p. 1



# OAR Box 1781 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 107 ) IV-C-2 1 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 10/29/200810:46:23 AM Sheet 107 of 142P. 2



### ^ t0S 

### X 9 

# I W

*LPRO ^ 

# 7 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK

. N C 2771 1 

# A-10-3 7 13L---^ I

« B 6 195

9 OFFIC E O F AI R QUALIT Y PLANNIN G AN O STANDARD S


### FE B 2 5 200 0
EP A AI R DOCKE T • Mr. Patric k M . Raher 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 fo r you r lette r dated Jun e 18,1999 , i n whic h yo u provide d comments an d concern s abou

tth e analysi s b y STAPP

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

k & Co. , Inc . an

d Dupon t(PA L Stakeholders ) o n May 17,1999 . The 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 streamlined pat h fo r determinin g major NS Rapplicability . W e appreciat e th e effort

s o f th e PA L Stakeholders t o dat

e an d loo k forwar

d t o continuin g ou r 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 firstfocu s o n th e allowable s base d 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 ) may ask 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 information concernin g th e PA L concep tpaper dated May 17,1999 . Th e response s t o th e question s an d requeste d informatio n wil l facilitate discussion s a tou r 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 shar e 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 a s w e finaliz e th e requirement s fo r a PA L program . Additionally , a cop y o f th e response s wil l b e place d int o th e docke tfo r th e NS Rrefor m rulemaking .

Recycled/Recyclabl e • Printe d wit h Vegetabl e o n Base d Ink s o n 100 % Recycle d Pape r (40 % Postconsurner )P. 3

I f yo u hav e an

y question s concernin g th e attache d requests , pleas e contac tMik e Sewel l a t (919)541-0873 . Sincerely , 

# cLL2if-r(2.

U^-ibYai S . Seit z Directo r Offic e o f Ai r Qualit

y Plannin g an d Standard

s Attachmen

t
cc : William Becke r Joh n Pau l Bil l O'Sulliva nP. 4



### ATTACHMEN T PA L Concep t

Pape r Question s an d Request s fo r Additiona l Information . Pleas e not e tha t th e following question s and request s follo w th e orde r o f issue s addresse d i n the PA L Stakeholder' s concept

pape r date d Ma y 17,199 9 (hereinafte

r referred t o a s th e "PA

L Proposal")
. PA L Proposa l Introduction : 1
. Th e PA L Proposa l introductio n state s tha

t "the PA L structur e presente d i n thi s pape

r i s a n integrate d approach tha

t compared t o "traditional " NSR , provide s equivalen t or better 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 provide example s o f permittin g scenario s tha

t compar e th e PA L Proposa l approach t o traditiona

l NSR , which i n man

y case s result s i n BAC T o r LAE R technology o

n 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 fromexistin g well-controlle d unit s ar e use d t o set

th e PA L and th e actua l emission s i n ton s per

yea r fromth e thes e unit s hav e neve r exceede d 50 % o f

th e allowable's
. 2
. Th e PA L Proposa l state s tha t permittin g unde

r aPA L provide s mor

e incentiv e fo

r pollutio n preventio n tha

n th e curren

t Federa l NS R system
. Ho w i s thi s incentiv e differen t compared to th e curren

t nettin g system ? Doesn' t

eac h syste mrewar d thos e tha

t reduc e emission s by allowin g the mt o offse t ne w increase s an

d avoi d majo

r NSR ? 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 d fromth e PA L unde r th e following circumstances : (1 ) emission s unit s tha t ar e minor (such a s VOC s fromfue

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

e par t o f th e facilit y i f th e tw o operation s ar e clearly distinc t

an d th e sam e manufacturin g activitie s ar e no t and will no t

b e carrie d out

a t part s covered an

d uncovere d by th e PAL . 1
. Pleas e clarif

y whethe r th e PA L Proposa l provide s fo

r mor e tha n on e PAL t o b e establishe d a

t astationar

y sourc e pe

r pollutant
. I f

yes , pleas e explai n wh

y multipl e PA

L ar e neede d a 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 d nee d t o coordinate t o ensur e complianc e wit

h th e PAL , coul d th e sourc e tak e one PA L an d allocat e portion s o f

th e PA L t o it s differen

t operation s fo

r managemen

t purposes ? I f 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 i t harde r t o measur e suc h source s unde

r aPAL ? 

# 3P. 5

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 of a facility ar e sufficientl y distinc tan

d separat e to qualif y fo r 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 . Fo r units outsid e th e PAL , ho w woul d a sourc e measure th e actual s emission s baselin e for nettin g purposes ? Wha tunits 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 :
p 1 . Fo r 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 " a s i n th e curren tNS Rrules . EPA

) 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 facility accoun tfo r a unittha tha s bee n shu

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

l als o indicate s tha

tunde r certai n circumstance s a PA L baselin e may b e based o n allowabl e emissions . Thes e circumstance s include :
a . " A greenfiel d facility 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 facility has no treached ful l capacity . Unde r thes e circumstances , th e PA L i s se to n th e basi s o f th e NS Rreview . Performance 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 meantb y th e sentenc e "th e PA L i s se to n th e basi s o f th e NS R review" , pleas e provid e a simplifie d exampl e (i n writing ) tha treflect s ho w a typical 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 meantb y th e sentenc e "Performanc e limit s reflectin g th e BACT , LAERan d Stat e NS Rdetermination s o f goo d control technolog y ar e retained. " 

# 4 -P. 6

- I f a greenfiel d sourc e i n a

n ozon e attainmen

tare a obtain s a

n allowable s PA L fo r VO C wha tcontro l technolog y requirement s woul d apply to ne w units added unde r th e PA L tha temi t9 9 tp y o r les s o f

VOC ? b . " I n th e cas e of a facility where a n extensiv e revamp o r expansio n (whic h i s wel l defined an

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

d recentactua

l emission s ar e lowe r tha

n th e level s considere d i n th e NS Rapprova l o f th e expansio n o r revamp. Th e PA L ma y b e base d o n recentactual s plu s a n incremen

tt o accommodat

e th e approve d growt

h o r change. "

- T o illustrat

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

treflects ho w each o f

th e emission s unit

s a ta typica l facility whic h underwen t a n extensiv e revamp o r expansio n woul d b e accounte d for an d folde d into a PA L baseline .

- Doe s thi s optio n represen ta 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 tto accommodat

e th e approved growt

h o r change " b e determined ? Woul d th e growt h incremen

tb e th e allowable s fo r th e ne w units ?

c . "I n th e cas e wher e th e applican tca n demonstrat

e tha trecentactua

l emission s plu s a

n insignificantincreas 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 permitting authorit

y determine s tha

tth e leve l o f

goo d control ha s no tadvance d significantl y sinc e th e determinations ) o r base d o n a goo d control 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 each o f

th e emission s unit

s a ta typica l facilit

y tha ti s eligibl e to qualif y fo r 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 fo r an

d folde d into th e PA L baseline .

- Doe s thi s optio n represen ta 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 d o yo u defin e "goo d controls" ? Ca n yo u provid e example s o f th e technolog y tha

t woul d b e minimall y acceptabl e control for som e o f you r more commo n processes ?

- Wha tcriteria , i f

any , shoul d EP

A specif y for Stat e programs to ensure tha

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

any , shoul d EPA hav e t o objec tt o deficien tStat

e determinations ? 

# bP. 7

- Wha tfactors ar

e appropriat

e fo r 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 advance d significantl y sinc e th e initial BAC T o r LAE Rdetermination ? 3 . Pleas e provid e feedbac k o n a n allowable s PA L optio n tha ti s tie d t o a requiremen

ttha t certai n emission s unit

s mus tb e "wel

l controlled" . Fo r a

n allowables-base d PAL , EPA believe s i t ma y 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 type o f

technolog y requirement

. Fo r example , a

n appropriat

e threshol d to require control s i s fo r al l emission s units tha temiti n significan tamount s o r greater of 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 suc h unit s 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 for 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 wit h each o f th e BACT , LAE Ro r Stat e mino r NS R determinations . Woul d this 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 can secur e a n allowable s PAL . I f a n adjustmentt o reflectactua l emission s i s required after a fixed perio d o f tim e (e.g. , five o r ten years) , woul d such a fixed tim e perio d befor e adjustmentoccur s allo w th e sourc e to reac h ful l production ? Woul d mi s type o f "allowables " PA L fo r greenfiel d source s addres s th e concerns 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 majo r 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 mor e 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 tfo r NS R applicabilit

y ca n b e limite d t o PAL ? 5 . For nonattainmentNS Rpermittin g doe s th e PA L Proposal propos e tha tNS Roffset s b e obtained for th e ful l allowable s level ? 6 . When 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 air 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 : Th e PA L Proposal doe s no trequir e periodi c adjustmen

to f th e PA L leve l t o reflectmore contemporaneou s level s o f actua l emissions .


# \pP. 8



### 1
. How doe s th e PA

L Proposa l mee t th e contemporaneit

y requirements o f

Alabama Power ? If th e PA L Proposa l essentially provide s fo

r aPA L adjustmen

t afte r twent y year s ho w doe s thi s ensur

e tha t emission s reduction s ar

e "contemporaneous " wit

h th e emission s increase s fromne w o r modified unit s unde

r th e PAL ? 2
. Th e PA L Proposa l provide s tha

t th e PA L ma y b e adjusted t o correc t

"significant " errors . Wha

t criteri awoul d b e used to determine whethe r or no t a n error i s significant ? 3
. For 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 , in additio n t o an

y curren t authority , t o requir

e tha t th e uni t b e place d o n aschedul e fo r contro l technolog y upgrad

e to curren t bes t availabl e technolog y performanc e level s ove r th e first te n year s of th e PA L permit bein g in place. "

- Pleas e explain whethe

r th e exercis e o f

thi s authorit

y b y th e Stat e i s mandator

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

such units ) o r

discretionar

y (ma y requir e suc h controls)
.

- Regardles s of

whethe r th e State' s authorit

y i s discretionar

y or mandatory...ca

n th e PA L sourc e dispute such reques t and tr y t o avoi d installin g th e requeste d controls ? 4
. Wha t i s th e PA L Stakeholder' s positio n o n th e concep t tha t an y requirements 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 adopt mor e stringent contro l and othe

r requirement s fo

r existin g o r

ne w emission s unit s tha

t ar e unde r aPAL ? Flexibilit y Unde r A PAL : 1
. BAC T fo

r th e PA L pollutan t i s propose d fo

r al l new unit s added unde

r th e PA L tha t ar e considere d "major " (i.e. , uni t emit s ove r 10 0 tp y o r th e majo r sourc e threshol d fo

r th e area , whicheve r i s lower)
. S o tha

t w e ma y conside r th e environmenta

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

t thes e thresholds , pleas e provid e th e following infonnatio n fo r bot h VO C an d NO x 

### emission s unit s fo

r th e differen

t sourc e categorie s represente d b y th e PA L Stakeholders
. For th e typical existin g stationar y sourc e wha

t percentag e o f

existin g unit s are "major " fo r th e PA L pollutant ? Wha

t percentag e o f

tota l emission s o f

th e PA L pollutant

fromth e stationar y sourc e com

e from"major " units ? 2
. Durin g apreviou s meetin g th e PA L Stakeholder s state d tha

t PT E limits , includin g restriction s o f

hour s o f operatio n and pollutio n contro l equipment , shoul d b e considere d when determinin g i f

anew unit

i s "major " fo

r purpose s o f

BACT/LAE

R applicability
. Pleas e explain wha

t i s mean t b y thi s statement
. Doe s i t

mea n tha t asourc e coul d instal l les s tha

n BACT/LAE

R control s o n auni t

t o avoi d bein g "major" ? 

# 7P. 9

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

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

BAC T o n al l ne w "major " unit

s added unde r th e PA L fo r nonattainmen tpollutants ? Expandin g th e PA L Level : Th e PA L Proposal permits th e PA L leve l t o b e increase d "b y takin g th e chang e tha

ti s associate d with 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 o r 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 adde d woul d fit ' unde

r th e existin g PAL ? I f

th e sourc e coul d creat

e roo m under 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 tmajo r NS Rrequirements ? Doe s th e PA L Proposa

l mea n tha

ti n orde r t o expan d th e PA L tha

tth e majo r NS R requirement

s woul d appl y t o al l units bein g added , includin g units tha tar 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 . Ar e ther e any othe r way s propose d tha tth e PA L coul d b e expanded ? I n othe r word s coul d units b e added t o a PA L sourc e tha tar e no tpar to f th e PAL ? I f

so , unde r whatconditions ? PA L Termination : In th e PA L Proposal a PA L i s se tfo r a perio d ofte n years . Durin g th e te n year s a tth e reques to f

th e permitte e an

d i f approved b y th e permittin g authorit y th e PA L can b e terminated . Upo n terminatio n th e PA L limi twil l b e retained a s a permitted cap . A s th e end o f th e te n year s approaches , renewa

l can b e requeste d fo r another te n years . A tth e en d o f twenty year s th e PA L mustb e reevaluated . 1 . Pleas e explai n whati s mean tb y th e statemen

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

tth e facility ? Woul d th e permitted ca p b e on e ca p for al l unit s previousl y 

# ?P.1 0



### unde r the PAL ? Would th e ca

p b e considere d alimit

taken t o avoi d majo

r NS R an d thu s subject t o th e requirement s o f

4 0 CF R 52.21(r)(4) ? Wha

t happen s i f

th e sourc e want s t o increas e th e cap ? 2
. I s ther

e apropose d minimu

mtime perio d fo

r th e PA L to b e in effec

t befor e th e sourc e ma y appl y fo r PA L termination ? Coul d asourc 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 exten t o f th e PAL reevaluatio n a

t th e en d o f twent y years ? Fo r example , woul d th e PA

L b e adjusted fo

r an y reaso n becaus e actua

l emission s under

th e PA L ma y hav e been les s tha

n th e P.A L limit ?



# 1