p. 1 

# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 109 ) IV-C-2

3 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:23 AM Sheet 109of 142p ?

UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y

AU G 1 2 199 9 

# ET-c-2 3

( 

### FE B 2 5 200 0 EP A AI R DOCKE T Ms . Lesli e Ritt s Hoga n & Hartson , L.L.P . Columbi aSquar

e 55 5 Thirteent

h Street , N.W . Washington , D.C . 20004-110 9 Dea r Ms . Ritts : Than k you fo r th e proposa

l date d Ma y 11,199 9 an

d entitle d " NS RApproach fo r Comple x Manufacturing " (th e Proposal) . Th e EP A appreciate s th e tim e and effor t tha t yo u an d you r colleague s hav e spen

t i n thinkin g through th e issue s an d in developin g a

n altemativ e proposa l fo r EP A t o consider . W e loo k forwar d to meetin g wit

h yo u an d th e othe r representative s o f

th e comple

x manufacturing sector

t o continu e ou

r discussion s o n Augus t

1 8 i n Durham . A

t thi s meetin g w e intend t o focu s ou r discussion s o n you

r view s a s t o th e environmenta l benefi t o f you r proposa l s o tha t w e ca n better evaluat e i t To ensur e tha t w e us e th e time productively , th e attachmen t list s som e clarifying question s concernin g th e Ma y 12,199 9 memorandum : The response s t o th e question s wil l facilitat e discussion s a

t ou r Augus t 1 8 meeting an

d ensur e tha t bot h th e stakeholder s an

d EP A have a n opportunit

y t o shar e relevan t infonnatio n concerning th e Proposal . Th e response s wil l b e evaluated an

d considere d a s w e finalize th e requirement s o f th e NS Rprogram . Yo

u wil l observe tha

t although th e Proposa

l list s issu e area s regardin g Titl e V operatin g permit s an d EPA' s procedure s fo

r issuin g guidance , th e clarifying question s tha t ar e liste d in th e attachmen

t pertai n onl y t o th e aspect s o f

th e Proposa

l tha t relate mor e specifically to th e NS Rprogram . Ou r though t i s tha t focussing o n th e issue s mor e specifi c t o th e NS Rprogra mwil l b e mos t

usefu l in term s of th e time w e hav e fo

r th e meetin g a s w e mov e towar d completio n o f

th e NS RRefor

m rulemaking effort .

( c 

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

# 3 E SYMBO L k SURNAM E ERF \ For m 1320-1 A (1/90 ) Printed at Recycled PaperI OFFICIA L FIL E COP YP. 3 , - ,.^-m

| , . ,* . i | fi t m* l

I f yo u hav e an y question s concernin g th e attache d requests , pleas e contac t Kare n Blanchar d a t (919 ) 541-550 3 or

Denni s Crankie r

a t (919 ) 541-0871 . Sincerely , 

### ORIGINA L SIGNE D B Y IHENRYfcTHOMASJR . Directo r Office o f Air Qualit y Plannin g and Standard s

cc : Joh

n Paul Bil l Becke r Bil l O'Sullivan bcc : K . Blanchar

d H5 . Crumple r J . Devin e C . Holme s A . Wood W . Harnet t EPA : OAQPAS:ITPID:IIG:Denni s Crumpler/Karen Blanchard : 919-541 - 5503:NCMU:MD-12:8/B2/9 9 File : f:/jheilig/iig/rittsred.wp d



# zP. 4

Attachment Question s Concernin g th e Comple x Manufacturer' s Proposa l Pleas e note tha

t th e following question s and request s fo r additiona l informatio n follow th e orde r o f th e proposa

l date d Ma y 11,199 9 an

d entitle d "NS RApproach fo r Comple x Manufacturing " (hereinafte r referred t o a s th e "Proposal") . I . N o Nettin g Ou t

o f Contro l Technolog y for

New Units : 1 . The Proposa

l suggest s tha

t new unit s wit

h aPT E i n exces s o f

10 0 ton s per yea r (tpy ) instal l BAC T or

LAE R(a s appropriate ) and ne w unit s wit h aPT E i n exces s o f

EPA' s defined "significance " level s woul d instal l Stat e controls . a . Unde

r th e Proposal , fo

r certai n nonattainmen

t area s (e.g. , seriou s ozone nonattainmen

t areas ) ar e th e smalle

r majo r sourc e threshold s (MST ) applicabl e i n lie u o f th e 10 0 tp y threshold ? b . For

atypica l comple x manufacturing facility , pleas e provide th e following information : i . a n estimat e o f ho w many 10

0 tp y emission s unit s (or

other applicabl e MSTs ) ar e added t o atypica

l complex manufacturing facilit y each year ; ii . a n estimat e o f ho w many emission s unit s ar e added eac h yea

r tha t are betwee n significan

t an d 10 0 tp y size ; iii . a n estimat e o f ho w man y emission s unit s ar

e added eac h yea

r tha t ar e les s tha n significant ; and , iv . an y availabl e information concernin g item s i through ii i fo r existin g comple x manufacturing sources . 2 . Unde

r th e Proposa

l pleas e clarif

y whethe r th e additio n o f

ane w 10 0 tp y emissio n uni t

a t a n existin g minor

sourc e woul d b e subject

t o Federa l NSR ? Would suc h new uni t b e subject to Stat e mino r NSR ? 3 . Unde

r th e Proposa

l pleas e clarif

y whethe r asourc e ca

n accept aPT E limi t o n a n emission s uni t

t o avoi d bein g subject

t o NSR . 4 . Unde

r th e Proposal , pleas e clarif

y whethe r asourc e woul d retai n an

y limit s taken unde

r 52.21(r)(4 ) s o tha

t i f asuch limi t

wer e lifted NS Rwoul d the

n b e triggere d fo

r tha t unit . 

# 3P. 5 n

5 . Th e Proposa

l relie s heavily on th e State' s applicatio n o f mino r NS Rt o al l ne w unit s emittin g abov e significanc e level s but belo w 10 0 tp y size . a . Stat

e mino r NS Rtechnolog y requirement s vary . Som e State s ma

y require n o control s fo r som e source s whil e other

State s requir

e stringent control s fo

r simila r type s o f sources . How ca

n EP A b e assure d tha

t all emission s unit s betwee n significan t an d 10 0 tp y get gop d technology ? b . Give

n th e concer

n state d abov e i n subsectio n a , pleas e clarif y wha t i s meant i n th e Proposa l tha t EP A shoul d no t

b e abl e t o object

to Stat e mino r NS Rdecisions ? For example , doe s thi s mea

n tha t EP A coul d no t

objec t a s par t o f th e Stat e mino r NS Rdecision , unde

r Titl e V or both ? Doe s th e Proposa

l advocat e absolut e Stat e discretio n tha

t i s no t subject t o challeng e b y EP

A o r citizen s under

an y circumstances ? 6 . Unde

r th e Proposal , ho w woul d th e contro l o f multipl e emission s units , eac h wit h a n insignifican

t PT E b e handled ? For

example , i f

asourc e add s thre e ne w NO x o r VO C unit s wit h 3 9 tp y each , which woul d ordinaril y b e aggregate d and subjec t t o BAC T under majo r NSR , ho w woul d th e Proposa l ensur e equivalen

t environmenta

l protection ? i 7 . Ho w coul d EP

A prevent backslidin g fo

r thos e State s wit

h more stringent

mino r sourc e program s tha

n th e progra

mprovide d fo

r i n th e Proposa

l (e.g. , BA T fo r emission s unit s les s tha n significant) ? II . Ne w Accountin g Rule s for

Change s t o Existin g TJnit s 8 . Pleas e elaborat

e an d provide example s o f

"achievable " hourl y emission s rates . Ho w woul d such rate s b e verifie d fo r purpose s o f

enforceability ? 9 . Wha

t provision s ar

e suggeste d to define reconstructio n a s abacksto p measure ? Th e WEPC O cas e illustrate d tha t larg e emission s increase s coul d occur wit h investment s muc h les s tha n 50 % o f th e curren t capita l cos t o f ane w unit . Unde

r th e Proposa

l ho w coul d substantia

l emission s increase s b e prevente d given th e non-aggregatio n provisions ? 10 . Pleas e clarif

y whethe r unde r th e Proposa

l th e existin g exemption s (e.g. , alternativ e fuel , routin e maintenance ) fo

r NS Rar e retained ? 11 . I f th e answe r t o th e precedin g questio n i s yes , doe s you r stakeholde

r grou p suppor t furthe r defining thes e exemption s a s par t o f NS Rreform ? I f

not , pleas e describ e an

y action s tha t you woul d suppor

t to provid e certaint

y fo r source s tha

t wis h t o tak

e advantag e o f

thes e exemptions . 12 . The Proposa

l advocate s th e us e of apotential-to-potentia l tes t base d o n a

n hourl y emission s rate . a . If such a n applicabilit

y tes t i s acceptable , i s it

necessar y to retai n th e existin g NS R 

# 4 -P. 6

exemption s and d e mimmi s levels ? If yes , pleas e explai n you r

supportin g reasons . b . Pleas e provid e example s o f th e kind s o f

"routin e maintenance " etc . tha t could increas e th e potentia

l hourly emission s rate of aunit . c . I f EP A were t o adopt

such aPTE-base d test , shoul d State s b e require d t o bas e thei r SI P attainmen

t plannin g o n asource' s PTE ? d . Pleas e addres s th e concern s EP A raise d about

aPTE-base d systemi n th e 199 6 proposa l [e.g. , 6 1 Fed . Reg . 38,268-70] . 13 . Pleas e addres s th e following debottleneckin g concern s . a . Unde

r th e Proposal , i f

a n existin g unit

i s debottlenecked , increasin g th e unit' s hourl y emission s rate , woul d NS Rappl y t o th e debottlenecke d unit ? b . Wha

t i f th e unit' s hourly emission s rat e remaine d unchanged , bu t it s annua l emission s increased ? Woul d NS Rappl y unde r thes e circumstance s and woul d th e answe r diffe r i f th e uni t originally avoided NS Rdu e to th e bottleneck ? c How woul d th e following scenari o b e addresse d unde r th e Proposal : Coul d a sourc e (1 ) buil d a

n oversize d unit

(Unit A) , (2 ) argu e tha

t Uni t A i s anatura

l "minor " (e.g. , belo w 10

0 tpy ) unit du e to bottleneck s a

t th e plant (thereb y avoidin g NS Ra

t Unit A) , an d (3 ) then remov e th e bottlenec k (whic h ma

y no t eve n b e a n emittin g unit) , renderin g Uni t A "major " uni t

tha t i s no t new a t tha t time , s o Unit

A woul d no t

b e subject to NSR ? A

n exampl e coul d b e alarg e boile r bottlenecke d b y th e siz e o f th e turbine . d . On wha

t basi s doe s th e Proposa

l allo w asourc e t o disregar d emission s increase s a t othe r unit s tha t result from aparticula

r physica l o r operationa

l change ? 14 . I f unde r th e Proposa

l th e debottleneckin g o f

emission s fromexistin g unit s i s no t considered , ther

e ar e n o de mimmi s levels , apotential-to-potentia l tes t i s applicable , an

d existin g NS Rexemption s remai n available , wha t modification s a

t existin g unit s would trigge r NS Runde

r tiie Proposal ? Miscellaneous : 15 . Should EP

A reconside

r th e requiremen

t fo r settin g th e minor

sourc e baselin e date fo

r PS D incremen

t consumption , sinc e th e non-aggregatio n polic y woul d allo w mor e mino r sourc e emission s to occu

r befor e th e dat e wil l b e se

t unde r cunen t rules ? 16 . How ca

n EP A ensur e tha t stat e o f th e ar t contro l technologie s ar

e entere d int o th e RBLC ? 

# bP. 7 ->

. (

16 . Ho w ca

n EP A ensur e tha t stat e of th e ar t contro l technologie s ar

e entere d int

o th e RBLC ? I s ther e awa y to recor d superior technologie s tha

t ar e installe d t o keep asourc e minor ? Ho w shoul d EP

A conside r superio r technologie s tha

t ar e commercially available , bu t no t ye t i n us e a t afacility , i n par

t becaus e i t i s no t yet i n th e RBLC ? 17 . In defining Stat

e minor NS Rcontrols , wha

t measures , i f

any , shoul d EP

A tak e t o promote nationa l consistency ? 18 . Pleas e clarif

y wha t i s mean t by th e statemen

t tha t th e rule s no t

b e applie d "to overstate emission s increase s a

t batc h processor s or

flexibl e manufacturing operations. " 19 . Sectio n V I o f

th e memorandu

msuggest s tha

t EP A authoriz e PAL s i n th e NS R regulations . Would source s wit h PAL s tha

t coul d accommodat

e ne w unit s stil l hav e t o pu t "major " one s throug h aBACT o r LAE Rproces s an

d "significant " one s throug h Stat e minor sourc e review ?



# \o