under proposed 326 

lAC 2-l.l-2{c) is unclear because of the use of the word "source". It 

is not clear whether this should refer to emissions unit instead. IDEM 

should clarify the imem of this provisiOn. {GEP) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will attempt to clarify the language. 

Commenr: The proposed language under the applicability section_ 

of 326 lAC 2-1.3 should be revised. The phrase "operating in 

compliance., is ambiguous and creates undue complexity. The 

applicability should be tied to something fixed, such as the source's 

regulatory starus. not the compliance status that can vary over time. 

The phrase "operating pursuant to" would be more desirable. The 

same comment would also apply to the language under 326IAC 2-1.3-

2(c)(1). (GEP) 

Response: IDEM agrees there are some_ instances where the 

regulatory status would be preferred and has revtsed the language now 

under 326!AC 2-l.l-3(d) and (e) and 326 lAC 2-6.1-2 accordingly. 

However. there is rule language under 326!AC 2-10 and 326IAC 2· 

11 where the compliance status is critical and for those siwations 

IDEM believes the phrase operating in compliance is preferable. 

Definition of Modification 

Comment: We suppon the proposed shift to potemial-to-emitas the 

basts for defining a modification. but IDEM should nm include an 

increase in acrual emissions as an alternative. (ELC) (GEP) (APP) · 

Comment: IDEM should replace the tenn "actual emissio~s" with · · · 

"legally allowed emissions". The current languag~ would require a · 

pennit revision every time a source increases production, fuel usage,-.: 

etc. even though the emissions may be ~ell below the source's 

potential to emit or legally allowed emiSsions. (PU) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the language under 

lAC 1-2~2 to delete the tenn "acmal emissions" and the 

"legally allowed emissions (whichever is more suingent)". 

Comment: The definition of "modification" should be 

clarify that the instaUation of a new emissions unit at an ex1istin~pla 

site is a modification potentially subject to 326 lAC 2-1.3, 

the construction of a new source potentially subject to 326 lAC 

The following is suggested language: 

"Modification" means either (a} any physical change or 

the method of operation of any extsting emissions unit 

increases the potential to emit of any regulated pollutant m:::~ 

be emined from the emisstons unit. or which results in e1 

of any regulated pollutant not previously emined, or (b) 

uon of a riew em1ssions umt at an existing source. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language 

lAC 1-2-42 accordingly. 

Defmition of Potential to Emit 

Comment: The second sentence in 326 lAC 2-1.1-1(5) 

revised for the purpose of clarification. The sentence shoul~ 

follows: 

Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of 

or emissions unit to emit an air pollutant, including air 

control equipment and restrictions on hours of ~ro:::;:~ amount of material combusted, stored, or 

treated as part of its design .... (GEP)• : 

Response: IDEM agrees and will include the sugges~ 

under 326 lAC 2-1.1-1(15). · 

Defmition of Source 

Comment: The definition of "source" should be clarifi<ccll~l'! 

that the source is all emitting equipment located on a 

adjacent property under common ownership or conuol. 

Coi1U11-ent: The definition of "source" is confusing 

Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number 8, May I, I998 

3042 
r 

) 

....:_,__ 

··~-

i 

~·­

-~ ·~; -

~ ·j· 

with the definition of ~emissions unir", which makes it difficult to 

detennine the scope of a regulation. The following language is 

suggested to rerlect the concept that a source is a geographic area 

conraming one ( l) or more emissions units: 

~source" means a parcel of properry under control of one (1) 

person (including one (1) or more conriguous or adjacem proper· 

ties that (i) are under common control of the same person (or 

persons under common control) and (ii) belong to a single major 

industrial grouping) at which one (1) or more emiss1ons units are 

located. For the purposes of defining a source. two (2) or more 

contiguous or adjacent properties shall be considered pan of a 

single major industrial grouping if all of the pollutant emitting 

activities at such contiguous or adjacent propenies belong to the 

same Major Group (i.e .• all have the same two-digit SIC code) as 

described in the Standard Industrial Classification Manual. 1987. 

The rest of the proposed rulemak:ing will need ro be reviewed in light 

of this change to Insure the intended effect occurs. (GEP) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the definition accordingly. 

The definition of source under 326 lAC 1 ·2-73 will reflect the changes 

and the definition under 326 lAC 2-1.1-1 will be deleted. The 

definition of source is an issue that the agency is seeking to refme and 

continues to work with external parties to prepare a nonrule policy 

document further refining the understanding of what a "source" is. 

Commentators have requested that the agency continue that work:. but 

lO not allow this rulemak:ing to be delayed. IDEM will review the 

proposed language arid attempt to make the clarification wherever 

.necessary . 

Coi1Jlnenr: The definition of "source" should be clarified to exclud-e 

;;;;1110loile sources. nonroad vehicles, and nonroad engines. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will include additional language for 

·--~~~::~;;.under 326 lAC 1-2-73. ~j Provisions 

.~ Comment: IDEM should clarify that subdivision (2) ends with the 

''re1ference to 326IAC 1-4. The rest of the language sraning with "shall 

''"""'v, ... ft should begin on a new line. (GEP) 

l<;,,,Resp,onse:IDEM agrees and will make the clarification. 

Permits 

Com.menc: The rule language for general permits needs clarification 

~;;b:,~d.efmition. It appears that there would be a two-step process. 

·- IDEM creates terms and conditions for a general permit and 

a source would apply for approval to operate under the general 

The rule language is nm clear on several items. Art! appeal 

i~1Ce<lur1os available for the first step when IDEM develops the 

permit? How will the results of the first step be made known 

,lljiohe flllblic? What criteria will be used to decide the types of sources 

have general permits? Will the approval to operate under a 

permit be effective immediately under IC 13-15-5-3(c)? Will 

be allowed to revise a general permtt before source aur.horizaWh.at IS the process for revising a general permn? (ELC) 

The purpose of a general permit is to prov1de a 

brnii1ted permit process for source or source categories for which 

Gen,arnm•n• now issues "cookie cuner" permits. Examples might 

small fuel combusuon units or common surface coating 

IDEM believes the general permit can be an effective tool 

~-lb<arnlune pernm review so that public and agency resources can 

on issues with enviro!Jmental impact. 

· to the specifiC comments listed above. The 

is working internally and externally to answer some of the 

concerning appeals and effective dates. As to the notice of 

. Proposed Rules . 

lhe general pennit. the rules do include procedures that would ref 

the agency to publish a notice in several newspapers rhroughou1. 

st.ate and in the Indiana Register. The general permits could be 

established for a number of sources or source categories. As the 

definition of ~general permit" infers, one of the most imponam 

crneria would be the similarity of applicable requiremenlS. IDEM 

welcomes suggestions from mterested panies on the types of source 

categories that would be suitable for the development of a general 

permit. The issuance of the general permit to' a source would be 

subject to the notice requirements of IC 13-15-5-J(c). The proposed 

language does not envision that a general permit would be tailored for 

a specific source. If a source requires provisions tha.tare different than 

or not already included in the general pennit, then the general permit 

is probably nm die appropriate permitting o"ption. Oeneral permits 

would be specific to a group of sources and any significant changes 

· would require the creation of a new general permit. 

Permit Content 

Comment: IDEM should eliminate the proposed annual notice 

requirement m the proposed 32"6 lAC 2-l.l-9(a)(4) for sources that 

must otherwise submit annual compliance certifications under the Part 

70 or FESOP programs or are subject to permit-by-rule provisions. 

(ELC) 

Response: IDEM has removed the permit application and permit 

content provisions from the ge~eral provisions. Language concerning 

applications and permit content have been included under the new 

rules for construction and operation. 326 lAC 2-5.1 and 326IAC 2-

6.1. This eliminates other pennined sources from being subject to 

those requirements. 

Commenr: The second sentence of326IAC 2-l.!-9(a)(4) shou\ 

deleted. To require a source to provide an annual list of exe~ ... 

emissiOn unilS that ~aVe been added would be unnecessary and 

burdensome. (ELC) (PU) 

Response: This requirement would allow the agency to review the 

source and determine if the source is within the proper pennit 

program. While the agency agrees that certain activities identified as 

being exempt from pemut requiremenlS would not 1mpact a source's 

overall emissions, there are activities that could impact overall 

emiSSions and requ1re a change in permitting status. The language now 

included with the permit content fequirements under 326 lAC 2-5.1 

and 326 lAC 2-6.1 has been revised to hmit the information to the 

idenufication of those acuvities considered to be insignificant under 

326 lAC 2-7, Part 70 operating permilS. The language has also been 

revised to state that the commissioner may request such information. 

but it will not be mandawry. 

Compliance Requirements 

Commenr: IDEM should revise the language under 326 IAC 2-1. 1-

9 and 326 lAC 2-1.1-10. The broad compliance monitOring language 

in these sections must include additional language to ensure that 

permits will not contain unreasonable teims for compliance related 

information. This language should not be used to justify compliance 

monitoring in permilS unless it includes language to require IDEM to 

take into account factors such as the cost of obtaining the compliance 

information. the reliability of the infonnation. and the emis"sions rate. 

(ELC) 

Comment: The draft rule gives IDEM broad discretion in determining compliance requirements for projects. Certain compliancf" 

monitoring requirements are both necessary and reasonable, th\ 

should not be broad agency discretion without clear criteria laid OL 

in the rule. (ICC) 

Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number 8, May 1, 1998 

3043 
{ 

'• 

\ 

Proposed Rules 

Response: The language in these sections is connected to the 

requirements in current rules and does not give the agency any 

additional authoricy to include any compliance terms. The second 

sentence in 326 lAC 2-l.l-9(a)(2) (now mcluded under 326 lAC 2-

5.l-3(e)(2) and 326 lAC 2-6.l-5(a)(2)) specifically states that 

monitoring, testing, record keeping and reponing requirements shall 

be in accordance with 326 lAC 3 and the applicab,le regulations. 

Perminees also have several opportunities to have terms or conditions 

revised. whether during a discussions during permit review, public 

comment period. appeal procedures, or variances. 

the laboratories are not exempted categorically. then the potential to 

emit of such activiues would have to be detennined and compared to 

the emission thresholds under 326 lAC 2-1.2-2. As previously stated, 

this is diff1cult and expensive to determine. The exemption of 

laboratories should also be included m 326 lAC 2-1.3 for modifica--

tions of existing sources. (PU) 

Public Notice 

Comment: Proposed 326 lAC 2-l. l-ll(a)(l )(B) requires notice to 

panies listed in IC 13·15-5-3(c) and to those on a potentially affected 

person list. Subsection (d) seems to provide that the potentially 

affected person list consists of anyone who asks to be on the list and 

provides a reason why he or she is potentially affected. These 

provisions are confusing because the panies listed in IC 13-15-5-3(c) 

include anyone who requests notice. Thus. IDEM must give notice to 

anyone who asks for it and cannot refuse notice because he or she is 

not potentially .affected. IDEM's intent with respect to the potentially 

affected person list, in particular proposed 326 lAC 2-1.1-ll(d), 

should be clanfied. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will clarify the proposed language that 

is now mcluded under 326IAC 2-l .l-6(a)(l)(B). 

Appeals 

Comml!nt: The proposed rule section related to appeal procedures 

at326IAC 2-l.l-l3 should be deleted. The procedures for appeals of 

a permit are contained in the Indiana Code and soon to be promulgated 

rules by the Office of Environmental Adjudication and should not be 

reiterated in the air rules. If the rules are left in place. then the rule 

language should be revised to describe the different effective dates that 

could apply. The proposed language recites the effective date under IC 

13. but some permitting actions may fall under the provisions Of Title 

4. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will delete the section. 

Co~nt: IDEM should add provisions to define effective dates for 

registrations. permits, and pennn revisions either m this rule section 

or elsewhere within the rules. (ELC) 

Response: The agency will seek. to provide clarification concerning 

effective dates wherever possible in the new rules. 

Exemptions 

Commenr: It appears that the language under "326 lAC 2-l.I ,7 

infers that a source will have to Keep records of all exempt emission 

unirs in order to determine permit applicability. If this is not the intent 

of IDEM, then the language should be deleted in its enurety or the· 

words after ~shall not exempt the enure source from permitting 

requirements" should be deleted. (1'U) 

Response: The intent of the language under 326 lAC 2-1.1-7 and 

elsewhere is to make sure sources are aware that a change or 

modification may put the source in a different operating pennit 

program. The agency will seek to clarify the language to make the 

intent more clear. 

Comment: The current regulations for Title V sources include a list 

of insignificant activities that includes laboratories and laboramry 

emissions. Laboratory emissions should also be exempt from permitting under the new rules and should include research and development, teaching, medical. veterinary. and clinical laboratories. This is 

justified because lhe emissions are low, lhe emissions are difficult and 

costly to estimate, and few applicable requirements typically apply. If 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the proposed language for 

exemptions that is now included under 326 lAC 2-1.1-3. 

Comment: The operational change and minor physical change 

exemption currently provided in 326 lAC 2-l-l(b)(3)(B) is a useful 

exemption that provides flexibility to sources and should be included 

in the rules related to permit revisions for existing sources. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will include the provisions under the 

exemption section, 326 lAC 2-1.1-3. 

Comment: IDEM should clarify that the relocation of a piece of 

equipment from one part of a source to another (i.e .• within a single 

plant site) does not require a penn1t revision. The clarification could 

also be made at 326 lAC 2-1 .4-2(a)(3). (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will include the clarification under the 

exemption section, 326IAC 2-1.1-3. · 

Comment: The proposed list of exemptions from the requirement 

to obtain a permit could significantly reduce the administrative burden 

to the regulated communicy and IDEM. The list should be retained in 

future draft rules and IDEM should immediately implement these 

exemptions. (AAMA) 

Response: IDEM is proposing to retain the exemption list. The 

implementation will have to wait until the rulemaking is final and 

becomes effective as a state rule. 

Comment: The exemption under 326 lAC 2-l.2-2(A) should be··· 

revised as follows: 

(A) A gasoline dispensing facilicy having a storage tank capacity 

less than or equal to ten thousand five hundred (10,500) · 

and dispensing one thousand three hundred (l.300) gallons per 

or less. Such storage tanks may be in a fixed location or on mcobilc·iequipment. (IPCA) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the language for 

exemption under the exemption section. 326 lAC 2-1.1-3. 

Pennit Revisions 

Comment: IDEM should encourage polluuon control andpol.lutioti• 

prevention projects. However, it appears that these types of 

may be subjected to a higher level of review than a si'mularprojeettbJII 

would not involve one of these cypes of projects. An example: 

pollution control project resulting in a change in the poleDtial 

and requiring. a change in the method of demonstrating cotnplliulll 

(326 lAC 2-1 .3-6(h)(l)(M)). This is identified as a si'gni'i \car~ P'~ 

revision. but it appears a similar project not involving 

control or pollution prevention might only be identified 

pennit revision. If IDEM intends to insure that these ~-nfooroiell 

receive some level of review when a source iS 

from some other requirement based on the project in•·ol••ing 

control or pollution preventton. the rule should be re•ise0 """· ~ 

current language goes much fanher. (ELC) 

Comment: The requirement to obtain a pennit rc•·iso>D'-~ 

pollution prevention projects should be deleted. Th.i'! i Pt-ovoisioaC• 

potentially slow down · · 

and their associated environmental benefits. 

Response: In most cases. pollution co:ntr•oh;nd. poollutiot>pl~~ 

projects would not resull in increases in the potential 

would not require any review. There are cases where tbe 

Indiana Regzscer. Volume 21. Number 8. Mey I. 1998 

3044 

,-:. 

-;;. 
n 

-~ 

'.al 

, a 

:nit 

,lCC 

·mtt 

a on 

tllO( 

,eelS 

ltion 

JUOII 

111• 

1r all 

..:oukl 

0)"" 

reduce the emissions of one (1) or more pollutants. but may result in 

emissions of a new pollutant. While IDEM wants to encourage the 

reduction of emissions. !.here should be some review for those projects 

that may result in new emissions or increases in the potenual to emit. 

IDEM has revised the language to clarify that the only projects that 

will be reviewed would be the projects with new emissions or 

increases above certam thresholds and that the pollution comrol and 

pollution prevention projects will be treated lhe same. Where an 

increase or change would be minimal, the review requirements will 

not be as stringent. 

Comment: The proposed language establishes the significant pennu 

rev1sion track as the default if the change does not tit one of the other 

options. The rule should be revised to set the default track as the 

minor pennit revision track. (ELC) 

Response: The Pan 70 and FESOP rules both establish the 

significam permit revision track as the default. IDEM believes that the 

new rules should maintain the significant track as the defauil. IDEM 

has provided a lisE of modifications or changes thai would reqmre 

some cype of permit revision and classified them into various 

categories. While the agency has worked to identify as many of these 

modifications or changes as possible. the list does not include every 

modification or change that may arise. For the modifications or 

changes that have not been anticipated. IDEM believes these may have 

an impact and shC)uld be categonzed as significant permit revisions. 

Commenr: The proposed rule includes various agency review 

periods for minor permit revtsions that could be anywhere from 

~"~.. twenty-one (21) to sixty (60) days in length. As a matter of cons is ten~ 

. -cy, one (1) review period should be applicable for all minor permit 

.. . · · and it is suggested that it be forty-five (45) days in length. 

-~~~~:::o;~:~, IDEM agrees and has revised the appropnate permit r; sections under 326 lAC 2-6. Hi and 326 lAC 2-8-1 L1 to 

.;t':•:.inc:lutie the forty-five (45) day review period. 

Comment: The introductory language under 326IAC 2-L3-2(c)(4) 

should be revised to be consistent with the language in other subdivi-

.sions of this section. The appropriate language would be as follows: 

·~~Modifications involving an emission unit or units .... " (GEP) 

::' .. Rtsponse: IDEM agrees and will attempt to have !he language 

refemng to modifications consistent. 

"~Comment: The proposed language under 326 lAC 2-1.3-2(c)(6) 

be revised in several ways. The imroducmry language should 

J;'bc-•~vised as follows: "Modifications involving an emissions unit or 

,1.'"""'···· The exemption for laboratories should be revised to allow 

de minimis amounts of commercial products to be manut3ctured. 

last semence should be revised to replace lhe reference .to 

with a reference to "emissions unit". (GEP) 

t&"f'<>ns.e:· IDEM agrees and has revised the appropriate sections 

lAC 2-l.l-3(d). 

kii>;!'-'I'"'ISe.: W'hile u1is information is administrative. the information 

useful to inspectors or others wanting to contact a specific 

or Wanting to k:now about the emission units located at !he 

'~""'""· IDEM believes that requiring a notification for these types of 

should not be overly burdensome 3.nd will help persons 

the information. 

'"'"~w...,,,. Sources 

C..IIIIU!nt: The proposed rule language under 326 lAC 2-!.4-1 

Proposed Rules 

defines a ponable source as any operation. process, or emissi~ 

that is specifically designed to be moved and is moved at least\.. , 1) 

time per year. This definition may not be appropriate for portable hot 

mix asphalt plants. In many instances these .plants may relocate to a 

site to accommodate a specific proJect that extends beyond a year. 

Many of these projects may actually be on-site for three (3) or four (4) 

construction seasons depending on the manner in which the Indiana 

Department of Trailsponation posts project bids. It is suggested that 

the language be revised to include "moved to other locations or sites 

ac least once during the penn it period" instead of moved at least one 

(I) time per year. (APA) 

Response: IDEM agrees and has revised the definition of ponable 

source under 326 lAC 2-1.1-1 to clarify what criteria is used to 

determme portability and to include language referring to one ( 1) 

relocation during a _permit term. ' 

Permit Accountability; Refund of Fees 

Comment: Revise the language under 326 lAC 2-5-4(b) and (c) as 

follows: 

(b) If the department does not issue or deny a· construction pennn. 

&F regisrration or modification of an operating permit under 326 

lAC 2-1.3-6 within the time period specified under section 2 of this 

rule, the ~}1lisaFJlfB3¥fRa.Q a~~;e.M68Ma~ef 

department shall automatically refund the pennit. 9f- registration, 

or operating permit modification application fee paid by the 

applicant. 

(c)Upon~efa......_._.,..,._expirationofthe 

specified time period, lhe depanment shall do the following: 

(1) Provide the applicant with a written detennination of Yih~t~-~ .. 

the time period specified under section 2 of this rule has e/ 

(2) If the time period under section 2 of this rule has expir~~. ~1e 

depamnent shall refund the applicant's application fee within thmy 

(30) days afteF ~M6eifHefGM &f:lplii&Rii'S feEtiNNileFel IRe~ 

!:A& BspaFtRIBRt IR&ke& a -URal. Get&HRiRatieR 9ft ~ applisa£iBR. 

"'RisRe··er .H;. lal8f:. of the expiration of the time period specified 

in section 2 of this rule. The depanment shall not refund the 

apphcation fee if, GR$-e Gatem&i+Ha+ Geu!ARIRatiBR MiRe~ 

apptisenieR Res 9eett fRati& ~ ~ 8epaFIA!:BRE within thirty (30) 

days of the expiration of the time period specified in section 2 

of this rule, the departmenl determines: 

(A) one (1) or more of the proposed air pollution eminmg 

facilities IS in operation without prior written authorization 

from the department; or 

(B) construction has commenced on one (l) or more of the air 

poiiUiion emitting facilities withoUI prior written authorization 

from the department. 

Operating under the terms and conditioos of an interim 

construction permit or registration shall constitute prior 

written authorization from the department. 

(3) If the applicant is eligible for a refund of the application fee, 

the deparunent shall do the followmg: 

(A) Continue to review the application. 

(B) Approve or deny the application as soon as practicable. 

(C) Not bill the applicant for additional charges related to the 

application . 

(D) Issue a schedule to the applicant for making a tinal determination on the pending application. 

(4) Ir the department has failed to refund the application, 

required by subdivision (2) within thirty (30) days ofexpiL .• t 

of the time period specified in section 2 of this rule, then the 

Indiana Register, Volume 2!. Number 8. May l, 1998 

3045 
Proposed· Rules 

department shall in addition to refund of the application fee 

shall do the following: 

(A) In the case of a registration, remit one hundred dollars 

($100) to the applicant for each additional thirty (30) days 

that passes prior to refund of the application fee. 

(B) In the case of a construction permit or modification of 

an operating permit, discount the annual operating fee on a 

daily pro rata basis until the refund is made. In addition, 

the department shall not bill or collect any operating fees 

from the applicant for the source in question until such time 

that the department's obligation to refund the application 

fee is discharged. 

Many applicants, panicularly small to medium sized firms, are 

intimidated by the deparunent or some other ann of the government. 

This inumidation has robbed the deparunent of its incentive to provide 

prompt permit service. Without mcennve, no organization can be 

expected to move vigorously to discharge its obligations. By makmg the 

refunds automatic in namre, the intimidation factor is removed from the 

applicants. Subdivision 4 provides further incentives dt.a.t provide the 

deparunent with reasons to resolve refund issues promptly. (DECA) 

Response: When it is clear that the delay in pennit ISSuance is due 

to delays by IDEM rather than the resolution of technical or regulatory issues. IDEM agrees that n would be beneficial for sources to have 

the refunds be automatic and will include language to that effect. It is 

not clear that the language suggested concerning additional refunds 

would be beneficial or an exua incentive. IDEM beheves that the 

focus should be to issue permits in a timely manner that provide 

quality compliance tools for the public, the regulated community, and 

the agency. The pennining resources should be spent on meeting the 

current deadlines and not on administrauve duties associated with 

additional refunds. IDEM does not believe that operauon by default 

in the event of delayed pennit issuance is either an appropriate result 

or in the public interest. 

Title V Operational Flexibility 

Comment: IDEM has proposed to delete the Title V provisions for 

Section 502(b)(l0) changes under 3261AC 2-7-20. No changes should 

be made to these provisions until the U.S. EPA has completed the 

revisions to the federal Part 70 rules. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will keep the current language. 

FESOP Rule Changes 

Co1711Mnt: IDEM has introduced a new concept, that of an 

authorized individual as a person auihonzed to sign reports, etc. This 

concept should be carried over to !.he FESOP rules. The current rule 

poses significant practical difficulties m requiring the same duties to 

be carried out by the responsible official, such as a high-level 

corporate official. (ELC) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will make the revisions to the rules 

under 326 lAC 2-8 where appropriate. 

SUMMARY/RESPONSE TO COMMENTS RECEIVED AT THE 

FIRST PUBUC HEARING 

On March 4, 1998, the air pollution control board (board) 

conducted the first public hearing/board meeting concerning the 

development of new rules and amendments to 326IAC 2. Comments 

were made by the following parties: 

American Automobile ManufacrurCrs Assoctation, (AAMA) 

Eli Lilly and Company, (ELC) 

Indiana Manufacturers Association, (Th..fA) 

Indiana Chamber of Commerce, (ICC) 

Following is a summary of the comments received and IDEM's 

responses !.hereto: 

Comment: The AAMA appreciates the work and effort that IDEM 

has put into the developmem of these rules. IDEM should continue to 

refine !.he rule language and should clarify the language for source 

modifications aL Title V sources. The language would be very 

beneficial for Title V sources. but IDEM should clarify that an 

approval to construct granted under this section does not require U.S. 

EPA approval and this approval is only required when the source is 

requesting an approval to operate the modification. We believe that 

this issue and others can be worked out prior to f~nal adoption with 

workgroup discussions. (AAMA) 

Response: IDEM agrees and will work to provide the clarification 

and will continue to work with the U.S. EPA concerning these rules. 

Comment: Eli Lilly and Company is a company that is significantly 

impacted by the rules and regulations that comprise the new source 

review program. Our plant sites include hundreds of relatively small. 

flexible equipment and the narure of our business requires our 

company to be able to make changes with minimal delay. IDEM has 

put a significant effort m the development of these rules and has 

consistently worked with interested parties in developing rule 

language. Besides the public meetings that IDEM had organized to 

receive mput, a joint work group of Eli Lilly, the Indiana Chamber of 

Commerce, and the Indiana Manufacmrers Association made 

recommendations concerning reforming the minor new source review 

program. Those recommendauons included simplifying the rules so 

that they are more understandable, stre3.mlining the review process, 

integration of the state programs with federal programs, a~:~ d:~:~~=~ 

ing innovative processes to increase operational flexibility 

reducing environmental protection. 

While the draft rules are a step in the right direction. more 

will be needed between preliminary and final adoption. me o,ratt nue·~ 

dOes include several beneficial improvements. The proposed 

ruring of the rules, the inclusion of emission cap an<bdvltnc:e a,pl'roval.' 

provisions, and the proposed revisions concerning changes at 

are all improvements. There are issues that still need to ::~~:~~~::;l IDEM should continue to work: on issues such as the · 

requirement for responsible officials and compliance 

requirements. The definition of a responsible official requires a 

level official to sign documents such as applications and 

having the responsible official at such a high level can cause 

problems. IDEM should also consider establishing criteria. 

costs or available alternatives, for use when determining the 

compliance monitoring that will be required as pan of a 

Further simplification of the rules should be the focus of the 

and the work groups between preliminary and final adoption_, 

Response: IDEM agrees !.hat additional work to further 

and simplify the rules should be pursued. However there 

constraints in federal law that affect how much change 

accomplished. Certain definitions. such as the 

official. are pan of federal program requirements and m'"''""'" to the federal definitions. 

Comment: A significant amount of work has been act:OOJPUI 

and the agency should be commended. The 

such as emission caps, the notice only process and the list 

exemptions in these rules is a step forward. However the 

and the requirements set o~t in those rules should be 

further. (IMA) 

Response: IDEM will continue to work with in•orestedpll 

Indiana Regisrer, Volume 21, Number 8, May I, 1998 

3046 
Jt 

rk 

.le 

.C· 

~ 

:es 

od. 

'" ·ng 

'Sh" 

'"" \1!'1!1. 

'" 

·s of 

miL. 

~ncy 

:LC) 

nlinC 

,y b< 

.n b< 

1S1biC 

1fonn 

IIShcd 

things 

lccifiC 

·uul~ 

:plif.cd 

. rt 

an eifon to funher simplify the rules and rule requirements. 

Comment: A great deal of work has been done to date. but the 

basic requiremenlS for new source review have nm been substantially 

reformed. The emissions caps and nmice only provisions are good 

concepts, but there has been too few subsmntial changes. One of the 

goals was to streamline Lhe process and reduce agency workload. 

More work: needs to be done ro address this issue. (ICC) 

Response: IDEM believes that cenain"aspects of the minor new 

source review program should remain in place. but the agency will 

continue to work: with interested panies between preliminary and final 

adoption to address any outstanding issues. 

326 lAC 1-2-21 ·;-::: 326 lAC 1-2-23.5 

'l;:;· 326 lAC 1-242 

ii!'!''- 326 lAC 1-2-65 

'!;£~ 326 lAC 1-2-73 

,_ ~~: ~~ ~1~~ ~:- 326 lAC 2-1-3 

"~; J261AC 2-1-3.1 

326 lAC 2-1-3.2 

326 lAC 2-1-3.3 

. 326 lAC 2-14 

lAC 2-1-5 

lAC 2-1-6 

lAC 2-1-7.1 

lAC 2-1-8 

lAC 2-1-9 

lAC 2-1-10 

lAC 2-1-11.1 

lAC 2-1-12 

lAC 2~1-13 

lAC 2-1.1 

lAC 2-2-1 

lAC 2-2-2 

lAC 2-2-5 

lAC 2-3-1 

2-J-3 

IAC24 

lAC 24.1 

lAC 2-5 

lAC 2-5.1 

326 lAC 2-6.1 

326 lAC 2-7-1 

326 lAC 2-7-2 

326 lAC 2-74 

326 lAC 2-7-5 

326 lAC 2-7-8 

326 lAC 2-7-9 

326 lAC 2-7-10.5 

326 lAC 2-7-11 

326 lAC 2-7-12 

326 lAC 2-7-19 

326 lAC 2-7-20 

326 lAC 2-7-24 

326 lAC 2-8-3 

3261AC 2-84 

326 lAC 2-8-5 

326 lAC 2-8-7 

326 lAC 2-8-10 

326 lAC 2-8-11 

326 lAC 2-8-11.1 

326 lAC 2-8-15 

326 lAC 2-8-16 

326 lAC 2-9-1 

326 lAC 2-94 

326 lAC 2-9-6 

326 lAC 2-10-1 

326 lAC 2-11-1 

326 lAC 2-12 

326 lAC 2-13 

326 lAC 2-14 

326 lAC 4-1-1 

326 lAC 6-1-11.1 

I. 326 lAC 1·2-21 IS AMENDED TO READ AS 

1-2-21 "Construction" definition 

btibority: IC 13-14-8: IC 13·17·3-4; IC 13-17-J-ll 

IC l3·ll 

· 21. ~construction" means fabrication, erection, or 

of ail: f1Bll1:itias ~ e~i}3ffiBHt Gf a~ one 

ar,,n, •• emissions units at the location intended for its use . 

Proposed Rules 

Consrrucrion does not include any of the following: ( 

(I) Installation of building suppons and foundatioL 

(2) Laying underground piping or arbors. 

(3) Erecrion of storage structures. _ 

( 4) Dismanrling exisring equipment and conrrol devices. 

(5) Ordering of equipment and conrrol devices. 

(6) Off-site fabrication. -

(7) Temporary storage wi<l>ia me~ oilier than when 

pennanem installation will occur. 

This secrion does not apply ro a major PSD source or a majm 

PSD modification as defined in 326 lAC 2-2 or a major sourc< 

or major modification as defmed in 326 lAC 2-3. (Air Pollution 

Cornrol Board; 326/AC 1-2-2J;jiled Mar 10, 1988, 1:20p.m.: 

11/R 2371; filed Juli5, 1993, 5:00p.m.: 16/R 2824) 

SECTION 2. 326 lAC 1·2-23.5 IS ADDED TO READ AS 

FOLLOWS: 

326 lAC 1-2-23.5 "Emissions unit" definition 

Authority: IC 13-14.,'!; IC'13-17-3-4; IC 13-17-3-ll 

AJTectedo, IC 13-ll 

Sec. 23.5. "Emissions unit" meam any part or activity of 

a stationary source that emits or bas the potential to emit 

any regulated air pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

(Air Pollution Control Board; 326/AC 1-2-23.5) 

SECTION 3. 326 lAC 1-2-42 IS AMENDED TO REi ,S 

FOLLOWS: 

326 lAC 1-242 "Modification" definition 

Authority: IC 13-14-8; IC 13-17-3-4; IC 13-17-J-ll 

AJTected: IC 13-ll 

Sec. 42. "Modification' means~ one (I) or more of the 

following activities at an existing source: 

(1) A physical change or change in rhe merhod of operarion 

of any existing~ wiMeft. emissions unit that increases 

the potential &F ~ a.ilewee e:lfH:ssieM (wHisflever ts 

......., stRAgoat) &fto emit any regulated pollutant that could 

be emitted from the "asiH~r, emissions unit, or which 

results in emissions of any regulated pollutant not previously 

emitted. Fat: ftHFfeses sf~ -l-Ab~~ feUawing ~ 

fB "MsliilieatisR" 00<!5 "'* tRelll<!e tile f<!jiiM er replaeo 

fHt!ffi ef aa aH: I!Blhuie:A emia:i:Hg ~ at= air ~ellatien 

eetHf&l. e~itliBBIH 9f ·ESfHf!BB:BElts ~ H ~ f<!jiiM EW 

retJlaeemeat ts .ffta6e+ 

W ffi 9f5ef ta ~Hie faeiliry, fJEeeess, &f ~ 

BEJlli~fftBIU ffi ~ Bf!8Fati8R ~-ilft ~ maJ.fliae 

Heft; meeflanieal ~ m: 

~+a 9fEief te f*9¥etN i~eRSiag it1i& iiRftliaeat ~ -

ef t-fte faeili~·, fFBBBSS, 9f eetHf&i. BE[tiif'IBefH; iiftEi 

(f;1 resttHs ffi a ~BIORtial !& ef!IH fer eaeit feg\W 

IJBlhHaHt ~is~ ffiaft 9f ~ t-6 fRe ~BIBBliai u: 

ef ffle e~uipmeHt His wa5 retJaireS at: re~laee8, fiREi 4:s ttt* 

Indiana Register. Volume 21, Nwnber 8. May I, 1998 

3047 
ATTACHMENT H 

ADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST (40 CFR 51, Appendix V) 

I. The submittal is accompanied by a fonnalletter of submittal 

from the governor or his designee. 

2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code 

or body of regulations; or issued the permit, order, consent 

agreement ("document"); in final form. 

a. Date of adoption or final issuance: 

b. The effective date of the plan, if different 

from the adoption/issuance date. 

3. Evidence that the State has the necessary legal authority 

under state law to adopt and implement the plan. 

4. A copy of the actual regulation or document submitted for 

approval and incorporation by reference into the plan, 

including the following: 

a. Indication of the changes made to the existing 

approved plan, where applicable. 

b. The submittal shall be a copy of the official State 

regulation or document signed, stamped, dated by 

the appropriate state official indicating that it is fully 

enforceable by the State. Effective date shall be stated 

in the document itself. 

5. Evidence that the State followed all of the procedural 

requirements of the State's laws and constitution in 

conducting and completing the adoption/issuance of the plan. 

Enclosed 

Signature Page 

(Attachment B) 

Date of Sec. of State 

(November 25, 1998) 

30 days after filing 

(December 25, 1998) 

IC 13-14-8 

Indiana Admin. Code 

(Attachment A) 

Signature Page 

(Attachment B) 

6. Evidence that public notice was given, including date of Attachment D 

proof of publication. 

_X_ Notice of First Public Hearing and Publisher's Affidavits 

_X_ Notice of Second Public Hearing and Publisher's Affidavits 

7. Certification that public hearings were held in accordance 

with information provided in public hearing notice. 

Attachments E & F 
_X_ Transcript from First Public Hearing 

_X_ Transcript from Second Public Hearing 

8. Compilation of public comments and State"s response. 

X Second Notice 

_X_ Proposed Rule 

X Third Comment Period 

9. Technical support (if source specific rule change). 

Attachment C 

Attachment G 

Attachment F 

N/A