# ATTACHMENT F

### /1



### '

I INDIANA

DATE: TIME: AIR POLLUTION CONTROL BOA.."illr----------, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

# teePv1

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 25l 

### 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 were

### 10 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 rule

### 13 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 rula 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 go38 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 have41 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 FESOP44



## ,**~** 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 theI 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**  

### ita48 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"ithout this statute chw,ge1 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 .. Chairm.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 11Which 11 and ''that 11 and 11have'' 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. 11Page 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 exemption1 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 -- with1

.,**~** 

### 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 upi(

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 to1 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 five

### 9 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? 2590 

### 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 11thousand" 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 page1 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 have1 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 the1 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~le** making. 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 video

### 4 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 theI 

### 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 rule

### 5 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, but1 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, but120 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 RI ( 

### 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, andI



### .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 Publicset

I

### / 

# AmericanAutomobileManufacturersAssociation

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 ofAir Management Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management Indiana Government Center North, Room 1001 1

00 North Senate Avenue 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 ofrules pertaining to Minor New Source Review on July 1, 1998. We request that the Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) include this letter inthe 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 withthe Agency onfuture modifications to the rule. AAMA's primary concern with the rule is that a Title V source be able to operate priorto 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 ifthe 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 101West 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 ofa 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 constructionhas 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 NSRrule. Ifyou have any questions regarding any ofthe issues that are addressed herein, I can be reached at (317) 684-6881. Sincerely,

GerryHays RegulatoryAffairs Manager

2

## ( Proposed Rules

Sec. 2. (a) Thesurvey shall. at leastevery other calendar year, publish a roster showing the names and addresses of the licensed professional geologists. (b)Each licensed professional geologistis 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 bythe licensed professional geologistunderthis subsection. (Board of Cerriftcarionfor Professional Geologiscs; 305 lAC 1-4-2) SECTION 2. SECTION 1 of this document takes effect January 1, 1999. Notice ofPublic Hearing Under 1C4-22-2-24. nocice is hereby given charonJune 26, 1998 at 10:30 a.m., at che indiana Geological Survey, 6il North Walnuc Grove, Room S·20I, Bloomingcon, Indiana che Board ofCertificationfor Professwnal Geologiscs will hold a public hearing on proposed new rules co govern cescing, certification, a code ofconduce, and discipline oflicensed professional geologiscs. Copies of these rulesarenowon file at the Indiana Geological Survey, 6il Nonh Walnuc Screec, Bloomingcon, indianaandLegislaciveServicesAgency, Indiana Govemmenc Cencer-South, 302 West Washingcon Screec, Room EOII, Indianapolis, indianaandareopen forpublicinspeccion. 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 concerningponab1e sources. Amends 326 lAC 4-1-1 and 326 lAC 6-1-11.1 to update references to new rule citations. Repeals 326lAC2·1-1, 326lAC 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 lAC2-1-9, 326lAC 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 ofRescheduled Public Hearing: October 1. 1996, Register (20 lR 220). Republication ofSecond Notice ofCommentPeriod 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** commenton the entire proposed rule (preliminanly adopted) proposed rule contains numerous changes from the draft mak.e the proposed rule so substamively differentfrom 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 generalprovisions. Amends 326IAC2-2 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 326lAC2-5 .Iconcerning constructionofnew 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 lAC2-8 to includeprovisions for the establishmentofemission caps and to implement streamlined pennit revision procedures and a unitary permit system. Amends 326 lAC2-9-1to update This notice requests the submission of comments including suggestionsforspecificamemlm1entstoth<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 ofAir Management Indiana Department ofEnvironmemai Management P.O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015. Handdelivered comments willbe acceptedby 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 FROMTHE SECOND COMMENTPERIOD, AUGUST1, 1996, TOSEPTEMBER!, 1996 IDEM requested public comment from August I. 1996, lo September 1, 1996, on the draft rule language. IDEM receive commentsrelative to this rulemaking from the foUowing panies by rhe commentperiod 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:** 1neproposedchangeofthe 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 currentrules a source**111t11111~erutilizes**equipmentmay increaseoperation oftheequipment actual emissions from the equipment up to the permitted emission rate witholl[ triggering permit review requireHowever. under the proposed rulethis scenano would trigger revieW requirements because the increased urilizauon would

increased actual emissions. (APP. LL Y) t,(COinlrll!nt: Underthe proposed definition of**"modification~** IDEM clarify what happens \vhen the source determines after the lharthephysicaloropera_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 ofmodification 

### 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. (LLY) 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: Intheproposeddefinition ofmodification, thecharacter-**"!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 operationsbecauseoflh.e widely fluctuating**natu~e** ofemissions associated with such processes. (LLY} Comment: The requirementto base the future acmalemisstons rate on the unit's physical or operational constraints and federally enforceable limits undermines the usefulness oflhe future actual rest becausethe requirementscloselyresemblepofenrialemissions. (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 proposeddefmition**of~**modification", IDEMuses the phrase "furore actual emissions" to describe the emissions of a pollutant not previously emitted. The use ofthis phrase is confusing and should be deleted. (GE) Comment: In the definition of modification. IDEM proposes to characterize as a modification, changes that triggera new app!irequirement. IDEM should nm add thisphraseunless IDEMe{ lhe purpose oflhe 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 ofthe rerm "facility" earlier in the definition. The tenn "modification" used in proposed subparagrapl:l (3) should b changedto "change" becausethis useofthe 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 lhepre-change calculationoffurure acrual emissions was reasonable. (GE) Comment: IDEM's definition of future acrual emissions should recognizethat NSRwill not apply unless there is a causal link between rhe proposedchangeandany**post~hange** increase in emissions. (GE) Comment: 

### rn .the proposed detlnition of modification, record keeping is required to demonstrate that a physical or operational changedidnotresultin an increaseofacruatemissions. Thisprov1s1on is overly-broad and should be targered to affect only those changes thar would ordinarily need a pennir. (BSC) Comment:Theprovision in the ModificationExemptionQualification that states modifications resulting in an increase in any of the lisred HAPs donotqualify for the streamlinedapprovalprocedurewill severely limitits applicabilitybecause benzeneandpolycyclicorgan,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.ficadon category for Comment: The Modification Exempnon ua 1 1 Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number B. Mav 1 · 1998 3037

# I ITITLE326 AIRPOLLUTION CONTROLBOARD LSADocument#98-95 Rc398095 MinorNSR July 1, 1998

SUMMARY/RESPONSE TO COMMENTSFROM THE TIDRD COMMENT PERIOD 

### TheIndianaDepartmentofEnvironmental Management (IDEM) requested public comment from May 1, 1998, throughMay 21, 1998, onIDEM'sproposedrulelanguage. IDEMreceived comments from the following parties: Bruce CarterAssociates Chrysler Corporation Eli Lilly & 

### Company General Electric Company (BCA) (CC) (ELC) (GE) Following is a summary ofthe commentsreceived and IDEM'sresponses thereto. Comment: The definition of"modification" shouldberevisedto only include reconstruction that increases thepotentialto emit. 326 lAC 1-2-42(3) shouldbe revisedto read: "(3)Reconstruction ofone (1) 

### ormore existing emissionunitsthat

### have increases 

### the potentialto emit ofany

### regulated air pollutants." (GE) Response: IDEM agrees andhas 

### revisedthe language accordingly. Comment: The current language under 326 lAC 1-2-65 defines reconstruction as "anemission unit shall be consideredto bereconstructed whenthe fixed capital cost ofthenew components exceed fifty percent (50%) ofthe fixed capital costofa comparable entirelynewemissionunit." There are severalnew sourceperformance standards (NSPS), including Subpart 

### 000, Subpart VV, and SubpartXX, have identified certainreplacementparts that shouldnotbe accounted for in determining thenewcomponentcostfor the affected source category. Theproposedrule language is consistentwiththe federal defmition ofreconstruction and should include a qualifying statementto reflectthe exceptions in 

### federal rules. (BCA) Response: IDEM agrees andhas includedlanguageto address federal rules. Comment: The emissionthresholds for permitting requirements are intonsperyear, exceptfor sources emittingvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) and subjectto 326 lAC 8provisionsthat have a threshold expressed inpoundsper day. Thepermittingrules are based onpotentialto emitwhichis anannual calculation, butthe applicability under 326 lAC 8is based onthe potential emissions defmition. Itappears thatthereasons to keep thepoundsper day are to maintain consistency and to alleviate any concernthat a source may construct anew source or modify anexisting sourcethatis subjectto 326 lAC 8 withoutpermittingreview. A source or a

6/16/98 (rwl) IRc398095 MinorNSR July l, 1998 modification ofa sourcethatis subjectto theprovisions of326lAC 8 is subjectto therules and mustcomply withthose rules regardless ofwhether a permit orpermitrevisionisissued. There appears to be little, ifany, benefitto havingthe differentpermittingthreshold andall ofthe thresholds should be intons peryearto be consistent. (ELC) 

### Response: IDEMbelieves thatthere are situations where itis appropriate to have different permittingthresholds, such as situations where air quality or adequate compliancemonitoring may be ofconcern. However, IDEMwillprovide theAirPollutionControl Boardwithrules that replacethepounds/daythresholdfor volatile organic compounds witha tons/yearthreshold and more specifically addressesthe types ofsources ormodifications subjectto a particularthreshold. 

### Comment: The rules shouldprovidethat anowner or operator ofa Part70 sourcemay undertake emergency andpreventativemaintenance activities necessary eitherfor safetypurposes ortoprotect equipment orthe environmentwithouthavingto fust obtainapproval from the commissioner. The currently proposedrules have deletedkey languagethatpreviouslyprovided for suchactionsby anowner oroperator. Theseprovisions shouldberestored orthe definition of"modification" shouldbefurther modified so anemergencyreconstructionormaintenance activity not subjectto otherrequirements is notunnecessarily delayed. (GE) (ELC) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andhas includedthe same language concerning emergencyrepair and replacement in 326lAC 2-7-10.5 thatwas includedunderthe minor source (326 lAC 2-6.1-6) and FESOPrules (326 lAC 2-8-11.5). 

### Comment: The currentrulesprovidefor certaintemporary operations and experimentaltrials tobeexemptedfrompermittingrequirements under 326lAC 2-1-1(b)(3)(C). Theseprovisions shouldbeincludedinthe newrules and shouldbe applicable to all source categories (GE) (ELC) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andhasincludedtheprovisions for temporary operations and experimentaltrials, currently at326 lAC 2-1-1(b)(3)(C), inthe newrules underthe exemptions at 326 lAC 2-l.l-3(g). 

### Comment: Itis notclearwhether a modification approval issuedunder 326lAC 2-7-10.5 is considered a registration, permit, oroperatingpermitrevisionunder 326 lAC 2-1.1-2. There are several otherreferencestoregistrations, permits, or operatingpermitrevisions in 326 lAC 2-1.1 andwithoutclarificationthatthe 326lAC 2-7-10.5 "modificationapprovals" are anoperating permitrevisionthe rule couldberead as precluding ornotaddressing TitleV source modifications. Eithernewrule language or a discussioninresponseto these comments should clarifythat obtaining approvalunder 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 satisfiestherequirements setforth in326 lAC 2-1.1. (GE) (ELC) 

### Response: The languageunder 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 is intendedto provide Part70 sources with options for preconstructionapproval andeither, anapprovalto construct or an operatingpermit revision. The language under 326lAC 2-1.1 has beenrevisedto clarify thatno further procedures or approvals arerequired for sourcesutilizing 326 lAC 2-7-10.5.

6/16/98 {rwl) 2Rc398095 MinorNSR July I, 1998 

### Comment: Theuse ofpermitting exemptions as a means ofeliminating administrative burdens thathaveno environmentalbenefitis supported. The rule contains an appropriate list ofsuch exemptions. (CC) Response: IDEM agrees. Comment: 326lAC 2-1.1-8(a) lists the timethe state has allottedfor theprocessing ofpermit applications. The time allottedis excessive and will cause significant, unneeded delays with importantprojects. Therule allows for extensions to theprocessingtimebythe applicant and the time shouldbe shortened exceptunder exceptional circumstances inwhich an extensioncould occur. Itisrecommendedthatthe two hundred seventy (270) days to process federal NSR permits be shortenedto onehundred eighty (180) days andthe onehundredtwenty (120) days for minorpermits be shortenedto ninety (90) days. (CC) Response: Thetimeperiods includedunder 326 lAC 2-1.1-8 are the sametime periods that are currently included under 326 lAC 2-5 thatbecame effective staterules in 1993 and were codified by the General Assembly in 1994. The timeperiods are appropriate maximumtimeframes for thetypes ofreviewthat are needed. The office ofairmanagementis obligatedto refund fees for permit actions thatexceedthesetimeframes and the number oflate decisions is currently approaching zero. Decisions are typically made much earlierthanthe maximum allowedby law. Comment: The definitions of"Allowable emissions" in 326 lAC 2-2-1 and 326 lAC 2-3-1 should be modifiedto allowthe use ofan applicable standard setforth in40 CFR63 ifthat standardis themost stringent standard. (GE) Response: The definition ofallowable emissions comes from the federal new source review rules. The federal defmitionhas notchanged and IDEM does notbelievethat a change is appropriate until the federal regulations that are thebasis 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) exemptfromthose rules any sources operatingpursuantto a TitleV permit, but do not exempt a sourcethathas filed a TitleV permit application andis awaiting the issuance ofthepermit. These provisions shouldexempt those sourcesthat do nothave a final Title V permit, buthave filed thepermit application. The issue shouldbe clarified inotherareas ofthe newrules, ifapplicable. (ELC) Response: Currently, Title V sources awaiting action ona permitapplication are still subject to thepermits andregistrationsthatwere issuedunder 326 lAC 2-1-2 or 326IAC 2-1-4. The newrules wouldbe not differ from this approach. A new source that did not optto have a combinedconstructionpermitand operatingpermitissuanceunder 326 lAC 2-5.1, would operate underthe operatingpermitterms in accordance with 326 lAC**~-6.1** 

### untilthe TitleV permit is issued. Ifa source wouldbe exempted, it wouldnothavethe abilityto usethe permitrevision procedures under 326 lAC 2-6.1-6. This couldbe detrimental to the source and IDEMbelieves thatthe source should operate under an enforceablepermitandnotthe Title V permitapplication

6/16/98 (rwl) 

### 3Rc398095 MinorNSR July 1, 1998 

### thatis notenforceable. Existing sourceswouldnotbe subjectto thenewsourceprovisions of 326 lAC 2-5.1 and 326 lAC 2-6.1-3(d) contains languagethat statesthata Part 70 sourcethathas submitted a Part 70 applicationhas satisfiedthe requirements of326 lAC 6.1. 

### Comment: 326 lAC 2-5.1-3(b) shouldbe changedto accurately refer to the requirement referenced in subsection (a) as follows: 

### "(b) Anypersonproposingthe construction ofa newsource andrequiredtoprepare ru:1 

### application obtain a construction permitunder subsection (a), including

...." (GE) 

### Response: IDEM agrees and willrevise the language accordingly. 

### Comment: The citation inthe lastline of326 lAC 2-5.1-3(e)(5) appears to have a typographical error and shouldbe changedto 326 lAC 2-l.l-3(d)(1)through (33). (GE) 

### Response: IDEMagrees andwillmake the change accordingly. 

### Comment: The languageunder 326 lAC 2-6.1-6(b)(l) shouldbe clarified as follows: "(1) 

### the repair orreplacementresults in apotentialto emitfor eachregulatedpollutantthat is less thanor equalto the potential to emit ofthe equipment orthe affected emissions uuit.

.." (GE) 

### Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language. 

### Comment: The languageunder 326 lAC 2-7-5(16)(B) shouldbe changedto setforththat only necessarymonitoring, testing, reporting, andrecordkeepingrequirements are tobe included in thepermit. (GE) 

### Response: IDEM agrees and will revise the language accordingly. 

### Comment: Therule languageunder 2-7-10.5 does notinclude a provisionunder currentlaw that allows for anexemptionfor like kindreplacements. This is a crucialprovisionto streamliningthe permittingprocedures and shouldbeincluded as a notice only type change for Part 70 sources. There are several other streamlining optionsthatare available for minoror FESOP sources, but are not available undertheproposedrules for Part70 sources. (ELC) 

### Response: IDEM agrees thatwherepossibletherules shouldbe consistentacross the permittingprograms. Therules for Part 70 sourcesmustmeetfederal requirements under 40 CFR70 and any changes to the rules mustbe approvedbytheU.S. EPA as partoflndiana'sPart 70 operatingpermitprogram. This situationmay cause inconsistencies betweenthepermit programs, butIDEMhas workedwiththe U.S. EPAtoprovide as much streamlining as possible for Part70 sources. 

### Comment: 326lAC 2-7-10.5(c)(5)(C) shouldbe clarifiedby statingthatthe control device is anairpollution control device. (GE) 

### Response: IDEM agrees and willrevisethe language accordingly.

6/16/98 (rwl) 

### 4Rc398095 MinorNSR July I, 1998 

### Comment: 

### The language under 326 lAC 2-7-lO.S(k) is notclear concerning whether anowner or operator ofa Part70 source is requiredto take further action or if

### thementioned incorporation is automatic. The language also mentions "modification approval" and notapermit. The language should clarify theprocess to befollowed. (GE) Response: 

### IDEM agrees and will attemptto provide clarificationwhere needed. Comment: 

### The inclusionofthe emissions cap conceptis supported andwill be aneffective tool for managing eruissions while miniruizing any delays in modernizing manufacturing facilities inthe state. The option for setting anemissions cap inthecontextofa prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) review shouldberetained. This option allows new and totally rebuiltfacilities apractical optionfor creating a cap. There is concernwiththerulelanguage under 326 lAC 2-7-20(a)(l). Therule language allows a source to make changes withoutprior approval, if"thechanges are notmodificationsunder any provisions ofTitleI ofthe CleanAir Act(CAA)." This couldbe interpreted to indicate thatthe eruissions cap is notthe basis for determining federal new source review (NSR). Therule shouldbe clarifiedto make clearthat the emissions cap is intendedto determine federal NSRapplicability. (CC) Response: 

### The definition ofa TitleI modification is dependent onfederalregulations. While itis IDEM's intentionthatthe emissions cap limitwouldbethe basis for federal NSR applicability, therulesmustbe consistentwithfederal regulations and cannot allowfor circumvention ofthoseregulations. Comment: 

### Theproposed establishmentofemissioncap concepts is a positive step and is especially supported for Part 70 sources. Businesses need a mechanismthat assists inbalancing production, emissions, and timeliness for theirprocesses and itis hopedthatIDEMwill continue to searchfor new andinnovative ways to use eruission caps in awaythatincreases flexibility whilebeingprotective ofthe environmentandpublic welfare. (GE) Response: 

### IDEM agrees. Comment: 

### Theterminology concerning emissions caps shouldberevisedto avoidpotential confusion among sources withplants is several states andto have national consistency. Emission caps shouldbe referredto as plant-wide applicability limits (PALs). Thisterm is usedbythe U.S. EPA and other states. (BCA) Response: 

### IDEM agrees that the termPALs is used at the federal level and a definition ofa PAL will be includedunder 2-1.1-1. IDEMis retainingthe term emissions cap and emissions capprogram because the proposedrules would allowfor the establishmentofemissions caps at a lower level thanthe entireplant. Comment: 

### The rulehas been structuredto separate differentpermitprogramrequirements into separaterules or sections. Therule language associatedwithPALs shouldbe incorporated into a separate sectionto reduce confusionfor the sourcesthat are interestedinusing this option.

6/16/98 (rwl) 

### 5(BCA) Rc398095 MinorNSR July I, 1998 

### Response: IDEMagrees andhas placedtheprovisions for emissions cap programs underthe generalprovisions, 326lAC 2-1.1. 

### Comment: The currentrule language onlyprovides the optionfor a PALto beincluded in a Part 70 orFESOPpermit. Therule language shouldberevisedto providethis optionfor sources withany operatingpermitwhether a state minoroperatingpermit, Part70, orFESOP. (BCA) 

### Response: The definition ofa PAL asproposedby theU.S. EPA andincluded at2-1.1-1(12) andtheprovisionsunder 326 lAC 2-1.1-12 requirethePALto befederally enforceable. Thetwo permitprogramsthatare available atthis time are the Part70 andFESOPprograms. In addition, the establishmentofanemissions cap programthatmay include a PALrequires more effort duringthepermit applicationreviewandIDEMbelievesthatthe FESOPprogramis more appropriateto accountforthe increased effort associatedwithemissions caps orPALs. IDEM has revisedthe applicability ofthe FESOPprogramto allow sources thatare not subjectto Part 70 to apply for a FESOP. 

### Comment: Therule language shouldbe clarifiedto statethat constructionofnewemission units orinstallationofequipment is not subjectto state or federal NSR as long as the source's activities do notcause emissions above thepre-establishedemissions cap. (BCA) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andwillattemptto clarifythe languagewherenecessary. Whilethe language does refertopreconstructionor modificationapprovals or operatingpermitrevisions thatincludebothstateand federal new source review, the applicability offederalnewsource reviewis dependent onfederal regulations. 

### Comment: The notificationrequirements for changes thatare made under a PAL shouldbe streamlinedand simplified. The items to berequired shouldinclude a description ofthephysical oroperational changes, the units affected, the proposed schedule for such change, newrule applicability, othernon-PAL criteriapollutants affected, anda certificationthatthe changewill notresultinemissions greaterthanthe PAL. (BCA) 

### Response: IDEMwillreviewthe notificationrequirements and will attemptto simplify the requirements. Comment: Therule language under 326lAC 2-5.1-3(g)(2) states that operatingpermit revisions are notnecessary for sourceswithmodifications, reconfigurations, orother "minor physical changes"thatdo notresultinan increase inthepotentialto emit. IDEM should define "minorphysical changes" to avoid conflictsthatmayarisedueto differing opinions or interpretations betweenIDEM andregulatedindustries. (BCA) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andwill provide a definitionunder 326lAC 2-1.1-1. 

### Comment: The applicability ofthe proposedrules to Part70 sources, while seemingly

6/16/98 (rwl) 6Rc398095 MinorNSR July I, 1998 addressedinthe rules, is complicated and not straightforward. Guidance or explanatory informationconcerningthenewrules and the Part70permitprocess wouldbevaluable anda flow diagram concerning source modificationwouldalso be valuable. (GE) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andanticipates that guidance andoutreachconcerningthenewrules willbeneeded andnecessary. 

### Comment: The rule languageunder 326 lAC 2-13-l(a) isunclear concerning whether or not this applies to sourcesthathave submitted a Part70 permitapplicationbut do nothave an effective Part 70permit. IDEM should clarifythatthe owner or operatorofa Part70 sourcewith registrations, constructionpermits, or operatingpermitsmay applyto modifythe sourceunder 326 lAC 2-13. (GE) 

### Response: IDEM does notbelievethatthe clarification is necessary. Theproposedrule language under 326lAC 2-6.1-3(b) recognizes the validity ofthe currentoperatingpermits, in that, the source is notrequiredto apply for a newoperatingpermituntilthe current operating permit is aboutto expire. The current and the newrules bothrecognizethata previouspermit cancontinue to bevalid, evenafterthe expirationdate, ifthe owneroroperatorhas submitted a permitrenewal applicationhas been submitted inaccordance withtherules. A Part70 source wouldhavebeen subjectto the currentoperatingpermitrequirements and shouldhavebeen issued a permit. The ability to use 326lAC 2-13 is based onhaving a valid operatingpermitand so, whetherornot a source is subjectto Part70 is notcritical, thepossession ofa validoperating permitisthe criteriathatmustbe met. 

### Comment: Theproposed languageunder 326lAC 2-13 shouldbe changedto clarifythat a source canqualifyunder 326 lAC 2-13-1 when constructing a newemissions unit atanexisting source. This is animportantneedfor businesses thatneed to quicklybeginconstruction ofa new unit notpreviously coveredby an operating permit. The following changes are suggested: "This sectionapplies to any personwho operates anexisting sourceundervalid operating permits issuedbythe commissioner andwho proposesto modify a source 

### or construct a new emission unit atthe existing source and suchmodification

### orconstruction requires anoperatingpermitrevision 

### orother approval

### bythe commissionerin accordance with this article, excluding the following:" (GE) 

### Response: While the IDEMbelievesthattheproposedrevisionsto the defmition ofa modificationunder 326 lAC 1-2-42 along withthephrase "modifythe source" wouldinclude construction ofnewemissions units, the language willberevisedto providebetter clarity. 

### Comment: Thereis a discrepancyunder 326 lAC 2-13-1(i)(2). The verbage states "Thirty", butthenumber is "(31)". (GE) 

### Response: The language shouldread "Thirty-one" andwill be corrected. 

### Comment: Because a significantnumber ofsources will notbereceivingtheirfinal Part 70

6116/98 (rwl) 7Rc398095 MinorNSR July 1, 1998 

### permits for sometime, therules shouldprovide separateprovisions for those sources thathave notyetreceived a final permit. (ELC) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andhas providednewlanguage under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 addressing permittedandunpermitted sources. 

### Comment: The rules under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 shouldprovide an alternative permittingprocess. The rulesprovide significant streamlining buttheprovisionsrequiringthe signature ofa responsible official, eventhoughthe source may nothave received a final Part 70permit, is burdensome. An 

### alternativeprocedure shouldbeprovidedwhere the responsible official's signature is notrequired. (ELC) 

### Response: IDEMhas revisedthe rule languageto allow less stringentprocedures for a source thatis only requesting an approval to construct. 

### Comment: Thetwo (2) startupnotifications under 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 shouldbe deleted. The source will be notifyingthe agency withthe application ofthe modification and again whenan administrative amendmenttothe Part 70 permit isrequested. Ifthe language is retained, the source willbeproviding four (4) notifications. 

### Response: IDEM agrees andwill deletethe notification languageunder 326 lAC 2-7-10.5. 

### Comment: Therule language under 326 lAC 2-7-5(11) and (16) shouldincludereferences to 326 lAC 2-7-10.5 to clarifythat source modifications are notrequiredfor changesunder an emissions cap orinaccordance withan advance approval. (ELC) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andwill revise the language accordingly. 

### Comment: In several sections oftheproposedrules, therules referto thetrading ofemission increases anddecreases as theprimary characteristic ofemissions cappermits. This is an antiquated viewofemission caps and shouldbe deleted. In most cases, sources willprobably justadjusttheprocesses and emissionsto complywiththe cap and willnot actuallytrade emissions. (ELC) 

### Response: IDEMagrees thatthe emissions capprogram is not solely dependent onemission trading and will attemptto clarifythe language accordingly. 

### Comment: Theproposed languageunder 326 lAC 2-8-10(a)(ll)requires anadministrative amendmentfor changes under an emissioncap atFESOP sources. Theproposed language addressing emissioncaps already requires notificationunder 326 lAC 2-8-15(a)(3) andthe administrative amendmentprovisions are redundant andburdensome. (ELC) 

### Response: IDEM agrees andwill deletethe languageunder 326 lAC 2-8-1O(a)(l1).

6/16/98 (rwl) 

### 8

# ATTACHMENT 

# G

### Proposed Rules

Sec. 2. (a) Thesurvey shall. at leastevery 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 totheaddress providedhy the licensed professional geologistunderthis subsection. (Board of Certifica!ionfor Professional Geologists; 305 lAC 1-4-2) references to new rule citations. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-4 concerning woodworking operations. Amends 326 lAC2-9-6, 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 ofPublic Hearing UnderIC4-22-2-24, n01ice is hereby given thaionJune 26. 1998 at /0:30a.m., at the Indiana Geological Survey, 611 Nonh Walnuz Grove, Room S-201, Bloomington, Indiana the Board ofCenijicazionfor Professional Geologists will hold a public hearing on proposed new rules to govern resting, cenification, a code ofconduct, and discipline oflicensed professional geologists. Copies of these rules arenowonfile at the Indiana Geological Survey, 611 Nonh Walnut Streez, Bloomingzon, JndianaandLegislativeServicesAgency, Indiana Government Center-South, 302 West Washington Street, Room EOI1, Indianapolis,lndianaandareopen forpublicinspection. 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 326lAC2-2 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.Adds326lAC2-S.1 concerningconstructionofnew 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 toincludeprovisions fortheestablishmentofemission caps and to implement streamiined permit revisionprocedures and a unitary permit system. Amends 326 lAC 2-9-lto updateAdds 3261AC 2-14 concerningportable sources. Amends 326 lAC 4-1-1 and 326 lAC 6-1-11.1 to update references to new . rulecitations. Repeals 326lAC2-1-1, 3261AC2-1-2, 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 lAC2:1- 7.1, 326 lAC2-1-8, 326 lAC2-1-9, 326 lAC2-1-10, 3261AC

. 2-Hl.l, 326 lAC 2-1-12,326 lAC2-1-13, 326 lAC2-4,

. lAC 2-S, and 326 lAC 2-8-11. Effective 30 days after"'"'"""'"' with the secretary ofstate. IDSTORY First Notice of .Comment Period: February 1. 1996, Register (19 IR 1205). Second Notice of Comment Period: August 1. 1996. Register (19 IR3219). Notice ofResc'heduled Public Hearing: October 1. 1996, Register (20 IR220). Republication ofSecond Notice ofComment 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 thatdiffers substantively from the draftrule pul>l"ishc:duodi, IC 13-14-9-4. until the board has conducted athird 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 commenton lhe entireproposedrule (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 FORPUBLIC COMMENTS This notice requests the submission of comments · including suggestionsforspecificamendmentsto comments and the depamnent'sresponse 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 ofAir Management Indiana·Departtnent ofEnvironmental Management P.O. Box 6015 Indianapolis, Indiana 46206-6015. · Hand delivered comments willbe acceptedby the··,,eccptic•oiSill! at the tenth floor reception desk, Office of Air MaiOOI!Clll North Senate Avenue. Indianapolis, Indiana.

Indiana Register, Volume 21, Number 8, May I, 1998 3036J

iC :er od**~nt ~nt**  

## "" \ng**~!le** .hat :ule

:1llc• 

# '""

,,10



### ..9-"·

l't.' COMMENT PERIODDEADLINE Comments must be postmarked or hand delivered by May 21, 1998. SUMMARY/RFSPONSE TO COMMENTS FROMTIIESECOND COMMENTPERIOD, AUGUSTI,l9%,TOSEPTEMBERt, 19% IDEM requested public comment from August 1. 1996, to September 1, 1996, on the draft rule language. IDEM receive commentsrelative 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 ofthe rulemalcing and proceed with the portion ofme rulemaking related to HEA 1265. (APP)**"'''Cll·nu:~'"'** Thepi-oposed changeofthedefinition ofnmodification" 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** increaseoperationoflheequipment ii: from r.he equipment up to the permitted emission rate. without triggering pennit review**requue~** ioijiS•.Ho,we.ver, underlhe proposed rule this scenario would trigger revieW requiremenlS because the increased utilization would in increased actual emissions. (APP. LL Y) IClii'mnumt:. Undertheproposed definition of "modification'' IDEM clarify what happens ·when the source determines after the 

### !1"1!•thallthe phy,;ic:!loroperationalchangedid resultin an mcrease 

## ••mn"' a<:tt!<al emissions. (APP) IDEM should clarify the proposed definition of dification to srate that mcreases ofacrual emissions w levels that below allowable emissions are exempt from any permitting

### ~=~~.(APP) J.(1 The proposed revision to the definition ofmodification lf'tonflict with case Jaw that requires an agency ro use the past futurepotential rest to determineemission 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, butWhich involve changes to a source, able to use the future acruaf testconrained 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: Intheproposeddefinition ofmodificadon, thecharacter-**·~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 wouldapply to changes whic would nor have tnggered New Source Review in the -first place (LLY) Comment: Record keeping requirements should notbe 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 becauseofthe widely tlucruating**natn~e** ofemissions associated wir:h such processes. (LLY) Comment:Therequirememto basethe 1 future actualemissions rare on the unit's physical or operational constraints and federally enforceable limilS undermines the usefulness ofthe future actual test becauserhe requirementsclosely resemblepotential emissions. (LLY) 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: Intheproposeddefinitionof "modification", IDEMuses the phrase "furure acrual emissions" to describe the emissions of a pollutant not previously emitted. The use ofthis 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. IDEMshould not add this phraseunless IDEMe{ the purpose ofthe language. (GE) '. Comment: In IDEM's proposedsubdivision (3) in thedefinirion of modification, the tenn ''soUrce" should be changed to "facility" to be consistent with the use of the term "facility" earlierin the definition. The term "modification" used in proposed subparagrapi) (3) should b changedto "change" becausethis useofthe 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 calculationoffurureactual emissions was reasonable. {GE} Comment: IDEM's definition of future actual emissions should recognize that NSR will notappLy unlessthere IS a causal link between !.he proposed changeand any post-change increase inemissions. (GE) Comment: In the proposed definition of. modification, record keeping is required to demonstrate that a physical or operational changedid norresultin an increaseofactualemissions. Thisprovis1on is**overly~broad** and should be targeted to affect only those changes that would ordinarily need a permit. (BSC} Comment: The provision inthe ModificationExemption**QuaJifica~** tion that states modifications resulting in an increase in any of the listed HAPs do norqualifyforthe streamlinedapprovalprocedurewill severely limit its a-pplicability because benzeneandpolycyclicorganjrt 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 categoryfor Comment: The Modification Ex:empuon ua 1 1 Ind. R

. V.olume 21. "u·-"er B. Mav. 1' 1998 wna egwer, '"**"~** 3037

# \ Proposed Rules

lodificationsthatare repairs orreplacementsis redundambecausethe definition of modification already exempts repair. (APP) Comment: IDEMshouldreevaluatethe entire NSRrules to develop a strucrure and system !.hat achieves IDEM's obJectives bur is based on more straightforward rules. (LLY) Commenc: Trivial activities should be exempted from minor New Source Review. (LLY, GE) Comment: Sources subject toa 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 potentialemissions ratherthanthe currentrestriction thatthe change cannot increase furore acrual emissions. (LLY) Comment: IDEM shouldconsidera 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 inconsistentwiththe structureofthe existingNSRrules. IDEM should**eli~inare** the term "allowable emissions" and base permitting and registration requiremenlS on the federal definition of hpotential to emit". (LLY) 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:Theexemptionfortemporaryoperationsande::r;perimen· t.al trials curremly contained in the rules needs to be reevaluated in light ofthe otherchanges beingproposed 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 SignificantDeteriorationpennining (325IAC-2-2) require a source to obtain a PSD pennitbefore the owner/operator commencesconstrue· tion. Federal regulations requirea PSD permitbefore acrualconstruction 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" foundinthe state PSDregulations to conformto the changesproposed 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. (LLY) Comment: IDEM should simplify the NSR rules by basing the applicabilicy ofthe rules onthe cype ofprojectbeing proposed. (LL Y) Commenr: IDEM should use annualemission 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 ratherthan negative. (LLY) Comment: Minimize the number of review processes to which a projectmay bepotentially subject.Forexample, IDEMcouldhavethe following cypes ofreview processes: Full public notice and comment prior to commencmg construction, operation; agency review priorto 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. (LLY) 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 ofHEA 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 replacethe phrase "Modificationdoes notil n A physical change or change in the method of opera•tion.dl>el**include~.** This will promoteconformity withfederal**r~::u~::;~** Commenr.· In subdivision (1) of the definition of IDEM should delete thephrase "or components thereor phrase adds no substance to the definition. (GE) Comment: In subdivision (1) ofthe 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 equipmentthat has a**~:;':~~::;** Comment: Subdivision (2) of the**definitio~** of unnecessary. It requiresthatanapplicationfor a penn.ito: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 3038Comment: IDEM should revise the Pollution Prevention Project rule to include switches to less pollutmg soJvem. coating, refrigeranc orJess toxic YOC, or another project undertaken to reduce emiss1on ofregulated air pollutanc.. <GE) Comment: IDEMshould review and clanfy the proposedmod!ilea· tion exemption qualiticauon rules. (BSC) Comment: Theproposedamendmenrsareconfusmgandvagueand because ofthat confusion and vagueness. rhey fail to accomplish the stated purpose of the rulemaking, to identify and eliminate state penniningrequiremen[S whereanalogous review is required underthe Title V or federally enforceable state operating permit program. IDEM should review the proposed rule and attempt to clarify it. (EM!) Conurumt: IDEMshould 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:Theagency has reviewed and considered the comments

- received. Due the significance ofthe comments and the magnitude of



### ..

L thechanges 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,TODECEMI, 1997 The Indiana Department ofEnvironmental Management (IDEM)**f~~~~!·' ~~e~**  a second nouce ofcomment 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) ·;) DeRolfEnvironmental Consulting Agency, Inc

.. (DECA) 0, Lilly and Company, (ELC) "'' Electrtc Plastics. (GEP) Chamber ofCommerce, (ICC) the Manufacturing Association. (IMA) rc· Petroleum Marketers and ConvenienceScore 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** andoperatingpermitapproval process in order 

### .! ine permit amendment procedures for aiJ panies. The :"""'llPropo,sed rule language does not includeTitle 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'roposedRules

has completedthe proposed revisions to the Pan70program.

### t1' the unitary pennit system Wl[h the Title V program could nt .n delays in permit issuance and construction projects. Under a unitary permitsystem. a source could not begm construction until the Title V pennit revision had been completed. Widl the currentrules, -a source could apply for andreceive an**approv~J** to beginconstruction andlhen 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 ofrevising the Pan70 rules, it is clearthat the U.S. EPA allows merged or uni£ary constrUction and operating pennitprograms. 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 permitwas 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 nothave robe accomplished undera unitary permitsystem Ifthe 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:Thedraft 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 Pan70 revisions. IDEM does recognizetheconcerns aboutproviding Title V sources the samestreamlining 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. Sourcemodifications in an effonto providePan70sources with a mechaniSIJI to take advantage ofthe source modificadon provisions for minorsources. IDEM will continuem work with interestedpanies to create rule language !.hat would be as consistent as possible With anticipated changes at lhe federal level and would also prov1de a transitional programfor Title V sources tomake changesatthesource wilhout delays m construction lhat are unwarranted, given rhe environmental impacts of the expected change or need for public notice and comment. Commenr: Thecreationofa unitary permitsystem is supponedand 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 pennit system only for minor sources and FESOPs? How does the utiitary sysrem interface with Title V and sources with applications pendingapproval?Why are non-attainment new source review for minor sources and major sources ofhazardous airpollutants excluded from lheapplicability 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 ifthe pmemial to emit was less !.han twenry-five (25) tons per year ofmtrogen**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 ofhazardous 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 ofa registration orpermit. The proposed rules at326 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 permilrevision. The interim approval applies only to modifications ofexisting sourcesthatwould becoveredby 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 rhatreview and issuance ofa permit in advanceof commencement of construction is generally in the public imerest as well as the interest ofthe company. Having agency approval, as well as publicreview. priortothecommencementofconstructionprovides a level ofassurance thatthe 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 extentpracticable, all permitting requirements that apply to a. pamcular type ofsource 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 ofthe differentprovisions 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 ofwhich 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 underthevariouspermitrulesthat 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:IDEMagrees thatoneofthe purposes ofthe rulemaking was to provide more understandable rule language. Thedraftrule has been restrucrured m an effortto 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 anemissions cap and would notrequire a source to obtaina registrationorconstructionpenniifor any changesdlatdonot 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 permitreview. (CC) Response: IDEM agrees that one ofthe purposes ofthe 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 326lAC2-8-15 has been revised to reference operating pennitrevisions that include both state and federal review. IDEM will continue to discuss theemissions 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 limitfor a source. It is recommended that IDEM acceptpennined allowableemissions asthebasisfor anemissions where a source candemonstrate thatBACT-equivalentcontrols place. Allowing well control1ed emission sources with. equivalentemission reductiontechnologies inplace to basethe allowable emissions would render the proposed emission cap effective tool. IDEM should also allow a source to base theem1issioll15 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 outofthe five (5). This would address rhe represemiveness ofthe 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 326lAC2-7-4 and 326lAC2-7-5 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 ofacruai emissions using outoften (10) years. IDEM believes having the emissions on the PSD allowableorthe actual emissionswithan is consistent with federal guidance. IDEM h.as additional option as a basis for an emissions cap thatIS'',._,..._, 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, becausein all cases a FESOP would not be subjec! to PSD. Commenr: IDEM has proposed that a source emissions cap mustsubmitacrtlal 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 mformationfor otheryears is unnecessary iftheinformauon wUl not be used to establish the emissions cap. (CC) (.A..AMA) Response: IDEMagrees thatthe information to be supplied should more accurately reflectthe purposeofthe informationandhasrevised the language under 326 lAC 2-7-4 and 326 IAC 2-8-3 accordingly.**Co~nt:** Thedraftrulelanguageaddressing Ihe estabiishmemof an emiss1ons cap included in 326 lAC 2-l.l-9(c) is wo prescriptive andoverlyrestrictive. Therule language shouldaddressonlythe basic strUcture and function ofan emissionscap. The specific provisionsfor 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 ofthe cap (Prevenuon ofSignificantDeterio- 

### $..:**~t·** ration (PSD)), daily record keeping, and the restriction thata cap may

### Jh~: only beestablishedforpollutants previouslyemitted.Aexibilitywould 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 soughtfor reasonsotherthanavoiding 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.

.·:<- Asource should be allowed to requestan emissions cap for pollutants



### ·-- notcurrently emiaed, when the source could emitthose 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 regardingcomphance determinationscan besimplified. 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,llProv·isil>ns under 3261AC2-l.ltotherelevantapplication pennitcontent sections ofthe Pan 70 (3261AC 2-7-4 and 2-7-5) FESOPrules (326!AC2-8-3 and 2-8-4). Theagency 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 ofan emissions cap.**-~Comnumt:** The language under 326 lAC 2-l.l-9(c)(3) should be



# ..**4~ed** concerning the**lang~ge** aboutone (1) emission cap for each**~ru~nt** emmed. Does tlus mean each regulated pollutant or

, .. dous air pollutant (HAP) or bmh? (APP)**~~-"':-.-**!_.Response:Anemissionscapcouldbe established foreachregulated**~~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** requesta cap on lhe paniculate matteror HAPs, orboth,**:~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: Thecurrentlanguage for interimpermirsunder326-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 interimpermitprocessfrom being ableto take advantage ofthe benefilS ofthe interimpermirprocess. IDEM should delete this e<clusion. (CC) (ELC) (AAMA) Response: IDEMhas revisedtheproposed language,nowincluded**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 ofhazardous 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.Allowingtheinterimpermitsto becomeeffectiveunless denied does not give others·the opportunity to appeal the agency's action. or in this case inaction. However, the denial ofthe interiJT pennit by the agency would be appealable by the source. 

### IDt believes thatall panics shouldhave the same opporrunities, includh.'"' the opportuDity to appeal. Coi7U1U!nt: While the interim permitprovisions allow forcons[fUction within a shonened time period, there are no provisions for allowing operationuntil IDEMcompletesiiS review. Thisis 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 andfederal rules and shouldprovidea framework forcompliancewith all substantive rules. The rule language should berevisedto allow for relieffrom having to waitto begin operationafterresources havebeen spenrm complete construction. The following shoUld beadded to 326 lAC 2-1.1-5 (previously 3261AC 2-1-3.1): · (k) Ifan inrerim permit has become effective and ifthe applicant has applied for an operatingpermitmodificationunder326IAC 2- 1.3-6 and the operating permn modificationhas notbeen 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 ofthe interim pennit until such time that the operating permit modifica· tion is issued or denied. During.this time, the depamnemshall not takeenforcementaction againstthe applicantforoperating 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 wouldhaVe to deny the permit revision after the source has been operating the modification. This would put the agency and the source in a difficultpositioP 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.Theproposedrulereferencesconrroldevices.Comroldevices 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 constructor modify either an emisstons unit**ef.~ ~that** meetsIhe cmeriafor a registrationunder 326 lAC2-1.2-3 ora constructlonpermitunder 326IAC 2-1.2-4atthe 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.lhephrase "any otherregulated**pollutant~** shouldbe deleted and a specific list ofpollutants ofconcern should be added in its place. (ELC) (AAMA) (APP) R.sponse: Where appropriateunder 326IAC 2.-1.1-3, 326IAC2- 5.1, 326IAC 2-6.1. and 326!AC 2-8-11.1. the applicability thresholds are expressedastonsperyear. Dueto applicability thresholdsfor certainrules: IDEM hasretainedthepoundsperday threshold.IDEM agreesthatpollutantsofconcern should be identified and has included revised language to list those pollutants. Commenr: The languageunderproposed 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 agreesandhasrevisedtheproposedlanguagethat 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: Itappearsthattheproposed rule languagewouldrequire a sourceto maintainemission records on all exemptunits. This would becontrary to the treatmentofthese units under the Title V program, especially in light ofthe "White Paper for Streamlining Development ofPart 70 PermitApplications". July 10, 1995. Due to the low actual emissions oftheseunits andthedifficuhy ln. measuring the emissions, IDEM shouldnotrequire sourcestomaintain records fortheir 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 includedtomake surethat sourcesunderstand thatastime goes on and the source evolves, the source may be required to move to another operating pennitprogram.**CoTTJ~T~ent:** The meaning ofthe first sentence under proposed 326lAC 2-l.l-2{c) is unclear because ofthe use ofthe word "source". It is notclear whether this should refer to emissions unit instead. IDEM should clarify the imem ofthis 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 samecommentwouldalsoapply to the languageunder326IAC2-1.3- 2(c)(1). (GEP) Response: IDEM agrees there are some_ instances where the regulatory status wouldbepreferredandhas revtsedthe languagenow 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!AC2-10 and326IAC2· 11 where the compliance status is critical and for those siwations IDEM believes the phrase operating in compliance is preferable. Definition ofModification Comment: We suppontheproposed shiftto potemial-to-emitasthe 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 · pennitrevision every time a source increases production, fuel usage,-.: etc. even though the emissions may be**~ell** below the source's potential to emitor 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 thatthe instaUation ofa new emissionsunit atan**ex1istin~pla** site is a modificationpotentially subjectto 326 lAC 2-1.3, the construction ofa new sourcepotentially subjectto 326lAC The following is suggested language: "Modification" means either (a} any physical changeor the method of operation of any extsting emissions unit increases the potential to emit ofany regulatedpollutant**m:::~** be emined from the emisstons unit. or which results in e1 ofany regulated pollutantnot 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 controlequipmentand restrictionsonhours

### 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: Thedefinitionof "source" shouldbe**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 ofthe proposed rulemak:ing will need ro be reviewed in light ofthis change to Insure the intended effect occurs. (GEP) Response:IDEM agreesand will revise the definition accordingly. Thedefinitionofsourceunder 326lAC 1·2-73 will reflect the changes and the definition under 326 lAC 2-1.1-1 will be deleted. The definition ofsource 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 thatthe agency continuethat 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" shouldbeclarified 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. Therestofthe 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: Therule languagefor general permitsneedsclarification**~;;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 ofthe first step be made known ,lljioheflllblic? What criteria will be used to decide the types ofsources 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 rulesdo 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 ofsource 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 ofIC 13-15-5-J(c). The proposed language does notenvisionthat a generalpermitwould be tailored for aspecific source. Ifa sourcerequiresprovisions tha.taredifferentthan 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 ofsources and any significant changes

· would require the creation ofa 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 mustotherwise submitannual compliancecertificationsunderthe Part 70 or FESOP programs or are subject to permit-by-rule provisions. (ELC) Response: IDEM has removed the permit application and permit contentprovisions from the**ge~eral** provisions. Languageconcerning 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: Thesecondsentenceof326IAC2-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 requ1reachangein 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: IDEMshould revise thelanguageunder326IAC2-1. 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 tojustify compliance monitoring in permilS unless it includes language to require IDEM to take into account factors such as the costofobtaining the compliance information. the reliability ofthe infonnation. and the emis"sions rate. (ELC) Comment: Thedraftrule gives IDEMbroaddiscretionindetermining 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 commentperiod. appeal procedures, or variances. the laboratories are not exempted categorically. then the potential to emit ofsuch activiues would have to be detennined and compared to the emission thresholds under 326 lAC 2-1.2-2. Aspreviously 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 cannotrefuse notice because he or she is notpotentially.affected. IDEM's intentwith respect to the potentially affected person list, in particular proposed 326 lAC 2-1.1-ll(d), should be clanfied. (ELC) Response:IDEMagrees andwillclarify theproposedlanguagethat is now mcluded under 326IAC 2-l .l-6(a)(l)(B). Appeals Comml!nt: Theproposed rule section related to appeal procedures at326IAC2-l.l-l3 should bedeleted. Theprocedures for appeals of apermitarecontained intheIndiana Codeandsoonto bepromulgated rules by the Office ofEnvironmental Adjudication and should not be reiterated in the air rules. Ifthe rules are left in place. then the rule languageshouldberevisedtodescribethedifferenteffectivedatesthat couldapply. TheproposedlanguagerecitestheeffectivedateunderIC 13.butsome permitting actions may fall under the provisions OfTitle 4. (ELC) Response: IDEM agrees and will delete the section.**Co~nt:**IDEMshould addprovisionstodefineeffectivedates for registrations. permits, and pennn revisions either m this rule section or elsewhere within the rules. (ELC) Response:Theagency will seek. to provideclarificationconcerning 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 permitapplicability. Ifthis is notthe 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 ofthe 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: Thecurrentregulationsfor Title V sources include a list of insignificant activities that includes laboratories and laboramry emissions. Laboratory emissions should also be exemptfrom permitting under the new rules and should include research and development, teaching, medical. veterinary. and clinical laboratories. This is justified becauselhe emissions arelow, lheemissions aredifficultand costly to estimate, and few applicable requirements typically apply. If Response:IDEM agreesand has revisedthe 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 thatprovides 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 underthe exemption section, 326 lAC 2-1.1-3. Comment: IDEM should clarify that the relocation of a piece of equipment from one part ofa 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:IDEMagreesandwill includethe clarificationunderthe exemption section, 326IAC 2-1.1-3. · Comment: The proposed list ofexemptions from the requirement to obtaina permitcouldsignificantly reduce the administrativeburden 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) · anddispensingonethousandthreehundred(l.300)gallonsper or less. Such storage tanks may be in a fixed locationoronmcobilc·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 shouldencourage polluuoncontrolandpol.lutioti• prevention projects. However, it appears that these types of may be subjected to a higher level ofreview 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 pennitrevision. IfIDEM intends to insure that these**~-nfooroiell** receive some level ofreview when a source iS from someotherrequirement based on theproject 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 preventionprojects should be deleted. Th.i'!iPt-ovoisioaC• potentially slowdown · · and their associated environmental benefits. Response:Inmostcases.pollutionco:ntr•oh;nd.**poollutiot>pl~~** projects would not resull in increases in the potential would notrequire any review. There are cases wheretbe 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 reductionofemissions. !.here shouldbe somereviewfor thoseprojects 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 proposedlanguageestablishesthesignificantpennu rev1sion track as the default ifthe change does not tit one ofthe 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 significampermitrevisiontrack asthedefault. IDEM believesthatthe 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 ofthese modifications or changes as possible. the list does not include every modification or change that may arise. For the modifications or changes thathave notbeenanticipated. IDEMbelievesthese 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 ofconsis**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 under326IAC2-L3-2(c)(4) should be revised to be consistent with the language in other subdivi- .sions ofthis 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 ofcommercial 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 thatrequiring 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 sourceas any operation. process, or**emissi~** that is specifically designed to be moved and is moved atleast\.. ,1) time per year. This definition may notbe 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 oftheseprojectsmay actually beon-site for three (3) orfour (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 pennit period" instead of moved at least one (I) time per year. (APA) Response:IDEM agrees and has revised the definition ofponable 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 ofFees Comment: Revise the language under 326 lAC 2-5-4(b) and (c) as follows: (b) Ifthe departmentdoes not issueor 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 ofthis rule has e/ (2) Ifthe time period under section 2 ofthis rule has**expir~~. ~1e**  depamnentshallrefundthe applicant'sapplication fee withinthmy (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:.ofthe expiration ofthe time period specified in section 2 of this rule. The depanment shall not refund the apphcation fee if, GR$-eGatem&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 ofthis 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 applicantfor making a tinal determination on the pending application. (4) Irthe department has failed to refund the application, required by subdivision (2) withinthirty (30) daysofexpiL .•t of the time period specified in section 2 ofthis 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 ofa registration, remit one hundred dollars ($100) to the applicant for each additional thirty (30) days that passes prior to refund ofthe application fee. (B) In the case of a construction permit or modification of an operating permit, discountthe annualoperating 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 applicantfor thesource in questionuntil suchtime 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 ofthe government. This inumidationhasrobbedthe deparunentofits 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 IDEMratherthan the resolution oftechnical or regulatory issues. IDEMagreesthat 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. Thepennining 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 eventofdelayed 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 Section502(b)(l0)changesunder3261AC2-7-20. Nochanges 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 individualas a person auihonzed to sign reports, etc. This concept should be carried over to !.he FESOP rules. The currentrule 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/RESPONSETOCOMMENTS RECEIVEDATTHE FIRST PUBUC HEARING On March 4, 1998, the air pollution control board (board) conducted the first public hearing/board meeting concerning the developmentofnew rules and amendments to 326IAC2. Comments were made by the following parties: American Automobile ManufacrurCrs Assoctation, (AAMA) Eli Lilly and Company, (ELC) Indiana Manufacturers Association, (Th..fA) Indiana Chamber ofCommerce, (ICC) Following is a summary of the comments received and IDEM's responses !.hereto: Comment: The AAMA appreciates the work and effortthatIDEM has putinto the developmem ofthese 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 constructgrantedunder this sectiondoes notrequireU.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 providethe clarification and will continue to work with the U.S. EPA concerning these rules. Comment: EliLilly and Company is a companythatis significantly impacted by the rules and regulations that comprise the new source review program. Our plant sites include hundreds ofrelatively 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, ajointwork group ofEli Lilly, the Indiana Chamberof Commerce, and the Indiana Manufacmrers Association made recommendationsconcerning reforming the minornew sourcereview program. Those recommendauons included simplifying the rules so that they are more understandable, stre3.mlining the review process, integration ofthe stateprograms 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 willbe needed betweenpreliminary and final adoption.meo,ratt**nue·~** dOes include several beneficial improvements. Theproposed ruring ofthe rules, the inclusion ofemissioncap an<bdvltnc:ea,pl'roval.' provisions, andthe proposed revisionsconcerningchangesat

areall improvements. Thereareissues thatstill needto

### ::~~:~~~::;l IDEM should continue to work: on issues such as the · requirement for responsible officials and compliance requirements. The definition ofa responsibleofficial 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 ofthe rules should be the focus ofthe and the work groups between preliminary and final adoption_, Response:IDEM agrees !.hat additionalwork to further and simplify the rules should be pursued. However there constraints in federal law that affect how much change accomplished. Certaindefinitions. suchasthe official. are pan offederal program requirements and

# m'"''""'"

to the federal definitions. Comment: A significant amount of work has been act:OOJPUI andthe agency shouldbe commended. The such as emission caps, the notice only process andthe 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 3046Jt rk .le .C·**~** :es od. 

# '" ·ng 'Sh" 

# '"" \1!'1!1. 

## '" ·sof 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 ofthe 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 continueto 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 AMENDEDTO 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 ofail: f1Bll1:itias**~ e~i}3ffiBHt**  Gf**a~** one ar,,n, ••emissions unitsat thelocationintended for its use. 

## Proposed Rules

Consrrucrion does not include any of the following: ( (I) Installation ofbuilding suppons and foundatioL (2) Laying underground piping or arbors. (3) Erecrion ofstorage structures.

_ ( 4) Dismanrling exisring equipment and conrrol devices. (5) Ordering ofequipment 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 majorPSD source or a majm PSD modification as defined in 326 lAC 2-2ora major sourc< ormajormodification as defmedin326lAC 2-3. (AirPollution CornrolBoard;326/AC1-2-2J;jiledMar10, 1988, 1:20p.m.: 11/R 2371;filed Juli5, 1993, 5:00p.m.: 16/R2824) 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. "Emissionsunit" meamanypartoractivityof a stationary source that emits or bas the potential to emit anyregulated airpollutantundertheClean AirAct (CAA). (Air Pollution Control Board; 326/AC1-2-23.5) SECTION 3. 326 lAC 1-2-42IS AMENDEDTOREi ,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 ofthe following activities at an existing source: (1) A physical change or change in rhe merhod ofoperarion ofany**existing~**wiMeft. emissions unitthat increases the potential &F**~** a.ilewee e:lfH:ssieM (wHisflever 

### ts

......., stRAgoat) &fto emitanyregulated pollutant that could be emitted from the**"asiH~r,** emissions unit, or which results in emissionsofanyregulatedpollutantnotpreviously 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** 9fEieftef*9¥etN**i~eRSiag** it1i& iiRftliaeat**~** - eft-fte**faeili~·,** fFBBBSS, 9feetHf&i. BE[tiif'IBefH; iiftEi (f;1 resttHs ffi a**~BIORtial** !& ef!IH fer eaeit feg\W IJBlhHaHt**~is~**ffiaft 9f**~**t-6fRe**~BIBBliai**

# u: efffle**e~uipmeHt** Hiswa5retJaireS at:**re~laee8,** fiREi

### 4:s ttt*

Indiana Register. Volume 21, Nwnber 8. May I, 1998 3047

# ATTACHMENT 

# HADMINISTRATIVE CHECKLIST (40 CFR51, Appendix V)

I. The submittal is accompaniedby a fonnalletter ofsubmittal from the governor orhis designee. 2. Evidence that the State has adopted the plan in the State code orbody ofregulations; or issued thepermit, order, consent agreement ("document"); infinal form.

a. Date ofadoption or final issuance: b. The effective date ofthe plan, ifdifferent from the adoption/issuance date. 3. Evidencethatthe State hasthe necessary legal authority under state lawto adopt and implementthe plan. 4. A copy ofthe actual regulation or document submitted for approval and incorporationbyreference into the plan, including the following:

a. Indication ofthe changes made to the existing approved plan, where applicable. b. The submittal shallbe a copy ofthe official State regulation or document signed, stamped, dated by the appropriate state official indicatingthat it is fully enforceable bythe State. Effective date shall be stated in the document itself. 5. Evidencethatthe State followed all ofthe procedural requirements ofthe State's laws and constitution in conducting and completingthe adoption/issuance ofthe plan. Enclosed

Signature Page (Attachment B)

Date ofSec. ofState (November 25, 1998) 30 days after filing (December 25, 1998) IC 13-14-8

Indiana Admin. Code (Attachment A)

Signature Page (AttachmentB)

6. Evidencethatpublic notice was given, including date of Attachment D proofofpublication. _X_Notice ofFirst Public Hearing andPublisher's Affidavits _X_Notice ofSecond Public Hearing andPublisher's Affidavits

7. Certification thatpublic hearings were held in accordance with informationprovided in publichearingnotice. Attachments E & F_X_Transcriptfrom FirstPublic Hearing _X_Transcriptfrom Second Public Hearing 8. Compilation ofpublic comments and State"s response. X SecondNotice _X_Proposed Rule

X Third CommentPeriod

9. Technical support (ifsource specific rule change). Attachment C Attachment G AttachmentF N/A