P.1 

OAR Box 1781 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

105) IV-C-19 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 10/29/2008 10:46:23 AM Sheet 105 of 142 
P.2 

^

0ST<% 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK, NC 27711 

A-%-31 

M -c - l<} 

AUG 4 1999 

OFFICE OF 

AIR QUALITY PLANNING 

ANCSTANDARDS 

FE3 2 5 2000 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

Mr. Dwight K.Wylie,P.E. 

Chief, Air Division 

Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality 

Post Office Box 10385 

Jackson, Mississippi 39289 

Dear Mr. Wylie: 

This is in response to your letter to Mr. Bob Perciasepe of July 16,1999, in which you 

expressed the State of Mississippi'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 Mississippi'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. 

Sincerely, 

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-9900947 I 

Recycled/Recyclable •Printed with Vegetable OU Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Postconsumer) 
Controlled Correspondence For 

OFFICE OF AIR QUALITY, PLANNING AND STANDARDS - RTP 

P.3 

CONTROL NO: OAR-9900947 

STATUS: 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

ORIG. DUE DATE: 

UNCONTROLLED CORRES. DATE: 

RECEIVED DATE: 

ASSIGNED DATE: 

CLOSED DATE: 

07/16/99 

07/20/99 

07/22/99 

DWIGHT KWYLIE;P.E. 

MISSISSIPPI DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTY 

(jM^fK l\& -

BOB PERCIASEPE 

OAR 

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW 

REGULATIONS 

ASSIGNED: Information Transfer and Program Integration Division 

COPIES OF INCOMING PROVIDED TO: 

SIGNATURE: 

OAQPS COMMENTS: 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: 

OAQPS INSTRUCTIONS: 

Y(NSR) Ur , 

Lead 

Assigned 

ITPID 

Date Assigned 

07/22/99 

Code/Status 

FOR YOUR 

INFORMATION 

Date Completed by 

Assignee 

• 

Date Returned to 

OAQPS: 

• 

(Untitled) 2. 
Controlled Correspondence For 

OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION 

P.4 

CONTROL NO: OAR-9900947 

STATUS: 

ORIG. DUE DATE: 

CORRES. DATE: 

RECEIVED DATE: 

ASSIGNED DATE: 

CLOSED DATE: 

07/16/99 

07/20/99 

07/20/99 

FROM: 

ORG: 

SALUTATION: 

CONSTITUENT: 

DWIGHT KWYLDE;P.E. 

MISSISSIPPI DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTY 

TO: 

TO ORG: 

SUBJECT: 

ASSIGNED: 

BOB PERCIASEPE 

OAR 

COMMENT ON PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) 

REGULATIONS 

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards - RTP / ,re'° 

COPIES OF INCOMING PROVIDED TO: 

SIGNATURE: 

OAR COMMENTS: 

ADDED ON: 07/20/99 FROM LILLIAN DAVIS/DC/USEPA/US -CC: PERCIASEPE, 

BRENNER 

OAR INSTRUCTIONS: 

|Lead 

Assigned 

OAQPS 

Date Assigned 

07/20/99 

Code/Status 

NECESSARY ACTION 

Date Completed by 

Assignee 

-

Date Returned to 

OAR: 

• 

(Untitled) 3 
P.5 

i r 

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY 

James I. Palmer, Jr., Executive Director 

July 16, 1999 

Mr. Bob Perciasepe 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street SW 

Mail Code 6101 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Perciasepe: 

The Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), Air Division is taking this opportunity 

to comment on proposed changes to the New Source Review (NSR) regulations. We concur that ttie 

current system needs simplification that provides affected parties with timeliness, certainty, and 

flexibility, while ensuring the protection of the environment. 

*• The NSR program is considered to be the single most complicated regulatory program 

administered under the Clean Air Act. 

»• The PSD program is widely acknowledged to be broken. 

• Evidence of how the program is broken can be found in the confusion and uncertainly about its 

implementation by both states and industry. Much of this confusion stems from the very fact 

that the guidance documents interpreting the actual regulations total more than 4,000 pages. 

*• The PSD program impedes conventional and innovative approaches to improving processes, 

and often actually forestalls attempts to enhance environmental performance. 

*• Conflicting and unpublicized guidance from different EPA offices has left states uncertain in 

their attempts to determine NSR applicability. Inconsistences exists in the areas of aggregation; 

routine maintenance repair and replacement; actual to actual accounting; and debottlenecking. 

We have monitored the NSR reform process including the recent proposals from industrial 

stakeholders. We believe that each of me three NSR reform proposals has considerable potential to 

simplify the NSR regulations. We encourage the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA) to consider each of these proposals in the NSR reform effort to allow further details of these 

proposals to be developed. We would like to offer the following comments on the NSR reform 

proposals. 

¥ 

OFFICE OF POLLUTION CONTROL 

P.O. Box 10385 Jackson, MS 39289.0385 Phone 601.961.5171 Fax 601.354.6612 
P.6 

Mr. Bob Perciasepe 

Page 2 

July 16, 1999 

We believe that establishing "presumptive BACT" for most source categories will greatly simplify the 

NSR review process, regardless of which reform proposal is implemented. The uncertainty associated 

with the "moving target" of the technology determination creates the largest amount of negotiations and 

delays during the permit review process. The Use of presumptive BACT would provide a firm 

foundation from which negotiations could proceed. 

Applicability to NSR is in dire need of change. The issue of first importance witti respect to NSR 

applicability criteria is the emission comparison test used in the definition of a "major modification" 

that triggers NSR requirements for existing sources. In Attachment 3, Paragraph B.S. of the June 4, 

1999, STAPPA and ALAPCO letter, one of die recommended changes to die Complex Manufacturing 

Proposal is to "retain actual-to-potential test for modifications". We urge EPA to eliminate die actualto-potential emission comparison test for NSR applicability to existing sources. 

» The actual-to-potential test compares actual annual average emissions of a pollutant during the 

most recent (or other more representative) two year period to die maximum potential annual 

average emissions, assuming constant operation at 100% maximum capacity 24 hours a day, 52 

weeks a year. The actual-to-potential test is not really a "test" because virtually every source 

mat is required to take it is guaranteed to fail. 

• Actual annual emissions are not directly measured for any but a very few sources and 

pollutants. Actual annual emissions are almost never constant from year to year, and vary for a 

multitude of reasons mat bear no rational relationship to triggering NSR applicability. 

• The actual-to-potential test is at odds with the methodology used to set emission limits under the 

Clean Air Act. The normal assumption in. setting State Implementation Plan (SIP) limits and 

preconstruction permit limits is that a source will emit at its maximum capability constantly, 

unless there is an inherent physical or operational design constraint on the ability to do so, or 

an enforceable restriction on maximum operating levels. 

Finally, we believe die stakeholder discussions over the past several mondis have been productive. We 

commend EPA for initiating mis process and encourage the agency to provide additional time to allow 

for the refinement of these concepts. More importantly we strongly encourage EPA to continue to 

involve all stakeholders in this process. 

Very truly yours, 

J>^M-7c.%^ 

Dwight K. Wylie, P.E 

Chief, Air Division 

DKWrth 

cc: John Seitz, EPA 

Winston Smith, EPA 

b