# SIERRA CLUB WEST VIRGINIA CHAPTER P. 0
. B ox 4142 Morgan t o wn, WV 26504 July II , 20 11 W est Virginia Di v i s i o n of Air Quality D epa rtm e nt of E n v iro nm ent a l Protection, 601 571h St r eet S.E., C harl esto n , WV 25304
. Re : Com m ent s o n A ir Rul es. P lease acc e pt the fo ll ow in g com me nt s o n b e ha lf of th e West Virginia Chapter of Sierra C l ub. I
. 45- CS R-14
. P S D Co n s tru c ti o n P e rmit s. The t e rm s" 2.9 "B ase line Area" and 2.42 "Ba s e lin e Dat e " do not app ea r to ha ve a ny appli cati on o ut s id e o f the Plantwid e App licabi li ty Limitations (PALs)? I don't see m to see th e m u se d anyw here e lse. H ow m any fac ili t ies in West Virgin ia c urre ntl y h ave PALs in th e ir pe rmit s? How wou l d thi s appl y t o so methin g li ke th e TransGas Coa l-t o -Liquid s plant in Min go Co unt y? We believe that it would make a l ot more sense to get rid of th ese PALs. App l y in g pollution emi ss ion limit s at eac h emiss i on point wo uld make it mu c h s impl er to monitor these e mi ss i ons and id e nti fy th e be st co ntrol techno logies. We recommend th at this rule be revised to strike all r e ference to PAL s. 3) 45- CS R-1 8. So lid Was t e In c iner ato rs . Thi s rul e i s ex t ens i ve l y r e-w ri tten a n d appears to open th e d oo r t o out
- of

- s t a te ga rba ge incinerator s. We are concerned th at th e c ha n ges weaken the rul e a nd do no t prese rve th e ea rli e r leg is lati ve int ent to pr ohibit s u c h technologies? We oppose the propo se d changes as they are incon s istent with th e WV So lid Waste Management hierarchy of promoting waste reduction, reus e and recycling . Air po ll ut io n rul es s ho uld no t a uthori ze prac ti ces th a t are pr o hibited e lsew here instate co de
. 4) 45- CS R- 30. Op e ratin g pe rmit s. Section 2.6 and 2.8. What i s an " A lte rnativ e Operating Sce nari o " or a n "A pp ro ve d Repl i cab l e Method o logy " ? Why are th ese needed, a nd how would th e agency enfo rce them (e
. g., sectio n 5. 1 )? Wo uld th e r e be opportunit ies f o r public comment o n either of th ese s h ou ld an app licant c hoose to adopt th e m? We recommend that the rules be revise d to delete thes e changes, or at a minimum, to allow public notice and comment on thes e before the agency approve s their application at any facility.

No t Blind Oppo s iti on To Prog r ess, But Op po s iti on To Blind ProgressSection 2.43 defines "Subj ect t o Regulation" but then exe mpt s g re en hou se gases und e r a w ide range of scenarios (Act of Congress, Cou rt Order, etc.)
. Why is this l anguage included for green h ouse gases, and not for o th er pollutants s ubj ect to regula tion? How do the re potiing requirements under Title V co mp are t o th ose in the rule being proposed for de letion ( 45-42) ? We recomm e nd that this language be deleted from the final .-ule. Tab le 45-30C
. Why is this Table being deleted? Where did it come from and to what doe s it refer? It d oes n ot seem to be refe r enced anywh e re e lse in the r ul e ? 5) 45-CSR-42. To what extent is W est Virginia goi n g backwards by deleting this rule and relying sole ly on the federal co unt erpa rt ? The goal n eeds t o be to develop gr e enhouse gas monitoring, co n tr o l , and e mi ss ions redu ctio n s, and a lm ost eve r y other state in the Nort h east is a h ead of West Virginia in this r ega rd s. We oppose deletion of the rule and r eco mmend that, instead, DEP be pursuing additional greenhouse gas controls in the next legislative session.
Thank yo u for the oppo tiunit y t o comment. Please fe e l fi·ee to con t ac t me if I can provide further inf ormati o n to c l arify th ese comments. Sincerely ,

# = Ene r gy Comm ittee West Virginia Chapter 304-59 4-33 22 (home) 304-293-8822 (office) jkotcon@gmai l.com'\