P.1 

OAR Box 1802 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

Document Number: 

63) IV-E-57 

Docket Number: 

A-90-37 

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57.59 AM Sheet 63 of 117 
P.2 

,y0ST<% 

USE 

%P« ^ 

# 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION VII 

726 MINNESOTA AVENUE 

KANSAS CITY, KANSAS 66101 

2 0 AUG 1996 

7711m 

EPA AIR DOCKET 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Summary of Briefing with State and Local Air Pollution 

Control Agencies 

John Knod erm. 

Region VIET 

FROM: 

TO: 

3ermitting and Compliance Branch 

Air Docket No. A-90-37 

This memorandum summarizes a briefing conducted on 

August 14, 1996 to discuss the content of the proposed rulemaking 

on the new source review regulations, Air Docket No. A-90-37. 

The briefing was a portion of the semi-annual meeting sponsored 

by Region VII's Air Permitting and Compliance Branch for state 

and local agency air permitting staff. A list of attendees is 

attached as Attachment A. Prior to the briefing, the Region 

distributed a document dated April 9, 1996 entitled "Comparison 

of the New Source Review (NSR) Reform Rulemaking Package and 

Current NSR Rules," attached as Attachment B. The Region also 

made available to the attendees copies of the Federal Register 

publication of the proposal. No other documents relevant to the 

proposal were distributed by the Region, and no documents were 

submitted by attendees. The participants were advised that the 

Region would create a record of the briefing and submit it to the 

docket, and that any comments by participants on the proposal 

should be submitted to the docket. 

During the briefing, the Region summarized the content of 

the proposal as it relates to the following topics. The summary 

was based on the preamble, and to a lesser extent, the materials 

in Attachment A: 

1. We discussed the following proposed revisions to the 

applicability portions of the regulations: expansion of the 

WEPCO rule, extension of the contemporaneous period for netting, 

pollution control project and "clean facility" exclusions, 

plantwide applicability limits; 

2. Allowable activities prior to receipt of a NSR permit; 

RECYCLE ^ 

KPtr. COHUM KOCICO rtsim 
P.3 

3. Proposed revisions to the BACT analysis requirements; 

4. Proposed revisions to the innovative control technology 

requirements; 

5. Preconstruction monitoring provisions for PSD; 

6. Treatment of hazardous air pollutants under PSD; 

7. Part D NSR changes as a result of the 1990 Amendments: 

applicability levels, treatment of precursors for PM-10, 

statutory restrictions for new sources; 

8. Proposed revisions for emission credit from shutdown or 

curtailment 

9. Judicial review of permit decisions. 

The following matters were raised by attendees: 

1. Proposed revisions to applicability provisions of NSR -

calculation of future actual emissions. Two attendees observed 

that a determination of future actual emissions may be 

difficult, and asked whether the concept of future "utilization" 

of new units was defined in the proposal. The Region stated that 

the concept was not defined, but that the preamble included a 

discussion of how the concept would be implemented; 

2. Exemption of hazardous air pollutants from PSD review. 

One attendee asked whether permitting authorities could 

immediately implement the exemption in section 112(b)(6), 

relating to exemption from PSD review of pollutants regulated 

under section 112. The region referred to existing guidance, 

including the March 1991 "New Source Review (NSR) Program 

Transitional Guidance" from OAQPS; 

3. NSR applicability - Plantwide Applicability Limits. One 

attendee stated that indust:ry officials had expressed a concern 

that the periodic adjustment of PEftJL levels could put a source in 

a worse position, with regard to NSR applicability to future 

changes at a source, than the current netting provisions. The 

Region stated that EPA is taking comment on the circumstances 

which should require adjustment of a PAL; 

4. Provisions relating to the BACT analysis. One attendee 

asked whether the proposal would require documentation of 

consideration of all possible controls for a particular source. 

The Region explained that the permitting authority would be 

expected to meet the "core requirements" for BACT analyses, 

including some discussion of all available controls for a 

particular source; 
P.4 

The Region stated that the comment period would close on 

October 21, 1996, and provided information concerning the date of 

the public hearing, if one is requested. One attendee 

representing a local permitting agency stated that participants 

could also review and comment on draft comments under preparation 

by STAPPA/ALAPCO, which would be available in the near future. 
I 

P.5 

/jft^Ji/tf^cf- A 

\JorJ A Quf«J &f4 

PHOAIE FAX 

&\\) SS*A 758/ ___JOMT 

£ a r l^j^e .\vt\\ 

ep/v (S<3 )55(-lZ9j_. x"729| 

£7# 

j^jasAC 

JAt/<**j<J von. ssow 

fit -SSI-7&.3* L >v^ 5 

^iy'S-xSrlyr7p91 

JlUjrp^^ol.^ 

r.Lot-dsCtru 3/4^4^?? - 3/pfeS"-|7l£ 

wttr? 

KCM0 j",y-6, 

cccH-b , 

S}.U)0£ U5UAM 

_rysozi 

_ Y.Z302 

?fy-6?77-

U\LCo • -3^ 5/5 i,% 33&1 

— 3<?S? 

jb!KG> 

Tu. 

7 SSjY^ 

k W 

JW 

Uxcfe. 

A _/..<-X. Z9 

4 

Slf Atr+lSf/ 

- 7*^S" 

my 

/Y 

'?/•?> E?fc?-
P.6 

p-tMiTf4iRtteK. 

Kutt)', .Cecil —•-— 

WSL*A (W W — 

>^yf e E^. ^ / ^ ?f.?-.5>r~£";**> frl-^-^Jy 

J.M^£ ._ 

luoda. 

J^2?.J.2S:^1(ZL •_•... 

JCL. 

C<x 

AsfTZT /^«v <__ u/^ c e ^ 

^0 e Fra-ncJ^ 

N 

£V*4 

£«*n Co v»«-«3-^V *«*f* , 

<TV7V3 

n <-<__ t \ 

ft 

. . ^ >.. ^/YY £ *>yy -. 

a

SES?**_£pJ"WT*7. 

^z'3 5T"/ ^T^ ^ .. 
P.7 

fy(M ^dcffi^ J. fy(J top 

&/u£y^y _ >' 

rrbhJR-

/ft't/tae/J. tS/o/usJre 

73777 YLu^wViy^f/ 

SVetrv "M«u_*r 

Corty fl - * 

/lY(7y/?\7L Y\Cs^s^y^ 

Aisaszi 

AY77>^<p 

£P/J 

Y\JOZ<^ 

0 ^ 

<L f^Mr 

s^-O^l -...34««/.._ -

Sll'lSI^Vl Sll*lSh Zl6(p 

£~Y£~-?7rY-S><7Zi& 

(4<*) 4>|- V^S*I 

^^7/jyY3 J?°? 

T7L.7 / 

r> 

ZSOS 

Q> 

9/3SJV-76 Q>' 

4cy^n y^oi 
•X) COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES 1 

* 

I. Background 

• Goal of NSR Reform is to reduce costs and regulatory burdens without sacrificing environmental 

V) 

3 benefits embodied in the present approach. 

H- • NSR Reform Subcommittee formed in July 1993 under the auspices of the 

^ C Clean Air Act Advisory Committee. 

• Subcommittee's purpose is to provide independent advice and counsel to 

EPA on policy and technical issues associated with reforming the NSR rules. 

• Proposed changes would: 

- reduce the number and types of activities subject to NSR 

- provide States greater flexibility to implement the NSR program 

- revamp permitting of sources near Class I areas , 

- promote innovative technologies and pollution prevention V 

- streamline the NSR permitting process 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
oE 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT NSR RULES (continued) 

A. The "Clean Unit" Exclusion 

• A simplified applicability test for changes to 

existing units that already have state-of-the-art 

controls. 

• Changes which do not increase the unit's hourly 

potential emissions would not be considered a 

physical or operational change and would not 

trigger major NSR 

• What is a "clean unit"? 

an emissions unit that has a federally 

enforceable emission limit comparable to 

the emission limit that would result from a 

current review under the BACT/LAER 

requirements 

The existing NSR program does not include the 

"Clean Unit" exclusion. 

^ > 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

three limits would qualify: 

o BACT or LAER limits set within the last 

10 years 

o limits set by a State technology minor 

new source review program determined 

by EPA to be equivalent to the federal 

BACT/LAER programs 

B. The "Clean Facility" Exclusion cr 

Allows States to exclude from major NSR proposed 

changes to an existing major stationary source that has 

installed BACT or LAER and has undergone an air quality 

impact analysis within the last 10 years 

The existing NSR program does not include the 

"Clean Facility" exclusion. 

C. Netting Baseline 

• A more flexible and lenient method for 

computing "netting baseline" emissions. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Based on source's highest level of utilization and • 

not necessarily highest emission rate. 

• Utilization level (capacity factor) is the highest 

consecutive 12-month period in the 10 years 

preceding the proposed change. In 

nonattainment areas and ozone transport 

regions, the baseline cannot begin prior to 

November 11, 1990. 

• Source must use the current allowable emission 

rate (e.g., Ibs./MMbtu) taking into consideration 

Federal or State emissions restrictions (RACT, 

NESHAP, MACT, BACT, LAER, NSPS, etc.) 

imposed over the 10 year period. 

Based on the source's average rate at which the unit 

actually emitted the pollutant. This reflects actual 

operating hours, production rates, and types of 

materials processed, stored, or combusted during the 

prescribed time period. 

"Actual emissions" as of a particular date equal the 

average rate at which the unit actually emitted the 

pollutant during a 2-year period which precedes the 

particular date and which is representative of normal 

source operation. The Administrator may allow the 

use of a different time period upon determination that 

is it more representative of normal source operation. 

For an electric utility steam generating unit, actual 

emissions are the representative actual annual 

emissions of the unit for any 2-year period out of the 

preceding 5 years. 

The Administrator may presume that source-specific 

allowable emissions for the unit are equivalent to the 

actual emissions of the unit. Allowable emissions 

account for applicable Federal standards, SIP 

emissions limitations, or federally enforceable permit 

conditions. 

O 

' April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
CM 

a 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

Proposed Rule Current Rule 

• "Netting baseline" is the current allowable 

emission rate multiplied by the utilization level. 

"Netting baseline" is the actual rate of emissions from 

the unit averaged over a 2-year period. 

D. Pollution Control Projects 

• Proposing general exclusion from major NSR: 

Add-on controls 

Fuel switches to cleaner fuels 

Pollution prevention projects 

There are currently no exclusions for add-on controls 

or fuel switches. Pollution control projects (not 

including pollution prevention projects) at electric 

utilities are exempt. There are currently exemptions 

for temporary clean coal technology demonstration 

projects and for permanent clean coal technology 

demonstration projects that do not increase the 

potential to emit. 

• Implementation safeguards: 

Environmentally beneficial test for pollution 

prevention projects 

Permitting authority given the responsibility 

for decision on the Cause or contribute 

test/air quality impact assessment 

These safeguards are applied to the electric utility 

exclusions, but do not include consideration of 

AQRVs in Class I areas. 

E. Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Proposing regulations to allow and facilitate 

States issuance of voluntary source-specific 

PALS. 

• A permitting authority may choose to adopt an 

area-wide PAL approach 

• A PAL permit allows the source to make any 

change provided it does not violate its plantwide 

emissions limit 

Current rules make no provisions for PALs. 

' April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
Q_ 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology 

• The WEPCO rule is explicitly limited to utilities and promulgated an actual-to-future-actual methodology for all 

changes at a utility, except for new units. In the final rule, EPA indicated it would consider adopting this 

methodology for all source categories in a subsequent rulemaking. 

• EPA solicits comment on three alternatives for the future actual methodology: 

leaving the scope the same; applicable only to utility units 

extending the methodology to all source categories 

eliminating the methodology 

c " 

Proposal of CMA Exhibit B 

• EPA agreed to propose and take final action on 

a methodology for determining whether a source 

has undertaken a modification based on the 

source's potential emissions 

• Under this methodology, sources may calculate 

emissions increases or decreases based on 

either the existing actual emissions or on 

potential emissions, measured in terms of hourly 

emissions 

The current basis for net emissions increase is actual 

emissions. 

' April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
Q_ 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Sources could use this potential-to-potential test 

for both NSR applicability and for calculating 

offsets, netting credits, and other emission 

reduction credits. 

• A serious drawback of this approach is that it 

would allow unchecked consumption of 

increment by old, grandfathered sources to the 

exclusion of new, more efficient and less 

polluting sources. ^r 

IV. Best Available Control Technology (BACT) 

A. EPA is proposing to codify core criteria for BACT 

determinations: 

• All of the available control systems for the 

source, including the most stringent, must be 

considered in the determination 

• The selection of a particular control system as 

BACT must be justified in terms of the statutory 

criteria and supported by the record, and must 

explain the basis for the rejection of the other 

more stringent control candidate system 

Current rules do not specify these criteria, but current 

policy calls for their use. 

Current rules do not specify these criteria, but current 

policy calls for their use. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
CO 

a 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

B. Codifying the Existing "Top-Down" BACT Determination Policy in Federal NSR Regulations 

• EPA requests public comments on alternative methods for determining BACT. 

• The proposed Federal regulations would serve a template for State and local agency rules. 

Improve Content and Management of RACT/ 

BACT/LAER Clearinghouse 

• EPA is proposing mandatory submittal of BACT 

determinations to the RBLC by the permitting 

authority within 60 days of permit issuance. 

Current rules do not require submittal to the RBLC. 

^ 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

8 
1^ 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Many of the improvements to the RBLC 

recommended by the CAAAC have been made; 

others will occur as resources become available 

D. Streamlining BACT/LAER Determinations 

• BACT/LAER determinations need only consider 

technologies "demonstrated in practice." 

• "Demonstrated in practice" includes: 

all technologies required and reported 

through existing regulatory programs and 

those that, while not identified in the 

regulatory arena, meet specific criteria for 

determining their availability and 

appropriateness for consideration in a 

BACT/LAER analysis 

Current rules do not make detailed requirements with 

regard to a cutoff date. Current EPA policy calls for 

consideration of available control technologies for 

BACT, including emerging technologies, until the time 

that a final NSR permit is issued. 

' April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 
oo 

a. 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

any technology that has been (1) installed 

and operating continually for at least 

6 months on an emissions unit which has 

been operating at least at 50 percent of 

nameplate capacity; and (2) whose 

performance has been verified with a 

performance test or performance data while 

operating at 90 percent of the design 

specifications. 

• Proposal authorizes the permitting authority to 

cut off consideration of additional control 

technologies identified after the permit 

application has been determined complete 

unless a commenter meets minimum 

documentation criteria. 

Cut off in current policy is when final permit is issued. 

*-*-

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

10 
O) 

oE 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

^felW^^^ffl^^^^^^^^^^^H Current Rule 

• Minimum documentation criteria 

Name and location of the source utilizing the 

technology 

Manufacturer and type of control device 

Date technology was installed and 

operational 

Performance requirements 

Resulting test or performance data 

E. Complete Application Criteria 

New name for Source Information 

• EPA is proposing minimum criteria upon which 

the permitting authority should base its 

completeness determination: 

Thorough BACT or LAER analysis 

\ - additional impact analyses 

Class I area analyses 

PAL applicability 

undemonstrated technology waiver 

provisions 

FLM review and coordination 

registration on applicable bulletin board 

statewide compliance for nonattainment 

Documentation of offsets 

^ 

Current rules require that sources submit all 

information necessary to perform any analysis or 

make required determinations, including a description 

of the source, a schedule for construction or 

modification, information necessary to determine 

BACT, meteorological and topographical data, and 

air quality and growth impacts. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules ** 

11 
o 

PJ 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

F. Proposing reforms to the existing Innovative 

Control Technology (ICT) waiver 

• New name - "Undemonstrated Technology or • 

Application" (UT/A) waiver 

• New definition - "any system, process, material, • 

or treatment technology that shows substantial 

likelihood to operate effectively and to achieve 

either: (a) greater continuous reductions of air 

pollutant emissions than any demonstrated 

system, or (b) comparable emission reductions 

at lower cost, lower energy input, with lesser 

non-air environmental impacts, or with other 

advantages that are defined and mutually 

agreed on a case-specific basis to justify the use 

of UT/A provisions." 

• Expanding applicability of UT/A waiver to • 

nonattainment areas. 

• UT/A waiver must contain a reference emission 

control performance objective of the UT/A and 

the otherwise applicable BACT or LAER 

standard. 

Referred to as innovative control technology (ICT) at 

51.166(s) 

Current definition-"any system of air pollution control 

that has not been adequately demonstrated in 

practice, but would have a substantial likelihood of 

achieving greater continuous emissions reduction 

than any control system in current practice or of 

achieving at least comparable reductions at lower 

cost in terms of energy, economics, or non-air quality 

environmental impacts." 

ICT waivers are limited to PSD areas. 

' April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

12 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Permitting authority is required to include in the 

UT/A permit both "marginal" and "gross" failure 

emission limits. 

Contingency measures must be identified 

for failure modes. 

"Gross" failure emission limit is an 

enforceable emission limit 

• Provides permitting authority the flexibility to 

either permit the UT/A at its "marginal" failure 

emission level or require the source to install 

technology capable of achieving the appropriate 

reference emission limit. 

• EPA requests comment on possible methods for 

creating incentives. 

• An UT/A that "grossly" fails is required to either 

replace or retrofit, on an expeditious schedule, 

such that the source achieves the applicable 

BACT or LAER standard within 18 months. 

• Duration of UT/A waiver 

2 years from date of start-up or; 

5 years from date of permit issuance. 

ICT must achieve a level of continuous emission 

reduction equivalent to BACT. There is no distinction 

between marginal and gross failure. 

No marginal failure provisions. 

O 

If the ICT fails to meet the required level of emission 

reduction, the source has up to 3 years to meet the 

requirement. 

Duration of ICT waiver 

- 4 years from date of start up; or 

- 7 years from date of permit issuance 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules ** 

13 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Consistent with the CAA, establishes a limit on 

the issuance of UT/A waivers to that necessary 

to demonstrate the performance of a technology 

or application. 

G. Pollution Prevention (PP) 

• Reaffirms existing Agency policy on pollution 

prevention (May 28, 1992 memo) which provides 

guidance on incorporating pollution prevention 

into the Agency's ongoing programs. 

• Revised package retains position that existing 

regulations and the PCP exclusion provide 

satisfactory consideration of PP initiatives 

No specific mention of pollution prevention. 

<-i 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

14 
co 

PJ 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

V. Class I Areas 

A. Pre-Application Coordination with FLMs 

• Permitting authority required to notify the FLM within 

30 days of being informed that a proposed source 

intends to locate within 100 km of a Federal Class I 

area. 

• Require permitting authorities to provide an 

opportunity for FLMs to participate in any preapplication meetings with prospective PSD applicants 

planning to locate within 100 km of a Federal Class I 

area. 

• FLM must provide pertinent information on AQRVs 

and methods to analyze potential impacts, where 

available, to PSD permit applicants upon request. 

• EPA is creating an electronic database for the 

compilation of available Class I information. 

Same notification of FLMs is currently required under 

the Federal PSD rules; no requirement exists under 

part 51 PSD rules.. 

No opportunity to participate is explicitly provided in 

current PSD rules. 

FLMs are not required to provide such information. 

No formal database currently exists. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

15 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

B. Completeness Review 

• Permitting authority must send permit application to FLM 

for each source located within 100 km of Federal Class I 

area. 

• FLM may review summary information in EPA database 

for each proposed source beyond 100 km from a Federal 

Class I area. 

- Summary of each PSD permit application must be 

entered into the database. 

EPA must provide written notice of any permit 

application for a source which "may affect" a Class 

area. Such notice must be given within 30 days of 

receipt and at least 60 days before public hearing 

No comparable requirement currently exists. 

cO 

ft 

- FLM has 7 days from date of registration in the 

database to request permit application. 

FLM must file a Notice alleging potential adverse impact. 

This Notice triggers requirement for a Class I analysis 

(PSD increments + AQRVs). 

No requirement currently exists for FLM to file a 

Notice alleging potential adverse impacts. 

[Although Notice is prescribed the Act] 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

16 
IO 

CM 

COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

FLM has at least 30 days from receipt of permit 

application for review prior to issuance of a completeness 

determination by the permitting authority. 

• The permitting authority must consult with the FLM and 

try to resolve any potential information deficiencies prior 

to issuing a completeness determination. 

PSD rules provide no FLM involvement in 

completeness determination. Under Federal PSD 

rules, FLM has 30 days from receipt of application to 

provide EPA with an analysis of adverse impact on 

visibility. 

No comparable consultation requirement currently 

exists. 

C. Permit Evaluation: Adverse Impact Analysis 

• Proposal clarifies that required Class I analysis involves 

any AQRVs identified by the FLM for which the Notice 

has been filed. 

PSD rules contain general provision for FLM to 

demonstrate that source emissions will have an 

adverse impact on AQRVs. Federal PSD rules have 

specific procedures for submitting a demonstration 

concerning visibility. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

17 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• EPA is proposing general definitions for "air quality 

related value" and "adverse impact on air quality 

related values." 

- EPA is affirming that FLMs must have sufficient 

latitude to address impacts on an area-by-area and 

on a permit-by-permit basis. 

- EPA is encouraging FLMs to identify AQRVs on a 

regional or national basis where appropriate, and to 

establish general procedures for identifying AQRVs. 

• FLM has at least 60 days from date completeness 

determination is made to make the adverse impact 

demonstration. Permitting authority cannot issue a 

preliminary determination until FLM has been given this 

) opportunity to submit a demonstration. 

Current PSD rules do not contain comparable 

definitions. Federal PSD rules contain a definition of 

"adverse impact on visibility." 

FLM has 30 days from receipt of application to submit 

visibility analysis under Federal PSD rules; no time 

frame is provided under either set of rules for 

analysis of AQRVs in general. Part 51 PSD rules 

provide that FLM should provide demonstration after 

the permitting authority's preliminary determination. 

VP 

• Proposing significance levels for Class I increments that 

would be used to determine whether a proposed source 

contributes to a Class I increment violation. 

No Class I significance levels currently exist. Existing 

significance levels apply only to NAAQS and Class II 

increments. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

18 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Permitting authority must consult with the FLM regarding 

permitting authority's own evaluation of the FLM's 

adverse impact demonstration 

• Proposed source may obtain emission offsets, a 

reduction in emissions or some combination of both to 

mitigate its adverse impacts on a Class I area in order to 

obtain a PSD permit. 

No comparable requirements exist for consultation 

with the FLM regarding adverse impact 

demonstrations. 

No specific provisions for mitigation of adverse 

impacts currently exists. 

D. Preliminary Determination: Public Review 

• Permitting authority must be satisfied that the FLM's 

demonstration shows that an adverse impact on 

AQRVs will occur. 

This requirement is consistent with current PSD rules. 

^ 

< * 

- If permitting authority agrees with the demonstration, 

) must propose that permit be denied. 

- If permitting authority is not satisfied that an adverse 

impact will occur, may propose to issue the permit. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

19 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• Permitting authority must provide, in the public record, an 

explanation of the reasons for proposing to reject the 

FLM's demonstration of adverse impact. Rejection must 

focus on the predicted impacts, the underlying 

assumptions concerning adverse impacts, and why the 

source's impacts are not considered adverse. 

Federal PSD rules contain a provision requiring EPA 

to provide its reasons for rejecting an adverse impact 

finding on visibility in the notice of public hearing. 

Part 51 PSD rules do not contain any comparable 

provisions. 

E. Final Permit 

• Permitting authority must address any comments 

received from the FLM concerning the permitting 

authority's preliminary determination. 

No comparable requirement currently exists. 

VI. Allowable Activities Prior to Permit Issuance 

• EPA is taking comment on the types of activities that 

might be allowed to a facility undergoing modification but 

prior to receipt of the construction permit 

Existing Regs do not allow for any construction 

activities prior to permit issues 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

•Eratta April 18, 1996** 20 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

VII. Judicial Standing 

• States would be required to provide applicants and public 

with opportunity for State judicial review of major NSR 

permit actions under approved NSR SIPs 

Currently available under Federal PSD programs, 

and considered as a general requirement for SIPs 

under several sections of the Act. 

VIII. Easing Restrictions on Crediting Shutdown 

Emissions as NSR Offsets In Nonattainment 

Areas Needing Attainment Demonstrations 

• Alternative #1 - In ozone nonattainment areas emissions 

from source shutdowns or curtailments that occur after 

November 15, 1990 are creditable as NSR offsets so long 

as the State's plan for attainment is current with the 

milestones and the attainment date has not been missed. 

• Alternative #2 - In all nonattainment areas emissions 

reductions from source shutdowns or curtailments are 

creditable as NSR offsets so long as the reductions occur 

after the base year of the emissions inventory and the 

emissions are properly included in the inventory. 

In nonattainment areas lacking EPA approved 

attainment demonstrations, emissions from source 

shutdowns/curtailments are not generally eligible as 

NSR offsets unless the reduction occurs after the 

new proposed source or modification has filed a 

permit application. 

' April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

21 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

IX. PROVISIONS IMPLEMENTING THE 1990 CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS 

A. Major Source Thresholds for Nonattainment NSR 

Applicability 

• For ozone nonattainment areas the major source 

threshold is 100 tpy for marginal and moderate areas, 50 

tpy for serious areas, 25 tpy for severe areas, and 10 tpy 

for extreme areas. 

• For PM-10 nonattainment areas the major source 

threshold is 100 tpy for moderate areas and 70 tpy for 

serious areas. 

• For CO nonattainment areas the major source threshold 

is 100 tpy, except for serious areas with significant 

stationary source contribution the major source threshold 

< is 50. 

The major source threshold for all nonattainment 

areas is 100 tpy. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

22 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

B. Emissions Offset Ratios 

For ozone nonattainment areas the emissions offset 

ratios are 1.1 to 1 for marginal areas, 1.15 to 1 for 

marginal areas, 1.2 to 1 for serious areas, 1.3 to 1 for 

severe areas, and 1.5 to 1 for extreme areas. 

The existing emissions offset ratio is greater than 1:1 

for all pollutants. 

Precursors To Nonattainment Pollutants 

Proposal clarifies that NOx is presumed a precursor to • 

ozone and that Nox, Sox, and VOC are PM-10 precursors 

as determined by the Administrator for each 

nonattainment area. 

The current rules only consider volatile organic Q 

compounds as ozone precursors and do not address ^ / 

PM-10 precursors 

D. Special Modification Provisions for Serious and 

Severe Ozone Nonattainment Areas 

• Significance threshold for modifications is greater than 25 

tpy for VOC and NOx 

Significance threshold is 40 tpy for VOC. NOx is not 

regulated as an ozone precursor. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

23 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

• If proposed modification increase emissions then netting 

provisions apply. Modification includes all proposed 

increases and decreases. 

• Netting includes proposed modification and all creditable 

increases and decreases over 5 year contemporaneous 

period. 

• If net increase is >25 tpy then major NSR applies as 

follows: 

For existing source emitting less than 100 tpy 

nonattainment NSR applies but BACT applies instead 

of LAER. Nonattainment NSR does not apply to any 

or all units that obtain internal offsets at 1.3 to 1. 

Proposed modification by itself must be 40 tpy or 

greater to trigger netting. Emissions decreases are 

not considered. 

Same basic netting method generally applies 

If net increase is 40 tpy or greater, then 

nonattainment NSR applies. Other than normal 

netting there is no special consideration for internal 

offsets. *0 

for existing source 100 tpy or greater, nonattainment 

NSR applies but LAER does not apply to any or all 

units that obtain internal offsets at 1.3 to 1. Providing 

internal offsets at 1.3 to 1 satisfies the general offset 

requirement. 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

24 
COMPARISON OF THE NEW SOURCE REVIEW (NSR) REFORM RULEMAKING PACKAGE 

AND CURRENT RULES (CONTINUED) 

Ozone Depleting Substances Regulated under 

Title VI of Clean Air Act 

The prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit • 

program applies to major modifications of ozone depleting 

substances (ODS). For purposes of determining if a 

modification is subject to PSD the EPA is proposing a 

significant threshold level of 100 tpy for these ODS. 

Any increase in ODS resulting from a modification at 

a major source is considered significant for PSD 

applicability purposes. 

\ 

Switches from to lower ozone depleting substances are 

generally considered as pollution control projects that are 

exempt from major NSR permitting 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) listed in Title III 

are not Subject to PSD 

• HAPs listed under Title III of the amended Clean Air Act 

that were regulated under PSD are no longer regulated 

under PSD. HAPs may still be regulated under PSD as 

constituents of more general pollutants such as volatile 

organic compounds or particulate matter. 

Current PSD rules do not explicitly exempt such 

changes from PSD. 

CO 

HAPs that are regulated under the Clean Air Act are 

also regulated under PSD 

April 9,1996; Proposed NSR Reform Rules 

25