P. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped byOllie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 78 ) IV-B-2
Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:21 AM Sheet 78of 142

# I P. 2

> 60Sr <*
. 

# yss j

v ° UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK
. N C 2771 1

JU LI 199

4 OFFICE O F AI R QUALIT

YPLANNIN G AN D STANDARD

S

MEMORANDUM

TO : Revie w(NSR ) SUBJECT : Pollutio nContro l Project s

Applicabilit y FROM:^^t-^atSh

n S
. Seitz , Directo i yjOffic e o f Ai r Qualit yPj^Kning/an' d Standard s (MDTIO ) Director , Air , Pesticide s and Toxic s Managemen t Division , Region s I and I V Director , Ai r an

d Wast e Managemen t Division , Regio nI I Director , Air , Radiatio nan d Toxic s Division , Regio nII I Director , Ai r and Radiatio nDivision , Regio nV Director yAir , Pesticide s an d Toxic s Division , Regio nV I Director , Ai r and Toxic s Division , Region s VII , VIII , I Xand X
Thi s memorandu

mand attachmen t addres s issue s involvin g th e Environmenta l Protectio nAgency' s (EPA's ) NS Rrule s and guidanc e concernin g th e exclusio n frommajo r NS Ro f pollutio ncontro l project s a t existin g sources . Th e attachmen t provide s a ful l discussio no f th e issue s and thi s policy , includin g illustrativ e examples
. Fo r severa l years , EPAha s ha d a policyo f excludin g certai n pollutio ncontro l project s fromth e NS Rrequirement s o f part s C and D o f titl e I o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (Act ) o na case-by-cas e basis

. I n1992 , EPAadopte d a nexplici t pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio nfo r electri c utilit ygeneratin g unit s [se e : 5 7 F R3231 4 (th e "WEPC O rule " o r th e "WEPC O rulemaking")]

. A t th e time , EP Aindicate d tha t i t would , i na subsequen t rulemaking , conside r adopting a forma l pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio nfo r othe r sourc e categorie s [se e 5 7 F R32332]

. I nth e interim , EP Astate d tha t individua l pollutio ncontro l project s

# J P. 3

2 involving sourc e categorie s othe r tha nutilitie s coul d continu e t o b e exclude d fro mNS Rbypermittin g authoritie s o na case-by

cas e basi s [se e 5 7 F Ra t 32320] , A t thi s time , EP Aexpect s t o
r complet e a rulemakin g o na pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio n fo r othe r sourc e categorie s i nearl y1996
. Thi s memoranduman d attachmen t provid e interi m guidanc e fo r permittin g authoritie s o n th e approvabilit yo f thes e project s pending EPA' s fina l actio n o n a forma l regulator yexclusion

. Th e attachmen t t o thi s memorandu m outline s i ngreate r detai l th e typ e o f project s tha t ma yqualif yfo r a conditiona l exclusio n fromNS Ra s a pollutio ncontro l project , th e safeguard s tha t ar e t o b e met , an d "th

e procedura l step s tha t permittin g authoritie s shoul d follo wi nissuin g a n exclusion

. Project s tha t d o no t mee t thes e safeguard s an d procedura l step s d o no t qualif yfo r a n exclusio nfro m

NS Runde r thi s policy

. Pollutio ncontro l project s potentiall yeligibl e fo r a nexclusio n (provide d al l applicabl e safeguard s ar e met ) includ e th e installatio no f conventiona l o r innovativ e emission s contro l equipmen t an d project s undertake n t o accommodat e switchin g t o a n inherentl yless-pollutin g fuel , suc h a s natura l gas . Unde r thi e guidance , State s ma yals o exclud e a s pollutio ncontro l project s som e materia l an d proces s change s (e.g. , th e switc ht o a les s polluting coating , solvent , o r refrigerant ) and som e othe r type s o f pollutio npreventio n project s undertake nt o reduc e emission s o f ai r pollutant s subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Act
. Th e replacemen t o f a nexistin g emission s uni t wit ha newe r o r differen t on e (albei t mor e efficien t an d les s polluting ) o r th e reconstructio no f a nexisting emission s uni t doe s no t qualif y a s a pollutio ncontro l project

. Furthermore , thi s guidanc e only ' applie s t o physica l o r operationa l change s whos e primar yfunctio n i s th e reductio no f ai r pollutant s subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Ac t a t existin g majo r sources . Thi s policydoe s no t appl yt o ai r pollutio ncontrol s and emission s associate d wit ha propose d ne wsource . Similarly , th e fabrication , manufactur e o r productio no f pollutio ncontrol/preventio nequipmen t an d inherentl yless-pollutin g fuel s o r rawmaterial s ar e no t pollutio ncontro l project s unde r thi s policy(e.g. , a physica l o r operationa l chang e fo r th e purpos e o f producing reformulate d gasolin e a t a refineryi s no t a pollutio ncontro l project)

. I t i s EPA^ s experienc e tha t man ybon a fid e pollutio ncontro l project s ar e no t subjec t t o majo r NS Rrequirement s fo r th e simpl e reaso ntha t the yresul t i n a reductio ni nannua l emission s a t th e source . I nthi s way , thes e pollutio n contro l project s ar e outsid e majo r NS Rcoverag e i naccordanc e wit hth e genera l rule s fo r determinin g applicabilit yo f NS Rt o modification s a t existin g sources . However , som e pollutio ncontro l project s coul d resul t i nsignifican t potentia l o r actua l increase s o f som e pollutants
. Thes e latte r project s compris e th e subcategoryo f pollutio n contro l project s tha t ca nbenefi t from thi s guidance

.P. 4

Apollutio ncontro l projec t mus t be , o nbalance , "environmentall ybeneficial " t o b e eligibl e fo r a nexclusion

. Further , a nenvironmentally-beneficia l pollutio ncontro l projec t ma yb e exclude d from otherwis e applicabl e majo r NS Rrequirement s onl yunde r condition s tha t ensur e tha t th e projec t wil l no t caus e Cr^contribut e t o a violatio no f a nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar d (NAAQS) , preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) increment , o r adversel yaffec t visibilit yo r othe r ai r qualit y relate d valu e (AQRV)
. I norde r t o assur e tha t ai r qualit y concern s wit hthes e project s air e adequatel yaddressed , ther e ar e tw o substantiv e an d tw o procedura l safeguard s whic har e t o b e followe d bypermittin g authoritie s reviewing project s propose d fo r exclusion

. First , th e permittin g authorit ymus t determin e tha t th e propose d pollutio n contro l project , afte r consideratio no f th e • reductio ni nth e targete d pollutan t and any . collatera l effects , wil l b e environmentall ybeneficial

. Second , nothin g i nthi s guidanc e authorize s anypollutio ncontro l projec t whic hwoul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a NAAQS , o r PS D increment , o r adversel yimpac t a n AQR V i na clas s I area . Consequently , i n additio nt o thi s "environmentally-'beneficial " standard , th e permittin g authorit ymus t ensur e tha t advers e collatera l environmenta l impact s fromth e projec t ar e identified , minimized , and , wher e appropriate , mitigated

. Fo r example , th e sourc e o r th e Stat e mus t secur e offsetting reduction s i nth e cas e o f a projec t whic hwil l resul t i n a significan t increas e i na nonattainmen t pollutant
. Wher e a significan t collatera l increas e i nactua l emission s i s expecte d t o resul t froma pollutio n contro l project , th e permitting authorit ymus t als o asses s : whethe r th e increas e coul d adversel yaffec t an ynationa l ambient ' ai r qualit ystandard , PS D increment , o r clas s I AQRV
. I nadditio nt o thes e substantiv e safeguards , EP Ai s specifyin g tw o procedura l safeguard s whic har e t o b e followed
. First , sinc e th e exclusio nunde r thi s interi mguidanc e i s onl y availabl e o na case-by-^cas e basis , source s seekin g exclusio nfro m majo r NS Rrequirement s prio r t o th e forthcoming EP Arulemakin g o n a pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio nmust , befor e beginnin g construction , obtai na determinatio nb yth e permittin g authorit y tha t a propose d projec t qualifie s fo r a nexclusio nfro mmajo r NS R requirement s a s a pollutio ncontro l project

. Second , i n considerin g thi s request , th e permittin g authorit ymus t affor d th e publi c a n opportunit yt o revie wan d commen t o nth e source' s applicatio nfo r thi s exclusion

. I t i s als o importan t t o not e tha t an yprojec t exclude d frommajo r ne wsourc e revie wa s a pollutio ncontro l projec t mus t stil l compl ywit hal l otherwis e applicabl e requirement s unde r th e Ac t an d th e Stat e implementatio npla n(SIP) , including mino r sourc e permitting

.P. 5



### Thi s guidanc e documen t doe s no t supersede existing Federa l o r Stat e regulation s o r approved SIP's
. The policie s se t ou t i n thi s memorandu

man d attachmen t ar e intended a s guidanc e t o b e
v 

### ,applie d onl yprospectivel y(includin g thos e project s currentl y 'unde r evaluation fo r anexclusion ) durin g the interi mperio d unti l EP

Atake s actiont o revis e it s NS Rrules , an d d o no t represen t fina l Agencyaction

. Thi s policystatemen t i s no t rip e for judicia l review

. Moreover , i t i s no t intended , no r ca n i t b e relied upon , t o creat e an yright s enforceabl e b yan ypart yi n litigation wit hth e United States
. Agencyofficial s ma ydecid e t o follo

wth e guidanc e provided i n thi s memorandum , o r t o ac t a t varianc e wit hthe guidance , based o n an analysi s o f specifi c circumstances

. Th e EPAals o maychang e thi s guidanc e a t an ytim e withou t publi c notice

. Th e EP Apresentl yintend s t o addres s th e matter s discussed i nthi s documen t i n a forthcomin g NS R rulemakin

g regarding proposed change s t o the progra mresulting fro mthe NS RRefor

mproces s an

d wil l tak e commen t o n thes e matter s a s par t o f tha t rulemaking

. A s note d above , a detailed discussion o f th e type s o f project s potentiall yeligibl e fo r an exclusion fro mmajo r NS Ra s a pollutioncontro l project , a s wel l a s the safeguard s such project s mus t mee t t o qualif yfo r th e exclusion , i s contained i n the attachmen t t o thi s memorandum
. Th e Regiona l Office s shoul d send'thi s memorandu

mwit hth e attachmen t t o State s withi n thei r jurisdiction

. Question s concernin g specifi c issue s an d case s shoul d b e directed to.the appropriat e EP ARegiona l Office

. Regiona l Offic e staf f ma ycontac t Davi d Solomon , Chief , Ne w Sourc e ReviewSection , a t (919 ) 541-5375 , i f theyhav e an y questions

. Attachmen t
cc : Ai r BranchChief , Region s I- X NSRRefor

mSubcommitte e Member sP. 6

Attachmen t GUIDANC E ONEXCLUDINGPOLLUTIONCONTRO L PROJECT S

FROMMAJO RNE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR )

I
. Purpos e
TTh e Environmenta l Protectio nAgenc y(EPA ) presentl yexpect s to*complet e a rulemakin g o na nexclusio nfro mmajo r NS Rfo r pollutio ncontro l project s byearl y1996
. I nth e interim , certai ntype s o f project s (involving sourc e categorie s othe r tha n utilities ) ma yqualif yo n a case-by-cas e basi s fo r a nexclusio n frommajo r NS Ra s pollutio ncontro l projects

. Prio r t o EPA' s fina l actio no na regulatoryexclusion , thi s attachmen t provide s interi mguidanc e fo r permittin g authoritie s o nth e type s o f project s tha t ma yqualif yo na case-by-cas e basis.fro mmajo r NS R a s pollutio ncontro l projects , includin g th e substantiv e and procedura l safeguard s whic happly
. II
. Background Th e NS Rprovision s o f par t C [preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD) ] an d par t D (nonattainmen t requirements ) o f titl e I o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (Act ) appl yt o bot hth e constructio n o f majo r ne wsource s and th e modificatio no f existin g majo r sources. 1 Th e modificatio nprovision s o f th e NS Rprogram s i n part s C and D ar e base d o n th e broa d definitio no f modificatio n i nsectio n111(a)(4 ) o f th e Act
. Tha t sectio n contemplate s a two-ste p tes t fo r determining whethe r activitie s a t a nexistin g majo r facilit yconstitut e a modificatio nsubjec t t o ne wsourc e requirements

. I nth e firs t step , th e reviewin g authorit y determine s whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l occur , I nth e second step , th e questio ni s whethe r th e physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l resul t i nanyincreas e i nemission s o f an yregulate d pollutant
. Th e definitio no f physica l o r operationa l chang e i n sectio n111(a)(4 ) could , standing alone , encompas s th e mos t mundan e activitie s a t a nindustria l facilit y(eventh e repai r o r replacemen t o f a singl e leak ypipe , o r a insignifican t chang e i n th e waytha t pip e i s utilized )
. However , EP Aha s recognize d tha t Congres s di d no t intend t o mak e everyactivit ya t a sourc e subjec t t o ne wsourc e requirement s unde r part s C and D
. A s a result , EP Aha s b

yregulatio nlimite d th e reac ho f th e modificatio nprovision s o f part s C and D t o onl ymajo r modifications

. Unde r NSR , a "majo r modification " i s generall ya physica l chang e o r chang e i nth e metho d o f operatio no f a majo r stationarysourc e whic hwoul d resul t i na significan t ne t emission s increas e i nth e emission s o f anyregulate d pollutan t

'Th e EPA' s NS Rregulation s fo r nonattainmen t area s ar e se t fort ha t 4 0 CF R51.165 , 52.2 4 and par t 51 , Appendi xS
. Th e PS D programi s se t fort hi n4 0 CFR52.2 1 an d 51.166
.P. 7

[see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(2)(i ) ]

. A"ne t emission s increase " i s define d a s th e increas e i n"actua l emissions " fro mth e particula r physica l o r operationa l chang e togethe r wit hanyothe r contemporaneou s increase s o r decrease s i nactua l emission s [see , n e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(3)(i)]

. I norde r t o trigge r majo r ne w sourc e review , th e ne t emission s increas e mus t excee d specifie d "significance " level s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(b ) (2 ) (i ) an d 40
. CF R52..21(b ) (23 ) ]

. Th e EPAha s als o adopte d common-sens e exclusion s fro mth e "physica l o r operationa l change " componen t o f th e definitio no f "majo r modification. " Fo r example , EPA' s regulation s contai nexclusion s fo r routin e maintenance , repair , and replacement ; fo r certai nincrease s i nth e hour s o f operatio n o r i nth e productio nrate ; and fo r certai ntype s o f fue l switche s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(2)(iii)]

. I nth e 199 2 "WEPCO " rulemakin g [5 7 F R32314] , EP Aamende d it s PS D an d nonattainmen t NS Rregulation s a s the ypertai n t o utilitie s byaddin g certai npollutio n contro l project s t o th e lis t o f activitie s exclude d from th e definitio no f physica l o r operationa l changes
. I ntakin g tha t action , EP Astate d i t wa s largel yformalizin g a n existing polic yunde r whic hi t ha d bee n excludin g individua l pollutio ncontro l project s wher e i t wa s found tha t th e projec t "woul d b e environmentall ybeneficial , takin g int o accoun t ambien t ai r quality " [5 7 F Ra t 32320 ; se e als o id. , n . 15]. 2
Th e EP Aha s provide d exclusion s fo r pollutio ncontro l project s i nth e formo f "n o actio nassurances " prio r t o Novembe r 15 , 199 0 and nonapplicabilit ydetermination s base d o n * Ac t change s a s o f Novembe r 15 , 199 0 (199 0 Amendments)
. Generally , thes e exclusion s addresse d clea ncoa l technology project s and fue l switche s a t electri c utilities

. Becaus e th e WEPC O rulemakin g wa s directe d a t th e utilit y industr ywhic hface d "massiv e industry-wid e undertaking s o f pollutio ncontro l projects " t o compl ywit hth e aci d rai n provision s o f th e Ac t [5 7 F R32314] , EPAlimite d th e type s o f project s eligibl e fo r th e exclusio nt o add-o ncontrol s and fue l switche s a t utilities

. Thus , pollutio ncontro l project s unde r th e WEPC O rul e ar e define d as :

anyactivit yo r projec t undertake na t a n, existin g electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g uni t fo r purpose s o f reducing emission s fro m suc hunit

. Suc hactivitie s o r project s ar e limite d to :

^hi s guidanc e pertain s onl yt o sourc e categorie s othe r tha n electri c utilities , and EPAdoe s no t intend fo r thi s guidanc e t o affec t th e WEPC O rulemakin g i nan yway .P. 8

(A ) Th e installatio no f conventiona l o r innovativ e pollutio ncontro l technology , including bu t no t limite d t o advance d flu e ga s desulfurization , sorben t injectio n fo r sulfu r dioxid e (S0 2 ) and nitroge noxide s (N0 X ) control s and electrostati c precipitators ; (B ) Anactivit yo r projec t t o accommodat e switching t o a fue l whic hi s les s pollutin g tha nth e fue l i nus e prio r t o th e activit yo r projec t
.. . [4 0 CF R51.165(a)(1)(xxv ) (emphasi s added)]

. Th e definitio n als o include s certai nclea ncoa l technolog y demonstratio nprojects

. Id
. Th e EP Abuil t tw o safeguard s int o th e exclusio ni nth e rulemaking

. First , a projec t tha t meet s th e definitio no f pollutio ncontro l projec t wil l no t qualif yfo r th e exclusio n wher e th e "reviewing authorit ydetermine s tha t (th e propose d project ) render s th e uni t les s environmentall ybeneficia l
... " [see , e.g. , 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8)]

. I nth e WEPC O rule , EP Adi d no t provid e an

yspecifi c definitio no f th e environmentally

beneficia l standard , althoughi t di d indicat e tha t th e pollutio n contro l projec t provisio n"provide s fo r a case-by-case , assessmen t o f th e pollutio n contro l project' s ne t emission s an d overal l impac t o nth e environment " [5 7 F R32321]

. Thi s provisio ni s buttresse d b

ya second safeguar d tha t direct s permittin g authoritie s t o evaluat e th e ai r qualit yimpact s o f pollution , contro l project s tha t could—throug hcollatera l emission s increase s o r change s i nutilizatio npatterns—adversel yimpac t " loca l ai r qualit y[se e 5 7 F R32322]

. Thi s provisio ngenerall y authorizes , a s appropriate , a permittin g authorit yt o requir e modellin g o f emission s increase s associate d wit ha pollutio n contro l project

. Id
. Mor e fundamentally , i t explicitl ystate s tha t n o pollutio ncontro l projec t unde r an ycircumstance s ma y caus e o r contribut e t o violatio no f a nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandar d (NAAQS) , PS D increment , o r ai r qualit yrelate d valu e (AQRV ) i na clas s I area . Id. 3

3 Th e WEPC O rul e refer s specificall yt o "visibilit y limitation " rathe r tha n"ai r qualit yrelate d values. " However , EPAclearl ystate d i nth e preambl e t o th e fina l rul e tha t permittin g agencie s hav e th e authorit yt o "solici t th e view s o f other s i ntakin g an yothe r appropriat e remedia l step s deeme d necessaryt o protec t clas s I areas . . . . Th e EPAemphasize s tha t al l environmenta l impacts , including thos e o nclas s I areas , ca n b e considered

. . .. " [5 7 F R32322]

. Further , th e statutor y protection s i nsectio n165(d ) plainl yar e intende d t o protec t agains t an

y"advers e impac t o nth e AQR V o f suc h[clas s I ] land sP. 9

A s noted , th e WEPC O rulemakin g wa s expressl ylimite d t o existin g electri c utilit ysteam generatin g unit s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8 ) and 51.165(a)(1)(xx)]

. Th e EP Alimite d th e rulemakin g t o utilitie s becaus e o f th e impendin g aci d rai n « • requirement s unde r titl e I V o f th e Act , EPA' s extensiv e ^experienc e wit hne wsourc e applicabilit yissue s fo r electri c utilities , th e genera l similarit yo f equipment , an d th e publi c availabilit yo f utilit yoperatin g projections

. Th e EP Aindicate d i t woul d conside r adoptin g a forma l NS Rpollutio ncontro l projec t 

### exclusion fo r othe r sourc e categorie s a s par t o f a separat e NS R rulemaking

. Th e rulemakin g i nquestio ni s no wexpecte d t o b e finalize d byearl y1996
. O nth e othe r hand , th e WEPC O rulemakin g als o note d tha t EPA' s existin g polic ywas , an d woul d continu e t o be , t o allo wpermittin g authoritie s t o exclud e pollutio ncontro l project s i nothe r sourc e categorie s o na case-by-cas e basis

. III
. Case-By-Cas e Pollutio nContro l Projec t Determination s Th e followin g section s describ e th e typ e o f project s tha t mayb e considere d bypermittin g authoritie s fo r exclusio nfro m majo r NS Ra s pollutio ncontro l project s and tw o safeguard s tha t permittin g authoritie s ar e t o us e i nevaluatin g suc hprojects — th e environmentally-beneficia l tes t and a n ai r qualit yimpac t assessment
. T o a larg e extent , thes e requirement s ar e drawnfro m th e WEPC O rulemaking

. However , becaus e th e WEPC O rul e wa s designe d fo r a singl e sourc e category , electri c utilities , i t canno t and doe s no t serv e a s a complet e templat e fo r thi s guidance

. Therefore , th e following description s expan d upo n th e WEPC O rul e i nth e scop e o f qualifying project s and i nth e specifi c element s inheren t i nth e safeguards
. Thes e change s reflec t th e fa r mor e complicate d tas k o f evaluatin g pollutio n contro l project s a t a wid e variet yo f source s facin g a myria d o f Federal , State , an d loca l clea nai r requirements

. Sinc e th e safeguard s ar e a nintegra l componen t o f th e exclusion , State s mus t hav e th e authorit yt o impos e th e safeguard s i napprovin g a nexclusio nfrommajo r NS Runde r thi s policy

. Thus , Stat e o r loca l permittin g authoritie s i norde r t o us e thi s polic yshoul d provid e statement s t o EP Adescribin g and affirmin g th e basi s fo r it s authorit yt o impos e thes e safeguard s absen t majo r NSR
. Source s tha t obtai nexclusion s from permittin g authoritie s tha t hav e no t provide d thi s affirmatio n o f authorit y ar e a t ris k i nseekin g t o rel yo nth e exclusio nissue d byth e
(including visibility). " Base d o nthi s statutoryprovision , EP A believe s tha t th e prope r focu s o f an yai r qualit yassessmen t fo r a pollutio ncontro l projec t shoul d b e o nvisibilit yand anyothe r relevan t AQRV s fo r an yclas s I area s tha t ma yb e affecte d byth e propose d project

. Permittin g authoritie s shoul d notif yFedera l Land Manager s wher e appropriat e concernin g pollutio ncontro l project s whic hma yadversel yaffec t AQRV s i nclas s I areas .P.1 0

permittin g agency , becaus e EP Ama ysubsequentl ydetermin e tha t th e projec t doe s no t qualif ya s a pollutio ncontro l projec t unde r thi s policy

. A
. Type s o f Project s Covere d

" ** 1
. Add-O n Control s and Fue l Switche s I nth e WEPC O rulemaking , EP Afound tha t bot hadd-o n emission s contro l project s and fue l switche s t o less-pollutin g fuel s coul d b e considere d t o b e pollutio ncontro l projects

. Fo r th e purpose s o f today' s guidance , EP Aaffirm s tha t thes e type s o f project s ar e appropriat e candidate s fo r a case-by-cas e exclusio n a s well
. Thes e type s o f project s include :

- th e installatio no f conventiona l and advance d flu e ga s desulfurizatio nan d sorben t injectio nfo r S0 2 ; electrostati c precipitators , baghouses , hig hefficienc y multiclones , and scrubber s fo r particulat e o r othe r pollutants ;

- flu e ga s recirculation , low-N0 xburners , selectiv e non catalyti c reductio nand selectiv e catalyti c reductio nfo r N0 X ; and

- regenerativ e therma l oxidizer s (RTO) , catalyti c oxidizers , condensers , therma l incinerators , flare s an d carbo nadsorber s fo r volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) and toxi c ai r pollutants
. Project s undertake nt o accommodat e switchin g t o a n inherentl yless-pollutin g fue l suc ha s natura l ga s ca nals o qualif yfo r th e exclusion

. Anyactivit ytha t i s necessar yt o accommodat e switchin g t o a inherentl yless-pollutin g fue l i s considere d t o b e par t o f th e pollutio ncontro l project

. I nsom e instances , wher e th e emission s unit' s capabilit ywoul d otherwis e b e impaire d a s a resul t o f th e fue l switch , thi s ma yinvolv e certai nnecessar ychange s t o th e pollutio ngeneratin g equipmen t (e.g. , boiler ) i n orde r t o maintai nth e norma l operatin g capabilit yo f th e uni t a t th e tim e o f th e project

.

2
. Pollutio nPreventio nProject s I t i s EPA' s polic yt o promot e pollutio npreventio n approache s and t o remov e regulatorybarrier s t o source s seekin g t o develo p and implemen t pollutio npreventio nsolution s t o th e exten t allowe d unde r th e Act
. Fo r thi s reason , permittin g authoritie s ma yals o appl ythi s exclusio n t o switche s t o inherentl yless-pollutin g rawmaterial s and processe s and certai nP.1 1

othe r type s o f "pollutio nprevention " projects. 4 Fo r instance , manyVO C user s wil l b e makin g switche s t o water-base d o r powder

pain t applicatio nsystem s a s a strategyfo r meetin g reasonabl y availabl e contro l technology(RACT ) o r switchin g t o a non-toxi c VO C t o compl ywit hmaximu machievabl e contro l technolog y(MACT ) requirements

. Accordingly , unde r today' s guidance , permittin g authoritie s ma yconside r excluding ra wmateria l substitutions , proces s change s an d othe r pollutio npreventio nstrategie s wher e th e pollutio ncontro l aspect s o f th e projec t ar e clearl yeviden t an d wil l resul t i nsubstantia l emission s reduction s pe r uni t o f outpu t fo r on e o r mor e pollutants
. I njudgin g whethe r a pollutio npreventio nprojec t ca nb e considere d fo r exclusio na s a pollutio ncontro l project , permittin g authoritie s ma yals o conside r a s a relevan t facto r whethe r a projec t i s bein g . undertake nt o brin g a sourc e int o complianc e wit ha MACT , RACT , o r othe r Ac t requirement

. Althoug hEPAi s supportiv e o f pollutio ncontro l and preventio nproject s and/Strategies , specia l car e mus t b e take n i n classifyin g a projec t a s a pollutio ncontro l projec t and i n evaluatin g a projec t unde r a pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusion

. Virtuall yeverymodernizatio no r upgrad e projec t a t a nexistin g industria l facilit ywhic hreduce s input s an d lower s uni t cost s ha s th e concurren t effec t o f lowering a nemission s rat e pe r uni t o f fuel , ra wmateria l o r output
. Nevertheless , i t i s clea r tha t thes e majo r capita l investment s i nindustria l equipmen t ar e th e ver ytype s o f project s tha t Congres s intende d t o addres s i nth e ne wsourc e modificatio nprovision s [se e Wisconsi nElectri c Powe r Co
. v . Reillv > 89 3 F.2 d 901 , 907-1 0 (7thCir

. 1990 ) (rejectin g " contentio ntha t utilit ylif e extensio nprojec t wa s no t a physica l o r operationa l change) ; Puert o Rica nCemen t Co. , Inc
. v . EPA , 88 9 F.2 d 292 , 296-9 8 (1s t Cir

. 1989 ) (NSRapplie s t o modernizatio n projec t tha t decrease s emission s pe r uni t o f output , bu t increase s economi c efficienc ysuc htha t utilizatio n ma yincreas e and resul t i nne t increas e i nactua l emissions)]

. Likewise , th e replacemen t o f a n existing emission s uni t wit ha newe r o r differen t on e (albei t mor e efficien t an d les s polluting ) o r th e

4 Fo r purpose s o f thi s guidance , pollutio npreventio nmean s anyactivit ytha t throughproces s changes , produc t reformulatio n o r redesign , o r substitutio no f les s pollutin g ra wmaterials , eliminate s o r reduce s th e releas e o f ai r pollutant s and othe r pollutant s t o th e environmen t (including fugitiv e emissions ) prio r t o recycling , treatment , o r disposal ; i t doe s no t mea n recyclin g (othe r tha ncertai n"in-proces s recycling " practices) , energyrecovery , treatment , o r disposa l [se e Pollutio nPreventio n Ac t o f 199 0 sectio n6602(b ) and sectio n6603(5)(A ) and (B ) ; se e als o "EPADefinitio no f 'Pollutio nPrevention,' " memorandumfro m F
. Henr yHabich t II , May28 , 1992]

.PM

reconstructio no f a nexistin g emission s uni t woul d no t qualif ya s a pollutio ncontro l project

. Adoptin g a polic ytha t automaticall yexclude s fromNS Ran yprojec t that , whil e lowerin g operating cost s o r improvin g performance , coincidentall ylower s a V unit' s emission s rate , woul d improperl yexclud e almos t al l modification s t o existin g emission s units , includin g thos e tha t a» e likel yt o increas e utilizatio nand therefor e resul t i n overal l highe r level s o f emissions

. I norde r t o limi t thi s exclusio nt o th e subse t O f pollutio n preventio nproject s tha t wil l i nfac t lowe r annua l emission s a t a source , permittin g authoritie s shoul d no t exclud e a s pollutio n contro l project s anypollutio npreventio nprojec t tha t ca nb e reasonabl yexpecte d t o resul t i na nincreas e i nth e utilizatio n o f th e affecte d emission s unit(s)

. Fo r example , project s whic h significantl yincreas e capacity , decreas e productio ncosts , o r improv e produc t marketabilit yca nb e expecte d t o affec t utilizatio n patterns
. Wit hthes e changes , th e environmen t ma yo r mayno t se e a reductio n i noveral l sourc e emissions ; i t depend s o nth e source' s operation s afte r th e change , whic hcanno t b e predicte d wit hanycertainty. 5 Thi s i s no t t o sa ytha t thes e type s o f project s ar e necessaril ysubjec t t o majo r NS R requirements , onl ytha t the yshoul d no t b e exclude d a s pollutio n contro l project s unde r thi s guidance

. Th e EPAma yconside r differen t approache s t o excludin g pollutio npreventio nproject s frommajo r NS Rrequirement s i nth e upcomin g NS Rrulemaking

. Unde r thi s guidance , however , permittin g authoritie s shoul d
. carefull yrevie wpropose d pollutio npreventio nproject s t o evaluat e whethe r utilizatio no f th e sourc e wil l increas e a s a resul t o f th e project

. Furthermore , permittin g authoritie s shoul d hav e th e authorit yt o monito r utilizatio no f anaffecte d emission s uni t o r sourc e fo r a reasonabl e perio d o f time subsequen t t o th e projec t t o verif ywha t effect , i f any , th e projec t ha s o nutilization

. I ncase s wher e th e projec t ha s clearl ycause d a nincreas e i n utilization , th e permittin g authorit yma ynee d t o reevaluat e th e basi s fo r th e origina l exclusio nt o verif ytha t a nexclusio ni s stil l appropriat e and t o ensur e tha t al l applicabl e safeguard s ar e being met
.

5 Thi s i s i nmarke d contras t t o th e additio no f pollutio n contro l equipmen t whic htypicall ydoe s not , i nEPA' s experience , resul t i nanyincreas e i nth e source' s utilizatio no f th e emissio nuni t i nquestion

. I nth e fewinstance s wher e thi s presumptio ni s no t true , th e safeguard s discusse d i nth e nex t sectio nshoul d provid e adequat e environmenta l protection s fo r thes e addition s o f pollutio ncontro l equipment

.P.1 3

B
. Safeguard s Th e followin g safeguard s ar e necessaryt o assur e tha t project s bein g considere d fo r a nexclusio nqualif ya s environmentall ybeneficia l pollutio ncontro l project s an d d o no t hav e ai r qualit yimpact s whic hwoul d preclud e th e exclusion

. Consequently , a projec t tha t doe s no t mee t thes e safeguard s doe s no t qualif yfo r a nexclusio nunde r thi s policy

. 1
. Environmentally-Beneficia l Tes t Project s tha t mee t th e definitio no f a pollutio ncontro l projec t outline d abov e ma ynonetheles s caus e collatera l emission s increase s o r hav e othe r advers e impacts

. Fo r instance , a larg e VO C incinerator , whil e substantiall yeliminatin g VO C emissions , ma ygenerat e sizeabl e N0 Xemission s wel l i nexces s o f significanc e levels
. T o protec t agains t thes e sort s o f problems , EP Ai nth e WEPC O rul e provide d fo r a nassessmen t o f th e overal l environmenta l impac t o f a projec t an d th e specifi c impact , i f any , o nai r quality

. Th e EPAbelieve s tha t thi s safeguar d i s appropriat e i nthi s polic ya s well
. Unles s informatio nregarding a specifi c cas e indicate s otherwise , th e type s o f pollutio ncontro l project s liste d i n III
. A
. 1
. abov e ca n b e presumed , b ythei r nature , t o b e environmentall ybeneficial

. Thi s presumptio narise s fromEPA' s experienc e tha t historicall ythes e ar e th e ver ytype s o f pollutio ncontrol s applie d t o ne wand modifie d emission s units

. Th e presumptio ndoe s no t apply , however , wher e ther e i s reaso n t o believ e tha t 1 ) th e control s wil l no t b e designed , operate d o r ; maintaine d i n a manne r consisten t wit hstandar d and reasonabl e practices ; o r 2 ) collatera l emission s increase s hav e no t bee n adequatel yaddresse d a s discusse d below
. I nmakin g a determinatio na s t o whethe r a projec t i s environmentall ybeneficial , th e permittin g authorit ymus t conside r th e type s an d quantit yo f ai r pollutant s emitte d befor e and afte r th e project , a s wel l a s othe r relevan t environmenta l factors
. Whil e becaus e o f th e case-by-cas e natur e o f project s i t i s no t possibl e t o lis t al l factor s whic hshoul d b e considere d i nanyparticula r case , severa l concern s ca nb e noted
. First , pollutio ncontro l project s whic hresul t i na n increas e i nnon-targete d pollutant s shoul d b e reviewe d t o determin e tha t th e collatera l increas e ha s bee nminimize d an d wil l no t resul t i nenvironmenta l harm
. Minimizatio nher e doe s no t mea ntha t th e permittin g agenc yshoul d conduc t a BACT-typ e revie wo r necessaril yprescrib e add-o ncontro l equipmen t t o trea t th e collatera l increase

. Rather , minimizatio n mean s that , withi nth e physica l configuratio nan d operationa l standard s usuall yassociate d wit hsuc ha contro l devic e o r strategy , th eP.1 4

sourc e ha s take nreasonabl e measure s t o kee p anycollatera l increas e t o a minimum

. Fo r instance , th e permittin g authorit y coul d requir e tha t a low-NOxburne r projec t b e subjec t t o temperatur e and othe r appropriat e combustio nstandard s s o tha t carbo nmonoxid e (CO ) emission s ar e kep t t o a minimum , bu t woul d no t revie wth e projec t fo r a C O catalys t o r othe r add-o ntyp e options

. I naddition , a State' s RAC T o r MAC T rul e ma yhav e explicitl yconsidere d measure s fo r minimizin g a collatera l increas e fo r a clas s o r categoryo f pollutio ncontro l project s and require s a standar d o f bes t practice s t o minimiz e suc h collatera l increases

. I nsuc hcases , th e nee d t o minimiz e collatera l increas e fro mth e covere d clas s o r categor yo f pollutio ncontro l project s ca nb e presume d t o hav e bee n adequatel yaddresse d i nth e rule
. I naddition , a projec t whic hwoul d resul t i na nunacceptabl e increase d ris k du e t o th e releas e o f ai r toxic s shoul d no t b e considere d environmentall ybeneficial

. I t i s EPA' s experience , however , tha t mos t project s undertake nt o reduc e emissions , especiall yadd-o ncontrol s and fue l switches , resul t i n concurren t reduction s i n ai r toxics

. Th e EPAexpect s tha t man y pollutio ncontro l project s seekin g a nexclusio nunde r thi s guidanc e wil l b e fo r th e purpos e o f complying wit hMAC T requirement s fo r reduction s i nai r toxics

. Consequently , unles s ther e i s reaso nt o believ e otherwise , permittin g agencie s ma y presum e tha t suc hproject s b ythei r natur e wil l resul t i nreduce d risk s fro mai r toxics

. 2
. Additiona l Ai r Qualit yImpact s Assessment s (a ) Genera l ' ' " •" Nothin g i nth e Ac t o r EPA' s implementing regulation s woul d allo wa permittin g authorit yt o approv e a pollutio n contro l projec t resultin g i na n emission s increas e tha t woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a NAAQ S o r PS D increment , o r adversel yimpac t visibilit yo r othe r AQR V i n a clas s I are a [see , e.g. , Ac t section s 110(a)(2)(C) , 165 , 169A(b) , 173]

. Accordingly , thi s guidanc e i s no t intende d t o allo wan yprojec t t o violat e anyo f thes e ai r qualit ystandards
. A s discusse d above , i t i s possibl e tha t a pollutio ncontro l project—eithe r throug ha nincreas e i na nemission s rat e o f a collatera l pollutan t o r througha chang e i nutilization—wil l caus e a nincreas e i nactua l emissions , whic hi ntur ncoul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a NAAQ S o r incremen t o r adversel yimpac t AQRVs
. Fo r thi s reason , i nth e WEPC O rul e th e EPArequire d source s t o addressTVheneve r 1 ) th e propose d chang e woul d resul t i na significan t ne t increas e i nactua l emission s o f an ycriteri a pollutan t ove r level s use d fo r tha t sourc e i nth e mos t recen t ai r qualit yimpac t analysis ; an d 2 ) th e permittin g
/ • . V3 .1 5

1 0 authorit yha s reaso n t o believ e tha t suc ha nincreas e woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f a NAAQS , incremen t o r visibilit y limitation

. I f a nai r qualit yimpac t analysi s indicate s tha t th e increas e i nemission s wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio no f tvan yambien t standard , PS D increment , o r AQRV , th e pollutio n .contro l exclusio ndoe s no t apply
. Th e EP Abelieve s tha t thi s safeguar d need s t o b e applie d her e a s well
. Thus , wher e a pollutio n contro l projec t wil l resul t i na significan t increas e i nemission s an d tha t increase d leve l ha s no t bee npreviousl yanalyze d fo r it s ai r qualit yimpac t and raise s th e possibilit yo f a NAAQS , increment , o r AQRV violation , th e permittin g authorit yi s t o requir e th e sourc e t o provid e a nai r qualit yanalysi s sufficien t t o demonstrat e th e impac t o f th e project

. Th e EP Awil l no t necessaril yrequir e tha t th e increas e b e modeled , bu t th e sourc e mus t provid e sufficien t dat a t o satisf yth e permittin g authorit ytha t th e ne wlevel s o f emission s wil l no t caus e a NAAQ S o r incremen t violatio nand wil l no t adversel yimpac t th e AQRV s o f nearb ypotentiall yaffecte d clas s I areas . I nth e cas e o f nonattainmen t areas , th e Stat e o r th e sourc e mus t provid e offsettin g emission s reduction s fo r anysignifican t increas e i na nonattainmen t pollutan t fromth e pollutio ncontro l project

. I nothe r words , i f a significan t collatera l increas e o f a nonattainmen t pollutan t resultin g froma pollutio ncontro l projec t i s no t offse t o n a t leas t a one-to-on e rati o the nth e pollutio ncontro l projec t woul d no t qualif ya s environmentall y beneficial. 6 However , rathe r tha nhavin g t o appl yoffset s o n a case-by-cas e basis , State s ma yconside r adoptin g (a s par t o f thei r attainmen t plans ) specifi c contro l measure s o r strategie s * ' fo r th e purpos e o f generatin g offset s t o mitigat e th e projecte d collatera l emission s increase s froma clas s o r categor yo f pollutio ncontro l projects

. (b ) Determinatio n o f Increas e i nEmission s Th e questio n o f whethe r a propose d projec t wil l resul t i na n emission s increas e ove r pre-modificatio n level s o f actua l

• emission s i s bot hcomplicate d and contentious

. I t i s a questio n tha t ha s bee ndebate d byth e Ne wSourc e Revie wRefor m Subcommitte e o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t Advisor yCommitte e and i s expecte d t o b e revisite d byEP Ai nth e sam e upcomin g rulemakin g tha t wil l conside r adoptin g a pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusion

. I nth e interim , EP Ai s adoptin g a simplifie d approac h

6 Regardles s o f th e severit yo f th e classificatio n o f th e nonattainmen t area , a one-to-on e offse t rati o wil l b e considere d sufficien t unde r thi s polic yt o mitigat e a collatera l increas e froma pollutio ncontro l project

. State s may , however , requir e offse t ratio s tha t ar e greate r tha none-to-one
.P.1 6

1 1 t o determinin g whethe r a pollutio ncontro l projec t wil l resul t i n increase d emissions

. Th e approac hi n thi s polic yi s premise d o n th e fac t tha t EP A .doe s no t expec t th e vas t majorit yo f thes e pollutio ncontro l project s t o chang e establishe d utilizatio npattern s a t th e source . A s discusse d i nth e previou s section , i t i s EPA' s experienc e tha t add-o ncontrol s d o no t impac t utilization , an d pollutio npreventio nproject s tha t coul d increas e utilizatio nma y no t b e exclude d unde r thi s guidance

. Therefore , i nmos t case s i t wil l b e ver yeas yt o calculat e th e emission s afte r th e change : th e produc t o f th e ne wemission s rat e time s th e existin g utilizatio nrate
. I nth e cas e o f a pollutio ncontro l projec t tha t collaterall yincrease s a non-targete d pollutant , th e actua l increas e (calculate d usin g th e ne wemission s rat e "an d curren t utilizatio npattern ) woul d nee d t o b e analyze d t o determin e it s ai r qualit yimpact

. Th e permittin g authorit yma ypresum e tha t project s meetin g th e definitio noutline d i nsectio nIII(A)(1 ) wil l no t chang e utilizatio npatterns
. However , th e permittin g authorit yi s t o rejec t thi s presumption'wher e ther e i s reaso nt o believ e tha t th e projec t wil l resul t i ndebottlenecking , loadshiftin g t o tak e advantag e o f th e contro l equipment , o r othe r meaningfu l increas e i nth e us e o f th e uni t abov e curren t levels
. Wher e th e projec t wil l increas e utilizatio nan d emissions , th e associate d emission s increase s ar e calculate d base d o nth e post-modificatio n potentia l t o emi t o f th e uni t considerin g th e applicatio no f th e propose d controls
. I n suc hcase s th e permitting agenc yshoul d conside r th e projecte d increas e i nemission s a s collatera l t o th e projec t and determin e whether , notwithstanding th e emission s increases / » • th e projec t i s stil l environmentall ybeneficia l an d meet s al l applicabl e safeguards
. I ncertai n limite d circumstances , a permittin g agenc yma y tak e actio nt o impos e federally-enforceabl e limit s o nth e magnitud e o f a projecte d collatera l emission s increas e t o ensur e tha t al l safeguard s ar e met
. Fo r example , wher e th e dat a use d t o asses s a projecte d collatera l emission s increas e i s questionabl e and ther e i s reaso nt o believ e tha t emission s i nexces s o f th e projecte d increas e woul d violat e a napplicabl e ai r qualit y standar d o r significantl yexcee d th e quantit yo f offset s provided , restriction s o nth e magnitud e o f th e collatera l increas e ma yb e necessar yt o ensur e complianc e wit hth e applicabl e safeguards
. IV
. Procedura l Safeguard s Becaus e EP Aha s no t ye t promulgate d regulation s governin g a generall yapplicabl e pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio nfro m majo r NS R(othe r tha nfo r electri c utilities) , permittin g authoritie s mus t conside r and approv e request s fo r a nexclusio nP.1 7

1 2
o na case-by-cas e basis , an d th e exclusio ni s no t self-executing

. Instead , source s mus t receiv e case-by-cas e approva l fro mth e permittin g authorit ypursuan t t o a mino r NS Rpermittin g process , .Stat e nonapplicabilit ydeterminatio no r simila r process . [Nothing i nthi s guidanc e void s o r create s a nexclusio nfro man y applicabl e mino r sourc e preconstructio nrevie wrequiremen t i n an y SI P tha t ha s bee napprove d pursuan t t o sectio n110(a)(2)(C ) and 4 0 CF R51.160-164
. ] Thi s proces s shoul d als o provid e tha t th e applicatio nfo r th e exclusio nan d th e permittin g agency' s propose d decisio nthereo nb e subjec t t o publi c notic e an d th e opportunit yfo r publi c and EPAwritte ncomment
. I nthos e limite d case s wher e th e applicabl e SI P alread yexempt s a clas s o r categor yo f pollutio ncontrol s projec t fromth e mino r sourc e permittin g publi c notic e and commen t requirements * and wher e n o collatera l increase s ar e expecte d (e.g. , th e installatio no f a baghouse ) an d al l otherwis e applicabl e environmenta l safeguard s ar e complie d with , publi c notic e an d commen t nee d no t b e provide d fo r suc hprojects

. However / eve ni nsuc hcircumstances , th e permittin g agenc yshoul d provid e advanc e notic e t o EP Awhe ni t applie s thi s polic yt o provid e a nexclusion

. Fo r standard-wid e application s t o group s -o f source s (e.g. , RAC T o r MACT) , th e notic e ma yb e provide d t o EPAa t th e tim e th e permittin g authorit yintend s t o issu e a pollutio n contro l exclusio nfo r th e clas s o r categor yo f source s an d thereafte r notic e nee d no t b e give nt o EP Ao n a nindividua l basi s fo r source s withi nth e notice d group . V
. Emissio nReductio nCredit s I ngeneral , certai npollutio ncontro l project s whic hhav e bee napprove d fo r a nexclusio nfrommajo r NS Rma yresul t i n emissio nreduction s whic hcanserv e a s NS Roffset s o r nettin g credits

. Al l o r par t o f th e emissio nreduction s equa l t o th e differenc e betwee nth e pre-modificatio n actua l and post

modificatio npotentia l emission s fo r th e decrease d pollutan t ma y serv e a s credit s provide d tha t 1 ) th e projec t wil l no t resul t i n a significan t collatera l increas e i nactua l emission s o f any criteri a pollutant , 2 ) th e projec t i s stil l considere d environmentall ybeneficial , an d 3 ) al l otherwis e applicabl e criteri a fo r th e creditin g o f suc hreduction s ar e me t (e.g. , quantifiable , surplus , permanent , an d enforceable)
. Wher e a n exclude d pollutio n contro l projec t result s i na significan t ? collatera l increas e o f a criteri a pollutant , emission s reductio n credit s fro mth e pollutio ncontro l projec t fo r th e controlle d pollutan t ma ystil l b e grante d provided , i nadditio nt o 2 ) an d 3 ) above , th e actua l collatera l increas e i s reduce d belo wth e applicabl e significanc e level , eithe r throughcontemporaneou s reduction s a t th e sourc e o r externa l offsets
. However , neithe r th e exclusio n frommajo r NS Rno r an ycredi t (ful l o r partial ) fo r emissio nreduction s shoul d b e grante d b yth e permittin g authorit y wher e th e typ e o r amoun t o f th e emission s increas e whic hwoul d resul t fromth e us e o f suc hcredit s woul d lesse nth eP.1 8

1 3 environmenta l benefi t associate d wit hth e pollutio ncontro l projec t t o th e poin t wher e th e projec t woul d no t hav e initiall y qualifie d fo r a nexclusion

. IV
. Illustrativ e Example s Th e followin g example s illustrat e som e o f th e guidin g principle s and safeguard s discusse d abov e i nreviewin g propose d pollutio ncontro l project s fo r a nexclusio nfrommajo r NSR
. Exampl e 1 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : Achemica l manufacturin g facilit yi n a nattainmen t are a fo r al l pollutant s i s proposin g t o instal l a RT O t o reduc e VO C emission s (including emission s o f som e hazardou s pollutants ) a t th e plan t byabou t 300 0 ton s pe r yea r (tpy)
. Th e emission s reduction s fromth e RT O ar e currentl y voluntary / bu t ma yb e necessaryi nth e futur e fo r titl e II I MAC T compliance

. Althoug hth e RT O ha s bee ndesigne d t o minimiz e NO x emissions , i t wil l produc e 20 0 tpyo f ne wNO xemission s du e t o th e uniqu e compositio n o f th e emission s stream
. Ther e i s n o informatio nabou t th e projec t t o rebu t a presumptio ntha t th e projec t wil l no t chang e utilizatio no f th e source . Asid e fro m th e N0 Xincreas e ther e ar e n o othe r environmenta l impact s know n t o b e associate d wit hth e project

. EVALUATION : A s a qualifyin g add-o ncontro l device , th e projec t ma yb e considere d a pollutio ncontro l projec t and ma yb e considere d fo r a nexclusion

. Th e permittin g agenc yshould : 1 ) verif ytha t th e N0 Xincreas e ha s bee nminimize d t o th e exten t practicable , 2 ) confirm(throughmodelin g o r other.appropriat e means ) tha t th e actua l significan t increas e i nNO xemission s doe s no t violat e th e applicabl e NAAQS, 7 PS D increment , o r adversel y impac t an

yClas s I are a AQRV , and 3 ) appl yal l otherwis e applicabl e SI P and mino r sourc e permittin g requirements , including opportunit yfo r publi c notic e an d comment
. Exampl e 2 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : Asourc e propose s t o replac e a n existing coal-fire d boile r wit ha gas-fire d turbin e a s par t o f a cogeneratio nproject

. Th e ne wturbin e i s a nexac t replacemen t fo r th e energyneed s supplie d b yth e existin g boile r and wil l emi t les s o f eac hpollutan t o na nhourl ybasi s tha nth e boile r did

.

7 I f th e sourc e wer e locate d i na nare a i nwhic h nonattainmen t NS Rapplie d t o N0 Xemission s increases , 20 0 ton s o f N0 Xoffse t credit s woul d b e require d fo r th e projec t t o b e eligibl e fo r a nexclusion

.P.1 9

1 4 EVALUATION : Th e replacemen t o f a nexistin g emission s uni t wit ha ne wuni t (albei t mor e efficien t and les s polluting ) doe s no t qualif yfo r a n exclusio na s a pollutio ncontro l project

. Th e .compan ycan , however , us e anyotherwis e applicabl e nettin g credit s fro m

th e remova l o f th e existin g boile r t o see k t o ne t th e ne wuni t ou t o f majo r NSR
. Exampl e 3 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : Asourc e plan s t o physicall yrenovat e and upgrad e a nexistin g proces s lin e bymakin g certai nchange s t o th e existin g process , includin g extensiv e modification s t o emission s units

. Followin g th e changes , th e sourc e wil l expan d productio nand manufactur e and marke t a ne wproduc t line

. Th e projec t wil l caus e a n increas e i nth e economi c efficienc yo f th e line

. Th e renovate d lin e wil l als o b e les s pollutin g on . a per produc t basi s tha nth e origina l configuration

. EVALUATION : Th e chang e i s no t eligibl e fo r a nexclusio na s a pollutio ncontro l project

. O nbalance , th e projec t doe s no t hav e clearl yeviden t pollutio ncontro l aspects , and th e resultan t decreas e i nth e per-produc t emission s rat e (or factor ) i s incidenta l t o th e project

. Th e projec t i s a physica l chang e o r chang e i nth e metho d o f operatio ntha t wil l increas e efficienc y an d productivity

. Exampl e 4 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : I nrespons e t o th e phaseou t o f chlorofluorocarbon s (CFC ) unde r titl e V I o f th e Act , a majo r sourc e i s proposin g t o substitut e a les s ozone-depletin g ' " substanc e (e.g. , HCFC-141b ) fo r on e i t currentl yuse s tha t ha s a greate r ozon e depletin g potentia l (e.g. , CFC-11)
. Alarge r amoun t o f th e less-ozon e depletin g substanc e wil l hav e t o b e used
. N o othe r change s ar e proposed
. EVALUATION : Th e projec t mayb e considere d a pollutio n contro l projec t and ma yb e considere d fo r anexclusion

. Th e permittin g agenc yshoul d verif ytha t 1 ) actua l annua l emission s o f HCFC-141 bafte r th e propose d switc hWil l caus e les s stratospheri c ozon e depletio ntha ncurren t annua l emission s o f CFC-11 ; 2 ) th e propose d switc hwil l no t chang e utilizatio ns pattern s o r increas e emission s o f an yothe r pollutan t whic hwoul d impac t a NAAQS, PS D increment , o r AQR V an d wil l no t caus e an y cross-medi a harm , including an yunacceptabl e increase d ris k associate d wit htoxi c ai r pollutants ; and 3 ) appl yal l otherwis e applicabl e SI P and mino r sourc e permittin g requirements , includin g opportunit yfo r publi c notic e and comment
.P.2 0

1 5 Exampl e 5 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : Anexistin g landfil l propose s t o instal l eithe r flare s o r energyrecoveryequipmen t [i.e. , '•turbine s o r interna l combustio n(IC ) engines]

. Th e reduction s •fro mth e projec t ar e estimate d a t ove r 100 0 tp yo f VO C an d ar e currentl yno t necessaryt o mee t Ac t requirements , bu t ma yb e " necessar ysom e tim e i nth e future
. I ncas e Ath e projec t i s th e replacemen t o f a nexistin g flar e o r energysyste man d n o increas e i nN0 Xemission s wil l occur . I ncas e B , th e equipmen t i s a firs t tim e installatio n and wil l resul t i na 10 0 tp yincreas e i nN0 X . I ncas e C , th e equipmen t i s a nadditio nt o existin g equipmen t whic hwil l accommodat e additiona l landfil l ga s (resultin g fro m increase d ga s generatio nand/o r captur e consisten t wit hth e curren t permitte d limit s fo r growt ha t th e landfill ) an d wil l resul t i na 5 0 tpyincreas e i nNO x . EVALUATION : Project s A , B , and C ma yb e considere d pollutio ncontro l project s an d ma ybe
. considere d fo r a n exclusion ; however , i ncase s B and C , i f th e landfil l i s locate d i na nare a require d t o satisf ynonattainmen t NS Rfo r NO x emissions , th e sourc e woul d b e require d t o obtai nNO xoffset s a t a rati o o f a t leas t 1: 1 fo r th e projec t t o b e considere d fo r a n exclusion

. [NOTE : VOC-NO xnetting an d tradin g fo r NS Rpurpose s ma yb e discusse d i nth e upcomin g NS Rrulemaking , bu t i t i s beyon d th e scop e o f thi s guidance. ] Althoughneithe r turbine s o r I C engine s ar e liste d i nsectio nIII.A. l a s add-o ncontro l device s . and woul d normall yno t b e considere d pollutio ncontro l projects , i nthi s specifi c applicatio nthe yserv e th e sam e functio na s a flare , namel yt o reduc e VO C emission s a t th e landfil l wit hthe
. adde d incidenta l benefi t o f producing usefu l energyi nth e process. 8

' X Th e permittin g agenc yshould : 1 ) verif ytha t th e NO x increas e ha s bee n minimize d t o th e exten t practicable ; 2 ) confir m (throughmodelin g o r othe r appropriat e means ) tha t th e actua l significan t increas e i nNO xemission s wil l no t violat e th e

8 Th e productio no f energyher e i s incidenta l t o th e projec t an d i s no t a facto r i n qualifying th e projec t fo r a nexclusio na s a pollutio n contro l project

. I naddition , an ysupplementa l o r co-firin g o f non-landfil l ga s fuel s (e.g. , natura l gas , oil ) woul d disqualif yth e projec t frombeing considere d a pollutio n contro l project

. Th e fuel s woul d b e use d t o maximiz e any economi c benefi t from th e projec t an

d no t fo r th e purpos e o f pollutio ncontro l a t th e landfill

. However , th e us e o f a n alternativ e fue l solel ya s a backu p fue l t o b e use d onl ydurin g brie f and infrequen t start-up o r emergenc ysituation s woul d no t necessaril ydisqualif ya nenergyrecoveryprojec t fro mbein g considere d a pollutio ncontro l project

.P.2 1

1 6 applicabl e NAAQS , PS D increment , o r adversel yimpac t an yAQRV ; and 3 ) appl yal l otherwis e applicabl e SI P and mino r sourc e and , a s note d above , i ncase s B and C ensure s tha t NO xoffset s ar e provide d i n a n are a i nwhic hnonattainmen t revie wapplie s t o N0 X emission s increases , permittin g requirements , includin g opportunit yfo r publi c notic e and comment
.