Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 1

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 

# Attachment 2 Summary of External Stakeholder and EPA Comments and Department ResponsesRevisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 2

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 This Page Intentionally Left BlankRevisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 3

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 Summary of External Stakeholder Comments with Depar tment Responses ........................ 4

Summary of EPA Comments with Department Responses .. ................................................ 8Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 4

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 Notes from External Stakeholder Meetings Regarding Proposed Amendments to Regulation 61-62 Air Pollution Control Regulations and Standards as Noticed in the February 26, 2010, State Register

Comment: Ben Williams expressed concerns about language adde d to R. 61-62.1, Section II(B)(2) which states: “The Department reserves the right to require a con struction permit and the need for permit(s) will be made by the Department on a case-by-case basis.”

Response: Engineering Services Division staff explained that this was necessary with regard to certain situation s which may arise from registration permits, and it w as decided that this language should be moved to th e Registration Permits section.

Upon further review, it was decided that this langu age is necessary for facilities that operate outsid e the realm of standard review and used on a very limited basis where other avenues of compliance have faile d. This language will be kept in the section, but move d to subsection II(B)(6)

Comment: Ben Williams expressed concerns about modeling requ irements associated with R. 61-62.5, Standard 2

and whether revisions to this standard would not au tomatically need legislative approval in the future

.

Response: Consistent with a previous response to this questio n posed by the Chamber of Commerce Environmental Technical Committee, in a February 20, 1998, memo, the Department does not specifically “require” modeling to demonstrate compliance with R. 61-62.5, Standard 2. Section 110(a)(2)(K) of the CAA requires that SIPs provide for performing air quali ty modeling so that effects on air quality of emiss ions from NAAQS pollutants can be predicted and submissi on of such data to EPA can be made. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (as adopted in the SIP) requires that air modeling be conducted to determine permit applicabi lity. Standard 2 defines the applicable ambient ai r quality standards for the State of South Carolina. By in large these standards are adopted pursuant t o any federal change in the NAAQS, and thus do not requir e legislative review. The Department has been granted authority by the USEPA to administer the St ate’s permitting program which specifies and refers to the standards codified in R. 61-62.5, Standard 2 . The State permitting program requires that analy ses be conducted prior to issuance of a permit to ensur e that a project’s emissions will not cause of cont ribute to a violation of an NAAQS, applicable State Standa rd, or maximum allowable pollutant increase. Standard 2 references the “analytical methods to be used will be those applicable Federal Reference Methods published in 40 CFR 50.” The standards the mselves do not specify how a source demonstrates compliance. However, the method of demonstration t hat has been typically used is modeling, although alternative scenarios are acceptable. Therefore, t he Department is not required to seek Legislative approval each time it revises Standard 2.

Comment: Deb Basnight had concerns about the deletion of R. 61-62.6 “Bubble” regulation.

Response: In the March 8, 1995, Federal Register (60 FR 12700) the EPA disapproved South Carolina’s generic bubble regulation because it does not comply with E PA's Emissions Trading Policy Statement of December 4, 1986, of the Economic Incentive Program Rules. EPA rescinded the June 7, 1987, (47 FR 38887) approval of the generic bubble regulations a nd disapproved the June 5, 1985, submittal.

Comment:Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 5

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 Duane Mummert inquired as to the source of the prop osed definition for “facility” (R. 61-62.1, Definit ion #27.) and expressed concern that this definition wo uld cause problems with “co-location.”

Response: In evaluating this proposed new definition, the Dep artment has decided to omit this from the proposed revision because it feels as though the changes to “major plant” and “major source” are sufficient.

Comment: Duane Mummert suggested updating R. 61-62.5, Standa rd 1, Section 1(A) & (B) to make paragraphs more consistent with NSPS (which includes provision s for startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions).

Response: It was determined that this change would trigger an ti-backsliding issues as the NSPS wording is less restrictive, and the EPA will not support this chan ge. This may also create the need for an additiona l Notice of Drafting as it was not referred to in the original Notice published in the State Register on February 26, 2010.

Comment: Duane Mummert suggested amending R. 61-62.1, Sectio n II(B)(2)(f)(ii) to allow for only 100 hours of generators to be consistent with the new RICE MACT (promulgated 3/3/10). He also suggested this be changed in R. 61-62.5, Standard 5.2, diesel generat or exemptions for consistency. Ben Williams suggested we also specify that there are no limitat ions in emergency use of generators.

Response: The Department does not feel that amending these re quirements in 61-62.1 is necessary as the new federally mandated MACT would be incorporated into state regulations and permits. The revisions to Standard 5.2 may also create the need for an additi onal Notice of Drafting as it was not referred to i n the original Notice published in the State Register on February 26, 2010.

Comment: Ben Williams expressed concern about new wording in R. 61-62.1, Section II(J)(13), in particular the words “as the Department reasonably may require.” It was his belief that including this language was subjective and could create disagreement. The revi sed portion of Section II(J)(13) states:

“The permittee shall maintain such operational reco rds; make reports; install, use, and maintain monitoring equipment or methods; sample and analyze emissions or discharges in accordance with prescribed methods, at locations, intervals, and pr ocedures as the Department shall prescribe; and pro vide such other information as the Department reasonably may require. All records required to demonstrate compliance with the limits established under this p ermit shall be maintained on site for a period of a t least five (5) years from the date.”

Response: This language is taken from 48-1-50 Section 22 of t he Pollution Control Act. The department has never abused this discretion, and feels it should remain in the proposed changes.

Comment: Duanne Mummert requested a change in R. 61-62.5, St andard 4, Section XII(B), such that TRS stack testing shouldn’t be required for facilities that a re already required to have CEMs installed.

Response:Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 6

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 Based upon consultation with the Department’s Offic e of General Council, this revision will be include d into the Notice of Proposed Revisions submitted to the Board for approval to publish in the State Register. This revision is covered by the February 26, 2010, Notice of Drafting, in that it “delete[s ] or update[s] obsolete requirements.”

Comment: Duanne Mummert requested changing the “or” at the e nd of R. 61-62.5, Standard 5.1, Section 1(B)(1) to an “and” to account for the possibility of a situat ion where another state’s SIP inclusion is neither

available nor effective.

Response:
The definition of Standard 5.1 carriers the same me aning as that in Standard 7.1. Furthermore, retain ing the “or” would allow the Department the same histor ic discretion to continue to evaluate situations as discussed in the meeting on a case by case basis.

Comment: Duanne Mummert requested we include MACT with the w ording in R.61-62.5, Standard 5.1, Section I(B)(2) which states: “In no event shall the applic ation of LAER permit a proposed new or modified source to emit any pollutant in excess of the amoun t allowable under New Source Performance Standards if applicable”

Response: The Department feels this is an unnecessary additio n in this regulation since Std 5.1 addresses VOCs, and while some MACTs use VOCs as a surrogate for HAP co ntrol, MACT standard and applicability are

defined in 61-62.63.

Comment: Lisa Saltzburg requested clarification for the exem ption for natural gas boilers to maintain a log of startup and shutdowns, required by R. 61-62.5, Standard 1.

Response: The Department explained that this requirement was not necessary for natural gas boilers as opacity is not typically an issue and therefore the requirement fo r records could be irrelevant. The Department indicated it would clarify this exemption in subseq uent summaries of proposed revision.

Comment: Lisa Saltzburg asked for clarification on the updat e to “major source” definition throughout R. 61-62 and inquired as to whether it had anything to do with t he Tailoring Rule.

Response: The Department explained that the purpose of the ch ange was to allow for the expansion of the major source thresholds which occur due to subpart 2 ozon e classifications, and not because of the tailoring rule.

Comment: Athena Strickland asked whether the Department woul d incorporate the new definition of waste (as part of the CISWI rule) in this action.

Response: The Department clarified that it would not. The De partment explained that this NPRM was scheduled to be released in April 2010 (with a final in December 2010). The Department explained it would rather n ot incorporate a known proposed change into this actio n to account for any potential future delay in itsRevisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 7

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 promulgation. Furthermore, the Department also cla rifies that given the requirements for CISWI are specified in the CAA, any revision to its associate d definitions could be adopted by reference (i.e. w ould not require Legislative review). The Department ex plained that it would likely be handled in its regu lar

End-of-the-Year revisions instead.Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 8

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 Comments from EPA included in an email from Joel Hu ey on 5/19/2010.

Comment: “1. Regulation 61-62.1, Section I(20) - Replacing a specific SC regulation citation with a phrase as “applicable Federal and State regulations ” does not help the reader to know what specific federal and state regulations are subject/applicabl e to this regulation. It may be more consistent wi th

Federal and state rules but it is not clear which r ules are being referred to.”

Response: The wording in this definition is being changed as such:

19 20 . Conditional major source - A stationary source th at obtains a federally enforceable physical or operational limitation from the Department to limit or cap the stationary source’s potential to emit t o avoid being defined as a major source as defined in S.C. Regulation 61

- 62.70, Title V Operating Permit Program by applicable Federal and State regulations

. The Department found this change to be necessary si nce the definition for “major source” is defined separately in several portions of our regulations i ncluding our Title IV, NSR, and emissions inventory requirements. Defining “major source” using the sta tement “by applicable federal and state regulations ”

in our Definitions and General Requirements regulation simplified the definition while still m aking it accurate which was the purpose of these regulatory changes.

Comment: “2. Regulation 61-62.1, Section II(B)(6) is revise d to require the development of a construction permit on the decision of the Departm ent (i.e., SC) on a case-by-case basis. This determination will take into consideration, but wil l not be limited to the nature and amount of the pollutants, location and other things. The way this is written, the amount of the pollutants could be omitted in the decisions to develop a permit. The a mount of a pollutant is key to the application of t he PSD/NSR program. The location, especially a nonatta inment area, is also a key concern. A suggested revision to the proposed language is as follows:

...this determination will include the amount of the pollutants, location of the source and will take in to
consideration but not be limited to .... and other th ings.”

Response: This inclusion is being added to our “Exemptions” s ubsection of our construction permits section and i s necessary to allow for the regulation of potential sources which operate outside the realm of regular air pollution control review. If it is determined that an otherwise exempted source will require a permit , it will then be subject to all procedures indicated in Section II(A) which takes into account “the nature and amount of the pollutants, location and other things .”

Comment: “3. R. 61-62.5, Standard 6, Alternative Emission L imitation Options (“Bubble”) – We request that the supporting documentation for the d eletion of this rule confirm or discuss that there are no South Carolina sources that are currently subject t o the existing rule.”

Response: There are currently no sources in SC currently subj ect to this rule. The Department will submit a

statement to this fact for the record in our final SIP package.

Comment: “4. R. 61-62.5, Standard No. 4, Emissions from Pro cess Industries, to modify the regulatory strategy for cotton gins - It is not clear from the State’s analysis to support the regulation change that theRevisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 9

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 new controls-based-regulation for the cotton gin wi ll be more stringent than any of the emissions rate approach and will therefore lead to improved air qu ality in many areas throughout the State. [See suggestions below.]

110(l) language 20100504

Section 110(l) of the Act states, “Each revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under this chapter shall be adopted by such State after reason able notice and public hearing. The Administrator shall not approve a revision of a plan if the revis ion would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progre ss (as defined in section 7501 of this title), or a ny other applicable requirement of this chapter.” A 1 10(l) “evaluation of interference” generally consid ers whether the SIP revision is expected to allow for a n increase in actual emissions to the air over what is allowed under the existing federally-approved SIP. To meet this requirement, please provide additiona l discussion in the narrative to support the State’s contention that the new controls-based regulation w ould be more stringent than the allowable emissions rate approach of the existing SIP. Such discussion sho uld describe, for example, (1) how the State has determ ined that measures to be employed are considered state of the art for this industry, (2) how control of emissions would be enforceable, and (3) how fug itive emissions would be minimized. In addition, please explain the need for allowing a “registration permi t” for this industry.”

Response: These suggestions have been incorporated to the 110 (l) demonstration which has been submitted with the states prehearing SIP package for review.

Comment from EPA regarding SC’s 110(l) demonstratio n included in an email from Joel Huey on

5/13/2010

Comment: EPA suggested improving the draft 110(l) discussion to clarify that compliance with the current proces s rate curve has been based on applying emission fact ors which are generic to the industry, are not sour ce specific, and cannot be tailored to be source speci fic. EPA staff suggested that DHEC consider stating that there is currently no specified means for these sou rces to show compliance with the process weight rat e curve, regardless of how clean they operate (except through expensive testing). EPA further suggested that DHEC specify that based on staff judgment the proposed revisions would clarify what constitutes good operating practices and serve to impose specif ic and measurable performance requirements and operating standards to ensure a greater degree of c ontrol of emissions from this industry and further allows the state/source to determine compliance mor e efficiently.

Response: These suggestions have been incorporated to the 110 (l) demonstration which has been submitted with the states prehearing SIP package for review.

Comments from EPA included in an email from Joel Hu ey on 5/13/2010

Regarding R61-62_1-Strikethrough 20100504

Comment: “1. Section I includes the following definitions:

64. PM 2.5 – Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal

2.5 micrometers emitted to the ambient air as measu red by a reference method based on Appendix L of 40Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 10

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 CFR 50 and designated in accordance with 40 CFR 58 or by an equivalent method designated in accordance with 40 CFR 58 July 18, 1997.

66. PM 10 - Particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers as measured by a reference method ba sed on Appendix J of 40 CFR 50 and designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53 or by an equivalent metho d designated in accordance with 40 CFR 53, July 1,

1987.

It appears the references to 40 CFR 58 should be to 40 CFR 53. It’s unclear what the dates “July 18, 1997” and “Ju ly 1, 1987” are in reference to or if they are need ed.”

Response: These suggestions have been incorporated into the a mendments which have been put out for public

notice.

Comment:

“2. Section II.I.1.b. of Rule 61-62.1 would seem to read more clearly with the following edits:

Registration permits will be developed only for spe cific stationary source groups with uncontrolled potential to emit less than the threshold for major source groups, in accordance with S.C. Regulation 61- 62.70, Title V Operating Permit Program; S.C. Regul ation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration; and S.C. Regulation 61-6 2.5, Standard No. 7.1, Nonattainment New Source Review, and where equipment similarities and simpli city remove the need for in depth site-specific

review.”

Response: These typographical and formative suggestions have been incorporated into the amendments which have been put out for public notice.

Regarding R61-62_5S4-Strikethrough 20100331

Comment: “3. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, A. Definitions, the definitions for “High pressure exhausts” and “Low pressure exhausts” would seem to read more cle arly with the following edits:

7. High pressure exhausts – The exhaust air system s at a cotton gin preceding the gin stand (including unloading, drying, extracting, cleaning, and overflow handling systems) in which material i s conveyed by a higher pressure air and is typically controlled by cyclones. 8. Low pressure exhausts – The exhaust air systems at a cotton gin following the gin stand (including lint cotton cleaning and battery formati on process) in which material is conveyed by low pressure air and is typically controlled by condens ers.”

Response: These suggestions have been incorporated into the a mendments which have been put out for public

notice.

Comment: “... it’s unclear why gin stands that are preceded by high pressure exhausts include “unloading, drying, extracting, cleaning, and overflow handling systems ,” while gin stands that are followed by low pressure

exhausts include lint cotton cleaning and battery formation process. Are these different gin stands?”

Response:Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 11

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 A gin stand is a piece of equipment at the cotton g in which separates seed from the cotton. All cotton gins are essentially separated into 2 parts; the drying and major cleaning systems before the gin stand (wh ich have "high pressure exhausts") and the lint cleanin g (minor cleaning and mote separation) and battery condensing systems following the gin stand (which h ave "low pressure exhausts"). These definitions wer e based off of those used in the NC reg.

Comment: “4. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, B. Applicability , paragraph 1 states, “This rule applies to all existing, new, and modified cotton ginning operatio ns in South Carolina. These facilities will be subj ect to registration permit conditions as specified in S C Regulation 61-62.1 Section II(I).

The Registration permit rule states that registrati on permits will be developed only for specific stat ionary source groups with uncontrolled potential to emit l ess than the threshold for major source groups. Si nce the new cotton gin rule applies to all gins in the State, please discuss how the State has determined that all cotton ginning operations in the State have uncontr olled potential to emit that is less than the major source thresholds.”

Response: 

### In its April 14, 1998, “Potential to Emit (PTE) Gui dance for Specific Source Categories” memo from John S. Seitz, Director, the EPA provides guidance for addressing minor source statu s under the Clean Air Act (Act) for lower-emitting sources in eight source categories. EPA lists cotton gins as one of these eight source categories. In the af orementioned memo, the EPA states:

“Many sources have the “capacity” to emit major amo unts of air pollutants, but actually emit amounts that are much lower than the major source threshold. For such sources, States and local permitting agencies provi de opportunities to obtain limits on their potential to emit through construction permit programs, operating permits, general permits applicable to multiple sources, Sta te implementation plans (SIP), and

other mechanisms.”

In the aforementioned memo, the EPA goes on to offe r two overall approaches that states and local agencies can use to establish enforceable emi ssion limits which ensure that a source’s potential emissions are below the major source thre shold:

Under the second approach, generally appropriate fo r less complex sources, States and local agencies create a standard set of terms and c onditions for many similar sources at the same time. The terms air quality agencies use t o describe this approach include “general permits,” “prohibitory rules,” “exclusiona ry rules,” and “permits-by-rule.”

Based on this guidance, the Department has determin ed that the cotton gin industry qualifies as a cate gory of sources “for which a single type of activity ten ds to dominate emissions, and for which most source s in the category actually emit at levels well below the ir potential, and well under the major source thresholds...” and, as such, should be eligible for r egistration permits under SC Regulation 61-62.1 Section II(I).

Comment: “5. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, B. Applicability , it appears the reference in paragraph 2 to “control devices in Paragraph C(1)” should be to Pa ragraph C(2).”

Response:Revisions to the South Carolina Air Implementation Plan Comment/Response – Page 12

General Amendments to R. 61-62 July 18, 2011 This suggestion has been incorporated into the amen dments which have been put out for public notice.

Comment: “6. Under Section V - Cotton Gins, E. Monitoring, i t appears the reference in paragraph 2 to “the range indicated in C(1)” should be to Paragraph C(2 ).”

Response: This suggestion has been incorporated into the amen dments which have been put out for public notice.

Regarding 110(l) language 20100504

Comment: “7. In the next to last sentence, use of the phrase “State specific” is unclear.”

Response: This wording has been clarified in the 110(l) demon stration submitted for review in out prehearing SIP package.