P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

106)IV-C-20 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 106 of 142 
P.2 

% \mj \ ^PRO^ -

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

A-90-37 

IF -c~ 20 

AUG 4 I999 

OFFICE OF 

AIRQUAL RTY PLANNING 

SNTTSTANDARDS 

rr 8 2 5 2000 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Ms. Lisa J. Thorvig 

Deputy Commissioner 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

520 Lafayette Road 

Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155-4194 

Dear Ms. Thorvig: 

This is in response to your letter to Mr. Robert Perciasepe of July 12,1999, in which you 

expressed the State of Minnesota's views on the New Source Review (NSR) Reform project. As 

your letter indicated, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently received 

proposals from various industry groups and other stakeholders which provided recommendations 

for how to resolve the remaining NSR issues. You encouraged the EPA to allow additional time 

to fully develop and evaluate the concepts outlined in the stakeholder proposals. 

We are carefully reviewing and considering the recently submitted proposals, and we 

remain very committed to an appropriate exchange of ideas and to reaching workable solutions 

on the remaining issues. At the same time, we recognize the need to balance the time demands 

of reopening the dialogue with the need to stay on track and reach closure within the coming 

months. You may be pleased to know that we are scheduling meetings with representatives from 

the major stakeholder groups, including the State and Territorial Air Pollution Program 

Administrators (STAPPA) and Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO), 

to allow for an additional opportunity for dialogue. The results of these discussions will help 

inform our senior management as final decisions are made on this rulemaking. These meetings 

are projected to occur in late August and September. 

I truly appreciate the State of Minnesota's continued interest in this important 

environmental rulemaking, and the time that you have invested toward offering ideas throughout 

its development. We are making every possible effort to understand and consider all stakeholder 

perspectives prior to issuing final regulations. 

f

1 

Sincerely, 

\A John S. Seitz 

Director 

Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards 

USEPA:OAQPS:ITPID:IIG:DSvensgaard:ythorpe:919-541-2380:MD-12:8/3/99 

CONTROL NO. OAR-9900945 

Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable OD Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 
. m*-» • m-.m i^ifn. ^J>p» l Pil l P.3 

^Wo^/A^ 4 

Controlled Correspondence For 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

CONTROL NO: OAR-9900945 ORIG. DUE DATE: 

STATUS: s 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

' UNCONTROLLED J 

LISA THORVIG 

CORRES. DATE: 

RECEIVED DATE: 

ASSIGNED DATE: 

CLOSED DATE: 

MINNESOTA POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY 

ROBERT PERCIASEPE 

OAR 

VIEWS ON NEW SOURCE REVIEW REFORM 

07/12/99 

07/19/99 

07/19/99 

ASSIGNED: Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards - RTP 

COPIES OF INCOMING PROVDDED TO: 

SIGNATURE 

OAR COMMENTS: 

vkxx^r" 

ADDED ON: 07/19/99 FROM LILLIAN DAVIS/DC/USEPA/US -CC: PERCIASEPE, 

BRENNER 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: 

|Lead 

Assigned 

OAQPS 

Date Assigned 

07/19/99 

Code/Status 

NECESSARY ACTION 

Date Completed by 

Assignee 

-

Date Returned to 

OAR: 

-

NCTIMS OAR Notes4 - 01. NCTIMS Working Log % -
P.4 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

July 12,1999 

Mr. Robert Perciasepe 

6101 

Office of Air and Radiation 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, Southwest 

Washington, D.C. 20460 

RE: New Source Review Reform 

Dear Mr. Perciasepe: 

The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) desires to present you some of its views on 

New Source Review Reform. These views supplement the June 4,1999, letter that STAPPA and 

ALAPCO sent to John Seitz of die Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

We support a reform of the existing New Source Review program. The work performed by 

various stakeholders over the last few months encourages us. Elements of each of the three 

industry proposals provide a basis for our hope that a more simple, more timely, and more certain 

new source review (NSR) program can be developed. 

We urge the EPA to recognize tiie progress that the stakeholder groups have made and give me 

process more time. That will allow the details of each of these straw proposals to be worked out. 

If instead, the EPA moves too quickly to rulemaking, we may all lose an opportunity to create a 

better regulatory system. 

One specific aspect of the complex manufacturing proposal deserves special mention. For 

existing units that are modified, we support a move away from the current "future potential to 

past actual" comparison toward a comparison of maximum hourly emission rates. The current 

methodology: 

• Increases the creation of "synthetic minor" limits. In mis type of situation, a physical 

change causes no increase in its emission rate or its emissions. However, use of the 

current methodology leads the company to request a synthetic minor limit. This creates 

no environmental benefit, but delays the project. 

• Inhibits environmentally-beneficial projects. In tiiese cases, a physical change reduces 

emissions. Since the modified unit is not used 8760 hours per year, however, the current 

methodology indicates that the change is a major modification. This determination 

greatly increases the regulatory burden. Thus, the project proposer may abandon the 

project, rather than demonstrate that the proposed technology is best available control 

technology (BACT) or instead of accepting a limit on operations. 

The proposed change to a comparison of maximum hourly emission rates is a significant program 

revision. It needs to be made as part of a transformation of the entire program. The 

transformation of die program would also include: ^_^ 

520 Lafayette Rd. N.; St. Paul, MN 55155-4194; (612) 296-6300 (Voice); (612) 282-5332 (TTY) -— • 

Regional Offices: Duluth • Brainerd • Detroit Lakes • Marshall • Rochester 

Equal Opportunity Employer • Printed on recycled paper containing at least 20% fibers from paper recycled by consumers. 
P.5 

Mr. Robert Perciasepe 

•Page 2 

July 12,1999 

• Eliminating netting. Eliminating netting will increase the pace at which companies install 

good controls on new emission units and, when maximum hourly emissions increase, on 

modified units. 

• Crafting and implementing a "backstop" program. At some point during its Useful life, 

every emission unit should be well-controlled. Designing such a program will be 

difficult, but die utility proposal presents a framework for discussing it among the 

stakeholders. 

• Increasing resources for the BACT/lowest achievable emissions rate Clearinghouse. 

This would include the possible development of "presumptive" BACT requirements. 

The technology transfer functions of the NSR program should stimulate the creation of 

new, more environmentally sound technologies. The current method is greatly flawed, 

and needs improvement. 

• Continuing state and local minor NSR programs mat require suitable controls to meet 

state and local needs. 

• Providing appropriate ambient air quality protections. In cases in which the changes 

f

 made to existing units might adversely affect die local or regional air quality, safeguards 

must be put in place to protect human health and the environment. 

• Developing a central "information warehouse" that would contain all of EPA's New 

Source Review guidance. 

• Crafting a means to ensure that significant "debottlenecking" investments lead to the 

installation of good controls. 

In summary, the MPCA supports reforming die NSR program. We believe that die EPA and me 

stakeholders can work together to craft a revamped program mat is simpler, more timely, and 

more certain. This outcome becomes unlikely if die fruits of recent efforts are discarded. We 

urge the EPA to allot adequate time and resources to completing mis endeavor. Thank you. 

Sincerely, 

Lisa J. Thorvig ^ 

Deputy Commissioner 

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 

LJT/JDT:lmg 

cc: David Thornton, Policy and Planning Division 

Dick Cordes, Policy and Planning Division 

Peggy Bartz, Metro District 

*r