## ATTACHMENT 5 Ventura County Air Pollution Control District FINAL STAFF REPORT – April 27, 2011



### NEW RULE 26.13 – NEW SOURCE REVIEW -
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) is a federal pre-construction permitting program for facilities located in areas that either comply with federal ambient air quality standards for particula r pollutants (classified as attainment) or are unclas sifiable for any criteria air pollutant. PSD applies t o new major stationary sources and existing major station

ary sources where a significant modification will occur. The counterpart of PSD in federal permittin g is the Federal New Source Review Program for major sources of pollutants that are not in attainment of federal ambient air quality standards.

In Ventura County, the PSD permitting program is currently administered by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region IX. At this time, no facility in the county requires a PSD permit.

The recent addition of greenhouse gases (GHG) to the list of regulated pollutants makes these pollut ants subject to federal permitting. As a result, EPA Region IX could have a significant increase in PSD permit applications throughout the state. EPA staf f would be overwhelmed with these new permitapplications and processing time could be significantly longer. Consequently, EPA is encouraging local air districts to take responsibility for proc essing any PSD permit applications within their jurisdicti on. This requires each district to adopt a PSD permitti ng rule that mirrors federal requirements. The rule m ustbe approved for incorporation into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) by both the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and EPA.

The most straightforward way for an air district to take PSD responsibility is to adopt a rule that incorporates the federal requirements by reference.

The California Air Pollution Control Offices Association (CAPCOA) has developed a model rule for just this purpose. The rule was developed cooperatively by EPA staff, ARB staff, and the CAPCOA Engineering Managers Committee.

District staff is proposing a PSD rule based on the CAPCOA model rule. Certain changes have been made to accommodate specific situations in Ventura County. In addition, existing PSD Rule 26.10, whic h requires a source operator to obtain a PSD permit from EPA, will be repealed.

PROPOSED RULE

Proposed new Rule 26.13 is based on a CAPCOA model PSD rule developed by EPA staff, ARB staff, and the CAPCOA Engineering Managers Committee.

The features of the rule are discussed below.

A. Purpose

This section of the rule is relatively self-explana tory, establishing the context of the rule with respect t o new source review. Ventura County has not attained the federal NAAQS for ozone; it's status is "attainment" for all other pollutants. A list of applicable attainment pollutants appears in Table 1

.

The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program is a construction permitting program for new major facilities and major modifications to existing major facilities that emit either criteria or greenhouse gas pollutants located in areas classified for an air pollutant as either attainment or unclassifiable. Rules 10 through 32 contain application requirements and processing requirements for permit actions. The intent of this Rule is to incorporate by reference federal PSD rule requirements into these Rules and Regulations.

B. Applicability

Section B specifies that Rule 26.13 shall apply to sources subject to federal regulation 40 CFR Part

52.21.FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 2

April 27, 2011



### Table 1 Significant Pollutants for Major Modifications in § 52.21 (b)(23)

Pollutant Emissions Rate

Carbon monoxide................................... ................ 100 tons per year (tpy) Nitrogen oxides................................... ................... 40 tpy

Sulfur dioxide.................................... ..................... 40 tpy

Particulate matter: ............................... ................... 25 tpy of particulate matter emi ssions 15 tpy of PM10 emissions

Ozone

................................................... .................. 40 tpy of volatile organic compounds *

Lead .............................................. ......................... 0.6 tpy

Asbestos .......................................... ....................... 0.007 tpy Beryllium ......................................... ...................... 0.0004 tpy Mercury........................................... ....................... 0.1 tpy Vinyl chloride .................................... .................... 1 tpy

Fluorides ......................................... ....................... 3 tpy

Sulfuric acid mist ................................ ................... 7 tpy Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) ............................ ............. 10 tpy Total reduced sulfur (including H2S).............. ....... 10 tpy Reduced sulfur compounds (including H2S): ........ 1 0 tpy

Greenhouse Gases.................................. ................ 75,000 tpy Municipal Waste processing ........................ .......... Specific limits

* - Ozone is non-attainment in Ventura County

The provisions of this rule shall apply to any source and the owner or operator of any source subject to any requirement under 40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR) Part 52.21 as incorporated into this rule.

C. Incorporation by Reference

Section C incorporates by reference federal regulation 40 CFR Part 52.21. In Subsections 1, 2 and 3 (not shown), exclusions and amendments to the federal regulations are specified. These changes a re detailed in Appendix A and Appendix B.

Except as provided below, the provisions of 40 CFR Part 52.21, in effect August 2, 2010, are incorporated herein by reference and made part of these Rules and Regulations.

D. Requirements

This section specifies that a facility owner or ope rator must obtain a PSD permits prior to construction for applicable projects. The District shall issue the permit and the applicant shall pay the fees specifi ed

in Rule 42.

1. An owner or operator must obtain a prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit pursuant to this Rule before beginning actual construction of a new major stationary source, a majormodification, or a Plantwide Applicability Limit (PAL) major modification, as defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b).

2. Not withstanding the provisions of any other Rule or Regulation, the Air Pollution Control Officer shall require compliance with this rule prior to issuing a federal Prevention of Significant Deterioration permit as required by Clean Air Act (CAA)

Section 165.

3. The applicant shall pay the applicable fees specified in Rule 42.

E. Public Participation

Section E specifies that the public notice requirements in Rule 26.7, New Source Review – Notification, shall apply. Rule 26.7 requires a published notice in both a newspaper of general circulation a nd the District newsletter for a period of 30 days pri or to
a final decision. ARB and EPA are also notified.

1. Prior to issuing a federal PSD permit pursuant to this rule, the Air Pollution Control Officer shall comply with the public notice requirements of Rule 26.7,

New Source Review - Notification.FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 3

April 27, 2011

DISCUSSION

The federal PSD program appears in 40 Code ofFederal Regulations (CFR) Part 52.21. The discussion below explains many of the features of the program as it applies to Ventura County.

Who is Subject to PSD Permitting?

A pre-construction PSD permit is required for any new major source or significant modification of an existing major source for any the pollutants in Tab le 1 except pollutants for which an area has been classified non-attainment. Currently, Ventura Coun ty
is a federal non-attainment area for ozone. The remaining pollutants in Table 1 are applicable atta inment pollutants. The mass emission rates listed in Table 1 apply to modifications of a existing source

.

In general, a new major source is a facility with m ass emissions of 250 tons or more per year of an applic

able pollutant, except for GHGs, for which there is an additional threshold of 100,000 tons per year of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO 2 e). CO 2 e is calculatedby multiplying the mass emission rate of a greenhouse gas by its global warming potential (GWP). GWP values for manygreenhouse gases appear in Appendix C.

Note also that there are 28 types of industries whe re a new major source is defined as 100 tons per year or more of an applicable pollutant (Appendix D), with

the same additional GHG threshold. No such source type is likely to be constructed in Ventura County.

With the recent addition of GHG as a regulated pollutant, it is possible for an existing source to become a PSD source. However, based on past permitting experience, no new or existing PSD sources are expected in Ventura County.

What are the Primary Requirements
to Obtain a PSD Permit?

PSD permit applicants must meet five requirements to obtain a PSD permit, as listed below;

• Apply BACT during all phases of operation • Conduct an air quality impact analysis • Perform an increment consumption analysis • Analyze impacts to soils, vegetation and visibility • Not adversely impact any Class I area 1

The air quality impact analysis should show that th e increase in emissions will neither cause or contrib ute to an exceedence of a National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

BACT is required on each emissions unit that emits an applicable air pollutant in excess of the significance threshold for that pollutant. Because GHGs a re newly regulated, BACT has not been thoroughly developed. As an example, a PSD source of GHGs could be a fossil-fuel fired boiler with a capacity of over 200 million Btu/hr operating full time. In thi s case, BACT would likely be a fuel efficiency requir ement; if fuel use is reduced, carbon dioxide emissi ons are reduced.

The air quality impact analysis compares the background concentration of a pollutant plus the potent ial

to emit of the new or modified emissions units to t he NAAQS on an hour by hour basis over the course of a year. Background concentrations are determined from either a public monitoring site nearby (with three to five years of ambient data) or one year of site-specific hourly monitoring. Both pollutant

concentration and weather data is collected. If th ere are other facilities with issued Authorities to Construct that have not begun operation at the time of the site monitoring, the potential to emit of these other facilities must be added to the background concentration. If the air quality impact analysis shows an exceedence of the NAAQS, additional emission controls or operational limitations must b e imposed on the new or modified units. If an NAAQS exceedence remains possible, post-project air quali ty monitoring may be imposed on the applicant. In addition, the project must not impact a Class I are a (such as the Los Padres National Forest in northern Ventura County).

In addition to exceeding the NAAQS, federal regulations limit the increase in ambient air concentrati on of a pollutant from a single source. This is calle d the ambient air increment. Increments differ by pollut ant and are measured in micrograms per cubic meter (see Appendix E). Because neither a NAAQS nor an

ambient air increment have been established for GHGs, an air quality impact analysis is not require d.

What are the Benefits of District PSD Permitting?

The primary benefit for sources requiring a PSD permit at the District level is a shorter permit processing time. Currently, obtaining a PSD permi t from EPA can take several years. With a District PSD designation, permit processing will occur muchFINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 4

April 27, 2011

more quickly. EPA PSD permit processing involves

both the federal Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service (regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA)) because an EPA PSD permit issuance is considered a federal action. Local districts are not required to consult federal agencies, although compliance with applicable ESA is still required. ESA and other impacts are considered in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process. Note, however, that the PSDpermit process is both complicated and labor-intensive and will take much more time to complete compared to the typical APCD permit process.

Appeals for PSD permits issued by EPA are heard by the federal Environmental Appeals Board (EAB) in Washington, DC. Appeals of a District-issued PSD permit issued are heard by the District Hearing Board. Appeals handled locally will be quicker and have more scheduling flexibility.

Financial Impact

The adoption of Rule 26.13 will have a financial impact on businesses that require a PSD permit because they will be required to pay the District f or the additional permit processing required to obtain the permit. Currently, EPA charges no fee for processing PSD permit applications.

The District proposes to charge for PSD permit processing as specified in Rule 42. Because of the modeling required, actual labor hours required to process a PSD permit could be significantly more than those required for a Title V permit. Also, co sts could vary considerably depending on the level of participation by both the public and EPA. The current hourly service rate for an Air Quality Engineer is $119.00 per hour. Staff estimates that

, depending on its complexity, the cost of a PSD permit could range from $15,000 to $100,000.

Implementation of State Senate Bill 288

SB 288 restricts changes that California air pollut ion control districts may make to their existing New Source Review (NSR) and PSD rules. SB 288 also requires ARB to formally approve any NSR and PSD rule changes made by local districts. If a distric t makes any NSR or PSD rule changes that ARB finds, after a public hearing, are less stringent than tho se that existed on December 30, 2002, SB 288 directs ARB to promptly adopt the rules necessary to restor e equivalent NSR and PSD obligations. 2

New Rule 26.13 is being proposed in part to accommodate the federal Greenhouse Gas Tailoring Rule. With regard to SB 288, ARB states:

Based on the text and timing of SB 288, as well as other policy considerations discussed in the enclosed guidance document, ARB staff concludes that SB 288 is not applicable to those changes to district rules required to be implemented by the districts as a result of the Tailoring Rule. Therefore, SB 288 should not act as a barrier to the efforts underway to expeditiously develop rules for implementing the GHG Tailoring Rule. 1

Because Rule 26.13 is a new rule that implements federal PSD requirements, the rule will be no less stringent than existing Rule 26.10. Rule 26.10 sta tes that an applicant subject to PSD must obtain a PSD permit from EPA.

EMISSION REDUCTION / COST EFFECTIVENESS

Health & Safety Code § 40703 states that the Distri ct must consider, and make public, "the cost-effective

ness of a control measure." The proposed rule is n otincluded in any control measure, so a costeffectiveness calculation is not necessary.

Nevertheless, although the proposed rule is administrative in nature, a significant increase in permi t processing costs will occur for sources requiring a PSD permit. Also, the District will experience an increase in costs to implement the PSD program; some of these costs may not be directly offset by t he permit processing fee. Although emissions may be reduced as a result of PSD requirements, it is not possible to calculate the quantity of these emissio ns until an application is received. Therefore, the c osteffectiveness of the proposal cannot be calculated.

Because this rule action is not a measure to implement Best Available Retrofit Control Technology, an incremental cost-effectiveness analysis under Healt h & Safety Code Section 40920.6 is not required.FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 5

April 27, 2011

SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT

Health & Safety Code § 40728.5 requires the Air

Pollution Control Board consider the socioeconomic impact of any new rule or amendment to an existing rule if air quality or emission limits are signific antly effected. The proposed rule is administrative in

nature and does not include emission limits. However, emissions may be reduced as a result of PSD requirements. It is not possible to calculate the quantity of these emissions until individual projec ts are evaluated. However, the rule may affect air quality in Ventura County, so the requirements of t he

section must be evaluated.

The Board must evaluate the following socioeconomic information on new Rule 26.13:

(1) The type of industries or business, including small business, affected by the rule or regulation.

Rule 26.13 will impact businesses that construct a new major source or a make a significant modification to an existing major source of anattainment pollutant. It is not possible to determine the quantity or nature of these emissions until the individual projects are evaluated. There are currently no PSD permit holders in Ventura County and few, if any, are expected. The rule will have no impact on small business.

(2) The impact of the rule or regulation on employment and the economy of the region affected by the adoption of the rule or regulation.

The adoption of Rule 26.13 is expected to have no impact on employment in and the economy of Ventura County. A new major source or a significant modification to an existing major source of an attainment pollutant will require a PSD permit regardless of the identity of the issuing agency. There are currently no PSD permit holders in Ventura County and few, if any, are expected.

(3) The range of probable costs, including costs to industry or business, including small business, of the rule or regulation. The District proposes to charge for PSD permit processing as specified in Rule 42. Because of the modeling required, actual labor hours required to process a PSD permit could be significantly more than those required for a Title V permit. Also, costs could varyconsiderably depending on the level of participation by both the public and EPA. The current hourly service rate for an Air Quality Engineer is $119.00 per hour. Staff estimates that, depending on the complexity, the cost of a PSD permit could be from $15,000 to $100,000.

(4) The availability and cost-effectiveness of alternatives to the rule or regulation being proposed or amended.

The PSD program is implemented pursuant tofederal law. A new major source or a significant modification to an existing major source of an attainment pollutant will require a PSD permit regardless of the identity of the issuing agency. No alternatives to the rule exist.

(5) The emission reduction potential of the rule or regulation.

While emissions may be reduced as a result of PSD requirements, it is not possible to calculate the quantity of these emissions until a project is evaluated. Therefore, the emission reduction potential of the proposal cannot be calculated.

(6) The necessity of adopting, amending, or repealing the rule or regulation in order to attain state and federal ambient air standards pursuant to Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 40910).

Although it is possible that NOx and VOC emissions will be reduced as a result of this rule, no new PSD sources are expected in Ventura County. However, any reductions that do occur will assist in the District's progress towards

attainment and maintenance of the federal and California ambient air quality ozone standards.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF METHODS OF COMPLIANCE / CE QA

Methods of Compliance

California Public Resources Code § 21159 requires the District to perform an environmental analysis o f the reasonably foreseeable methods of compliance if the proposed rule requires "the installation of pollution control equipment, or [specifies] a performance standard or treatment requirement..."FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 6

April 27, 2011

The proposed rule is administrative in nature but m ay involve a requirement to install air pollution cont rol equipment. It is not possible to determine the nat ure of the control equipment until the project is evaluated. Therefore, an analysis is not possible. CEQA Requirements

Staff concludes that the adoption of proposed Rule 26.13 is within the scope of the categorical exemptions from the CEQA under CEQA guideline Sections 15308, Protection of Environment, and that no exception to these categorical exemptions apply.

ANALYSIS OF EXISTING FEDERAL AND DISTRICT REGULATIO NS

California Health & Safety Code § 40727.2(a) requires districts to provide a written analysis of existing regulations prior to adopting, amending or repealing a regulation. Section 40727.2(a) states:

In complying with Section 40727, the district shall prepare a written analysis as required by this section. In the analysis, the district shall identify all existing federal air pollution control requirements, including, but not limited to, emission control standards constituting best available control technology for new or modified equipment, that apply to the same equipment or source type as the rule or regulation proposed for adoption or modification by the district. The analysis shall also identify any of that district's existing or proposed rules and regulations that apply to the same equipment or source type, and all air pollution control requirements and guidelines that apply to the same equipment or source type

and of which the district has been informed pursuant to subdivision (b).

The proposed rule includes no emission control standards; therefore, the requirements of Health & Safety Code § 40727.2(a) are satisfied pursuant to Health & Safety Code § 40727.2(g). Nevertheless, the PSD program requires the implementation of BACT. It is not possible to determine the nature o f the BACT requirement until a project is evaluated.

Note also that the PSD program is implemented pursuant to federal law. A new major source or a significant modification to an existing major sourc e of an attainment pollutant will require a PSD permi t regardless of the identity of the issuing agency. Existing District Rule 26.10, New Source Review - Prevention of Significant Deterioration , is propos ed for repeal.

PUBLIC MEETINGS AND COMMENTS

Public Workshop

Staff conducted a public workshop on new Rule 26.13 on February 24, 2011. There were no

attendees. Advisory Committee

The Advisory Committee met on April 26, 2011, to consider recommending adoption of new Rule 26.13and repeal of Rule 26.10. There was no public comment. The committee recommended unanimously approval of proposed rule action.

REFERENCES

1. Laura Yannayon, EPA Region 9 Permit Office, CAPCOA Permit Staff Training, Prevention of Significant Determination (PSD) Permitting

, October 18, 2010

2. Robert D. Fletcher, California Air Resources Board, To All California Air Pollution Control Officers/Executive Officers, December 22, 2010 Acknowledgment Placer County APCD, Proposed New Rule 518, Prevention Of Significant Deterioration Staff Repor t

, October 21, 2010FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 7

April 27, 2011



### Appendix A Rule 26.13 Subsection C.1, Exemptions

Subject Summary

The following subsections of 40 CFR Part 52.21 are excluded:

(a)(1) Plan Disapproval (EPA function only)

(b)(55) Definition of "process unit," in general (b)(56) Definition of "Functionally equivalent comp onent" (b)(57) Definition of "Fixed capital cost" (b)(58) Definition of "Total capital investment" (ERP definitions struck down by DC Circuit Court b ut not yet removed from the CFR)

(f) [Reserved]

(g) Redesignation (EPA function only)

(i) (Exemptions) (i)(1)((i) Construction or modification commenced b efore August 7, 1977. (i)(1)((ii) The source or modification was subject to 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect before March 1, 1978. (i)(1)((iii) The source or modification was not sub ject to 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect before March 1, 1 978. (i)(1)((iv) The source or modification was not subj ect to 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect before March 1, 19 78. (i)(1)((v) The source or modification was not subje ct to 40 CFR 52.21 as in effect on June 19, 1978. (i)(1)((ix) The source or modification was not subj ect to §52.21, with respect to particulate matter, as in

effect before July 31, 1987. (i)(1)((x) The source or modification was subject t o 40 CFR 52.21, with respect to particulate matter, as in

effect before July 31, 1987. (i)(6) Best Available Control Technology as in effe ct on June 19, 1978. (i)(7) Air quality monitoring as in effect on June 19, 1978. (i)(8) Air quality monitoring of PM 10 on or before June 1, 1988 and no later than Decembe r 1, 1988.

(p)(6-8) Class 1 variances by the Governor

(q) Public Participation (EPA only)

(s) Environmental Impact Statements (NEPA)

(t) Disputed Permits or Redesignations – resolution s

(u) Delegation of Authority (EPA function only)

(v) Innovative Control Technology – Approval proced ure

(w) Permit Rescission (EPA function only)

(x) [Reserved] (y) [Reserved] (z) [Reserved]

(cc) "Routine maintenance, repair and replacement" definition, capital cost threshold for equipment

replacement, and basic design parameters. The repl acement activity shall not cause the process unit t o exceed any emission limitation. (ERP provisions struck down by DC Circuit Court.)FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 8

April 27, 2011



### Appendix B Rule 26.13, Subsection C.2 and C.3
Revisions From Federal Code (Changes noted in Strikeout/Underline format)

Subsection C.2

The following definitions found in 40 CFR Part 52.2 1(b) are revised as follows:

a. In the definition of “potential to emit” contain ed in 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(4), the phrase “is feder ally enforceable” shall read “is federally enforceable o r enforceable as a practical matter.”

(4) Potential to emit means the maximum capacity of a stationary source t o emit a pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or op erational limitation on the capacity of the source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipm ent and restrictions on hours of operation or on th e type or amount of material combusted, stored, or process ed, shall be treated as part of its design if the l imitation

or the effect it would have on emissions is federal ly enforceable or enforceable as a practical matter

. Secondary emissions do not count in determining the potential to emit of a stationary source.

b. In the definition of “allowable emissions” conta ined in 40 CFR Part 52.21(b)(16):

1) The phrase “unless the source is subject to fede rally enforceable limits which restrict the operati ng rate, or hours of operation, or both” shall read, “ unless the source is subject to enforceable limits which restrict the operating rate, or hours of oper ation, or both.”

2) Paragraph (iii) shall read as follows: “The emis sions rate specified as an enforceable permit condition, including those with a future compliance date.”

(16) Allowable emissions means the emissions rate of a stationary source cal culated using the maximum rated capacity of the source (unless the source is subject to federally enforceable limits which restrict the operating rate, or hours of operation, or both) and the most stringent of the following: (i) The applicable standards as set forth in 40 CFR parts 60 and 61; (ii) The applicable State Implementation Plan emiss ions limitation, including those with a future compliance date; or (iii) The emissions rate specified as a federally an enforceable permit condition, including those with a future compliance date.

Subsection C.3

The following terms found in 40 CFR Part 52.21(b) a re revised as follows:

a. The term “administrator” means:

1) “federal administrator” in 40 C.F.R. 52.21(b)(17 ), (b)(37)(i), (b)(43), (b)(48)(ii)(c), (b)(50)(i), (b)(51), (l)(2) and (p)(2); or

2) “Air Pollution Control Officer” as defined in Ru le 2.

b. The phrase “paragraph (q) of this section” in 40 CFR 52.21(p)(1) shall read as follows: the public notice and comment provisions of Rule 26.7, New Source Rev iew - Notification.

(p) Sources impacting Federal Class I areas-additional requirements -

(1) Notice to Federal land managers. The Administrator shall provide written notice of a ny permit application for a proposed major stationary source or major modification, the emissions from which mayFINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 9

April 27, 2011

affect a Class I area, to the Federal land manager and the Federal official charged with direct respon sibility for management of any lands within any such area. Such notification shall include a copy of all information relevant to the permit application and shall be given within 30 days of receipt and at lea st 60 days prior to any public hearing on the application for a permit to construct. Such notification shal l include an analysis of the proposed source's anticipated im pacts on visibility in the Federal Class I area. T he Administrator shall also provide the Federal land m anager and such Federal officials with a copy of th e preliminary determination required under paragraph (q) of this section the public notice and comment provisions of Rule 26.7, New Source Review - Notifi cation , and shall make available to them any materials used in making that determination, promptly after t he Administrator makes such determination. Finally

, the Administrator shall also notify all affected Fe deral land managers within 30 days of receipt of an y advance notification of any such permit application

.

(q) Public participation

. The Administrator shall follow the applicable proce dures of 40 CFR part 124 in processing applications under this section. The Adm inistrator shall follow the procedures at 40 CFR 52.21(r) as in effect on June 19, 1979, to the exte nt that the procedures of 40 CFR part 124 do not ap ply.FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 10

April 27, 2011



### Appendix C

Global Warming Potentials for Certain Greenhouse Ga ses

Global warming potentials (GWPs) are used to compar e the abilities of different greenhouse gases to trap heat in the atmosphere. GWPs are bas ed on the radiative efficiency (heat-absorbing ability) of each gas relative to that of carbon dio xide (CO 2 

### ), as well as the decay rate of each gas (the amount removed from the atmosphere over a give n number of years) relative to that of CO 2 

### . The GWP provides a construct for converting emissio ns of various gases into a common measure, which allows climate analysts to aggregate the radiative impacts of various greenhouse gases into a uniform measure denominated in carbon or carbon dioxide equivalents.

Comparison of 100-Year GWP Estimates from the IPCC' s Second

(1996) and Third (2001) Assessment Reports

Gas 1996 IPCC

GWP a 

### 2001 IPCC

GWP b



### Carbon Dioxide 1 1

Methane 21 23

Nitrous Oxide 310 296

HFC-23 11,700 12,000

HFC-125 2,800 3,400

HFC-134a 1,300 1,300

HFC-143a 3,800 4,300

HFC-152a 140 120

HFC-227ea 2,900 3,500

HFC-236fa 6,300 9,400

Perfluoromethane (CF 4 

### ) 6,500 5,700

Perfluoroethane (C 2 

### F 6 

### ) 9,200 11,900

Sulfur Hexafluoride (SF 6 

### ) 23,900 22,200

This page last updated August 12, 2002 IPCC Global Warming Potential page http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gwp.htmlFINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 11

April 27, 2011



### Appendix D Definition of Major Stationary Source 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(1)(a)

(i) Major stationary source means:

( a ) Any of the following stationary sources of air po llutants which emits or has the potential to emit 100 tons per year or m ore of any regulated NSR pollutant:*

1. Fossil Fuel-Fired Steam Electric Plants of more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input 2. Coal Cleaning Plants (with thermal dryers) 3. Kraft Pulp Mills

4. Portland Cement Plants 5. Primary Zinc Smelters

6. Iron And Steel Mill Plants 7. Primary Aluminum Ore Reduction Plants (with ther mal dryers) 8. Primary Copper Smelters 9. Municipal Incinerators capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per day 10. Hydrofluoric Acid Plants

11. Sulfuric Acid Plants

12. Nitric Acid Plants

13. Petroleum Refineries

14. Lime Plants 15. Phosphate Rock Processing Plants

16. Coke Oven Batteries 17. Sulfur Recovery Plants 18. Carbon Black Plants (Furnace Process) 19. Primary Lead Smelters

20. Fuel Conversion Plants 21. Sintering Plants 22. Secondary Metal Production Plants 23. Chemical Process Plants (which does not include ethanol production facilities that produce ethanol by natural fermentation included in NAICS codes 325193 or 312140) 24. Fossil-Fuel Boilers (or combinations thereof) t otaling more than 250 million British thermal units per hour heat input 25. Petroleum Storage And Transfer Units with a tot al storage capacity exceeding 300,000

barrels 26. Taconite Ore Processing Plants 27. Glass Fiber Processing Plants

28. Charcoal Production Plants

* except greenhouse gases, for which the threshold is 100,000 tons per year.FINAL STAFF REPORT – Rule 26.13 – Prevention Of Sig nificant Deterioration Page 12

April 27, 2011



### Appendix E
Ambient Air Increments

In areas designated as Class I, II or III, increase s in pollutant concentration over the baseline concentration shall be limited to the following:

Pollutant Maximum allowable increase(mg/m 3 )

Class I (Parks and Wilderness)

Particu late matter:

PM

- 10, annual arithmetic mean 4

PM

- 10, 24

- hr maximum 8

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean 2

24

- hr maximum 5

3

- hr maximum 25

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean 2.5

Class II (Default Classification)

Particulate matter:

P M

- 10, annual arithmetic mean 17

PM

- 10, 24

- hr maximum 30

Sulfur dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean 20

24

- hr maximum 91

3

- hr maximum 512

Nitrogen dioxide:

Annual arithmetic mean 25

Class III (None designated)