p.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

109) IV-C-23 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 109 of 142 
p? 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

AUG 1 2 1999 

ET-c-23 

( 

FEB 2 5 2000 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Ms. Leslie Ritts 

Hogan & Hartson, L.L.P. 

Columbia Square 

555 Thirteenth Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20004-1109 

Dear Ms. Ritts: 

Thank you for the proposal dated May 11,1999 and entitled " NSR Approach for 

Complex Manufacturing" (the Proposal). The EPA appreciates the time and effort that you and 

your colleagues have spent in thinking through the issues and in developing an altemative 

proposal for EPA to consider. 

We look forward to meeting with you and the other representatives of the complex 

manufacturing sector to continue our discussions on August 18 in Durham. At this meeting we 

intend to focus our discussions on your views as to the environmental benefit of your proposal so 

that we can better evaluate it 

To ensure that we use the time productively, the attachment lists some clarifying 

questions concerning the May 12,1999 memorandum: The responses to the questions will 

facilitate discussions at our August 18 meeting and ensure that both the stakeholders and EPA 

have an opportunity to share relevant infonnation concerning the Proposal. The responses will 

be evaluated and considered as we finalize the requirements of the NSR program. You will 

observe that although the Proposal lists issue areas regarding Title V operating permits and 

EPA's procedures for issuing guidance, the clarifying questions that are listed in the attachment 

pertain only to the aspects of the Proposal that relate more specifically to the NSR program. Our 

thought is that focussing on the issues more specific to the NSR program will be most useful in 

terms of the time we have for the meeting as we move toward completion of the NSR Reform 

rulemaking effort. 

( 

c ^.^uA^lWv*c'as^&~ l U,U-Co«vD, i w co~J> (OP*<Z> 

CONCURRENCES 3E 

SYMBOL k 

SURNAME 

ERF\ Form 1320-1A (1/90) Printed at Recycled Paper I OFFICIAL FILE COPY 
P.3 

, - ,.^-m | ,. ,*. i| fit m*l 

If you have any questions concerning the attached requests, please contact Karen 

Blanchard at (919) 541-5503 or Dennis Crankier at (919) 541-0871. 

Sincerely, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED 

BY 

IHENRYfcTHOMASJR. 

Director 

Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 

cc: John Paul 

Bill Becker 

Bill O'Sullivan 

bcc: K. Blanchard 

H5. Crumpler 

J. Devine 

C. Holmes 

A. Wood 

W. Harnett 

EPA: OAQPAS:ITPID:IIG:Dennis Crumpler/Karen Blanchard: 919-541-

5503:NCMU:MD-12:8/B2/99 

File: f:/jheilig/iig/rittsred.wpd 

z 
P.4 

Attachment 

Questions Concerning the Complex Manufacturer's Proposal 

Please note that the following questions and requests for additional information follow 

the order of the proposal dated May 11,1999 and entitled "NSR Approach for Complex 

Manufacturing" (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposal"). 

I. No Netting Out of Control Technology for New Units: 

1. The Proposal suggests that new units with a PTE in excess of 100 tons per year (tpy) 

install BACT or LAER (as appropriate) and new units with a PTE in excess of EPA's 

defined "significance" levels would install State controls. 

a. Under the Proposal, for certain nonattainment areas (e.g., serious ozone 

nonattainment areas) are the smaller major source thresholds (MST) applicable in 

lieu of the 100 tpy threshold? 

b. For a typical complex manufacturing facility, please provide the following 

information: 

i. an estimate of how many 100 tpy emissions units (or other applicable 

MSTs) are added to a typical complex manufacturing facility each year; 

ii. an estimate of how many emissions units are added each year that are 

between significant and 100 tpy size; 

iii. an estimate of how many emissions units are added each year that are less 

than significant; and, 

iv. any available information concerning items i through iii for existing 

complex manufacturing sources. 

2. Under the Proposal please clarify whether the addition of a new 100 tpy emission unit at 

an existing minor source would be subject to Federal NSR? Would such new unit be 

subject to State minor NSR? 

3. Under the Proposal please clarify whether a source can accept a PTE limit on an 

emissions unit to avoid being subject to NSR. 

4. Under the Proposal, please clarify whether a source would retain any limits taken under 

52.21(r)(4) so that if a such limit were lifted NSR would then be triggered for that unit. 

3 
P.5 

n 

5. The Proposal relies heavily on the State's application of minor NSR to all new units 

emitting above significance levels but below 100 tpy size. 

a. State minor NSR technology requirements vary. Some States may require no 

controls for some sources while other States require stringent controls for similar 

types of sources. How can EPA be assured that all emissions units between 

significant and 100 tpy get gopd technology? 

b. Given the concern stated above in subsection a, please clarify what is meant in the 

Proposal that EPA should not be able to object to State minor NSR decisions? 

For example, does this mean that EPA could not object as part of the State minor 

NSR decision, under Title V or both? Does the Proposal advocate absolute State 

discretion that is not subject to challenge by EPA or citizens under any 

circumstances? 

6. Under the Proposal, how would the control of multiple emissions units, each with an 

insignificant PTE be handled? For example, if a source adds three new NOx or VOC 

units with 39 tpy each, which would ordinarily be aggregated and subject to BACT under 

major NSR, how would the Proposal ensure equivalent environmental protection? 

i 

7. How could EPA prevent backsliding for those States with more stringent minor source 

programs than the program provided for in the Proposal (e.g., BAT for emissions units 

less than significant)? 

II. New Accounting Rules for Changes to Existing TJnits 

8. Please elaborate and provide examples of "achievable" hourly emissions rates. How 

would such rates be verified for purposes of enforceability? 

9. What provisions are suggested to define reconstruction as a backstop measure? The 

WEPCO case illustrated that large emissions increases could occur with investments 

much less than 50% of the current capital cost of a new unit. Under the Proposal how 

could substantial emissions increases be prevented given the non-aggregation provisions? 

10. Please clarify whether under the Proposal the existing exemptions (e.g., alternative fuel, 

routine maintenance) for NSR are retained? 

11. If the answer to the preceding question is yes, does your stakeholder group support 

further defining these exemptions as part of NSR reform? If not, please describe any 

actions that you would support to provide certainty for sources that wish to take 

advantage of these exemptions. 

12. The Proposal advocates the use ofa potential-to-potential test based on an hourly 

emissions rate. 

a. If such an applicability test is acceptable, is it necessary to retain the existing NSR 

4-
P.6 

exemptions and de mimmis levels? If yes, please explain your supporting 

reasons. 

b. Please provide examples of the kinds of "routine maintenance" etc. that could 

increase the potential hourly emissions rate ofa unit. 

c. If EPA were to adopt such a PTE-based test, should States be required to base 

their SIP attainment planning on a source's PTE? 

d. Please address the concerns EPA raised about a PTE-based system in the 1996 

proposal [e.g., 61 Fed. Reg. 38,268-70]. 

13. Please address the following debottlenecking concerns . 

a. Under the Proposal, if an existing unit is debottlenecked, increasing the unit's 

hourly emissions rate, would NSR apply to the debottlenecked unit? 

b. What if the unit's hourly emissions rate remained unchanged, but its annual 

emissions increased? Would NSR apply under these circumstances and would the 

answer differ if the unit originally avoided NSR due to the bottleneck? 

c How would the following scenario be addressed under the Proposal: Could a 

source (1) build an oversized unit (Unit A), (2) argue that Unit A is a natural 

"minor" (e.g., below 100 tpy) unit due to bottlenecks at the plant (thereby 

avoiding NSR at Unit A), and (3) then remove the bottleneck (which may not 

even be an emitting unit), rendering Unit A "major" unit that is not new at that 

time, so Unit A would not be subject to NSR? An example could be a large boiler 

bottlenecked by the size of the turbine. 

d. On what basis does the Proposal allow a source to disregard emissions increases 

at other units that result from a particular physical or operational change? 

14. If under the Proposal the debottlenecking of emissions from existing units is not 

considered, there are no de mimmis levels, a potential-to-potential test is applicable, and 

existing NSR exemptions remain available, what modifications at existing units would 

trigger NSR under tiie Proposal? 

Miscellaneous: 

15. Should EPA reconsider the requirement for setting the minor source baseline date for 

PSD increment consumption, since the non-aggregation policy would allow more minor 

source emissions to occur before the date will be set under cunent rules? 

16. How can EPA ensure that state of the art control technologies are entered into the RBLC? 

b 
P.7 

-> 

.( 

16. How can EPA ensure that state of the art control technologies are entered into the RBLC? 

Is there a way to record superior technologies that are installed to keep a source minor? 

How should EPA consider superior technologies that are commercially available, but not 

yet in use at a facility, in part because it is not yet in the RBLC? 

17. In defining State minor NSR controls, what measures, if any, should EPA take to promote 

national consistency? 

18. Please clarify what is meant by the statement that the rules not be applied "to overstate 

emissions increases at batch processors or flexible manufacturing operations." 

19. Section VI of the memorandum suggests that EPA authorize PALs in the NSR 

regulations. Would sources with PALs that could accommodate new units still have to 

put "major" ones through a BACT or LAER process and "significant" ones through State 

minor source review? 

\o