Carla Feli x Nebraska
PO Box 9 8 Lincoln, N

RE: Com m

Dear Ms. F

The Nebr a the Envir o

NICE is m a

on enviro n significan t

Before pr o Quality (N

open dial o NDEQ’s g o

As a resul t

While NIC
issues rai s issues are and, exte n Incorpora t members h particulat e proposed

, permit pr o
necessary attachme n

Due to th e appropria t workgrou p for addre s
Again, NI C
129. Plea s 402.489.1
Sincerely,

Shawn W. Nebraska

Enclosure x Department o 8 922

E 68509

‐ 892 2

m ents on Prop o

F elix:

a ska Industria l

o nmental Qua

a de up of app r

n mental matt e
t interest in t h

o viding our c o DEQ) for the m

o gue betwee n

o als while still

t of the abov e

E is in suppor t

s ed by NICE d u

: inclusion of c

n ding the “off

t ion of CPM i n h ip because it

e matter emi s

, it only cover s

o gram, or ha v

due to the N D

n t to this lett e

e importance

t e regulatory

p to address v

s sing these iss

C E would like t

s e direct any q 111.

Zablocki, Ch a Industrial Co u o f Environme n

2

o sed Title 12 9

l Council on t h lity Council (E

r oximately 17

e rs. As an ass o h e topics for w

o mments, NIC E

m anner in w h

n the NDEQ a n

providing ind

e process, NIC E

t of the NDE Q

u ring the stak e

c ondensable p permit chan g

n the Title 12 9

will provide s

s sions of 10 m

s the operati n

e Low Emitte r D EQ’s interpr e

e r discusses t h

and urgency o language. Du

v arious issues

ues.

t o thank the E
q uestions rel a

a irperson

u ncil on Envir o Feb

n tal Quality

9 Changes, Fe b

h e Environme QC) regardin g

5 member or g

o ciation of m u

w hich these c o

E would like t o h ich the prop o

n d its stakehol

ustry with th e

E recommen d

Q ’s new proce s

e holder proc e
p articulate m a
g es” provision s 9 definition of

s ources with c icrons or less

. n g permit pro g

r status, cann o

e tation, as NI C h ese issues in d

o f these issue s ring the stak e that are imp o

E QC for this o p

a ted to these c

o nment ruary 4, 2014

b ruary 6, 201 4

nt (NICE) is pl e
g the propose d

g anizations r e

u ltitude of in d

o mments are b

o commend t h

o sed regulatio n

ders has resu

e flexibility th e

d s that the EQ C

s s and the pr o

e ss that were n

a tter (CPM) t o

s in Chapter 1 “Regulated N

c larity in rega r

. The off per m
g ram, meanin g

o t take advan t C E understan d d etail.

s , NICE is pre p

e holder proce s

o rtant to NICE

.

p portunity to c

c omments to 4 EQC Hearin g

e ased to sub m d Title 129, N e

e presenting N e d ustries in Ne b b eing provide d

h e Nebraska D

n changes we lted in propo s

e y desire.

C approve th e

o posed chang e

n ot included i

o the definitio
1 5, Section 00 7
N SR Pollutant”

r d to the limit a

m it changes p r
g sources tha t tage of this fl e d s it, of sourc e

p ared to work

s s, the NDEQ

. This workgr o

c omment on t Piyush Srivas t g

m it the follow

e braska Air Q u

e braska indu s b raska, NICE m d

.
D epartment o

re developed

. s ed changes t h

e proposed ch

e s, there wer e

n the NDEQ’s

n of “Regulat e 7 .02 to const r

is important

a tions they m

r ovision is im p
t are not subj e

e xibility. This

e

‐ wide limitat

with the ND E committed t o
oup would b e

t he proposed

t av at piyush @ ing comment s

u ality Regulat

s try and busin e

m embers hav e

f Environmen

. NICE believ e h at accompli s

anges to Title

e two importa

proposal. Th

e d NSR Pollut a

r uction permi t
to the NICE

ay have on
p ortant becau

e ct to the op e flexibility is
ions. The

E Q to develop

o forming a

e the ideal set t

changes to Ti @ naqs.com or s to ions.

e ss

e a

tal

e s the

s h the

e 129.

nt

e two

a nt”;

t s.

se, as

e rating

the

t ing

tle

rCondensa

During th e
matter (C P inclusion o
propose t h changes t o language t
process, t h therefore

, with this r authority t

By definit i definition

matter (li q
gaseous f o (NSR) Pro g
to the def

necessary NSR perm without a n

NICE also definition

as late as A
necessary the propo PM2.5 wi t could hav e though m o much mo r the feder a limit esta b permit its e proposed that rath e believe w a would all o the secon d importan c addresse d rulemakin the NDE Q

A major c o Pollutant ” federal d e PM2.5 an d required b ble Particula t

e stakeholder
P M) language

o f CPM to co v h e inclusion o

o Title 129 pr e
t o the definiti h e NDEQ beli e

, including CP M

r easoning and

t o regulate C P

on, CPM is th of PM 10 clear

q uids, solids, a

o rm. In additi

g ram for PM2
inition found

to revise the itting, and co n

n y such revisi o

believes that of PM 10 to in c A ugust 2013,

. In both hea r sal addressin g
t hout any con

e immediatel y

o st would ha v

r e stringent t h

a l language b u b lished prior t

e lf, not the p e change was s t

e r than puttin g

a s the approa

o w it to imple m d proposed r u

c e that propo s d the handling

g and not thr o
to do.

o ncern for NI C

”

, Title 129 wil

e finition clearl d PM10 issue d b y the terms a t e Matter

meetings, N D
in the definit i

v er other aspe

f CPM for the

e sented to th e

on of “Regula

e ves they hav e M under the d

requests the
P M. NICE wo u

e gaseous em ly states that

a nd gasses), it

on, prior to t h .5” in May 16

, in Title 129. N definition of “

n versely, the N

o n.

it is inconsist e

c lude CPM in t but now NDE Q

r ings the EQC

g CPM. The fi r

s ideration of t
y meant that a

v e likely been h an federal re g

u t provided th

o January 1, 2

e rmit record, s
t ill more strin

g forth Title 1 2

c h favored by

m ent the han d

u le change th a

s ed rulemakin

of CPM, we b

o ugh a some w

C E is that if th e l not confor m
y states that p d prior to this

a nd condition s D EQ requeste d

i on of “Regul a
cts of the air p Prevention o

e EQC. NICE s t ted NSR Pollu

e the authori t d efinition of “ R

NDEQ to spe c

u ld like to dis c

issions that c o PM 10 is made
is clear that t h e promulgati

, 2008, the fe d
N ICE believes t

“ Regulated N S
N DEQ has de t

e nt that the N

t wo previous Q has recentl y rejected the r

r st attempt w
t he January 1
, a ll historical P established w
g ulations. Th e

e caveat that
2 011 should i n

s hould be the gent than fed
2 9 changes th a

the EQC, tha t d ling of CPM i

a t was rejecte d

g packages w b elieve the ha

w hat vague in t

e NDEQ does

m to the feder a

p rior to Janua date shall no t

s o f the permi t d input on wh e

a ted NSR Poll u
p rogram. NIC E f Significant D

t rongly encou r tant”. Based o
t y to regulate
R egulated NS R

c ify which sec t

c uss this impo

o ndense to fo

up of liquids a
t he definition

on of the “Im d eral definiti o
t hat it is inco n S R Pollutant” i

t ermined that

DEQ found it EQC hearings

y interpreted t

r evision pack a ould have si m

, 2011 cut

‐ off
M10 and PM 2

w ith no consid e

e second atte m the permit re

n clude CPM. B

basis for wh e eral regulatio

a t would sim p
t NDEQ may u

n accordance d by the EQC.

ere twice rej e ndling of CP M

t erpretation o

not incorpor a

a l regulations

ry 1, 2011, “C o
t be based on
t or the appli c e ther to inclu d

u tant” and w h
E was surpris e D eterioration (

rages the ND E

o n feedback r CPM under a l
R Pollutant” i s
t ion(s) of Titl e
rtant matter f

o rm particulat e

and solids. Si n of PM 10 was n plementation

o n of PM 10 e m

n sistent that t i n order for C P
CPM can be r

necessary to p and asked fo r that adoptio n

a ges because t

m ply changed t

date provide d
2 .5 emission li

e ration of CP M mpt would h a cord would b e B ased on com

e ther CPM is i n

ns, the EQC r e
p ly adopt the f

u se an interpr e

with how it w Since this is s

e cted by the E
M should be e s

o f what the c u

a te CPM into t

in regard to h ompliance wi t condensable

c able implem e d e condensa b h ether to also

e d that the N D ( PSD) Progra m E Q to add the eceived durin l l aspects of t h

s not necessa r

e 129 provide s f urther with t h

e matter. Ho w

n ce there are

n ot intended t

n of the New S

m issions was e s
t he EPA deter m P M to be fed e

r egulated und

p ropose a re v

r stakeholder

n of the defini t
t hey disagree

t he definition d in the feder a i mits would i n M and Title 1 2

a ve adopted l a

e used to det e
ments from i n

n cluded in a li

e jected the p a f ederal regul a

e tation of the

w ould have b e

s ue was of gr e QC because o

s tablished thr o

u rrent regulati

t he definition h istoric constr u
t h emissions l particular m a

e ntation plan

. b le particulat e

expand the
D EQ did not

m in the prop o

federal CPM

g the stakeh o h e air progra m

r y. NICE disag r

s them with t h h e NDEQ.

w ever, the Titl

only three fo r
t o include the
S ource Revie w

s sentially ide n

m ined it was

e rally regulat e

er Title 129

v ision to the

input on the i

t ion is no lon g d with the pa r of PM10 and

a l regulation.

n clude CPM e v 2 9 would hav e

a nguage simil a

e rmine whet h

n dustry that t h mit, and that

a ckage. It ap p

a tions, as we

regulations t h

e en handled u

e at enough

o f how they

o ugh formal

ons might all o

of “Regulate d

u ction permit
imitations fo r

a tter unless

. ” The absenc e e

o sed

o lder

m and,

r ees h e

e 129

r ms of

w

n tical

e d in

i ssue
g er

r t of

This

v en

e been

a r to h er a h e the

p ears

h at nder

o w

d NSR

s. The

r

e ofthe Janua r clarity as t impose w h
129 so th a

was requi r
not have c

source co u limits eve n enforcem e

In their re believes N emissions
exists in T regulate g determin e believes t h
129 do n o

If the ND E stringent t consisten t discussed
Finally, p e should no t federal la n authority t determin e because C Nebraska determin a
to go thro

NICE reco m emissions form part i

matter sh a PM 2.5 and date shall permit or accountin g unless th e

Off Permi t

As discus s enough a n under onl y r y 1, 2011 cut
t o whether p e h ich permit li m

a t it is clear th

r ed by the te r

c larity regardi

u ld be unnec e

n if the limit d

e nt.

sponse to th e N DEQ has ade q

and appropri itle 129 as thi s
g reenhouse g a

e d that rulem a h e same woul

o t include the “

E Q does not i n
t han the fede r
t with the fed e above.

e rmit applicab

t be subject t o

n guage is not
t o regulate C P

e whether a s o C PM was not i n

industry sho u

a tions made i n ugh historical

m mends the f and PM 10 em i culate matte r

a ll be accoun t
PM 10 in PSD p
not be based the applicabl e
g for condens

e applicable i m

t Changes

ed in the cov e

n d that it sho u
y a constructi o off date will c

e rmit limits es t

m its do and d o
at only PM 10 e

r ms and condi t
ng the scope o

e ssarily requir e

id not includ e

e NICE comme
q uate authori t
ate test meth

s would be c o

a ses (GHGs) w

a king was nec d apply in th e

“ gaseous emi s

clude CPM in

r al PSD defini t

e ral regulatio n

ility determin

o review for N adopted and
P M, the NDE Q

o urce or proj e

n cluded in th e

u ld not be put

n good faith w

PSD permitti n

f ollowing lan g issions shall i n

r at ambient t e
t ed for in appl

p ermits. Com p

on condensa b

e implementa able particul a

m plementatio n

e r letter, NIC E

u ld cover any s

o n permit. Th a ause tremen d

t ablished pri o

o not include

e mission limit

t ions of the p e

o f the PM 10 li m

e d to include

e CPM, there b

nt, the NDEQ

t y to establis h ods.” NICE c a

o nsistent with

ithout going t
essary before

e case of CPM

. s sions that co

the definitio n
t ion due to th

n s and not be

ations made p N SR violations

.

NDEQ procee d Q could revisit

e ct that remai n

e applicability
in a position w

w ill be overtur n

n g.

g uage be add e

n clude gaseo u

e mperatures. icability dete r
p liance with e b le particulat e tion plan. Ap p

a te matter sh a

n plan requir e

E believes the

s ource permi t

a t is, their e m d ous uncertai n

o r to 2011 incl

CPM. Theref o

s established

e rmit. If the d

m its in their p CPM emissio n b y possibly res

stated: “Wit h h PM 10 and P M

a n understan d the EPA’s bel i hrough rule m the Air Quali t

. This is espe c ndense to for

n of “Regulate

e lack of the J

more stringe n

p rior to Janua

. This is mad e d s with the v a applicability d

n ed minor fo r determinatio

w here they s h

n ed, resulting

e d to the defi n

u s emissions f r

On or after J a

r minations an missions limi t

e matter unle s
p licability det e

a ll not be con s

e d condensabl

NDEQ has no t
t ted under Tit

m issions are lo w n ty for the in d ude CPM and

o re, the defini t

after January d efinition is n o

ermits. With o

n s to demons t

s ulting in an u n

h respect to p e M 2.5 BACT limi t d how the EP A ief that the N D

m aking. Howe v

t y program c o

c ially true sin c

r m particulate

e d NSR Pollut a

anuary 1, 20 1 nt, CPM need

ry 1, 2011 th a

e very clear in

a gue interpre t d eterminatio n

r PSD, should b

n. NSR violat h ould be conc e
g in enforcem e

n ition of “Reg u

r om a source

a nuary 1, 201 1 d in establish i

t ations for P M

s s required b y

e rminations m

s idered in viol a

e particulate

t made Chapt e le 129. Many

w enough suc d ustry becaus e

allows the N D

t ion needs to 1, 2011 inclu d

o t incorporat e

o ut clarity in t h

t rate complia n

n necessary vi o

e rmitting, EP A

t s, including c A would belie v

DEQ had the a

v er, the NDE Q

o uld regulate G

c e the current

e matter”.

a nt”, they are 1 1 cutoff date

s to be includ

a t did not acc o

the federal la

t ation that th e

n s made in go o b e subject to ions are not t a

e rned that PS

e nt actions or

u lated NSR P o

or activity, w h 1, such conde
i ng emissions
M 2.5 and PM 10 i

y the terms a n

m ade prior to t

ation of Chap t
matter to be i

e r 15, Section

sources in th e

c h that they a r e there will b e D EQ to arbitr a be included i n d e CPM, unle s

e d, the source s h e regulation s

n ce with the P

o lation and

A Region VII

ondensable

v e this author i

a uthority to Q administrati
G HGs. NICE definitions in

being much m

. In order to b ed in Title 12 9

o unt for CPM

nguage. If th e

e y have the

o d faith, to historical PSD

a ken lightly a n D applicabilit y the requirem

o llutant”: “P M h ich condens e nsable partic u limitations f o i ssued prior t o

n d conditions o
t his date with

t er 19 this se c i ncluded.”

007.02 broa d

e state opera t

r e not require e no

a rily

n Title

s s it

s will

s , a P M 10

i ty

on

n Title

m ore b e 9 as

e

n d

y
ent

M 2.5

e to

u late

o r

o this

o f the

out

c tion

d

t e d toobtain an similar ch a

In respon s

“ C

p e

c o

u

If the ND E small emi s emit (PTE )
constructi addition o under the with cons t generator order to d
constructi the off pe

In respon s changes t h

agrees th a However,
constructi also like t o permit fo r constructi
Section 0 0 operating pe r

a nges afforde

s e to the NICE

C hanges that q

e rmit thresh o

o nstruction p e

n der a constr u

E Q’s statemen

s sion unit, i.e. ) under a synt

on permits is

o f an emission

synthetic mi n
t ruction perm

, and remain

o so, no matt

on permit th r rmit changes

s e to the NICE h at qualify as

a t the “of f

‐ pe r

NICE believe s

on permit pr o

o point out th a

r cause, NDE Q

on permits, a 0 7.02 should b r mit. As such, d to sources w

comments o n

q ualify for “o f

o lds establish e

e rmits. The N D

u ction permit

t that “a cons

, one not req u hetic minor li m
not necessar y unit in this m

n or limitation.
it limits that w

m inor under t

er how small t

r esholds esta b provision will
proposal, th e “of f

‐ permit c h

r mit changes”

s the “off

‐ per m

o gram to acco

a t other provi Q ’s ability to r e

nd yet the N D b e expanded s the proposed

w ith an opera t

n this issue, t h

ff

‐ permit cha n

e d in Chapter 1
D EQ does not when a cons t

truction per m

u iring a const r

m itation, the n
y

. However, i t

m anner. Inste a If this is the

w ish to install

t he federal pr o
t he emission u b lished in Cha p

allow source s

e NDEQ also s t h anges” are n

provision wa s

m it changes” p mmodate th e sions in Chap t

e voke a const r D EQ was able t

s o that it also changes do n
t ing permit.

h e NDEQ stat e

n ge” status ha
1 7 and Chapt e find it necess
t ruction perm

m it revision is n

r uction permi t

n NICE would a
t is NICE’s un d

a d, the NDEQ

case, sources

a small emiss

o grams will n e

u nit is, i.e., “h

p ter 17 and C h

s to make the s

t ated: “Furth e
ot intended t o

s intended fo r
p rovision is a g

e handling of s
t er 15, i.e., th

r uction permi t
t o adopt thos e

covers constr n ot provide th

e d:

ve emissions

e r 19, and the

s ary to extend
it revision is n

n ot necessar y
t
, does not ch

a gree that ex t d erstanding t h

believes the P that have sy n

s ion unit, suc h

e ed to obtain h ave emission s h apter 19”. W

s e changes.

e rmore, as EP A

o be used for

r operating p e
g ood concept

s ource

‐ wide li

e NDEQ’s abil

t
, etc., were n

e provisions.
uction permi t em with a m e

below those o

e refore do not

coverage for

n ot necessary.

y ” means that

ange a sourc e
t ending this p h at the NDEQ
P TE of the uni t

n thetic minor h as a space h e

a constructio

s below thos e W hen properl y

A Region VII r e construction p

e rmits, not co n

that can wor mitations. Fi n ity to reopen
ot intended t o Therefore, NI

t s. e ans to make

o f the constru

require these chang e

”

the addition o

e ’s potential t o rovision to does not vie w
t is not absor b

status establi s

e ater or a sm a

n permit revi s

e of the

y structured, h

e minded ND E permits.” NI C
nstruction pe r k in the

n ally, NICE w o

a constructio

o be used for
CE believes t h ction

e s

o f a

o

w the b ed

s hed

a ll

s ion in

h aving

E Q,
C E

r mits.

o uld

n

h at