P. 1



# OAR Box 1787 Prepped by Ollie Stewart



### Document

Number: 

# 21 ) ll-B- 6

Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/200810:22:19AM

Sheet 21 of 147P. 2


### IT-B- 6

yw u

3 J O \ 

# 3B ;
"4- , A* 5 UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA LPROTECTIO N AGENCY RESEARC H TRIANGL E PARK

. N C 2771 1

JU L 199

4 OFFIC E O F AI R QUALIT

YPLANNIN G AN D STANDARD S

MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Pollutio n Contro l Project s an d Applicabilit y 

### FROM i^JJ^iyyatSh n S

. Seitz , Direct o y) Offic eo f

Ai r Qualit y TO : Revie w(NSR )

Standard s (MEH-10 ) Director , Air , Pesticide s an d Managemen t Division , Region s I and I V Director , Ai r an

d Wast e Managemen t Division , Regio n I I Director , Air , Radiatio n an d Toxic s Division , Regio n II I Director , Ai r an

d Radiatio nDivision , Regio n V Director , Air , Pesticide s an d Toxic s Division , Regio n V I Director , Ai r and Toxic s Division , Region s VII , VIII , I Xand X
Thi s memorandu

man d attachmen t addres s issue s involving th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agency' s (EPA's ) NS Rrule s an d guidanc e concerning th e exclusio n frommajo r NS Ro f pollutio ncontro l project s a t existing sources . Th e attachmen t provide s a ful l discussio n o f th e issue s an d thi s policy , including illustrativ e examples

. Fo r severa l years , EPAha s ha d a policyo f excluding certai n pollutio n contro l project s from th e NS Rrequirement s o f part s C an d D o f titl e I o f th e Clea nAi r Ac t (Act ) o na case-by-cas e basis

. I n 1992 , EPAadopte d a nexplici t pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio n fo r electri c utilit ygenerating unit s [se e 5 7 F R3231 4 (the "WEPC O rule " o r th e "WEPC O rulemaking")]

. A t th e time , EPAindicate d tha t i t would , i n a subsequen t rulemaking , conside r adopting a forma l pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio n fo r othe r sourc e categorie s [se e 5 7 F R32332]

. I n th e interim , EPAstate d tha t individua l pollutio ncontro l project s



### [ £ P AMH

OOCJCE TP. 3

involving sourc e categorie s othe r tha nutilitie s coul d continu e t o b e exclude d fromNS Rb ypermitting authoritie s o na case-by

cas e basi s [se e 5 7 FRa t 32320]

. A t thi s time , EP Aexpect s t o complet e a rulemaking o n a pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio n fo r othe r sourc e categorie s i n earl y1996
. Thi s memorandu m and attachmen t provid e interi mguidanc e fo r permittin g authoritie s o n th e approvabilit yo f thes e project s pending EPA' s fina l actio no n a forma l regulatoryexclusion

. Th e attachmen t t o thi s memorandu moutline s i ngreate r detai l th e typ e o f project s tha t mayqualif yfo r a conditiona l exclusio n fromNS Ra s a pollutio n contro l project , th e safeguard s tha t ar e t o b e met , and th e procedura l step s tha t permittin g authoritie s shoul d follo wi n issuing a nexclusion

. Project s tha t d o no t mee t thes e safeguard s an d procedura l step s d o no t qualif yfo r a n exclusio n from

NS Runde r thi s policy

. Pollutio n contro l project s potentiall yeligibl e fo r a n exclusio n(provide d al l applicabl e safeguard s ar e met ) includ e th e installatio n o f conventiona l o r innovativ e emission s contro l equipmen t an d project s undertake n t o accommodat e switching t o a ninherentl yless-polluting fuel , suc h a s natura l gas . Unde r thi s guidance , State s ma yals o exclud e a s pollutio n contro l project s some materia l an d proces s change s (e.g. , th e switc ht o a les s polluting coating , solvent , o r refrigerant ) an

d some othe r type s o f pollutio npreventio n project s undertake n t o reduc e emission s o f ai r pollutant s subjec t t o regulatio n unde r th e Act
. Th e replacemen t o f a n existing emission s uni t wit ha newe r o r differen t on e (albei t mor e efficien t an d les s polluting ) o r th e reconstructio n o f a n existing emission s uni t doe s no t qualif y a s a pollutio n contro l project

. Furthermore , thi s guidanc e onl y applie s t o physica l o r operationa l change s whos e primaryfunctio n i s th e reductio n o f ai r pollutant s subjec t t o regulatio nunde r th e Ac t a t existing majo r sources . Thi s polic ydoe s no t appl yt o ai r pollutio n control s an d emission s associate d wit ha propose d ne wsource . Similarly , th e fabrication , manufactur e o r productio n o f pollutio n control/preventio nequipmen t an d inherentl yless-polluting fuel s o r rawmaterial s ar e no t pollutio n contro l project s unde r thi s polic y(e.g. , a physica l o r operationa l chang e fo r th e purpos e o f producing reformulate d gasolin e a t a refineryi s no t a pollutio n contro l project)

. I t i s EPA' s experienc e tha t manybon a fid e pollutio n contro l project s ar e no t subjec t t o majo r NS Rrequirement s fo r th e simpl e reaso n tha t theyresul t i n a reductio n i nannua l emission s a t th e source . I n thi s way , thes e pollutio ncontro l project s ar e outsid e majo r NS Rcoverag e i naccordanc e wit hth e genera l rule s fo r determining applicabilit yo f NS Rt o modification s a t existing sources . However , some pollutio n contro l project s coul d resul t i n significan t potentia l o r actua l increase s o f som e pollutants

. Thes e latte r project s compris e th e subcategoryo f pollutio n contro l project s tha t ca n benefi t fromthi s guidance

.P. 4

« *

Apollutio n contro l projec t mus t be , o nbalance , "environmentall ybeneficial " t o b e eligibl e fo r a nexclusion

. Further , a n environmentally-beneficia l pollutio n contro l projec t mayb e exclude d fro motherwis e applicabl e majo r NS Rrequirement s onl yunde r condition s tha t ensur e tha t th e projec t will , no t caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a nationa l ambien t ai r qualit y standar d (NAAQS) , preventio no f significan t deterioratio n(PSD ) increment , o r adversel yaffec t visibilit yo r othe r ai r qualit y relate d valu e (AQRV)
. I n orde r t o assur e tha t ai r qualit y concern s wit hthes e project s ar e adequatel yaddressed , ther e ar e tw o substantiv e an

d tw o procedura l safeguard s whic har e t o b e followe d b

ypermitting authoritie s reviewing project s propose d fo r exclusion

. First , th e permitting authorit ymus t determin e tha t th e propose d pollutio n contro l project , afte r consideratio no f th e reductio n i n th e targete d pollutan t an d an ycollatera l effects , wil l b e environmentall ybeneficial

. Second , nothin g i n thi s guidanc e authorize s an ypollutio n contro l projec t whic hwoul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQS , o r PS D increment , o r adversel yimpac t an AQR V i na clas s I area . Consequently , i n additio n t o thi s "environmentally-beneficial " standard , th e permitting authorit ymus t ensur e tha t advers e collatera l environmenta l impact s from th e projec t ar e identified , minimized , and , wher e appropriate , mitigated

. Fo r example , th e sourc e o r th e Stat e mus t secur e offsetting reduction s i nth e cas e o f a projec t whic hwil l resul t i na significan t increas e i na nonattainmen t pollutant

. Wher e a significan t collatera l increas e i n actua l emission s i s expecte d t o resul t froma pollutio n contro l project , th e permitting authorit ymus t als o asses s whethe r th e increas e coul d adversel yaffec t an ynationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandard , PS D increment , o r clas s I AQRV
. I n additio n t o thes e substantiv e safeguards , EPAi s specifying tw o procedura l safeguard s whic har e t o b e followed

. First , sinc e th e exclusio n unde r thi s interi mguidanc e i s onl y availabl e o n a case-by-cas e basis , source s seeking exclusion , from majo r NS Rrequirement s prio r t o th e forthcoming EPArulemaking o n a pollutio n contro l projec t exclusio nmust , befor e beginning construction , obtai n a determinatio nb yth e permitting authorit y tha t a propose d projec t qualifie s fo r a n exclusio n frommajo r NS R requirement s a s a pollutio n contro l project

. Second , i n considering thi s request , th e permitting authorit ymus t affor d th e publi c a n opportunit yt o revie wan d commen t o n th e source' s applicatio n fo r thi s exclusion

. I t i s als o importan t t o not e tha t an yprojec t exclude d fro mmajo r ne wsourc e revie wa s a pollutio n contro l projec t mus t stil l compl ywit hal l otherwis e applicabl e requirement s unde r th e Ac t an d th e Stat e implementatio n plan (SIP) , including mino r sourc e permitting

._P 5

Thi s guidanc e documen t doe s no t supersed e existing Federa l o r Stat e regulation s o r approve d SIP's
. Th e policie s se t ou t i n thi s memorandu

man d attachmen t ar e intende d a s guidanc e t o b e applie d onl yprospectivel y(including thos e project s currentl y unde r evaluatio n fo r a n exclusion ) during th e interi mperio d unti l EPAtake s actio n t o revis e it s NS Rrules , and d o no t represen t fina l Agenc yaction

. Thi s polic ystatemen t i s no t rip e fo r judicia l review

. Moreover , i t i s no t intended , no r ca n i t b e relie d upon , t o creat e an yright s enforceabl e b yan ypart yi n litigatio n wit hth e Unite d States
. Agenc yofficial s maydecid e t o follo wth e guidanc e provide d i n thi s memorandum , o r t o ac t a t varianc e wit hth e guidance , base d o nananalysi s o f specifi c circumstances

. Th e EPAals o maychang e thi s guidanc e a t an ytim e withou t publi c notice

. Th e EPApresentl yintend s t o addres s th e matter s discusse d i n thi s documen t i n a forthcoming NS R rulemaking regarding propose d change s t o th e programresultin g fromth e NS RReform proces s an

d wil l tak e commen t o nthes e matter s a s par t o f tha t rulemaking

. A s note d above , a detaile d discussio no f th e type s o f project s potentiall yeligibl e fo r a n exclusio nfrom majo r NS Ra s a pollutio n contro l project , a s wel l a s th e safeguard s suc h project s mus t mee t t o qualif yfo r th e exclusion , i s containe d i n th e attachmen t t o thi s memorandum

. Th e Regiona l Office s shoul d send thi s memorandu m wit hth e attachmen t t o State s withi n thei r jurisdiction

. Question s concerning specifi c issue s and case s shoul d b e directe d t o th e appropriat e EPARegiona l Office

. Regiona l Offic e staf f maycontac t Davi d Solomon , Chief , Ne w Sourc e Revie wSection , a t (919 ) 541-5375 , i f the yhav e an y questions

. Attachmen t

cc : Ai r Branc hChief , Region s I-X NS RReformSubcommitte e Member sP. 6

Attachmen t GUIDANC E O

NEXCLUDIN

GPOLLUTIONCONTRO L PROJECT S FROMMAJO RNE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR )

I
. Purpos e Th e Environmenta l Protectio n Agenc y(EPA ) presentl yexpect s t o complet e a rulemaking o n a nexclusio nfro mmajo r NS Rfo r pollutio n contro l project s b yearl y1996
. I n th e interim , certai n type s o f project s (involving sourc e categorie s othe r tha n utilities ) mayqualif yo na case-by-cas e basi s fo r a nexclusio n frommajo r NS Ra s pollutio ncontro l projects

. Prio r t o EPA' s fina l actio n o n a regulatoryexclusion , thi s attachmen t provide s interi mguidanc e fo r permitting authoritie s o n th e type s o f project s tha t mayqualif yon a case-by-cas e basi s fro mmajo r NS R a s pollutio n contro l projects , including th e substantiv e an d procedura l safeguard s whic happly

. II
. Background Th e NS Rprovision s o f par t C [preventio no f significan t deterioratio n (PSD) ] an d par t D (nonattainmen t requirements ) o f titl e I o f th e Clean Ai r Ac t (Act ) appl yt o bot hth e constructio n o f majo r ne wsource s an d th e modificatio n o f existing majo r sources. 1 Th e modificatio n provision s o f th e NS Rprogram s i n part s C an

d D ar e base d o nth e broa d definitio no f modificatio n i n sectio n 111(a)(4 ) o f th e Act
. Tha t sectio ncontemplate s a two-ste p tes t fo r determining whethe r activitie s a t an existing majo r facilit yconstitut e a modificatio nsubjec t t o ne wsourc e requirements

. I n th e firs t step , th e reviewing authorit y determine s whethe r a physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l occur . I n th e second step , th e questio n i s whethe r th e physica l o r operationa l chang e wil l resul t i n an yincreas e i n emission s o f an yregulate d pollutant

. Th e definitio n o f physica l o r operationa l chang e i n sectio n 111(a)(4 ) could , standing alone , encompas s th e mos t mundan e activitie s a t a n industria l facilit y(even th e repai r o r replacemen t o f a singl e leak ypipe , o r a insignifican t chang e i n th e waytha t pip e i s utilized)

. However , EPAha s recognize d tha t Congres s di d no t inten d t o mak e everyactivit ya t a sourc e subjec t t o ne wsourc e requirement s unde r part s C an d D
. A s a result , EPAha s b

yregulatio n limite d th e reac ho f th e modificatio n provision s o f part s C an d D t o onl ymajo r modifications

. Unde r NSR , a "majo r modification " i s generall ya physica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operatio no f a majo r stationarysourc e whic hwoul d resul t i na significan t ne t emission s increas e i n th e emission s o f an yregulate d pollutan t

*Th e EPA' s NS Rregulation s fo r nonattainmen t area s ar e se t fort ha t 4 0 CF R51.165 , 52.2 4 an d par t 51 , Appendi xS
. Th e PS D programi s se t fort hi n 4 0 CFR52.2 1 an d 51.166
.P. 7

[see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(2)(i)]

. A"ne t emission s increase " i s define d a s th e increas e i n "actua l emissions " from th e particula r physica l o r operationa l chang e togethe r wit han yothe r contemporaneou s increase s o r decrease s i nactua l emission s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(3)(i)]

. I norde r t o trigge r majo r ne w sourc e review , th e ne t emission s increas e mus t excee d specifie d "significance " level s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(2)(i ) an d 4 0 CF R52.21(b)(23)]

. Th e EPAha s als o adopte d common-sens e exclusion s fromth e "physica l o r operationa l change " componen t o f th e definitio n o f "majo r modification. " Fo r example , EPA' s regulation s contai n exclusion s fo r routin e maintenance , repair , and replacement ; fo r certai n increase s i n th e hour s o f operatio n o r i n th e productio n rate ; an d fo r certai ntype s o f fue l switche s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CFR52.21(b)(2)(iii)]

. I n th e 199 2 "WEPCO " rulemaking [5 7 FR32314] , EPAamende d it s PS D and nonattainmen t NS Rregulation s a s the ypertai nt o utilitie s byadding certai npollutio n contro l project s t o th e lis t o f activitie s exclude d fromth e definitio no f physica l o r operationa l changes

. I n taking tha t action , EPAstate d i t wa s largel yformalizing a n existing polic yunde r whic hi t ha d bee n excluding individua l pollutio n contro l project s wher e i t wa s foun d tha t th e projec t "woul d b e environmentall ybeneficial , taking int o accoun t ambien t ai r quality " [5 7 F Ra t 32320 ; se e als o id. , n . 15]. 2
Th e EPAha s provide d exclusion s fo r pollutio ncontro l project s i n th e for m o f "n o actio n assurances " prio r t o Novembe r 15 , 199 0 an d nonapplicabilit ydetermination s base d o n Ac t change s a s o f Novembe r 15 , 199 0 (199 0 Amendments)

. Generally , thes e exclusion s addresse d clea n coa l technology project s and fue l switche s a t electri c utilities

. Becaus e th e WEPC O rulemaking wa s directe d a t th e utilit y industrywhic hface d "massiv e industry-wid e undertaking s o f pollutio n contro l projects " t o compl ywit hth e aci d rai n provision s o f th e Ac t [5 7 FR32314] , EPAlimite d th e type s o f project s eligibl e fo r th e exclusio n t o add-o n control s an d fue l switche s a t utilities

. Thus , pollutio ncontro l project s unde r th e WEPC O rul e ar e define d as :

anyactivit yo r projec t undertake na t a n existing electri c utilit ystea mgeneratin g uni t fo r purpose s o f reducing emission s from suc hunit

. Suc hactivitie s o r project s ar e limite d to :

2 Thi s guidanc e pertain s onl yt o sourc e categorie s othe r tha n electri c utilities , an d EPAdoe s no t intend fo r thi s guidanc e t o affec t th e WEPC O rulemaking i n an yway .P. 8

(A ) Th e installatio no f conventiona l o r innovativ e pollutio ncontro l technology , including bu t no t limite d t o advance d flu e ga s desulfurization , sorben t injectio n fo r sulfu r dioxid e (S0 2 ) an d nitroge n oxide s (N0 X ) control s and electrostati c precipitators ; (B ) An activit yo r projec t t o accommodat e switching t o a fue l whic hi s les s pollutin g tha n th e fue l i nus e prio r t o th e activit yo r projec t
. . . [4 0 CF R51.165(a)(1)(xxv ) (emphasi s added)]

. Th e definitio n als o include s certai nclea ncoa l technology demonstratio n projects

. Id

. Th e EPAbuil t tw o safeguard s int o th e exclusio ni n th e rulemaking

. First , a projec t tha t meet s th e definitio no f pollutio n contro l projec t wil l no t qualif yfo r th e exclusio n wher e th e "reviewing authorit ydetermine s tha t (the propose d project ) render s th e uni t les s environmentall ybeneficia l

... " [see , e.g. , 51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8)]

. I n th e WEPC O rule , EPAdi d no t provid e an

yspecifi c definitio no f th e environmentally

beneficia l standard , althoughi t di d indicat e tha t th e pollutio n contro l projec t provisio n"provide s fo r a case-by-cas e assessmen t o f th e pollutio n contro l project' s ne t emission s an d overal l impac t o n th e environment " [5 7 FR32321]

. . Thi s provisio n i s buttresse d b

ya second safeguard tha t direct s permittin g authoritie s t o evaluat e th e ai r qualit yimpact s o f pollutio n contro l project s tha t could—throug hcollatera l emission s increase s o r change s i n utilizatio npatterns—adversel yimpac t loca l ai r qualit y[se e 5 7 F R32322]

. Thi s provisio ngenerall y authorizes , a s appropriate , a permitting authorit yt o requir e modelling o f emission s increase s associate d wit ha pollutio n contro l project

. Id

. Mor e fundamentally , i t explicitl ystate s tha t n o pollutio n contro l projec t unde r an ycircumstance s may caus e o r contribut e t o violatio n o f a nationa l ambien t ai r qualit ystandar d (NAAQS) , PS D increment , o r ai r qualit yrelate d valu e (AQRV ) i n a clas s I area . Id. 3

3 Th e WEPC O rul e refer s specificall yt o "visibilit y limitation " rathe r tha n "ai r qualit yrelate d values. " However , EPAclearl ystate d i n th e preambl e t o th e fina l rul e tha t permitting agencie s hav e th e authorit yt o "solici t th e view s o f other s i n taking an yothe r appropriat e remedia l step s deeme d necessaryt o protec t clas s I areas . . . . Th e EPAemphasize s tha t al l environmenta l impacts , including thos e o n clas s I areas , ca n b e considered

. . .. " [5 7 FR32322]

. Further , th e statutory protection s i n sectio n 165(d ) plainl yar e intende d t o protec t agains t an

y"advers e impac t o n th e AQR V o f suc h[clas s I ] land sP. 9

A s noted , th e WEPC O rulemaking wa s expressl ylimite d t o existing electri c utilit ystea mgenerating unit s [see , e.g. , 4 0 CF R51.165(a)(1)(v)(C)(8 ) an d 51.165(a)(1)(xx)]

. Th e EPAlimite d th e rulemakin g t o utilitie s becaus e o f th e impending aci d rai n requirement s unde r titl e IV o f th e Act , EPA' s extensiv e experienc e wit hne wsourc e applicabilit yissue s fo r electri c utilities , th e genera l similarit yo f equipment , and th e publi c availabilit yo f utilit yoperating projections

. Th e EPAindicate d i t woul d conside r adopting a forma l NS Rpollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio n fo r othe r sourc e categorie s a s par t o f a separat e NS R rulemaking

. Th e rulemaking i n questio n i s no wexpecte d t o b e finalize d b

yearl y1996
. O n th e othe r hand , th e WEPC O rulemakin g als o note d tha t EPA' s existing polic ywas , and woul d continu e t o be , t o allo wpermittin g authoritie s t o exclud e pollutio ncontro l project s i n othe r sourc e categorie s o n a case-by-cas e basis

. III
. Case-By-Cas e Pollutio nContro l Projec t Determination s Th e following section s describ e th e typ e o f project s tha t mayb e considere d b ypermitting authoritie s fo r exclusio nfrom majo r NS Ra s pollutio n .contro l project s an d tw o safeguard s tha t permittin g authoritie s ar e t o us e i n evaluating suc hprojects — th e environmentally-beneficia l tes t an d a nai r qualit yimpac t assessment
. T o a larg e extent , thes e requirement s ar e drawn from th e WEPC O rulemaking

. However , becaus e th e WEPC O rul e wa s designe d fo r a singl e sourc e category , electri c utilities , i t canno t and doe s no t serv e a s a complet e templat e fo r thi s guidance

. Therefore , th e following description s expand upo n th e WEPC O rul e i n th e scop e o f qualifying project s and i nth e specifi c element s inheren t i nth e safeguards

. Thes e change s reflec t th e fa r mor e complicate d tas k o f evaluatin g pollutio n contro l project s a t a wid e variet yo f source s facin g a myria d o f Federal , State , an d loca l clea n ai r requirements

. Sinc e th e safeguard s ar e a nintegra l componen t o f th e exclusion , State s mus t hav e th e authorit yt o impos e th e safeguard s i n approving a n exclusio n fro m majo r NS Runde r thi s policy

. Thus , Stat e o r loca l permitting authoritie s i norde r t o us e thi s polic yshoul d provid e statement s t o EP Adescribin g and affirming th e basi s fo r it s authorit yt o impos e thes e safeguard s absen t majo r NSR
. Source s tha t obtai nexclusion s from permittin g authoritie s tha t hav e no t provide d thi s affirmatio n o f authorit y ar e a t ris k i n seeking t o rel yo nth e exclusio n issue d b yth e (including visibility). " Base d o nthi s statutoryprovision , EPA believe s tha t th e prope r focu s o f an yai r qualit yassessmen t fo r a pollutio n contro l projec t shoul d b e o nvisibilit yan d an yothe r relevan t AQRV s fo r an yclas s I area s tha t ma yb e affecte d b yth e propose d project

. Permitting authoritie s shoul d notif yFedera l Land Manager s wher e appropriat e concerning pollutio n contro l project s whic hmayadversel yaffec t AQRV s i nclas s I areas .P.1 0

permittin g agency , becaus e EPAmaysubsequentl ydetermin e tha t th e projec t doe s no t qualif ya s a pollutio ncontro l projec t unde r thi s policy

. A
. Type s o f Project s Covere d 1
. Add-O n Control s an d Fue l Switche s I n th e WEPC O rulemaking , EPAfoun d tha t bot hadd-o n emission s contro l project s an d fue l switche s t o less-polluting fuel s coul d b e considere d t o b e pollutio ncontro l projects

. Fo r th e purpose s o f today' s guidance , EPAaffirm s tha t thes e type s o f project s ar e appropriat e candidate s fo r a case-by-cas e exclusio n a s well

. Thes e type s o f project s include :

- th e installatio n o f conventiona l an d advance d flu e ga s desulfurizatio n an d sorben t injectio nfo r S0 2 ; electrostati c precipitators , baghouses , hig hefficienc y multiclones , an

d scrubber s fo r particulat e o r othe r pollutants ; flu e ga s recirculation , low-N0 xburners , selectiv e non catalyti c reductio nan d selectiv e catalyti c reductio nfo r N0 X ; an d

- regenerativ e therma l oxidizer s (RTO) , catalyti c oxidizers , condensers , therma l incinerators , flare s and carbo n adsorber s fo r volatil e organi c compound s (VOC ) an d toxi c ai r pollutants

. Project s undertake n t o accommodat e switching t o a n inherentl yless-polluting fue l suc ha s natura l ga s ca n als o qualif yfo r th e exclusion

. Anyactivit ytha t i s necessaryt o accommodat e switching t o a inherentl yless-polluting fue l i s considere d t o b e par t o f th e pollutio ncontro l project

. I nsome instances , wher e th e emission s unit' s capabilit ywoul d otherwis e b e impaire d a s a resul t o f th e fue l switch , thi s ma yinvolv e certai n necessarychange s t o th e pollutio n generatin g equipmen t (e.g. , boiler ) i n orde r t o maintai nth e norma l operating capabilit yo f th e uni t a t th e tim e o f th e project

.

2
. Pollutio n Preventio n Project s I t i s EPA' s polic yt o promot e pollutio npreventio n approache s and t o remov e regulatorybarrier s t o source s seeking t o develo p and implemen t pollutio n preventio nsolution s t o th e exten t allowe d unde r th e Act
. Fo r thi s reason , permittin g authoritie s mayals o appl ythi s exclusio nt o switche s t o inherentl yless-polluting rawmaterial s an d processe s an

d certai nP.1 1

othe r type s o f "pollutio n prevention " projects. 4 Fo r instance , manyVO C user s wil l b e makin g switche s t o water-base d o r powder

pain t applicatio n system s a s a strategyfo r meetin g reasonabl y availabl e contro l technology(RACT ) o r switching t o a non-toxi c VO C t o compl ywit hmaximu machievabl e contro l technology(MACT ) requirements

. Accordingly , unde r today' s guidance , permittin g authoritie s mayconside r excluding rawmateria l substitutions , proces s change s and othe r pollutio npreventio n strategie s wher e th e pollutio n contro l aspect s o f th e projec t ar e clearl yeviden t an d wil l resul t i n substantia l emission s reduction s pe r uni t o f outpu t fo r on e o r mor e pollutants

. I n judging whethe r a pollutio n preventio n projec t ca nb e considere d fo r exclusio na s a pollutio n contro l project , permittin g authoritie s ma yals o conside r a s a relevan t facto r whethe r a projec t i s bein g undertake n t o bring a sourc e int o complianc e wit ha MACT , RACT , o r othe r Ac t requirement

. Althoug hEPAi s supportiv e o f pollutio ncontro l and preventio n project s an d strategies , specia l car e mus t b e take ni n classifyin g a projec t a s a pollutio ncontro l projec t an d i n evaluating a projec t unde r a pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusion

. Virtuall yeverymodernizatio no r upgrad e projec t a t a nexistin g industria l facilit ywhic hreduce s input s an d lower s uni t cost s ha s th e concurren t effec t o f lowering a n emission s rat e pe r uni t o f fuel , ra wmateria l o r output
. Nevertheless , i t i s clea r tha t thes e majo r capita l investment s i n industria l equipmen t ar e th e verytype s o f project s tha t Congres s intende d t o addres s i nth e ne wsourc e modificatio n provision s [se e Wisconsi nElectri c Powe r Co
. v . Reillv

. 89 3 F.2 d 901 , 907-1 0 (7thCir

. 1990 ) (rejecting contentio n tha t utilit ylif e extensio nprojec t wa s no t a physica l o r operationa l change) ; Puert o Rica n Cemen t Co.
. Inc
. v . EPA
. 88 9 F.2 d 292 , 296-9 8 (1s t Cir

. 1989 ) (NSRapplie s t o modernizatio n projec t tha t decrease s emission s pe r uni t o f output , bu t increase s economi c efficienc ysuc htha t utilizatio nma yincreas e an d resul t i n ne t increas e i nactua l emissions)]

. Likewise , th e replacemen t o f a n existing emission s uni t wit ha newe r o r differen t on e (albei t mor e efficien t an d les s polluting ) o r th e

4 Fo r purpose s o f thi s guidance , pollutio npreventio n mean s an yactivit ytha t throughproces s changes , produc t reformulatio n o r redesign , o r substitutio n o f les s polluting rawmaterials , eliminate s o r reduce s th e releas e o f ai r pollutant s and othe r pollutant s t o th e environmen t (including fugitiv e emissions ) prio r t o recycling , treatment , o r disposal ; i t doe s no t mea n recycling (othe r tha n certai n "in-proces s recycling " practices) , energ yrecovery , treatment , o r disposa l [se e Pollutio nPreventio n Ac t o f 199 0 sectio n 6602(b ) an d sectio n 6603(5)(A ) an d (B) ; se e als o "EPADefinitio n o f 'Pollutio nPrevention,' " memorandu mfrom F
. HenryHabich t II , Ma y28 , 1992]

.P.1 2

reconstructio n o f a n existing emission s uni t woul d no t qualif ya s a pollutio n contro l project

. Adoptin g a polic ytha t automaticall yexclude s fro mNS Ran

yprojec t that , whil e lowering operating cost s o r improving performance , coincidentall ylower s a unit' s emission s rate , woul d improperl yexclud e almos t al l modification s t o existing emission s units , including thos e tha t ar e likel yt o increas e utilizatio n an d therefor e resul t i n overal l highe r level s o f emissions

. I n orde r t o limi t thi s exclusio nt o th e subse t o f pollutio n preventio n project s tha t wil l i n fac t lowe r annua l emission s a t a source , permittin g authoritie s shoul d no t exclud e a s pollutio n contro l project s an ypollutio n preventio nprojec t tha t ca nb e reasonabl yexpecte d t o resul t i na nincreas e i n th e utilizatio n o f th e affecte d emission s unit(s)

. Fo r example , project s whic h significantl yincreas e capacity , decreas e productio ncosts , o r improv e produc t marketabilit yca nb e expecte d t o affec t utilizatio n patterns
. Wit hthes e changes , th e environmen t ma yo r mayno t se e a reductio n i noveral l sourc e emissions ; i t depend s o n th e source' s operation s afte r th e change , whic hcanno t b e predicte d wit han

ycertainty. 5 Thi s i s no t t o saytha t thes e type s o f project s ar e necessaril ysubjec t t o majo r NS R requirements , onl ytha t the yshoul d no t b e exclude d a s pollutio n contro l project s unde r thi s guidance

. Th e EPAmayconside r differen t approache s t o excluding pollutio npreventio nproject s frommajo r NS Rrequirement s i n th e upcoming NS Rrulemaking

. Unde r thi s guidance , however , permitting authoritie s shoul d carefull yrevie wpropose d pollutio n preventio nproject s t o evaluat e whethe r utilizatio no f th e sourc e wil l increas e a s a resul t o f th e project

. Furthermore , permittin g authoritie s shoul d hav e th e authorit yt o monito r utilizatio n o f a naffecte d emission s uni t o r sourc e fo r a reasonabl e perio d o f tim e subsequen t t o th e projec t t o verif ywha t effect , i f any , th e projec t ha s o nutilization

. I n case s wher e th e projec t ha s clearl ycause d a n increas e i n utilization , th e permitting authorit ymaynee d t o reevaluat e th e basi s fo r th e origina l exclusio nt o verif ytha t a nexclusio ni s stil l appropriat e and t o ensur e tha t al l applicabl e safeguard s ar e bein g met
.

5 Thi s i s i n marke d contras t t o th e additio n o f pollutio n contro l equipmen t whic htypicall ydoe s not , i n EPA' s experience , resul t i n an

yincreas e i nth e source' s utilizatio n o f th e emissio n uni t i n question

. I n th e fe winstance s wher e thi s presumptio n i s no t true , th e safeguard s discusse d i nth e nex t sectio n shoul d provid e adequat e environmenta l protection s fo r thes e addition s o f pollutio n contro l equipment

.P.1 3

B
. Safeguard s Th e following safeguard s ar e necessaryt o assur e tha t project s bein g considere d fo r a n exclusio nqualif ya s environmentall ybeneficia l pollutio ncontro l project s an d d o no t hav e ai r qualit yimpact s whic hwoul d preclud e th e exclusion

. Consequently , a projec t tha t doe s no t mee t thes e safeguard s doe s no t qualif yfo r a n exclusio nunde r thi s policy

. 1
. Environmentally-Beneficia l Tes t Project s tha t mee t th e definitio n o f a pollutio ncontro l projec t outline d abov e maynonetheles s caus e collatera l emission s increase s o r hav e othe r advers e impacts

. Fo r instance , a larg e VO C incinerator , whil e substantiall yeliminating VO C emissions , maygenerat e sizeabl e N0 Xemission s wel l i nexces s o f significanc e levels

. T o protec t agains t thes e sort s o f problems , EPAi n th e WEPC O rul e provide d fo r a nassessmen t o f th e overal l environmenta l impac t o f a projec t an d th e specifi c impact , i f any , o n ai r quality

. Th e EPAbelieve s tha t thi s safeguar d i s appropriat e i n thi s polic ya s well

. Unles s informatio n regarding a specifi c cas e indicate s otherwise , th e type s o f pollutio ncontro l project s liste d i n III
. A
. 1
. abov e ca n b e presumed , b ythei r nature , t o b e environmentall ybeneficial

. Thi s presumptio narise s fromEPA' s experienc e tha t historicall ythes e ar e th e verytype s o f pollutio n control s applie d t o ne wan d modifie d emission s units

. Th e presumptio n doe s no t apply , however , wher e ther e i s reaso nt o believ e tha t 1 ) th e control s wil l no t b e designed , operate d o r maintaine d i n a manne r consisten t wit hstandar d an d reasonabl e practices ; o r 2 ) collatera l emission s increase s hav e no t bee n adequatel yaddresse d a s discusse d below

. I n makin g a determinatio na s t o whethe r a projec t i s environmentall ybeneficial , th e permitting authorit ymus t conside r th e type s and quantit yo f ai r pollutant s emitte d befor e an d afte r th e project , a s wel l a s othe r relevan t environmenta l factors

. Whil e becaus e o f th e case-by-cas e natur e o f project s i t i s no t possibl e t o lis t al l factor s whic hshoul d b e considere d i n an yparticula r case , severa l concern s ca nb e noted

. First , pollutio n contro l project s whic hresul t i n a n increas e i n non-targete d pollutant s shoul d b e reviewe d t o determin e tha t th e collatera l increas e ha s bee n minimize d and wil l no t resul t i n environmenta l harm

. Minimizatio n her e doe s no t mea n tha t th e permittin g agencyshoul d conduc t a BACT-typ e revie wo r necessaril yprescrib e add-o ncontro l equipmen t t o trea t th e collatera l increase

. Rather , minimizatio nmean s that , withi n th e physica l configuratio n and operationa l standard s usuall yassociate d wit hsuc ha contro l devic e o r strategy , th eP.1 4

sourc e ha s take n reasonabl e measure s t o keep an ycollatera l increas e t o a minimum

. Fo r instance , th e permitting authorit y coul d requir e tha t a low-NOxburne r projec t b e subjec t t o temperatur e an

d othe r appropriat e combustio nstandard s s o tha t carbo n monoxid e (CO ) emission s ar e kep t t o a minimum , bu t woul d no t revie wth e projec t fo r a C O catalys t o r othe r add-o n typ e options

. I n addition , a State' s RAC T o r MAC T rul e mayhav e explicitl yconsidere d measure s fo r minimizing a collatera l increas e fo r a clas s o r categoryo f pollutio ncontro l project s an d require s a standar d o f bes t practice s t o minimiz e suc h collatera l increases

. I n suc hcases , th e nee d t o minimiz e collatera l increas e fromth e covere d clas s o r categoryo f pollutio n contro l project s ca nb e presume d t o hav e bee n adequatel yaddresse d i n th e rule

. I n addition , a projec t whic hwoul d resul t i na nunacceptabl e increase d ris k du e t o th e releas e o f ai r toxic s shoul d no t b e considere d environmentall ybeneficial

. I t i s EPA' s experience , however , tha t mos t project s undertake nt o reduc e emissions , especiall yadd-o n control s an d fue l switches , resul t i n concurren t reduction s i n ai r toxics

. Th e EPAexpect s tha t man y pollutio n contro l project s seeking a nexclusio nunde r thi s guidanc e wil l b e fo r th e purpos e o f complying wit hMAC T requirement s fo r reduction s i nai r toxics

. Consequently , unles s ther e i s reaso n t o believ e otherwise , permitting agencie s may presume tha t suc hproject s b ythei r natur e wil l resul t i nreduce d risk s fromai r toxics

. 2
. Additiona l Ai r Qualit yImpact s Assessment s (a ) Genera l Nothin g i n th e Ac t o r EPA' s implementing regulation s woul d allowa permitting authorit yt o approv e a pollutio ncontro l projec t resulting i n a n emission s increas e tha t woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQ S o r PS D increment , o r adversel yimpac t visibilit yo r othe r AQR V i na clas s I are a [see , e.g. , Ac t section s 110(a)(2)fC) , 165 , 169A(b) , 173]

. Accordingly , thi s guidanc e i s no t intende d t o allo wan yprojec t t o violat e an

yo f thes e ai r qualit ystandards

. A s discusse d above , i t i s possibl e tha t a pollutio n contro l project—eithe r througha nincreas e i n anemission s rat e o f a collatera l pollutan t o r througha chang e i n utilization—wil l caus e a n increas e i n actua l emissions , whic hi ntur n coul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQ S o r incremen t o r adversel yimpac t AQRVs
. Fo r thi s reason , i nth e WEPC O rul e th e EPArequire d source s t o addres s wheneve r 1 ) th e propose d chang e woul d resul t i n a significan t ne t increas e i n actua l emission s o f an ycriteri a pollutan t ove r level s use d fo r tha t sourc e i nth e mos t recen t ai r qualit yimpac t analysis ; an d 2 ) th e permittin gP.1 5

1 0 authorit yha s reaso n t o believ e tha t suc ha n increas e woul d caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f a NAAQS , incremen t o r visibilit y limitation

. I f a n ai r qualit yimpac t analysi s indicate s tha t th e increas e i n emission s wil l caus e o r contribut e t o a violatio n o f an yambien t standard , PS D increment , o r AQRV , th e pollutio n contro l exclusio n doe s no t apply

. Th e EPAbelieve s tha t thi s safeguar d need s t o b e applie d her e a s well

. Thus , wher e a pollutio ncontro l projec t wil l resul t i n a significan t increas e i nemission s an d tha t increase d leve l ha s no t bee n previousl yanalyze d fo r it s ai r qualit yimpac t an d raise s th e possibilit yo f a NAAQS , increment , o r AQR V violation , th e permittin g authorit yi s t o requir e th e sourc e t o provid e a n ai r qualit yanalysi s sufficien t t o demonstrat e th e impac t o f th e project

. Th e EPAwil l no t necessaril yrequir e tha t th e increas e b e modeled , bu t th e sourc e mus t provid e sufficien t dat a t o satisf yth e permittin g authorit ytha t th e ne wlevel s o f emission s wil l no t caus e a NAAQ S o r incremen t violatio nan d wil l no t adversel yimpac t th e AQRV s o f nearb ypotentiall yaffecte d clas s I areas . I n th e cas e o f nonattainmen t areas , th e Stat e o r th e sourc e mus t provid e offsetting emission s reduction s fo r an ysignifican t increas e i n a nonattainmen t pollutan t fro m th e pollutio ncontro l project

. I n othe r words , i f a significan t collatera l increas e o f a nonattainmen t pollutan t resulting froma pollutio n contro l projec t i s no t offse t o n a t leas t a one-to-on e rati o the n th e pollutio n contro l projec t woul d no t qualif ya s environmentall y beneficial. 6 However , rathe r tha nhavin g t o appl yoffset s o na case-by-cas e basis , State s ma yconside r adopting (a s par t o f thei r attainmen t plans ) specifi c contro l measure s o r strategie s fo r th e purpos e o f generatin g offset s t o mitigat e th e projecte d collatera l emission s increase s froma clas s o r categoryo f pollutio n contro l projects

. (b ) Determinatio n o f Increas e i nEmission s Th e questio n o f whethe r a propose d projec t wil l resul t i na n emission s increas e ove r pre-modificatio n level s o f actua l emission s i s bot hcomplicate d an d contentious

. I t i s a questio n tha t ha s bee n debate d b yth e Ne wSourc e Revie wReform Subcommitte e o f th e Clea n Ai r Ac t AdvisoryCommitte e an d i s expecte d t o b e revisite d b yEPAi nth e same upcomin g rulemakin g tha t wil l conside r adoptin g a pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusion

. I n th e interim , EPAi s adopting a simplifie d approac h
'Regardles s o f th e severit yo f th e classificatio no f th e nonattainmen t area , a one-to-on e offse t rati o wil l b e considere d sufficien t unde r thi s polic yt o mitigat e a collatera l increas e froma pollutio n contro l project , state s may , however , requir e offse t ratio s tha t ar e greate r tha none-to-one
.P.1 6

1 1 t o determining whethe r a pollutio ncontro l projec t wil l resul t i n increase d emissions

. Th e approac hi n thi s polic yi s premise d o nth e fac t tha t EPA doe s no t expec t th e vas t majorit yo f thes e pollutio n contro l project s t o chang e establishe d utilizatio n pattern s a t th e source . A s discusse d i n th e previou s section , i t i s EPA' s experienc e tha t add-o n control s d o no t impac t utilization , an d pollutio n preventio n project s tha t coul d increas e utilizatio nmay no t b e exclude d unde r thi s guidance

. Therefore , i nmos t case s i t wil l b e veryeas yt o calculat e th e emission s afte r th e change : th e produc t o f th e ne wemission s rat e time s th e existing utilizatio n rate
. I n th e cas e o f a pollutio ncontro l projec t tha t collaterall yincrease s a non-targete d pollutant , th e actua l increas e (calculate d using th e ne wemission s rat e an d curren t utilizatio n pattern ) woul d nee d t o b e analyze d t o determin e it s ai r qualit yimpact

. Th e permitting authorit ymaypresume tha t project s meetin g th e definitio n outline d i n sectio n 111(A)(1 ) wil l no t chang e utilizatio n patterns
. However , th e permitting authorit yi s t o rejec t thi s presumptio n wher e ther e i s reaso nt o believ e tha t th e projec t wil l resul t i n debottlenecking , loadshifting t o tak e advantag e o f th e contro l equipment , o r othe r meaningfu l increas e i n th e us e o f th e uni t abov e curren t levels

. Wher e th e projec t wil l increas e utilizatio n an d emissions , th e associate d emission s increase s ar e calculate d base d o n th e post-modificatio n potentia l t o emi t o f th e uni t considering th e applicatio n o f th e propose d controls

. I n suc hcase s th e permitting agencyshoul d conside r th e projecte d increas e i nemission s a s collatera l t o th e projec t an d determin e whether , notwithstanding th e emission s increases , th e projec t i s stil l environmentall ybeneficia l and meet s al l applicabl e safeguards

. I n certai n limite d circumstances , a permitting agencymay tak e actio n t o impos e federally-enforceabl e limit s o n th e magnitud e o f a projecte d collatera l emission s increas e t o ensur e tha t al l safeguard s ar e met
. Fo r example , wher e th e dat a use d t o asses s a projecte d collatera l emission s increas e i s questionabl e an d ther e i s reaso n t o believ e tha t emission s i nexces s o f th e projecte d increas e woul d violat e a n applicabl e ai r qualit y standar d o r significantl yexcee d th e quantit yo f offset s provided , restriction s o n th e magnitud e o f th e collatera l increas e mayb e necessaryt o ensur e complianc e wit hth e applicabl e safeguards

. IV
. Procedura l Safeguard s Becaus e EP

Aha s no t ye t promulgate d regulation s governing a generall yapplicabl e pollutio ncontro l projec t exclusio n from majo r NS R(othe r tha n fo r electri c utilities) , permitting authoritie s mus t conside r an d approv e request s fo r a n exclusio nP.1 7

1 2

o n a case-by-cas e basis , an d th e exclusio n i s no t self-executing

. Instead , source s mus t receiv e case-by-cas e approva l fromth e permittin g authorit ypursuan t t o a mino r NS Rpermittin g process , Stat e nonapplicabilit ydeterminatio no r simila r process . [Nothing i n thi s guidanc e void s o r create s a nexclusio n froman y applicabl e mino r sourc e preconstructio nrevie wrequiremen t i n an y SI P tha t ha s bee n approve d pursuan t t o sectio n 110(a)(2)(C ) and 4 0 CF R51.160-164. ] Thi s proces s shoul d als o provid e tha t th e applicatio n fo r th e exclusio n an d th e permitting agency' s propose d decisio n thereo n b e subjec t t o publi c notic e an d th e opportunit yfo r publi c an d EPAwritte ncomment
. I n thos e limite d case s wher e th e applicabl e SI P alread yexempt s a clas s o r categoryo f pollutio n control s projec t from th e mino r sourc e permittin g publi c notic e an d commen t requirements , an d wher e n o collatera l increase s ar e expecte d (e.g. , th e installatio n o f a baghouse ) an

d al l otherwis e applicabl e environmenta l safeguard s ar e complie d with , publi c notic e an d commen t nee d no t b e provide d fo r suc hprojects

. However , eve n i nsuc hcircumstances , th e permittin g agenc yshoul d provid e advanc e notic e t o EPAwhe ni t applie s thi s polic yt o provid e a nexclusion

. Fo r standard-wid e application s t o group s o f source s (e.g. , RAC T o r MACT) , th e notic e ma yb e provide d t o EPAa t th e tim e th e permitting authorit yintend s t o issu e a pollutio n contro l exclusio nfo r th e clas s o r categoryo f source s an d thereafte r notic e nee d no t b e give n t o EPAo n a n individua l basi s fo r source s withi n th e notice d group . V
. Emissio nReductio n Credit s I n general , certai n pollutio n contro l project s whic hhav e bee n approve d fo r a n exclusio nfrommajo r NS Rmayresul t i n emissio n reduction s whic hca n serv e a s NS Roffset s o r netting credits

. Al l o r par t o f th e emissio n reduction s equa l t o th e differenc e betwee n th e pre-modificatio n actua l an d post

modificatio n potentia l emission s fo r th e decrease d pollutan t may serv e a s credit s provide d tha t 1 ) th e projec t wil l no t resul t i n a significan t collatera l increas e i n actua l emission s o f an y criteri a pollutant , 2 ) th e projec t i s stil l considere d environmentall ybeneficial , an d 3 ) al l otherwis e applicabl e criteri a fo r th e crediting o f suc hreduction s ar e me t (e.g. , quantifiable , surplus , permanent , and enforceable)

. Wher e a n exclude d pollutio n contro l projec t result s i na significan t collatera l increas e o f a criteri a pollutant , emission s reductio n credit s fromth e pollutio ncontro l projec t fo r th e controlle d pollutan t maystil l b e grante d provided , i nadditio nt o 2 ) and 3 ) above , th e actua l collatera l increas e i s reduce d belo wth e applicabl e significanc e level , eithe r throughcontemporaneou s reduction s a t th e sourc e o r externa l offsets

. However , neithe r th e exclusio n frommajo r NS Rno r anycredi t (ful l o r partial ) fo r emissio n reduction s shoul d b e grante d b yth e permittin g authorit y wher e th e typ e o r amoun t o f th e emission s increas e whic hwoul d resul t fromth e us e o f suc hcredit s woul d lesse nth eP.1 8

1 3 environmenta l benefi t associate d wit hth e pollutio n contro l projec t t o th e poin t wher e th e projec t woul d no t hav e initiall y qualifie d fo r a n exclusion

. IV
. Illustrativ e Example s Th e following example s illustrat e some o f th e guiding principle s an

d safeguard s discusse d abov e i n reviewin g propose d pollutio n contro l project s fo r anexclusio nfrommajo r NSR
. Exampl e 1 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : Achemica l manufacturin g facilit yi n a n attainmen t are a fo r al l pollutant s i s proposing t o instal l a RT O t o reduc e VO C emission s (including emission s o f some hazardou s pollutants ) a t th e plan t b yabou t 300 0 ton s pe r yea r (tpy)
. Th e emission s reduction s fromth e RT O ar e currentl y voluntary , bu t mayb e necessaryi n th e futur e fo r titl e II I MAC T compliance

. Althoughth e RT O ha s bee ndesigne d t o minimiz e N0 X emissions , i t wil l produc e 20 0 tpyo f ne wN0 Xemission s du e t o th e uniqu e compositio n o f th e emission s stream
. Ther e i s n o informatio n abou t th e projec t t o rebu t a presumptio ntha t th e projec t wil l no t chang e utilizatio n o f th e source . Asid e from th e N0 Xincreas e ther e ar e n o othe r environmenta l impact s known t o b e associate d wit hth e project

. EVALUATION : A s a qualifying add-o ncontro l device , th e projec t mayb e considere d a pollutio ncontro l projec t an d mayb e considere d fo r an exclusion

. Th e permitting agenc yshould : 1 ) verif ytha t th e NO xincreas e ha s bee nminimize d t o th e exten t practicable , 2 ) confirm (throug

hmodelin g o r othe r appropriat e means ) tha t th e actua l significan t increas e i n NO xemission s doe s no t violat e th e applicabl e NAAQS, 7 PS D increment , o r adversel y impac t an

yClas s I are a AQRV , an d 3 ) appl yal l otherwis e applicabl e SI P an

d mino r sourc e permitting requirements , including opportunit yfo r publi c notic e an d comment
. Exampl e 2 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : Asourc e propose s t o replac e a n existing coal-fire d boile r wit ha gas-fire d turbin e a s par t o f a cogeneratio n project

. Th e ne wturbin e i s anexac t replacemen t fo r th e energ

yneed s supplie d b yth e existing boile r an d wil l emi t les s o f eac hpollutan t o na nhourl ybasi s tha n th e boile r did

.

7 I f th e sourc e wer e locate d i na nare a i n whic h nonattainmen t NS Rapplie d t o NO xemission s increases , 20 0 ton s o f NO xoffse t credit s woul d b e require d fo r th e projec t t o b e eligibl e fo r a n exclusion

.P.19

_

1 4 EVALUATION : Th e replacemen t o f a nexisting emission s uni t wit ha ne wuni t (albei t mor e efficien t an d les s polluting ) doe s no t qualif yfo r a n exclusio na s a pollutio ncontro l project

. Th e compan ycan , however , us e an yotherwis e applicabl e nettin g credit s from

th e remova l o f th e existing boile r t o see k t o ne t th e ne wuni t ou t o f majo r NSR
. Exampl e 3 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : Asourc e plan s t o physicall yrenovat e an d upgrad e a n existing proces s lin e b ymakin g certai n change s t o th e existing process , including extensiv e modification s t o emission s units

. Following th e changes , th e sourc e wil l expand productio n an

d manufactur e an

d marke t a ne wproduc t line

. Th e projec t wil l caus e a n increas e i nth e economi c efficienc yo f th e line

. Th e renovate d lin e wil l als o b e les s pollutin g o n a per produc t basi s tha n th e origina l configuration

. EVALUATION : Th e chang e i s no t eligibl e fo r a nexclusio n a s a pollutio n contro l project

. O nbalance , th e projec t doe s no t hav e clearl yeviden t pollutio ncontro l aspects , and th e resultan t decreas e i n th e per-produc t emission s rat e (or factor ) i s incidenta l t o th e project

. Th e projec t i s a physica l chang e o r chang e i n th e metho d o f operatio ntha t wil l increas e efficienc y an d productivity

. Exampl e 4 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : I nrespons e t o th e phaseou t o f chlorofluorocarbon s (CFC ) unde r titl e V I o f th e Act , a majo r sourc e i s proposing t o substitut e a les s ozone-depletin g substanc e (e.g. , HCFC-141b ) fo r on e i t currentl yuse s tha t ha s a greate r ozon e depleting potentia l (e.g. , CFC-11)
. Alarge r amoun t o f th e less-ozon e depleting substanc e wil l hav e t o b e used

. N o othe r change s ar e proposed

. EVALUATION : Th e projec t mayb e considere d a pollutio n contro l projec t an

d mayb e considere d fo r an exclusion

. Th e permitting agencyshoul d verif ytha t 1 ) actua l annua l emission s o f HCFC-141 bafte r th e propose d switc hwil l caus e les s stratospheri c ozon e depletio n tha n curren t annua l emission s o f CFC-11 ; 2 ) th e propose d switc hwil l no t chang e utilizatio n pattern s o r increas e emission s o f an yothe r pollutan t whic hwoul d impac t a NAAQS , PS D increment , o r AQR V an d wil l no t caus e an y cross-medi a harm , including an yunacceptabl e increase d ris k associate d wit htoxi c ai r pollutants ; an d 3 ) appl yal l otherwis e applicabl e SI P an

d mino r sourc e permitting requirements , including opportunit yfo r publi c notic e an d comment
.P.2 0

1 5 Exampl e 5 PROJEC T DESCRIPTION : An existing landfil l propose s t o instal l eithe r flare s o r energ yrecoveryequipmen t [i.e. , turbine s o r interna l combustio n(IC ) engines]

. Th e reduction s fro mth e projec t ar e estimate d a t ove r 100 0 tpyo f VO C an d ar e currentl yno t necessaryt o mee t Ac t requirements , bu t mayb e necessarysom e tim e i n th e future

. I ncas e Ath e projec t i s th e replacemen t o f an existing flar e o r energ ysysteman

d n o increas e i n NO xemission s wil l occur . I ncas e B , th e equipmen t i s a firs t time installatio n an d wil l resul t i n a 10 0 tpyincreas e i nNO x . I n cas e C , th e equipmen t i s anadditio n t o existing equipmen t whic hwil l accommodat e additiona l landfil l ga s (resulting from increase d ga s generatio n and/o r captur e consisten t wit hth e curren t permitte d limit s fo r growt ha t th e landfill ) an d wil l resul t i n a 5 0 tpyincreas e i n NOx . EVALUATION : Project s A , B , an d C mayb e considere d pollutio n contro l project s an d mayb e considere d fo r a n exclusion ; however , i n case s B an d C , i f th e landfil l i s locate d i n a n are a require d t o satisf ynonattainmen t NS Rfo r NO x emissions , th e sourc e woul d b e require d t o obtai nNO xoffset s a t a rati o o f a t leas t 1: 1 fo r th e projec t t o b e considere d fo r a n exclusion

. [NOTE : V0C-N0 xnetting an d trading fo r NS Rpurpose s mayb e discusse d i n th e upcoming NS Rrulemaking , bu t i t i s beyond th e scop e o f thi s guidance. ] Althoughneithe r turbine s o r I C engine s ar e liste d i n sectio n III.A. l a s add-o ncontro l device s an d woul d normall yno t b e considere d pollutio ncontro l projects , i n thi s specifi c applicatio ntheyserv e th e same functio na s a flare , namel yt o reduc e VO C emission s a t th e landfil l wit hth e adde d incidenta l benefi t o f producing usefu l energyi nth e process. 8 Th e permittin g agenc yshould : 1 ) verif ytha t th e NO x increas e ha s bee n minimize d t o th e exten t practicable ; 2 ) confirm (throug hmodelin g o r othe r appropriat e means ) tha t th e actua l significan t increas e i n N0 Xemission s wil l no t violat e th e

8 Th e productio n o f energ yher e i s incidenta l t o th e projec t an d i s no t a facto r i n qualifying th e projec t fo r a n exclusio na s a pollutio n contro l project

. I naddition , an ysupplementa l o r co-firing o f non-landfil l ga s fuel s (e.g. , natura l gas , oil ) woul d disqualif yth e projec t fro mbeing considere d a pollutio n contro l project

. Th e fuel s woul d b e use d t o maximiz e an y economi c benefi t fromth e projec t and no t fo r th e purpos e o f pollutio n contro l a t th e landfill

. However , th e us e o f a n alternativ e fue l solel ya s a backu p fue l t o b e use d onl yduring brie f and infrequen t start-u p o r emergenc ysituation s woul d no t necessaril ydisqualif ya nenerg yrecoveryprojec t frombeing considere d a pollutio n contro l project

.$



### 1 6

applicabl e NAAQS , PS D increment , o r adversel yimpac t an yAQRV ; an d 3 ) appl yal l otherwis e applicabl e SI P and mino r sourc e and , a s note d above , i n case s B an d C ensure s tha t NO xoffset s ar e provide d i n a n are a i n whic hnonattainmen t revie wapplie s t o NO
. emission s increases , permitting requirements , including opportunit yfo r publi c notic e an d comment
. X P.2 1