P. 1


# OAR Box 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 41 ) IV-E-3

6 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200811:57:59 AM

Sheet 41 of 117P. 2 

# A - ^0- 3 7 H>H-3( *
MEETING SUMMAR

Y EPA/"PAL GROUP " MEETING NE W SOURC

E REVIE W REFOR

M August 11, 1999 Th e meetin g wa s hel d a

t th e office s of

EPA , N.C
. Mutua

l Building , 4 l 1 W
. Chape l Hil l Street , Durham , Nort

h Carolina
. Th

e meeting bega

n a t approximately 10:00 a

man dclose d a t approximately 12:0

0 noon . Attache d i s alis t

o f attendees
. John Seit z opened th e meetin g b y thankin g everyone fo r coming
. H e sai dtha

t althoug h EP A ha d indicate d a

t th e las t meetin g wit

h th e PA L grou p tha t ther e wil l b e n o furthe

r meeting s wit h th e industr

y groups , ther

e hav e bee n asignifican

t numbe r of proposal s receive dsinc e then , an d tha t Bob Pereiasep e want s to furthe r discus s th e proposals
. Wit h respec t to th e proposa

l ' presente d b y th e PA

L group , Mr
. Seit

z mentione dtha

t ther e wer e som e issue s tha

t EP A woul d lik e to clarify
. Also , Mr
. Seit z indicate dtha

t ther e wer e som e difference s between th e writte n proposa l a s compared t o conversation s tha t EP A ha s ha dwit h th e PA L grou p andDavi d Hawkin s tha

t EP A woul d lik

e t o resolve
. He mentione dtha t EPA' s question s wer

e critical , and tha t th e PA L group' s response s wil l b e presente dto Mr
. Pereiasep e fo r interna l discussion
. Mr
. Pa t Rahe r sai d tha t th e industr

y grou p wa s happy t o b e a

t th e meeting
. Wit

h regar d t o EPA' s questions , he sai d tha t th e grou p will tr y to provide writte n response s t o EP A befor e Labo r Day
. Mr
. Rahe

r suggeste d tha

t EP A shoul dlook

a t th e whol e proposa

l a s on e packag e becaus e h e fel

t tha t som e ofth e question s tha

t EP A ha daskedwer

e to o narrowly focussed
. Mr
. Seit z explaine d tha

t th e question s stemmedfro

mth e fac t tha t EP A wa s stil l confusedabout ho w th e industr

y proposa l fit wit h th e bi g pictur

e o n PAL
. Mr
. Seit

z sai dtha t Davi dHawkins , base d o n hi s (Hawkins' ) conversation s wit h th e industry , understand s th e proposa l t o mea n unit

to-uni t control s in exchang e fo

r allowable s unde

r th e PAL , an

di f indee dtha

t i s th e cas e the n Davi d Hawkin s i s "ok

wit h it. " John Holme s sai d tha

t th e grou p ha dpresente dapape

r to EP A on Ma y 17th , anda

t tha t time , th e grou

p ha d hear d tw o concerns ; one , tha

t source s ma

y receiv e a

n allowabl e baselin e significantl y highe r tha n th e actual s and , two , ther

e wa s concer

n about hybrids
. Therefore , th e industr y PA L grou p wa s attemptin g to addres s thes e tw o concerns . Mr
. Seit z aske di f th e group wa s proposin g t o instal l goo d control s in retur n fo r allowables
. Mr
. Holme s replie dtha t th e unit s hav e to hav e goo d controls , but th e detail s needto b e workedout , e.g. , detail s base do n unit' s size , difference s between Stat e programs , etc . Mr
. Seit

z indicate dtha

t som e State s wante d certaint y and tha t th e definitio n of

"goo dcontrol " wa s critical
. Accordin g t o Mr
. Seitz , thi s wa s afundamenta

l issu e fo r Mr
. Hawkins
. Mr
. Rahe

r replie dtha

t fo r majo r unit s goo dcontro l mean

t BACT , and fo

r unit s unde

r th e majo r sourc e level goodcontro l woul db e Stat e BAT
. Mr
. Rahe

r said tha t EP A coul d no t

dictat e to th e State s wha

t th e definitio n o f

goo dcontrol s shoul db e fo r th e Stat e mino r sourc e programs . Therefore , i f th e Stat e hadadefinitio n o f

BAT include di n their minor sourc e progra

mthen tha t wouldb e considere dgoo dcontrol , otherwis e th e Stat e decide s wha

t shoul d b e agoo d contro l an dtha t i t wouldb e subjec t

t o publi c comment . Mr
. Holme s offere

d th e PA L group' s hel

p to EP A in developin g adefinitio n o f goo dcontrols
.P. 3



### tw o factorie s o n one plant , bu t th e factorie s wer

e neve r buil t du e t o achang e i n th e marke t demand
. I n thi s cas e th e actua

l emission s wer

e zero , andadjustmen

t o f PAL s t o actual s di dno t mak e sense . Mr
. Rahe

r als o explaine dtha

t PAL s provide dincentiv e fo r source s t o reduc e emission s in orde

r to accommodat

e new units
. Whe

n askedb y Mr
. Sewell wha t th e industr

y group' s positio n wa s wit

h respec t to PA L adjustment , Mr
. Holme s replie dtha t thei r positio n wa s simila r t o tha t o f Mr
. Hawkins , i.e. , i f

th e sourc e wa s wel l controlled , the n ther e wa s n o nee d t o adjus t PALs
. Mr
. Rahe

r sai d tha t in orde r to expan dPALs , th e expansion s woul dg o throug h majo r NS Ran d th e new unit s woul d com e i n unde r goo dtechnology , but

i t wa s no t acceptabl e t o th e industr y to bot h g o throug h majo

r NS Ran dagre e to reducin g PAL
. Mr
. Holme s explaine d tha t i f th e industr

y wa s providin g well-controlle dmanufacturing , the n th e assumptio n shoul d no t b e tha t th e sit e need s to ge

t smaller
. He wa s oppose dt o th e notio n tha t th e sit e wil l shrink

unti l i t dies
. Mr
. Seit

z an d Ann aWood explaine dtha t PA L adjustment s ma

y b e necessar

y becaus e o f th e cour t rulin g unde

r th e AlabamaPowe

r case . Mr
. Holme s replie dtha t i t wa s th e PA

L group' s positio n tha

t thi s wa s no t

a n AlabamaPowe

r issu e an dtha t they ha dfiledalo t

o f comment s o n thi s subject
. Ther e wer e som e mor e discussion s regardin g declinin g PALs , tim e limit s o n PALs , and th e optio n t o re-establis h PAL s a t th e endofth e initia

l time limit
. Mr
. Sewell mentione dtha t shutdown s wer

e no t addresse d in th e proposal
. Mr
. Rahe r replie dtha

t th e grou p wil l addres s it

i n it s writte n response s t o EPA' s questions
. Mr
. Rahe r reiterate dtha

t the y inten dt o provid e writte n response s befor

e Labor Day
. Mr
. Seit z thanke d th e participant s fo r comin g t o th e meeting
. H e indicate dtha t th e meetin g wa s helpful
. He als o reiterate dtha t th e PA L group' s response s wil l b e provide dt o Mr
. Pereiasepe
. Th e meetin g wa s then adjourned
.



# T "P. 4



### ATTENDEE S EPA/"PA L GROUP " MEETIN G NE W SOURC

E REVIE W REFOR

M August 11,1999

Nam e Mik e Babo s Tod d Hyd e BarbaraBankof

f Jodi e Mine

r Paul Jan n Berni e Paul Jack i Savag e Joh n Holme s Patric k Rahe r Bill Wehra

m Steve Harpe

r Joh n Seitz Kare n Blanchar

d Mik e Sewell Ann aMari e Wood Bil l Harnet

t (b y phone ) Caro l Holme s (by phone ) Jo n Devin e (by phone ) Da n Toensin g (b y phone ) Mala y Jinda l Valeri e Everet

t Affiliation

Merc k Merc k fo r El i Lilly El i Lill y DuPon t Eli Lilly Daimle r Chrysle r fo r Daimle r Chrysle r Hoga n & Hartso n Latha m& Watkin s Intel EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OAQP S EPA/OA R EPA/OAQP S EPA/OECA EPA/OG C EPA/Regio n VI

I PE S (EP A Contractor

) PE S (EP A Contractor

) Telephon e No . (908)423-781 2 (908 ) 423-399 4 (202)434-481 0 (317)433-342 6 (302 ) 774-804 3 (317)276-033 1 (248 ) 576-805 4 (703)516-244 4 (202 ) 637-568 2 (202 ) 637-228 4 (202 ) 626-439 9 (919 ) 541-561 6 (919)541-550 3 (919 ) 541-087 3 (202 ) 260-877 2 (919 ) 541-497 9 (202 ) 564-870 9 (202 ) 260-698 4 (913 ) 551-744 6 (919)941-033 3 (919 ) 941-033 3



## _S "P. 5 

# 1 A-f-pl vc 

# ^' oy 

# ) ^p_A - rt1,/f,A,J fe\JL^, 

# p L iWR .


## rood, syoc

' r r

{ i r| si j <- > 

### JtfCtf p 2>4..YJT6JT 

## Joi4J M Uj©i/M ^ 

# $ f k • cSe^e f / oJoi'C frti.nor y^fci Ky&*>/0 . . Qfiqp S
)l£ftC/ C

I>/^y/y7Le^C7y^s7e7A 

### 90S tiSQ-SSQ 90S ' VQ > J ' J? ? *

/



# jrutl

rsnn 

# si Mo l 6li_UHy__
CotMfAS'y



## 4 MO/IAX

L 

## . .OW- ^ ^PA/tf/ ^

© a-JIVVAA < 

# fr i &ertjts Qti$)s.yi-o?.iz. 311-731,-022 1

f>& (y?A adw* ^ 9/ > - 941-033Z

^ 

### IO*J C 

# p i

& 

# 0£CA/_£-fr t



# $?a
. vIL .€.pf i

( ,P. 6

' 1



### EP A MEETIN

G WIT H PA L INDUSTR

Y GROU P AUGUS T 11,199 9 10:0 0 -12:0 0 8

TM FLOO RCONFERENCE ROO M

I
. OPENING REMARKS ( ~ 5 MINUTES ) OAQP S INDUSTR

Y GROU P II
. GENERA

L DISCUSSION O

N INDUSTR

Y PA L CONCEP

T QUESTION S AR

E ATTACHE

D ALLOWABLE S PA

L ( ~ 3 0 minutes ) PA L ADJUSTMEN

T (~ 30.minutes ) OTHE RSELECTE

D ISSUE S
III
. NEX

T STEPS/CLOSING REMARK S (-1 0 MINUTES )



# 1P. 7



### QUESTION S FO RAUG
. 1 1 PA L MEETIN G Allowable s Base d PA L Proposal : 1
. I n you r concep t fo r existin g stationar

y source s allowable s ma

y generall y b e use d to se t PA L provide d existin g unit s hav e agoo dcontro l determinatio n (suc h a s Stat e BA T o r better ) an d there i s no t

adequat e roo mt o reac h ful

l capacit y under aPA L base d on actual s plu s les s tha n th e significanc e level
. Ne w major unit s (greater tha n 10 0 tp y or lowe r i f majo r sourc e threshol dfo

r are ai s lower ) mus t instal l BACT
.

- How doe s thi s resul t

in "equivalent

o r better environmenta

l protection " compare d t o "traditional " NS Rwhic h result s i n BAC T or

LAERo n all ne w o r modifie demission s unit s tha t resul t i n asignifican

t ne t emission s increas e ove

r sourc e actua

l emissions ? For th e differen

t industrie s represente dwha t percentag e o f

ne w unit s wil l b e major ? Seem s man

y mor e emission s unit s wil l mee

t BAC T or LAE Runder "traditional " NS R
. Pleas e explain
.

- Wha t siz e unit s woul d hav e agoo dcontro l determination ? Ho w d o you define "goo d controls" ?

- Wha t criteria , i f

any , shoul d EP

A specif y fo r Stat e program s t o ensure tha

t Stat e review s produc e "goo dcontrols" ?

- Wha t opportunity , i f

any , shoul dEP

A hav e t o objec t

t o deficient

Stat e determinations ?

- Whe n you sa y tha t th e PA L ca n b e "base don " BACT/LAE Ro r goo d controls , d o yo

u mea n that th e PA L wil l b e set

a t aleve l that

assume s ever

y uni t i s controlle d but

doesn' t actuall y requir

e each uni t

t o instal l controls ? Would th e PA

L b e establishe d assumin g maximumoperation s a t eac h unit ? 2
. Wha t if a n allowable s base d PA

L i s allowe dfo

r existin g source s provide dtha t all existin g and ne w unit s tha t ar e majo r or significan t meet BAC T o r LAE Rand all unit s emittin g les s tha

n th e significant

threshol dmeet

th e State' s NS R

%P. 8



### requirement s fo

r new minor

sources ?

- Would thi s typ e o f

"allowables " PA

L addres s th e concern s o f

you r group ? If not , pleas e explai n why ?
3
. For a n existin g sourc e wit

h a n approve d expansio n tha

t met applicabl e state/federa

l NS Rrequirement s an

d recent actual s ar e lowe r tha n th e leve l considere d in th e NS Rapproval , a s propose dth e PA L ma y b e base don recent actual s plu s a

n incremen

t t o accommodat

e th e approve dgrowt

h or change
.

- Would th e growt

h incremen

t b e th e allowable s fo

r th e ne w units ?
4
. For greenfiel dsource s allowable s PA L ma y b e set provide dapplicabl e state an d federa l NS Rrequirement s ar

e met . New majo

r unit s (greater

than 10 0 tp y o r lowe r if majo r sourc e threshol d fo

r are ai s lower

) adde dunder

th e PA L mus t mee t BACT
.

- If agreenfiel d sourc e i

n a n ozon e attainment

are aobtain s a

n allowable s PA L fo r VO C wha

t contro l technolog y requirement s woul dapply t o new unit s addedunder

th e PA L tha t emi t 9 9 tp y or les s o f VOC ? Doe s thi s concep t

provid e equivalent

o r better environmenta

l protectio n compare d t o "traditional " NSR ?

- Wha t if agreenfield s sourc e coul dobtai n a n allowable s base dPA

L provide d th e PA

L i s adjuste d t o reflec t

actua l emission s afte

r five years ? Wouldthi s typ e o f

"allowables " PA

L fo r greenfiel dsource s addres s th e concern s o f

your group ? I f not , explai n why ? 5
. I n general , th e PA

L Proposa l include s a

n allowable s base dPA

L wher e th e majo r emission s unit s ar

e wel l controlled
. Doe s industr y propos e tha

t th e allowable s emission s concep t fo r PA L b e extende dt o th e mor

e traditional majo

r NS Rapplicabilit

y test s (e.g , netting) ? Wha t i s th e PA L Stakeholders ' positio n o n whethe r an d ho w th e allowable s emission s concep t fo r NS Rapplicabilit

y ca n b e limite d to PAL ? 

# °\P. 9



### PA L Adjustmen tIssues : Th e PA L Proposa l doe s no t requir e periodi c adjustmen

t ofth e PA L leve l t o reflec t mor e contemporaneou s level s o f actua l emissions
. 1
. EP A i s considerin g arang e o f adjustmen

t options , includin g adeclinin g ca p and adjustmen

t fo r actual s ever

y te n years . Wha

t i s you r positio n o n PA

L adjustment ? 2
. How doe s aPA

L tha t i s no t adjustedperiodicall y fo

r actua l emission s provid e "equivalent

o r bette r environmenta

l protection? " 3
. How doe s th e PA

L Proposa l mee t th e contemporaneit

y requirement s o f Alabam aPower ?

- Doe s th e PA

L Proposa l provid e fo

r aPA L adjustmen

t afte r twent y years ? How doe s thi s adjustmen

t ensur e tha t emission s reduction s are "contemporaneous " wit

h th e emission s increase s fromne w o r modifie d unit s under

th e PAL ? 4
. Fo r certai n majo

r unit s th e PA

L Proposa l state s th e "th e permittin g authorit y wil l hav e authority , i

n additio n t o an

y current authority , t o require that

th e uni t b e place d o n aschedul e fo

r contro l technolog y upgrad e t o curren t bes t availabl e technolog y performanc e level s ove r th e first te n year s ofth e PA

L permi t bein g i n place. "

- I s th e contro l o f

thes e unit s b y th e Stat

e mandator

y (i.e. , it mus t require th e contro l o f

such units ) o

r discretionar

y (ma y require such controls) ? Pleas e explain
.

- Regardles s o f

whether th e State' s authorit

y i s discretionar

y o r mandatory...ca

n th e PA L sourc e dispute suc h reques t andtr y t o avoi d installin g th e requeste d controls ?



# sr IOP.1 0



### 5
. Wha t i s th e PA L Stakeholder' s positio n o

n th e concep t

tha t an y requirement s EP A set s fo r PA L ar e minimu mrequirements
.

- D o w e agre e tha

t th e State s retai n th e authorit y t o adop t mor e stringent contro l and other

requirement s fo

r existin g or

new emission s unit s tha

t are under aPAL ?

OTHE

RPA L ISSUE S
PAL Coverag e (Partia

l PA L Issues) : Unde r th e PA L Proposal , certai n emissio n unit s ma y b e exclude dfromth e PA L unde r th e followin g circumstances : (1 ) emission s unit s tha t ar e minor (suc h a s VOC s fromfue

l combustion) ; (2 ) emissio n unit s tha t compris e aseparat

e par t ofth e facilit

y i f th e tw o operation s ar

e clearl y distinc t

andth e sam

e manufacturin g activitie s ar

e no t an d wil l no t

b e carrie d ou t

a t part s covere dan duncovere db y th e PAL
. 1
. Doe s th e PA

L Proposa l provid e fo

r mor e tha n on e PA L per pollutant per stationar y sourc e ? If

yes , pleas e explai n wh

y multipl e PA

L ar e neede da t th e sam e sourc e fo

r th e sam e pollutant
. 2
. I f th e concer

n i s tha t unrelate d operation s a

t asourc e woul dnee dt o coordinat e to ensur e complianc e wit

h th e PAL , coul dth e sourc e take one PA L and allocat e portion s ofth e PA

L t o it s differen

t operation s fo

r managemen

t purposes ? If asourc e mus t

measur e emission s from"d

e minimis " source s fo

r nettin g purposes , pleas e explai n wh y i s it harder t o measur e suc h source s under

aPAL ? Pleas e provid e som

e example s and factor s tha t coul db e use dt o determin e whethe

r operation s o r

portion s o f

afacilit y ar e sufficiently distinc t an dseparat e t o qualif y fo r aseparate PAL
. Wha

t i f th e operation s shar

e energy , hea

t generation , or

waste treatment ? AT 

# i fP.1 1



### Ho w woul d th e partial PA

L concep t impac t th e curren t

definitio n o f major stationar y source , i f

a t all ? 3
. For unit s outsid e th e PAL , ho w woul d asourc e measur e th e actual s emission s baselin e fo

r nettin g purposes ? Wha

t unit s woul db e include di n th e source' s baseline ?
PA L Enforceability : Pleas e provid e an

y concern s or

question s th e PA

L Stakeholder s hav e concernin g emission s quantification , monitoring , reporting , andrecordkeepin g requirement s t o b e include d i n PA L permit s to ensur

e practica l enforceability ? Actual s Base d PAL : Pleas e explai n under

you r concep t ho w afacilit

y woul daccount

fo r auni t tha t ha s bee n shutdow n sinc e th e yea r selecte dt o se

t th e PA L baseline
. Flexibility Unde r

A PAL : 1
. BAC T fo

r th e PA L pollutan t

i s propose dfo

r al l ne w unit s adde dunder th e PA L tha t ar e considere d "major " (i.e. , uni t emit s over

10 0 tp y o r th e major sourc e threshol d fo

r th e area , whichever

i s lower)
. S o that

w e ma y consider th e environmenta

l impac t o f requirin g BAC T o n new unit s emittin g a t thes e thresholds , pleas e provid e th e followin g informatio n fo r bot h VO C andNO x 

### emission s unit s fo

r th e differen

t sourc e categorie s represente db y th e PAL Stakeholders
.

- For th e typical existin g stationar y sourc e wha

t percentag e o f

existin g unit s ar e "major " fo

r th e PA L pollutant ? Wha

t percentag e o f

total emission s o f th e PA L pollutan t

fro mth e stationar

y sourc e come from"major " units ? 2
. Durin g apreviou s meetin g th e PA L Stakeholder s state dtha

t PT E limits , includin g restriction s o f

hour s o f operatio n andpollutio n contro l equipment , shoul d b e considere d whe

n determinin g i f

anew uni t

i s "major " fo

r purpose s o f BACT/LAE

Rapplicability
. 

# J *



# YlP.1 2



### - Pleas e explai n wha

t i s mean t by thi s statement . Doe s it mea n tha t asourc e coul d instal l les s tha

n BACT/LAE

Rcontrol s o n auni t

t o avoi dbein g "major" ?

- Assumin g th e purpos e o f PA L i s t o provid e operationa

l flexibility , pleas e explai n wh

y th e us e o f

PT E limit s unde

r PA L doe s no t limi t thi s flexibility ? 3
. Doe s th e PA

L Proposa l include th e optio n t o permi t aPA L t o substitute an d thereb y remov e limit s taken previously t o avoi dmajo r NS R[i.e. , limit s subjec t t o 4 0 CF R52.2100(4)] ? 4
. Doe s th e PA

L Proposa l provid e fo

r th e installatio n o f

LAERinsteadof BAC T o n all new "major " unit s adde d unde r th e PA L fo r nonattainment pollutants ? Expandin g th e PA L Level : Th e PA L Proposa l permit s th e PA

L leve l t o b e increase d"b y takin g th e chang e tha t i s associate d wit

h th e nee dfo

r th e increas e throug h th e Federa l NS R process. " Additionally , "t

o expand th e PAL , al l majo r unit s covere db y th e PA

L must hav e goo dcontrol s o

r b e on a n enforceabl e schedul e t o instal l th e control s or shutdown withi n five years"
.

I s thi s optio n t o expan dth e PA L leve l availabl e i f

th e unit s bein g addedwoul d fit

unde r th e existin g PAL ? I f

th e sourc e coul dcreat

e roo munder

th e PA L fo r th e new unit s b y installin g additiona l control s on existin g unit s woul dth e optio n b e available ? Woul d th e PA

L b e increase db y th e allowabl e or actua l emission s fromunit s tha

t mee t majo r NS Rrequirements ? Doe s th e PA

L Proposa l mea n tha t i n orde r t o expan dth e PA

L tha t th e majo r NS Rrequirement s woul dapply t o all unit s bein g added , includin g unit s tha

t ar e les s tha n th e majo r NS Rsignificanc e level s (e.g. , 4 0 tp y fo

r S0 2 

### ) ? Pleas e explain
. 

# 7- \ZP.1 3



### PA L Termination : I n th e PA L Proposa l aPA L i s set fo r aperio dofte n years . Durin g th e te n year s a t th e reques t

ofth e permitte e andi f

approve dby th e permittin g authorit y th e PA L ca n b e terminated
. Upon terminatio n th e PA L limi t wil l b e retaine da s a permitte d cap . A s th e end ofth e ten year s approaches , renewa l ca n b e requeste d fo r anothe r ten years . At

th e end o f

twent y year s th e PA

L mus t b e reevaluated
. 1
. Pleas e explai n wha

t i s mean t b y th e statement

tha t th e tp y limi t representin g th e PA

L woul d b e "retained " a

t th e facility ? Woul dth e permitte dca p b e on e ca p fo r all unit s previousl y unde r th e PAL ? Woul d th e ca

p b e considere dalimi t

take n t o avoi dmajor

NS R an d thu s subjec t

t o th e requirement s o f

4 0 CF R52.21(r)(4) ? Wha

t happen s i f

th e sourc e want s to increas e th e cap ? 2
. I s there apropose d minimumtime perio dfo r th e PA L t o b e i n effect befor e th e sourc e ma

y apply fo r PA L termination ? Coul dasourc e hav e th e PA L dissolve d an

d later re-establis h th e PA

L anew ? 3
. Pleas e explai n th e extent ofth e PA L reevaluatio n a

t th e en do f

twent y years ? For

example , woul d th e PA

L b e adjuste dfo

r an y reaso n becaus e actua

l emission s unde

r th e PA L ma y hav e bee n les s tha

n th e PA L limit ?



# 14 -P.1 4



### OAQPS/OPAR' s PA L Options : Thi s documen

t present s tw o PA

L option s tha

t build o n th e version s currently unde r consideratio n b y OAQP S an d othe r EP A offices
. It

als o incorporate s som

e ofth e concept s se

t fort h i n th e PA L proposa l recently submitte d b

y th e Intel/Merck/Chrysle

r stakeholde

r group . Section s one an

d tw o se t fort h option s fo

r a n actual s an

d allowable s based PAL
. Th e thir d section addresse s th e ter

mo f aPA L an d the option s fo

r downwar d adjustment s alon g wit

h severa l othe r issue s common t o al l PALs
. The final section discusse s severa

l genera l principle s tha

t should appl

y to all PALs
. The idea s an d option s embodied i

n thi s documen

t attemp t t o develop a

n effective PA

L program , takin g into consideratio n th e concern s expressed b

y STAPPA/ALAPCO , environmenta l group s an

d industr y stakeholders
. Take

n a s a whole , OAQP

S an d OPA Rbeliev e thi s documen

t reflect s acommo

n sens e approach t o structur e a progra mtha t provide s relativ e simplicit

y an d flexibilit y while ensurin g environmenta l protection
. Bot h ofth e following PA

L option s fo

r actual s an d allowable s base d PAL s provide fo r n o downwar d adjustmen

t upo n PA L expiratio n if

the facilit y i s wel l controlled
. Th

e abilit y t o avoi d a downwar d adjustmen

t i n exchang e fo

r good control s enable s asourc e t o pla n futur e expansion s becaus e i t retain s the capacit

y realize d fro

mit s emission s reductions
. I t accommodate s economi c expansio n withou t a n increas e i

n baselin e emissions
. Fro

ma n environmenta

l polic y perspective , thi s option create s astrong incentiv e fo r afacilit y t o implemen

t goodcontrol s a s quickly a s possibl e an d provide s incentive s fo

r productio n to occu

r a t th e cleanes t

an d mos t efficien t facilities
. Th e concep t o f a"wel l controlled " sourc e i s used throughout thi s document
. Previously i n th e PA L proposal s we stated tha

t "all " unit s mus t

b e wel l controlled
. EP

A wil l nee d t o define wha

t thi s concept means . W e believ e i t would b e appropriat

e t o specif y asiz e cutof

f an d ti e tha t cutof f t o aspecifi c typ e of technology standard
. Fo

r example , throug

h guidanc e o

r otherwise , EP

A woul d specif

y di e limit s associated wit

h a"wel l controlled " facilit

y (e.g. , BACT o

r LAE Ro n al l majo r an d significan

t emissio n units ) o r defin e aproces s fo

r the permittin g authorit

y t o follow whe

n makin g thi s determination
. Thi s proposa l envision s tha

t EPA' s definition o f

wha t constitute s a"wel

l controlled " sourc e would b e applied consistentl y t o the exten

t use d i n di e option s an

d principle s se

t fort h below
. 

### 1 . ACTUAL S BASE

D PA L Wha t typ e of sourc e ca n qualify ?

• An

y sourc e willin g to perfor

mth e recor

d keeping , reportin g an

d monitorin g necessar

y t o ensur e tha t i t i s i n complianc e wit

h it s actual s based PAL
. Ho w i s th e actual s baselin e established ?

• Th e actual s based PA

L i s establishe d usin g th e highes t on e yea r (consecutiv e 1 2 months ) o f actua l emission s i

n the las t te n year s adjuste

d t o reflect

an y existin g contro l requirements
.

• Not

e th e adjustmen

t fo r existin g contro l requirement s would not reflec t a n adjustmen

t fo r reduction s achieved through the voluntar y implementatio n o f

P2
. However , if

the


# L 5sourc e implemente d P 2 t o mee t or avoi d BACT/LAE

Ro r som e other contro l technolog y requirement

unde r di e Clea n Ai r Act , a n adjustmen

t i s appropriate
. 

### 2 . ALLOWABLE S BASED PA L . Wha ttyp e o f sourc e ca n qualify ?

• An

y sourc e willin g t o perfor

mth e recor

d keeping , reportin g an

d monitorin g necessar

y t o ensur e tha t i t i s i n complianc e wit

h it s allowable s based PA

L an d which fits int

o an y one o f di e following thre e categories : 1
. New majo

r green field source s wher

e di e facilit

y satisfied stat

e an d federa l NS Rrequirements ; or 2
. A facilit

y tha t satisfied stat

e an d Federa l NS Rrequirement s fo

r th e entire facilit

y withi n th e las t five years , provide d th e sourc e ca n demonstrat

e tha t th e facilit y i s well controlled ; or 3
. A facilit

y wher e a n extensiv e revam

p o r expansio n ha s been reviewe d an d approve d consistent wit h applicabl e state/Federa

l NS Rrequirements
. Unde

r thi s scenari o di e majo

r an d significan

t emissio n unit s a

t th e facilit y mus t b e wel l controlled
. Ho w i s th e allowable s baselin e established ?

• Th

e allowable s baselin e i s se

t using th e permitte d allowable s associate d wit h th e stat e an d Federa l NS Rdetermination s mad

e b y th e permittin g authorit

y a t th e source s which qualif

y fo r a n allowables-base d PAL
. 

### 3 . ISSUE S COMMON T O BOTH ACTUAL S AN D ALLOWABLE S BASED PAL S For bo w lon g i s th e PA L valid ?

• Th

e PA L i s vali d fo

r ater mofte n years . Wha ttyp e o f adjustmenti s require

d upo n PAL renewal ?

• Upo

n renewa l th e PA L i s adjusted t o reflect

actua l emission s based o

n th e highes t

one yea r (consecutiv e 1 2 months ) o f actua l emission s i

n th e las t te n year s adjuste d fo

r existin g contro l requirements
. 

### OR

• If th e facilit y ca n demonstrat

e tha t al l ofth e emissio n unit s unde r di e PA L tha t exceed a predetermine d threshol d (e.g., greate r tha n majo r sourc e siz e or

th e criteri apollutan

t significanc e level ) ar e well-controlled...ther

e i s n o downwar

d adjustment
. NOTE : Unde

r eithe r PA L adjustmen

t option , asourc e would b e subject to downwar

d adjustmen

t t o mee t


# V*P.1 6

ne w Clea n Ai r Act requirement s o

r addres s NAAQ S o

r PS D incremen

t concerns . Increasing th e PAL :

• Wit

h th e exceptio n o f

Merck , none ofth e PAL s issued t o dat e permit auni t to b e added outside th e PAL
. Instead , source s wit h PAL s mus t

wor k withi n thei r

establishe d PA

L level s o r increas e th e PAL
. W

e believ e th e bette

r approach i s t o requir

e inclusio n o f

al l unit s withi n th e PAL
. I f suc h arequiremen

t result s i n th e nee d t o increas e aPAL , then th e following principle s would apply :

• All existin g majo

r an d significan

t unit s unde

r th e PA L mus t b e wel l controlle d or

o n a schedul e to b e wel

l controlle d within adefine

d perio d o f

time tha t coul d ru n concurren

t wit h th e expansion ofth e PA

L o r b e tie d to th e nex

t PA L renewa l date
.

• The additiona

l unit s t o b e placed unde

r th e PA L mus t b e wel l controlled
.

• The PA

L baselin e would b e increased b y th e allowabl e emission s attributabl e to th e new unit s addedunde

r th e PAL
. Subsequen

t PA L renewal s would b e subject t o th e tw o adjustmen t option s noted above
.

• Thi s approach keep s everythin g unde r th e PA L an d avoid s di e issue s associate d wid i "partia l PALs"
. Remova l of 52.2 1 (r)(4)/syntheti c minor limits :

• The curren

t majo r NS Rrule s a

t 52.2 1 (r)(4 ) requir

e tha t if limit s taken t o avoi d majo

r NS R (referred t o a s (r)(4 ) limits ) ar e relaxed , then majo

r NS Rapplie s t o th e sourc e o r modification subject to th e limit

a s though constructio n ha

d not ye t commenced
.

• OG

C agree s tha

t i t i s permissibl e unde

r th e Clea n Ai r Act fo r PAL s to substitut

e fo r a52.21(r)(4 ) limi t an d remov e th e unit-specifi c (r)(4 ) limit
. However , th e issu e i s ho w t o trea t source s tha

t tak e aPAL , remov e (r)(4 ) limit s o n existin g unit s an

d operat e unde r th e PA L but subsequently decide t o terminate th e PA

L o r le t th e PA L expire
.

• A t th e optio n ofth e source , i

t could elec t

to : *• Remov e th e (r)(4 ) limi t upo n establishin g th e PA

L an d agre e t o aschedul e t o put thos e unit s through majo

r NS Rto ge

t ri d ofth e limit s all together ; or *• Remov e th e (r)(4 ) limi t upo n establishin g th e PA

L an d if th e sourc e subsequently elect s t o terminate th e PA

L o r le t i t expire , th e (r)(4 ) limi t

would appl

y t o thos e unit s upo

n PA L terminatio n (assuming th e unit s ar e stil l i n operation)
. Thereafter , an y increas e o f emission s a

t th e (r)(4 ) unit s would b e handled i n accordanc e wit

h then-existin g regulation s an

d guidance ; or

• Leav e th e (r)(4 ) unit s i n plac e unde

r th e PA L an d abide by suc

h limit s fo r thos e units
. 

## 9 

# nP . 1 7

Adjustment

s fo r MAC T Standards :

• PA

L would not

b e adjusted to reflec t

MACT reduction s unles s th e Stat e relie s o n suc h reduction s a s par t o f it s NAAQ S attainmen

t strategy .

• Thi s positio n i s consistent wit h existin g NS Rguidanc e o n th e us e o f

MAC T reduction s fo r nettin g purpose s unde

r traditiona l NSR
. Becaus e aPA

L i s adjuste d ever

y ten year s t o mee t th e contemporaneou s nettin g requiremen t o f Alabama Power, i

t would b e redundan t to requir e a n additiona

l reductio n t o th e PA

L baselin e t o reflec t

MACT
.

• A MACT standar

d reflect s acontro l efficiency a s opposed t o a n absolut e limi t o n th e amoun

t o f emissions
. A PA

L based o n eithe r allowable s o

r actual s limit s th e HAP s tha t th e sourc e ca

n emit
. A limit

o n th e HAP s vi ath e PA

L i s mor e environmentally protectiv e tha n th e traditiona

l MACT o r NS Rrequirements
. I

n the absenc e o f

aPAL , th e sourc e i s free t o emit whateve r quantit y o f HAP s i t wishe s s o long a s th e MACT i s i n place
. A require d decreas e i n th e PA L baselin e t o reflec t

MACT couple d wit

h th e absolut

e limit o n di e amoun

t o f HAP s di e sourc e ca

n emit would serv e a s adoubl e penalt y t o source s wid

i PALs
. PA L termination :

• PA

L ma y b e terminate d a

t th e source' s reques t

n o soone r tha n ten year s afte

r th e PA L i s established
.

• A t th e poin t o f terminatio n or

renewal , adjustment s would b e handled i n accordanc e wit

h th e option s outline d above
. Fro mthi s poin

t o n traditiona

l NS Rwould appl

y t o th e facility
. [NOTE , thi s assume s tha

t th e sourc e wil l hav e datato establis h actual s emission s fo r it s majo r an d significan t unit s consisten

t widi it s PA

L baselin e withi n th e las t

ten years . Thi s datawould serv e a s the basi s fo

r analyzin g traditiona

l NS Rapplicabilit

y o n aprospectiv e basis. ] Som e Genera l PA L Principle s tha tshoul d apply t

o all PALs :

• Wit

h th e exceptio n o f

majo r unit s added widiin th e PAL , an y change s unde

r aPA L ma t ar e consisten t wit h th e PA L baselin e would b e i

n accordanc e wit

h th e State' s existin g minor NS R program . EP

A ma y wis h t o specif

y di e guideline s fo

r BA T determination s fo

r PAL s dia t wil l satisf y a"goodcontrol " determinatio n upon establishin g di e PA L or upon renewal
.

• Al l ne w majo r unit s added unde

r th e PA L mus t hav e BACT or

LAER
.

• A sourc e shoul d b e abl e to meet th e "wel l controlled " requiremen

t throug h acombinatio n o f performanc e -base d measure s suc h a s P 2 an d contro l technologie s o

n emissio n units
. The key concep t i s tha t th e facilit y mus t demonstrat

e tha t i t i s operatin g a

t awell-controlle d level (consistent wit h ho w EP A define s thi s through rulemaking ) an d tha t thi s level i s enforceable
.

• Wha

t level o f emission s satisfie s th e "wel l controlled " criteri afo

r aPA L shoul d b e agreed upon a t th e time th e PA

L i s bein g negotiate d to allo w asourc e tha t elect s t o pursu e th e "well



# If fP.1 8

controlled" /

no adjustmen

t option to conside

r costs . Throug

h guidanc e or

otherwise , EP

A coul d specif y th e limit s associate d wit

h awell controlle d facilit

y (e.g
. BACT o

r LAE Ro n all majo r an d significan t emissio n units ) o

r defin e aproces s fo

r th e permittin g authorit

y t o follow whe

n making thi s determination
. Initially , thi s i s not necessar y wid i agree n field s PA

L sinc e th e sourc e recently completed NSR
. Th e electio n fo

r suc h source s would occu

r fo r th e te n yea r ter m following th e first

renewa l ofth e PAL
.



# 4"



# I SP.1 9

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENCY

RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK , N C 2771 1

AU G 6 190

9 OFFIC E O F AI R QUALIT Y PLANNIN G AN D STANDARD S Mr . Patric k M . Rahe r Hoga n & Hartson , L.L.P . Columbi a Squar

e 55 5 Thirteent

h Street , N W Washington , D.C . 20004-110 9 Dear Mr. Raher : Than k yo u for you r lette r dated Jun e 18,1999 , i n whic h yo u provide d comment s an d concern s abou

tth e analysi s b y STAPP

A /ALAPC O o n th e NSRTPlantwide Applicability Limitation s (PAL ) concept s propose d b y DaimlerChrysle r Corporation , Inte l Corporation , Eli Lill y an d Company , Merc

k & Co. , Inc . an

d Dupont(PA L Stakeholders ) o n Ma y 17,1999 . Th e Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y (EPA ) support s th e positio n tha

tth e PA L progra

m need s t o b e a flexible , effective , an d environmentall y soun d optio n tha tprovide s a streamline d pat h fo r determinin g major NS Rapplicability . W e appreciat e th e efforts ofth e PA L Stakeholder

s to dat e an d loo k forwar

d to continuin g our discussion s o n PA L a tth e upcomin g meetin g o n Augus t1 1 i n Durham . A tthi s meeting , w e inten d t o firs tfocu s o n th e allowable s based PA L an

d periodi c PA L adjustmen tissues . There wil l als o b e tim e allocate d s o tha t representative s from EPA' s Offic e o f Genera l Counse l (OGC ) an

d Offic e o f

Enforcementan

d Complianc e Assuranc e (OECA ) ma y as k question s concernin g you r PA L paper . T o ensur e tha tw e us e th e tim e productively , attached ar e som e clarifyin g question s an d request s fo r additiona

l informatio n concernin g th e PA L concep tpape r date d Ma y 17,1999 . Th e response s to th e question s an d requeste d informatio n wil l facilitate discussion s a tour Augus t1 1 meetin g an

d ensure tha

tbot h th e stakeholders an

d EP A hav e a n opportunit

y t o share relevant information concernin g th e PA L Stakeholder' s proposal . Th e response s wil l als o b e evaluate d an d considere d as w e finalize th e requirement s for a PA L program . Additionally , a cop y ofth e response s wil l b e place d into th e docke tfor th e NS Rrefor m rulemaking .



# 2. 0 Recycled/Recyclabl e . Printe d wit h Vegetabl e Oi l Base d Ink s o n 100 % Recycle d Pape r (40 % Postconsumer )P.2 0

I f yo u hav e an y question s concernin g th e attache d requests , pleas e contactMik e Sewel l a t (919)541-0873
.

Attachmen t
cc : Willia mBecke r Joh n Pau l Bil l O'Sulliva n Sincerely ,

form S . Seit z Directo r Offic e o f Ai r Qualit

y Plannin g an d Standards



# 21P.2 1

ATTACHMEN T PA L Concep tPape r Question s an d Request s fo r Additiona l Information . Pleas e not

e tha tth e followin g question s an d request s follo w th e order o f

issue s addresse d i n th e PA L Stakeholder' s concep tpaper dated Ma y 17,199 9 (hereinafte r referred t o a s th e "PA L Proposal") . PA L Proposa l Introduction : 1 . The PA L Proposa

l introductio n state s tha

t"th e PA L structur

e presente d i n thi s pape

r i s a n integrated approac

h tha tcompared to "traditional " NSR , provide s equivalen tor bette r environmenta

l protection. " Unde r th e PA L Proposal , BAC T i s installe d o n al l ne w "major " unit s adde d unde r th e PAL . Pleas e provid e example s o f permittin g scenario s tha tcompare th e PA L Proposa l approac h to traditiona

l NSR , whic h i n man

y case s results i n BAC T o r LAE R technolog y on unit

s emittin g les s tha

n "major " amounts . Pleas e includ e a n exampl e situatio n wher e allowable s emission s fro m existin g well-controlle d units ar e use d t o se tth e PA L an

d th e actua l emission s in ton s pe

r year from th e thes e unit s hav e neve r exceede d 50 % ofth e allowables . 2 . Th e PA L Proposa

l state s tha

tpermittin g unde

r a PA L provide s more incentiv e for pollutio n preventio n tha

n th e curren

tFedera l NS Rsystem . Ho w i s thi s incentiv e different compare d to the curren

tnettin g system ? Doesn' teach syste m rewar d thos e tha

treduc e emission s by allowin g them t o offse tne w increase s an d avoi d majo r NSR ? PA L Coverag e (Partia l PA L Issues) : Unde r th e PA L Proposal , certain emissio n unit s ma y b e exclude d from th e PA L unde r th e followin g circumstances : (1 ) emission s units tha tar e mino r (suc h a s VOC s from fue l combustion) ; (2 ) emissio n units tha tcompris e a separat

e par tofth e facility i f

th e tw o operation s ar e clearl y distinc tan

d th e sam e manufacturing activitie s ar e no tan d wil l no tb e carried ou ta t pan s covere d an

d uncovere d b y th e PAL . 1 . Pleas e clarif

y whethe r th e PA L Proposa l provide s for more tha

n on e PA L t o b e establishe d a

ta stationar

y sourc e per pollutant . I f yes , pleas e explai n wh y multipl e PA L ar e neede d a tth e same sourc e for th e sam e pollutant . 2 . If th e conce m i s tha

tunrelated operation s a

ta sourc e woul d nee d t o coordinate t p ensure complianc e with th e PAL , coul d th e sourc e take on e PA L an d allocat e portion s ofth e PA L t o it s differen toperation s for managementpurposes ? I f a sourc e mus tmeasur

e emission s fro

m "d e minimis " source s for nettin g purposes , pleas e explai n wh y i s itharde r to measure such source s under a PAL ? 

# 22 -P.2 2

Pleas e provid e som e example s an d factors tha

tcoul d b e use d t o determin e whethe r operation s o r portion s o f a facilit y ar e sufficientl y distinc tan

d separat e to qualif y for a separat

e PAL . Wha

ti f th e operation s shar

e energy , heat generation , o r wast e treatment ? Ho w woul d th e partia

l PA L concep timpac

tth e curren

tdefinitio n o f

majo r stationar y source , i f

a tall ? 3 . For units outsid e th e PAL , ho w woul d a sourc e measure th e actual s emissions baselin e for nettin g purposes ? Wha tunit s woul d b e include d i n th e source' s baseline ? PA L Enforceability : Pleas e provid e an

y concern s o r question s th e PA L Stakeholders hav e concernin g emission s quantification , monitoring , reporting , an d recor d keepin g requirement

s t o b e include d i n PA L permit

s t o ensure practica

l enforceability ? Initia l Leve l o f

PAL : 1 . For a n actuals-base d PAL , th e proposa l suggest s usin g th e sam e definitio n o f "actua l emissions " as in th e curren tNS Rrules . EP

A propose d a definitio n o f "actua l emissions " tha

t woul d us e a unit' s highes t12-mont h leve l o f operation s withi n th e las tte n year s multiplie d b y a curren temissio n factor . Ho w woul d thi s definitio n b e use d t o accommodate plantwid e use ? Fo r example , ho w woul d a facilit y accountfo r a uni

ttha tha s bee n shu

tdow n sinc e th e chose n baselin e year ? 2 . The PA L proposa

l als o indicate s tha

tunde r certain circumstance s a PA L baselin e may b e base d on allowabl e emissions . Thes e circumstance s include :
a . " A greenfiel d facilit

y wher e th e ne w facilit

y ha s satisfie d th e applicabl e stat e an d federa l NS Rrequirement

s an d th e facilit

y has notreached ful

l capacity . Unde r thes e circumstances , th e PA L i s se to n th e basi s ofth e NS Rreview . Performanc e limit s reflectin g th e BACT , LAE

Ran d Stat e NS Rdetermination s o f

goo d control s ar

e retained. "

- T o illustrat

e wha ti s mean tb y th e sentenc e "th

e PA L i s se to n th e basi s ofth e NS R review" , pleas e provid e a simplifie d exampl e (i n writing ) tha treflect s ho w a typica l configuratio n o f

emissio n units woul d b e accounte d for an d folde d int o th e allowable s PA L baselin e a

ta greenfiel d facility .

- Pleas e explai n wha

ti s mean tb y th e sentenc e "Performanc e limit s reflectin g th e BACT , LAE Ran d Stat e NS Rdetermination s o f goo d control technolog y ar e retained. " 

# 23P.2 3

- I f a greenfiel d sourc e in a

n ozon e attainmen

tare a obtain s a

n allowable s PA L fo r VO C wha tcontrol technolog y requirement s woul d apply t o ne w units added under th e PA L tha temi t9 9 tp y or les s o f

VOC ? b . " I n th e cas e o f

a facilit y wher e a n extensiv e revam

p or expansio n (whic h i s wel l define d an

d embodie s goo d contro l technolog y o n al l th e ne w sources ) ha s bee n reviewe d an d approved consisten twith applicabl e state/Federa l NS Rrequirements , an

d recentactua

l emissions ar e lowe r tha

n th e level s considere d i n th e NS Rapprova l ofth e expansio n o r revamp . Th e PA L may b e base d o n recentactual s plu s a n incrementt o accommodate th e approved growt h o r change. "

- T o illustrate whati s meantb y thi s option , pleas e provid e a simplifie d exampl e (i n writing ) tha

treflects ho w each ofth e emission s units a ta typica l facility whic h underwen t a n extensiv e revam p o r expansio n woul d b e accounte d fo r an d folde d int o a PA L baseline .

• Doe s thi s optio n representa hybrid typ e o f PA L tha ti s base d bot

h o n actua

l an d allowabl e emissions ?

- Ho w woul d th e "incremen tt o accommodate th e approved growt h o r change " b e determined ? Woul d th e growt h incrementb e th e allowable s fo r th e ne w units ?
c . "I n th e cas e wher e th e applicantcan demonstrat e tha trecentactua

l emissions plu s a

n insignifican tincreas e i s no tadequat e t o operat

e th e existin g equipmenta tit s ful l capacity . Th e PA L mustb e base d o n BAC T o r LAE Rdetermination s i n th e previou s five year s (s o lon g a s th e permittin g authorit

y determine s tha

tth e leve l o f

goo d contro l ha s no tadvance d significantl y sinc e th e determinations ) o r base d o n a goo d contro l determinatio n (suc h a s th e stat e NS R"bes

t availabl e technology " review ) mad e a tth e tim e th e PA L i s set. "

- T o illustrat

e wha ti s meantb y thi s option , pleas e provid e a simplifie d exampl e (i n writing ) tha

treflects ho w eac h ofth e emission s units a ta typica l facility tha

ti s eligibl e t o qualif y for a n allowable s base d PA L under th e condition s se tfort h i n thi s optio n woul d b e accounte d for an

d folde d into th e PA L baseline .

- Doe s thi s optio n representa hybri d typ e o f PA L tha ti s base d bot

h o n actua

l and allowabl e emissions?

- Ho w d o yo u defin e "goo d controls" ? Ca n yo u provid e example s ofth e technolog y tha t woul d b e minimall y acceptabl e contro l for som e o f you r mor e commo n processes ?

- Wha tcriteria , i f

any , shoul d EP

A specif y for Stat e programs t o ensure tha

tStat e review s produce "good controls" ? Wha topportunity , i f

any , shoul d EP

A hav e t o objec tt o deficien tStat

e determinations ? 

# 2SP.2 4

- Wha tfactors ar

e appropriat

e for th e permittin g authorit y an d EP A t o conside r whe n determinin g whethe r th e leve l o f goo d control ha s advanced significantl y sinc e th e initial BAC T or LAE Rdetermination ? 3 . Pleas e provid e feedbac k o n a n allowable s PA L optio n tha ti s tied to a requiremen

ttha t certai n emission s unit

s mus tb e "well controlled" . Fo r a n allowables-base d PAL , EP A believe s i t may b e appropriat

e t o specif

y a siz e cutof

f an d ti e tha tcutof f t o a specifi c typ e o f

technolog y requirement

. Fo r example , a

n appropriat

e threshol d to requir

e control s i s fo r al l emission s units tha temiti n significan tamount s o r greater o f

a major NS Rregulate d pollutan t(e.g , 4 0 tp y fo r S0 2 ) . Wha

ti f a n allowable s base d PA L i s allowe d i f such units mus tmee tBAC T o r LAE Ran d all unit s emittin g les s tha

n th e significan tthreshol d mus tmee tth e State' s NS Rrequirement s fo r ne w mino r sources . Th e allowable s PA L baselin e woul d b e se tb y summin g togethe r th e leve l o f allowabl e emission s associate d with each ofth e BACT , LAE Ror Stat e mino r NS R determinations . Woul d thi s typ e o f "allowables " PA L addres s th e concern s o f you r group ? I f not , pleas e explai n why ? Assumin g for discussio n purpose s tha ta greenfield s sourc e ca

n secur e a

n allowable s PAL . I f a n adjustmen

tt o reflectactua

l emission s i s require

d after a fixed perio d o f

tim e (e.g. , five o r te n years) , woul d such a fixed tim e perio d before adjustmen toccur s allo w th e sourc e to reac h ful l production ? Woul d thi s typ e o f "allowables " PA L for greenfiel d source s addres s th e concern s o f

you r group ? I f

not , explai n why ? 4 . I n general , th e PA L Proposa l include s a

n allowable s base d PA L wher e th e major emission s unit

s ar e wel l controlled . Doe s industr y propos e tha

tth e allowable s emission s concep t fo r PA L b e extende d t

o th e more traditiona

l major NS Rapplicabilit

y test s (e.g , netting) ? Wha ti s th e PA L Stakeholders ' positio n o n whethe r an d ho w th e allowable s emission s concep tfor NS R applicabilit

y ca n b e limite d t o PAL ? 5 . For nonattainmen

tNS Rpermittin g doe s th e PA L Proposa l propos e tha

tNS Roffset s b e obtained for th e ful

l allowable s level ? 6 . Whe n permittin g a

n allowable s PA L for source s obtainin g a PS D permit , doe s th e PA L Proposa

l provid e fo

r ai r qualit

y modelin g an

d Clas s I analysi s t o b e don e a tth e allowable s level ? PA L Adjustmen tIssues : The PA L Proposa

l doe s no trequir

e periodi c adjustmen

tofth e PA L leve l t o reflectmor e contemporaneou s level s o f actua l emissions .



# P.SP.2 5

1 . Ho w doe s th e PA L Proposa l meetth e contemporaneit y requirement

s o f Alabam a Power ? If

th e PA L Proposa

l essentiall y provide s for a PA L adjustmen tafte r twenty year s ho w doe s thi s ensur

e tha temission s reduction s ar e "contemporaneous " with th e emission s increase s from ne w o

r modifie d units unde

r th e PAL ? 2 . The PA L Proposa

l provide s tha

tth e PA L may b e adjusted t o correct"significant " errors . Wha

tcriteri a woul d b e use d t o determine whethe r o r no ta n erro r i s significant ? 3 . For certai n major unit

s th e PA L Proposa

l state s th e "th

e permittin g authorit

y wil l hav e authority , i n additio n t o an y curren tauthority , t o requir

e tha tth e uni tb e place d o n a schedul e fo r contro l technolog y upgrade to curren tbes tavailabl e technolog y performance level s ove r th e first te n years o f

th e PA L permi tbein g i n place. "

- Pleas e explai n whethe r th e exercis e o f thi s aumorit

y b y th e Stat

e i s mandator

y (i.e. , i t mustrequir

e th e control o f

suc h units ) o r discretionar

y (ma y requir e suc h controls) .

- Regardles s o f

whethe r th e State' s authorit y i s discretionar

y o r mandatory...can th e PA L source disput

e such reques tan

d tr y t o avoi d installin g th e requeste d controls ? 4 . Wha ti s th e PA L Stakeholder' s positio n o n th e concep ttha tan y requirement

s EP A set s for PA L ar

e minimum requirements . D o w e agre e tha tth e State s retain th e authorit y t o adop tmor e stringentcontro l an

d other requirement

s for existin g o

r ne w emission s units tha tar e unde r a PAL ? Flexibilit y Unde r A PAL : 1 . BAC T fo r th e PA L pollutanti s propose d fo r al l ne w units adde d under th e PA L tha t ar e considere d "major " (i.e. , unitemit s ove r 10 0 tp y or th e major sourc e threshol d for th e area , whicheve r i s lower) . So tha tw e ma y conside r th e environmenta l impacto f

requirin g BAC T o n ne w unit s emittin g a

tthes e thresholds , pleas e provid e th e followin g informatio n for bot h VO C an d NO x emission s units fo r th e differentsource categorie s represente d b y th e PA L Stakeholders . For th e typical existin g stationar y sourc e wha

tpercentag e o f

existin g unit s ar

e "major " fo r the PA L pollutant ? Wha tpercentag e o f

tota l emission s ofth e PA L pollutan tfrom th e stationar y sourc e com e from "major " units ? 2 . During a previou s meetin g th e PA L Stakeholders stated tha tPT E limits , includin g restriction s o f

hours o f operatio n an

d pollutio n contro l equipment , shoul d b e considere d whe n determining i f

a ne w uni

ti s "major " for purpose s o f BACT/LAE Rapplicability . Pleas e explai n wha

ti s mean tb y thi s statement . Doe s itmean tha ta sourc e coul d instal l les s tha

n BACT/LAE Rcontrol s o n a uni tt o avoi d bein g "major" ? 

# 2bP.2 6

Assumin g th e purpos e o f PA L i s to provid e operationa l flexibility, pleas e explai n wh y th e us e o f

PTE limits unde

r PA L doe s no tlimi tthi s flexibility ? 3 . Doe s th e PA L Proposa l includ e th e optio n t o permita PA L t o substitute an d thereb y remov e limit s take n previousl y t o avoi d major NS R[i.e. , limit s subjec tt o 4 0 CF R52.21(r)(4)] ? 4 . Doe s th e PA L Proposa l provid e for th e installatio n o f LAE Rinstea d o f

BAC T o n all ne w "major " unit

s adde d under th e PA L for nonattainmen tpollutants ? Expandin g th e PA L Level : The PA L Proposa

l permit s th e PA L leve l to b e increase d "b y takin g th e chang e tha

ti s associate d wit

h th e nee d fo r th e increas e throug h th e Federa

l NS Rprocess. " Additionally , "t o expand th e PAL , al l majo r units covere d b y th e PA L mus thav e goo d control s o r b e o n a n enforceabl e schedul e t

o instal l th e control s or shutdown withi n five years" . I s thi s optio n t

o expand th e PA L leve l availabl e i f th e units bein g added woul d fit unde r th e existin g PAL ? I f

th e sourc e coul d creat

e roo m unde r th e PA L fo r th e ne w units b y installin g additiona l control s o n existin g units woul d th e optio n b e available ? Woul d th e PA L b e increase d b y th e allowabl e o r actua l emission s from units tha t mee tmajor NS Rrequirements ? Doe s th e PA L Proposa

l mean tha

ti n orde r to expan d th e PA L tha

tth e majo r NS R requirement

s woul d apply t o all unit

s bein g added , includin g unit s tha tar e les s tha n th e major NS Rsignificanc e level s (e.g. , 4 0 tp y fo r S0 2 ) ? Pleas e explain . Ar e ther e an y othe r way s propose d tha tth e PA L coul d b e expanded ? I n othe r word s coul d unit

s b e adde d to a PA L sourc e tha

tar e no tpar tofth e PAL ? I f

so , unde r wha tconditions ? PA L Termination : I n th e PA L Proposa

l a PA L i s setfor a perio d ofte n years . Durin g th e te n year s a tth e requestofth e permitte e an d i f approve d b y th e permittin g authorit y th e PA L ca n b e terminated . Upo n termination th e PA L limi twil l b e retained a s a permitted cap . A s th e en d ofth e te n year s approaches , renewa

l can b e requeste d for another te n years . A tth e en d o f twenty year s th e PA L mus tb e reevaluated . 1 . Pleas e explai n wha

ti s mean tb y th e statementtha

tth e tp y limi trepresentin g th e PA L woul d b e "retained " a

tth e facility ? Would th e permitted cap b e on e cap for all unit s previousl y 

# 11P.2 7

1 / unde

r th e PAL ? Woul d th e ca p b e considere d a limi ttake n to avoi d major NS Ran d thu s subject to th e requirement

s o f 4 0 CF R52.21(r)(4) ? Wha

thappens i f

th e sourc e wants to increas e m e cap ? 2 . I s ther

e a propose d minimum tim e perio d for th e PA L t o b e i n effec tbefor e th e sourc e ma y appl y fo r PA L termination ? Coul d a sourc e hav e th e PA L dissolve d an d late r re-establis h th e PA L anew ? 3 . Pleas e explai n th e exten tofth e PA L reevaluatio n a tth e end o f

twenty years ? Fo r example , woul d th e PA L b e adjusted for an y reaso n becaus e actua

l emission s under th e PA L may hav e bee n les s tha

n th e PA L limit ?



## •2%P.2 8 jun-ie- " ir.ttvr, rrom - T-28 7 P.02/0 4 F-13 1 

## HOGA N &HAKTSO N

LJ-P . Jun e 18,199 9 rxrRic i M
. RAHI

R MTNU (SOt ) 637-56A 2 rataAHUCHKUw.cc M COLUMBI A SQUAK £ S U TKOtTZEkTr

H STUCT . N

V VAIHWCTON , O

C IOOM-U M t u (S02 > ei74«o o FA X ilOt ) UTMI O 

### Joh n Seit z Environmenta

l Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Ai r Qualit y Plannin g an

d Standard s Researc h Triangl e Park , N C 2771 1 Dea r Mi
. Seitz : Las t week, STAPP

A and ALAPC O provide dyou wiih comment s o n a n Industr y Group PA L Issu e Paper
. Unfortunate ] y , th e STAPP A an d ALAPC O comment s wer e base do n adraf

t issu e pape r issue d i n Apri l which di d no t

reflec t th e lates t versio n o f

our pape r provide dt o EP

A an d date d Ma y 17 ,k



### . Th e revision s between Apri l an dMa y 17 * were mad e i n respons e t o comment s receive d fro

mSTAPP A 

### and ALAPCO , EP A andothe

r interes t group s andaddresse dmos t ofth e issue s raised b

y STAPP A an d ALAPCO
. Accordingly , we met wit h STAPP A 

### andALAPC O representative' s thi s wee

k to discus s thei r

comment s i n light

ofth e Ma y 1 7 pape r

andwis h t o repor t o n thos e discussions
. A T thi s week' s meeting , on e ofth e poinr s w e emphasize dwit

h STAPPA an dAlAPC O i s tha t a workabl e PA

L polic y wil l provid e significant environmenta

l benefit s relativ e t o traditional NSR
. Th e PA L proposa

l se t fort h i n th e Ma

y 1 7 pape r will : (1 ) provid e greater

ai r qualit y certaint y beczus e o f th e emission s ca

p feature ; (2 ) ensur

e tha t ne w majo r unit s are wel l controlled : (3 ) in certain circumstances , plac e existin g majo r unit s o n aschedul e t o hav e thei r control s upgraded ; an d (4 ) provide apowerfu

l incentiv e to pollutio n preventio n a s th e mean s b y whic h source s ca n grow whil e remainin g under th e emission s cap . W e noted tha

t thes e environmenta

l benefit s wil l b e realize donly i f source s utiliz e th e PA L opiion
. Source s will op t

t o us e PAL S 

### onl

y i f the y believ e th e PA L 

### optio n i s workabl e and • provide s sufficien

t operational flexibilit

y benefit s ove

r traditional NSR
. Th e Ma y 1 7 PA L framewor k wa s designe d t o optimiz e the combinatio n o f environmental andflexibility benefits
. Clearl y change s coul d b e made t o man y ofth e individua

l aspect s o f

ou r framework , aime dat increasin g cithe

r th e flexibilit

y o r environmenta

l side s o f th e equation
. However , significant changes , particularl y an

y made o n apiecemea

l fashio n without

regardt o th e impac t

o n th e overall program , run th e risk o f makin g the overal l approac h unworkable , thereb y makin g PA L usag e unlikely
. I n additio n i o the foregoin g revie w o f benefits , we als o reviewe dwit h STAPPA andALAPC O thr change s Tiad

e betwee n Apri l and Ma

y sn d believ e tha

t man y ofth e issue s raise di n th e STAPP A lener hav e been resolved
. W

e did , however , identif

y fou r area s wher e difference s ma y remain an d wan t T O identif y thos e issue s an

dour positio n o n eac h o f

the mfo r you r consideration
. •«D:-Mj::,:».c,i-...i:e i MVSSB S «ua»nr r untotm *osco w IMJU* . RUC W

W.7TMOEX.M 9 COUOIO O StMCS , C O SEX VOL

. C O iO B *WCtU5 . C- KO£«X.V * HIWrOIXK T IOCXVTUZ. 1 

# 2*1P.2 9 Jun-ll-B B 11:2Bair . From - , T-28 7 P 03/0 4 F-13 1 •

' • Pag e 2 HOGA N * RABTSO N LL.P . J . Seit z Jua c 18.199 9 1 . MAC T AdjnctrppnT

c - A s th e Ma

y 1 7 issu e pape r states , th e Industr y Grou p believe s thatth e PA L leve l shoul d b e reduce d i n th e contex to f a MAC T standar

d goin g int o effec tonl y i f th e * SIP include s a regulatio n requirin g th e associate d criteri a pollutan treductions . W e tak e thi s positio n fo r tw o reasons : (1 ) MAC T standards regulate HAP s an d there i s no ta one-for-on e correlatio n betwee n HAP s an d an y criteri a pollutants . Mos tMAC T standard s hav e allowe d multipl e complianc e approache s an d each ha s a differen teffec to n criteri a pollutan t emissions . A s a result , a reductio n t o th e criteri a pollutan tPA L woul d b e arbitrar y i n many case s and , mor e importantly , woul d prejudg e th e complianc e metho d and preclud e a subsequen tchang e i n th e complianc e approach . ( 9 ) P.^ucin g th e PA L woul d trea tPA L facilitie s differential]} ' an d adversel y relativ e to all othe r sources , becaus e othe r source s currently ar

e no trequire d t o accep tenforceabl e limit s o n thei r criteri a pollutan temission s whe n a MAC T standar

d become s effective . Finally , w e shoul d not e tha tthis issu e an d an y others shoul d b e addresse d i n th e contex tofth e overal l PA L approach . Ou r PA L proposa l i s designe d t o insur e tha

tne w unit

s brough tint o th e PA L g o throug h a stat e goo d technolog y revie w o r BACT , if

the y ar e major. W e feel , therefore tha tthere shoul d b e n o bia s t o reducin g th e PA L leve l buil tint o th e PA L rules . 2 . Puratio n ofth e PA L - In ou r paper w e indicate d tha tth e PA L coul d b e adjuste d a s frequentl y a s every five years . Th e pape r als o include d a commitmen tt o contro l majo r unit s tha thav e neve r bee n throug h NS Rwithi n te n years . However , th e total reevaluatio n and revam p ofth e PA L woul d b e a

tth e en d o f twent y years . STAPP A an

d AlAPC O representative s indicate d tha : twenty year s i s to o lon g an d suggeste d tha

tthe y woul d lik e t o b e abl e t o mak e som e mid cours e correction s a tfiv e year s an d hav e a ful l reevaluatio n a tte n years . W e are sure tha ta polic y an y shorte r tha

n te n years woul d no tb e acceptabl e t o industr y an d ar e considerin g ou r positio n o n 2 0 years . W e shoul d note tha

tth e issu e o f

PA L duratio n i s linke d t o th e mechanism s fo r terminatin g th e PA L a tth e end o f

tha tperio d an

d th e mechanism s fo r terminatio n an

d revampin g a PA L more generally . 3 . Th e Scnp e o f

Existin g UnitContro

l - Th e Industr

y Issu e Paper outline s a mechanis m t o hav e an\ existin g majo r units tha thav e no tbee n through NS Rpu to n a schedul e t o b e upgrade d during th e firs tte n year s o f a PAL . Th e STAPP A an d ALAPC O representative s hav e indicate d tha

tthe y ar e intereste d i n havin g certai n non-majo r unit s brough tint o th e sam e • mechanis m and tha

tth e criteri a fo r majo r units ' performanc e b e BAC T a tth e tim e th e PA L i s established . Th e Industr y Grou p feel s tha

tSTAPPA/ALAPCO' S proposa l t o contro l any unmodifie d unit s under a PA L i s a major commitmen tt o addres s issue s outsid e th e scop e o f th e conventiona l NS Ran d woul d resul ti n a PA L polic y matwoul d b e unattractiv e t o man y member s ofth e industria l sector . A s a result , instea d o f gettin g th e majo r unit s o n a schedul e for control , partie s with suc h exisun g units woul d b e reluctantt o utili2 e th e PA L policy . Consequently , non e o f

thes e adde

d benefit s ol'PAL s woul d b e realized .

-o r • si;?>.i« . «•«••: • u i 

# 30P.3 0 ««,.-..-. . ..;«.ar c rrom - , T . 2B 7 p.04/0 4 F-13 1 Page s HOGA N * HARTSO M L1.P . J . Ssitz '

- Juae 16 . 199 9 4 . Goo d Technolog y Detfrmination s an d Relianc e o n Stat

e NS RProgram s - Bot h STAPPA an d ALAPC O an

d th e Industr

y Grou p ar e confidentmatstat

e an d loca l agencie s ar

e capabl e o f carryin g ou tth e "goo d technology " determination s calle d for i n th e Industr y Issu e Paper . I n addition , th e "goo d technology " determination s matmay b e associate d wit h th e settin g ofth e initial PA L leve l an

d th e scop e ofth e control o f existin g majo r unit s ove r th e firs tte n year s ofth e PA L wil l b e subjectt o a n EP A an d publi c secto r ful l forma l commen tprocess . Onc e the P A L i s operational , th e stat e an d local authorit

y wil l insure goo d technolog y us e through th e availabl e state/loca l NSR , whic h wil l b e exercise d a tth e tim e o f

a chang e o r through advance d revie w an

d approva

l o f sprciio : -.ypes o f

changes . However , w e both understand tha tsom e partie s ar

e conceme d tha

ta fe w stat

e and loca l ai r agencie s ma y no thav e a technolog y revie w builtinto thei r NS Rprogram . We fee l tha ti f th e situatio n wer e t o arise , the technolog y revie w aspects o f th e PA L coul d b e buil tinto th e permi titsel f an d tha tth e mechanis m woul d b e subjectto EP A an d publi c revie w a

tth e tim e th e PA L i s initiall y proposed . A s yo u ca n se e from thi s relativel y shor tlis tw e fee l tha

tmos tofth e concern s registere d i n th e STAPP A an

d ALAPC O lene r t o yo u hav e bee n addresse d i s ou r Ma y 1 7 issu e pape r revision s an d tha ta tthi s poin tw e have a shor tlis to f area s o f divergence . I n their lette r to you , STAPP A an d A l APC O als o indicate d tha tsom e issue s with PAL S ha d no t bee n 2ddresse d b y ou

r issu e paper . I

ti s our understandin g tha tthi s wa s a referenc e t o issue s surface d in the previou s EP

A documents an

d tha tthe y fee l th e Ma

y 1 7 pape r addresse d th e issue s fundamenta

l t o PA L policy . W e have tw o closin g comments . First , w c canno tan d d o no twis h t o spea k fo r STAPP A and ALAPCO . We did , however , wan tto sharf c with yo u ou r vie w ofth e recen texchange , a s w e kno w yo u ar

e o n a ugh tschedule . We expec tyo u wil l hea r directl y from STAPP A an d ALAPCO . Second , ou

r pape r an d STAPP A an

d ALAPCO' S comment s ar e focuse d o n on e proposed approac

h t o PALS . A S w e stated earlier , th e workability o f a PA L polic y mus tconside r al l aspects ofth e polic y in the aggregate . Therefore , w e ask tha tth e position s w c hav e take n i n ou r issu e pape

r notb e taken ou

to f contex tan

d i f th e agenc y o r othe r partie s com e u p with othe r fundamenta

l approache s t o PAL , W

C woul d lik e a

n opportunit

y t o participate i n thei r asscssmem . Sincerely , >

. Patric k M . Rahe r For . DiamlerChrysle r Corporatio n Merck & Co. , Inc . DuPon t * Inte

l Corporatio n El i Lill y an

d Compan y cc : William Becke r

'•w i . J»J " , e • ot««k2 i Ot 

# 3P.3 1
neieive u M

U y i u 3^5 i i . ivui " 

## HOGA N &HABJSO

N LLP.
COLUkUUSULiA U 

### KA1CI1C.IA1I

U mimnivn.mm.K V felTNItWASHINGTON . D C MOM-U W »AX90DUW1 0 

### Ma y 18.189 9

BY TELECOPY Joh n Seit z Environmental Protectio n Agenc y Offic e o f Ai ? Qualit

y Plannin g an

d Standard s Research Triangl e Park, N C 2771 1

Re ; NSR/PA L Concept s Dea r Mr. Seitz :

O n behalf o f DaimlerChryeler Corporation, Inte l Corporation , El i Lill y an d Company , Merc

k & Co. , Inc. , an d DuPont, I a m writin g t o expres s th e Companies ' appreciatio n fo r th e tim e you and EP

A staf f too k o n Ma y 7,1999 , t o meetan d discus s th e experience and recommendations of thes e Companies regardin g th e developmento f th e PA L provision s i n th e upcoming NS Rrules . Thi s lette r include s a n attachmen ttha ti s a revisio n ofth e concep tpape r w e discusse d o n Ma y 7th . A s th e Companie

s indicate d during th e meeting , thi s concep tpape r i s baae d o n th e experience s of

companie s tha thav e developed and complied wit h PA L permit * a tvariou s type s o

f manufacturin g operations an d i n variou s states . Th e Ma y 7 concep tpape r als o included several significantregulator y aspects tha twer e requeste d b

y stat e an d loca l agenc y representative s wh o wor k wit h STAPPA/ALAPCO and hav e bee n workin g with th e companies .

Followin g th e Ma

y 7 meeting , th e Companies considered commence provide d b y a representativ e o

f NRD C a s wel l a s th e issue s raise d by yo u an d EP A staff . Thi s le d t

o change s i n th e Ma

y 7 conceptpaper . Thes e changes , whic h th e Companies believ e representpractica l issue s tha tshoul d be addressed , hav e bee n incorporate

d i n th e attache d revise d conceptpaper . W e woul d appreciat

e you r reviewin g thi s paper and distributin g i tt o th e EP A personne l tha twere a tth e Ma y 7 meeting .

taUUZU KIWH I IOWDO W UOtCOrV

fiUt * 1*4413 * WIM f ^yaiymifiFWRtXi 0 * u > * u > o *•*•* - ••»••.« • **•<*««*•.« . ««**.< * wm m uxroifc w 

### Receive d May-18-9 9 11:23a m *^_~2__, Um



### * * AEM S pa9 e 3P.3 2



### HOGANiHAKTSO

N LL B John Seit z Ma y 18.199 9 Page 2 A s th e Companie s indicte d i n th e meeting , the y ar e continuin g t o consider PA

L implementatio n issue s a s they ar e broughtto th e Companies ' attentio n and w

e will share ou

r thought * wit

h yo u fo r inclusio n i n th e docketan d th e fina l NS Rrule . In addition , i f yo u o ryou r staf f hav e any clarifyin g question s o r woul d lik e th e Companie

s to consider other issues , pleas e d o no thesitat e t o contac t us . Bes tregards , Sincerely ,
PatrickM.Rahe r * T J 

### '''fe"* J
cc : Jacquelin e Savag e Joh n Holme s Stev e Harper Juli e Hatcher/Bill Wehnu n Berni e Pau l Mik e Babo s Tod d Hyde Doroth y Bower s Barbar a Bankof f Jodi e Miner Pau l Jan n

\\\oc.M»?Mo.osire4fce t 

# 23P.33

S»n t byiPECI S H«3-J8-9 9 62133 m fro n 7035244854*919541550 9 P»9 » Receive d May-i8-9 9 11:23a m fro m + • * AEM S pag e a
Revise d Draf t Issu e Paper Ma y 17,190 9 INTRODUCTIO N T O TH E INDUSTR Y GROU P PA L PAPER : "Outlin e fo r a Regulatory Structur e fo r PA L Permits " Th e concep t o

f a "Plantwid e Applicability limit ' o r PA L a s a mean a of determinin g Federa l NS R applicability wa s introduce d b y EP A i n th e earl y 1960 a a s a mean s of reducin g th e administrativ e burde n o f NS R whil e retainin g It s environmenta l benefits . O n e pilo t basis , severa l PA L permit s wer e successfull y negotiate d an d established . Th e PA L concep t ha s bee n a componen t of EPA' s NS R refor m package , presente d i n th e Federa l Registe r i n 199 9 an d mor e recentl y i n a 199 8 notice . Individua l companie s wit h direc t experienc e wit h PA L permlt a continu e t o believ e tha t PAL s ar e a ver y effectiv e too l fo r NS R refor m but the y ar a concerne d tha t EP A ma y adop t a policy tha t wil l mak e PAL s unattractiv e an d ineffectiv e i n moat instances . Th e attache d outlin e describe s e PA L regulator y structure , whic h mak e PAL s attractiv e an d effectiv e permittin g tools , fo r aFegencles , communities , an d industry . Thi s documen t ha s bee n prepare d jointl y b y th e representative s o f fiv e manufacturin g firms : DaimlerChrysler , D u Pont , El i Lilly . Inte l an d Merck . Th e PA L structur e presente d i n thi s pape r i e a n integrate d approac h that , compare d wit h traditional " NSR , provide s equivalen t o r bette r environmenta l protection . A combinatio n of ai r qualit y analysi s an d performanc e commitment s ensures goo d overal l environmenta l performance . Th e PA L regulatory structur e presente d i n th e attache d documen t i s designe d t o achiev e eigh t basi c goals : 1 . Avoi d an y advers e ai r qualit y impact s du e t o change s a t a facilit y covere d b y a PAL . 2 . Insur e tha t newmajo r unit s ar e wel l controlle d and , unde r certai n circumstances , plac e existin g majo r unit s o n a schedul e to hav e thei r control s upgraded . 3 . Creat e a brigh t lin e fo r determinin g Federa l NSR/PS D applicabilit y 4 . Insur e tha t th e authorit y o f stat e an d loca l agencie s t o implemen t contro l measure s an d conduc t stat e leve l preconstructio n review s i s preserved , whil e encouragin g th e streamlinin g o f thei r revie wprocess . 6 . Avoi d delay s I n equipmen t an d operatin g change s du e t o th e permittin g process . 6 . Eliminat e th e disincentiv e fo r pollutio n preventio n tha t exist s wit h th e curren t Federa l NS R provision s 7 . Minimiz e th e administrativ e burde n o f permittin g 8 . Assur e tha t a workabl e an d streamline d approac h t o NSR/PS D applicabilit y i s availabl e fo r Industrie s tha t ar e characterize d by th e nee d fo r rapi d an d frequen t change .

VtVb C • >K-T/I * • erTt«M« l 

# SA-

## G l Rtvto d Draf

t Isau t Paper Ma y 17,199 9
OUTLIN E FO R A REGULATOR Y STRUCTUR E FO R PA L PERMIT S

Plantwid e Applicabilit

y Limit s o r PAL s ar e optiona l mechanism s t o determin e Federa l NS R applicability , f t i s importan t t o note tha t jus t a s th e ai r permit s fo r tw o operation s i n th e sam e industr y secto r may vary today , an d ai r permit s fo r two operation s i n differen t sectors ar e likel y t o var y today , th e provision s o f futur e PAL s must als o b e allowe d t o var y dependin g o n th e typ e of operatio n regulated . Th e ke y t o providin g flexibilit y i n a PA L is , therefore , t o recogniz e tha t "on e aiz e doe s not fi t all. " Eac h PA L must b e designe d recognizin g th e specifi c relevan t plan t operationa l factors . A PA L mus t be enforceable , consisten t wit h othe r ai r regulatory programs , an d subject t o publi c reviewan d commen t a t th e tim e I t l a created , suc h a s throug h a Titl e V permi t review . Accordingly , thi s outlin e set s fort h concept s that ar e mean t t o addres s thes e issue s a s wel l a s provid e NS R reform . PA L Coverag e A facilit y ca n hev e a PA L fo r on e o r mor e criteri a pollutant s an d fo r al l o r certai n specifie d source s a t th e site . A t th e request ofth e applican t an d th e approva l o f th e permittin g authority , th e PA L ca n b e set t o exclud e certai n mino r source s (suc h a s VOC s fro m fue l combustion ) o r a separat e par t ofth e facilit

y If th e tw o operation s ar e clearl y distinc t en d th e sam e manufacturin g activitie s ar e no t an d wil l no t b e carrie d ou t a t part s covere d an d uncovere d b y th e PAL . PA L Enforceability A PA L permi t shal l includ e term s tha t ensure th e PA L amission s limi t i a practicall y enforceable . Th e permi t shal l Includ e term s providin g fo r replicabl e procedure s t o quantif y amission s occurrin g unde r th e PAL . Initia l Leve l of th e PA L A t th e choic e ofth e PA L applican t th e PA L leve l wil l b e base d o n on e ofth e following : 1 . Recen t actua l emission s plu s a n "insignificant " increas e (I.e . 3 9 ton s pe r yea r i n a n are a wher e th e significanc e threshol d i s 4 0 ton s pe r year) . ^Recen t actua l emission s wil l b e determine d o n th e sam e basi B a s i s don e unde r th e definition s i n th e NS R rules .

\voc-ttjrvic.t>i?;w.g i 

# 1 Receive d May-16-9 9 11:23a m fro m + - » AEM S Pag e 6 B I 

# 3 5

# B /. Rsviaa d Draf t Issu e Paper Ma y 17,199 9 2 . Emission s level s highe r tha n recen t pas t actua l emission s i n thre e circumstances: . • I n th e eas e o f a greenfiel d facility wher e th e ne wfacility ha s satisfie d tn e applicabl e stat e an q Federa l NS R requirements , an d th e facilit y ha s no t reache d ful l capacity . Th e PA L i s se t o n th e basi s o f th e NS R review. Performanc e Hmit s reflectin g th e BACT , LAE R an d Stat e NS R determination s o r goo d contro l technolog y ar a retained . • I n th e cas e o f a facilit y wher e a n extensiv e revam p o r expansio n (whic h i s wel l define d an d embodie s goo d contro l technolog y o n el l th e new eouroes ) ha s bee n reviewe d an d epprove d consisten t wit h applicabl e state/Federa l NS R requirements , an d recen t aclua l emission s ar e lowe r tha n th e level s considere d i n th e NS R approva l o f th e expansio n o r revamp . Th a PA L ma y b e base d o n recen t actual s plu s a n incremen t t o accommodat e th e approve d growt h o r change . • I n th e cas e wher e th e applican t ca n demonstrat e tha t recen t actua l emission s plu s a n insignifican t increas e i s no t adequat e t o operat e th e existin g equipmen t a t KB ful l capacity . Th e PA L mus t b e base d o n BAC T o r LAE R determination s i n th e previou s fiv e year s (s o lon g a s th e permittin g authority determine s tha t th e leve l of goo d contro l ha s no t advance d significantl y sinc e th e determinations ) o r base d o n e goo d contro l determinatio n (suc h a s a stat e NS R "bes t availabl e technology " review ) mad e a t th e tim e th e PA L i s set . I n thes e thre e circumstances , th a PA L leve l shal l no t excee d th a level s permissibl e unde r existin g ruie s an d curren t permit s o r ne wsourc e review s carrie d ou t e t th e tim e th e PA L i s set . Th e leve l ofth e PA L shal l reflec t th e performanc e requirement s o f applicabl e BACT , LAE R o r stat e NS R "goo d technology " determinations . Th e permittin g authorit y shoul d m requir e a n ai r qualit y impac t analysi s f f th e us e ofth e emission s abov e recen t actual s coul d resul t i n a significan t Increas e i n emission s an d th e ai r qualit y Implication s hav e neve r bee n analyzed . PA L Adjustment s PA L emission s limitation s wil l b e reduce d unde r th e followin g thre e circumstances : 1 . T o adjus t fo r an y significan t erro r i n th e settin g o f a PA L emission s limi t 2 , T o reflec t th e effec t o f a ne wapplicabl e requiremen t tha t applie s t o source s covere d b y th e PA L an d tha t expressl y require s a reductio n i n th e emission s ofth e criteri a pollutan t i n question . Th e reductio n wil l occu r I n th e yea r i n whic h th e rul e reductio n requirement s g o int o effect . Th e reductio n i n th e PA L leve l wil l reflec t th e impac t th e rul e woul d hav e ha d o n th e facility' s aotua l emissions , o n average , I n th e tw o year s prio r t o th e

V» C • M)11'l « - 0477*44.4 1 

# 2(-yP.3 6 Stn V b*«RE,M S H«*-18-9 9 82i35rf l fro « ?B35244854»91954155B 9 *•«> • 3 / 5 .Receive d Uay-18-9 9 11:23a m fro m • • AEM S pag e 7
Revise d Draf t Issu e Pape r Ms y 17,199 6 yea r th a reductio n i s due . Reduction s require d b y "MACT ' standard s establishe d unde r I 11 2 o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t wil l no t requir e a reductio n i n PA L emission s limitation s applicabl e t o source s affecte d b y suc h MAC T standard s unles s th e SI P include s a regulatio n requirin g th e associate d criteri a pollutan t reductions . 3 . I n th e cas e wher e th e PA L cover s a uni t wit h emission s tha t ar e ove r 10 0 tons/yea r o r th e majo r sourc e threshol d fo r th e are a (whicheve r l a lower ) fo r th e PA L pollutant , an d tha t uni t ha s neve r bee n throug h a Federa l o r etet e NS R technolog y review , th e permittin g euthorit y wil l hav e authorit y i n additio n t o an y curren t authorit y t o requir e tha t th e uni t b e place d o n a m schedul e fo r contro l technolog y upgrad e t o curren t bes t availabl e technolog y performanc e level s ove r th e first te n year s ofth e PA L permi t bein g i n place . Th a PA L limi t woul d b e reduce d b y th e amoun t reflectiv e o f th e Impac t o f tha t upgrad e o n actua l emissions .

W&C.M1M«>in»tt.0 l 

# 31P.3 7 S.n t byiPEPI S H«*-18-9 9 82l35r n fro n 7835244854*919541558 9 **9 » ,4/ 5 Receive d May-18-9 9 11:23a m fro m +- » AEM S page 8
Revise d Draf t Issus Paper Ms y 17.199 9 Flexibility Unde r a PA L Unde r e PAL , th e sourc e wil l no t trigge r Federa l NS R e o lon g a s th e PA L leve l I s not exceeded . Federa l NS R applicabilit y wil l b e determine d solel y b y conformanc e wit h th e PA L level . A newuni t whic h i a ove r 10 0 tons/yea r o r th e majo r sourc e threshol d fo r th e are a (whicheve r I s lower) fo r th e PA L pollutan t canno t b e adde d unde r th e PA L unles s i t meet s BAC T bu t constructio n ma y begi n befor e th e BAC T determinatio n i a complete d a o lon g a s constructio n doe a not begi n o n thos e aspect s ofth e uni t whic h limi t th e choic e o f th e appropriat e contro l metho d o r level . PA L permit s wil l b e use d wheneve r possibl e t o streamlin e stat e NS R an d amendment s t o Titl e V operatin g permits . Th e creatio n o f a PA L permi t doe s no t affec t th e authorit

y ofth e state/loca l permittin g agenc y t o conduc t stat e NS R reviews , however , state s wil l b e encourage d t o provid e advance d approva l unde r thei r mino r NS R program s fo r commo n type s o f change s fo r th e source s covere d b

y th e PAL , fo r an y newunit s wit h emission s tha t ar e no t "significant " a s th e ter m i a define d fo r NSR/PS D purposes . Suc h advance d approve d ectivitie s unde r th e stat e NS R progra m wil l no t requir e a revisio n t o th e Titl e V permi t prio r t o constructio n o r operatio n o f th e chenge e bu t recordkeepin g fo r suc h changes , a s appropriate , wil l b a require d an d notificatio n fo r certai n change s ma y b a required . I n addition , th e permittin g authorit y an d th e permi t applican t wil l b e encourage d t o atreamlin e th e limit s i n existin g permit s a s they ar e transferre d to th e PA L permit . Pas t LAE R an d BAC T determination s ar e retaine d an d canno t b e relaxed . Expandin g th e PA L Leve l A PA L leve l ca n b e Increase d by takin g th e chang e tha t l a associate d wit h th e nee d fo r th e Increas e throug h th e applicabl e Federa l NS R process . T o expen d th e PAL , ai l majo r unit s covere d b y th e PA L must hav e goo d control s o r b e o n a n enforceabl e schedul e t o hav e goo d control s o r shutdow n withi n fiv e years . N o us e o f exclusion s o r nettin g wil l b e allowed . Th e determinatio n ofth e uni t o r unit s tha t wil l require BACT , o r LAE R an d offsets wil l b e b y th e sam e mechanle m used^ n conventiona l NS R whe n makin g suc h a determination . PA L Terminatio n A PA L an d Its emission s Hmit s wil l b e se t fo r a perio d ofte n yeara . A t th e discretio n o f th e permittin g authority , selec t provisions , suc h a s th e provision s coverin g advance d approval s unde r th e stat e mino r NS R coul d b e reviewe d every five years . Durin g th e te n years , th e PA L ca n b e terminate d a t th e reques t o f th e PA L sourc e owne r wit h th e approva l ofth e permittin g authorit y an d th e completio n of a n ai r qualit y anatyai e t

o indicate th e impaot o f th e terminatio n of

WJI C • Simla . MT7664.0 : 

# 2>SP.3 8
Sfe t bxiPEii S Wevve d May-16-9 9 tl: 2 3 an , M«*-18-9 9 82i36r n fro n 7835244854*919541558 9 fro m + •

» AIEM S ra9 * 5 / 5

pag e 9
Revise d Dmf t Issu e Pspe r 

### ? r £a^ ^ - J J i n th e PAL . In pe^pJ^U" " Incorporate

d int o th . .tat l w r^na»^ ,t,0n 

### I , 

### , w,l , 

### * ^' ^ « * o f th e te n year s approac h J .S^^^TM" f o r 

### ^ *•*«* •* th e en d perio d ca n b e approved ^^SSSS^ rftque,ta d ,r 

### * TM*n ten-yea r reevaluated . Wmeendoftne20 

### y«»»,thePALmustb e

^ r v\«c.M»?'i«.om<«.o i 

# <3< 7