P. 1 

# OAR Box 

# 1802 Prepped by Charmelle Mathews



### Document

Number: 

# 63 ) IV-E-5 7 Docket Number: 

# A-90-3 7

Printed 11/4/2008 11:57.59 AM

Sheet 63 of 117P. 2

,y 0ST<% 

# US E %P« ^ # UNITE D STATE S ENVIRONMENTA L PROTECTIO N AGENC Y REGIO N VI I 72 6 MINNESOTAAVENU E KANSA S CITY , KANSA S 6610 1 2 0 AU G 199 6 

## 7711m EP AAI R DOCKE T MEMORANDU

M SUBJECT : Summaryo f Briefing wit h Stat e and Loca l Ai r Pollutio n

Contro l Agencie s John Kno d erm . Regio n VIE

T FROM : TO : 3 ermitting an d Complianc e Branc h Ai r Docke t No . A-90-3 7 Thi s memorandu

msummarize s a briefin g conducte d o n Augus t 14 , 199 6 t o discus s th e conten t o f th e propose d rulemakin g o n th e ne wsourc e revie wregulations , Ai r Docke t No . A-90-37 . Th e briefin g wa s a portio n o f th e semi-annua l meetin g sponsore d b yRegio n VII' s Ai r Permitting an d Complianc e Branc h fo r stat e an d loca l agenc yai r permitting staff . Alis t o f attendee s i s attache d a s Attachmen t A . Prio r t o th e briefing , th e Regio n distribute d a documen t date d Apri l 9 , 199 6 entitle d "Compariso n o f th e Ne wSourc e Revie w(NSR ) ReformRulemakin g Packag e and Curren t NS R Rules, " attache d a s Attachmen t B . Th e Regio n als o mad e availabl e t o th e attendee s copie s o f th e Federa l Registe r publicatio n o f th e proposal . N o othe r document s relevan t t o th e proposa l wer e distribute d b yth e Region , and n o document s wer e submitte d b

yattendees . Th e participant s wer e advise d tha t th e Regio n woul d creat e a recor d o f th e briefin g an d submi t i t t o th e docket , an

d tha t an

ycomment s b

yparticipant s o n th e proposa l shoul d b e submitte d t o th e docket . Durin g th e briefing , th e Regio n summarize d th e conten t o f th e proposa l a s i t relate s t o th e following topics . Th e summary wa s base d o n th e preamble , an d t o a lesse r extent , th e material s i n Attachmen t A : 1 . W e discusse d th e following propose d revision s t o th e applicabilit yportion s o f th e regulations : expansio n o f th e WEPC O rule , extensio n o f th e contemporaneou s perio d fo r netting , pollutio n contro l projec t an d "clean facility " exclusions , plantwid e applicabilit ylimits ; 2 . Allowabl e activitie s prio r t o receip t o f a NS R permit ; 

### RECYCLE ^ KPtr . COHU M KOCIC O rtsi mP. 3

3 . Propose d revision s t o th e BAC T analysi s requirements ; 4 . Propose d revision s t o th e innovativ e contro l technology requirements ; 5 . Preconstructio n monitorin g provision s fo r PSD ; 6 . Treatmen t o f hazardou s ai r pollutant s unde r PSD ; 7 . Par t D NS R change s a s a resul t o f th e 199 0 Amendments : applicabilit ylevels , treatmen t o f precursor s fo r PM-10 , statutoryrestriction s fo r ne wsources ; 8 . Propose d revision s fo r emissio n credi t fromshutdown o r curtailmen t 9 . Judicia l revie wo f permi t decisions . Th e followin g matter s wer e raise d byattendees : 1 . Propose d revision s t o applicabilit yprovision s o f NS R - calculatio n o f futur e actua l emissions . Tw o attendee s observe d tha t a determinatio n o f futur e actua l emission s ma yb e difficult , and aske d whethe r th e concep t o f futur e "utilization " o f ne wunit s wa s define d i n th e proposal . Th e Regio n state d tha t th e concep t wa s no t defined , bu t tha t th e preambl e include d a discussio n o f ho wth e concep t woul d b e implemented ; 2 . Exemptio n o f hazardou s ai r pollutant s fromPS D review . On e attende e aske d whethe r permittin g authoritie s coul d immediatel yimplemen t th e exemptio n i n sectio n 112(b)(6) , relatin g t o exemptio n fromPS D revie wo f pollutant s regulate d unde r sectio n 112 . Th e regio n referre d t o existin g guidance , includin g th e Marc h 199 1 "NewSourc e Revie w(NSR ) Program Transitiona l Guidance " fro mOAQPS ; 3 . NS R applicabilit y- Plantwid e Applicabilit yLimits . On e attende e state d tha t indust:r yofficial s ha d expresse d a concer n tha t th e periodi c adjustmen t o f PEftJ L level s coul d pu t a sourc e i n a wors e position , wit h regar d t o NS R applicabilit yt o futur e change s a t a source , tha n th e curren t nettin g provisions . Th e Regio n state d tha t EP Ai s takin g commen t o n th e circumstance s whic h shoul d requir e adjustmen t o f a PAL ; 4 . Provision s relating t o th e BAC T analysis . On e attende e aske d whethe r th e proposa l woul d requir e documentatio n o f consideratio n o f al l possibl e control s fo r a particula r source . Th e Regio n explaine d tha t th e permittin g authorit ywoul d b e expecte d t o mee t th e "cor e requirements " fo r BAC T analyses , includin g som e discussio n o f al l availabl e control s fo r a particula r source ;P. 4

Th e Regio n state d tha t th e commen t perio d woul d clos e o n Octobe r 21 , 1996 , an d provide d informatio n concernin g th e dat e o f th e publi c hearing , i f on e i s requested . On e attende e representin g a loca l permittin g agenc ystate d tha t participant s coul d als o revie wan d commen t o n draf t comment s unde r preparatio n b ySTAPPA/ALAPCO , whic h woul d b e availabl e i n th e nea r future .

## I P. 5 

## /jft^Ji/tf^cf-

A
\JorJ A Quf«J

&f4 

# PHOAIEFAX &\\) SS* A 758 / ___JOMT 

## £ arl^j^ e .\vt\\ 

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



# £7 # j^jasA C

JAt/<**j< J von. sso

w 

# fit

-SSI-7&.3* L >v^ 5 ^iy'S-xSrlyr7p91 JlUjrp^^ol.^

r.Lot-dsCtr

u 3/4^4^?? - 3/pfeS"-|7l£



# wttr? KCM 0 

## j",y-6 , 

# cccH-b , S}.U)0 £ U5UA

M 

# _rysozi

_Y.Z302 ?fy-6?77- 

# U\LCo • -3 ^ 5/

5 i,% 33&1

—3<?S? jb!KG> 

# Tu. 7 SSjY^ k W J W



### Uxcfe . A _/..<-X . Z 9 

# 4 Slf Atr+lSf/ 

# - 7*^S "



# m y / 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



### AsfTZ T/^« v<_

_u/^ ce ^ ^0 e Fra-ncJ^ N



# £V* 4 £«* n C o v»«-«3-^

V *«*f * ,

<TV7V 3 

### n<-<_

_t \ ft



### . . ^ >. . ^/Y Y£ *>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 

# 73777YLu^wV

# iy^f/ SVetr v"M«u_* r 

# Corty fl - *

/lY(7y/?\7L

Y\Cs^s^y^ 

# Aisaszi

AY77>^<p
£P/J Y\JOZ<^ 

# 0 ^ 

# < L f^M r

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 ) COMPARISO N O F TH E NEWSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S 

# 1 * I . Backgroun d

• Goa l o fNS R Refor m i s t o reduc e cost s an d regulator yburden s withou t sacrificin g environmenta l V) 3 benefit s embodie d i n th e presen t approach . H - • NS R Refor m Subcommitte e forme d i n Jul y199 3 unde rth e auspice s o fth e ^ C Clea n Ai rAct Advisor yCommittee . • Subcommittee' s purpos e i s t o provid e independen t advice an d counse l t o EPAo n polic

yan d technica l issue s associate d wit h reformin g th e NS R rules . • Propose d change s would :

- reduc e th e numbe ran d type s o factivitie s subjec t t o NS R

- provid e State s greate rflexibilityt o implemen t th e NS R progra m

- revam p permittin g o fsource s nea rClas s I areas ,

- promot e innovativ e technologie s an d pollutio n preventio n V

- streamlin e th e NS R permittin g proces s

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule so E COMPARISO N O F TH E NEWSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TNS R RULE S (continued ) A. The "Clean Unit" Exclusion

• Asimplifie d applicabilitytes t fo rchange s t o existin g unit s tha t alread yhav e state-of-the-ar t controls . • Change s whic h d o no t increas e th e unit' s hourl y potentia l emission s woul d no t b e considere d a physica l o roperationa l chang e an d woul d not trigge rmajo rNS R

• Wha t i s a "clea n unit" ? a n emission s uni t tha t ha s a federall y enforceabl e emissio n limi t comparabl e t o th e emissio n limi t tha t woul d resul t fro m a curren t revie wunde rth e BACT/LAE R requirement s Th e existin g NS R progra m doe s no t includ e th e "Clea n Unit " exclusion .

^ >

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule sCOMPARISO N O F TH E NEWSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED) thre e limit s woul d qualify : o BAC To rLAE R limit s se t withi n th e las t 1 0 years o limit s se t bya Stat e technolog ymino r ne wsourc e reviewprogra m determine d b yEP At o b e equivalen t t o th e federa l BACT/LAE R program s B. The "Clean Facility"

Exclusion 

# c r Allow s State s t o exclud e fro m majo rNS R propose d change s t o a n existin g majo rstationar ysourc e tha t ha s installe d BACTo rLAE R an d has undergon e a n ai rquality impact analysi s withi n th e las t 1 0 years Th e existin g NS R progra m doe s not includ e th e "Clea n Facility " exclusion . C . Netting

Baseline • Amore flexibl e an d lenien t metho d fo r computin g "nettin g baseline " emissions . Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s

### COMPARISO N OF TH E NE W

SOURC E REVIE

W (NSR ) REFOR

M RULEMAKIN

GPACKAG E AND CURREN T RULE S (CONTINUED )

• Base d o n source' s highes t leve l o futilizatio n an d • no t necessaril yhighes t emissio n rate .

• Utilizatio n leve l (capacityfactor) i s th e highes t consecutiv e 12-mont h perio d i n th e 1 0 years precedin g th e propose d change . I n nonattainmen t area s an d ozon e transport regions , th e baselin e canno t begi n prio rt o Novembe r11 , 1990 .

• Sourc e mus t us e th e curren t allowabl e emissio n rat e (e.g. , Ibs./MMbtu ) takin g int o consideratio n Federa l o rStat e emission s restriction s (RACT , NESHAP , MACT , BACT , LAER , NSPS , etc. ) impose d ove rth e 1 0 yea rperiod . Base d o n th e source' s averag e rat e at whic h th e uni t actuall yemitte d th e pollutant . Thi s reflect s actua l operatin g hours , productio n rates , an d type s o f material s processed , stored , o rcombuste d durin g th e prescribe d tim e period . "Actua l emissions " as o fa particula rdat e equa l th e averag e rat e at whic h th e uni t actuall yemitte d th e pollutan t durin g a 2-yea rperio d whic h precede s th e particula rdat e an d whic h i s representativ e o fnorma l sourc e operation . Th e Administrato rma yallo wth e us e o fa differen t tim e perio d upo n determinatio n tha t i s i t more representativ e o fnorma l sourc e operation . Fo ra n electri cutilitystea m generatin g unit , actua l emission s are th e representative actua l annua l emission s o fth e uni t fo ran y2-yea rperio d ou t o fth e precedin g 5 years . Th e Administrato rma

ypresum e tha t source-specifi c allowabl e emission s fo rth e uni t are equivalen t t o th e actua l emission s ofth e unit . Allowabl e emission s accoun t fo rapplicabl e Federa l standards , SI P emission s limitations , o rfederall yenforceabl e permi t conditions . 

## O

' Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule sC M a COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED) Propose d Rul e Curren t Rul e

• "Nettin g baseline " i s th e curren t allowabl e emissio n rat e multiplie d b yth e utilizatio n level . "Nettin g baseline " i s th e actua l rat e o femission s fro m th e uni t average d ove ra 2-yea rperiod . 

### D. Pollution

Control Projects • Proposin g genera l exclusio n fro m majo rNSR : Add-o n control s Fue l switche s t o cleane rfuel s Pollutio n preventio n project s There are currentl yn o exclusion s fo radd-o n control s o rfue l switches . Pollutio n contro l project s (no t includin g pollutio n preventio n projects ) at electri c utilitie s are exempt . Ther e are currentl yexemption s fo rtemporar

yclea n coa l technolog ydemonstratio n project s an d fo rpermanen t clea n coa l technolog y demonstratio n project s tha t d o no t increas e th e potentia l t o emit .

• Implementatio n safeguards : Environmentall ybeneficia l tes t fo rpollutio n preventio n project s Permittin g authoritygive n th e responsibility fo rdecisio n o n th e Caus e o rcontribut e test/ai rqualityimpac

t assessmen t Thes e safeguard s are applie d t o th e electri cutility exclusions , bu t d o no t includ e consideratio n o f AQRVs i n Clas s I areas . E. Plantwide

Applicability

Limits (PALs) Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s

### COMPARISO N OF TH E NE W

SOURC E REVIE

W (NSR ) REFOR

M RULEMAKIN

GPACKAG E AND CURRENT RULE S (CONTINUED )

• Proposin g regulation s t o allo wan d facilitat e State s issuanc e o fvoluntar ysource-specifi c PALS . • Apermittin g authorityma ychoos e t o adop t a n area-wid e PA L approac h • APA L permi t allow s th e sourc e t o make an y chang e provide d i t doe s no t violat e it s plantwid e emission s limi t Curren t rule s mak e n o provision s fo rPALs .

' Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule sQ _ COMPARISO N O F TH E NEWSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED) Actual-to-Future-Actual Methodology • Th e WEPC O rul e i s explicitl ylimite d t o utilitie s an d promulgate d a n actual-to-future-actua l methodolog yfo ral l change s at a utility , excep t fo rnewunits . I n th e fina l rule , EPAindicate d i t woul d conside radoptin g thi s methodolog yfo ral l sourc e categorie s i n a subsequen t rulemaking . • EPAsolicit s commen t o n thre e alternative s fo rth e futur e actua l methodology : leavin g th e scop e th e same ; applicabl e onl yt o utilityunit s extendin g th e methodolog yt o al l source categorie s eliminatin g th e methodolog y 

### c " Proposal

of CMA Exhibit

B • EPAagree d t o propos e an d tak e fina l actio n o n a methodolog yfo rdeterminin g whethe ra source ha s undertake n a modificatio n base d o n th e source' s potentia l emission s • Unde rthi s methodology , source s ma ycalculat e emission s increase s o rdecrease s base d o n eithe rth e existin g actua l emission s o ro n potentia l emissions , measure d i n term s o fhourl y emission s Th e curren t basi s fo rnet emission s increas e i s actua l emissions .

' Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule sQ _ COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

• Source s coul d us e thi s potential-to-potentia l tes t fo rbot h NS R applicabilit yan d fo rcalculatin g offsets , nettin g credits , an d othe remissio n reductio n credits . • Aseriou s drawbac k

o fthi s approac h i s tha t i t woul d allo wunchecke d consumptio n o f incremen t b yold , grandfathere d source s t o th e exclusio n o fnew , mor e efficien t an d less pollutin g sources . 

# ^ r IV . Bes t Availabl e Contro l Technolog y (BACT ) A. EPA is

proposing

to codify core criteria for BACT determinations: • Al l o fth e availabl e contro l system s fo rth e source , includin g th e mos t stringent , mus t b e considere d i n th e determinatio n • Th e selectio n o fa particula rcontro l syste m a s BAC Tmus t b e justifie d i n term s o fth e statutor y criteri a an d supporte d b yth e record , an d mus t explai n th e basi s fo rth e rejectio n o fth e othe r mor e stringen t contro l candidat e syste m Curren t rule s d o no t specif ythes e criteria , bu t curren t polic ycall s fo rthei ruse . Curren t rule s d o no t specif ythes e criteria , bu t curren t polic ycall s fo rthei ruse . Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule sC O a COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED)

B. Codifying

the Existing

"Top-Down"

BACT Determination

Policy in Federal NSR Regulations • EP Arequest s publi ccomments o n alternativ e method s fo rdeterminin g BACT . • Th e propose d Federa l regulation s woul d serve a templat e fo rStat e an d loca l agenc yrules . Improve Content and Management

of RACT/ BACT/LAER

Clearinghouse • EPAi s proposin g mandator ysubmitta l ofBAC

T determination s t o th e RBLC b yth e permittin g authoritywithi n 6 0 days o fpermi t issuance . Curren t rule s d o not require submitta l t o th e RBLC . ^

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 81 ^ COMPARISO N O F TH E NEWSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

• Man yo fth e improvement s t o th e RBLC recommende d byth e CAAA C have bee n made ; others wil l occu ra s resource s becom e availabl e D . Streamlining

BACT/LAER

Determinations • BACT/LAE R determination s nee d onl yconside r technologie s "demonstrate d i n practice. "

• "Demonstrate d i n practice " includes : al l technologie s require d an d reporte d throug h existin g regulator yprogram s an d thos e that , whil e not identifie d i n th e regulator yarena , mee t specifi ccriteri a fo r determinin g thei ravailabilityan d appropriatenes s fo rconsideratio n i n a BACT/LAE R analysi s Curren t rule s d o not mak e detaile d requirement s wit h regard t o a cutoffdate . Curren t EP Apolic ycall s fo r consideratio n o favailabl e contro l technologie s fo r BACT , includin g emergin g technologies , unti l th e tim e tha t a fina l NS R permi t i s issued .

' Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule so o a. COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

an ytechnolog ytha t ha s bee n (1 ) installe d an d operatin g continuall yfo ra t leas t 6 month s o n a n emission s uni t whic h ha s bee n operatin g a t leas t a t 5 0 percen t o f nameplat e capacity ; an d (2 ) whos e performanc e ha s bee n verifie d wit h a performanc e tes t o rperformanc e dat a whil e operatin g a t 9 0 percen t o fth e desig n specifications . • Proposa l authorize s th e permittin g authorit yt o cu t of fconsideratio n o fadditiona l contro l technologie s identifie d afte rth e permi t applicatio n ha s bee n determine d complet e unles s a commente rmeet s minimu m documentatio n criteria . Cu t of fi n curren t polic yi s whe n fina l permi t i s issued . *-* -

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 1 0O ) oE COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED ) 

## ^felW^^^ffl^^^^^^^^^^^ H Curren t Rul e

• Minimu m documentatio n criteri a Nam e an d locatio n o fth e sourc e utilizin g th e technolog y Manufacture ran d typ e o fcontro l devic e Dat e technolog ywa s installe d an d operationa l Performanc e requirement s Resultin g tes t o rperformanc e dat a E . Complete

Application

Criteria New name for Source Information • EP Ai s proposin g minimu m criteri a upo n whic h th e permittin g authorit yshoul d bas e it s completenes s determination : Thoroug h BAC To rLAE R analysi s \ - additiona l impac t analyse s

Clas s I are a analyse s PA L applicabilit y undemonstrate d technolog ywaive r provision s FL M revie wan d coordinatio n registratio n o n applicabl e bulleti n boar d statewid e complianc e fo rnonattainmen t Documentatio n o foffset s ^ Curren t rule s requir e tha t source s submi t al l informatio n necessaryt o perfor m an yanalysi s o r mak e require d determinations , includin g a descriptio n o fth e source , a schedule fo rconstructio n o r modification , informatio n necessar yt o determin e BACT , meteorologica l an d topographica l data , an d ai rqualit yan d growt h impacts .

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s * * 1 1o P J
COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )
F. Proposing

reforms

to the existing

Innovative Control Technology

(ICT) waiver • Ne wnam e - "Undemonstrate d Technolog yo r• Application " (UT/A ) waive r • Ne wdefinitio n - "an ysystem , process , material , • o rtreatmen t technolog ytha t show s substantia l likelihoo d t o operat e effectivel yan d t o achiev e either : (a ) greate rcontinuou s reduction s o fai r pollutan t emission s tha n an ydemonstrate d system , o r(b ) comparabl e emissio n reduction s a t lowe rcost , lowe renerg yinput , wit h lesse r non-ai renvironmenta l impacts , o rwit h othe r advantage s tha t ar e define d an d mutuall y agree d o n a case-specifi cbasi s t o justif yth e us e o fUT/ Aprovisions. " • Expandin g applicabilit yo fUT/ Awaive rt o • nonattainmen t areas . • UT/ Awaive rmus t contai n a referenc e emissio n contro l performanc e objectiv e o fth e UT/ Aan d th e otherwis e applicabl e BAC To rLAE R standard . Referre d t o a s innovativ e contro l technolog y(ICT ) a t 51.166(s ) Curren t definition-"an ysyste m o fai rpollutio n contro l tha t ha s no t bee n adequatel ydemonstrate d i n practice , bu t woul d hav e a substantia l likelihoo d o f achievin g greate rcontinuou s emission s reductio n tha n an ycontro l syste m i n curren t practic e o ro f achievin g a t leas t comparabl e reduction s a t lowe r cos t i n term s o fenergy , economics , o rnon-ai rqualit y environmenta l impacts. " IC Twaiver s ar e limite d t o PS D areas .

' Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 1 2

### COMPARISO N OF THE NE W

SOURC E REVIE

W (NSR ) REFOR

M RULEMAKIN

GPACKAG E AND CURRENT RULE S (CONTINUED )

• Permittin g authorit yi s require d t o includ e i n th e UT/Apermi t bot h "marginal " an d "gross " failur e emissio n limits . Contingenc ymeasure s mus t b e identifie d fo rfailur e modes . "Gross " failur e emissio n limi t i s a n enforceabl e emissio n limi t • Provide s permittin g authorit yth e flexibilit yt o eithe rpermi t th e UT/Aa t it s "marginal " failur e emissio n leve l o rrequir e th e sourc e t o instal l technolog ycapabl e o fachievin g th e appropriat e referenc e emissio n limit . • EP Arequest s commen t o n possibl e method s fo r creatin g incentives . • A n UT/

Atha t "grossly " fail s i s require d t o eithe r replac e o rretrofit , o n a n expeditiou s schedule , suc h tha t th e sourc e achieve s th e applicabl e BAC To rLAE R standar d withi n 1 8 months . • Duratio n o fUT/Awaive r 2 year s fro m dat e o fstart-u p or ; 5 year s fro m dat e o fpermi t issuance . IC Tmus t achiev e a leve l o fcontinuou s emissio n reductio n equivalen t t o BACT . Ther e i s n o distinctio n betwee n margina l an d gros s failure .
N o margina l failur e provisions . O

I fth e IC Tfail s t o mee t th e require d leve l o femissio n reduction , th e sourc e ha s u p t o 3 year s t o mee t th e requirement . Duratio n o fIC Twaive r

- 4 year s fro m dat e o fstar t up ; o r

- 7 year s fro m dat e o fpermi t issuanc e Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s * * 1 3COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIEW(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

• Consisten t wit h th e CAA , establishe s a limi t o n th e issuanc e o fUT/

Awaivers t o tha t necessar y t o demonstrat e th e performanc e o fa technolog y o rapplication . G. Pollution

Prevention

(PP) • Reaffirm s existin g Agenc ypolic yo n pollutio n preventio n (May28 , 199 2 memo ) whic h provide s guidanc e o n incorporatin g pollutio n preventio n int o th e Agency' s ongoin g programs . • Revise d packag e retain s positio n tha t existin g regulation s an d th e PC P exclusio n provid e satisfactor

yconsideratio n o fP P initiative s N o specifi cmentio n o fpollutio n prevention . 

## <- i

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 

### 1 4c o P J COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )
V . Clas s I Area s A . Pre-Applicatio n Coordinatio n wit h FLM s •Permittin g authorit yrequire d t o notif yth e FL M withi n 3 0 day s o fbein g informe d tha t a propose d sourc e intend s t o locat e withi n 10 0 k m o fa Federa l Clas s I area . •Requir e permittin g authoritie s t o provid e a n opportunit yfo rFLM s t o participat e i n an ypre applicatio n meeting s wit h prospectiv e PS D applicant s plannin g t o locat e withi n 10 0 k m o fa Federa l Clas s I area . •FL M mus t provid e pertinen t informatio n o n AQRV s an d method s t o analyz e potentia l impacts , wher e available , t o PS D permi t applicant s upo n request . •EP Ai s creatin g a n electroni cdatabas e fo rth e compilatio n o favailabl e Clas s I information . Sam e notificatio n o fFLM s i s currentl yrequire d unde r th e Federa l PS D rules ; n o requiremen t exist s unde r part 5 1 PS D rules. . N o opportunit yt o participat e i s explicitl yprovide d i n curren t PS D rules . FLM s ar e no t require d t o provid e suc h information . N o forma l databas e currentl yexists .

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 1 5COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )
B . Completenes s Revie w

•Permittin g authorit ymus t sen d permi t applicatio n t o FL M fo reac h sourc e locate d withi n 10 0 k m o fFedera l Clas s I area .
•FL M mayrevie wsummar yinformatio n i n EP Adatabas e fo reac h propose d sourc e beyon d 10 0 k m fro m a Federa l Clas s I area .

- Summar yo feac h PS D permi t applicatio n mus t b e entere d int o th e database . EP Amus t provid e writte n notic e o fan ypermi t applicatio n fo ra sourc e whic h "ma yaffect " a Clas s area . Suc h notic e mus t b e give n withi n 3 0 day s o f receip t an d a t leas t 6 0 day s befor e publi chearin g N o comparabl e requiremen t currentl yexists . cO 

### ft

- FL M ha s 7 day s fro m dat e o fregistratio n i n th e databas e t o reques t permi t application . FL M mus t fil e a Notic e allegin g potentia l advers e impact . Thi s Notic e trigger s requiremen t fo ra Clas s I analysi s (PS D increment s + AQRVs) . N o requiremen t currentl yexist s fo rFL M t o fil e a Notic e allegin g potentia l advers e impacts . [Although

Notice is prescribed

the Act]

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 1 6I O CM 

### COMPARISO N OF TH E NE W

SOURC E REVIE

W (NSR ) REFOR

M RULEMAKIN

GPACKAG E AND CURRENT RULE S (CONTINUED ) FL M has at leas t 3 0 day s fro m receip t o fpermi t applicatio n fo rrevie wprio rt o issuanc e o fa completenes s determinatio n byth e permittin g authority .

• Th e permittin g authoritymus t consul t wit h th e FL M an d tr yt o resolv e an ypotentia l informatio n deficiencie s prio r t o issuin g a completenes s determination . PS D rule s provid e n o FL M involvemen t i n completenes s determination . Unde rFedera l PS D rules , FL M has 3 0 day

s fro m receip t o fapplicatio n t o provid e EPAwit h a n analysi s o fadvers e impac t o n visibility . N o comparabl e consultatio n requiremen t currentl y exists . C . Permi t Evaluation : Advers e Impact Analysi s • Proposa l clarifie s tha t require d Clas s I analysi s involve s an yAQRV s identifie d b

yth e FL M fo rwhic h th e Notic e ha s bee n filed . PS D rule s contai n genera l provisio n fo rFL M t o demonstrat e tha t source emission s wil l have a n advers e impac

t o n AQRVs . Federa l PS D rule s have specifi cprocedure s fo rsubmittin g a demonstratio n concernin g visibility .

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 1 7COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

•EP Ai s proposin g genera l definition s fo r"ai rqualit y relate d value " an d "advers e impac t o n ai rqualit y relate d values. "

- EP Ai s affirmin g tha t FLM s mus t hav e sufficien t latitud e t o addres s impact s o n a n area-by-are a an d o n a permit-by-permi t basis .

- EP Ai s encouragin g FLM s t o identif yAQRV s o n a regiona l o rnationa l basi s wher e appropriate , an d t o establis h genera l procedure s fo ridentifyin g AQRVs . •FL M ha s a t leas t 6 0 day s fro m dat e completenes s determinatio n i s mad e t o mak e th e advers e impac t demonstration . Permittin g authorit ycanno t issu e a preliminar ydeterminatio n unti l FL M ha s bee n give n thi s ) opportunit yt o submi t a demonstration . Curren t PS D rule s d o no t contai n comparabl e definitions . Federa l PS D rule s contai n a definitio n o f "advers e impac t o n visibility. "

FL M ha s 3 0 day s fro m receip t o fapplicatio n t o submi t visibility analysis unde rFedera l PS D rules ; n o tim e fram e i s provide d unde reithe rse t o frule s fo r analysi s o fAQRV s i n general . Part 5 1 PS D rule s provid e tha t FL M shoul d provid e demonstratio n after th e permittin g authority' s preliminar ydetermination . V P

•Proposin g significanc e level s fo rClas s I increment s tha t woul d b e use d t o determin e whethe ra propose d sourc e contribute s t o a Clas s I incremen t violation . N o Clas s I significanc e level s currentl yexist . Existin g significanc e level s appl yonl yt o NAAQ S an d Clas s I I increments . Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 1 8COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

•Permittin g authorit ymus t consul t wit h th e FL M regardin g permittin g authority' s ow n evaluatio n o fth e FLM' s advers e impac t demonstratio n •Propose d sourc e ma yobtai n emissio n offsets , a reductio n i n emission s o rsom e combinatio n o fbot h t o mitigat e it s advers e impact s o n a Clas s I are a i n orde rt o obtai n a PS D permit . N o comparabl e requirement s exis t fo rconsultatio n wit h th e FL M regardin g advers e impac t demonstrations . N o specifi cprovision s fo rmitigatio n o fadvers e impact s currentl yexists . D . Preliminar y Determination : Publi c Revie w •Permittin g authorit ymus t b e satisfie d tha t th e FLM' s demonstratio n show s tha t a n advers e impac t o n AQRV s wil l occur . Thi s requiremen t i s consisten t wit h curren t PS D rules . ^ < *

- I fpermittin g authorit yagree s wit h th e demonstration , ) mus t propos e tha t permi t b e denied .

- I fpermittin g authorit yi s no t satisfie d tha t a n advers e impac t wil l occur , maypropos e t o issu e th e permit .

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 1 9COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

•Permittin g authorit ymus t provide , i n th e publi crecord , a n explanatio n o fth e reason s fo rproposin g t o rejec t th e FLM' s demonstratio n o fadvers e impact . Rejectio n mus t focu s o n th e predicte d impacts , th e underlyin g assumption s concernin g advers e impacts , an d wh yth e source' s impact s ar e no t considere d adverse . Federal PS D rule s contai n a provisio n requirin g EP A t o provid e it s reason s fo rrejectin g a n advers e impac t findin g o n visibilit yi n th e notic e o fpubli chearing . Part 5 1 PS D rule s d o no t contai n an ycomparabl e provisions . E . Fina l Permi t

•Permittin g authorit ymus t addres s an ycomment s receive d fro m th e FL M concernin g th e permittin g authority' s preliminar ydetermination . N o comparabl e requiremen t currentl yexists . VI . Allowabl e Activitie s Prio rt o Permi t Issuanc e •EP Ai s takin g commen t o n th e type s o factivitie s tha t migh t b e allowe d t o a facilit yundergoin g modificatio n bu t prio rt o receip t o fth e constructio n permi t Existin g Reg s d o no t allo wfo ran yconstructio n activitie s prio rt o permi t issue s

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s •Eratt a Apri l 18 , 1996* * 2 0

### COMPARISO N OF THE NE W

SOURC E REVIE

W (NSR ) REFOR

M RULEMAKIN

GPACKAG E AND CURREN T RULE S (CONTINUED ) VII . Judicia l Standin g • State s woul d b e require d t o provid e applicant s an d publi c wit h opportunityfo rStat e judicia l revie wo fmajo rNS R permi t action s unde rapprove d NS R SIP s Currentl yavailabl e unde rFedera l PS D programs , an d considere d a s a genera l requiremen t fo rSIP s unde rsevera l section s o fth e Act . VIII . Easin g Restriction s o n Creditin g Shutdow n Emission s a s NS R Offset s I n Nonattainmen t Area s Needin g Attainmen t Demonstration s
• Alternativ e # 1 - I n ozon e nonattainmen t area s emission s fro m sourc e shutdown s o rcurtailment s tha t occu rafte r Novembe r15 , 199 0 are creditabl e a s NS R offset s s o lon g a s th e State' s pla n fo rattainmen t i s curren t wit h th e milestone s an d th e attainmen t dat e ha s no t bee n missed . • Alternativ e # 2 - I n al l nonattainmen t area s emission s reduction s fro m sourc e shutdown s o rcurtailment s are creditabl e a s NS R offset s s o lon g a s th e reduction s occu r afte rth e bas e yea ro fth e emission s inventor yan d th e emission s ar e properl yinclude d i n th e inventory . I n nonattainmen t area s lackin g EPAapprove d attainmen t demonstrations , emission s fro m sourc e shutdowns/curtailment s are not generall yeligibl e a s NS R offset s unles s th e reductio n occurs afte rth e ne wpropose d sourc e o rmodificatio n ha s file d a permi t application .

' Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 2 1COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED ) 

### IX . PROVISION S IMPLEMENTIN G TH E 199 0 CLEA N AI R AC TAMENDMENTS A . Majo rSourc e Threshold s fo rNonattainmen t NS R Applicabilit y •Fo rozon e nonattainmen t area s th e majo rsourc e threshol d i s 10 0 tp yfo rmargina l an d moderat e areas , 5 0 tp yfo rseriou s areas , 2 5 tp yfo rsever e areas , an d 1 0 tp y fo rextrem e areas . •Fo rPM-1 0 nonattainmen t area s th e majo rsourc e threshol d i s 10 0 tp yfo rmoderat e area s an d 7 0 tp yfo r seriou s areas . •Fo rC O nonattainmen t area s th e majo rsourc e threshol d i s 10 0 tpy , excep t fo rseriou s area s wit h significan t stationar ysourc e contributio n th e majo rsourc e threshol d < i s 50 . Th e majo rsourc e threshol d fo ral l nonattainmen t area s i s 10 0 tpy .

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 2 2

### COMPARISO N OF TH E NE W

SOURC E REVIE

W (NSR ) REFOR

M RULEMAKIN

GPACKAG E AND CURRENT RULE S (CONTINUED ) B . Emission s Offse t Ratio s Fo rozon e nonattainmen t area s th e emission s offse t ratio s are 1. 1 t o 1 fo rmargina l areas , 1.1 5 t o 1 fo r margina l areas , 1. 2 t o 1 fo rseriou s areas , 1. 3 t o 1 fo r sever e areas , an d 1. 5 t o 1 fo rextrem e areas . Th e existin g emission s offse t rati o i s greate rtha n 1: 1 fo ral l pollutants . Precursor s T o Nonattainmen t Pollutant s Proposa l clarifie s tha t NOxi s presume d a precurso rt o • ozon e an d tha t Nox , Sox , an d VO C ar e PM-1 0 precursors a s determine d b

yth e Administrato rfo reac h nonattainmen t area . Th e curren t rule s onl yconside rvolatil e organi cQ compound s a s ozon e precursors an d d o no t addres s ^ / PM-1 0 precursors D. Specia l Modificatio n Provision s fo rSeriou s an d Severe Ozon e Nonattainmen t Area s • Significanc e threshol d fo rmodification s i s greate rtha n 2 5 tp yfo rVO C an d NOx Significanc e threshol d i s 4 0 tp yfo rVOC . NO xi s not regulate d a s a n ozon e precursor .
Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 2 3COMPARISO N O F TH E NE WSOURC E REVIE W(NSR ) REFOR M RULEMAKIN G PACKAG E AN D CURREN TRULE S (CONTINUED )

•I fpropose d modificatio n increas e emission s the n nettin g provision s apply . Modificatio n include s al l propose d increase s an d decreases . •Nettin g include s propose d modificatio n an d al l creditabl e increase s an d decrease s ove r5 yea rcontemporaneou s period . •I fne t increas e i s >2 5 tp ythe n majo rNS R applie s a s follows : Fo rexistin g sourc e emittin g les s tha n 10 0 tp y nonattainmen t NS R applie s bu t BAC Tapplie s instea d o fLAER . Nonattainmen t NS R doe s no t appl yt o an y o ral l unit s tha t obtai n interna l offset s a t 1. 3 t o 1 . Propose d modificatio n b yitsel fmus t b e 4 0 tp yo r greate rt o trigge rnetting . Emission s decrease s ar e no t considered . Sam e basi cnettin g metho d generall yapplie s I fne t increas e i s 4 0 tp yo rgreater , the n nonattainmen t NS R applies . Othe rtha n norma l nettin g ther e i s n o specia l consideratio n fo rinterna l offsets . 

# * 0 fo rexistin g sourc e 10 0 tp yo rgreater , nonattainmen t NS R applie s bu t LAE R doe s no t appl yt o an yo ral l unit s tha t obtai n interna l offset s a t 1. 3 t o 1 . Providin g interna l offset s a t 1. 3 t o 1 satisfie s th e genera l offse t requirement .

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 2 4

### COMPARISO N OF TH E NE W

SOURC E REVIE

W (NSR ) REFOR

M RULEMAKIN

GPACKAG E AND CURRENT RULE S (CONTINUED ) Ozon e Depletin g Substance s Regulate d unde r Titl e V I o fClea n Ai rAc t Th e preventio n o fsignifican t deterioratio n (PSD ) permi t • progra m applie s t o majo rmodification s o fozon e depletin g substance s (ODS) . Fo rpurpose s o fdeterminin g i fa modificatio n i s subject t o PS D th e EPAi s proposin g a significan t threshol d leve l o f10 0 tp yfo rthes e ODS . An yincreas e i n OD S resultin g fro m a modificatio n at a majo rsourc e i s considere d significan t fo rPS D applicabilitypurposes .

\ Switche s fro m t o lowe rozon e depletin g substance s are generall yconsidere d a s pollutio n contro l project s tha t are exemp t fro m majo rNS R permittin g Hazardou s Ai rPollutant s (HAPs ) liste d i n Titl e II I ar e not Subjec t t o PS D • HAP s liste d unde rTitl e II I o fth e amende d Clea n Ai rAct tha t wer e regulate d unde rPS D are n o longe rregulate d unde rPSD . HAP s ma

ystil l b e regulate d unde rPS D a s constituent s o fmore genera l pollutant s suc h a s volatil e organi ccompound s o rparticulat e matter . Curren t PS D rule s d o not explicitl yexemp t suc h change s fro m PSD . 

### C O HAP s tha t are regulate d unde rth e Clea n Ai rAct are als o regulate d unde rPS D

Apri l 9,1996 ; Propose d NS R Refor m Rule s 2 5