-------
5 31.166
whichever Is lower, exceed* the new
level of actual emissions;
(o> It la federally enforceable at and
after the time that actual coiutructlori
on the particular chance begins; and
(c) It has approximately the same
qualitative significance for public
health and welfare aa that attributed
to the Increase from the particular
change.
(vll) An Increase thai resulta from a
phynlcal change at a source occur*
when the emissions unit on which con-
•tnictlon occurred becomes operation-
al tuid begins to emit a particular pol-
lutant. Any replacement unit that re-
quires shakedown becomes operational
only after a reasonable shakedown
period, not to exceed 180 days.
(4) "Potential to emit" means the
maximum capacity of a stationary
source to emit a pollutant under Its
physical and operational design. Any
physical or operational limitation on
the capacity of the source to emit a
pollutant. Including air pollution con-
trol equipment and restrictions on
hours of operation or on the type or
amount of material combusted, stored.
or processed, shall be treated as part
of Its design If the limitation or the
effect It would have on emissions Is
federally enforceable. Secondary emis-
sions do not count In determining the
potential to emit of a stationary
source.
<5) "Stationary source" means any
building, structure, facility, or Installa-
tion which emits ->r may emit any air
pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act.
or
(E) of the Act for the pollutant on the
date of It* complete application under
40 CFR 62.21 or under regulations ap-
proved punmr.nl to 40 CFR 61.166: and
(6) In the case of a major stationary
source, the pollutant would be emitted
In significant amount*, or. m the case
of a major modification, there would
be a significant net emissions Increase
of the pollutant.
U8MI) "Baseline area" mean* any
tntrastate area (and every part there-
of) designated as attainment or unclas-
slflable under section 107(d)(l) (D) or
(E) of the Act hi which the major
source or major modification estab-
lishing the baseline date would con-
struct or would have an air quality
Impact equal to or greater than 1 pg/
m1 (annual average) of the pollutant
for which the baseline date Is estab-
lished.
(II) Area redeslgnatlons under sec-
tion 107(dXl) (D) or (E) of the Act
cannot Intersect or be smaller than
the area of Impact of any major sta-
tionary source or major modification
which:
(a) Establishes a baseline date: or
(b) Is subject to 40 CFR 62.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant
to 40 CFR 51.166, and would be con-
743
-------
fSI.IM
•tructed In the same state aa the state
proposing the redeslgnatlon.
(10) "Allowable emissions" meant
the emlMtona rate of a stationary
aource calculated using the maximum
rated capacity of the source (unless
the source Is subject to federally en-
forceable limits which restrict the op-
erating rate, or hours of operation, or
both) and the most stringent of the
following
(I) The applicable standards as set
forth In 40 CPR Parts 60 and 41;
(U) The applicable State Implemen-
tation Plan emissions limitation. In-
cluding those with a future compli-
ance date; or
(III) The emissions rate specified as a
federally enforceable permit condi-
tion.
(IT) "Federally enforceable" means
all limitations and conditions which
are enforceable by the Administrator.
Including those requirement* devel-
oped pursuant to 40 CFR Parts M and
•1. requirements within any applicable
State Implementation Plan, and any
permit requirements established pur-
suant to 40 CPR M.Jt or nmlcr regula-
tions approved pursuant to 40 CPR
Bl.ll or BI.I4W.
(IS) "Secondary emissions" means
missions which occur ss a rrntilt of
the construction or operatfon of a
major stationary source or major
modification, but do not come from
the major stationary source or major
modification Itself, for the purposes
of this section, secondary emissions
must be specific, well defined, quanti-
fiable, and Impact the same general
areas the stationary source modifica-
tion which causes the secondary emis-
sions. Secondary emissions Include
emlss|ons from any offslte support fa-
cility which would not be constructed
or Increase Its emissions except as a
result of the construction or operation
of the major stationary source or
major modification. Secondary emis-
sions do rot Include any emissions
which come directly from a mobile
source, such as emissions from the
tailpipe of a motor vehicle, from a
train, or from a vessel.
(10) "Innovative control technology"
means any system of air pollution con-
trol that has not been adequately
demoiMtrated In practice, but would
40 Cri Ch. I (7-l-M edition)
have a substantial likelihood of
achieving greater continuous emis-
sions reduction than any control
system In current practice or of
achieving at least comparable reduc-
tions at tower cost In terms of energy.
economics, or nonalr quality environ-
mental Impacts.
(20) "fugitive emissions" means
those emissions which could not rea-
sonably pass through a stack, chim-
ney, vent, or other functionally equiv-
alent opening,
(81XI) "Actual emissions" means the
actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit, as determined
In accordance with paragraphs (bM3l)
(II) through (Iv) of this section.
(II) In general, actual emissions as of
a particular date shall equal the aver-
age rate. In tons per year, at which the
unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a two-year period which pre-
cedes the particular date and which Is
representative of normal source oper-
ation. The reviewing authority may
allow the use of a different time
period upon a determination that It Is
more representative of normal source
operation. Actual emissions shall be
calculated using the unit's actual oper-
ating noun, production rates, and
types of materials processed, stored, or
combusted during the selected time
period.
(Ill) The reviewing authority may
that source-specific allowable
for the unit are equivalent
to the actual emissions of the unit.
(Iv) Por any emissions unit which
has not begun normal operations on
the particular date, actual emissions
shall equal the potential to emit of the
unit on that data.
(22) "Ccmplete" means. In reference
to an application for a permit, that
the application contains all the Infor-
mation necessary for processing the
application. Designating an applica-
tion complete for purposes of permit
processing does not preclude the re-
viewing authority from requesting or
accepting any additional Information.
(29X1) "Significant" means. In refer-
ence to a net emissions Increase or the
potential of a source to emit any of
the following pollutants, a rate of
emissions that would equal or exceed
any of the following rates:
744
ntwl Protection
fwvwe*
PoUotmnt »nd fmtarioM *•(*
Carbon monosMe: IOS tons per year
-------
9 51.164
(III) National memorial parka which
exceed 6.000 acres In size, and
(Iv) National parks which exceed
4,000 acres In size.
<2> Areas which were redeslgnated as
Clans I under regulations promulgated
before August 7. 1077. shall remain
Class I. but may be redestgnated as
provided In this section.
<3i Any other area, unless otherwise
specified In the legislation creating
such an area. Is Initially designated
Class II. but may be redeslmated as
provided In this section.
(4) The following areas may be re-
designated only as Class I or II:
(I) An area which as of August 7.
1977. exceeded 10.000 acres In size and
was a national monument, a national
primitive area, a national preserve, a
national recreational area, a national
wild and scenic river, a national wild-
life refuge, a national lakeshore or sea-
shore; and
(II) A national park or national wil-
derness area established after August
7. 1977. which exceeds 10.000 acres In
size.
(f) Exclusiont from increment con-
numption. (1) The plan may provide
that the following concentrations
shall be excluded In determining com-
pliance with a maximum allowable In-
crease:
(I) Concentrations attributable to
the Increase In emissions from station-
ary sources which have converted
from the use of petroleum products,
natural gas. or both by reason of an
order In effect under section 2 (a) and
(b) of the energy Supply and Environ-
mental Coordination Act of 1974 tor
any superseding legislation) over the
rmlosloiLs from such sources before
the if fectlve date of such an order,
(II) Concentrations attributable to
the Increase In emissions from sources
which have converted from using nat-
ural Ran by reason of natural gas cur-
tailment plan In effect pursuant to the
Federal Power Art over the emissions
from such sources before the effective
date of such plan:
(III) Concentrations of part leu late
matter attributable to the Increase In
emissions from construction or other
temporary emission-related activities
of new or modified sources;
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M fdltlen)
(Iv) The Increase In concentrations
attributable to new sources outside
the United States over the concentra-
tions attributable to existing sources
which are Included In the baseline con-
centration; and
(v) Concentrations attributable to
the temporary Increase In emissions of
sulfur dioxide or partlculate matter
from stationary sources which are af-
fected by plan revisions approved by
the Administrator as meeting the cri-
teria specified In paragraph (fX4) of
this section.
(9) If the plan provides that the con-
centrations to which paragraph (fXD
(I) or (II) of this section, refers shall be
excluded. It shall also provide that no
exclusion of such concentrations shall
apply more than five years after the
effective date of the order to which
paragraph (fXIMI) of this section.
refers or the plan to which paragraph
(f XI KID of this section, refers, which-
ever Is applicable. If both such order
and plan are applicable, no such exclu-
sion shall apply more than five years
after the later of such effective dates.
(3) No exclusion under paragraph (f)
of this section shall occur later than 9
months after August 7, 1980. unless a
State Implementation Plan revision
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
61.10> has been submitted to the Ad
mlnlstrator.
(4) For purposes of excluding con-
centrations pursuant to paragraph
(fXIXv) of this section, the Adminis-
trator may approve a plan revision
that:
(I) Specifies the time over which the
temporary emissions Increase of sulfur
dioxide or partlculate matter would
occur. Such time Is not to exceed two
yean In duration unless a longer time
Is approved by the Administrator;
(II) Specifies that the tune period for
excluding certain contributions In ac-
cordance with paragraph (fx4XI) of
this section. Is not renewable;
(III) Allows no emissions Increase
from a stationary source which would:
(a) Impact a Class I area or an area
where an applicable Increment Is
known to be violated; or
(b) Cause or contribute to the viola-
tion of a national ambient air quality
standard;
Afl*ncy
iiv> Requires limitations to be In
.fleet theend of the time period sped-
J^T In accordance with P"««raph
IIX4XI) of this section, which would
insure that the emissions levels from
SaUonW «urces •"ectedby ^ the
San revision would not exceed those
levels occurring from such sources
before the plan revision was approved.
(.Uledert of this section:
(II) The redeslgnallon, except any es-
tablished by an Indian Governing
Body, has been specifically approved
by the Governor of the State, after
consultation with the appropriate
committees of the legislature. If It Is In
session, or with the leadership of the
legislature. If It Is not In session
(unless State law provides that such
redeslgnatlon must be specifically ap-
proved by State legislation) and If gen-
eral purpose units of local government
representing a majority of the resi-
dents of the area to be redeslgnated
enact legislation (Including resolutions
where appropriate) concurring In the
redeslgnatlon;
(III) The redeslgnatlon would not
cause, or contribute to, a concentra-
tion of any air pollutant which would
exceed any maximum allowable In-
crease permitted under the classifica-
tion of any other area or any national
ambient air quality standard: and
(Iv) Any permit application.for any
major stationary source or major
modification subject to provisions es-
tablished In accordance with para-
graph (I) of this section which could
receive a permit only If the area In
question were redeslgnated as Class
HI. and any material submitted us
746
747
-------
951.IM
part of that application, were avail-
able. Insofar as was practicable, for
public Inspection prior to any public
hearing on redeslgnatlon of any area
as Class III.
(4) The plan shall provide that lands
within the exterior boundaries of
Indian Reservations may be redeslg-
nated only by the appropriate Indian
Governing Body. The appropriate
Indian Governing Body may submit to
the Administrator a proposal to redes-
Itnate areas Class I. Class II, or Class
III: Provided, That:
(I) The Indian Governing Body has
followed procedures equivalent to
those required of a State under para-
graphs (2). (3Hill), and UMlv) of
this section; and
(II) Such rcdeslsnatlon to proposed
after consultation with the Sfatrts) In
which the Indian Reservation to locat-
ed and which border the Indian Reser-
vation.
The Administrator shall disap-
prove, within 90 days of submission, a
proposed redeslgnatlon of any area
only If he finds, after notice and op-
portunity for public hearing, that such
rrcVfflgnatkm does not meet the proce-
dural requirements of thin section or to
Inconsistent wllh paragrnph of this
section. If any such disapproval
occurs, the classification of the area
shall be that which was In effect prior
to the redeslgnatlon which was disap-
proved.
(•> If the Administrator disapproves
any proposed area designation, the
OUte or Indian Governing Body, as
appropriate, may resubmlt the propos-
al after correcting the deficiencies
noted by the Administrator.
(h) Stock height*. The plan shall
provide, as a minimum, that the
degree of emission limitation required
frr control of any air pollutant under
the plan shall not be affected In any
manner by—
(I) Bo much of a stack height, not In
extotence before December 31. 1970. as
exceeds good engineering practice, or
(J) Any other dispersion technique
not Implemented before then.
(I) Review of major tlationary
source* and major modification*—
tource applicability and exemption*.
(I) The plan shall provide that no
major stationary source or major
40 CFft Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
modification shall begin actual con-
struction unless, as a mlnumum. re-
quirements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (J) through of
this section have been met.
(2) The plan shall provide that the
requirements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (J) through of
this section shall apply to any major
stationary source and any major modi-
fication with respect to each pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act
that It would emit, except as this sec-
tion would otherwise allow.
(9) The plan shall provide that re-
qulrements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
this section apply only to any major
stationary source or major modifica-
tion that would be constructed In an
area which to designated as attainment
or unclasslflable under section
!07(aMI> (D) or (B) of the Act; and
(4) The plan may provide that re-
quirements equivalent to those con-
tained In paragraphs (J) through (r) of
this section do not apply to a particu-
lar major stationary source or major
modification If:
(I) The major stationary source
would be a nonprofit health or non-
profit educational Institution or a
major modification that would occur
at such an Institution; or
(II) The source or modification
would be a major stationary source or
major modification only If fugitive
emissions, to the extent quantifiable.
are considered In calculating the po-
tential to emit of the stationary source
or modification and such source does
not belong to any following categories:
(«) Coal cleaning plants (with ther-
mal dryers);
(0) Kraft pulp mills:
(c) Portland cement plants;
id) Primary sine smelters;
(e) Iron and steel mills;
(/) Primary aluminum ore reduction
plants;
(9) Primary copper smelters;
(Ik) Municipal Incinerators capable of
charging more than 250 tons of refuse
per day;
(I) Hydrofluoric, sulfurlc, or nitric
add plants;
(/) Petroleum refineries:
(ft) Lime plants;
(I) Phosphate rock processing plants;
ntsjl Protection Aajency
twvws
(M) Coke oven batteries;
(M) Sulfur recovery plants;
(0> Carbon black plants (furnace
nmcess)*
<£Tprtroary toad smelters:
<«> Fuel conversion plants;
(r) Sintering plants; _^_41__
<•> Secondary metal production
(l> Chemical process plants;
<«) PossU-fuel boilers (or eombtaa-
tloo thereof) totaling more than 990
Billion Britten thermal units per hour
heat Input;
(•> Petroleum storage and transfer
•alto with a total storage capacity ex-
ceeding 100.000 barrels;
<•>> Taoonlte ore processtng plants:
(x> Olass fiber processing plants;
<•> Charcoal production plants;
of
this section do not apply to a major
stationary source or major modlflca-
151.1*4
tlon with respect to a particular pol-
lutant If the owner or operator demon-
strates that, as to that pollutant, the
source or modification to located In an
area designated as nonattalnment
under section 107 of the Act.
(6) The plan may provide that re-
quirements equivalent to those con-
tained bi paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
of Uito section do not apply to a pro-
posed major stationary source or
major modification with respect to a
particular pollutant. If the allowable
i missions of that pollutant from a new
source, or the net emissions Increase
of that pollutant from a modification.
would be temporary and Impact no
CUM I area and no area where an ap-
plicable Increment to known to be vio-
lated.
(7) The plan may provide that re-
sjuiresjidits, equivalent to those con-
tained to paragraphs (k). (m). and (o)
of thto section as they relate to any
maximum allowable Increase for a
Class n area do not apply to a modifi-
cation of a major stationary source
that was to existence on March 1.
ItTt, If the net Increase hi allowable
•missions of each pollutant subject to
regulation under the Act from the
modification after the application of
best available control technology
would be less than BO tons per year.
(•) The plan may provide that the
reviewing authority may exempt a
proposed major stationary source or
major modification from the require-
ments of paragraph (m) of thto sec-
tion, with respect to monitoring for a
particular pollutant. If:
(I) The emtortom Increase of the pol-
lutant from a new stationary source or
the net emissions Increase of the pol-
lutant from a modification would
cause, to any area, air quality Impacts
leas than the following amounts:
(«> Carbon monoxlde-575 ug/m' •-
hour average;
(o) Nitrogen dioxide-14 ug/m'.
annual average:
(c) Partlculate matler-10 pg/m»
TSP. 24-hour average-—10 pi/m*
PMw. 24-hour average.
(d) Sulfur dloxlde-13 ug/m1. 24-
hour average:
748
749
-------
§S1.1M
(e> Ozone: >
CO Lead—O.I jig/m*. 3-month aver-
age.
(0) Mercury—0.25 ug/m'. 24-hour av-
erage;
(A) Beryllium—0.001 pg/m*. 24 hour
average:
(() Fluorides—0.25 ug/m'. 24-hour
average:
O) Vinyl chloride-15 ug/m'. 24-hour
average;
(*) Total reduced sulfur—10 ug/m1.
1-hour average;
(I) Hydrogen iulflde-0.2 |tg/m*. I-
hour average:
Any national ambient air quality
standard In any air quality control
region: or
ax allow-
iasellne concen-
The plan shall
851.164
(b) For the modification, each pol-
lutant for which It would result In a
significant net emissions Increase.
(II) The plan shall provide that, with
respect to any such pollutant for
which no National Ambient Air Qual-
ity Standard exists, the analysis shall
contain such air quality monitoring
date as the reviewing authority deter-
mines Is necessary to assess ambient
air quality for that pollutant In any
area that the emissions of that pollut-
ant would affect.
are tocorporatea u» ••"- (III) The plan shall provide that with
guideline (EPA Publication No. 450/3- respect to any such pollutant (other
1»-«37R> and Supplement A (1987) arc tnan nonmelhane hydrocarbons) for
for sale from the U.8. Department of wn|ch such a standard does exist, the
«-..«„.! Technical Infor- .naUrri, shall contain continuous air
quality monitoring date gathered for
purposes of determining whether
emissions of that pollutant would
cause or contribute to a violation of
the standard or any maxlumum allow-
able Increase
for sale from the u.o. mi*.......... _.
Commerce. National Technical Infor-
mation Service. 5828 Port Royal Road.
Springfield. Virginia 32161. They are
also available for Inspection at the
Office of the Federal Register Infor-
mation Center. Room 8301. 1100 L
Street NW.. Washington. DC 20408.
These materials are Incorporated as
they exist on the date of approval and
a notice of any change will be pub-
lished In the FnnAL RBGISTBI.
(3) Where an air quality Impact
model specified In the "Guideline on
Air Quality Models (Revised)" (1986)
and Supplement A (1987) are Inappro-
priate, the model may be modified or
another model substituted. Such a
modification or substitution of a
model may be made on a case-by-case
basis or. where appropriate, on a ge-
neric basis for a specific state pro-
gram. Written approval of the Admin-
istrator must be obtained (or any
modification or substitution. In addi-
tion, use of a modified cr substituted
model must be subject to notice and
opportunity for public comment under
procedures developed In accordance
with paragraph (q) of this section.
(m> Air gnoli(y analy*i«—<1) Preap-
pMcatton analysis. (I) The plan shall
provide that any application for a
permit under regulations approved
pursuant to thle section shall contain
an analysts of ambient air quality In
the area that the major stationary
source or major modification would
affect for each of the following pollut-
ants:
(a) For the source, each pollutant
that It would have the potential to
emit In a significant amount;
Dieincreue.
(Iv) The plan shall provide that. In
general, the continuous air monitoring
date that la required shall have been
gathered over a period of one year and
shall represent the year preceding re-
ceipt of the application, except that. If
the reviewing authority determines
that ft complete and adequate analysis
can be accomplished with monitoring
date gathered over a period shorter
than one year (but not to be less than
four months), the date that Is required
shall have been gathered over at least
that shorter period.
(v) The plan may provide that the
owner or operator of a proposed motor
stationary source or major modifica-
tion of volatile organic compounds
who satisfies all conditions of 40 CFR
Part 81 Appendix 8. section IV may
provide postepproval monitoring data
for ozone In Ueu of providing precon-
structlon date as required under para-
graph (mXl) of this section.
(2) Post-construction monitoring-
The plan shall provide that the owner
or operator of a major stationary
source or major modification shall.
after construction of the stationary
source or modification, conduct such
ambient monitoring as the reviewing
authority determines Is necessary to
determine the effect emissions from
the stationary source or modification
751
750
-------
551.1*6
may have, or are having, on air quality
In any area.
(3) Opera/Ion o/ monitoring tta-
tiont. The plan shall provide that the
owner or operator of a major station-
ary source or major modification shall
laeet the requirements of Appendix B
to Part 68 of this chapter during the
operation of monitoring stations for
purposes of satisfying paragraph
of this section.
(n. Source information. (1) The plan
shall provide that the owner or opera-
tor of a proposed source or modifica-
tion shall submit all Information nec-
essary to perform any analysis or
make any determination required
under procedures established In ac-
cordance with this section.
(2) The plan may provide that such
Information shall Include:
(DA description of the nature, loca-
tion, design capacity, and typical oper-
ating schedule of the source or modifi-
cation. Including specifications and
drawings showing Its dunlin and plant
layout;
(II) A detailed schedule for construc-
tion of the sourcs or modification;
(III) A detailed description as to what
system of continuous emission reduc-
tion to planned by the source or modi-
fication, emission estimates, and any
other Information as nrcrssKry to de-
termine that best available control
technology as applicable would be ap-
plied;
The plan shall provide that upon
request of the State, the owner or op-
erator shall also provide Information
on:
(I) The air quality Impact of the
source or modification. Including me-
teorological and topographical d»ta
necessary* to estimate such Impact; and
(lit The air ruallty Impacts and the
nature and extent of any or all general
commercial, residential. Industrial, and
other growth which has occurred since
August 1, 11*77. In (h- ar*a the source
or modification would effect.
(o) Andltlvnal impact unalyiet. The
plan shall provide that—
(I) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide an analysis of the Impairment to
visibility, soils, and vegetation that
would occur as a result of the source
or modification and general commer-
cial, residential, fndustrlal. and other
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M
growth associated with the source or
modification. The owner or operator
need not provide an analysis of the
Impact on vegetation having no signifi-
cant commercial or recreational value.
(3) The owner or operator shall pro-
vide an analysis of the air quality
Impact projected for the area as a
result of general commercial, residen-
tial. Industrial, and other growth asso-
ciated with the source or modification.
(p) Sonnet impacting Federal Clou
I areat— additional requirement»-4li
Notice to SPA. The plan shall provide
that the reviewing authority shall
transmit to the Administrator a copy
of each permit application relating to
• major stationary source or major
modification and provide notice to the
Administrator of every action related
to the consideration of such permit.
(2) federal Land Manager. The Fed-
eral Land Manager and tlie Federal of-
ficial charged with direct responsibil-
ity for management of Class I lands
have an affirmative responsibility to
protect the air quality related values
(Including visibility) of any such lands
and to consider. In consultation with
the Administrator, whether a pro-
posed source or modification would
hrve an adverse Impact on such
values.
(*) Denial— impact on air quality re-
fated value*. The plan shall provide a
mechanism whereby a Federal Land
Manager of any such lands may
present to the State, after the review-
Ing authority's preliminary determina-
tion required under procedures devel-
oped In accordance with paragraph (r)
of thto section, a demonstration that
the emissions from the proposed
source or modification would have an
adverse Impact on the air quality-re-
lated values (Including visibility) of
any Federal mandatory Class I lands.
notwithstanding that the change In
air quality resulting from emissions
from such source or modification
would not cause or contribute to con-
centrations which would exceed the
maximum allowable Incier-ses for a
Class I area. If the State concurs with
such demonstration, the reviewing au-
thority shall not Issue the permit.
(4) C7oj» / Variance*. The plan may
provide that the owner or operator of
a proposed source or modification may
Pratactleii Af*ncy
demonstrate to the Federal Land Man-
tier that the emissions from such
source would have no adverse Impact
an the air quality related values of
ruch lands (Including visibility), not-
withstanding that the change In air
quality resulting from emissions from
•uch source or modification would
cause or contribute to concentrations
which would exceed the maximum al-
lowable Increases for a Class I area. If
the Federal Land Manager concurs
with such demonstration and n certi-
fies to the State, the reviewing author-
ity may: Provided, That applicable re-
quirements are otherwise met. tosue
the permit with such emission limita-
tions as may be necessary to assure
that emissions of sulfur dioxide and
particular matter would not exceed
the following maximum allowable In-
creases over baseline concentration for
such pollutants:
it
' M
tl
752
(•) Sulfur dioxide.variance 6» Gov-
ernor with Federal Land Manmfert
concurrence. The plan may provide
that-
(I) The owner or operator of a pro-
posed source or modification which
cannot be approved under procedures
developed pursuant to paragraph
(qM4> of this section may demonstrate
to the Governor that the source or
modification cannot be constructed by
reason of any maximum allowable In-
crease for sulfur dioxide for periods of
twenty-four hours or less applicable to
any Class I area and. In the case of
Federal mandatory Class I areas, that
a variance under this clause would not
adversely affect the air quality related
values of the area (Including visibili-
ty);
(II) The Governor, after consider-
ation of the Federal Land Manager's
recommendation (If any) and subject
to his concurrence, may grant, after
§51.1*4
notice and an opportunity for a public
hearing, a variance from such maxi-
mum allowable Increase; and
(III) If such variance Is granted, the
reviewing authority may Issue a
permit to such source or modification
In accordance with provisions devel-
oped pursuant to paragraph (qX7> of
thto section: Provided, That the appli-
cable requirements of the plan are
otherwise met,
(•) Variance 6y the Governor with
the Prettdenft concurrence. The plan
may provide that—
(I) The recommendations of the
Governor and the Federal Land Man-
ager shall be transferred to the Presi-
dent In any ease where the Governor
recommends a variance hi which the
Federal Land Manager does not
concur.
(II) The President may approve the
Governor's recommendation If he
finds that such variance to In the na-
tional Interest; and
(III) If such a variance to approved.
the reviewing authority may tosue a
permit In accordance with provisions
developed pursuant to the require-
ments of paragraph (qKT) of thto sec-
tion: Provided. That the applicable re-
quirements of the plan are otherwise
met.
(7) rrnfMto* limitation* for Preii
denttal or gneemetortal variance. The
plan shall provide that In the case of a
penult Issued under procedures devel-
oped pursuant to paragraph (q) (B) or
(•) of thto section, the source or modi-
fication shall comply with emission
limitations at may be necessary to
assure that emissions of sulfur dioxide
from the source or modification would
not (during any day on which the oth-
erwise applicable maximum allowable
Increases are exceeded) cause or con-
tribute to concentrations which would
exceed the following maximum allow-
able Increases over the baseline con-
centration and to assure that such
emissions would not cause or contrib-
ute to concentrations which exceed
the otherwise applicable maximum al-
lowable Increases for periods of expo-
sure of 24 hours or less for more than
IS days, not necessarily consecutive,
during any annual period:
753
-------
551.164
MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE INCREASE
IMtoo»«n« pm cut* MMf)
Make a preliminary determina-
tion whether construction should be
approved, approved with conditions, or
disapproved.
(II) Make available In at least one lo-
cation In each region In which the pro-
posed source would be constructed a
copy of all materials the applicant
submitted, a copy of the preliminary
determination, and a copy or summary
of other materials. If any. considered
In making the preliminary determina-
tion.
(Ill) Notify the public, by advertise-
ment In a newspaper of general circu-
lation In each region In which the pro-
posed source would be constructed, of
the application, the preliminary deter-
mination, the degree of Increment con-
sumption that Is expected from the
source or modification, and of the op-
portunity for comment at a public
hearing as well as written public com-
ment.
. Clean Air Act. ss amended (42 VAC.
740!(bMl>. 7410. 7470-747t. 7901-7500. Mid
700l(a»; KC. IM<«). Clean Air Act Amend-
ments Of 1*77 (Pub. L. 95-05. 91 8UI. MB
(Aug. 7. It77»>
143 FR MM1. June 1*. 1071; 41 FR 40010.
Sept. g. im, u amended U 44 FR 17460.
May 10. 1070; 45 FR 51710. Auf . 7. HSO; 47
FR 17500. June W. 1001: 40 FR 41100. Oct.
M. 1084; 51 FR 11170. Sept. 0. 10M. Rede*lg-
nated and amended at 51 FR 40000. 4M7B.
Nov. 7. 1000: 51 FR 14711. July I. 1007; 51
FR 30100. Auf . 7. 1057; 63 FR IM. Jan. 0.
10MI
Aormmmr Sees. 110, Ml(»>. 111. 110.
Clean Air Act (41 U.8.C. 7410. 70014*). 7011.
7010).
151.190 Ambient air •v*llty monitoring
requirement*.
The requirements for monitoring
ambient air quality for purposes of the
plan are located In Subpart C of Part
58 of this chapter.
144 FR 17500. M*y 10. 1070)
Subpart K — Source SurvoHlonto
Sooner 51 FR 40*73, Nov. 7. 1916. unlem
otherwise noted.
754
755
-------
ITMt
NOV241S36
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Need for A Short-term Best Available Control Technology (BACT)
Analysis for the Proposed William A. Ziflmer Power Plant
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director Original Signed By
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V (5AR-26)
This is in response to your November 17, 1986, memorandum, in which
you requested comment on Region V's belief that prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permits must contain short-term emission limits to
ensure protection of the applicable national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS) and PSD increments. I concur with your position and emphasize to
you that this position reflects our current national policy. Consequently,
I recommend that you continue to identify this apparent deficiency to the
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and seek correction of the draft
permit for the William A. Zimmer Power Plant.
The PSD regulations clearly require that the application of BACT
conform with any applicable standard of performance under 40 CFR Part 60
at a minimum. However, this should not be taken to supersede any additional
limitations as needed to enable the source to demonstrate compliance with
the NAAQS and PSD increments. In the case of sulfur dioxide (S02), source
compliance with the 30-day rolling average emission limit under subpart Da
does not adequately demonstrate compliance with the short-term NAAQS and
PSD increments. Consequently, enforceable limits pertaining to the
performance of the flue gas desulfuriration system on a short-term basis
must also be established. Note, however, that the short-term limits can
result from either BACT analyses or the need to protect air quality.
Therefore, the short-term limit could be more stringent than the BACT
limit.
-------
I recognize that the sulfur variability Issue tends to complicate
trie setting of short-term SOj emission limits, but such limits must be
defined nevertheless. Continuous emission monitoring data from comparable
sources can be used in order to estimate worst-case short-term $03
emissions that could occur at the plant. The modeling techniques used to
determine compliance with the short-term NAAQS and increments should
employ the enforceable short-term SO^ emission limits which the permitting
agency establishes.
-------
&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Air Quality
Planning ara Standards
Research Triangle Park NC 27711
EPA-450 4-80-031
November 1980
Air
Workbook for Estimating
Visibility Impairment
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
FEB 13 1981
U8RMT SERVICES OfflCE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
JUL 5 1988
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Air Quality Analysis for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD)
From: Gerald A. Enrfson, D1rectj_
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
To: Thomas J. Mas!any, Director
Air Management Division (3AMOO)
Your memorandum of May 9, 1988, pointed out that two different procedures
are currently being used by the Regional Offices 1n certain PSD permit analyses.
The Inconsistency Involves the question of how to Interpret dispersion modeling
results to determine whether a source will cause -or contribute to a new or
existing violation of a national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) or PSD
Increment. This memorandum serves to resolve the Inconsistency by reaffirming
previous Office of A1r Quality Planning and Standards guidance provided 1n a
December 1980 policy memorandum (attached).
As you know, the regulations for PSD stipulate that approval to construct
cannot be granted to a proposed new major source or major modification if it
would cause or contribute to a NAAQS or Increment violation. Historically, the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) position has been that a PSD source
will not be considered to cause or contribute to a predicted NAAQS or Increment
violation if the source's estimated air quality Impact 1s Insignificant (I.e.,
at or below defined de mini mis levels). In recent years, two approaches have
been used to determine If a source would "significantly" (40 CFR 51.165(b)
defines significant) cause or contribute to a violation. The first 1s where a
proposed source would automatically be considered to cause or contribute to any
modeled violation that would occur within Its Impact area. In this approach,
the source's Impact Is modeled and a closed circle Is drawn around the source,
with a radius equal to the farthest distance from the source at which a
significant impact 1s projected. If. upon consideration of both proposed and
existing emissions contributions, modeling predicts a violation of either a
NAAQS or an Increment anywhere within this Impact area, the source (as proposed)
would not be granted a permit. The permit would be denied, even 1f the source's
impar* was not significant at the predicted site of the violation during the
violation period. You have indicated that this 1s the approach you currently
use.
-------
-2-
The second approach similarly projects air quality concentrations
throughout the proposed source's Impact area, but does not automatically
assume that the proposed source would cause, or contribute to a predicted NAAQS
or Increment violation. Instead, the analysis Is carried one step further 1n
the event that a modeled violation 1s predicted. The additional step deter-
nines whether the emissions from the proposed source will have a significant
ambient Impact at the point of the modeled NAAQS or Increment violation when
the violation Is predicted to occur." if ft can be demonstrated that the
proposed source's Impact Is not "significant" 1n a spatial and temporal sense,
then the source may receive a PSD permit. This approach Is currently being
used by Region V and several other Regional Offices, and Is the approach that
you recommend as the standard approach for completing the PSD air quality
analysis.
In discussing this matter with members of my staff from the Source
Receptor Analysis Branch (SRAB)
-------
-3-
violation, offsets sufficient to compensate for the source's significant
Impact musfbe obtained pursuant to an approved State offset program consis-
tent with SIP requirements under 40 CFR 51.165(b). Where the source 1s
contributing to an existing violation, the required offsets may not correct
the violation. Such existing violations must be addressed In the same manner
as described in (b) above. However, for any Increment violation (new or
existing) for which the proposed source has a significant Impact, the permit
should not be approved unless the .Increment violation Is corrected prior
to operation of the proposed source (see 43 PR p.26401, June 19, 1978; and
»5 FR p.52678, August 7, 1980).
Your memorandum also states that other air quality analysis Issues exist
within the NSR program which need consistent national guidance. You recom-
mend a more coordinated effort between SRAB and NPPB to review outstanding NSR
issues. We agree; however, rather than establishing a formal work group as you
propose, we are optimistic that the formal participation of representatives
of the NSR program in the Modeling Clearinghouse will help resolve coordination
problems. Earlier in the year, the Modeling Clearinghouse was officially
expanded to Include representation from the NPPB to coordinate PSD/NSR issues
which have a modeling component.
I trust that this 1s responsive to the concerns which you have raised.
By copy of this memorandum, we are also responding to a Region V request
for clarification on the same Issue (memorandum from Steve Rothblatt to
Joe T1kvart/Ed Lillls, dated February 18, 1988).
Should you have any further questions concerning this response, please
feel free to contact Gary McCutchen, Chief, New Source Review Section, at
FTS 629-5592.
Attachment
cc: Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
D. Clay
J. Calcagnl
J. Ti lev art
E. Lillls
G. McCutchen
D. deRoeck
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 7.5
-------
43S14
FaoWaJ Regista* / VoL 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 198ft / Notices.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[FflL-SMSMT
Emissions Trading Policy Statement;
General Principles tor Creation,
Banking and UM of Emission
Reduction Credits
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Final policy statement and
accompanying technical issues
document.
SUMMARY: This Policy Statement
replaces the original bubble policy (44
FR 71779. December 11. 1979) and makes
final revision! in an Interim Emissions
Trading Policy which was published
April 7. 1982 (47 FR 15076) and on which
further comments were requested
August 31. 1983 (48 FR 39580).
The policy describes emissions
trading and sets out general principles
EPA will UM to evaluate emissions
trades under the Clean Air Act and
applicable federal regulations.
Emissions trading iachides bubbles;
netting, and offsets, ss well as banking,
(ERCs) for future uss. These aiternativss
do- not alter overall air quality
requirements: they give states and
industry more flexibility to- meet thoss*
requirements. EPA endorse* emissions
trading and encourages its seund use by
states and industry to Mpaeet tfce> >
goals of the Clean Air Act more quickly
and inexpensively.
However. EM afaa in •q|ia« i dtaf-
without strict accounting practices and
other safeguards-, emissions tradeajney
cause poteatiai environment*! hem. ~
Accordingly, this policy provides, •ot*-
explicit faisteoni on baselines aeaV
reiatad testa, foe eaviranmeaUl ..
equivalence and environmental
progress. It includes numerous
tightening and clarifications mean! to
assure the future environmental integrity
of bubbles and other trading
transactions.
Among other general steps, the potfey
states that the lower of actual or
allowable emissions must usually be
used as the baseline for emissions
trades. Divergences from this baseline
will be allowed only where the state or
applicant shows that any potential
increase in actual emissions will not
jeopardize National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). PSD
increments or visibility protection.
General showings to this effect may
be made only by establishing that
allowable values were dearly
incorporated in or assumed by aa
approved demonstration of i
or maintenance. Specific she
this effect may be made only in i
circumstances described1 in tnv * '. •
accompanying Technical Issues
Document
Other general matters addressed' snaV
siguiCtaiitly chniflad by this polity
mi lull* ii Hiiiniiiaali far air i]imiap
modeflny uad •ay«j»abU state gaaiBSSBv
bubble rslas. additional i nfiin i laaiil
safeguards; and additional safeguards
related to hubbies involving pollutants
listed, rasuiated> as* proposed to bar: _
sstaJnaBTfisnslaf Sacn'aa 11Z of thssABC -
This poflcy aleo-ssteJorttt new* MglHai.
laajnssBBsass fas babbies morimacfv
i»>a
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1966 / Notice*
43815
TON FUHTMtH INFOMIAVOM CONTACT:
Inquiries regarding the general
implementation of this policy may be
directed to: Barry Gilbert. Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards (MD-
15). Research Triangle Park. NC 27711.
(919) 541-5510.
Inquiries regarding specific
applications to use this policy may be
directed to the appropriate EPA
Regional Office (see Appendix A of the
Technical Issues Document)
Inquiries regarding the development
and basis of this policy may be directed
to: Barry Elman. Regulatory Reform
Staff (PM-223). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. 401 M Street SW.
Washington. DC 20460. (202) 382-2727
MSVUUMMTANY mpomtATiON: Under
Executive Order 12291. EPA must judge
whether this action ia "major" and
therefore subject to the requirement of a
Regulatory Impact Analysis. This action
is not major because it establishes
policies, as opposed to regulations, and
can substantially reduce the coses of
complying with the Clean Air Act
This Policy Statement was submitted
to the Office of Management and Budge)
for review. Any comments from OMB to
EPA are available for public inspection
in Docket G-81-2. Pursuant to U.S.C
eoS(b). I hereby certify that this action
will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. As a policy designed to allow
firms flexibility to meet previously
established regulatory requirements, it
will impose no burdens on either small
or large entities.
The contents of today's preamble are
indicated in the following outline. The
outline is followed by the preamble
itself, and then by the Policy Statement
dnd accompanying Technical Issues
Document.
Table of Contents: Preamble
I. Introduction
II. Major Issues
A. Baselines
1. Determining Baselines—Oeneral
Guidance
2. Comments on Dateline* in
Nonattainment Areas with Approved
Demonstrations of Attainment
3. EPA's Resolutions on Baselines in
Nonattainment Areas with Approved
Demonstrations of Attainment
B. Baseline and Other Requirements for
Bubbles in Primary Nonattainment Areas
Which Require But Lack Approved
Demonstrations of Attainment
1. EPA'i Resolutions Regarding Baseline
and Other Requirements
a. Specific "Progress' Requirements
b. Additional "Progress" Requirement:
State Assurances
Z. Basic Rationale
3. Additional Considerations
the Benefits of Bubbles
III Additional Policy Changes and
Clarifications
A. Generic Bubble Rules
1 Substantivt Progress Requirements
2. Procedural Requirements
8 Bubbles involving Haurdous or Toxic
Air Pollutants
C Banking Emission Reduction Credits
(ERCsl
D OBCRS Projections and Double-Counting
E Improved Modeling and D» Minima
Requirements
\.D» Minima Levels
2. Modeling Requirements
f Enforcement (MUM
PREAMBLE—EMISSIONS TRADING
POLICY STATEMENT
I. Introduction
Today's policy makes find the
Agency's prior guidance on general
principles for creating, storing (banking]
and using emission reduction credits in
trading action* under the Clean Air Act
This preamble responds to written
commer EPA received on major issues
raised r,, as proposed emissions trading.
policy statement (47 FR15076. AprU 7.
1982) and subsequent request for furtaat
comment (48 FY 39560. August 31.1983).
It also explains the Agency's principal
decisions on these issue*.
Today's notice is the primaqr .scare*
of EPA guidance on existingrsourca
bubbles, state generic bubble rule*, and
emission reduction banking. It replace*.
the original bubble policy (44 FR 71779*
December 11.1979) as well a* the
proposed emission* trading policy
statement, which was effective April 7,
1982 as interim guidance. The notice
addresses how emission reduction
credits (ERCs)—the currency of
trading—may be used for bubbles, as
well as for netting or offsets. Netting
and offsets are part of emissions trading.
but are governed by EPA and state
regulations for new source review.*
Nothing in today's notice alters EPA
new source review requirements or
exempts owners or operators of
stationary sources from compliance with
applicable preconstruction permit
regulations in accord with 40 CFR 51.18.
S1.24. 51.307. 52.21. 52.24. 5Z27 and 5L2&
Interested parties should, however, b*
aware that bubble trades an not subject
to preconstruction review or regulation*
1 See. f .*_ 40 CFR 3118.51.24. 31JO7 3L21. U34.
52.27 tnd 52.38.
On November 7.1986. EPA mtncturrd CFR Pert
51 end renumbered many of that Parr* MCttoas (SI
FR 4O8MI. BecauM matt reader* mil be more
familiar with pnor deticnanana. today'* noflee
contain* atitioni t»Md an tht ortaniutioo. of Part
il •• it eueted before tail mmictunnt. InnrnMd
parti** nay UM Appendix F of today'* Technical
(HUM Document 10 convert today'* Pan 51 cUatieae
to the corresponding ntw on**.
where these trades do not involve
constructioa reconstruction, or
modification or • source within the
meaning of those terms in the
regulation* listed above.
The policy announced today does not
constitute final action of the Agency
within the meaning of section 307(b) of
the Clean Air Act and therefore is not
judicially renewable. Rather, it
establishes general guidance for
reviewing and approving voluntarily
submitted tnd**. EPA will implement
this guidance in later rulemaking actions
that will be judicially renewable.
Applicant* for emissions trades remain
Ere*, following publication of today's
notice, to advance the appropriateness
of different trading requirements in the
context of rulemaking action* on their
individual trade*.
Under today'* notice. EPA continues
to authorize use of bubbles,-banks, and
generic bubbht rule* in ail areas of the
country, and provides for the fair and
prompt processing of bubble
application* which have been pending
before EPA under the 1982 policy.
However, bated on experience under
the) 1982 policy, and in order to ensure
the environmental integrity of future-
emasiona trad**, today'a notice
significantly tighten* requirements
applicable to certain trading actions.
particularly existing-source bubbles in
primacy nooattainownt area* which
require- but lack demonstrations of
attainment It also clarifies approval
criteria is way* which-should make
review and approval of
environmentally-sound trades more
rapid and predictable. Among other
safeguard* or safeguarding
clarifications, it requires that:
• Bubble* may no longer result in any
increase in applicable net baseline
emission* in any area, whether
attainment or nonattainment except
under stringent conditions which assure
that ambient equivalence will
neverthelea* be achieved:1
• Baselines for sources participating
in a bubble in any area must take into
account all three factors relevant to
total emissions (Law emission rate.
capacity utilization, and hours of
operation) in order to provide an
accurate accounting of emissions before
and after the trade:
' This dune* ooe*tiniiM • lifniflcantty more
*tnnaB*t definition of WBM may 6* conaidewd *
bubble under die Batewon* Trading Policy. Specific
umoiMi teau winch anut be SMI lo qualify for an
exception from ttat raetncaoa can be found m the
Technical Itaue* OOOUMBL Section UU.c Action*
which nay M lonaer b* Maud •* bubble* under
today'* nonce r»yet b* prece**ed under general EPA
entena applicable to SIP ravuicn*.
-------
4MXA-
/ Vol. CT. -M&T 2S9- / Tfcwsatey, December 4 T9W / Notice*
sress nee&n* bt* ladrjng spprowd
demonstration* ol artewmsnt meet UK
(he !owest^-ectu«l-SeP«lla»v»oie-or-
RACT-allowable emissions baseline, as
described below, for each source
involved in (he trade:
• Bubble* in primary aonattainment
areas needing but lacking approved
demonstration* must contribute to
progress toward attainment by
providing a 20% net reduction in
emissions remaining after application of
the baseline above to all sources
involved in tfaa trade or. if the bubble ie
being processed under a stale generic
rule, the greater of a 20% net reduction
or the perceal reduction which would be
required from all controllable stationary
sources in that area (eg- taking into
account expected mobile source
reductions and disregarding area-source
contribution*) in order to achieve
attainment
* Bubbles in attainment areas and
nonsttainment areas with approved
demonstrations must use Che lower of
actual or allowable values for each of
the three basetine components, unless
allowable vafaes higher than
corresponding actual values are dearly
used or reflected in the demonstration or
otherwise shown not to jeopardize
ambient standards. PSD increments or
visibility:
• In etf areas, emission reductions
must be made state-enfoResbh? in order
to qualify as ERCs and be deposited h»
an EPA-eppfevebte bank;
• In aft areas, bubbles' must meet
more stringent tests far ambient
equivalence, mcraofnf additional
ambient significance- levels, mere-
protective air quality modeling
requirements, and morn conservative-
definitions of da aanioua trades;
• In all area*, the total of any
incidental emissions of hazardous or
potentially hazardous air potiutants
associated with a criteria, potiatant in a
bubble trade must remain eooel or be
decreased whether sud> hazardous
pollutants have been rsgwiatsd,
proposed for regulation listed, or the
subject of a notice-of-iassnt-to-uat under
Clean Air Act 112;
• States must provide assurances to
EPA that bubbles submitted tor EPA
approval in primary nonattauunent
areas needing but lacking approved
demonstrations are consistent with the
state's SIP-pianning and attainment
objectives. For generic rules, the state
must make certain, assurances in
conjunction wUh its submittai of th»
generic rule to EPA. and certain
additional assurances with the state's
proposed and final approval of each
individual bubble under that rule:
• Bafabfes in- such primary
nonattainmeat areas may not use eredifc.
from reductions made before application
to bank or trade such- credit:
• Where sources in such1 area* seek- to
bank credits in the future, "application
to bank," for purposes of evaluating
credit*! for use in bubbles, means the
time of filing an application to make the
proposed credits state-enforceable
through or concurrent with use of a
formal or informal banking mechanism;
« Bubbles must not impede
compliance or enforcement (e.g.. the
policy states that compliance extensions
may 00 longer be granted1 under generic
rules in any nonattainnsnt ares, and
that bubble applications do not perse
suspend underlying SIP limits or defer
source obligations te achieve those
limits*
• Generic nriwinaft areas wiH be
subject to increased EPA oversight.
including EPA participetion in the
state's public notice and comment
process prior to state approval of*
indfvfcfcai bobbies, sabseqaent reviews-
of individual generic approvals, and
reviews of the-general tntpfementetiAff
of the- rules menwetves. in ordter n*
assure (net approved nr/es* are I
properly implemented sad
• EPA orstate notices of j
and final bobble approvals, in sJFanas,
mast cteariy indicate any changes-in
actual as- well as allowable emissions.al
all sources involved ia, the bubble, so
the ambient effects of these trades may]
be known.
These and.other '•fraffget announced
today will geaexally be applied to all SIP
revision bubbles and state generic
bubble rules that haws not been.
approved by EPA as of this date.*
Os June 25, IBM the Supreme Const
unanimously ruled that EPA may allow
states to use a single, pia&twkia
defiorboa oi "staHoaary source" Cor new
source review (NSR) purposes in
nonattainmeat areas aa well as
attainment areas, provided uae of that
definition would not interfere with
attainment and maintenance of national
ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS).4 Under the "peantwid*"
definition, increases and decxeases
occurring anywhere on plant property
from emission units within the same
two-digit SIC code are generally eligible
• See. how«**r. dtaunon of -p»nd»nf tmbfeeW
m SCCIMB 1C. of tod»? t Policy SteMiMiH end
Section UU.M4S ot <***?» Teefcriol le**e»
DocuiMBt
for netting.* and may be tied to
each other wttlroat tagyetinf
precaaslructMO peoMtt reputreaenu fcr
majoc aew sources «r modification*, so.
long as. actual plsntwids effussion*
would not stgnificanfty increase.
States and sources considering the use
of netting should, however, be aware
that applicable New Source
Performance Standards (NSPSt
preconstruction review requirements
under 40 CFR 51.18 (aHh) and (1*.
NESHAPS, and SIP limits continue to
apply to such modifications. EPA is
currently developing guidance for stales
that wish to adopt a plant-wide
definition of "source" for nonsttainraeor
areas into their new source review
regulations.*
Pending or future litigation or
rulemaking, particularly final resolution
of the settlement agreement arising from
the industry challenge to ERA'S i960
pronwlgatfon of revised NSR rules
(ChamfcalManufacturers Association v.
EPH. Nb. 79-1112. D.C. CIr.. February
1962); may alter aspects of this policy,
especiafly regarding certain transactions
unset EPA new source review :
rrprialinsa 1«e MlTt T1T1" (nuphf "
1963}(prop*eedrevisioKs). Howeasr.
-aatft E£A finally revises the
die current
lio in effect.
The DsseBne for s given source is tha t
level of emissions below which any
additional reductions may be counted
(credited) for use in trades. Questions
renting to appropriate bubble baselines
for particular emitflhg, sources or types
of sources ur nonattainment areas
generated the principal issues resolved
by today's notice. EPA's resolutions
strengthen SIP integrity and states'
ability to make progress toward
attainment by (a) identifying more
• SIC Cod* mttns codu described m the
SUndart tmjaunt C!«mftc»tton Minual. tyrz.
untndtd 1977 (U.S. Government Pnntm; Office
ttock numbtn «l8VODSSpind 003-OC5-otMT8-o
• Ctormn #5.4. lixt «. /Vottvof
. NX S CX 277B.
ovemMnf Notunl Resource* Dtfms* CeoncH. tne.
v. CofXKh. *» P.2d 718. 1Z EU ZOS42 fD.C Or.
19S2I.
• Many IUM* carmity eaploy the u-c*Ued
"dual d*SMttt»° al "UMuiory Marc*.* unoer win - -
both tke>pUMudtadiemitl9igpiec»af equtpmon.
within it ire 'lUUflOinr ssaccea.' Under !hii
defimtioB. when eny indinduci piece of equipment
i* larsi enough ia term* of potential emiuions 10 b>
dettml eee "merer itttronery source." only
increee** enrf iHu mei in eemir emnnotn from
thet indlyidu«iet>»ir»«UsiWr M "net."
WMte fcetenC nemnf a ale»
illn i •! mi Jtr •*" -***' -i~e'; Indeed, where .-o
individu«ipec*<4*eulUaf equipment n e- maior
itetionery tourcc." the 'duel definition eltowt tftp
urn*opportunely to 'n«t" >i the 'plemwide
definitioa
-------
Federal Raster / Vol SI. No. 233 / Thoraday. Dtceaber 4. 189Q / Notices
4331
preciwly the three factors which nuit
be addressed in calculating baseline
emissions: (b) reaffirming that far
bubbles in nonattainment areas with
demonstrations of attainment that have
been approved and not subsequently
found by EPA to be substantially
inadequate to attain ambient standards.
the baseline must be consistent with
assumptions used to develop the area's
demonstration or must otherwise be
shown by appropriate ambient
dispersion modeling to protect air
quality standards: and (c) specifying a
number of special "progress"
requirements for bubbles in primary-
nonattainment areas needing but lacking
approved demonstrations of attainment.
including stringent new baseline
requirements, a ban on the use of
reductions produced before application
to bank or trade, and a mandatory extra
reduction of at least 20% beyond
applicable baseline emissions. Together
with tightened criteria for modeled
demonstrations of ambient equivalence,
a well as other new requirements for
bubbles, banks, and generic roles, these
resolutions wUl ass ire contisvaed
environmental progress through trades.
1. Determining Baselines—General
Guidance
A source's baseline emissions an
calculated by multipjyiag three factors:
the source's emission rate (usually
expressed as emissions per quantity of
production or throughput); its hours of
operations or hourly usage over some
representative time period and its
capacity utilization (e.g., the units of
production per hour of use).7 All three
factors must be addressed, since a
source's emissions for a given period
may vary widely despite a constant
emission rate, depending, for example.
on whether it is operated at low
capacity for a small number of hours or
utilized near full capacity for a large
number of hours. The product of this
baseline calculation is generally
expressed in pounds of emissions per
day or tons of emissions per year (TPY).
or both.
Today's policy clarifies EPA's original
intent regarding appropriate methods for
determining these three baseline factors.
In general, in nonartainment areas with
approved demonstrations, a source's
baseline emissions for bubble purposes
must be calculated using the lower of it
actual emission rate or allowable
emission limit, phis the lower of its
actual or allowable capacity utilization
and hours of operation. That is, baseline
emissions m the** areas SMS! feeenily
be calculated using lower of actual or
allowable vsJuas far all (an* haislisu
factors.*
Actual values for these factors are
based on some representative historical
time period (generally the avenge of the
two yean preceding the source's
application to bank or trade).
Howvrtr. when the state or applicant
shows that the SIP. a soarce-speaSc
preconstruction permit or an equivalent
document dearly assumes or specifies
allowable values which an higher than
comspoadtag actual values for one or
more baseline (acton, and that
document post-dates the baseline
inventory year for a SVs attainaeat
demonstration, these values may
replace actual values for calcvlsttag the
bubble bamiiaa. When only oaw vaia»
(typically the emission rate) is specified.
the other two baseline factors must
generally be based on actual levels.*
Such showing* oust b* based on
either data tram the SIP or data used i>
SIP preparation. >• Applicants any
alternatively perform appropriate
modeling to denojntrsts that MM of
allowable wJoes which an higher thaa
actual values wiM aot delay or
jeopardize attainment and maastaaanc*
of ambisjot sassHiavds> protsctisn of PSD
increments, or visibility. Upon either
type of showiag. tbaa* allowable value*
may bavsad."
•Notttnfoadt
EPA* ia»iiif>naa at « era sria, SLSL st.<
1121. SL24. fTT-T-itlTI nirtTTratasbj tUo
diacBaaion of baaatiM appliM only M oubbJaa.
• Soo SoctkM LA.1 and Apoandix B of today'!
Technical iaauaa Docmnrai for Author dooula on
boMtiat caaaiaiUaa.
" Th» ooaM a>chai» OBiaaaolailaa «jca •» lat
•ceompoapio* aaianaia. or ifBdonn fcoai t
who eonitraetod to* dmnBanbo*.
" UM of radi Mghtr aflowobU vthin which
niMibt jwaflod 0y Bodoilni booMM ori Himnnttnnm awat bo mtlaiiari fat
•nbmil Impact baud on a eaawartaM of ba*a*».
Tte apprasjcb • required becasse
C08tr*i of axiatiBBj sovoas through
spproved Sef anwuras is the Oa.
Act's princfpal •tedwnism for timely
attahunenL and because many approvec
demoMtralioM either do not contam
stated assumptions regarding all three
baseline factors, or were based on
combinations of actual and allowable
value* for these factors. It recognizes
that bubble baselines must accurately
reflect the SIP assumptions for all three
baseline factors in order to maintain SIP
integrity.
Under this approach, determination of
bubble baselines consistent with
approved demonstrations is a
sequential tiered process. That process
was implicit ia both EPA's 1982 policy
and its 19t3 request for further
comment as well as actual practice in
bubble actions under those notices. EPA
is makiog it explicit in response to
concerns that "paper trades" might
uaderaune attaiomeat demonstrations
because approved SIPs do not always
state all assumptions on which their
datnoastrstiostt raff. By requiring t*vat
unstated or ambiguous values for ell
baastia* factors Ae rmoJvtd in favor of
lower actual raAas*. today's nones
provides additional assarance that
botabiM sa aoaatuinment areas with
approved JeauHstations will not
threaten aabieM standards. PSD
increments, or visibility protection.
2. Commaata oa Baselines in
Noaattaiaaant Areas With Approved
Demons tntioas of Attaioaaeat
Comments on baselines in these areas
indicated wide disagreement over where
EPA require states to set this baseline
level The 1982 policy noted that "In
nonattainment areas with approved
demonstrations of attainment, the
basetina must be consistent with
assumptions used to develop the area'i
SIP." That policy generally required that
when approved SIP demonstrations
railed on octuaJ emission levels at
particular sources, those actual levels
would have to be reflected in bubble
baselines. Whan STP demonstrations
wen based oa aJlowablt emissions, the
1982 policy authorized baselines
reflecting such allowable levels, despite
the fact that some sources' actual
emissions an currently or historically
lower thaa their "allowables." "
trado actual mitaanr and poat-crada aUowaoJ*
OBlafia*o fia. too "want caao"], in oidar to a*aur«
thai aoy >»laaf1«l iaoraaa* ia actual amiiiana ar*
Idantiflod aarf iaat thair aSocu ara rontiiuni wita
•pnttrrahlaflaaa rtir A- 1 ••-•"-• «*- —^r
Tochaiaai laaaaa Oacuanal. Socooa LA.L«.
'• Soo a. 13 bolom
-------
43813
Federal Register A" Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1980 / Notices
Tht great majority-of eoamenters
supported thl» 51? foondrtno for trading
baseline*, noting thai SIPt an the
cornerstone of the Acfl approach to air
quality management These commenters
also asserted that regardless of sources'
actual emissions, measuring reductions
from allowable levels assumed in a
valid SIP demonstration was entirely
appropriate for use in trading, since the
area would still attain ambient
standards in a timely manner. See, e.g.,
48 FR 39582 (August 31.1983).
However, other commenters asserted
this approach was either "too loose" or
"too tight" The first group stated that
credit should only be granted for
reductions below current actual
emissions, provided actual emissions
met applicable SIP limits.1* They
advanced various reasons for this
position, including assertions that
reliance on past reductions, while
consistent with approved plans for
attainment might not comport with
"broader" dean air goals. Some felt that
SIPs wen insufficentiy precise to serve
as a basis for trading.
A second group of comments went in
the opposite direction, asserting that
baselines should always be maxii
allowable source emissions, regardless
of assumptions used in SIP
development These commenters noted
that emission rates (e.gw emissions per
volume of throughput or unit of
production) specified in SIP emission
limits are generally the only enforceable
limits applicable to existing sources.
Since existing sources can legally emit
up to annual levels equivalent to
maximum output and round-the-clock
operations so long as they meet these
SIP emission-rate limitations, these
commenters reasoned, companies
should receive credit for agreeing to
binding limits on output or hours of .
operations which forgo such production,
flexibility.
Today's notice responds In two
principal ways to these concerns. First
it clarifies (he components of baselines,
how these are to be determined, and
who bears the burden of demonstrating
that a proposed basetinrls consistent
with a particular SIP. Several comments
indicated that confusion related to the
determination of baselines may have
generated unnecessary concern over use
of allowables baselines under approved
SIPs. Second, it reiterates and further
supports EPA's position that when S/P
demonstrations an approved as
adequate, the Clean Afr Act simply
requires trading to be consistent with
assumptions used to develop the area's
SIP.
3. EPA'a Resolutions on Baselines in
Nonattainment Anas With Approved
Demonstrations of Attainment
When a state has demonstrated it
will attain an ambient standard, and
EPA has approved the demonstration
and not subsequently found it
substantially inadequate to assure
attainment bubbles relying on baseline
levels used or reflected in that
demonstration amount to routine SIP
revisions. The stats then has discretion
to maintain its demonstration through
any alternative combination of emission
reductions, so long as these are
adequate for attainment and
maintenance of the ambient standards.
Since EPA cannot require states to do-
more than demonstrate timely
attainment and maintain ambient
standards. EPA will approve such trades
as long as they an enforceable and do
not undermine the demonstration; See,
e.g~ Train v. NRDC 421 UA 60,79-80
(1075); Union Electric Co. v. EPA. 427
US. 24fl'(1978>. This means that credits
must not be doubled-cotmtad, that they
must be calculated from a baseline
consistent with the approved
demonstration, and that tests of air
quality equivalence to the original SIP
emission limits must be met.
In short under the Clean Air Act an
approved attainment demonstration
creates a legal and logical boundary.
The state has met its statutory
responsibility and can substitute
reductions not relied en in the SIP for
those assumed by the SIP, so long as air
quality impacts an equivalent Tnia
holds true for all types of emission
reductions—whether derived from
process changes, extra pollution control
equipment improved operating or
maintenance procedures, or other
actions—as long as the substitute
reductions have not been relied on in
the approved SIP.14
EPA accordingly reaffirms the general
principle that states may grant sources
credit for reductions below levels
assumed by approved demonstrations.
This generally means that when actual
values for emission nte. capacity
" Tht 1982 policy aeeumed. but did not rpectfy.
the component* of "actual" emrteinB*. nica u
capacity uiaee. or number of Koun o( operation of a
particular tourc*. IT ibo (Mumed. but did not
expneeiy require, that actual minion level* nraat
be reduced-to compliance lent* -before father
reduction*-were eligible for credit
14 H al*o hdlda true where the Agency may
Miipect but ha* not formally Indicated, that a
previoudy approved SIP demonstration la no longer
adequate to inure timely attainment For reaeon*
of policy continuity, regulatory predictability end'
fair notice, until EPA make* a formal ftndinf of SIP
inadequacy, the epproved der*oa*tra(ioa control*,
See Cteen Air ACT lection HO(il(2](H). llOUXl); «
FR 39S82 (Augiuf 31.1983).
utilization and hours of operation form
the basis for an approved
demonstration, sources proposing 3
bubble must use the Tower of actual or
allowable values for those factors in
calculating baseline emissions, and that
when an approved demonstration was
based on allowable values which are
higher than corresponding actual values
for any of these baseline factors, those
allowable values may be used for such
factors in calculating the baseline.
B. Baseline and Other Requirements for
Bubbles in Primary Nonattainment
Areas Which Require But Lack
Approved Demonstrations of
Attainment
EPA's 1982 policy proposed two
baseline mechanisms for bubbles in
primary nonattainment areas needing
but lacking approved demonstrations of
attainment These anas needed
additional emission reductions to attain
national ambient health standards, but
had not yet fully determined what
amount of reductions would be
necessary for attainment or which
sources would be required to produce
them. Nevertheless, that policy said.
states could allow existing sources in
these areas to trade on an interim basis.
either (I) by using baselines reflecting
Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) provisions which
EPA had already approved, or (2) where
EPA had not yet approved general state
RACT provisions, by using "negotiated
RACT" baselines agreed to between the
source, the state and EPA.1* Both the
1982 policy and subsequent notices
advanced detailed programmatic and
environmental rationales for this
approach, including the fact that RACT
was the Act's most stringent general
requirement for existing sources in
nonattainment anas: that appropriately
determined RACT baselines were
consistent with current attainment
needs: and that trades using such
baselines could produce faster interim
progress by providing incentives for
sources voluntarily to define RACT.
disclose better emissions or ambient
data, or take other steps to do more than
the minimum required. See. e.g.. 47 FR
15078.15080-81; 48 FR 39582-83. 39585.
Many commenters on the 1982 policy
approved this "negotiated RACT'
'• The 1982 policy alao authorized limited use of
higher actual (rather than RACT-allowabie)
baaeiinea in certain nonaltauunent "ixiennon"
tree* which did not then have complete approved
SIP*. See 47 PR 1S077.15080 (April 7.1982).
Expiration of the July .1982 italutory deadline for
tubmlttlnt»uch SIP* vitiated thi* third baielme
option. See. «-|~ «S FR at 39980 *nd n.2. 39502 and
n.7. 38504-03 (Aufiut 11.1983).
-------
Federal Regiater / Vol 5t. Ns. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1980 / Notice*
4381!
approach, finding it innovative and
acceptable. However, two groups of
commentera again asserted that it was
either "too restrictive" or "insufficiently
constrained." The first group maintained
that for reasons of administrative
efficiency, bubbles should be based
either on existing SIP reduction
requirements or on actual emissions.
without the need to negotiate new
source-specific RACT baselines. Since
trading sources in these areas would
eventually be subject to RACT
requirements in any case, they
reasoned, no new interim baseline
should be required. In partial support of
this position some alluded to the one
instance in which Congress has
explicitly addressed such baseline
issues—its 1977 declaration that in
nonattainment area* without adequate
demonstrations, existing SIP limits
would for the next several yean be the
baseline for offset transactions, which
were then the only types of emissions
trades.1*
The second group asserted that no
bubbles should be allowed in such
areas, since regulators could not know
which reductions were surplus until
demonstrations were completed and
approved.
In August 1983. "in light of formal
comments on the (1982) Policy, the
NRDC v. Gonuch decision [since
reversed). . . and the need to further
articulate the Policy's approach in this
area." EPA requested further comment
on certain issues relating to credit from
plant shutdowns or production
curtailments for use in existing-source
bubbles, particularly bubbles in primary
nonattainment areas requiring but
lacking demonstrations. 48 FR 39580.
While most comments on the 1982 policy
supported continued use of such credits
without further restrictions, some
commentera had special concerns about
shutdowns in these areas. These
commentera stated that shutdowns can
hasten attainment, and suggested that
granting credit for shutdowns that 'might
have happened anyway* might not be
consistent with the Act's requirement
for attainment "as expeditimieJy as
practicable."
'• See. e.g. Clean Air Act Amendment* of 1977.
wction 128. codified et 41 U.S.C 7302 note 3
Uyitlauvt Hillary of Me Clean Air Act
<*niendintntt of 1977. pp. 53T. 713; 44 FR Zirvrs
(lanuary to. 1979). Thu Congmmonal mandate WM
largely luperseded by eventual date tdopnoa of
iupervemng SIP limn*. Under current EPA
regulation* »uch SIP allowable eminion me* may
ordinarily be uaed 10 compute (he baaetine far
offiet* only where an approved SIP demonirratlon
u*ed inventoried allowable tmtwon* in it*
demonstration of reaionable further pragma. See
Clean Air Act 173<1)(A). 42 U.S.C 7S03»1)|A).
In the August 1983 notice BPA
addressed these concerns la detail
noting that
. . . Unlike turphis reduction* from
additional pollution control or leas-polluting
process changes, shutdowns produce a total
reduction of emissions. 100* of which aught
benefit air quality if credit wen not allowed.
Granting mil w partial credit far their use in
exisung-source bubbles might reduce that
benefit... at least where the source would
have shut down anyway This reasoning
(reflecting a desire to av
-------
feaWri tefjeter / Vol. it. N* 28»f Tfrntgday Dumber 4. JMO / Motroer
At tne
comments atoe suppuitui or
acknowledged the appropriateness of a
requirement f°r • net airqmiity
benefit—in the range of an extra
reductions in emissions remaining
beyond a baseline reflecting RACT
emission limits—from each babbie, so
long as that requirement was objective
and easily administered."To the extent
they addressed this issue, these
comments generally opposed efforts to
test bubbles by examining die subjective
motives underlying reductions."Two
state of local agencies asked thai
bubbles be prohibited in these areas
until complete demonstrations were
approved by EPA.
Several commenting environmental
groups asserted that EPA should not
permit any bubbles in nonattaiomeat
areas lacking adequate, demonstration*.
On* argued that EPA cannot determine
that emission reductiaaaare "surplus."
and therefore creditable, in these area*
because to do so would violate the
statutory requirement to attain.
standards "as expedftiously. as
practicable." Moreover, this group
claimed using RACT aa a basefiae
wordd not solve dns problem because
RACT limits an mniinnmr uiessuievv not
a substitute fora SIP providing timer?
attainment Tim?grasp ahra asaeiteJ
that crediting shutdowns wuulil conflict
wi* states' daty to meet air qoaiirf
standard* "as eirpedftioaary as-
practicable- because, by -resoneetiiig"
emnwmna that tevv agreed]* ceased H
would aecosopiiae teaa sgriseioa.
reductioB than is practicable wjtstio- a
given period of time. Another groep
asserted- that aUawioaj shetdowB cm&ex
in these-area* wooid strain efiects to
progress toward attainment One
environmental group- weot a step- farther
and urged thai opportunity few bubbles
be restricted soiety to AtUiament areas.
which hava already met «ian*m«t air
quality standards.*'
'• e.». Maa**i» H iillt nnii •ml. Catmdat
Oapl. of Health. Air Pollute* Control Owi.ioo. Cf.
comnwmi of Uliium EPS.
MHOy IfKnVtTTBf CQBMMMm WHO M0Vl^VB Vnf
ImpniiiaH iifiniiiimaiie*iaaaMalia>a»»». imaTHa
in thaia nonattammaM ana* Sea a.a> Qnuju
USA; Chamolin Pttroiaum.
"E*. Bay Ana (CM Air Quality MJuugamett
Dlrtrict Sea- aiav So«h*m Caliionnar Gn Co.
"E.g.. Ua*aadMMtn Oeawtawnt W
Environmnna Qoalay EagHaenic: South COM*
(CM Ait Quality Manaojanant "••'"••>
1 ' In oral oa wnttcn iubnuaainu IB the
Admimiiratormad* in earty 19W whthi flnaf
decinoiu on today i policy were tuil pending.
represantal>Tea.o{ xyan itiie* and tha S4Ma aadi
Terrtlohai Au Pollution Profnm .^jdnumamton
and tha Aaaociatum otLaol Ait Pottulien Control
Offlcan (STAPPA/ALAPCOlfimilarty urged- thaf
individual bubbles a»SIP reviswi*
under th*> t9tUpoth^>" raiseaV resBted
issoes. Seven! oi these prapoaad
bubbles were also located in primary
nonattainment ares* which requrad bot
lacked approved demonsfrttrons. The
issue raised related to bubbles of two
types: (1) Those which relied on
reductions from shutdowns thai
occurred long before- any application to
bank or trade: and (2) those which ntied
on extra redactions produced by rowtme
installation of required control
equipment long before application to
bank or trade. Beth types of bubbles
raised the larger question of whether SIP
integrity and- environmental progress.
might better be assured in primary
nonattaimnent areas which requisai bed
lack approved oviVQBvsjFeflOflK of
attainment by allowing- no brj*W* credit
or allowing bubble credit onfy far
reductions* beyond ectsai emisetOR
levels, already, achieved as aflA*. Horn
jourcac apaJMta book or tsoda,
The final policy strikes whatEPA
believe* to be a i
newreqm*
balance. These chaagesaad&e
rationalea TUBpnrtnttfirmtrt sat
below.
1. EPA's Rfsototons-R*gBrdmg;Ba
and Other Reqmremeala
InprB-oacyaoBMttansM
reqvira but de not a« thv tsne of •
bubfcle appMeeflon. harvv BRft-appttMredl
demonstratluus: that ambient health
standards wiD be aflaiaaibubfalaa wOL
generally ba approved if tfiay da not raly
on reductioaa which- ocoure4 bafon*
apeiicatioei for credit; if they saaet other
cirtBiia tof beaeiiBesv asaeasfla)
eqaivahnie*. and eonsrateney wM>
future planning efforts; and it they
produce at least a 20% net reductioe, iat
emission*remainingaftea nparepiislai
baselines have been applied* Taee*
ob|ective tests both respond to previous
comments oa certain mdlvidus* bobbia
application*, and ea subataatiaiy
beyond aUeiBativa* diecuaaed UkBPA's.
August 1983 aotica. At the saate ttaaa
they assure greater predictability aaai
damonitranoR »«a
pomtion w«a (
or
by a
•nc»
tnvironmamat group*. Sioca thia, paairtan and
ralatad undariying iuuaa had bean taiaad and-
ambimt pjuyiesfi withoafcmpQ5ing-«
heavy » buJeir on vohmtary bnbWe
trsumcnoffs* tnat tne envrronnientsJ'
benerTtr of such trades'are forgone. T
reflect the general principte rftat beea
such properfy-structnred tmbbles
provide continuing incentives for
sources to-deliberately overshoot
regunriery merits (rather than plan
merely to meet them), bubble trades r
these areas can produce interim
progress beyond current SIP
requirements, and should be approver
a. Specific "Progress" Requirement
Applications for existing-source bubb
in primary nonattainment areas whic.
require bat lack approved
demonstrations of attainment wilt be
deemed to produce a net air quality
benefit and will be processed for
approval if they:
(i) Use'lowert-of-actnal-SIP-
alfcw«fale»er-RACT-aUDwable"
enBseicwbaaeimes. Such baselines
must be ealcaiated using
• Either the actual emission rate, th
SIP or other federally enforceable
fmissigir fart or a RACT emieeion
limit whichever is loweeC for each
source mvorved in the trade. Ttes
baseatoe leetorsheU be detenrauerf m
the time of the source's application to
bajik erttadatwaicaevet is earner.
• The-kwuerof aeroai orailowaW*
capacity/ attafttxattaa and hour* of
opexatioa for cadi soarca involved in
thetrab>.n*a*baaemu factors sbsi-J
geaaeairy be based on- the two years. ** Mramnwii
operatiBiiK
(ii)laeat tne general ambient
eoerrabRce testa ooltined in today's
paikjr (sceScdioa I^l.b of the
Technicai Issues Document) unrig the
baaehnes deecribed above and. for the
post-bubble casev emission levels that
reflect overall tmitnoas equivalence:
and
Pis) Produce a substantial net
redoctios) in actual emissions—i e.. a
redaction oi at leas* 20% in (he
emissions remaining after application •
the stringent new baselines described
above. (A reduction of greater than 2CT
may be required for bubbtes approved
under generic rules in some of these
nonattainment areas. See discussion in
Section- QLA.l.(dI of this Preamble.
below.)
With issesct to scarce* which seek •
bank emission-reductions after
publication of today's notice.
"applicatiea to bank," for purpose of
evefeatine. credit for use in bubbles.
mean* the rhnv of filmg of an
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday December 4, 1986 / Notices
4282
application to make such reductions
state-enforceable through or concurrent
with use of a formal or informal banking
mechanism. However, in order to avoid
needless disruption and inequitable
retroactivity. this definition does not
apply to reductions which sources have
previously applied to bank. See Section
I.A.I.b.(l) of the Technical Issues
Document.
b. Additional "Progress "
Requirement: State Assurances. In
concluding that properly-structured
bubbles as defined above can produce
valuable interim progress in primary
nonattainment areas which require but
lack approved demonstrations. EPA also
considered whether other showings
might be necessary to assure that
individual bubbles do produce such
progress. The Agency has concluded
that few such showings, whether
bubble-related or otherwise, are
practicable or workable. It did. however.
conclude that certain representations
meant to assure each bubble's
consistency with SIP planning goals, by
requiring states to take a meaningful
look at such consistency in each bubble
approval, would help assure that
progress is achieved.
Under circumstances detailed in the
final Policy and Technical Issuee
Document today's notice therefore
requires the appropriate state authority
to provide the following written
assurances to accompany each bubble
which is approved (either directly by
EPA as a case-by-case SIP revision, or
by states under an EPA-approved
generic rule) in these areas:
1. The resulting emission limits are
consistent with EPA requirements for
ambient air quality progress, as
specified in today's notice.
2. The bubble emission limita will be
included in any new SIP and associated
control strategy demonstration.
3. The bubble will not constrain the
state or local agency's ability to obtain
any traditional emission reductions
needed to expeditiously attain and
maintain ambient air quality standards.
4. The state or local agency is making
reasonable efforts to develop a complete
approval SIP and intends to adhere to
the schedule for such development
(including dates for completion of
emissions inventory and subsequent
increments of progress) stated in the
letter accompanying the bubble
approval or in previous such letters.
S. The baseline used to calculate the
bubble emission limits is consistent with
the baseline requirements in the
Emissions Trading Policy Statement and
Technical Issues Document.
Such assurances need not be verified
by, e.g.. detailed quantifications.
comparison with year-by-year progress
projections, or showings that all
reductions needed for area-wide
progress or attainment have been
identified and targeted for regulation.
They are. however, expected to be
based upon meaningful review by the
state and to be consistent with the
documentation supporting the bubble.
EPA will not second-guess such state
representations, provided they are a
suostannal test applied by the state to
each bubble and the state has explained
how the proposed bubble is consistent
with the area's projected attainment
strategy. Nor will EPA examine, or
expect states to examine in making such
representations, any specific soyru's
subjective motivation in making claimed
reduction*. The combined effect of these
requirements will be (a) to deny bubble
credit for reductions which occurred
before application for credit in
recognition of the fact that reductiona
pro need before any application to bank
or trade are unlikely to have been
elicited in any way whatsoever by the
opportunity to trade (b) to help assure
that only actual reductions in current
emissions are relied upon to satisfy
pending control requirements in these
areas; (c) to more systematically
encourage efforts by sources to produce
and permanently maintain tfjese
additional reduction*, by granting diem
predictable bubble credit whan
specified baseline and other tests have
been applied: and (d) to assure mat
these bubbles will not interfere with
these areas' attainment efforts; Any
other approach would enmesh EPA and
state agencies in lengthy, resource-
intensive, and uncertain efforts to
determine subjective company motive*
for making particular claimed
reductiona—efforts which appear
unlikely to provide greater
environmental protection than the
criteria articulated here. Cf. e.g.. 40 PR at
39584 and a 15.39585-M.
2. Basic Rationale
EPA believes that Congress would
dearly have intended the Agency to
approve bubbles that despite the lack of
a complete attainment demonstration
for die affected areas, nevertheless-
produce progress toward attainment in
those areas. Section 172(b) of the Clean
Air Act does require states to formulate
complete control strategies to attain the
standards in these areas as
expeditiously as practicable and. in the
case of primary standards, by certain
fixed dates. It also requires these anas
to demonstrate reasonable further
progress toward attainment in the
interim. However. SIPs and attainment
demonstrations are composed of dozens.
if not hundreds, of regulations and
commitments adopted at the state or
local level following proceedings d
often are tune-consuming and overit,
eequence. If EPA were to wait until
every such provision were adopted and
submitted by the state before acting on
any of them, substantial environmental
benefits that would otherwise accrue
from having each available requirement
promptly incorporated in a binding
manner into the SIP and made federally
enforceable would be forgone. Such an
"all or nothing" approach would
produce less expeditious progress
toward attainment than a combination
of (a) EPA approvals of state provisions
submitted sequentially and (b)
appropriate use of sanctions authorized
by the statute to effect the adoption and
submittal of remaining necessary
provisions. Given the strong emphases
in the statute as enacted, it is doubtful
that Congress would have intended the
former, less progressive approach.21
For these reasons. EPA has decided tc
approve in these areas bubbles which
individually produce progress, both
beyond preexisting plan requirements
and in the air itself, and which do not
interfere with these areas' efforts to
construct complete strategies that
provide for attainment aa expeditiously
aa practicable.
Today's notice accordingly disalk
use in bubbles of reductions made pno.
to any application to bank or trade, but
allows appropriate use of reduction!
made after such application. Where a
source voluntarily proposes to make
creditable reductiona as part of and
following a banking or trading
application, the stringent lowest-of-
actual-SIP-allowabie-or-RACT-
allowabie baselines must be applied if a
bubble ia involved, and that bubble
must meet appropriate ambient tests,
using emission level* that produce
overall equivalence to the emissions
baseline. The "net 20%" discount in
r«TP«ining emissions then applies to all
sources in the bubble, and provides an
additional safety margin to assure
ambient progress from bubbles in these
areas.** Finally, the state assurances
••Sft. «.|. Oifmn USA v. NKDC. iupr* n 4
•• Thto "Ml 2M" itifulivnicnt it *ito lupponed
by twdwct iiidtcihns (bit for mo»i nttntion drta
SIPi •ddrtMini oton* pollution—
-------
Federal Raster I Vo\. 51. No. 233 / Thursdayy DecEtabey |» ISB9 /.Notices,
will imfleatewbetftw approval of the
bubble is Iftery to leuime rather ffwn
enhance any fmpx>rtaa* opportunities- to
construct cuffrpiece erTalnflienT
strategies.
EPA believes (hat babble* meeting the
special progress requirements described
above will produce both progress
beyond preexisting plan requirements
and progress in the air. First with
respect to preexisting plan
requirements, each bubble would
achieve » net tightening of at least 20
percent Trades that result in a
permanent 20 percent reduction beyond
actual enusion levels (winch am
a&rady betaw what the plan allows).
would produce even greater progress
preexisting reqairaraenta.
Moreover, state assurances that aunt
accompany each bubble, will help ensure
that approval doe* not represent a step
backward in the process. of deveJcaiaf at
plan providing for timely attainment
Each such bubble would also produce
net progress in the air. since each
increment of required contra! forgone, as
a result of the trade would be more than.
compensated by a greater redaction,
which was sot required, and which may
reasonably be presumed to have bean
elicited by. the trading opportunity.
Neither EPA nor anyone else can prove
that aD reductions which occur afier
filing of an application for credit were
elicited in whoie or in part by the
trading opporrainrjr. Decisions in the
real world* whether corporate or*
otherwise, always arise front nwftpfe
motives whicfr are* not easttf
uisenfangKui any strand or wuiuu may
have "tipped" the balance toward' or
precipitated a particular action-.
However, the Agency has concftided
that this presumption hi reasonable.
First, it is plausible that snefe reductions
were elicited at least in part by (feat
opportunity, especially where-, as here.
sources must affirmatively decide- to
surrender something of wive and
constrain purely private decisienmaldng;
(e.g.. enforceably luuimil te> change
production processeaH»order to create
a cognizable reducttB\Seoend. thie
presumption is the eats aie> sTi ai
alternative to the adaaftaistMtiveiy
difficult and uncertain approach of
attempting to determine the intent and
motives of source owneis making these
reductions.
EPA has also concluded that bubbles
meeting these new requirements wiQ not
interfere with the statutory nandaee that
stater attain standards as expedfrfondy
as practicable. Bach ach bobbfe wooCd'
produce progress m the air that for the
reasons fast described would fffcerf not
have been achieved absent the trading-
opportunity.**
3. Additional Caasidemtioiif Regarding
the Butefto of Babble*
Individual bubbles approved under
toda/s special progress requirements
for primary nonattamment areas which
lack demonstrations will produce
progress in the SIP and in the air.
Moreover, the mere existence of the
opportunity to trade has independent
progressive effects.
As some commenters suggested. lack
of such demonstrations usually results.
from one of two general causes: Either
the state does not know where or aow to
obtain sufficient further emission
reductions* or it has identified sources of
such reductions but is unabfe ta
implement new regulatory requirements
because of their cost Moreover.
regulated firms may often be reluctant to
disclose information- that may be used* fo.
require further retrofits against tfism.
Even when such information is ' ' " .
obtained, ft may not be sufficiently
precise to allow EPA asd thetstalc Jo
Comrot" [Feb. 19M1L LeliM. Uchani A-UroO. Th«
CoitMfvatiom Fgoodalioo. to Hon. L«« M-TVxnu.
March 12.19*1 t'Th* trril ealcui*lio&.. molcaut lb«
staffs aitnitventu to ti« limited control
ponibilitim available, and app««T» to suppart their
conclusion about the contribution RACT plu» 20
purfot can make to anainmeni.").
rpTi
nfl
ii u
While- a vigorous regulatory reasons* .
remains criticaJ in, these aceaa, t&at
response is-IflteVy ta be aamoend by the.
very inf osmatiaa hs**^"* that
discouraged a incentives for such
managen to central emissions earlier
thaA reqwred. Perhaps) most important
becaNO* of their potential to eiicrt better
information OB sources, tmissions.
ccedrai performance aad ambient
effects, bohbtea may enhance states'
ahaVrji to aacare rotate reductions, if and
when suckteehietiona ate requited. For.
example. EPA experience has
doeamemled eases in which bubble or
similar tneang applications have
improved ieaevet and" state air quality
mavegeiecrrt eapeMtries by improving
data on enriseioRa ambient impacts, and
unregulateil or unfartentohed sources.17
ft
FR 39542 (August 3V 1381).
Bubbles can, help breaksuck
deadlocks over the feasibility of
obtaining, fusther roductionet by.
providing an incentive foe plan!
managers ta find -~r"""i*^ way* to go*-
beyond current regulatory raojUtieaeacv
The opportunity ta trada nay alsA
encourage sources ta come forward ia,
order to establish the quantifiable amd
enforceable emission limits on which
credit must be based.
'• The Aemcy hi* dMermimd tint (hm*
conduion* «!M apply whan ihr p
reducaoa oo whick tk* ippbcinl ttiim tor cnrii*
hiopeni to be a shutdown or pradMtfra-
eurtulmmC. BKIUM multlpt* mottvt* »imit«riy.
clot* • ItcilUf 01 mmcl it» pradutfv*
Out occur after i*t»
nppif
for cndii. no lei* tbea other type* oi poat-
application reduction!, may be presumed
reasonably (liciterf by the opportunity to (ndt Thtv
ia p«rtic«l»»i» true bagaeee- (hat aaarie oaeiale*.
whatever it« anteeealeni UMIIIIV. eMaaneatera
deubaraw deoawa 10 forga aa uen *f «u eetanuaaMtaeiir
difficuii. if ooi laooeatole. ta praMoaabfnne I*K
oBporUKaiiy lo u^de wu tk« dturnt fene. or »
subiecuve motive behind the shutdown, such a
pmiimonnn n amply justified.
••Se«. *«. tr n isorr.oose. 48 FR 39590 and acMai emwaioos at
higher than RACT baaetiat leveb Uiit caQmremeni
directly ecceterafea airquanry progress, since no
credit can be secured forth*difference-.
tT7ra«le apaiHcaMa** avbnifled over the last
jcieiea jmm t*m. enmj «H»ei Um»s. heiped
eatablith and veofy eaaMeua* fdCJur* :o<-
noniraeitioiul aouma. aa w*U as jrr-fc.t J^««N.'JJ
emitaiona profiTei oftuch sources fs«t eg
ippBeatign ofSfceiieiigu Iron am Stevt Ca
approveet'«»r*«lBJI fOe«emb«T2» I9nik h ..-
providedcure** aaieaaaiia date not other*. >sc
av«i«ibi* to EPA Uwaufb, lb> A^tocy s Nano: ^
Emiaaioiu Data System (SO FR Z.W93. [uoe !' .PAS
anat h«ve> dlfdoaed1 rher extatence of sources irnv
lever e«e>cae«*«ien»if*pUieUth«l had been «hoiiv
misaeri m eerrearoeaaaw at tkn state s eamston s
inventory. OUMt apftUcaltQM have identified «.-.c.
reduced praviouiix unsuspected threats to PSD
incrementr hefperf correct sabramiafdiscrp5Hn'-.»
betweeai jananeaeiaii aaeVaciuW emisaiona. or
betwee»SU>aiMiao*a'BN>ud aitammcni
demonitrationaiaBtthaia»o certain alatt programs. In aaai;:ur. j
such aiifipeullc exatnpie*. opperrunrn to -3c-
appev* •»raekto* traeUtieirat reeaon* for soor'et 'o
UBeiajatMBaaai UanreiwaeionaL.resuinnf in CMiief
invcMory aattrlaanuaijdaM. For example.
S4«aa««huaeiti.reo>urea,EraM to provide ddia r>
i heir two rnn of highett emissions unce Tie juria
year of the SIP. i» order » eetebrisn a a jitv
i naaiiesa nap niilet tin nali i vnr huhtrr rule.
Thia requiraeaeot ha* ptodwed baseline oa'a 'or
previously nnquantified emission vpars mr j.:~?
source*.
-------
F«e?»r»f Regh**r / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. ISat / Nofieg»
43823
Through) ail the** m*cha*isins. bubble*
CM achieve substantial CIMMOR
reduction* and m qiMfty planning
benefits, even
"pro grew" requirements.
Nowithstanding these independent
progressive effects. EPA believes that it
may approve bubbles in these
nonattainment areas only if they meet
the specific progress requirements
described above and do not interfere
widi the affected areas' efforts to
develop and implement complete
attainment strategies. Such bobbles can
help adjust existing inadequate
regulations on a source-specific basis.
help make progress toward a firil
approved demonstration. and help
improve air quality. without •freatag"
inadequate SIP requirements that are
currently in piece.
Accordingly. EPA h** decided to
approve "progress" bubbles which are
consistent with the attainment needs of
these areas, which, produce a net air
quality benefit and which may therefore
secure faster interim progress toward
attainment and more rapid development
of complete attainment plans.
UL AddMeaal PMfey Ckeagaa aod
Clarificati***
Today's notice makes numerous*
additional changes in response, to
comment* oa and following the 1982
policy. The most important of these
changes or clarifications are discussed
below.
A. GengncBobbJ»ftuJ*t
Today's notice recognizes, the special
position of EPA-approved state generic
bubble rules. Such rote* may provfdr
clearer approval criteria and may result
in more rapid bubble approvahr wrtfi
reduced expenditure of EPA and state
resources, by eliminating the need for
case-by-case Federal rulemafcing on
each bubbfe as an individual SIP
revision.
Today's policy affirms that states nay.
continue to use generic role* to approve
bubbles within the scope of inch rales in
all areas of the country. including
primary nonattainment areas needing
but lacking approved dtoonstntion* of
Attainment. It also establishes specific
procedures to ensure opportmrity for
public comment on individual generic
actions and for regular EPA oversight of
state administration of all such rates;
Finally, it spells out additional
"progress" requirements that new
genenc rules must satisfy to be
approvable for primary nonattainment
areas needing but lacking
demonstrations of attainment.
State generic bubble rules approved
hy EPA as SIP revisions have
independent force of law and further
Congress1 intent that "to pieventior*
and control of air pollution at Its
(remains! the primary responsibility of
States and local governments." Cimw
Air Act. | ICIfaJW EPA has approved
or proposed to approve 10 such rales for
9 different stales, and at-lew* 12 other*
are being developed. Few approved
rules currently apply to primary
nonattainmant area* which require but
lack approved demonstration*.
However, today's node* requires that all
generic nils* meet certain additional
procedural requirements in order to
assure effective EPA oversight of their
adminiatratic* and to identify any
deficianci** in individual approval* or
state implementation procedaras before
substantial numbers of state-approved
bubble* m*y be pat •< n*k To tie-
extent these requirements require
modification of existing generic, rule*.
they may apply to rule* effecting any
area, not Just primary nonattainment
areas which need but lack
demon*tr*tion*>
Today's policy i* meant ton
thaeerute*'
both no wand through any I
tnntitinn period* without i
the consider**** iav<
already madaiatg
«***•
tods*1! we. ofcrnents. and will pubfe*
will a**4 the p*ticy>*Mh*taa*j*a
procedural oo)*ctvp**v
Basically, tabs** appeomrf ov
rulu before Hi* *#rclrr*dfl*ofttm
pcticf will not be aafeoksd or misttad
due to today* changes; BsosaMEPA*
approved generic nle* po**es*v
indepaarisTtr validity said stay only bat
psangnit upon. compteooaoi specific •
proosdniM for aitsring SUBB SIP
provisions (see. *.&, Clean Ait Act
sections 110(a)(2)(H)..110(i)U state* may
also cooapoe to opprov* bobtomm
accord mth such rvJee. unies* and antii
those rules are finally changed in
response to an EPA notice raqusstinf
and establishing a specific timetable Car
their modification. However, in order to
provide maximum assurance- of SIP
integrity and «•>"''"'*• eny need for
future SIP cocrection*, EPA expect*
states to assure so- far aa feasible- that
genenc bubbles they approve are
consistent with applicable- term* of
today's policy as well as their generic
roles. New or pending gentrie nth*
must all meet the terms of today's
notice.
All existing generic rules which
require modification to conform to this
policy must as requested by EPA. be
promptly revised. EPA will review -such
rules to determine their. consistency with
•owe* generic nfe»rs**isU emission
reduction at less* equal to a net 20%
reduction in emissions remaining after
application of the above baaaiines. or at
lust equal (in percentage term*} to the
eventf •BB*mosi reduction (in
percentage terms) needed to attain in
the area (i.e.. at least equal to the
source-by-soere» •mission reductions
diet would be required for a full
demonstration of attainment, taking into
account "uncontrollable" stationary
(e-g, *J**4 aourc** and expected
etnissicg reduction* from morxte
sources?, whichever is larger.** This last
it» bu*-yc*r
trj Til ti ntfin -^T ~n " ' - "°
.•.*.
Ibl For KM pm*ct*d IIKOMMM rtir ilxfon taa:
tuncl aotmM:
Umutnmutttbtt MMonvr "»«. rmniiom
IJ.MB* 1 Jt
-------
43824
Federal Reflate* / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday, December 4. 1986 / Notices
determination must be submitted with
the rule, and must use the same type and
quality of analysis required for an EPA-
approvable SIP. In no event may the
overall emission reduction required of
generic bubbles in such areas be less
than 20% of the emissions remaining
after application of the baselines
specified above: and
(e) provide assurances, in conjunction
with the state's submittal of the generic
rule to EPA. that the state (i) is making
reasonable efforts to develop a complete
approvable SIP that will achieve the
percent emission reduction from
controllable sources described in the
previous paragraph and (ii) intends to
adhere to the schedule for development
of such a SIP (including dates for
completion of emissions inventory and
subsequent increments of progress), as
stated in the letter accompanying the
submittal or in previous letters. EPA
believes that the numerical
determination and progress requirement
discussed in the previous paragraph i*
the functional equivalent of the
additional assurances described earlier
in this notice (see Section HB.Lb above)
for bubble* needing case-by-case EPA
approval since bubbles meeting this-.
requirement will produce attainment-
level reductions. For that reason, EPA
does not believe that it must require the
state to make those additional
assurances when it submits the generic
Therefore the reduction* needed from
controllable stationary source* an
•.4SO-UOO-3.8SO tom/yr.
And the percent tmisnon reduction required from
controlliblt stationary source* to etui* i*
x iao»M*
Thin the net overall reduction required from eacn
generic bubble would be 9*% (U. the reduction*
produced by applicable baseline* (•*. application
of * RACT emission rate) pha whatever percent
reduction in emission* remaining after this RACT
limit ie sufficient lo yield the 94% total).
State* that wish to avoid case-be-caee SIP
revision* for source* for whids RACT ha* not yet
been defined in an approve*) SIP provieon may
incorporate 'presumptive RACT" value* (e.g.. 90%
reduction for VOC1 in their generic rale*. Source*
would than have the option at accepting these
RACT value* for generic bubble purpose*, or
negotiating different RACT vilue* through the case-
by-case SIP revi*on process. However, where «
source involved in e trade i* one for which EPA ha*
issued a CTC. but the state has not yet adopted the
CTC-«pecifled emission rale as RACT and no RACT
ha* yet been specified by the state for that source.
the presumptive or negotiated RACT values for the
trade must be at least a* restrictive as the CTC-
ipecified emission rate for tnat source.
rule. However, to assure that genetic
approvals continue to complement and
do not interfere with attainment
planning. EPA will require the state to
include all of those assurances in or
with its notices of proposed and final
approval of each bubble issued under
the rule in such a nonattainment area.
Generic rules meeting these
requirements will assure that each state-
approved bubble produces reductions at
least equal to those which would be
required under an approved
demonstration of attainment Their
availability can also encourage states
and sources to take significant further
steps towards such demonstrations.
Since reductions sufficient for timely
attainment are all EPA can require for
approval of State Implementation Plans
under section 110 and Part 0 of the
Clean Air Act Train v. NRDC, supra.
further Agency scrutiny of individual
bubble reductions is not required.
2. Procedural Requirements
Today's notice includes tightened
requirements designed to assure, with
minimal burdens on states, that EPA'e-
responsibility to monitor the
implementation of all generic rule*
incorporated in SIPs (see sacttoar
110(a)t2MA)(H}) it man efficiently anoV
effectivery carried out EPA will fulfill
this responsibility by fa) examining and
commenting on. together with any other
public commenter under applicable stale
law. the information-provided for
individual trades subject to-propoeed
action under generic rules, (b)
conducting reviews of individual trades
approved under such rules; and (c)
periodically auditing implementation of
the rule itself as part of its National Air
Audit System investigations of state air
pollution control program*, including
indepth file audits of actions under such
generic rules. These activities will cover
state actions of disapproval aa well as
approval, and will examine whether
rules are being interpreted or applied
within the scope of their approval by
EPA.
To be considered valid by EPA. a
trade approved under a generic rule
must (1) be one of a clase of trades
authorized by the rule. (2) be approved
by the state after the rule hae been
approved by EPA. and (3) meet all the
provisions of the EPA-approved rule.
State approvals which do not meet these
requirements are not considered part of
the SIP and do not replace prior valid
SIP limits, which remain enforceable
and may make such trades the subject
remedial action after due notice by £F
to the state and source*
In addition to requiring that generic
rules or other state provisions assure
meaningful notice to EPA by the first
day of the public comment period on
proposed genetic actions, and
immediately upon final generic action
today's policy also requires that state
generic rules or other state provisions
provide the general public adequate
notice and opportunity to comment.
including opportunity for judicial revie
sufficient to make comment effective.
Existing state generic rules, statutes 01
regulations will generally satisfy this
requirement. However, some
jurisdictions, for example, deny judicu
review to commenters who do not
possess a direct financial stake in
individual permits. Such jurisdictions
will have to modify their generic rule.
other provisions, to meet this
requirement.
B. Bubbles Involving Hazardous or
Toxic Air Pollutants
EPA reaffirms and extends its 1962
determination that bubbler in aoy are
must not increase emissions of
hazardous or toxic air pollutants.
Babbles cannot be used to meet or av
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
that have been finally promulgated
under Section 112 of the Act. Where
NESHAPs have been proposed but no.
promulgated for emitting sources whic
are the subject of a bubble application
the proposed NESHAP will generally
serve as the baseline for determining
creditable bubble reductions, and the
trade must produce reductions at leas
aa great as those which the proposed
NESHAP would produce, if
promulgated. Moreover, no source
emitting a pollutant subject to such a
proposed NESHAP may exceed
emissions allowed under the proposec
NESHAP as a result of the trade. Whe
a bubble involves a pollutant which is
fisted under Section 112. but no
NESHAP has yet been proposed for ±
relevant source category, or a pollutar
for which EPA has issued a Notice-of-
Intent-to-List. there must be no net
increase in actual emissions of the
noticed or listed pollutant.3' In genert
'• In some limited circumstances additional
pollutants may b* trailed as listed pollutants.
Technical Isaue* Document. Section I Bid.
-------
f Voi St. Not 239 f
December «. If**/ Natfe*»
all bubble* urroivfeg BHita»'oi» of
pollutants described above mo** DM
lower-of-«ctuakir-NESHAPv«JlowaWe
emissions baselines, and must take
place within a single plant or contiguous
plants."
Coounenters who addressed tbi* issue
divided into two general croupe. One
group asserted that hazardous/toxic
restrictions should extend beyond
pollutants currently regulated, proposed
to be regulated, or listed under Section
112. These comment*, generally
maintained that restrictions should also
apply to all pollutants the Agency is
"actively considering" for listing, A
second group asserted that neither
volatile organic compound1 (VOC) i
paniculate eotseiom should be traded
unless there is deer evidence that
specific substances present ia soch VOC
or Bertfcolate enuasiona are "relatively
innocuous."
EPA hae determined that for ratios*
of policy and administrative practicality
these suggestions. whila laudable is
latent should not b*> adopted. Bubble*
are alternative »»««r«« of compliance
which should ynersffr be treated no
strategies, provided basic SIP
requirments of consistency with ambieoi
needs, PSD increments. end
progress are met EPA's statutory
authority to farther restrict trades on me.
basis of hazardous substances which
may be present in a particular criteria
pollutant stream (e.g_ VOCi) and which
may be subject to a Bating* aotice-of-
intent-to-Ust or proposed NBSHAP. but
ere not as yet regulated under 1 112. Is
limited. Generalized attempt* to
exercise such authority basWon the
presence of substances on which me
Agency has taken no forai actiaa
whatever would be still sore tssnsouei
Moreover, the inherent emofgofrr of
such terms as "actively considering" or
"relatively inoocaous"
such tests. State* reaein free n» adopt
further restrictions constoteaf wrtb hocei
laws and needs. However, with aspect
to national requirements EPA hm*
concluded that dee* sbeMea pointe
based on actions punsaosf (9 oe*
deliberative process and.atc0rd
••Tit on* OCTpttaa favotrw bueehi ia
aarplo* mdacfloBi n Oa aatmont of prilotan*
niblcet la rMplatfon. in'uuuaaU rtfutaon. IMn* or
Notfe»-of'-bitant-co4iat M hmrdou* cmiatraa*
coBipaiuaH (or ieenttn a- aon-anardou*
•auiMom. (Eg. wfecnri «owcrdvania bnanr
tmmraiu bttow *» bnatim timaflrt aba**, in
axdunft for umaaouodtna; tuunrnt «toawB>f» to
• aon-hcurdoBi VOC) A* tonf » *uch a trada
mmid not maJt ia ia tHBV» (atntartenftar
•llowibte tmiMMM of • poUuUnl tub)** lo iho
•p«e>«l nuncOam eMiomiij «bu»« il my i
evidence anderfvmf «ecrJo»m
detenninetfon* are-1* be pisfeinsl
Interested parties shooitf be awwv.
however, thai onder today's psjiisrate
AdminislrsAr reserve* dlvcntkR* to
consider on • case-by-cas* basi*
whether bwtobie proposal* invohr*
pollutants which, while not regulated
listed or otbetwise noticed under section
112. an regulated as toxic under other
federal health-baaed statutes, aad to
require further analysis before
approving such proposals.
One commsnier expressed concern
over the 1982 policy's use of the term
"reasonably dose" to indicate the
distance which may be covered by
bubbles involving poflutants listed or
proposed to be regulated' under sactton
112. EPA agrees this term Is amoiguoua,
and with toe exception of bubbles which
affiinatlf siy i/BCjeuj* ntca poftiiaasy
below the lower^^eeteai-or-NBSMAPs-
allowabla baaeltee. ha* *abs«ta*ss) tto
more protective aod certuat reqearamaeit
the* sack trade* oeca* wrtniaa ssogse
ptast or coBtifooBj* powtsi ia orda* t*>
aseBBe net sacB.sjvdea>dai aot*i
advecseiheeJtkari
effects, tadaqr'e i
theyralyo«ryea>i
run esU si leal m sai llee TIT i
emiesMoaeae/th*)
whichexes isrlovec, ia i
noticed. ItsteeU at proposee* ta> be.
reniailadl under aacBBn>112>
8evet«Iofthe»epc«ja«inns nntafifj
the proposed VBKAPa oma*u
aBe propOMd-mSS
emissions cap, the- udusioa of.
poBntano) subfecfto No(toe»«f>Bi(aat>
to-Lnrt. end the getMnt UntfMrevtsr
contiguoB* pnurta* arrffDweT-oAectusJ*^
or-| tl2-*fiow*fann baaettnes
represent rabetaatiar agiiamiug* ever
the 1062 policy.
C Banking Eminion Rrtuetiaa
EPA-*pe«
bank* may aUow source*) t»
for their own furore as* ae waatar
Today'a notice reiterate* th«t state* an
by no maaas required to-adopt baoktag;
procedures, but note* thaHMiaittawy
help state* and coaounitiee laeon*
important planning aad.anflicooisestai
benefits." H*nif« may ancoung*.fiosaY
to create inexpensive extra redactions
at earlier, optimal time* (e.g« wnaav
replacing outworn control equipment or
deciding how to meet new lequiremeatsr
and disclose such infonnatton to stata
agencies. They may help ueete a Geutrai
pool of identifiable, rewdlfy-avtatatrf*
redBtlrBHS wUdrcaji rase plan*
nodcrrdzafroRS or expansion], ne-w
source siting; orexistmf-sonm
conpnaoce. PPopeny-itrnctored ba)~—
may rexftrce incentives for sources to
delay, conceal or hoard acfnal cr
potential reductions until an ir.-cediat.
use arise*. Banks may also prot •zt
other, interim environmentalv»i*fit3s
sine* banked EKCs nmain on- -si thi t
(although they must be treated ;'<:r SI?
planning purposes as "{n the air • until
used. In addition, banks can he.? suu
agencies manage their permit worxiosc
mot* efficiently, because paruca* of
. new source or existing*source
sane* transactions may aa pre-
permiOed or reviewed in advaace.
Banks may also help stats*
syetasseJicaUy asaara thai all uaused
surplus tediictioas are treated as "in tb>
air" for SIP pianning purposes, avoiding
potential inroneistenoes which sight
cas»e aoeemisctkiQ* 10 be tost
CesnsMcM* insfcated SO*JM confusion
over whether, hi adsSfleo to- meeting
other ERC requtremenls, reductions
must be ****** fedewffy eniorceabst to
befenBeJfycfedHerfferbenkfnf: Tbe
answer ira* Hbwvwr. in- order to
resBrsefon redntiioB credits
fbwdspoeThjrfm'S'A-
reouctione must be
mads? enrbnevbla' 0y tfn stfts.
RedfeenXmeonstbs mdi enforces bib
by the stsat by their titar of deposit in
order. e£. (B better enure the integrity
of the sAte's air quality, planning
process oy/ prwrenttos^ sources Iiuiu
banking reductions of emissions which
their permits do aal preclude them from
continuing^ tn emiL TM» reqviruncat wil
also prevent undue reliance by parties
or potential parties on f euseioa
reductioets, which, hav* not actually
occurred.'* However, because, those
It wouM nor differ IB a«for» of raqomnwni* from •
trad* iB»oivirn aatf non-taBrtou*
1 SM M- 47 n 13OO-M (AprU 7,
of tod«r'i BOMB. *» "<*•« of tpplleation to bini"
•iff b*ttvdinrltefoarc«m»aut»«8 «ppbc»mm to
it* at I fvmnl bank or
.s.:ir
b oAar orwa, aflt»nft aaiiiiiaB reductions
apoBavBolt ^**^* 0aCB*jay ar^OMOa fn/orc0A5Jw
by tftraaoK amiaaiom i»d»cttoiM faanfcrt th»o««h
olhtr formal or informal booking mtcAaiuimi which
do not «iaa» raduettma fW«a-«nfcrc«»»*» try ta
~~ *'rn future
p mXavBuna ar* made
hdarmUyanroiupitrtJ at Umrotum and tit
101 Bm raawatory piof f •r'
(ai»m»r
Omr
-------
43828
Federal Regtatef / Vok 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
actions merely create extra reductions
in actual or allowable emissions which
cannot by themselves produce any
advene effects on air quality, they need
not be made federally enforceable until
used.41 Where states wish to make
banked emission reductions federally
enforceable at the time they are banked.
several mechanisms may be available
for doing so without case-by-case SIP
revisions. States with EPA-approved
PSD. NSR, visibility and preconstruction
review programs can issue permits to
credit reductions from emission units
currently subject to these
preconstruction permits.94 States with
EPA-approved generic rules may also be
able to use those rules' procedures to
make reductions at existing sources
federally enforceable. Since only
reductions in applicable emission limits
are involved at the banking stage,
modeling should not be required.
Moreover, these reductions should
automatically meet the requirement that
changes in emission limits under generic
rules not jeopardize ambient standards
or PSD increments.
Since some trades have special
requirements, banks do not guarantee
the validity of particular banked ERCs
for all potential uses or for all time. For
example, because only actual reductions
occurring at the same major stationary
source are eligible for netting, banked
reductions created at other stationary
sources cannot be used for netting
transactions. However, banked credits
resulting from reductions at other
stationary sources may be used as
offsets or in bubbles, so long as this
notice's other requirements for
appropriate use of credits are observed
and applicable offset requirements are
satisfied.
Because of differing regulatory
requirements, the amount of credit
actually derived from particular
emission reductions may also differ
from one regulatory program to another.
For example, in primary nonattainment
areas needing but lacking approved
demonstrations, the amount of credit
Since iMtM may have to revise their regulation*
or permit procedure! in order to unolemeni this new
itale-enforceibtlity requirement full
implementation will not be expected until one year
after publication of today's nonce. However, all
credits not made enforceable when banked during
this interim period, together with afl credit*
deposited prior to today's notice, should be made
itate-enforceeble within eighteen months from the
date of this policy.
" a. 47 FR 15078.15QB1 el coL 2.
'* Sane jurisdiction* may alea as* general state
preconstrucHon review program thai have received
EPA approval to credit reduction* «t existing
sources if such reduction* are covered under the
program, since requirements under these programs
are federally enforceable.
available from a given reduction for
bubble purposes may be less than that
available from the same reduction for
netting or offset purposes, since special
progress requirements apply to bubbles
in these areas.
Because the use of credits will change
(rather than merely reduce) emission
levels if approved, such proposals
should be carefully evaluated to assure
they meet all of today's criteria for
appropriate use. For similar reasons
proposals to use banked credits will
usually require additional approval
procedures (e.g., additional modeling for
certain TSP or SO* trades), whether
such proposals are evaluated as case-
by-case SIP revisions, under EPA-
approved generic rules, or under EPA-
approved new source review programs.
One commenter asked how banked
ERCs would be treated if a
nonattainment area is being
redesignated to attainment
Redesignation will have no effect on the
banked ERCs. so long as state planning
considered those ERCs to be in the air
(I.e.. in die inventory) at the site of their
creation. Because local recessions or
shifts in industrial patterns can
temporarily affect air quality without
regard to the adequacy of state
emission-control efforts, EPA guidance
requires mat redesignation not be based
solely on monitored air quality. In
addition to considering factors such as
the state of the particular economy and
its effect on emissions. EPA may
consider die number, type, and state
inventory treatment of banked credits.
Such procedures will help assure that
reliably banked reductions an not
reduced or otherwise adversely affected
by shifts in an area's designated
attainment status.
Some commenters asserted it is overly
cautious to require that all banked
emissions be considered as "in die air."
One commenter asked that state
planning be required to include as "in
the air" only a portion of banked
emissions analogous to a "reserve
requirement" This comment draw
parallels with financial banking to
assume that given withdrawals and
deposits, a certain "float" quantity of
ERCs would always remain in die bank
and out of the air. EPA recognizes that
reductions placed in banks may tend to
keep the air cleaner through a relatively
constant level of deposits. However.
EPA cannot allow states to consider less
than their full amount of banked
deposits as "in die air." To do so could
jeopardize air quality planning and
attainment**
D. OBERS Projections and Double-
Counting
In its August 1983 notice EPA asked
for further comment on whether some
SIPs' translation of general economic
growth projections provided by OBERS
(Department of Commerce) directly into
projected emissions growth, left "no
straightforward way to disaggregate the
projections into shutdowns and new
plant openings." Whether such SIP
demonstrations wen fully or only partly
approved, die notice continued, such use
of OBERS might make it impossible to
distinguish which shutdowns were
already railed on indie demonstration.
Therefore, it might be "difficult or
impossible for states whose SIPs rest on
OBERS projections to grant credit from
shutdowns for use in existing source
bubble trades, consistent with the Clean
Air Act" 48 FR 39501.
Most industry and several state
commenters asserted that where OBERS
data were used to project needed SIP
reductions, use of shutdown credits in
bubbles was not a problem, since
OBERS figures substantially
overestimate the total amount of
emission reduction needed to attain. For
example, one industry commenter noted
that "emissions growth will not be
direcdy proportional to economic
growth because of die installation of
new environmentally efficient
technologies. Therefore, SIPs which
used "OBERS" projections already have
" In order not to defeat banking j purpose of
encouraging the earliest possible disclosure and
production of potential extra emission reduction!.
use of banked credit* for bubble purposes in
primary nonaaauunml ana* w/iic/i lock approved
dunottttrauoa* will continue to be allowed.
provided these credit* meet all baseline and other
applicable requirement* of today's notice for these
area*. This generally include* the lowest-of-ectual-
SIP-eBowable of-RACT-ellowable emiisions
baseline, applied a* of the date of written
application to the state to bank such reductions
through a formal bank or Informal banking
iMTTMnit«» for use in future trade*. It also includes
that 2011 net reduction requirement and state
aamnaces specified above, at the time such credits
at* approved for UM in bubble*. Banked crecns
resulting from plain thutdown or production
airtailmeett may be uaed for bubble* in these areas
oa the same term* as use of other banked creoits.
provided their uee i* lubtett to stringent qualitative
review to assure legal technical and programmatic
consistency with SIP planning goala (e.g., avoidance
of -shifting demand"). See today s Policy at n. 24
and Section LA.l.c|31 of the Technical Issues
Document (Banked credits resulting from cenam
shutdown* or production curtailment* may.
however, be subject to special restrictions for offset
purpose*. See today's Technical Issues Document at
n.14).
The special restrictions discussed above do not
apply under today's notice 'o use of banked creait
for bubble purposes in other areas.
-------
Federal PegUter / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
•n inherent growth potential built into
them, and allowing ERG* for shutdowns
in these areas will not jeopardize a
state's ability to demonstrate
attainment." A local agency agreed that
"demonstrations. . . based on such
emission projections would over-
estimate attainment because some
growth will occur from (wholly) new
sources, new sources replacing existing
sources, or modified existing sources.
[all of] which would be subject ;o. . .
New Source Review rules, rather than
the less stringent [SIP] requirements
assumed in the emission projections."
Several state commenters also
stressed that while use of OBERS
projections is not widespread, the
underlying question is whether the
area's SIP process incorporates
conditions sufficient to prevent double-
counting of shutdown credits. One local
agency recommended that shutdown
credits be prohibited where the source
involved is within an industrial category
projected to go through an economic
downturn, asserting that in such cases
the SIP implicitly relies on the expected
shutdowns. An environmental group
went a step further, and urged that all
shutdown credits for bubbles in areas
using OBERS projections be completely
prohibited.
EPA has concluded that the
requirements of the 1982 policy are
sufficient to prevent double-counting of
shutdown credits, and should be
retained without further special
restrictions. First use of OBERS or any
other projection is relevant only where
an area has an approved attainment
demonstration. Today's notice generally
disallows bubble credit for pre-
application reductions (including
reductions from shutdowns or
curtailments) in primary nonattainment
areas which require but lack such
demonstrations. Thus today's notice
largely moots any issue of double-
counting for past shutdowns, in the
areas for which this issue has been
raised with the greatest concern.
Second, use of OBERS projections in
areas with approved demonstrations
does not appear nearly so common as
was assumed in EPA's 1983 request for
further commenK Even where such
projections were used in approved
demonstrations, they generally
overestimate the amount of emissions
forecast to exist in the year of protected
attainment. They therefore tend to
assume substantially less overall
reductions from source turnover than
will actually occur.'*
Finally, even if such projections did
not overestimate emissions, under
today's notice the state must show that
use in bubbles of any reductions created
by shutdowns ia consistent with its
attainment demonstration and that
those reductions were not already
assumed in its SIP. For example, the
state must show that it did not implicitly
or explicitly rely on a "turnover rate"
from the difference in emissions
between existing sources and better-
controlled new sources for part of the
reductions required in its SIP from that
industrial category. Alternatively, it
must show that if a "turnover rate" was
assumed, the shutdown credits used in
aa individual trade result from
reductions) in excess of that turnover
rate. Where a state regulated the
sources in a standard industrial
classification (SIC) without explicitly
relying on turnovers, then bubble credit
for a * idown within that SCI category
woulc -ot in general be double-
counted.'*
These requirements should fully
protect states and sources against
adverse environmental or SIP effects.
£ Improved Modeling and de Minima
Rtquinawt*
Bubble applicants must show that
their proposed trades are at least
equivalent in ambient effect to the SIP
(or other) emission limits the bubble
would replace. For some criteria
pollutants (e.g. VOC or NOJ this test
may generally be met by showing equal
pace with projected modi la earaiajt tod/or
tmptoynwM in tbow SIC coda*, without retard to
eaufiBf dittnbuoon* between ntw end ajuafief,
•ourcM. SM. t.|. 1900 OBSK& SEA Arf/ora/
Protection*. Volumt l: Mtthodolofr. Canctpa ami
Sla»Dota. p. (xi). US. Otpvmmt at fimiaitua
(July «en
" Such eradlt* muat of coor»* meet til other
requirement* of today'i none*, including application
of appropriate baMlina* tad othtr criteria dtfiaiae,.
aurplu* reduction*, btfon they may be uaad la •
bubble trade.
SUM which nprfMly rtIM oa OBEXS
protection* My alao tbow tint no deublt-coitntlnf
ucuured by deoonttrttinf thai they did aot
implicitly rtiy oa aay turnover credit*. Tbia •howmg
should no« b* difficult ta maJta becau** OBERS
'• Thit it to oeeaute OBEXS-bated SIP
proifctiont attume that until of production (and
hence tfliiinontl in particular SIC Code* wit] k*ep
aaauBM that emittum* will evenly inert*** at each
plant and production line, proportional* to frowth
ia earaini* tod employment potential for that SIC
coda. CLo.it above Thit utumption neither
anticipate* nor rallet on tha fact that aay trnitdown
will occur.
Th* oa* txetption 10 th*t* general prlndpia*
could occur whtr* a StP relied oa OBERS
projection! for aa SIC catafory predicted to undanjo
a quoitifitd future aconoisic downturn, without
takins tipliat tffimwOv* ttapa to praclvd* reliance
on that downturn, la th*M cirraawtancaa th* ttat*
would either hav* to tbow that a propoaad
thutdowa cndit from a Mure* withia that SIC
category wa* not double-counted (M. ay tnowtnj
that mort thutdown reduction* than protected for
th* SIC cai*tary h»d tirtady occurred), or daay
credit.
reductions in emissions.1' For otr-er
pollutants (e.g.. SO*. TSP or CO) it wa
traditionally met prior to the I9fl2
policy, through ambient dispersion
modeling.
The 1982 policy made available
several alternatives to the use of full-
scale dispersion modeling whet* »-jeh
modeling was not needed to orcts;: air
quality. These alternatives couliJ. i
appropriate, carefully-limited
circumstances, be used to demonstrate
ambient equivalence for bubbles
involving particulate matter or other
pollutants whose ambient effects were
not linearly related to emissions. They
included oVr minima levels and the use
of other screening criteria to identify
circumstances ia which full-scale
modeling was unnecessary, either for
bubbles processed as SIP revisions or
those approved under generic rules.
Today's notice both tightens some of
these screening criteria and expands the
circumstances in which such criteria can
be used.
Today's notice also specifies certain
conditions and types of case-by-case
SIP-revision bubbles for which EPA
Regional Offices may require additional
technical support beyond basic
modeling requirements, deemed
necessary to protect NAAQS. PSD
increments or visibility where allowabl
values used to calculate baseline
emissions are not clearly used or
reflected ia an approved demonstration,
or may not reasonably be assumed
consistent with the need to protect PSD
increments or visibility. See Technical
Issues Document Section I.A.I.a.
1. Oe Minimi* Levels
Under the 1982 policy, trades in which
net baseline emissions did not increase
and in which the sum of emission
increases, looking only at the increasing
sources, totaled less than 100 tons per
year (TPY) after applicable control
requirements, could be exempted from
SIP revisions under an approved generic
rule. The rationale for this approach was
that EPA regulations implementing the
Clean Air Act already allow some
exemptions from NSR requirements for
new sources which are not defined as
"major"—ie- which do not have
potential emissions greater than 100
TPY. See e.g.. CAA section 302(j) and 40
CFR 5Z21(b)(l) and 51.18(j)(l)(v). Thus
trades which merely shift lesser
amounts of emissions, snd which are
'• latarwtad parti** tbould. how*v*r. b* twere
that *a»bient aqulvalaae* oonndentioni wnico
apply to SOk TSP tnd CO. at d*«cnb*d bmow. tito
•pply to NO* trad** iavorvini nubility impacts
from al*vat*d plum**. SM Scctioa LB.I b. of today
Technical Utun document
-------
436aa F»«bcd Regnler / Vol. SI. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. MM / Notices
accompanied by compmmtiag
decreases, shottld aol •• subject to man
stringent requirement*. A* A* 1982
notice put it "Such tradn will have at
most a de minim is impact on local air
quality because only minor quantities of
emissions are involved ... the federal
resources required to evaluate these
trades could best be used to evaluate
actions that have a potential impact on
air quality." 47 FR at 15085."
One commenter asserted that this 100
TPY limitation was unnecessary, since
the trades to which it appKed were
already required to produce no net
increase in emissions. However, four
state and environmental commenters
urged that de miaimia levels for such
trades be the same as those triggering
federally-mandated review of emissions
increases in PSD areas. These comments
primarily noted that EPA had already
defined more relevant "cutoff" levels in
its regulations for PSD, for NSR
preconstruction permits in
nonattainment areas, and in visibility
permit regulation*, and that emission
shifts of 100 TPY from one source ta
another might still be too large to go
unexamined for certain type* of
emissions and sttuaa'oaa.
In order to ensure prosecution of
ambient air quality, today's notice
adopts more protective de minima
levels—derived from those for PSD; NSR
permits in nonattainment areas; and the
visibility permit regulations—of MO TPY
for CO,« TPY for SO,. 25 TPY for
paniculate matter, and 0.6 TPY for lead.
Because of this action, state ambient
evaluation of de minima trade* will no
longer be required foe generic bubble
rules to be approvable by EPA.*0 Trades
involving sources of substantial size
may still be implemented as de minimia
under today's provisions, as long as the
quality of ERCs traded by these source*
is below the levels specified above.
2. Modeling Requirements41
Numerous comments' wen received
on the 1982 policy's ttose lavel approach
" Thi 19*B document did. Henever. MM th«l
such "(general trade* arc still rabsecl to Mibwot
testi |ti th« ttou level aod{ . . . thouid
accordingly be evaluated by the sta»e under the?
modeling icnen ... or an equivalent approach."
47 FR ISO*! at ik?.
40 Thii should not be eonstmed to uapt» Out n»w
Murcea **>d moelificancau Med not met a*
applicable requirement*, including thoee specified
under 40 CFR 51.18 or parallel EPA-approved stale
rule*.
'' The f»HuwHit Jt*u»aeiuii ewamarltJM be*
interim Jiiatuniimm made in the 19BC raedeting
screen (**• Technical teauet DomnieM. Appendix
C ( eWW BPA • r*)iT^*aTtM*n *O fAetfOf QOffMHBIttl OH
modeiing istue*.
to demonstrating aabteat
The vast majority sought addad
clarification, stating, for exampk. that
the 1982 policy did "n*x adequately X
delineate the leva! of modeling
necessary in each instance." Today's
notice tightens and darifie* the
conditions under which ambient
equivalence may be demonstrated with
less than full-scale modeling.
a Level I Criteria. Under the 1982
document no modeling was generally
required of SOt. TSP. or similar trades
where applicable net baseline emissions
did not increase, sources were located
in the same immediate vicinity
(generally within 250 maters of each
other), and the taller stack waa the one
which increased its emissions. The**
conditions were believed sufficient to
assure that local ambient concentrations
of the relevant criteria pollutants would
not increase as a result of the trad*.
EPA haa added two criteria to those
specified in 1982, in order to provide
additional assurance that trades
approved under Level I will have no
adverse ambient effect First there moat
be no complex (e.g.. mountamons)
terrain within 50 kilometers of tha
trading sources or within tha trade's
area of significant impact whichever is
less. (For simplified methods of
determining "area of significant impact"
see today's Technical Issue* Document.
Appendix E). Second, stacks with
increasing baseline emissions must ba
sufficiently tall to avoid downwash.
Some industry commenters objected
to the 250-meter limitation, advocating
use of either trade ratios for source*
beyond that distance, or an 800-metar
limit extrapolated from unrelated EPA
regulations.** EPA has retained the 280-
meter limit as substantially more
consistent with the modeling screen's
original intent of simplifying modeling
requirements for trades which couki not
jeopardize ambient equivalence.4*
«• Saw •*. 47 FR SSM. SSSS (Pebrawy a. MB4.
•• Trad* ratioe may already be uaeet onctar
general provMoM Inviting- eutsw to daoajn other
equivalent approocho* which adequately *dJiea»
ambient ooncerna. Sew. e-g. 47 FR at ISBJT and «U.
1SWB. However, to be approved by EPA eeck rattoa
would generally have to be daftMd ihraeajh ar«»
wide advene* modeting of ati were**, ae wall **
thaee likely to trade).
Several comment* also objected to the
requirement that Level I tredem net ajeseeee
emisatons from the aowee wrth the kjnei effective
pfcsm height. The** coalmen4* no»ed that ander
venoue condttiont s«mitar attdtt eo«M an vsrry ta
eflMtrm ptanw hetajtrt *« nertber woeM
conaiatentiy be "trrgtwr at "tawejr." One e)se>
luoeatad tMt rrntttcton migiM etiu>«iage «ee e
stacks M care tocal eJ».tei»an«aa.
Today'a notice rctarna ttits Level! requirement
unchanged. That two nmrcea may be vtrtuaDy
Indiatinguiahable in effecttw stack rwi^W should
not delay approval of Level I trade*, sine* the)
TSP. CDt A and NO* {for visibility
purpose*) Bay aiao bit approved throtrgii
limited Level B node&ag of tht ambrent
efbcU toUy o/«0uraw involved in the
trade, when applicable net baseline
emission* de not ncre*M aad
designated ambient significance levels
are not exceeded.
Today's notice confirms, clarifies, and
in certain cases extends various 1983
improvements made to increase
certainty and better assure that such
Level n trades result in ambient
equivalence. In particular, "significant
ambient impact" may no longer be
measured solely by changes at the
"receptor of maximum predicted
impact" before and after the trade.
Instead such changes must be measured
at every affected receptor for every
averaging period relevant to the
particular pollutant throughout the year.
Under this approach no Level II trades
will be approved without further
scrutiny, involving full or limited Level
HI modeling, if they result in a
significant met ambient effect at any
modeling point for any such averaging
period during a modeled year.
Today** notice also specifies Level II
significance levels for ail averaging
periods consMesvt with all current
national ambient air quality standards.
not just t*M M hour averaging periods
for SO* aad PM or the 8-hour averaging
period for CO.44 Refined models such as
MPTER and ISC must generally be used
to measure change* resulting from the
trade *t e*cb receptor, using the most
recent fail year of meteorological
data.4*
These aodeling requirements assure
that bubbles which pass applicable
Level a tests and meet all other
requirements of today's policy will
result to air quafity equal to or better
UmiUtion't purpoaa—preventing potentially
significant Uteieeaea m ground-level ambient
eoacamtnttoBa da» at shift* of emiaawm from
-higher" t*> "tower" stack*—wxll mil be satiated.
Mot«o«iar. *ne* such trade* cannot increase net
baaeline emiaaiona, this limitation merely ensure*
they wltt-mit creel* n*w ambient violation*.
Paensaa odsar EPA rasjutaUon* addreea the use of
exeeeaWety tali **j)oka to cure existing ambient
vioiattM*. os) bsttltar rejatnclion in UM* Leve4 1
requirement appear* nquired.
44 For further dbeuaaion of the*e Jignificarce
level* and the uma»*eij a**urarrce of
contttBctian cask todoy'i more sopMtticated Level II
| sptirnarh aae Plackamiein. 'Modeling
Chtena: Tb* Key to Major Reforms for Emissions
Trade*," APCA Paper M-e&2 (San Francisco.
California. )uo* 2S. 19S4).
«• Under some limited conditions, conservative
screening modal* may b* substituted for these
refined modei*. and ia> thaa* case* a Full year of
meteorotogKal del* may aot be necessary See
Technical laaue* Document. Secnon I.B.I.b.l3|.
-------
Ftofenl Rogstar / Vrrf. St. Ntr. Sto / Thursday. Dtconfaev 4.1988 / Notice*
-2828
thtn tint produced by pre>tr*de
emistioo limit*. «nd nay be approved.
Became refined model* have now been
approved by EPA udlhcfr parameters
may be specified with greater certainty
and confidence, these requirements also
provide a firmer basis for approving
state generic rules incorporating Level
D.««
a Ltvtl lU Criteria. Trade* which are
not de minima and do not satisfy Level
I or Level D above must generally be
evaluated by full-scale ambient
dispersion modeling. Two air pollution
control agencies recommended fixed
trading ratios la lieu of each modeling,
asserting thia would reduce coat and
uncertainty while continuing to meet the
goals of the Oea» Air Act EPA
recognizes the legitimacy of thee*
concern* but has concluded that trade*
which do not satisfy Level 1 or D raise
the kind* of air quality issue* which
appropriately require full-wale
modeling, unless such trading ratio*
have been justified by similar area-wide
modeling conducted hi advance of the
trade.
Today's notice doe*, however, modify
Level ID to provide states and soaroesr
more ftatibiiiry in thia regard. Warn*
trade meet* a&oihaz criteria of Lead 0,
but Level Q modeling ha* ehawa
significant potential increase* at
particular receptors. nM*m»»«i •n«ty^^
under Level IH may under appropriate
Hr**innitsnrts be i*""**** to a cecanaor
area smaller than the. trade'* entire, area,
of impact so long a* M inched**
emissions from all source* which;
contribute to ambient concentration* in
that limited geographic area. Been** of
the unique nature of each situation, IBM
appropriate limited geographic ana
must be detemtaad in accord wita-BPA-.
guideline* on i"rwi*>ing •"** nis hy
case evaluation. Thi* "hacted Level IE:
approach may conaero ssgaiflrant
resources, while tUowttg state* and
«• Interacted parse* 1(10*%
thai IMCIUM of r*plic»MM|i *'
appiiutiaai of toy appro***)
specific isibisni diap*ni**u
emetic mlM may b* am* dUB
implement Uun ruin incorporates ouly-dt ai/umii
and Lev*! I •pproachn for SO». TSf. CO or A
Dunn* ind (fMr iMtunc* of tftt 19B taMn» paAcy
EPA tuff doJto* «>4 infenMllr oraltud. «i *•
raquMt of n*i« and local ur •feacy dincton.
model enteric ruin which providod nor* detail to
htlp iatnvxcd item •eccottWr addme tbn*>
COOCM. The Agavcy pUm to epdM* an«U
ractrcuJau tfaot* «od*4 rulM u quickly u poenbte
•/tir publication of today'i notice, ff A account**
pejtln wtchinf IB dvrvtoe rmrie rain to OM An*
M« mod*l> «ni worii clofely wtA ralomm
Rtftoiml tuff. M ttaf pottntltl prebrnn oiy hi
promptly idinnfitd «nd rmoivtd
source* to focus on specific geographic
area* of concern.4*
F. Enforcement too**
Severel commenten noted that while
source* should, u provided in the 1962
policy, be allowed to use bubble* to
come into compliance, bubble
application* might also be used to delay
compliance or enforcement without
compensating environmental benefit*.
Some of these commenten alluded to
language in the 1982 notice which, while
not authorizing or intended to authorize
such results, could have been
interpreted to allow them. Such
unacceptable delay might for example,
ari*e where a sourc* facing u imminent
compliance ^••/m«*> suddenly advance*
a bubble application and asserts dial
more time i* needed to develop and
evaluate that application before
compliance with original SIP limits
should be required.
Both bubble* end generic rule* can be
important mean* of allowing
environmentally-sound compliance.
Generic rule* may be more expedHtou*
than case-by-case SIP revision bubble*.
They may also prsm •* the very
opportunity to babbie whoa the time
needed to process a ir*» by csie S9
revision might extend beyond the
source's original SIP compliance' data\
At tno **3DO IBM, DaDDfe* eppncatiOBe
shovid not become e shield against
enforcement action* for source* whfeb
have failed to take necesaary step* to
meet required control obfigatfoo*
time; Bubble* are simply ahematfrw-
meanr of eomprying at lev* eoet They
should be (reefed neither more nor lee*
stringently than other, more tradttonal
method* of compliance. Bubbles offer
innovative ways tomeetemianoir
reduction obligations. They should not
become devices to avoid such
obligations.
Today's notice substantially clarifies
and tighten* the 1962 policy to better
implement these principle*. Among
other step*, compliance extension* wiff
no longer be granted under generic nde*
in any nonattainment area, and may be-
" Tod»y • nolle* alto rtqutni bubWt
cvtuo pnm«T
•ir quality b«o»ft." wludi ihaU emuM tt
of i M* nduetioa in tniman*
RACT-«ilowibli ttaatmta bi
involvtd in th* bubbU. SM. t*.
Thit rnuuvoMM don aotomMili
difrinet thcaor 10 •ddiKo u *•
tpproicbn di»cm««d •bov*. U i» OMraiy
to (OMira th»t whtn tpprapnaw Uvcii of ouoaMnf
iodluto Uui prncribod buciia* vdon trt net
•uffieftnt to product 4B)bi«nt tquivtkaM.
•ddiaonil nduetion* whicb twun inch
tqui«>t«ne«. prior to tit am mi discount l»
battitni cmiuton*. wilt b« nquircd.
granted genetically i* attainment ams
only when EPA ha* approved tha tar.e-
extensiosj portion of to* rule a*
consistent with relevant Clean Air net
requirement*, tndbdiag expedition*
attainment and maintenance of ambient
standard*. Cf. 47 FR at 1907V col. 2. This
will generally mean that requests for
time extension* as part of bubble
application* must oe separately
reviewed u individual SIP revisions.
subject to criteria EPA normally applies
to such requests.
Today'* notice also re-emphasizes
that as a matter of law and sound
policy, source* seeking bubbles remain
subject to enforcement of existing (pre-
trade) SIP limits until the bubble is
finally approved. Sources which possess
approved bubbles with future effective
dates remain subject to similar
enforcement of pra-trade limits until
either those limits or the new ones are
met and may wfsh to take steps
identified in the notice, including
accelerated compliance with bubble
limit*, to minimiie that possibility. Se»
Technical Issues Document, section
LRZa.
Under today'* notice. EPA witf not
specifically select such sources for
enforcement action. Nor will EPA
withhold or-defer enforcement simply
because-a eaoree i* seeking alternative
emission limits through- a bubble. In
fn Credits
A. Creatiag Fmrtr*" Reduction Credits
1. Surplus
i Enforceable
4. Quantifiable
*• SUtn and souren *hould however. b« aware
that uador currtnt tf* futdtnct. rach discrenon >a
moat tftcly toavmtoMd whon • SIP-r«vition
b«bk*> hM OMBfonmttr pwoowd for nppnv(i at
UM fWM tovti aad EPA M*Jf luvt concluded thai u
ap**«n approviU* under comnt EPA poiicy In
tbn* dnmanmcn uiiU«iluri of action 10 enforce
pra-Md* Hmti tfal wo«M aoMt b* mplaced by a
vcM bub6*»r«eaBft*Bn0eB would Ukeiy eonaume
Hirnu* DA artorsameat mawen to aute
anvtroaffltnttl end.
-------
43830 Federal Register / Vol. 51, No. 233 / Thursday, December 4. 1986 / Notices
B. Using Emission Reduction Credits
1. Emissions Trades Must Involve the
Same Criteria Pollutant
2. All Uses of ERCs Must Satisfy
Applicable Ambient Test*
3. Bubbles Must Not Increase Hazardous
Pollutants
4. ERCs From Existing Sources Cannot
Be Used to Meet Technology-Based
Requirements Applicable to New
Sources
5. States May Approve Bubbles in
Primary Nonattainment Areas Which
Require But Lack Approved
Demonstrations of Attainment
ft. Sources Need Not Be Subject to
Binding Compliance Schedules Based on
Current SIP Requirements
7. States May Extend Certain
Compliance Schedules
6. States May Approve Bubbles Involving
Open Oust Sources of Paniculate
Emissions
9. Trades Involving Lead
10. Trades Involving ERCa Prom Mobile
Source Measures
11. Interstate Trades
12. Bubbles Must Not Impede
Enforcement
C. Banking Emission Reduction Credits
III. State Generic Trading Rules
(V. Bubbles Which Require Case-by-Case SIP
Revisions
V. Conclusion
EMISSIONS TRADING POLICY
STATEMENT
1. IntroductioK Baaic Elatnoot* of
Emission* Trading
This statement details EPA policy on
emissions trading. It sets out conditions
EPA considers necessary for emissions
trades to satisfy the Clean Air Act It
also clarifies and otherwise makes final
the Interim Policy proposed on April 7,
1982 (47 FR15076). It is accompanied by
a Technical Issues Document which
elaborates and provides greater detail
on principles set forth below. Finally, it
addresses new issues, and incorporates
certain additional safeguards as a result
of past trading experience, to better
assure the environmental integrity of
future trades.
.4. What is Emissions Trading?
Emissions trading consists of bubbles.
netting, emission offsets, and emission
reduction banking. These steps involve
creation of surplus emission reductions
at certain stacks, vents or similar
sources of emissions and use of these
emission reductions to meet or redefine
pollution control requirements
applicable to other emission sources.
Such emissions trades can provide more
flexibility to meet environmental
requirements, and may therefore be
used to reduce control costs and
encourage faster compliance. Moreover,
by developing "generic" trading rules
(see Section 13 below) states' may be
able to expedite bubble approvals by
eliminating the need for case-by-case
SIP revisions* and by providing more
predictable approval criteria.
3. The Bubble
EPA's bubble lets existing plants (or
groups of plants) increase emissions at
one or more emission sources in
exchange for compensating extra
decreases in emissions at other emission
sources. Approved bubbles give plant
managers the ability to implement less
costly ways of meeting air quality
requirements. To be approvable. each
bubble must produce results which are
equivalent to or better than the baseline
emission levels in terms of ambient
impact and enforceability. Thus,
bubbles should jeopardize neither
ambient standards nor applicable PSD
increments and visibility requirements.
Under EPA's bubble, emission
reductions from existing sources can not
be used to meet technology-based
requirements applicable to new or
modified stationary sources.
This Policy Statement replaces EPA's
original bubble policy (December II.
1979:44 FR 71779) and Interim Emissions
Trading Policy (47 PR 15078V It tightens
general bubble principle*, a* well a*
requirements for bubbles in primary
nonattainment area* which require but
lack demonstrations-of attainment and
requires bubbles in these) areas to -
produce progress towards attainment
beyond equivalence to stringent
emission limits. By specifying EPA'S'
requirements foe bubble* is all areas.
this Policy Statement should make the
development review and approval of
environmentally-sound bubble* more -
rapid and predictable.
C Netting
Netting may exempt "modifications"
of existing major source* from certain
preconstruction permit requirement*
under New Source Review (NSR). so
long as there is no net emission*
increase within the major source or any
such increase falls below significance
levels.* By "netting out" the
« -Sutn" Indudm any entity property deiefeted
authority to adauiuater relevant pert* of • SUM
Implementation Man (SIP) under tft* Cleaa Air Act
* "Caaa by-c«M SIP revtakm" nean* ceee by-
caie approval by EPA aa • SIPnvMoo. Thte la the
traditional machaauin by which bobble* ud ether
SIP chanaM have bean approved by EPA.
» See. «.», 10 CFR Sl.iaUHlMx). SLMftKm
S£21(bX23). See alao today'i Technical laauea
Document, n. 47 ud accompanyins, tent
On Novtmber 7. isea. EPA restructured CPR Put
31 and renumbered many of thai Put't *action»(51
FR west). Became mod reeden win ba nora
finuiiir with prior detignetlona. today'i notice
contain* citattoai be**d on the orgenixatloB of Part
modification is not considered "major"
and is therefore not subject to
associated preconstruction permit
requirements for major modifications
under 40 CFR 51.18,51.24.5Z21. 52,24,
52J7, or 52^8. The modification must
nevertheless meet applicable new
source performance standards (NSPS).
national emissions standards for
hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs),
preconstruction applicability review
requirements under 40 CFR 51.18(a)-(h)
and (1), and SIP requirements.
Netting's scope is determined by the
definition of "source" for review of
major modifications. In general. PSD
areas use a single, planrwide definition.
allowing actual emission reductions
anywhere in a contiguous plant to
compensate for potential emission
increases at individual emitting units
within the plant Nonattainment areas
can choose either this single, planrwide
definition or a dual definition, so long as
the definition selected does not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of
NAAQS and is consistent with progress
towards attainment Under the
plantwide definition, significant net
actual increases at the plant as a whole
will trigger new source review. Under
the dual definition, significant increases
at either the plant as a whole or
individual emitting units will trigger new
source review.
In addition to these federal definitions
for major new sources and
modification*, state preconstruction
permit* for major or minor new sources
and modifications may be required
under 40 CFR SV18(a), and some states
preclude netting.
D. Emission Offsets
In nonattainment areas, major new
stationary source* and major
modifications are subject to a
preaconstniction permit requirement
that they secure-sufficient surplus
emission reductions to more than
"offset" their emissions. This
requirement is designed to allow
industrial growth in nonattainment
areas without interfering with
attainment and maintenance of ambient
air quality standards. It is currently
implemented through SIP regulations
adopted by states to meet the
requirement* of 40 CFR 51.18{j).
In attainment areas, some new
sources and modifications might not
otherwise be able to be constructed
because their emissions would result in
51 a* It axiated before thi« ceatractuhns. Intamitd
part** may u*e Appendix F of today'i Technical
i**ue* Document to convert today'i Part 51 uutmni
to the cormponding n*w one*.
-------
Federal Register / Vot. 31. No. Z33 / Thursday. December 4. 19BP / Noffces
4381
an iJiissiisiini at the apfhcafale PSD
iocroMU ar a«bien» air quality
standard, would sigritaarty contribute
to • violation of an amasent air quality
standard in a designated primary
nonattauunent area; or would
significantly contribute to viability
impairiMOt to a Federal Class 1 area.
These sources may me emissions offsets
to allow desired growth while protecting
that increment, standard, or visibility.
£ Emission Reduction Banking
Firms may store qualified emission
reduction credits (ERCa) in EPA-
approvable banks for later use in
bubble, offset or netting transactions.
Depending on the bank's rules, banked
ERCs may also be sold or transferred to
other firms which seek to meet certain
regulatory requirements by use of
emissions trades.
BPA's revised Offset Ruling (40 CFR
Part 51. Appendix S) allow* states to
establish banking rules as part of their
80%. This Policy Statement and
accompanying Technical Issues
Document detail die necessary
components of a complete state banking
rule appronbie nnder the dean Air
Act While many areas also allow
baaJd*g of emtsston redactions, fw
various purposes throngs verioua formal
or informal baafctaf mechaniaiBs. banks-
wbidl do not meet today's criteria (e.g-
by not BBOjdng*bsBiked emission
reductions enforceable by the state by
the tee the redactions are actually
banked, ar by no* assuring tot deposit*
are- taken expticJtry into account for SfcP
PISIUIJIISJ purposes} uaiuiot <(w4lfy
emuakm reductions as ERCs. and may
offer substantially I«M protection is (fee
event of future SIP corrections or
change* in ambient attatanent sfstue
F. Generic Trading Rule*
Generic rules adopted aa part of to*
SIP can authorise state* to approve
certain types of individual transaction*
without the need for case-by-caae SIP
revisions or associated federal review
prior to approval The first state generic
bubble rule was approved by EPA April
8. 1M1 (46 FR 20551). Per the current
scope of permissibk* rasa*, see Section
in below.
G. Effect of Thii fotiey Statement
Emissions trading is largely voluntary:
no source is required to trade, and no
state is required by EPA to approve a
particular trade or to adopt a generic
rule. Trading merely offers states and
stationary sources alternative ways to
meet regulatory requirements. For
example, states are free to adopt generic
rules or continue to implement trades as
individual SIP revisions. They may
adopt rules) which moirpeiate after any
combination of OK above trading
approaches.*
This Policy Statement Is accompanied
by a Technical Issues Document for use
by states and industry in further
understanding emissions trading. The
Document offers elaboration and
important detail on requirements and
available options under the Clean Air
Act
This notice reflects the current Clean
Air Act and existing EPA regulations. A
policy statement cannot legally alter
such requirements. However, this notice
establishes EPA policy in areas not
governed by applicable regulations and
sets out general principles which may
help states and industry apply those
regulations in individual cases. Federal
or state ralemaking ID response to. e.g..
future- litigation or changes in ambient
standards, attainment status, or SIP
validity, may affect states or firms that
plan to engage or have engaged in
emissions trading activities.
Nothing in today's notice alters EPA
new source review requirements or
exempts owners or operators of
stationary sources' froaa compiienee wrtfr
applicable precoostruetioo permit
regulation* (n accord win 49 CFR 3I.»
51.3151 JOT. 5121. 5*24, S2JT, and
52Ja Interested pa/tier should
howerer. be rware that bubble tads*
are not subject to pnconstnicthn
review or regulations where these trades
do not involve construction.
reconstruction. ormodiflLatiuBora
EPA intends to apply changes mads
by today's policy prospecttvely (e.g» not
to action whid> ha vesdmdy been
approved as case-by-ease SIP revisions
or under generic rules), ff. sowever.
ambient violations are discovered hi an
are* where EPA has approveda trad*.
or if other violations of dean Air Act
requirements ar* discovered In that
area, sources involved In the trad*
should be aware that they ar*
potentially subject to requirements for
additional emission reductions, just aa
an all other sources in the are*.
This policy requires that substantial
additional reductions (st least 20%) La
trading trt not voluntary, for txuopk.
of • oMior mm aom ormjw
tea
(4S CFR Jl.iajff •** SI. Aapaote n
"fraotti OMifM* o/nwa ntlfOtum I* • S8?w*l<*
it eurmiity »ppi»»«U by SPA. tm MM* mtj pra«Mi
t»t offut* Inm SMI prow* mfrfat nter dm
rvquMV cbvH fron dtv MTO. M MM( tM tt radttcn
tb« nurfm •eeanUnftx. $•• Qnn Air Ad I
173(1 MA| «id (Bl
emlssiuiis remaining beyond appticablt
batelhTCs be produced by future bu bb I F
in primary nonattainmeaf arears wh
require but lack approved
demonstrations of attainment. However
applications for bubbles in such areas
which are still pending at EPA without
formal action under the 1982 policy, or
which were previously subtitted to EJV
Regions under the 1982 policy but not
accepted for evaluation, will be
reexamined and processed for approval
if they meet the requirements of the 1982
policy and contribute to progress
towards attainment "Progress towards
attainment" means some extra reduction
beyond equivalence to a lowest-of-
actual-SIP-aUowable-or-RACT-
allowable emissions baseline, with this
baseline applied aa of the time
applicants originally sought credit
Pending bubbles in attainment areas
and nooattainBMnt areas with approved
demonstration* of attainment will be
processed for approval if they meet the
requirements of the 1982 policy and
show that ambient standards. PSD
incranexrta aod visibility will not be
jeopardised.
For further discussion on pendfetg .
bubbles see Section l.A.l.b.(4) of the
Technical lsaoe» Document. *•
IL Kaquirassents for Creating. Using, or
nanHnt flsMeeJee Eadnrtinn fmriits'
A. Creating Emission Reduction Credi.
Emission redaction credits (ERCs) are
the common currency of all trading
activity. EBCa may be created by
redactions from either stationary, area,
or mobile sources. To essure that
emissions trades do not contravene
relevant raqiureaMirts of the Clean Air
Act only reductions which are surplus.
enforceebi*, permanent, and
quantifiable can qualify as ERCs and be
banked or used in aa emissions trade.
•EPA inm^ijM IUIM or jourct* which
MbMitfed bahMn that mn rerun** without
•vahMttoa by EPA to rmbml th*ia under then
erittfu. provided they eu doouwnt (at formal.
ttratiy Mtaitul of to *pplicxioo to EPA m iccora
•itk aomtl EPA ftoativ** ud fb» ih«i tnt
iplJflttna wwrctwiMd wtthoul tviiutuoa racier
tfua raicend ftir Mhm to «••( tin ttrmi of the
1SK poBqr. Bob6J« (pptfeaUoM which were
•ncaplrt for rnlnttoo* bat r»(tct«J far {itlun to
•MI Iht 1SR peHer wM bt tmtid n new
ippUattoH aad«r Wd»y-i netlea
•BkcaaM tfali fatter Staummt uid
«ccaap«nyim Ttdiaial IWUM Doeumeni refltcr
HO«r»J Cl««nAlf Aetpruic>pl«i. «t«tet individual
tourcn. or conuntmtn oo ipvcifle rulemakiog
action* in frM to «aow ttitt • fcawil pnnc:ple
do*« ott tppty M particular eircumatancai or ;ouid
b* MHtatt uittf appnMt*o otkcr than lhatt
datotbi* SIMM, xmrcn and eomm«nt*r» !-...•
thi« opfton ondar cnrrtnt law. and notbtng m ihu
Potlcy Statnuiu or UM TachniuJ IMUM Ooeumeiu
rettrtcti ftair oppormnity to maka »uch ihowmjs
-------
43832
F«d«rftl Rcgtitw /-VoLS1.-No. 233. / Thursday, December 4. 1986 / Notices
^^^^^^^^^^••^^^^•^••••^^•••^i^lMBiHMaM^B^BiBi^BH^^Bli^M^^M^^^^^H^Mi^^MMMMMBi^BHBHMMBHWB^HMHi
1. Surplus, At roininjunvanly emission
reductions-not required by current
regulations in the SIP. not already relied
on for SIP planning purposes, and not
used by the source to meet any other
regulatory requirement can be
considered surplus. To determine the
quantity of emission reductions that are
surplus, the state must first establish an
appropriate emissions baseline from
which surplus reductions can be
calculated. Baseline emissions for any
source are the product of three factors-
emission rate, capacity utilization, and
hours of operation.7
In attainment areas, the lower of
actual or allowable values must
generally be used for each of these
baseline factors. However, allowable
values for one or more of these factors.
when higher than actual values, may be
used in calculating the baseline
emissions, provided those values are
shown to be used or reflected in an
approved demonstration.* The burden of
meeting this test by written evidence
rests with the state or applicant which
seeks to use an allowable value.
When allowable values for one or
more baseline factors are not used or
reflected in an approved demonstration,
such values may still be used in
calculating baseline emissions.
However, in such cases applicants must
perform appropriate modeling to
demonstrate that allowable values
which are higher than actual values will
not delay or jeopardize attainment and
maintenance of ambient standards.*
' For further discussion of these hcton M they
relate to baseline calculations, Mt Appendix B of
the Technical Issues Document
•This statement doe* not apply to netting, when
"contemporaneous" actual emieiion* are always the
baseline. See. e.g~ 40 CFR 51.24 PSD
baseline has been triggered, credit may
be granted consistent with the PSD
baseline concentration as specified in 40
CFR 5U4(bH13r and 5121(b)(13}. This
will generally require use of actual
values for each of the baseline factors.
However, states may use allowable
values if they show through appropriate
modeling I0 that attainment and
maintenance of neither the ambient
standards nor applicable PSO
increments will be jeopardized and
quantify the amount of increment
consumed.
In nonattainment areas with approved
demonstration* of attainment, the
baseline must be consistent with
assumptions used to develop die area's
demonstration. This generally means
that actual values must be used for each
baseline factor where actual values
were used for such demonstrations, and
that higher allowable values for these
factors may be used where allowable
values were used for such
demonstrations.11 The burden of
showing that an allowable value was
used or reflected in the" approved
demonstration rest* with the state or
applicant which seeks to us* an
allowable value. In the absence of
written evidence to that effect full Level
m modeling would be required to make
use of an allowable value in baseline
calculations."
hi primary nonaUainment areas
which need but lack approved -
demonstrations of attainment, stater
must show that bubbles meet special
"progress" requirements designed to -
produce a net air quality benefit This-
must be demonstrated by (1} using the
lowest-of-actual-SIP-allowable-of-
RACT-allowable emissions baseline for
each source involved in the trade, " (2)
meeting the ambient equivalence testa
outlined in sections ILB.2 of this Policy
and LB.l.b. of the Technical Issues
Document and then (3) producing a
substantial net reduction in actual
emissions (i.e, a reduction of at least
use of such higher allowable values in attainment
area* under generic ru/ea. sea Technical leauc*
Document. aJl.
'•See OS above.
1' For netting, "contemporaneous" actual ___
sensuous are always the baseline. See. s*. 40 CFR
SUKIMIXvt).
1 • Fo» further dlacuaaioe) of Lev** » modeling, see
Techaicai Issues Documeaa, sectiea LB.lbr*t
1' For purposes of today's notice, me "lowest of
acrual-SIP^Uoweble-or-RACr-aUowabte'
emissioaa baseline meana the product of (1) the
lowest of the actual emisaioei rat*, the SIP or other
federally enforceable emission limit or a RACT
emission Unit and (2) the lower of actual or
allowable capacity utiUuOon and hours of
operation. For further discussion of this baseline.
see Appendix B of today's Technical Issue*
Document.
20»in the-enrisTOTM remaining aftay
application of the baseline specified
aboveVThe state must also provide
assurances that the bubble is consistent
with ambient progress1 and future air
quality planning goals.14
2. Enforceable. To assure-that Clean
Air Act requirements are met each
transaction which revises any emission
limit upward must be approved by the
state and be federally enforceable.
Means of making emission limits
federally enforceable include SIP
revisions (see section IV below). EPA-
approved generic bubble rules (see
Section III below), and new source
preconstruction permits issued by states
under EPA-approved SIP regulations
pursuant to provisions of 40 CFR 51.18.
51.24, or 91.307, as well as construction
permits issued by EPA or delegated
states under 5&21.1* Bubbles should be
incorporated in an enforceable
compliance instrument which requires
recordkeeping based on the averaging
period over which the bubble is
operating, so it may easily be
determined over any single averaging
period that bubble limits are being met.
3. Permanent Only permanent
reductions in emissions can qualify for
credit Permanence may generally be
assured by requiring federally
enforceable; changes in source permits
or applicable state regulations to reflect
a reduced level of allowable emissions.
4 Quantifiable. Emission reductions
must be quantifiable both in terms of
estimating the amount of the reduction
and ehmraeteening that reduction for
future use. Quantification may be based
on emission factors, stack tests,
monitored values, operating rates and
averaging times, process or production
inputs, modeling, or other reasonable
measurement practices. The same
method of calculating emissions should
generally be used te quantify emission
levels both before and after the
reduction.
B. Using Emission Reduction Credits
ERCs may be used by sources in
bubble, offset or netting transactions.
The general principles below will assure
"Ties
I may be found in the
Technical Issues Deounent et LA,l.b.(3|. EPA will
not sscoataVsM*** sue* state assurances, provided
they eaed) A aabeuatiai u»s» applied by the stale
to each bubble, and (2) the state ha* explained how
the propoeed bubble I* consistent with the area i
prelected attainment stratify. This suthohty has
not been delegated with EPA. See dean Air Act
section JOltaKU.** US.C. T801(aXU
'• EPA I* also considering geoerle step* which
woold make state operating permits federally
enforceable. Prior to use. banlnd credits need not
be made federally enforceable. See Section 1I.C.
below.
-------
Fadaral Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
4383:
that til uses of ERCs are consistent with
ambient attainment and maintenance
consideration* under the Clean Air Act
They are further articulated in the
accompanying Technical laaues
Document
1. Emissions trades must involve the
wne criteria pollutant. An emission
reduction may only be traded against an
increase in the same criteria pollutant
For example, only reductions of SOi can
be substituted for increases of SO*.
2. All uses ofERCs must satisfy
applicable ambient tests. The Clean Air
Act requires that all areas throughout
the country attain and maintain national
ambient air quality standards and meet
applicable ambient requirements
relating to PSD increments and Class I
protection, including visibility. The
ambient effect of a trade depends on the
dispersion characteristics of the
pollutant involved. With the exception
of visibility for NO* dispersion
considerations will generally not affect
trades involving VOC or NO,, whose
impacts occur across broad geographic
areas. For these pollutants "pound for
pound" trades may be treated as equal
in ambient effect where all sources
involved in the trade are located in the
same control strategy demonstration
area, or where the state otherwise
shows such sources to be sufficiently
dose that a "pound for pound" trade
can be justified. However, dispersion
characteristics an important for bubble
and offset trades of SOi, particulates.
CO. or lead, whose ambient impact may
vary with where the emission increases
and decreases occur. To assure ambient
equivalence, such trades of these
pollutants must satisfy ambient tests
under the modeling screen discussed in
the Technical Issues Document or under
a similar, equally effective approach.'•
'• For iiaular raaaon*. bubble* at the** pollutant*
nu*( involve MUICM which are in too MOM or
adjacent control itntcgy dtmotumuoa tree*
within the MOM general air baata.
See Mction n.A.1. above tad Technical bauae
Document Section LA. la. ragajd*^ additional
technical aupport required lor certain trade* in
attainment area*.
While bubble* in primary aoaanauunent area*
which need but lack approved demoaetnaon* of
attainment mutt produce a net air quality benefit
thi* doe* not entail additional ambient teat*. Such
bubble* auai flnt meet the general teat* under the
modelinf Kreen thowing ambient equivalence for
bubble*, prior to producing the required additional
reduction*. They mu«t then produce addition*!
reduction* of at lent 29V beyond the applicable
bat^tin* emiuion* uted to demonitrate amount
equivelenc*. Since theee additional reduction* wrll
nece**ahly reduce irabienl-conceatraDon* below
equivalence a< *oaw receptor*, while continuing te
meet the ten* for ambient equivalence at all other*.
• net *ir quality benefit ihould occur and no -
additional ambient ahowinga.. beyond thote
generally required for all bubble*, are required.
3. Bubbles must not increase
hazardous pollutants. Bubbles may not
be used to meet applicable requirements
of National Emissions Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs)
promulgated under section 112 of the
Clean Air Act to increase emissions at
any source beyond the levels applicable
NESHAPs prescribe, or to create any net
increase in baseline emissions of a
pollutant regulated under section 112.
The applicable baseline for regulated
sources is the lower of actual or
NESHAPs-allowable emissions of the
hazardous pollutant
Where a NESHAPhaa been proposed
but not yet promulgated for a source
category which emits a pollutant listed
under section 112, the proposal will
serve aa an interim guideline for
evaluating the effects of any proposed
emissions trade involving a source that
would be subject to the proposed
standard. In general, such trades will be
appro-. t*le with respect to the
emissions component of the trade
subject to the proposal so long as they
result in emission limits at each source
emitting the relevant pollutant which are
equivalent to or lower than those the
proposed NESHAP would have required
if already promulgated.1*
When a pollutant baa been listed
under section 113 or where EPA has
published a Notica-of-mtenWo-Lisfc bat
no regulations for the source category
involved in the trade have yet been
proposed or promulgated, the. trade wifl •
generally be acceptable with respect to
the emissions component of the trade
subject to notice or listing, if there is no
net increase in actual emissions of mat
pollutant as a result of the trade. *•
Any trade involving sources or source
categories subject to the preceding
subparagrapha must take place within a
single plant or contiguous plants, and
must credit only reductions below
current actual or NESHAPs—allowable
emissions, whichever is lower. But d
generally n. 9 above and today's
Technical Issues Document section
LB.LA
Trades which do not meet the special
restrictions discussed in this section
may also be approved where surplus
reductions in the pollutants addressed
" The allowable emiiiion raw (or a
•ubteci to a propoMd NESHAP to the limit
(lipulaied In the propoaai.
'• When ETA ha* i**ued • -Notlce-oMnl*at-NeV
to-R*ful*te" on* or more toure* cateforie* for a
lifted pollotant. emiuion* of that pollutant from tfa*
unrefolated >ourca catefOfjr will laniitheiaei to
treated the aaaa* a* emotion* of any olfcar U*t*d
pollutant. Under limited ctrcunutancaa. tioilar-
treatment will be given to pollutant* for which a
"Notice-oMmetM-Net-io-Uar ha* been pobtUHed.
See the Technical IMUM Document. **cOon Lil.d. -
above compensate for increases in r.cn-
hazavdoua emissions of the same critr
pollutant (e.gn benzene, a hazardous
VOC is reduced to create credits for a.
increase in non-hazardous VOC
emissions.) As long as such a trade
would not result in an increase in either
actual or allowable emissions of a
pollutant iubject to the preceding
paragraphs at any source, it would not
differ in nature or requirements from a
trade involving only nonhazardous VOC
emissions.
* ERCs from existing sources cannot
be used to meet technology-based
requirements applicable to new sources.
Under Clean Air Act section 111 and
EPA implementing regulations, new
effected facilities must satisfy
technology-based New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS).
regardless of the attainment status of
the ana in which they an located.
Under sections 105 and 173 and EPA
implementing regulations, new or
modified major stationary sources must
also satisfy technology-based control
obligations associated with pre-
construction permits. These
requirements prohibit use of credits
from existing sources to meet or avoid
applicable NSPS. and bar use of such
credits to meet applicable new source
review requirements for best available
control technology (BACT) in PSD area:
or lowest achievable emission rate
control technology (LAER) in
nonattainment anas."
& Staler may approve bubbles in
primary nonattainment areas which
require but lack approved
demonstration* of attainment, provided
such trades meet requirements designed
to produce a net air quality benefit and
the state provides certain assurances.
See section ILA.1. above and the
Technical Issues Document section
LAJ-b. Bubble* which meet these
objective requirements will be
processed for approval by EPA.
A Sources need not be subject to
binding compliance schedules based on
current SIP requirements before they
can apply for a bubble which would
supersede those requirements. Sources
that an already subject to binding
compliance schedules should be aware,
however, that such schedules remain
fully enforceable until a bubble affecting
the schedule has been approved by EPA
or under a state generic rule and the
»• But et aactfeM 1C. an* LD. aawv*.
Today'* Bode* doe* not addrve* whether or unaer
xaneM toeJlioaw eabfect to NSPS.
BACT or LAEX mar eurpe** applicable permit
limit* reflecting wch requirement* In order to create
credit* for exieOng-*ouree trade*.
-------
Paekul Raster / Voi 5% No. aa / Trmrtday. Dacamfcer 4. M8§ / Netices
scbtdd«hw beemaadifiwl
SOUKM subject ta cnmyJinncs schedules
in adBBRistnuve orderror jadkial
dacraea muat obtain prior aaejoval from
EPA or the relevant cowl aa
appropriate, to be relieved from the
schedule contained in the order or
decree. Sources that are subject to SIP
requirements remain responsible for
meeting those requirements unless and
until a bubble has become effective
under Federal law. See section ILB.12
below.
7. States may extend certain
compliance schedules. States may no
longer grant compliance extensions
under new or revised generic rules in
nonattainment area*, whether or not
such areas have demonstrations.1*
However, states may continue to grant
compliance date extensions under
generic rules in attainment ana*,
provided EPA has approved the
extension provisions of the generic rule
as being adequate to comply with the
Clean Air Act including requirementa
for attainment and maintenance of
ambient air quality standards.
States that wish to give sources ia
nonattainaent areas, and sources ia
attainment areas far which there ia no
applicable generic SIP provnioat. moes
time to implement bubbles, by treating
compliance extension*, mat receive
EPA approval of tbe extensions through
case-by-case SIP revisions. Requests for
such compliance date extensions,
whether in attainment or nonattaini
state views man aeapaneataef AW
pcopsasd&IP revissaa as seperabn.
« States nay opprvw oveMw
invofring open duetsoarca of
timev-
riigstior.a on
areas, may be submitted to EPA together
with bubbles, aa part of a single SIP
revision package. EPA will separately
evaluate the time extension portion of
these SIP revision packages in accord
with the Agency's normal criteria for
review of time extensions, including
consistency with the Act's requirements
for expeditiousness. reasonable farther
progress, and attainment and
maintenance. Sources should be aware
that disapproval of such time extension
requests may result ia disapproval of the
entire package (i.e., both pest-trade
limits and the time extension) or only
part of it. depending oa whether the.
10 Existing generic rules spoticaMe to that anoa
muit be revised lo comport with taia principle
when they contain such generic exleuion
provisions. EPA will publish Federal Register
MHMM Kkmrfyldf any-generic atlaa-wMdi reqedre-
formal nwaHfaatnm Pariwt to ratolve ilsfli ladles
identifies) tat aucta a notice wthi> the piesusbed
lime petted may mull in EPA rescinding approval
of the existing generic rule or issuing a nouaa ef SIP
deficiency. EPA eBpocM aMlas to <
imeriflk to far as feasible, tfeat <
•xienaiae» under existing,_
granted to aoareaa located ia
See section UI below tad sectioB tLE.4. of Ike
Technical Issues OOOUMM.
pattieuiat* emagjem. based oa
modeling demonstrations. Open dust
trades may be approved through
individual SIP revisions based oa
acceptable modettng and/or monitoring
demonstrations, provided sources agree
to post-approval monitoring to
determine if predicted air quality results
have been realised and nuke an
enforceable commitment to achieve
necessary additional reductions if
predicted results do not materialise.
A Trade involving lead. Unlike other
criteria pollutants. EPA does not
designate nonattainment areas for lead.
However, the Regional Administrator
will review lead trades, as all other
trades, to assure that they do not
interfere with attainment and
maintenance of NAAQS.
10. Trade* mvoMng ERCa from
mobile source meaning. ERCa from
mobile source measures may be used to
meet SIP requirements applicable to
existing stationary sources, so long as
such reductions are sarphu, pernaneat
quantifiable, and enforceable.
Reductions from certain types of mebile-
souree measures (e.a, necaam'cai
conversion ef existing vehicle fleets to
cleaner fuels such as metnenol) may
satisfy these criteria more reedtty taaa
those from other transport-related
measures* However, due to possiUo
difficultiee in determining whether
specific mobtle-aouEeo redactions futiy
meet these criteria, all such trades awst
be implemented as csae by-case SB?
revisions.
11. Interstate trade*. Trades mvohrtng
sources located in neighboring states
may be approved, provided they meet
all other requirements of today's notice.
However, in order to avoid complex Sff
accounting issues, where state 1
requirements differ EPA will reaaspe <
such trades meet the substantive
requirements of the more stringent state.
In general EPA will deem ERCa created
in one state to contribute to piugiees in
the state where used to the extent of
that use, provided met applicable
ambient tests (section IL&2 above} era
met Interstate trades must be
implemented through case-by-case SIP
revisions.
12. Bubbles must not impede
enforcement. In general, bubbles are a
form of SIP revision which should be
treated neither more aor less saxssjeaery
than other SEP revisions. Bubbles smnM
not become a shield against
enforcement actions far sources which
have faded to take accessary steps te
uvGBat SOlTQlu
that they remain subject to enfarrraro!
of existing (pre-trade) SIP Knots until tne
bubble is approved. EPA will use ore
same piiirUptes and procedmes far
deciding whether to initiate cufoyeeaxci
actions in these circumstances as 'he
Agency applies to any other source
which is subject to a proposed or final
SIP revision.
Under established EPA policy.
regulated sources mast be subject to an
applicable, enforceable emission timit at
all times. Accordingly, sources which
have approved bubbles with emission
limits effective at a future data, and
which are not in compliance with their
pre-trade limits prior to that effective
data, may be subject to enforcement
action, which could include penalties
based on a failure to meet the pre-trade
limits. Sources in these situations may
wish to minimi** the chance that capital
expenditures may be required to meet
pre-trade limits, either by (a) agreeing to
post-trade cempoanca dates which are
substantially similar to their pre-trade
compliance dates, or (b) accelerating
their compliance with post-trade-limrts.
Ia aeoard with the general principle
that bubbles should be treated neither
more nor less striagently than other SIP
actions, implementation of this Policy
Statement will be neutral with respect to
EPA enforcement of pie-trade emission
limits. This rannna that EPA will not
rneciflfaUy select for enforcement
action aonoompiiaat sources seeking to
use a bubble either to come into
compliance or to restructure traditional
compliance. However, it also means that
EPA will not withhold or defer
unfiMTtfr+fi* simply because a source is
seeking alternative emission limits
through a bubble. In exercising its
enforcement discretion, EPA will apply
the same considerations to
nnnnamfKant sources which seek to
comply through bubbles as to those
watch do not
C Banking Emission Reduction Credits
Only eaussBaa reductions that are
surplus, permanent quantifiable, and
enforceable can qualify as SRCs and be
deposited in EPA-approvable banks.11
Such aaalas offer sources legal
recognition that qualifying reductions
meet these ERG requirements. However,
reduction must
*y (»• **oat in order to qualify
aae) beJiamlliJ ta EPA-eppre*abla
nit of a
mducttoa caiavilneuH * smissiuns tneresfes
«lsewhem beniea? leduutuua need net be made
) Vttfl C
-------
FedetsJ Regieter / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. Its* / Notice*
43*3
the fat thM aa EHC bM been beaked
doeenrt relieve it from the need to meet
•II criteria, of the specific regulatory
program under which it it to be used.*'
Because some trade* have speciil
limiutions (e.g^ only reductions.
occurring at the same major stationary
source can be used for netting), banks
do not guarantee the validity or specific
amount of particular banked ERCs for
all potential uses or for all time. To
provide maximun protection for the
environment and sources and to avoid
potential legal problems, state banking
rules may specify the types of sources
eligible to bank ERCs and any
additional conditions placed on
certifying, holding or using banked
ERCs.
State banking rales may establish
ownership rights. However, any such
rights must be consistent with dean Air
Act requirements, including the
requirement that SIPs provide for
expenditiena attainment and
maintenance of ambient air quality
standards and protect PSD increments
and visibility. To be approvabie by EPA,
such banking rules must also treat
banked reductions aa current actual
emtaaions "in the air" at the source of
tneir creation* in order to protect toe
integrity of future air quality planning.
Failure to track the ambient effect* of
such banked reductions (e.a> by not
including them to a new or updated
inventory used for SIP planning
purposes, or by relying on tboea
reductions to secure attainment
redesignationa) would ordinarily
preclude dwir use as ERC* due to
double-counting. Nevertheless, states
have considerable latitude in meeting
these reqummeatB, and may guarantee
banked ERCs against fefl orpertiel
reduction in quantify, so long as that
guarantee does not undermine
attainment redesignations or interfere
with progress and attainment should
ambient standards change or additional
emission reductions be required. The
Technical Issues Document section
LC9. outlines ways sues)-guarantees
may be made effective tauaistent with
these requirements.
In many states, banking eouH be an
extension of oagotnf preconetsuotiM •
permit ecavtUea. The stetewiss - -
designee could accept and evaluate
requests to certify an ERC maintain a
publidy-evaiiable ERC registry or
similar instrument describing the
quaetity and typw of beaked <
and track transfers a*d withdnweJ* of
ERCt . .
Because banked reductions do not
increase emissions at any sown, they
need not be made federally enforceable
until used. For administrative or other
reasons states may. however, choeee to
make them federally enforceable upon
deposit How die state makes a
reduction federally enforceable for
banking will depend on the type of
source at which the reduction occurs. In
some states, reductions associated with
other modifications at a source can be
included in federally-enforceable
preconstniction permits issued under
rules approved pursuant to 40CFR 9148,
SIM or 51307. States with BPA-
approved generic rules can use their
rules' procedures to make reduction*-
occurring st existing sources federally
enforceable. See Section ID below. Since
these transactions involve onlr
reductions, air quality modeling ie
generally not required to assure that
new emission limits do not interfere
with attainment and maintenance of
ambient standards, protecttao of
applicable PSD increments, or
impairment of visibility in mandatory
federal class 1 areas. Such reduction
will automatically meet the generic •
rule's test of wanner a partiodar limit to
within EPA's preeppruved array at
tptabJatmuaoa limits. •
States widwut SPA-approved <_
rules can adopt rulee hatted to basrids*
transactions, or ean use die standard
SIP revision process to moist reductiejoa
federally enforceable at exfccmff
sources. General stale proooeotructioii
permit or review programe that have
received EPA approval may also be
used for this purpose, since permits
issued titrough such programs an
federally enforceable. See 40 CFR SL1*
51.24; 51J07.*4
IT" 't lirr 1-ilritrit fir wt m i tmri fUn
iTTlim anriaan ii jananH) raaiitad Im IfHI
parneniar tyaa of «auMMa> M4*.
»« fa pn»wyi.n»Brtomni«i«p»o» wtuc*m~>
but lac*
of dMbtoeMttnt «r
i waick n*k tt «• tanked
OL
Use of cmissJon reduction crediis
unds* «ta» regaleflomi approved br
EPA as generic for identified dasae
trades wilt not require individual SIP
revisions for those trades. The Technir-a
Issues Document explains acceptable
generic procedures which stai«» may
adopt to reduce toe need for ladivioual
SIP reviakma.
Emissions trades rtn be approved
without case-by-case SIP revtuooa if
evaluated by the state under EPA-
approved procedures which assure that
no trade which meets their terms will
interfere with timely attainment and
maintenance of ambient standards.
protection of applicable PSD increments.
or visibility provisions. State generic
rules are approvabie only if their
procedures are sufficiently replicable in
operation to meet this test By approving
the generic rule, EPA approves in
advance an array of SIP-compatible
emission limits, and no further case-by-
case Federal review or approval is
required for individual trades which
meet the terms of the rule.
In aider t* ensure that generic ruie*
an properly ••-ru—"*-* EPA intend*
to (a) examine, and coauMnt on
together with aay other pwblfe
commniar. the isdeneaon which ODUAI
be provided foe iadhrickaa trades
proposed by stales uader a generic r
(b) conduct reviews of individual
bubbles approved under a generic nut,
and (c) trrrtolHfMUr audit the genera!
ftnp'tiP^rft*tiM of generic nues. M pjxi
of its Nadoaal Air Audit Systsm revuw*
of state air program*.*'
Any trade under a generic ruie will
involve emission increases at some
sources and extra emission decrease! at
others. For trades to be approvabie
under a generic rale, the sum of these
increases and decreases (beyond
0| •*• *•! IB *pBHc«t>on to
dcpoul tht aitt«d
M lb« Matt prior to *• ttmt At •tendowB/
CMMilaMit ece»mt or tt»t th« tutt
l II II ITT 1 --- *- -*" — ' --- '
oi lk«l
'( UIMOI 1O
*« <•»• &*•*. For
. *d«i»awl 4tMft«i
in tftt** ac
it.
«• SM. (4. NkMa»i AirABdR 9y*nm GW^^H
for PY ise*. Offlw af A* Q«»ii(T Plimun;
uvdlt*. for ••prove! M SIP
Ih* hinfci^ tad «•»•! MBS
mocomni wrtb ••» at» tormMl ><•> m
pubiicwlw
-------
43836
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thurtday. December 4. 1986 / Notice*
applicable net boMiint emissions} must
be zero or less. Subject to chit
requirement states may adopt generic
rules which exempt from individual SIP
revisions: (1) De minimia trades where
total increases in emissions from ail
increasing sources (which must be
balanced by equal or greater emissions
decreases from other sources) are less
than 25 tons per year (TPY) of
participates. 40 TPY of SO*, 100 TPY of
CO. or 0.6 TPY of lead, after applicable
control requirements: (2) large classes of
trades involving VOC or NO,
emissions;** (3) trades between certain
types of SOi sources, between certain
types of CO sources, between certain
types of stationary lead sources, or
between certain types of paniculate
sources, for which it can reasonably be
assumed that "pound for pound" trades
will produce ambient effects equivalent
to those which approved air quality
models would predict and (4) other SOi.
CO. Pb or participate trades which do
not increase baseline emissions and for
which carefully defined modeling
predicts no significant increase in
ambient concentrations.
States and sources should, however,
be aware that because of replicabilhy
problems inherent in modeling, generic
rules which rely on preapproved
procedures for modeled demonstrations
of ambient equivalence may be difficult
to draft or implement and many trades
may not be approvable under such rules.
For these reasons generic rules covering
only the first three classes of trades
above will often prove easiest to secure.
EPA encourages states to work closely
with EPA Regional Offices to formulate
and adopt approvable rules or develop
alternative approaches that equally
assure attainment and maintenance of
ambient standards and protection of
PSD increments and visibility. See
Section II of the Technical Issues
Document, which details criteria under
which such generic rules may be
approved.
To the extent general state procedures
for rulemaking or permit changes do not
assure reasonable pufaate-notice of
proposed and final limits-or effective
opportunity for comment on proposed
trades, states must incorporate such
provisions in their generic rules.
In primary nonattainment anas
which need but lack approved
demonstrations, new generic rules must
require, and existing generic rules must.
as requested by EPA, be revised to
require bubbles to use lowest-of-acnMi-'
SIP-allowable-or-RACT-allowabU
emissions baselines, and produce a net
air quality benefit (as described below.).
New or revised generic rules in these
nonattainment areas must be
accompanied by certain assurances of
consistency with air quality planning
goals as weU as a commitment to make
certain additional assurances when the
state approves individual bubbles under
the rale. Bubbles approved under
existing generic bubble rules before the
effective date of this policy will not be
affected by these requirements. Because
EPA-approved state regulations have
independent legal force, future bubbles
submitted under existing generic rules
may also be approved by states in
accord with those rules, until such rules
are modified to meet the criteria
below."
Existing generic rules in these areas
must be modified to assure that bubbles
produce an overall emission reduction at
least equal (in percentage terms) to the
overall emission reduction from
controllable sources (in percentage
terms) needed to attain in the area.
Criteria for modifying generic rules are-
set forth in Section O.D. of the- Technical
Issues Document including a
requirement for- a reduction equal to the
greater of either the perceatagr
reduction required for attainment or »
20% reduction in emissions remaMna>
after application of appropriate
baselines. New and pending
applications for generic bubble rule*
which meet these criteria will be
processed for approval
EPA will publish Federal Register
notices identifying any generic rule*
applicable to these areas which require
formal modification in order to meet the
progress requirements above or other
requirements of EPA'a current Emissions
Trading Policy. These notices will
identify specific deficiences and means
for correcting them, and will specify »
schedule for submittal and review or
modified rules. Failure to resolve
deficiencies identified in these notices
within the prescribed time period may
result in EPA rescinding it* previous •
approval or issuing a notice of SIP
deficiency.1*
*• Where visibility impairment due to eieveted
NO. emissions i* • concern, gtntnc tndt»
involving NO, must ordinarily b« iubi«ct to ambient
requirements similar to thoee applicable to generic
trades involving TSP. SO.. CO or Pb.
" In the interim. EPA expect! lUte* la en*
far at feasible, that furore bubbles approved i
euaiina, generic rules in consistent with laHpnlUry
as well se toe terms of their EPA-appiimad i
States should be aware that without due or i
precaution*, continued approval of ouposse i
eusQnf generic rules containing inami fieri
deficiencies may create or accanOMMa pka
deficiencies (net asay have to be corrected et • laser
date or compensated for by other t
section II.E.4. of the Technical I
'• Such notices may also be issued for enattnf
generic rules in sttamnunt arses and nonattainmant
IV. aubbtsa Whtefc Require Caetv? v
fee* SIP Revision*
States and sources must use iha -.-a.- »-
by-case SIP revision process to
implement bubbles which are not
covered by a generic rule. Becaiua ±e
case-by-case SIP revision process can
take account of many more individual
variations, numerous trades which could
not be accomplished through gener.c
rules or similar means may still be
approvable as case-by-case SIP
revisions.
EPA will take action on generic rules
and individual trades submitted as SIP
revisions aa quickly as circumstances
permit after a state has adopted a SIP
revision and submitted the action to
EPA. EPA encourages "parallel
processing" of such SIP revisions, with
EPA and the state conducting
concurrent review so that both agencies
can propose and take final action at
roughly the same time. EPA will also
publish noncontrovenial SIP revisions
aa immediate final actions, converting
them to proposals only if requests to
submit adverse comments an received
within 30 days (see 48 FR 44477.
September 4.1981). m all bubble actions
EPA will dearly identify (or require
states to identify, as appropriate) both
pre- and poet-trade actual and allowable
emissions for each source involved in
the trade, so .that the. ambient effects of
each bubble may be known.
V.Cooduatoo
This Policy Statement sets out basic
principles for approving individual
trades and generic trading rules. It
tightens many requirements in order to
better ensure SIP integrity and
environmental progress, while offering
ample opportunities for use of
approvable. environmentally-sound
trades. EPA encourages states and
sources to use these principles as a
framework and refer to the
accompanying Technical Issues
Document for further discussion and
examples. EPA also encourages states to
develop other approaches which satisfy
these principles while meeting their
specific needs.
area* with approved demonstrations, if these
generic rulaa en found to require procedural
revision la ordar to maia them consistent with the
current Bmisaiona Tradlnf Policy. Sea Technical
laaoaa Oocunant sacOoa Hi*.
EPA recogniaaa tba addUtaal ttnUmj burden-
which may be imposed on bubble applicants in
areas when MW generic rules cannot be or have
not been developed to meet tba specific air quality
benefit ieu,uiiamanu? deecrlbed sbeve. and* will
attempt M far aa feasible, to ameliorate that burden
la impUmeatiBf this policy. See. e.f. n.« end lection
0-8-12. above aael related Preamble discussion, st
0.4S and accompanying fax.
-------
Fedarai Rsjgbtor / Vol> 81. No. 233 / Thunday. D*eemb«r 4, 1988 / No«cw
4383T
Aata policy nHMMt thto ejotfce doe*
not establish conerusjNejry hwrEPA wril
resolve iaaues to UidHWMi oaeas. EPA
will accept public CMBMB! oo specific
SIP changes submitted- aad«r it and will
rtview individually each generic rule
«nd thoee emissions trade* submitted as
SIP revisions to determine their
acceptability under the Clean Air Act
Interested parties will neve fall
opportunity to scrutinize application of
these principles in specific cases, and to
seek subsequent judicial review of such
cases after EPA has taken final action
on particular trades or generic rule*.
Dated: November la, MSB.
Afl^kklMV^kMMW •• - I
•WDOMS0IIOOSK MOV I
EmissioM of Haaudevs or Tsiite Mr
Admuuttrator.
Table of Contents
L Element* of Eauaion* Trading
A. Creating Bmiaeion Reduction Credits
1. AD Reductions Mutt Be Surplus
s. UM of Actual or Allowable
Emissions as the Baseline Attainment
Artas and Nonettatament AIMS with
Approved OuMnaMltaaa of Attainment
(iadadmt Rani OBMM NeoetUmneni
Anas)
Bubbles In Primary Nonettaiament AMM
Which Need BM Lade Approves!
Demonstration* of AttaiaaMnt
(l) Objective Tests For All
Applications
(2) When These Special Progress
Requirements WIB Apply
(3) Stale AsearaiKea
(4) Treatment of Pending Babble
Application*
& No Doubie-Coentiag of Redaction*
(1) Craditiag Pre-extetinf Enumoa
Reductions
(2) Crediting Reductions From
Shutdown*
(3) UM of Banked Credit* from
Shutdown* or Other Action* for Bubble
Purposes
d. Multiple UM of ERCa
a. Reduction* from Uninventoried
Sourcat
2. Allemativt Pnrrr'nn Limita Must Be
Enforceable
3. All Reductions Meat Be Permanent
4. All Reduction* Must Be Quantifiable
a. Calculating the Reduction
b. Describing (ha Reduction
B. Using Emi*»ion Reduction Credit*
1. Substantive Principles for Using ERCs
a. EBIIMIOM Trade* Must Involve the
Same Pollutant
b. All U*ee of ERG* Mu*t SatUfy
Ambient Test*
(I) De Minimi*
(2) Uvet I
(3) Level H
(4) Level 10
& Bubble* Should Not Increaie
Applicable Net Baieltne Emitilon*
a. [hilling Boasue Credits.Canaot Be.
Used to Meet Applicable Technology-
Based Requirements rar New Sources
f. Trades Involving Open Oust
Emissions
g. Interstate Trades
h. Trades near PSD Class I Areas
!• Bfssct on Trades of Sebosoeanuy* *
Olscovered Clean Air Act Problems:
Reviiitstion Considentions
1 Procedural Steps for Uatng ERCs
a. Effect of Existing Comphance
Schedules
b,E*tetisJoMofCompllaocaDeedliiiea
c* Pndii)g| EfiforcaUMflt Actions
C Banktag Emlssten RedwtJon Credits
1. Bankmg Rule* Musi OesifBeM an
2. (My ERCs May be Banked
1 Poaatble Umitatioas on Use of BKCs
for New Source PenBitting
4. Sources Should Apply to Bank Surpkas
Reductions As Soon As They Decide to
Make Them
5. Procedures for Banking Surpraa
Emiaaioa Reductions Should Be Defined
8. Banking Role* May Establish
Ownership Rights
7. Bankmg Rule* Must Establish SB ERG
Registry or tt* BqatvaJcBt
8. Possible Adtustments to EftCa Based
on Enforoameal CoaaideraBone
9. Poaaibie Adtuetmenta 10 EBCa Baaed
on Ambient Aitiinraeat Camuderarieae
a. ERG* Cananted Prtoc to the Oesaja
or BaaaUaa Year Could Be EDmmatad
b. ERCs Could Be Caaraatsed Agattst
Adlusiment
c. Use or DeposH of ERCs CoeJd Be
Temporarily Suspended
d. Across the Doard Dtacoeattng
0. Trades Covered by SbM»<
A. General Prtnciplas for Bvi
Generic Rules
& Scope of Generic Rules
1.VOC or NO. Trades
2. Partialate. SOi. CO or » Trade*
3. Umiu oa Trade* Exempt From SIP
Reviaioo* Under Generic Rules
4. Other Gaoaric Mefhanisms ror
Exempting Particulata. SO*. CO or P6
Trades From Caae-by-Caaa SIP Ravistoaa
C Enforcing Emiaaion Umtta Uader
Generic Rules
D. Generic Bubble Rules In Primary
Noaanainment Areas WMch Lack
Approved Demonstrstions of Attainment
B. EPA Oversight of Generic Rules
1. EPA Comment oa Trades Proposed
Under Generic Rulea
2. Review* of Individual Bubble*
Approved Under Generic Rules-
3. EPA Audits of the Impiemeatetioa of
Generic Rules
4. Deficient Generic Trades
5. Deficient Generic Rules
F. Public Comment
G. EPA Notification
H. Ruiemaking on Generic Rule*
III. Trade* Not Covered by Stele Generic
Rale*
Appendix A: Regional EPA EmiMiona
Trading Coordinator*
Appendhi ft Defiattbm of -Aetna!.-
'Allowable' sad "Baasliae" Sffiiuion*
For Purpose* afleiiseioas Trading
Appendix C Apprevabai Modeling
Appendix & Approvable Averaging T.
for VOC Trades
Appendix ft Radii of Slgfrifiesnt Impact for
Approving -Complex Terrain" PM. SO,
and CO Trades Under Level I Modeling
Approaches
Appendix F: CFR Part 51 Conversion Table
EMISSIONS TRADING: TECHNICAL
ISSUES DOCUMENT
This Document offers more detail on
technical issues for firms and pollution
control agencies seeking to implement
indhrhtaai emissions trades or generic
trading ndaa that meet the principles in
EPA's final Emissions Trading Policy
Statement II describes both the legal
requirements for emissions trades under
the dean Air Act and a range of legal
options which states ' and sources may
consider. States and firms may pursue
•other aporoache* consistent with those
discussed nee.
Section I of this Docusnent explains
general principles governing ail
•»iT«MMif trading. Section II explains
pramipka govesoiag state generic rules.
Sactsoa ffl diacuaaea speoai
considaraboaa for emissions trades
which onsat be iapleaented as case-b
caae SIP revisions.
Decauee these sections reflect gen
dean Air Act principles, states.
individual sources or public comments.-?
remain free to show that a general
principle does not apply to particular
circumstances or can be satisfied using
another approach. States, sources and
rters have this option under
conuncxrv
current law. and nothing in the Policy
Statement or this Document restricts
their opportunity to make such
showings.
Nothing in today's notice alters EPA
new source review requirements or
exempts owners or operators of
stationary sources from compliance with
applicable precanstruction permit
regulations in accordance with 40 CFR
51.11 51.24, 51.307, 5Z21. Si24. 52.27,
and S3-CT Interested parties should.
however, be aware that bubble trades
are not subject to preconstruction
review or regulations where these trades
do not involve construction.
reconstruction or modification of a
source within the meaning of those
terms in the regulations listed above.
1 "9UW1" bKtadH «ny entity property delegated
authority to tdmmtiltr rrfrvim ptni of a Slate
Imptammuiion Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air A
-------
43838
Federal Remitter / VoL 51. No. 233 / Thursday.. December 4. 198ft / Noticaa
I. Baneate Of Emissions Trading.
The basic element* of any emissions
trade are the creation of an emission
reduction credit (ERG), its use in a trade
and its possible storage in a bank prior
to use.
A. Creating Emission Reduction Credit*
States may grant credit only for those
emission reductions that are surplus.
enforceable, permanent, and
quantifiable. Otherwise use of ERCs
might degrade air quality, threaten the
viability of the area's SIP. and make
more stringent control requirements
necessary.
1. All Reductions Must Be Surplus
At minimum, only emission reductions
not required by current regulations in
the SIP. not already relied on for SIP
planning purposes, and not used by the
source to meet any other regulatory
requirement can be considered surplus
and substituted for required reductions
as part of an emissions trade.
The first step in qualifying a reduction
as "surplus" is to establish a level of
baseline emissions. This baseline
represents the level of required
emissions beyond which reductions
must occur for a source to be eligible for
credit Three baseline factors—emission
rate, capacity utilization, and hours of
operation—must be used to compute
and compare pre-trade and post-trade
emission levels.*
The baseline for each source must be
established both on an annual basis and
for all other averaging periods
consistent with the relevant NAAQS
and PSD increments. This approach ia
necessary to protect the ambient
standards and PSD increments on a
short term as well as an annual basis.
The baseline will generally be
determined by the attainment status of
the area.3 by the way the state
developed its SIP. and by whether the.
area is subject to PSD requirements.
a. Use of Actual or Allowable
Emissions as the Baseline: Attainment
Areas and Nonattainment Areas With
Approved Demonstration* of
Attainment (including rare/ ozone
nonattainment areas/, fa attainment
areas, baseline emissions must
generally be calculated using the lower
* For further discuasion of these factor* ti they
relate to the calculation of baeeline emission*. see
Appendix B.
1 Unclassified areas are treated as tttiuuneat
areas for permitting and emissions trading purpose*.
Unlike other criteria pollutants. EPA does not
designate nonaltainment areas for lead. However.
the Regional Administrator will review lead trades.
as all other trade*, to assure that they do not
interfere with attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS.
of actual or allowable value** fot all
three baseline factors. However,
allowable values corresponding ta one
or more of these factors, when higher
than corresponding actual values, may
be used in calculating baseline
emissions, provided those values are
shown to be used or reflected in an
approved demonstration.* The burden of
meeting this test rests with die state or
applicant Where the State or applicant
cannot show by written evidence • that
the demonstration assumed an
allowable value for a given baseline
factor, appropriate modeling would be
required in order to use an allowable
value for that factor in calculating
baseline emissions for the source.7 This
will require a Level II modeling analysis
as specified in the modeling screen
described below, using actual emissions
for the pre-trade case, unless the
appropriate EPA Regional Office ("the
Region") determines that additional
technical support is necessary to protect
the NAAQS, PSD increments or
visibility. Additional technical support
may be necessary because crediting, the
difference between actual and
allowable values for even one of these
factors may produce a post-trade
increase in actual emissions sufficient to
jeopardize applicable standards;
increment! or visibility.
Additional technical support is not
necessarily limited to determining the
impact of the increases from the trade.
The Region may require such additional
• For the definition of "actuaT ens) -a
value*, and further discussion on calculation of
baseline eaneatoaa. see Appendix B.
• This statement doe* not apply to netting, whan
"comsmporaneoua" actual emissions an alwaye
the baseline. See. a*, to CFR 51 J4(bK3».
Bubbles in areas with c
soieiy OB qualitative judgement* (e.g. the 'example
region" approach or no technical support) ordinarily
may ne4 rely, without appropriate modeling, aa
allowable value* in calculating baseline emission*
However, bubble* ia mat with dameaetnttoM
based on rollback* or dispersion modeling may u*e
allowable value*) that an reflected in the)
demoaatratioB.
• For example, the denvmstrstlon calculations
themselves, accompanying materials, or affidavit*
from too** who constructed the demonstrattoo.
' In certain circumstances an allowable haaeiln*)
value specified ia a preconstructton permit will be
deemed equivalent to one used or reflected ia an
approved demonstration. For exempts, a source ia
an attammtal area where a PSD baseline ha* ban
triggered may use allowable values coaaiitam with
its preconstruction permit if that source a i
are not reflected ia the PSD amtaieai baseline
concentration. (However, if ma
allowable.emission* predict* a PSD i
violation, than additional analyses must be doae t»
sssure that the PSD increment is protected.) A
source in a noaauainmtnl area may us* allowable
valuea consistent with its preconstrucaosi permit ta>
calculate ita baseline, provided that permit poet-
da let the nonattainment designation. SIP eatf.
design year, or baelina inventory year, whichever i*
applicable.
technical support up to and i
full Level 01 modulus^ as is nec«s*«n to
assure that applicable NAAQS, PSD
increments and visibility requirements
will be protected. It may require the
determination of background
concentrations to which the imoae:i of
possible emissions increases- that would
otherwise fall beiow Level II
significance values must be added.
Background concentrations should be
determined in a manner consistent with
EPA's Guidelines on Air Quality
Models.
In attainment areas where the PSD
baseline has been triggered, the trading
baseline for a source must generally be
computed using actual values for all
three baseline factors (ie.. only
reductions below a source's actual
emissions can be considered surplus).
Because 40 CFR 51.24 and 52.21 specify
that increses in actual emissions
occurring after the PSD baseline date
consume PSD increment any trades
baaed on allowable emissions which
would potentially increase actual
emissions must perform at least a Level
II modeling analysis using actual
emissions for the pre-trade case, and
provide additional technical support If
deemed necessary by the Region, to
demonstrate that they protect the
relevant increment ceiling. NAAQS, and
visibility.
In nonattainment areas with approved
demonstrations, baseline emissions for a
source may be calculated using either
allowable values or actual values for tin
three baseline factors, depending on the
assumptions used in developing the
area's demonstration,*
Some states relied on allowable
values for certain sources in developing
their SOi and TSP attainment plans. In
these nonattainment areas, sources may
use allowable values in calculating
baseline emissions, to the extent the
state used or assumed those allowable
values as the basis for its
demonstration. The burden of showing
that an allowable value was used or
reflected in an approved demonstration
rests with the state or applicant which
seeks to use an allowable value.'
Other nonattainment areas either
used inventories based on actual
emissions, or relied on measured (and
therefore "actual"] ambient air quality
values, as the primary basis for
determining SIP emission limits needed
• This statement doe* not epply to netting, where
"contemporaneous' actualemiaaions are always ihe
baseline. See. *4_ 40CFR SM«|)(l|(v,| See also
Appendix B fe* detailed discussion of '•actual 'and
"allowable." emission*
• Seen,Band.7 above.
-------
Federal RefJsler / Vok M. No. 233 / Thnreday. December 4. 1968 / Notices
43839
to demonstrate attainment b tome
wee* SIP demonstrations were based
merely on qualitative judgments (e.g,
"example region" approaches). Baseline
emissions for sources in ail these other
areas must generally be calculated using
the lower of actual or allowable values
for each baseline factor. However,
states may approve, on a case-by-case
basis, use of allowable values in
calculating baseline emissions, where
they explicitly demonstrate that such
use comports with reasonable further
progress and will neither create a new
ambient violation nor delay the planned
removal of an existing violation. Such
demonstrations require full Level in
modeling and must be submitted to EPA
as case-by-case SIP revisions.
EPA deems designated Rural Ozone
Nonattainment Amu to possess
acceptable demonstrations-of
attainment provided they have an
approved new source review rule and
require RACT controls for all major
VOC sources for which EPA has issued
Control Technique Guidance (CTG)
documents. (See, e.g, 43 FR 21673 (May
IB, 1978)). Because these areas'
nonattainment is generally caused by
emissions from sources in a nearby
urban area, control of emissions from
that area is expected to bring the meal
area into attainment Put differently,
EPA does not require rural areas to cure
problems due to transport from
pollution-generating areas which rural
areas cannot control However. EPA
believes that further clarifications are
required for bubbles in these areas.
Sources involved in such bubbles
must use RACT emission limits in
calculating baseline emissions, if subject
to Croup I or 0 CTGs under the EPA
approved SIP for these areas. Sources
subject to other SIP emission limits must
use those limits in calculating baseline
emissions. Other baseline factors must
also be consistent with the applicable
SIP requirements, and will generally be
actual historical values. Where a source
is not regulated by the EPA-approved
SIP its baseline will be actual emissions
in the year EPA approved the Part D
plan for the affected rural area In those
approvals. EPA presumed that controls
for sources in the upwind urban areas.
as well as RACT on GTC sources in the
rural area, would bring about attainment
in the rural area, and that non-CTG
sources in the area, unless regulated by
the SIP, could continue to emit at actual.
non-RACT levels without interfering
with attainment in those areas. See also
43 FR 21673 (May 19.1978).
b. Special Pngnat Requirements for
Bubbles In Primary Nonattainment
Areas Which Nted But Lack Approved
Deawutratioai of Attainment EPA wiH
approve bobbles which are consistent
with the attainment needs of these
areas, which produce a net air quality
benefit and which therefore secure
interim progress towards attainment10
(1) Objective TetttForAlI
Application. Bubble applications in
primary nonattainment areas which
require but lack approved
demonstration* of attainment will be
deemed to produce a net air quality
benefit and will be processed for
approval tf they:
(a) Use lowest-of-actual-SIP-allowable
or RACT-allowable emissions baselines.
Such baselines are calculated using
either
(1) The actual emission rate, the SIP or
other federally enforceable emission
limit or the applicable RACT emission
limit u whichever is lower, to compute
the baseline for each source involved in
the trvde. This baseline factor shall be
date aned ss of the date of the source's
application to bank or trade, whichever
is earlier.
(ii) The lower of actual or allowable
capacity utilization and hours of
operation to compute the baseline for
each source Involved In the trade.
Actual values shall generally be baaed
on the two years of operation preceding.
the application, to bank at, trade*, unices
another two year period Is shown to be
more representative of actual
operations. Sources which shut down
prior to the application to bank or trade
have zero emissions, and therefore no
credit is available.
For sources which banked or sought
to bank credit in these nonattainment
areas prior to publication of today's
notice, the "date of application to bank"
is the date of written application to the
states to bank credit through a formal
bank or informal ^""^'nfl mechanism for
use in future trades. For sources which
seek to bank credit in these areas
following publication of today's notice,
the date of application to bank will be
the date of written application to ac-
etate to make a reduction ttate-
enforceable through or concurrent with
use of a formal bank or informal
banking mechanism.
(b) Using baseline emissions defined
above, meet applicable de minima.
'• Whlto not «ll of uxUy'i mw i imiirmatt far
bvbbiM «th*M MM* M Mricdjr -b«Maar
BMttn. til bwie nquinmnu for thm b»bbl««
art MI out h«rt for linplieily. Ntw nqmrnMat*
•IM apply to frartc bubble ralM in thm MM*.
SM Swam ILD Mow.
" Wtrara u •minion Unit for t iraa finotod
(a the tndc hM not prwtaMry DMB •ppiovtd bjr
EPA •* RACT. • biMliM nfitcttaf • MfMUMd
RACT notice of
deficiency based on failure to attain or
maintain the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS). in the form
of a SIP call or a new section 107 or
171(2) nonattainment designation: or (2)
a notice of failure to implement an
approved SIP.
(d) Arees which received notice from
EPA that they have failed to meet
conditions in their EPA-approved SIPs.
including commitments to adopt
particular regulations by specified dates.
The one exception would occur where
the only portion of the SIP (including the
attainment demonstration) lacking full
approval is the inspection/maintenance
provision for mobile sources. In these
circumetances. stationary-source
bubble* will be treated as if the area
had a folly approved SIP.
(e) Any area that does not have an
EPA-approved or EPA-pramulgated pi
for lead.
-------
•Ufrtt
FadanJ Regjmr / VoL.gfc. Na> 333 / Thorsday-. December 4». MBsW He*tos»
(34 Sfol*.as*ureiu»si SPA> will not
approve a bubble in primacy
nonatuinment areas needing but lacking
approved demonstrations unless the
state provides assurances that the
proposed trade will be consistent with
its efforts to attain the ambient
standard. The state must make the
following representations to the EPA
Regional Office in or with the letter
formally submitting the bubble as a
revision to the SIP:
(a) The resulting emission limits are
consistent with EPA requirement* for
ambient air quality progress, as
specified in Section LA.Lb-(l) above.
(b) The bubble emission limits will be
included in any new SIP and associated
control strategy demonstration.
(c) The bubble will not constrain the
state or local agency's ability to obtain
any additional emission reductions
needed to expeditiously attain and
maintain asnbtent air quality standards.
(d) The state or local agency is making
reasonable efforts to develop e complete
approvable SIP and intends to adhere to
the schedule for such development
(including dates for completion of
emissions inventory ar"* subsequent
increments of progress)-staled in or wtth
the i***** formally «uhf»jtHiTg the ^^hH
or previous such letters*.
(e) The baseline used-to cdrailale the
bubble emission limits i» consistent with
the baseline requirements in section
I.A.l.b.(l) above.
These state assurances must be made
in writing by the appropriate state or .
local authority (e.q.. State Air Director.
Air Pollution Control Board, or
Legislative-Committee^. EPA will not
second-guess such state representations.
provided: (1J They are a substantial test
applied by tile state to each bubble, and
(2) the state bee explained how the-
proposed babble ie consistent with (b»
area's projected attainment strategy?
Nor wiH EPA examine, or expect state*
to examine in making such
representations, any specific source's
subjective motivation in making claimed
reductions.
(4) ^—'-••-* -/ °—Tifsjg ffrnVfrfa
Applications. "Pendjatbahslsi" means-
those which are airreatvjrpecuiiag at
EPA Regions or HsadqisMlais. as well
as any bubble application* which were
formally submitted to EPA Region*
under the 1982 policy but returned
without action, because final bubble-
criteria had not yet been issued. In
primary nonattaloment areas needing
but lacking, demonstrations, these
bubbles sbevid contribute to progress .
towards attainment "Progress toward*
attainment" means s»me exiia reduction
beyond equivalence, with
actual-SIP-allowabie-of-RACT-
of Oa* HIT* anMira«rt»origBMlfrs« applicable' ^*H'n^ mmti?*imt of
certain bubbles in nonattainment areas
needing but lacking demonstrations and
to reconfigure those bubbles in response
to the reduced credit which may b*
allowed under the new more stringent
requirements). However. p**"""g •
bubbler which prior to final EPA
approval are changed to the extent that
they ao longer reasonably resemble me
original proposal quafifying for pending
bubbie status (e.g, those which are
substantially expanded: » scope or '
changed t* involve primarily dUfiweoft
souree*of emfawiea reduction credit).
will be considered new bubbles sublet
to sB of tBereqairameatB of today's • •.
notes. . ..."•,
Bibble-appficaaone which, wecr
Nbaritterf to EPAJIegtens by state* V«l
wotah w« withdraw, (or re*«rfedf*s
inadequate tmdec mat iflBZ poficy; «MV
not "pandas;" These- babbit* ff, -
meet afl iequhemeaU of
appficable to new bubble
noOca-
to oe11
comfdend-sophuaaemiseiasr '
redaction cannot already lave been
cmiined ee pan 01 e demonaUatluB
updated eBHMtoB inventory 1
air qwlily plan or hav» beea-naed'ty
tnesottffCB) to meet auy Outer regnatDiy1
remeot Doubte-coontlng of
•granting credit for the i
esRieeMO reelttCuOB. e«g* once te) tn9
state ee>pait of its nonaftaoanent Sf
demonstration or PSD baseline, and e-
second tmwto a source for us* in- air
enissioa* trade, mast be oddteeeed at
the following sttuatioatt.
(\] Crediting Pn-Bxnting Saa'ttieir
rttUUCtlOfiti IB JMHMfSOlfMMftf QrattS1"
credit generally cannot b* gimtedfer
emission reductions made before.
nomtoriag dam is oe wa» ooUeooMrfor
use in carrent SlPphmning. Ifccaassj •
monitored ambient revels ainoof reflect
these emission decreases, such .
decrease* may have bsaii
ralcaletinsj d» farther red«ctiS)H»
needed ta attata ambfent rt
States most chwiy show that the-
axisteace of these reduciie«shaa>
onaertoi
t ccadtr ior ttesw radttctkma.
The; earHss* atteptabi* UseilM date
would oorowirf be thai year of me BO*
recent eaasetoas in*ealarf aeed h»
ptanning Part DSIP revistoiis under the
Qean Air Act Amendments of 1977.'*
When emisstOM inventoriee or other
data are updated for tracking RPP and
correction of Part D SIPs. the new
inventories awst treat banked emissions
reductions, sseorrent actual emission*
"In the air" at the source where created.
so that corrected SIPs do not
raadwrteady raiy OB new prior
reductions and cause men to be lost for
use. If utvemlortee da not treat these-
bankedeasJaesejH a»"tn the air," or if
they aw ome*w*s»reUed upon for SIP
planmnf parpoees. soca reductions can
nn Imipi ha issrtltsrf far tniilliij ' '
rtaui} HUMltuinmitat areas
ofa
leducaons achkved pri
mt. emission
to appBcation
to bank or trsJ«JwticaaTer Is earihtt)
wu»Twroe- credRnt for nsrin bubfefes.
See seetterCAt-bLfiy above. Regardless
oi wbethsjr mny.ms»t other baseline
mot
leswuuHy eittflBd by; the opportunity to
trade-to r practical, objective sense
determined by mamc ud cannot be
used^aaa^fcdaflnff-suufce Sg
requlieUiMair absent r demonstration. ' *
In attaiaaeatarfaik nducmins at
major stationary? foaxcn which
conuieaced'canstracooo after January
1. 197Jmsry W aotfTB o>iaflfy for cratfit
wBethar sucB reducttoa occurred
before orafter tke PSpoaaellne
triggering date. Sit* « CPR
t
7, 1980). Omar emission reductions
af minor sources?) caanot qualify for
credit where the PSD baseline date is oe
hot oean triggered tod such reductions
occurred prior to the triggec date, unless
these reductions are act assumed in the
PSD baseline*. Since banked emission
"lai
•ill mlMlM riuUi IIMIII
i orpenMatnly
ekpttar a«ppBc«ian for
-------
Federal Reflate* / Vol. SI. No. 233 /Thursday. December 4. 1966 / Notices
43d
^duetto* credit* must be considered to
4* ••« the sir" for ill planning purposes.
if the baseline date is triggered before
banked credits are actually used such
banked credits will be considered as
part of the baseline and will not
consume increment when used in an
emissions trade.
In attainment anas when the PSD
baseline has not been triggered as of the
date EPA or the permitting authority
lakes relevant final action on the trading
transaction, reductions below current
SIP or permit limits generally may be
used without special restrictions in
bubble or banking transactions.
provided they are otherwise creditable
end there is assurance that NAAOS will
not be violated due to any potential
increase in actual emissions. '•
(2) Crediting Reduction* From
Shutdowns. Shutdowns are generally
treated for purposes of emissions
trading like any other type of emissions
reduction." For example, the same
limitations on pre-existing reductions
(section LA.l.c.(l). above) apply to
shutdowns where they apply to any
other type of •missions reduction.
However, under current federal New
Source Review requirements for major
sources, shutdowns that occur prior to
application for a new source permit can
be used aa offsets only for equipment
replacing oil-site productive capacity
which waa shut down."
Shutdowns are of general concern
with respect to double-counting where a
state may have relied directly or
indirectly on shutdowns in a SIP
demonstration of attainment (Where a
primary nonattainment area needs but
lacks an approved demonstration of
attainment the progress requirements of
subsection LA-l.b. above apply to
bubbles involving shutdowns ae weH aa
to bubbles involving other types of
emission reductions. These requirements
generally bar use of reductions from
shutdowns which occurred before
application to bank or trade.)
In general a state may credit
reductions from shutdowns if the SIP
has not already assmed credit for these
reductions in its attainment strategy. So
long as reductions from shutdowns have
not already been counted in developing
an area's attainment strategy, they are a
potential source of surplus reductions.
" However, reduction ai tourcoo other than
nMjor itanonarjr tource* on which construction
coewnenced before iamary 1.1973 nay MI be uMd
w (Mine* >ncr»M* at wch pre-1973 maw Murcea.
'• For UM of banked *haido*ra cndui-far
bebbtae « primary nonallainmem ereee needhn
but lacfclnf approved denMntrreiiena. aoe
LA.1.43) Mow.
" See n, 14 above.
Some SIPs assumed a set quantity of
reductions from the overall difference in
emissions due to new plant openings
and existing plant shutdowns. These
SIPs incorporated into their attainment
strategy a net "turnover'1 reduction in
emissions because new sources are
generally cleaner than those that shut
down. Double-counting would occur if a
specific source received credit for
reductions from such a shutdown, since
that reduction was already assumed in
the SIP'S demonstration of attainment
These states heve at bast two options
for granting sources credit for
shutdowns without this kind of double-
counting. First, they may reexamine any
"turnover" reductions relied on in their
SIP and decide not to take credit for
these reductions. This approach would
require EPA approval of a revised
demonstration of attainment or a SIP
revision showing consistency with the
existing demonstration. Such an action
can be processed by EPA concurrently
with a bubble or generic rale.
Alternatively, these states may allow
credit only after the total quantity of
shutdown reductions relied on in the SIP
has occurred.
In all eases where net turnover
reductions have been quantified and
relied on as part ofittafranenf
demoastradona. states whica seek to
grant shutdown credit for use in trading
maat be prepared to show dearly and
unequivocally on the basis of SIP
documents or tracking mat the credit
has not been double-counted or
otherwise relied on for SIP planning
purposes.
(3) Use of Banked Credit! From
Shutdownt or Other Actions for Bubble
Purposes. »• In primacy aonattainment
areas which need but lack approved.
demonstrations. ERCs intended for
bubble purposes may generally be
banked and used with the same towest-
of-ectu«J-SiV-al]owable-or*RAC& ...
allowable baseline used for other
bubble transactions." This baseline
should be applied as of the time banked
credit is or waa initially sought, with the
20% reduction applied to both sources in
the trade if these credits are later used
for bubbles. The lowest-of-actuai-SlP-
allowable-or-RACT-allowabie baseline
plus the 20* discount will also apply to
the source using that credit in a- bubble.
as of the time of such subsequent bubble
application.
Banked credits produced by
shutdown and curtailments may r
need for bubbles in these areas on
same terms as use of other banked
credits, provided their use is subject tc
stringent qualitative review to assure
technical. legal, and programmatic
consistency with SIP planning goals
(e.g.. avoidance of double-counting anc
"shifting demand"). This review will nc
examine any source's motivation in
shutting down a facility or curtailing
production. However, the source must
show that a written application was
submitted to make the shutdown/
curtailment state-enforceable through o
concurrent with use of a formal bank or
informal banking mechanism, prior to
the time the shutdown/curtailment
occurred. Submittal of such an
application to make proposed reduction
from s shutdown or curtailment state-
enforceable will constitute the relevant
definition of "application to bank" for
timing purposes related to the
evaluation of bubble credits in these
nonattainment areas (see section
LA.l.b(l) above).10 The shutdown/
curtailment must be made federally
enforcement when it is used in a bubble
Use for bubble purposes of nonbanket
credits, resulting, from current shutdown:
or curtaiiaeata will be allowed in the**
areas tf the loweet-of-actuaJ-SIP-
ai)owable-or>RACF-allowable baselL
plus the 20% additional reduction are
applied to determine the amount of
credit
No special baseline or additional
reduction requirements will apply to
these credits in odier areas.
d. Multiple Use of ERCs. Once surplus
reductions are credited, states must
prohibit their multiple use. The same
pound of reduction must not be
simultaneously banked by two different
entities or used to satisfy two different
regulatory requirements at the same
time. To-prevent these results, stales
must adopt an ERC registry or
equivalent means of accounting for the
creation, banking, transfer, or use of
ERCs. See Section I.Cfl below. States
must, also ensure that past reductions
used in bubble, netting or offset
transactions are not later credited in
newly-established banks.
'• BRCa uaod for anting and offtM
(inctudinf thoea derived from bajika) 00*1
with relevant NSM and FSB reajwraoMBla.
)• For farther diaaueraitreiotod to the uee of
banked credH* m these noM
MCtMM I.C.4. below.
'• Par source* wMcfc banked or sought to bink
credit* turn thuldowna or curtailments in ihes*
nooeiUinment area* pnar la publication of :oaay t
ooticf. wntlae) evidenee mual be provided showing
either thet aa application to depeaii the creaiis .n •
formal bank wu suftentted lo the state pnor to ih«
tuM-tka ae«ldbwn/cwiaiJaM«i oceorred. or thai in*
elate iiaiiaiiiliiejail before or at the lima the
ahetdown/cvrMitoaa)! occurred, botb the »«i«ten<
of tial cliaidowii/eurtaitnetu. and the source i
latent to uee Me raeeJtUil credit* in a future rr«d«.
-------
t Vofc
Ssvra»». Sbnrce* rat i
aret'sSIP eahwioii iai
for eonsatroai rtdnclun i
applications nay eulinau nUtfe air
quality pianriag caoebtAm. Where
such source* are already sabject to SIP
emission limits, those emission limits
must be used as the basic for
determining emission reduction credit
unless a more stringent baseline would
normally be required (see sections
LA.l.a. and LA.1.D. above)."
In aUOMiauat anas states may graot
bubble credit to sources regardless of
whether they have bean included in an,
inventory, based oa use of actual values
for each of the three hattlint factors, so
long as those sources an not subject to
lower allowable values forthoee {acton..
Allowable values, when higher than
actual values, may alternatively he used
in calculating the baseline, provided
sources show that any resulting
potential increase in actual emissions
does not jeopardize applicable ambient
standards. PSD increments, or visibility.
(See 40 CFR 51.24 and 5121 for specific-
requirements concerning PSD
increments and visibility.)
In nonattainment arras with approved
demonstration* afattaiiunmt, wrteifcer
sources* not on the nrwitory can create*
bttoote' credR wiff tmn on* now tnr
approved demonstration of aRaiiunent
was designed. Some stales firs*
monitored ambient vamee to detemum
required redoctioiis far the SIP; then
required a proportionate reduction in
emissions from certaiavgosMrei BRBf ^
categories (i** a "rotiback") ia> order to
attain. States may grant credit for -
reductions from omnventorted aauraes
in these area* ia at leaat two ways.
(1) They could require the avacage erf
percentage reductions imposed on all
inventoried sources, and grant credit
only for reductions in excess of that
amount. In this case, baseline emission*
should be based on the percentage
reduction in actual emissions for the
year in which the baseline data for the
rollback was gathered. Where such
sources are already subnet to lower SIP
emisssion limits, those ants must be.
used to determine credK.
(2) They could require the source to
use rt RACT emission rate and the lower
" Where a giver ~urtc v*a» tioi subject To
miindcwy RACT refutation due to the fact that It
was not included in the inventory (e.g.. where no
RACT refutation for a *o«rce category wa* adopted
bratum (he Mere, unaware ef the source, rmed •
alMM (hat no aoerce eirined in thx tooree
L or where an unmnn>»inii. rwn-CTG
5c»n-« of greater then 1WTFV emi«anma n tooeted
in on ozone e*lena»on oreal. a b»«tMiii i tflaitlrca a
nefoniited RACT emi*aioit rate mutt be n«juad
upon t*»'w«en the Mure*, (he MMe and H»A For MM
uniBvnttorwd Kwrce i
utttiiaflan aadlituw
carcuUte'tiie baeeine. and grant <
only for raductfone befcnv flisthaseitnei
This RACT baseitae would haw« to
result ia a reduction M least as gnat a*
the percentage redaction eseamed In thr
rollback. A» dJecussed" above, wher*
sources, afe-ainedy stAfect to lower SIP
emission Umita, thoee Units awist be-
used as the basis for detensning credit
Other areas devetopad SIP
demonstratioaa baaed on dispersioa
models rather than area erieh
proportionate reduetioa*. To the extent
these SB's demonstrated ambient
attainment througa etdtxttoat reqau«sd
from specific Inventoried i
incorporated emission* firm
fifeejfhfe) does prognai are*
unisnrenloried semcer in i
or area sonica totais. aad projected
attaimnemt by raodelinj the effselaaf-
those reductiOBax redvctioaa front .-
sources. ao4oo the iatenaoty caai b*
credited «iaaag.the to»er of -^*"*t oar
allowable -nlmtt fas each of th«
Inpnranaryj
which «efd but lack aa><
demonstratiotmf oUauurnnLAa
progress regniifs-Mnt* of SacttemlAAk
use credit
bBbhlM whirh-seeii to -
'•'^
ullnwnha* erB/lPT
baseline. When a RACT emi
has not already been adopted, for aa> -
uninventnriftd source, auco. a firnit jprfst.
be agreed upon, batveao the aoucce. that..
state and EPA before the baeefina can.
be determined
States which grant credit from
uninvtnierird sources not subject to
permits, offset requirements, or.
enforceable production constraints
should address me possibility tfaav
reductions from one such source may.be
followed by eqnal oc greater Increase*
from similar nearby sources dna to
shifting demand. These states must
dearly demonstrate that ERCs from the
uninventoried source are surplus and
permanent Interested parties should be
aware that some uninventoried sources
may not readily meet these test*. For
example, reductions resulting from
shutdown of a dry cleaner will generally
not be creditable, unless the stat»
subject* such sources to offset
requirements or other measure*
addressing this problem. However.
reductions due to improved control at
such a dry cleaner would generally be-
creditaM*. since shifting demand i* not
implicated.
BateJwtafor Open Dust Trade*
Fugitive dust regulations generally
consist of generic wotk practices and*
fua
R jg. ejeuai ally so*
possMr to rileiilJy t*e ayvfupriete-
emumeiw baiseftnr fron a generaf tt*
mmUfty this
requissnent. Far trades ander generic
rules a compUanc* instrment cuW take
the form of an agreement between me
source and state, a pracanstruction
permit (if one i« eeynraale). a consent
decree, a state oaentmg permit or any
otaer eamviienca instrument judicially
enfbncanoMi by the state. To assure state
enfuitaabitity.. thr gansmc rah? should
stats that soaces >abiect to these
instzuDUBt* are leqaired t» meat the
emission limits contained therein. Such
instruments would then automatically
become federally enforceable via an
EPA-*ppr«ved generic rale, provided
they are issued as, or part of. the
compliance instrument specifically
required by the generic rule.
Compliance instruments must ensure
that enforcement personnel do not have
-------
Federal Regbrter / Vot 51, No. 283 I Tburadcy, December 4, 196B / Notices
43843
to tee* si»uit«iieo»eljr tv«y enitatoa
source involved in • trad*. Tfcei
generally requires soares specific
mission limits. However. sutts may
us* pre-specified combinations of
source-specific emission limits which
•r« enforceable. States nay also use an
overall limit that applies to a group of
emission sources which can be
evaluated simultaneously, where there
is • reliable end enforceable method of
determining compliance (e.g.. through
production records, input factors, or
other indirect means, or through use of a
continuous emissions monitor.; See, e*.
45 FR 80*24. December & 1980.
The compliance instrument should
also specify applicable restrictions on
hours of operation, production rates or
input rates: enforceable test methods for
determining compliance: and necessary
recordkeeping or reporting
requirements. To be enforceable, these
limits must state the minimum time
period over which they will be averaged
(e.g.. IDS /hour. Ibs/MBtu averaged over
24 hours, production rate/day).'* Unices
such enforceable restrictions are or have
been placed on capacity utiitostioa and
hours of operation, or on overall
emissions, maximum values for eepecrrjr
utilization and hours of operation aval
generally be used in ^Wi
trade emission limits and in aobiaat
modeling of the post-trade -
3. All Reductions Must Be Permeaent
All emission increases in a trad* must
be cviaveiisa ted by emission' iadditions
that an eennenent fi.e., savored for the'
life of the. corresponding i
whether unlimited or linritied in
duration).** This requirement may
generally be oat by enforces*!* permit
limitations confirming the amount and
duration of the decrease. If reductions
with a limited life are used the-iife of
the trade mast be limited accordingly, so
that the trade will automatically
terminate with expiration of those
reductions. The date of terminatioo may
be specified in the notice of approval
Alternatively. source(s}nay agree to
provide formal written neflacatfon to
EPA and the state before such
reductions may be diaeoarfisMod and the
trade terminated.
Permanence may jitesent special bot
resolvable "shifting demand" problems
for reductions from small sources ooi
subject to permits, offset requirements.
" kfaay MM* ftimu or
nt«d rtmmam* » imam *h»ttb»y
n««d only ooeuf «• «
ladtvidval inii«i «•
"Ptfmm or otter
limntd-dimiion md« •0*1 e*»»r»y nm i
limui.
or enfomeebfe production
State* wtafcf
source catffgorissj But addiea* the
possibilirjr that redactiaeai from MS
source may result ai equeJ or greater
increases from snniUr nearby source*.*4
In ordar to ISM. ta a babble trad*.
emission reduction credits derived from
reductions in operations beyond those
consistent wf th the baseline (e.g.. a
reduction from 3 to 2 worfcshifts). a
source must have Its preconstruction
permit or other federally enforceable
compliance instrument altered to reflect
the curtailment in prodection records
reflecting such curtailment (iee section
LA2 above).1* Future increases in
production beyond the permit amount
may trigger new source review or
require approval of a new emissions
trading application which mdadea
compensating emission reductions. A*
with other types of oonoompUaace, any
source which exceeds penwtied
production limits would be subject lo
potential noncompliaaca paaaltie*
4. All Reduetfons Musi be QnaaftrlaMe
Before an emission reduction on be
credited it must be quantified. This
generally means the state must establish
a reliable basis-far calculating the
amount and rate of the reduction-emi
descrifetaf iHehereetaristles.
a. CeJculatitg the Reduction. To
(nMltifr tin WDOttDt Oef
rntiirrtnni lUgtfili is i
meat be o>*oeia«Bd oetfe before end aftet
the redejBoa (Le, ssevmiag the post-
redoction ttmits). Alttough many
different methods of "^""'"^trr are
avaikble (04* emission tenon, scMk
tests, aaemtored veaeaa, prediction or
proeaas inpots). me same method aad
averaging time should generally be used
to qvaatiry emissions both before aad
after the reduction."
jaj f^ft •lAttOBg) iWk fas' f
preMtatu^cMilMofBIC**
eunwfcMM W nek outi i
franiauUt
(U
mm*. O. MCTKM LA.1* ttaov*.
» Undv EPA'i NSR rtfiitetMM. fhtr
off§»i poipom M prior ibuldowaft SM a 14 »bo»«.
<• (a gtntnL itutm mtf not «ppn*« VOC tiuim
u t «
d0^> riBMWW. WaVIV VuG4QBfCW Federal Class I area.
The ambient effect of a trade
generally depends on the dispersion
ehareotarteties of the pollutant involved.
VOC or NO, Trades. Trades involving
VOC or NO. need consider only
emissions. Since the ambient impact of
these poHasantt ia area wide rather than
lacettaed. one pound oHnereased
emissions will be balanced in ambient
but
rf*
i of ittiliunmt.
-------
43344
Federal Rsnirtar / Vok 51. No. 233 / Thursday. Decerabar 4. 1966 / Notictt
•fleet by om pound of decreased
emissions within in* same bread
geographic area, and tht precis*
location of those increases and
decreases ordinarily don not matter.
For VOC and NO, such "pound-tor-
pound" trades may therefore be treated
as equal in ambient effect where all
sources involved in the trade are located
in the same control strategy
demonstration area or the state
otherwise shows such source to be
sufficiently close that a "pound-tor-
pound" trade can be justified.1*
Particuiate Matter. SOi. CO or Lead
Trades. Ambient considerations are
critical for trades involving emissions of
sulfur dioxide, participates, carbon
monoxide, or lead, whose air quality
impacts may vary with where the
emission increases and decreases occur.
For example, one hundred pounds of
ERCs for such a pollutant created at one
source may balance the ambient impact
of a 100-pound increase at a source
nearby, but may only balance the effect
of an 80-pound increase at a source
further away. In addition to distance
between sources, plume parameters.
pollutant characteristics, meteorology.
and topography will also affect the
ambient impact of such trades.2*
This Document authorizes the use of
four alternative methods of determining
ambient equivalence, with the degree of
required modeling linked to the likely
ambient impact of the proposed trade.
The following sections describe use of
these alternatives to evaluate for
approval many bubble or offset trades
without full scale ambient dispersion-
modeling.30 Use of these alternatives
under generic rules is discussed in
section II below.
(1) De Minimis. In general no
modeling is needed to determine the
ambient equivalence of trades in which
applicable net baseline emissions do not
increase a> and in which the sum of the
'• Tht discussion in this paragraph does not
apply to NC. '.rades involving visibility impact* of
elevated plumei.
11 The ambient equivalence eoattderarkme
elaborated in this and follnejissj paragraphs alto
ipply to NO, trades involving visibility impacts of
elevated plumes. See n. 28 above.
"> Modeling is generally not required for new
source netting, whose purpose it to avoid expending
resources where adverse emission or ambient
impacts from changes at a source are extremely
unlikely S«e. e.g.. 45 FR 52877-T8 (August 7.1980V
1' Interested parties should, however, be aware
thet in some circumstance* modeling may be
required to lusufy using certain emissions bastiiots,
pnor to the trade. Where a bubble in a
nonaiiainment area seeks to employ allowable
value* greater than corresponding actual values in
the calculation of baseline emissions, and whese
such allowable values are not ahown to be used or
reflected m an approved demonstration, a tull Level
lit modeling analysis will be required. Where a
emissions increase*, looking only at the
increasing sources, total* let* than 25
tons per year (TPY) for particulate
matter, 40 TPY for sulfur dioxide, 100
TPY for carbon monoxide. 40 TPY for
NO, (where visibility impacts are of
concern), or 0.6 TPY for lead, after
applicable control requirements. Such
trades will have at most a de minima
impacts on local air quality because no
net increase in emissions will be
produced and the amount of emissions
being shifted is less than designated
significance levels in associated EPA
regulations (see, e.g.. 40 CFR
S1.18(jHl|(x) and 51.24{b)(23)(i)).s«
(2) Level I. In general no modeling to
determine ambient equivalence is
needed if:
(a) The trade does not result in an
increase in applicable net baseline
emissions: **
(b) The relevant sources are located in
the same immediate vicinity (within 250
meters of each other):
(c) No increase in baseline emissions
occurs at the source with the lower
effective plume height as determined
under EPA's Guidelines on Air Quality
Modeling^
bubble In an attainmtet area inks to employ
allowable vslues greater than corresponding actual
values in the calcuistion of baseline emissions, and
where such allowable values are not show* to be
used or redacted in tn approved demonstratiotk a
Laval II modeling-analveu (tee below) mini actual
emission*, for the ore-bubble case will be required
unless, for bubbles processed as case-by-case-SIP
revisions, the Region determines that additional
technical support it necessary to protect applicable
standards or increments. Whet* allowable values
art used to calculate baseline emissions for such •
case-by-case-SIP revision bubble m an aiuiammt
area where tht) PSD baseline has been triggered, the
Region will require the technical support necessary
to protect PSD increments.
Where allowable values higher than actual values
are not shown to be used or reflected in an
approved demonstration, stales that wish to
authoria* their use in attainment areas under
generic babbit ru/ci must either state, or develop
repttcable procedures addressing, background
values and how they will be evaluated in
conjunction with the actual change* in ambient
concentration predicted by the Level II analysis.
These steps must be sufficient to protect standards
and increments and must be approved by EPA as
put of a generic rule.
For further-discussion regarding calculation of
baseline emissions snd related modeling
requirement*, we Section 1.A.L above and
Appendix B below.
"This paragraph should not be construed to
imply that ntw sources and modifications need not
meet all applicable requirements, including those
specified under 40 CFR 51.18 or parallel EPA-
approved stale rules.
" See n. 31 above.
Id) No complex terrain •« is wirt-m _h»
area of significant impact of the tnrae : »
or 90 kilometer* whichever is !es«: "
(e) Stacks with increasing baselir.a
emissions are sufficiently tall to avoid
possible downwash situations, as
determined by the formula described at
50 FR 27992 (July 0.1965) (to be codified
at 40 CFR Part SI): and
(f) The trade does not involve open
dust sources.
For such Level I trades it can
reasonably be assumed that "pound-for-
pound" trades will produce ambient
effects equivalent to those which EPA-
approved air quality models would
predict. Therefore modeling »o
determine ambient equivalence is not
required.
Trades between fugitive process
sources and stack sources (i.e.. process-
for-process or process-for-stack) can
acceptably be evaluated and approved
under Level I as long as the maximum
distance between any emitting sources
in the trade is less than 250 meters and
all other Level I criteria are met.
(3) Level 11. Bubble trades which are
neither de minima nor Level I may
nevertheless be evaluated for approval
based on modeling to determine ambient
equivalence limited solely to the impacts
of the specific emission sources
involved in the trade, if there is no
increase in applicable net baseline
emissions.37 if the potential change in
emissions before and after the trade will
not cause a significant increase in
pollutant concentrations at any receptot
for any averaging time specified in an
applicable ambient air quality
"Complex terrain is broadly denned by EPA as
terrain greats* In height than the physical stack
height of a source. For bubble purposes, this
definition it applicable only to sources with
increasing baseline emissions.
" For guidance on determining 'area of
significant Impact" see Appendix E below. The
graph in Appendix E. or EPA-approved alternative
approaches, may be incorporated in generic rules to
make this aspect of Level I analysis repiicabte and
operational. See Section U below.
" Generally, trades involving complex terrain as
defined above may not be exempt from modeling
under t Level 1 analysis. However. EPA will
consider on a case-by-case basis additional criteria
for determining whether a particular trade involving
complex terrain, but otherwise meeting the
requirements specified above, does not present a
problem of potential plum* impaction and may be
approved under t Level I analytit. These additional
criteria would include such factors as source height
and emission rates, distance between stacks and
elevated features, rate of topographical rise, and
other coneiderMtOM which may be appropriate for
the particular geographic area. Slates are
encouraged to work with EPA to determine where
and how such additional criteria can be developed
and applied to individual trade*.
" See n. 31 above.
-------
F«d«mi Ifrfjsjlsji / V*. «. Na. 885 / Thumky. December 4. 19M / Notion
4384F
standard" anal tf «ae* a* eosjfysfe AM*
not predict any increase in ambient
nitrations in • mandatory Federal
Class I ana.** Tha ebangt in
concentration from the before-trade caM
to the after-trade case must in general
be modeled using refined models such
as MPTER and ISC for each sppropriate
averaging time for the relevant national
ambient air quality standards for each
receptor, using the most recent full year
of meteorological data.40
(4) LevslIII. Pull dispersion modeling
considering all sources affecting the
trade's area of impact is required to
determine ambient equivalence if
applicable net baseline emissions will
increase as a result of the trade.41 or if
the trade cannot meet criteria for
approval under de minima. Level I or
Level IL
However, a geographically limited
Level HI analysis may be used in some
case* where a Level 11 analysis predicts
•• In dvtemMite. 'irgmHcm*" topact far Uvri H
bubbh irate, uaMa may M* the fbUMrioa.
potenuaJ aabiai Impact need not be further
evaluated before appro***
W nt/a* for ay M-now penod fbr pmrrtcntat*
Butter
< p«M far pwMMriMi
13 •«/•' for My M-how p*nod fee- SO*
«•*«/•' for an* *-«ow parted far 3O*
3 »«/•• for an annual pertod Car SOt
S7» «I«/B* tar iay *-how panod far Oft
000 */•* hr My 1-fcow partod tar COt
See 48 PR
(A*JMI f.
I will EPA'« I
Review regulation* la « CM 31.18 or Part 51.
Appendix S, or paralM EPA-eppmved *t*te
reguUttoaa. -SajMflcanr ianMO MOW « OT Pan
51. Appeadu S ia d*fta**) a* l •«/•* aaaaal
averag* for partieulalet. SOi or NOu I m/m* 24-
hovr av*rag« for parttenJatea and Sd: S
hour avcrcge for SOti and O.S ng/Hr1 S^nori
and 2 a*/a* one-hour »v*r*g* far CO.
" However, a bubble ordtnerirr vwy mat ba
•ppreved under Uvel II where other evidaao*
related to background—«.«, formally vaHdaMd
•mtrteni air quality momlertng data or pmnaal)
eataMlahad background veJuaa clearly ajdieat**
that th* bubble would mat* a new violation of aa
ambient uandard or PSD Maraaaaat or wortd delay
the planned removal of an Mating rtoJatina
•• Other techniques may to apaiaiaU when
Mure** thaw they equalrf w*ii protect NAAQ8.
apetteabl* PSD ineremnH*. *ad vMbUlly. Per
example, in limited i in iiaieimia* i«imi niiia
tawnmi modeli miy be aoeeptaM* in HOT of
MPTEX md ISC In •ocn caaw. oae of a Ml ywrof
meteoroloyeal data ma* not ba nataiiary. 3och
Kreenmc moddi may be iceeptaWe «*i*rr (a) Th*
fcnenint model inow> that aU th* emitatona (row
the Jtaek(t) «ntb tocreaaoif emiaaMmt nuaid a«t
product exeeedaiRM of the-LrveJ U i^urfkaoc*
vtluaa deacribvd in n. M above, or (b( tha MM±
perimeter*ai the ttackdl with iaona«af aiiaalona
do not eaan«e ana1 th* *cr*enjn| mo«M ibowa Ola*
the mcra«a* in canaaiom at the Ixemwuj «taeM«|
would n« prodno* nwedane** of inea*
>i(Bifieaaca *alu*a.
41 See diicuuion in l.B.l.c. below.
wieoraMrveicaeedvioei-aftheLeveia
sitftUflsaage vatots. While-mis euh/asr
will be Naritad M terms of geographic
•cope, W«»4 otherwise meet the
modeling requirements fen Aili Lewi
01 analysis. Indnding consideration of
all sources affecting the United
geographical area, In many situations
this approach may permit the receptor
area to be smaller than the trade's entire
area of impact Because ef die unique)
nature of each situation, the appropriate
limited geographic area must be
determined is accord with EPA
guidelines on •*«*T".«»B. and through
case-by-case evaluation.
Bubble trades are approvable under
either type of Level HI eaaiyeia if they
do not cause a new violation of NAAQS
or PSD increments, significantly
contribute to or delay the planned
removal of an existing violation, or
adversely affect visibility in mandatory
Federal Claae 1 araea."
Thit aree-u'ered modeling approach is
both reasonable and conservative. It
will assure that the •mhiont impact of
trades is at bast equivalent in effect to
original SIP tmitfi?n limitst while
conserving government resources and
shortening approval tiates for many
individual tradea.
e. Babbitt Should N* loo***
Applicable Nft BaMlia* Sadtuont.
Ordinarily, bubbles may not result m an
increase in applicable net baseline
emissions. Such a babble would require
e case-by-case SIP revision, and may
only be approved baaed upon a
combined Level O and Level n
modeling analysis (Is, an analysis
sufficient to show thet all applicable
requirements of a full Level 01 analysis
(as described above) an met and that
the bubble would not result m any
exceedance of significance values
specified for e Level U analysis at any
receptor for any averaging time
specified in an applicable ambient air
quality standard.4*
•• Whm • U«t) m dMdelhif anajytia fttbmiltod
to luupurt a *otaur» tradtaf *uiillt»Bou todtaiw
an rac**daM* of a*, tobtart nqolraaM. PA •tfl
review ructa ippllcatioeu on a mmmon »anaa eaae-
by-ca*e bant, teckinf to encouraf* dladoam of
•••^ih ••^^•^•laakJia^ au>J ••^••U HO^^Mk ^^J»*> ftM
•uai vxovviuuiGijB sjnQ ijfvnj vnmv avu* of
d*ctak>na on IB* tnd*. \
protvcttoB of puouc MwtB. DM fBlcajrKy. of ts* 9V
procaca (UMJuuiiif tna atM*'a pfaroajitfwa te
detemunhTj how to remedy nuiiaininmiml md ta*
pioinpl aJW cnccffva mMoy of *JTv QOfMtttoll of
oonanatnment ta itt rertew. tfa* Ayancy wlO aUt*
into aeoouM nek facton aa la* d*ff«* of
axcaedano*. the conthb«tJaB of th* Mdlnf aowtM
and tha trad* Ittatf to ft* weiaanm and <>*
dafrw to wnleh Men MWOM «mM •• put of •*
tolution remvdylnf (ha *xc**dane*.
4* Whoft a propoaad bvobl* MionMalni n*t.
baaefta* aMaaioiM cannot meet thl* l**l of amWejM
equivalence, rt nay no) be nnj»u»ed •* a b*MM
under the EmiHion* Tndin« Pottey. H*w*var.
Wmm sue* a babble ts prerjesed in a
tana the state must
demoMtratt AM *e trade it consist
with tneprcgwsa dermmstra^ton under
an ape^nrveo dsjMoitslrafion of
aHainment retlM K> BPA-epproved
piogrese demonetntion as part of the
proposed SIP revision, or otherwise
show (e.g~ by modeling and any
necessary compensating emission
reductions) that the proposed trade
comports with the EPA-epproved
emissions end ambient progress
demonstration.
d Bubbfa Should Not Increase
Emissions ofHaxardota or Toxic A ir
Pollutants. Under the Clean Air Act ail
sources must meet applicable section
112 (NESHAPs) requirements for control
of hazardous air pollutants. Sources may
neither use a bubble to meet these
requirements, nor increase emissions
beyond the lewis they prescribe. Where
a source wishes to generate or use
emission reduction credit for a criteria
pollutant and where a NESHAPs
pollutant is part of the criteria pollutant
stream, the enneakms baseline for
emissions of the hazardous potiutant
from mat source would be the Jower-of-
eetuel-or-NESHAJVellowable
emissions of that pollutant, applied as of
the tfeHM of appHeatton for credit. Where
EPA hae^reposeo1 to regulate a source
category for eonaakms of a pollutant
under section 111 but has not yet _,
promulgated a NESHAP for that source
category, the proposal will serve as the
interim guideline for evaluating the
potential effects of any proposed
•missions trade involving sources to
which the proposed standard would
apply. The emissions baseline for such a
pollutant emitted by a source subject to
the proposed NESHAP would be lower*
of-actnl-or-oroposed-NESHAPs-
allowable emissions for mat pollutant.
IngtMHvI, such trading proposals will
be approved so long as they (1) result in
emission limits for eocfi source emitting
the relevant pollutant which are
equivalent to or less than those that the
approved NESHAP requires or the
proposed NESHAP would require if
promulgated (It rely only on reductions
benw actual or allowable levels
(whichever Is less) of that pollutant, and
(3) take place within a single plant or
contiguous plants.
When a pollutant has been listed
under section 112 or EPA has published
e Notiee-of-Intent-to-Ust but no
NESHAP has been promulgated or
proposed for a source which emits that
I n*y ffffl MOWM ruca rwiied Mm.ti for
approved ond*r the ^enerrf requiremenu applicable
loSIPrevtottfte.
-------
43B46
F«dend R-sbtac / VoL 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 198d / Notices
pollutant, state* may generally allew
trades consisting of equivakot increase*
and decreases of actual araiiaton* of
that pollutant within a siafto plant or
contiguous plants. Once the relevant
NESHAP is promulgated, every source.
regardless of any previously approved
trade involving emissions of that
pollutant, must meet the requirements of
that promulgation.
Where EPA has decided- that one or
more source categories which emit a
listed pollutant do not require regulation
solely because of limited national
exposure, emissions, of that pollutant
will continue to be treated the same as
emissions of any other pollutant listed
under section 112.
Where EPA has issued a formal
Notice-of-Intent-Not-to-List a pollutant
under section 112. that pollutant will
ordinarily be treated as non-hazardous.
However, where the decision not to list
or not to regulate was based on limited
national exposure, but the individual
risk was sufficiently high that EPA
committed in the announcement of its
decision to support (through some
formal mechanism such as a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU))
state-level efforts to develop regulations.
the pollutant will be treated as listed for
trading purposes in order to assure that
such state efforts are not compromised.
The model for the intended scope of this
classification is EPA's aoylonitrile
decision. (50 FR 24319; June 10.1965).
If a substance is neither listed nor
regulated as hazardous under section
112. nor meets any of the other
conditions specified above, but has been
formally listed or regulated as toxic
under any comparable health-baaed
federal statute, the Administrator may
consider this fact in evaluating trade*
which may increase emissions of that
substance. This authority has not been .
delegated within EPA by the
Administrator. See Clean Air Act
section 301(a)(l). 42 U.S.C 7801(a)(l).««
" Trades involving —TTHI streams partially or
wholly composed of any pgUaunti subject to
special considerations nnaHfJUi section must meet
iwo separate and distinct1MRi4o be approved.
First, sich trades must be •fftvvaibt* under the
criteria and principles which apply to all trade*, ea
discussed throughout this policy (i.e.. such trades
must meet baseline and other requirements for the
relevant criteria pollutant). Second, such trades
must be approvable with respect 10 the Hazardous
pollutant fraction of the criteria, pollutant emisitasi
stream. This means that there must be no net
increase in emiasions of the pollutants addressed in
ihis section, as a result of such trades. Where a
NESHAP has been promulgated or proposed, (he
baaeline for determining whether such en increase
hai occurred i» the lower-of-actual-or-NESHAPs-
allowaMe emissions for the hazardous component
of the trade, fot the source wfeich emits that
component. The promulgated or proposed NESHAP
limn not only is used lo define the allowaole
Exception. Trades which invoke the
pollutants addressed in this section but
do not meet the special restrictions
discussed above, may also be approved •
where surplus reductions in those
pollutants compensate for increases in
non-hazardous emissions of the same
criteria pollutant. For example, a source
emitting benzene may trade with a
source emitting a non-hazardous VOC
without meeting these special
restrictions, if the benzene emissions are
reduced as a result of the trade (i.e..
"traded down"). As long as such a trade
would not result in an increase in either
actual or allowable emissions of a
pollutant subject to the preceding
paragraphs at any source, it would not
differ in nature or requirements from a
trade involving only non-hazardous
VOC emissions.
e. Existing-Source Credits Cannot B*
Used to Meet Applicable Technology-
Based Requirements for New Soarces.
Under Clean Air Act section 111 and
EPA implementing regulations, new
affected facilities must satisfy
technology-based New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS}.
regardless of the attainment status of
the area in which they are located
Under sections 165 and 173 and EPA
implementing regulations, new or
modified major source* must also satisfy
technology-based control requirement*
associated with precoMtracn'on permits.
These requirements prohibit use of
credits from existing source* to meet or
avoid applicable NSPS. and bar use of
such credits to meet applicable new
source review requirements for beat
available control technology (BACT) In
PSD areas, or lowest achievable
emission rate control technology (LAER]
in nonattainment areas.4*
However, modifications of existing
major sources in PSD and
nonattainment areas with an EPA-
approved "plantwide" definition of
source can use "contemporaneous"
reductions in actual emissions from
within the same source to "net out of
New Source Review.4* Under such-
emissions for that source, but serves aiaa absolute
ceiling on the. source a* well When a NESHA0 hu
not yet been promulgated or proposed, the hasetiae
for determining whether such an increase has
occurred ia generally actual tmisiions for the
tiaiardous pollutant component oi the trade. But d.
today's Policy Statement at n, ft
•• Today's notice does not address whether or
under what circumstancaa facilities subject to
NSPS BACT or LAER may surpass applicable
permit limits reflecting such requirements uvo
to create credits for txiatmg-source trade*
'• "Contemporaneous" means e reasonable
period for accumulating increases and decreases in
emission*, as specified by the slete. See 40 OH
SM8|Jl(ll(vi| and S1.24(b|(3|(bl (ii).
"netting," sourcewide increases m
potential emission* thai do not exceed
designated levels of significance (tee 40
CFR 51.1«j)(l)(x). 51 J4(b)(»). and
Si21(b)(23H will not be considered
"major modification*" of the source
under 40 CFR 51.18.51.34. 51.22. 51.307.
52.26. or 52.27. Thus, while these source
changes must still meet applicable
NSPS. NESHAPs. preconstruction
applicability review requirements under
40 CFR 51.18 (aHh) and (1). and SIP
requirements, they are not subject to
new source review requirements for
major modification because they are not
considered "major." 4T
/. Trades Involving Open Dust
Emissions. Trades involving open dust
sources of participate emissions may be
approved through case-by-case SIP
revisions based on modeled
demonstrations of ambient equivalence.
Sources proposing such trades must
commit a*part of the trade's approval,
to (i) undertake a post-approval
monitoring program to evaluate the
impact of their control efforts, and (ii)
make further enforceable reductions if
post-trade monitoring indicates initial
open dust controls do not produce the
predicted air quality results.
g. Interstate Trades. EPA will approve
trades which involve sources located in
neighboring states when such trade*
meet the criteria below and all other
approval criteria applicable under
today's notice. Where state trading
requirements differ. EPA will require
that trades with increasing and
decreasing sources indifferent states
meet the substantive requirements of the
more stringent state. In general, in order
to avoid complex accounting problems.
EPA will deem ERCs created in another
state to contribute to progress in. the
state where used to the extent of that
use. Such trades must be accomplished
through case-by-case SIP revisions.
4* Netting also applies under the aerrower "dual
definition' of "source" at certain circumstance]. For
example, firms may use reductions within the plant
to compensate for increases at several emitting
units which, while not individually significant.
might otherwise add up lo a significant increase
plantwMta.
Under current EPA regulations, if a nonaitatnmem
area is subject to a moratorium on new
preeonstrucuoa permit* for maior sources or
modifications and (he aree doea not nave an
approved New Source Review program, then the
area automatically uses a plantwida definition. See
40CFRS2.24.
EPA's general expension of opportunities for
Males to use the plantwide source definition For
certain norauainment areas (49 FR 50760. October
14, IOMI «rae affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court an
(line 23. IBS* CAewon U.S.A- Inc. i. Natural
flmouree* flfcpense-Couna/. 104 S. Ct. 277* u ELR
20907. overruling Natural Resource* Defense
Council. Inc. v. Gonuctt. MS F 2d 718, 12 ELR M942
(D.C Clr. 1M2).
-------
Federal Regiatef / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
42&4
A. Tta/stf A/ear flS0 Cfa« M/mu.
EPA or • staff optrating under a generic
rale must notify the Federal Land
Manager if an emissions trade will take
place within 100 kilometers of a PSD
Class I area. Notification must occur
early enough in the review process to
allow at least 30 days for the submittal
of comments before the trade will be
approved by the reviewing authority.
Where a bubble within SO kilometers
of a PSD Class I area is submitted to
EPA as a case-by-case SIP revision, the
Region may call for additional technical
support beyond the applicable
requirements of the modeling screen
described in section IJl.I.b. above, if
deemed necessary to protect air quality
in the Class I ana.
/. Effect on Trades of Subsequently-
Discovered Clean Air Act Problems:
Revisitation Considerations. If ambient
violations are discovered in an area
where EPA has approved a trade, or if
other violations of Clean Air Act
requirements are discovered in that
area, sources in the trade should be
aware that they are potentially subject
to requirements for additional emission
reductions, just as are all other source*
in the area.4*
••While i
i involved to • trede. like ail other
ay b* Mbtoct to
• tor
.neither preview
tndM approved by EPA or by autea uade* 8BA-
approved ftMric reJea, nor emiaawa redueOoa •
.credit* mid •• part of * babble, offset or netting
action, should be terminated.
Siidi lenrnnanoa could occur, for example, where
two MUTCM in • grv*B source category were subwct
to pre-bnbble mi
im
lino liraiti of 100 TPY Mcb
«nd poti-bubbl* llmttt of » TPY tad ISO TPY
mpectively. AMOOW the IUM irnpocn • ram
category-wide nfilitiafi which would normally
limit UIOM source* 10 40 TPY each, la ibia caea, the
flnt source ihould be required to meet the new «•
TPY limit (La_ it should bt required to product
additional reduction* of 10 TPY), while the second
source ihould be subject to • new limit of SO. TPY
(U_ • level reflecting tht continwd existence of the
30 TPY anriiaum rtducnon audit). Taminatle* of
tht tmiMion reduction cndit would oecnr either by
requiring tbt firat touret to produce additional
cmimoB reduction* of S3 TPY (i*. more (baa ite
current level of emisaioaie), or tb« second MMTOI to
owet UM 40 TPY limiL Bitter of thae* reaulla would
undermine (he purpoae af today's notice by
eliminating the pradicuhaaty required tor
generation or UM of QIC*. They could *!*• penalize
trading aource* for taking •nimianiiiililly
beneficial mea»ur*i sooner than required, smce it
would often be nrara difficult to «dii«v« tb« new
nducuon* thin hid earlier voluntary nepa not bean
taken.
For Uteae reatont. EPA uraw *tatM not to take
•uch ertdlt-ieminaanf acnone unleaa then ia no
other practical wey lo tatiify the requirementf of
the Clean Air Act
Today'i procedum for depoail and uae of banked
credlu already addreaa additional Mate tmiMMXi
reduction needt in the context of banking (tee
wcnon LC8. below I. State* ihould. however.
account tot all pmnou* trade* and prwiou*iy
granted rmiuion reduction eredlu In eiiirnanng
emiHton reduction* mulling from new control
2. Procedural Steps for Using ERC*
Bubble trade* may bt implemented
through individual SIP revisions or state
generic rules. This section describes
principles applicable to either
procedure. General principles for
generic rules are addressed in Section 0
below. Special considerations for trades
which require individual SIP revisions
are addressed ia Section OL
a. Effect of Eidtting Compliance
Scheduiet. EPA's 1979 bubble policy
required that source* be subject to
binding compliance schedules baaed on
original SIP emission limits before being
eligible to apply for bubbles. Because of
the time required to process babble
applications as case-by-case SEP
revisions, this requirement tended either
(a) to discourage sources faced with
tight milestones for the installation of
conventional control equipment from
pursuing bubble application*, where-
they had agreed in good faith to SIP
compliance schedules before
discovering bubble opportunities, or (b)
to discourage sources from agreeing to
any compliance schedule until they bad
fully examined bubble opportunities.
Today's policy allows an application
to be filed though the applicant ia not
subject to compliance schedules baaed
on original SIP emieaiea Bmit* so loaf
as that appticaot agree* to«missiatv • •
Until* established arparfof a coaplets •
bubble epplieattoa. Sources which are
already subject to binding compliance.
schedules should, however, be awer*
that submittal or proposed approval of a
bubble application does not suspend
their obligation to comply with such
schedules. Such schedules and existing
SIP requirements remain applicable and
enforceable until the bubble ia finally
approved and the schedule IMS been-
modified accordingly.
Sources seeking trades should note
that they remain subject to enforcement
of existing (pre-trada) SIP limits until the
bubble is approved. EPA will uae the
same principles and procedures for
deciding whether to initiate
enforcements actions in these
tirounstances as the Agency appliee to
any other source which i* subject to a.
proposed SIP revision.
Under established EPA policy,
regulated sources must be subject to an
applicable enforceable emission limit at
all times. Accordingly, source* which
have approved bubbles with emission
limits effective at future date and which
are not in compliance with their pre-
trade limits, may be subject to
enforcement action, which could include
penalties baaed on a failure to meet the
pre-trade limita. Sources in such
situations may wish to minimize th<
chance that capital expenditures wn.
required to meet pre-trade limits, either
by (a) agreeing to post-trade compliance
dates which are substantially similar to
their pretrade compliance dates, or (b)
accelerating their compliance with pest-
trade limits.
In accord with the general principle
that bubbles should be treated neither
more nor less stringently than other SIP
actions, implementation of today s
policy will be neutral with respect to
EPA enforcement of pre-trade emission
limita. This means that EPA will not
specifically target for enforcement
action non-compliant sources seeking to
uae a bubble either to come into
compliance or to restructure traditional
compliance. However, it also means that
EPA will not withhold or defer
enforcement simply because a source 13
seeking alternative emission limits
through a bubble. In exercising its
enforcement discretion. EPA will apply
the same considerations to
noncompliant sources which seek to
comply through bubbles as to4hose
which do not"
b. Extensions-of Compliance
faeyiVfnsi States may modify or exten
compliance schedules or deadlines ft
individual sources on a case-by-case
basis In conjunction with bubble
approvals. Such modifications or
extensions must be consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.15.
Compliance schedules for sources in
nonattainment areas cannot be
extended beyond the statutory date for
attainment and applicable compliance
milestones must be specified and met
for each year of the revised or extended
compliance schedule. Because an
extension will usually require a revision
of the state's progress demonstration.
such approvals must ordinarily be
submitted ss SIP revisions.
itrategie*. in order to avoid problem* due to double-
counting.
•• Partaa oantemplating bubbles involving the
trad* of emiaaton reduction credits from one firm to
another should be aware that when the credits
being provided by UM drat firm are the muit of
emiseian limit* with a future compliance date, the
obligated to meal pre-rrad* limit* remains «nth me
second firm (which may face enforcement action.
indudlBjj eaan penalties, for failure to comoiy win
Iboa* prartrad* limits! until the time jpecifieo for
the flnt Arm to achieve the reductions necessary for
compliance under die bubble. The first firm »failure
to achieve required bubble reductions on act-.eduie
may mereaflar result In enforcement acnon
(Including cash penalties) against that firm.
Ho*tt**r. thia paragraph should b* read in
coniuactton with tfce general principle articulated
above that EPA implementation of today 9 policy
will be neutral with reaped to enforcemrnt of
pretrad* limit*.
-------
430M
• / V«L 5k-.Ntv 233. /.Thmday. O«ee»i»r 4, Ustt / Notices
itiam* oases. si*je» which
wish to gtvftMutce* i
implement bubbles I
compliance extensions; SMS* receive
EPA approval of the extension through
case-by-case SIP revisions. EPA will
evaluate the time extension portions of
these SIP revision packages in
accordance with the Agency's normal
procedures for review of time
extensions, including consistency with
the Act's requirements of
expeditiousness. reasonable further
progress, and attainment and
maintenance of ambient air quality
standards. Sources should be aware that
disapproval of thetism extension
portion may result in disapproval of the
entire package (?.*„ both post-trade
limits and the time extension) or only
part of it. depending OR whether the
state 'view* these component* of m*
p>upo*ed SIP revision a* separable,
In attainment area*, stares may
con tun* to grant ompsnnce extensions
without case-by-cas* SIP revision*, as
part of ouOwle approvals mder a generic'
rate. Soch generic compliance date
extension* may be granted in these-
areas owryu^Pn h** approved. IBV " •
extension provision of &e gemrianl* •-
as adequate to comply wim, **<3**B-
Air Act
they remain sabjast t« «figmai
limits until such approval
C Banking Eatiuion todoction Credits
Emission reductions that arc surplus.
permanent quantifiable and enforceable
can qualify as emission reduction
credits (ERCs) and be deposited in EPA-
approvable banks. States may establish
such banks by adopting appropriate
rules to govern whether and how
sources may own a«d hold surplus
emission reduction credits for furore use
in bubble, offset or netting
transactions.*1 Such banking rules may
encourage sovrces to take measures to
reduce emissions in advance of specific
need for ERCs. resulting in lower
transaction coats for those seeking
offset*, bubbles, or partners-for theee
transaction*. State* should howwer. b«
a ware that because an area's sir qu^ity
situation or the status «f its Sff msrjr
chana* in the future. fa*iore to aeooaoA
For banked credits in-enMoat
inventories mmdt far yiaosnig yaspe***
ra*y lesisk in-toa* oitboa* BCa-ssM-
treated a* "i» ttwaaT (•«. sot facMe*
isc aay toum S» Jsuranaaiy «ra i tsi •
presently the sotyeet ef a federal ~;
enforcement ac€an-«r eufetaodtag
enforcemcHt'erd«r sssteea EPA (eadi
where neeeeswy Hie ef
staU'By the time they are banked."
However, if a source commits to '
prpdoc* a-speciffc reduction «ra
spetiBet&arfiklfe* fntara. a state may
allow a oauS&ntl <*4rMlt to be made.
ia» sirh c •lititoaaJ depociis
matt
approve* the proposal and wry
compline* schedule ffmay
"Federal eaioreenwU acttea or*" '• ~
outstanding order" tadude* nottee*-*f '-
violation cMi aettoa* Btad wuhr CM*
Air Act section 113(b), crtaainah
filed under section lUJc). metice*
imposing noncoacrplisnte penatta*
issued under i
orders issued under sccttan 113(aK or
citizen suit* filed u«**b**BSwe 3Mie>
which EPA ha* «a<*s**l**)*YsUhr»a*sa
is subject to an edflSJiBfi*ApvoT
judicial order. .
This requirement nes*.*o> pssiilad*
bubble approvals undergeaarie nates;
provided the rule specifies an
appropriate m^.jiani««. fr* ,
r*cosdia*>EPrV*
Sowree* should.
_
effective. untU appcoxadJatf: mar
• Sw Mcttaa ftM tMtow.
Racjsksr EBCs.t*k
greassaa t*c*rtcai ss*asi«ii cs{
to those ERCs); noti^r psospaeMv* ' •
purchasers of th* existence-of EfiCai and
th* 4M* ite (OUR*
IB tk* ***** to oak* •
orufafMt hnkia*
Emtwoit nduetfaM b«lud ihw^b •
infonn«k ^•"'''"g imrhinim prior ta • data'*
qulift/ far d^oMta *M EM
torpte*. ptnuoMt qu
ud (2) tk« SUM
not ilnMiy b«m wMOMd or MfawtrtM
•H ••ArwdM** nlorembi* «t
may b* )•• dtw Ibal iviilaMi from BM
ctdneMn fo» ottoi «r
thn*
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
41-a
conpramiM the state's ability to secure
through further regulation any future
reduction* which may be needed.** In
all cases the reduction must be made
federally enforceable by the time the
emissions trade which relies upon it is
finally approved.
3. Possible Limitations on Use ofEltCs
for New Source Permitting
Use of banked ERCs for new source
permitting must be consistent with
applicable regulations approved by EPA
under 40 CFR Parts SI and 52. For
example, under 40 CFR 51.ia(j)(3)(iiHc)
shutdowns that occur prior to
applications for a new source permit
may ordinarily be used only as offsets
for replacement facilities, and then only
if the permit application was filed within
one year after the shutdown occurred or
if the reduction occurred after August 7,
1977."
4. Sources Should Apply to Bank
Surplus Reductions As Soon As They
Decide To Make Them
For administrative simplicity and
accurate quantification, sources should
apply to bank reductions as soon as
possible after they decide to make them.
The administering agency should
formally note the source's intent to.
nuke a surplus reduction, ea expressed
in the application. The state must then
verify whether and to what extent the
reduction actually occurred, and must
make the reduction enforceable by the
time it is accepted for deposit
5. Procedures for Banking Surplus
Emission Reductions Should Be Defined
To speed approval of trades and
provide greater certainty for potential
ERC creators and users, state banking
rales should clearly specify which
proposed emission reductions can
qualify to be credited and banked, the
information required of sources to
substantiate their claim for credit sad
any required application forms. At
minimum, such rules must require firm*
to maintain records (axg* production
records and recordsnof piwvtoua
•• SUM* have *n*rai MBtftMrofttom to
provMf eudi tuurtnc*. Tfcey mtf.it* nutpte. bar
condition*! dvpoatfa from tumi* caiefonea which
are MtyM 10 pandJns refalatea. Allamattvar*.
tJwy may allow unreatncied coadlbaBaJ daponl*
but writ* futon refutation* in terms of KACT-
equivalent redaction! (e.f_ an SOI reduction in
curreat actual eaneatonal rather than in lama of
ipeaAe control ttraiafMa or emiuton levela. Tbe
tatter approach can avoid potnble daima by MOM
touren thai no further control it required. wMIe
•trenftbaBinf the atete • ability to eacouref* totter
votuMuy reducooe* aa well at mania la needed
onee, SOT aactton LCAb bekmr. Stale* nay adopt
whichever aliemartva utiaAea tbeee conoma >m
the** particular wtuetion.
•• Sw n. 14 above.
emission tests) adequate to determine
the pre- and post-reduction actual and
allowable values for emission rate.
capacity utilization, and hours of
operation for the source generating the
ERC
6. Banking Rules May Establish
Ownership Rights
To prevent two entities from claiming
or attempting to use the same ERCs at
the same tune, state banking rules may
specify who can own ERCs. For
example, while the source creating the
ERC will generally be its owner, the
state could as part of its rule, reserve
ownership of certain classes of ERCs to.
itself or local governments. States
considering the latter course should.
carefully weigh whether such
reservations an likely to increase or
diminish future reductions and air
quality management capabilities.
7. Banking Rules Must Establish an ERC
Registry or Its Equivalent
An ERC registry or equivalent
instrument allows states to track
ownership, use. and transfer of ell
banked ERCs. Banking rules may
provide that no transfer of title to e
banked ERC will take effect until the
transaction is reflected to the registry-. .
This tracking sys
potential dispute* and provide e central
list of certified ERCs whjca may be -
available to potential purchasers. It can
also provide useful information for
quickly evaluating any proposed nee of
a beaked ERC
Information which may help evaluate
future proposed uses of a banked ERC
should be recorded at the time of its
creation and entered as part of its
banking record. This information should
include the location of the source
creating the ERCs; whether the
reduction is due to e shutdown or
curtailment the date the reduction
occurred or will occur (to allow future
determination of the timing of the
reduction with respect to the apptteeUeA
for credit or its contemporaneity for use-
in netting or, if a shutdown, as an
offset); the source's stack parameters;
the temperature and velocity of its
rtame: particle lize; the existence of any
lazardoua pollutants: daily and
seasonal emission rates: and other data
which might reasonably be deemed
necessary under the requirements
described in sections LA. and Lfl. above
to evaluate future use.
To perform these tracking and
clearinghouse functions the ERC registry
•usl be sccessibie to the public. Subject
to confidentiality considerations, states
should make copies of the ERC registry
available at convenient locations and
times, end nay went to publit.'i or
otherwise issue a periodic twr.mtry r
baaked ERCs.
8. Possible Adjustments to ERCs Basec
on Enforcement Considerations
Banking rules should slate what, if
any, changes may occur to ERC» after
they have been banked. Once an ERC
has been used by another sourc? to me-
a permit or other regulatory
requirement any violation of th«
conditions under which that ERC was
created should result in enforcement
against the source producing thai ERC
and not the source using it If a stale
sttempted to enforce against the source
using purchased ERCs. a complex set of
third-party lawsuits would likely
ensue.'*
9. Possible Adjustments to ERCa Baaed
on Ambient Attainment Considerations
To assure the validity of its
demonstration(s) of progress or
attainment a state with a banking rule
must assume that all banked emissions
will ultimately be used. In evaluating
their ability to attain national standards.
such states must add to their emissions
inventory or measured ambient values
ail unused banked reductions at the site
at which they were created. This is
especially important for areas
requesting redessiflcation from
nonertauiment to attainment. Failure to
account for banked reductions as "in the
air" for SIP planning purposes would
ordinarily eliminate their use as ERCs
following a new SIP design or inventory
year, due to double-counting.
Additional emission reductions may
be required from sources because of
their area's failure to attain ambient
standards, because of an increment
violation, because of existing visibility
impairment or because new RACT
requirements are being imposed under a
SIP schedule. The existence of banked
ERCa must not interfere with states
ability to obtain these additional
reductions, and a state's rules on
treatment of banked ERCs must provide
it the necessary flexibility to meet future
requirements. However, state banking
roiee may address, within this criterion.
how banked ERCs will be treated if
•* •t4o»ao»ar condtenai pnvaia-party aitempu 10
•Maw ultimata mponalbiiity for required
rtdueooaa could main th« purcfcaaad ERCi
uMNiforctabla and rttv/t in mionnon of :he
cruflnf *ouro» » anginal (bifharl cmiMion tirmis.
dwtodauna that rarphia reduction* were produced
la reilMea on swarmant ruia* implying iheir
reaaonabk marchaaHblHty and ua*. Far thew
naaiau irafcdnn iiarfit *Harrd i» a result of the
creation and MM of ERCt mini remain final
-------
Ratjis*er / VoL 51. No. 239 / Thiaada*. D*o*a»b*T 4. Wast t
iilililiiia¥iji[is>ai linn tt» m]#mml t*
at
PSD increments, or improve varibiUiv.
Available options include:..
a. EifCi Generate*rVbr ft> tfie Design
or Basal i 09 Year CotiW* Sfminated.
The use of ERCs generated prior- to the
design or baseune year is unlikely to be
consistent with the state s
demonstrauoa. unless the state included
«uch ERCs as "in the air" for planning
purposes at thai time.
'.. ERd Cuuld be Guaranteed Against
\d:iuuafat. The state would determine
the necessary quantity of reductions
from individual sources and source
categories aad require these reductions
fru.-n actively emitting, sources. Baaked
credits previously created by sources
would be fully preserved Emitting
sources could then satisfy new
requirement* for reduction* either by
redueing-emvsien* directly or by usfhg
or purchasing equivalent ERCs.
In implementing, thie option, it would
be particularly unaortasU. for stataa to
adjust douuuMacd the estinated total.
reductiona due ta these new regulatory
Dent*, in order ta reflect
- previously afhjajvpri a** a •
result of ha«leina actioosv Alternatively.
states could pacaae new oaairoT.
requirement* ia tents af eqaivaleafc-
reducrton results (eg. "SACT-
equivaleot" cedactiaae in aonaltaiOBMUt
areas) as weB aa specified cooAsi
technie.uee.or emissioa levels. Under
this appmnrh nnrpssary adiliueaal.
control requirements would fee exawasljt
stated in terms of adifteinn a I redaction
responsibilities, ta be met without:
regard to poor trades.**
c. Use or Deposit ofERCs Could be
Temporarily Suspended States may
suspend either ERG use or future EEC
deposits until the state has coeunittad in.
its SIP to secure redactions sufficient-te>
reestablish progress or cure an
increment violation. Use of either type. .
of moratorium would be consistent wiflv
air quality objectives while allowing
sources to retain and eventually use
their entire quantity effaaofced ERCs.
However, these optioiBMHvbe
undesirable because dftiacertainty
regarding the moratorium-'* start
duration, or potential interference with
user planning. This may be especially
true where a moratorium on ose frather
man deposit} is imposed after ERCs
have been banked.
d. Acmgt-the~Boaf(tDacouatia&
Under thie option* the state eeoM
discount all ERCs in the bank by the
same factor. For example, if a 10X ..
additional reduction ia required frooi a
particular category at i
SIF » nev» rlafaonsttalioB. the utata.
would discount all cvoeMty easdessi
ERCs from tooec type* of some* by.
10%. Although the quaatky a/ ERCs held
by a firm will be reduced the overall
supply of ERCs will decrease, while
demand will increase. Indeed other
sources may seek to purchase banked
ERCs from creating sources, in order to
meet the 10% reduction* required of
them. Thus, the price per unit of
remaining ERCs is likely in many case*
to increase.
This option is relatively
straightforward (or VOC or NCv For
SO, or particniats matter new detailed.
source-specific modeling woalaV
generally be reqwived to aMocs** the
discount neceaaary te<
attainment
States may adopt any of I
method* of acconinodatins posefta*'
additional reductions. They aay alao«
adopt any equivalent method which. .
achieves the same objectives."
II Trade* Covered by State
Rube
Thrs
develop fiPApoppfovoMe §esMfte
under mhiiJt cleseesof
may be eaeiopt ireai s»rfeite«a»
requiiuinunl fin ffoheeooept 9fP
• •*• -* ''id
A. Cemenl Principle* f or EvaLtotiaf.* , ^
Generic Rule* • . . .'^ .
A generic rose te^aontowoMa it
asaures that emissions tra
-9V
unbiT
y
under state pueteitaje* t>al ao*- ••'••••
jeJBcieiiUy igpKcatele in uperatfasi t*.
guarantee that emieaioB- IhuM* prudawil
under the rule will not mtafcte wfUi -'
timery ambient atteinnent and- .
'•The preceding cDecuMion generally aeei
the bank is tanned « an ananmnerrt em or
Murtoinment area witk *•
desBonemdoe. ta pnmary nee*
which need bui lack approved
for bubble purposes of banked shutdown
crediM which meet relevant mjuiiemaiila
notice well senitarrv be aUosreat. See eac*
LAI.C.IJI dbooe. BuBbtee in t«Mee.anaai e
be subiect te ipecuii piogteaa leneiianun
However, in order to accommodate paasiats
AOOlltOllari rkXltlCtfOH FV^UinniVlltS ffl OtrWFtm
a manner cooawieat i«itb banks, siaiea a»e»
voluniiiril* taWfi otch «•> i
prior te the iseeancc dy EPA of any fame! aeuce ai
SIP deflciracy mandating such requuenatua. SUtee
may alao chouse U» some here alined? daewf Or
specify jraetet tbee. hi I
oAaeai at n««nsj Whise 'and
audit th* innleaentation of these ruies
as-part afltsrauflne audits of other state
air proarams. See- Section E below*,
Straits*.on; users range of mechanisms
toexemfi bnible trades from individual
SIP revisJooa. WnSa several general
mecnanisma are explained below, states
may-submit other generic rules that
satisfy *»»** boots atincrpte*. See
seoflon I.B Below for sped fie
requirenteou for generic ru4ea ia
priaary nnaslteaBBUBt areaa which
need- bitt, lack aynfoyed-demeftstrations.
1. VOC or NOi Trades
VOC or NOi teadea approved by
states leader a generic rule that assures
notMt imaresiBS in appiicabae baseline
emissions mayoacor without case-by-
caae SIP revteians.
The ambtcBt impacts of VOC and NO,
emission* ace aveawide rather than
source-specific. All such emissions
within a broad area are conquered
compacabla. regardless of plume berght.
topographv-or related factors. Thus. tSe
am Went Impact of trades involving
emfssion* of VOC or NO, from different
source* within MCB an area will by
definition ee eqarve*ent to that of the
sum of applicable beserine emission
limits.for the sources involved in the
••• Srv fooiool* S9 above
bank, il can substantially enhance/SPpleuans
•lions md pravitle a net eir qusrtffy Imierlt bj
reducoHj the Miuram of imiaaineii diet caav
uliin»Kdv tie rMurned 'mat ttm bevk (•*•«•:.
PorVOC end NO, such pound- for-
pouott trades may therefore be treated
under generic rules as equal in ambient
effect where all sources involved in the
-------
/ Voi 51. Nft. as / Tbnaday, Deoewber 4. IMft /,Noric«a
trad* are*
approved by EPA aajeAoi the i
fttlc foi «to>«*f»8*«"j WJujej SOIIfCaS
outside the demonattBlieaana are
sufficiently close tint apound-for-paund
trade can be justified."*
In general generic VOC trading rules
must require that surface coating
emissions be calculated on a solids-
applied basis. The rule should also
specify the maximum time period over
which emissions may be averaged in an
acceptable compliance demonstration.
For VOC that avenging time should not
exceed 24 how* artless theruie contains
language approved by EPA that
expressly aHowa a ledger areiagiug
period. Sea AppeadU D below.
2. Particular SO. CO or Pb Trade*
Qaseaa ot iieMsnilala SO* CO
lead (Pb) trades may also be exempt
from SIP reviekBt if they ace approved
under a stala generic-rule which ssauiae
that valid SRCiieea canaM reeaoaatty
interfere wrttr attainment and
maintenance of airqvaKry standards or
jeopardize PSD increments or
visibility.*1
D€ Miamu Tmdu* Tradea of
perttcuiataa. SO* CO«r
which applicable net *"r-%»»
emissions** do not increase and in
which tha sam of the amisaion increases.
looking only a* the increasing source*
totals lea* man 23 tons per year (TPYT
for paniculate*. 4ft TPY foe suite
dfoxide. U»TPY forearbon rmmoxidF.
or 06 TPY for lead fPb}. after applicable
control requirement*, on? pnxen>
without modeling anr* case-by-cue Sfl*
revisions.'3 -S"ff-h tradaa will bav* at
moat a de auaaut unpacl oo lac**! air
quality because they will pradaeam* mm.
increase in emtssum* and -the •mom* of
emissions being shifted is not significant
in ambient effect under aaeeciated EPA
"' DM di
•ppl) lu certain NO, trade*>
* ' The ambuni tout
eUbortted in thia tna le
polluiinle •ddoaead »^M meoecaon eoea be
limned TI iffiirrej » *«me geneni ur h*«n. ..
" S»» e. 31 above.
w The oda» The embtenf hnpac* of
particolatt.SOa.COorPb'smieaiomt
depends on ska-epadfie acton such aa
topography and prone height which are-
ordinarily evaluated by embient
dispersion modeHng. However. If
applicable baaalna eaueewmsdb not
increase, sources are located in tha
sam immediate vicrtttty. and aO other
Level 1 requirements diaeuseed in
section L&1.B42) above an met H can
reasonably be assumed thai "poond-fdr-
pound" tradaa wUI produce ambient
effects equivalent to thoee which
currently approved air quality-eaodehi
would predict Asa result ttadaa
meeting tha criteria in aacttoa LB.1JM2}
above may be treated in the same
manner as generic VOC and NO, trades.
and exempted from modeling. a*d ratt-
by-case SIP revisions.
EPA will nonuliy approv* geaesic
rales tha • -fine "same immedsasa
vicinity' »* jp to 250 meters betweair
iodividua* emissiea sooscae Javorsesi •
a trade.
Level 11 Trade*. Other paardcaanav -
SO*. CO and Pb Mdea awy^ea h«
exempted from i
*" iior*ienial yp rcvisiorts.
But «£ seete»?A4 ami BTbetor.
•». rrllims in sei line IIT1 h Qlatasmn i
prescribed maaoer. Tha ssata's-^
trading rule moat specify the particeia*
refined model that wiEha empmyadiaiat.
given sifiiarinn. at cri tana. lea lefafling..
mnrials ia sprrifieri rirniantsncea Ta •
limit variability in miiilaliiiujeaiilla llis
rale must also require atJeasia fuILyeafc
of meteorological data, ideatiay the sitea
for thai data, and »p*utfy pfaceduraa.fi»c..
selecting input data (a», winrl ipearl,
stability class, source emission ratej-
which are sufficiently defined to iatisry
replicabitity concerns." In some limited
circumstances, a sufficiently
conservative screening model could be
specified as part of the generic rule. See
section I.B.l.b<3) above.
Level IH Trades. Because of the wide
variability in data input and ose
inherent in full-scale dispersion
modeling. Level III trades must be
MThu pexigrnph should oat be caaitfued la
imply thai new sources *nd modifciilont need ad
addmtad in a rapBcable
following may not m genereibe
exempted under generic nrle* from the
requirement for case-by-case SIP
re visions:
a. Particamte. SOi CO or Pb trades
requiring fall-scale dispersion modeling
under Level 01 (see section I.B.l.b.(4)
above);
b. Particulate. SO». CO or Pb trades
where complex terrain **is within the
area of the source's significant impact or
50 km. whichever is leu. unless the
trade, does not result in a modification of
effective stack heights and the trade
otherwise qualifies as de minimis or
Level L The area of significant impact
can be determined as noted La footnote
21 above and in Appendix E; (T
c. Open dust trades: and
d. Eevef H trades involving process
fugitive particulate. SOi. CO or Pb
efluaaione not discharged through
stacks.**
Inaddlttaat (a lhaabove. in otrier to
protect tha integrity of venous SiP
procaaaaa* •» (aJUwiag type* of trades
may/iaatia>ga*eaai. be exempted under
fliinarin rataa froea lha-requirement for
case by case SIP revisions: (1) Trades
involving ERCs from mobile source
measure*. J2J. trades uworving emission
sources which an.me subject of an
enforcameBt action manifested by
issuance of a notice of violation, an
administnsna order or section 120
action, a the filing-of a judicial
complaint, eaiaea the rule specifies an
atiramie biDolii* defined bv FPA »,
terrain greats*i» hwikt rkan (he physical .vsck
hei|t»oi«iaave«. For bvbole porpoeee. ihn
daduooo is applKahie oo<> u> sources wnih an
inereaee ever bawline enuaaiooa.
•'CenenJty. eaide From Iht exception stxipj
above. Me)ae im>ol»lii| tmnplo tvmtn a» dr^npd
above SMV not be svocoaud under gnrnr. ruin.
Howewec. aUleamsiy wtaa lodeve'oa be^ni
and emi*aea may be «av state. tWesa EPA ha< tc:n.M.
approved avcav addilionai-cntena (or « given
feojraviuc araai as part of a generic ruw. •.'-<,,,
moat apply the general restnetions «'ai*d ,ihov-
«vhen processlm »adv« in UHH areii undrr 'he >l::,.
-------
43852
Federal R«gi*t*r / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thuraday. December 4. 1988 / Notice*
appropriate mechanism for notifyinf
EPA of tht source's bubble application
prior to formal state proposal and for
securing and recording written EPA
concurrence that the bubble meets all
pertinent requirements of the generic
rule. (3) interstate trades. (4) VOC trades
with averaging times longer than 24
hours, unless a state generic rule
expressly providing for longer averaging
times has been approved by EPA. (5)
trades involving work practice and
equipment standards, unless a state
generic rule containing a provision
expressly providing for state evaluation
of such trades in a replicable manner
has been approved by EPA. and (6)
trades involving negotiated RACT
baselines. However, a state generic
trading rule could specify "presumptive
RACT" limits which acceptably define
generic trading baselines where RACT
has not otherwise been defined in the
SIP. While RACT baselines different
from this presumptive limit could still be
used for specific trades, they would
need to be approved as case-by-case SIP
revisions. Where there is no RACT in
the SIP. but EPA has issued a CTG for
sources of the type involved in the trade.
the CTG should be used as the
presumptive RACT-component of the
generic trading baseline.
To the extent necessary, EPA will
issue notices requiring that existing
generic rules be revised to reflect these
restrictions. See section ILE.4. below.
4. Other Generic Mechanisms for
Exempting Paniculate. Sd. CO or Pb
Trades From Case-by-Case SIP
Revisions
EPA will approve other generic
techniques which an demonstrated to
equally protect ambient standard*, PSD
increments. Class I anas, and visibility.
For example, a state could approve a
modeled formula for two or more
specific emission sources which would
satisfy ambient concerns while allowing
firms to define specific permit limits at
each covered emission source. Like
other generic provision*, such a formula
would have to be approved m part of
the SIP. EPA encouagj* sUtes to work
with EPA Regional OAea* when they
seek to develop other generic
mechanisms which meet the tests of
replicability and ambient equivalence
described above.
C. Enforcing Emission Limits Under
Generic Rules
Alternative emission limits approved
under generic rules are considered by
EPA to be federally enforceable so long
as the generic rule specifies the
compliance instrument (permit limits,
etc.) under which the conditions of the
trade will be implemented and ail
substantive and procedural
requirements of the approved rule are
met Generic rules must specify that
such alternative limits become
applicable requirements of the SIP under
$ 110 for purposes of sections 113.120,
and 304 of the Clean Air Act and are
enforceable in the same manner as other
SIP requirements. To assure that EPA
and citizens know what emission limits
apply, generic rules must also specify
that and in what manner, EPA will be
informed of emission limits applicable
before and after the trade. (For
additional issue* related to
enforceabiliry. see section I.A.2 above.
For requirements related to opportunity
for public comment see section 1LF.
below).
D. Generic Bubble Rules in Primary
Nonattainment Areas Which Lade
Approved Demonstrations of
Attainment
Generic rule* will continue to operate
in primary nonattainment anas which
require bat lack approved
demonstrations of attainment, under ta«
following conditions:
1. Bubble* approved under-existing ~
generic bubble-rare* prioMo thw-
effective date of today's pofioy wffinot
be affected by today's requirements*.
2. Kibble* submitted to states under
existing generic rules may continue to
be approved by state* in accord with
those rules, until such rule* an finally
changed, pursuant to specific formal
EPA request to meet the criteria listed
below. Such rates must however, as
requested by EPA. be modified to meet
the criteria below.**
3. Application* for new generic bubble
rule* applicable to these ana*, and
application* for generic rules now
pending before EPA. will be approved
provided they meet the criteria beta*
and all other applicable requirements of
today?* policy.
Criteria for Approvable Generic
Bubble Rules. New and revised generic
bubble rules applicable to primary
nonattainment anas which require but
lack approved demonstration* of
attainment must for bubble* in those
areas:
" to tht interim. EPA expect* slat** to ensure. M
far M feasible, thai bubble* approved under
sxistlng generic rule* are consistent with thte policy
M w*U 11 with to* term* of their EPA-approved
rulm. Slate* should be aware that without this or
linilw precaution*, continued approval of bubble*
under existing generic ruin containing Identified
deficiencies may cnaw or accentual* plan
deficiencies which may have to be corrected at a'
later dale or compenMted for by other mean*. See
section E.4. below.
a. Uselawest-of-actuai-SIP-allowable-
or-RACT-allowabl* emissions baseimej
for ail source* involved in the trade:70
b. Using baseline emissions defined
above, meet applicable de minima
Level I or Level IT modeling tests for
ambient equivalence, as appropriate:
c. Produce an overall emission
reduction from each bubble equal (in
percentage terms) to the larger of a 20%
reduction in emissions remaining after
applicable baselines, or to the overall
emission reduction from controllable
stationary sources (in percentage terms)
needed to attain in the area (i.e.. at least
equal to the source-by-source emission
reductions that would be required for a
full demonstration of attainment taking
into account "uncontrollable" area or
other stationary sources and expected
emission reductions from mobil
sources).'1 This determination must be
'• For detailed diacuaaion of theee baselines. ror**b***vaae
p («.»..
1300
1500
4.000
Total.
Therefor* (he red
contrattab** stationary sources are 9.450-
Um-UMTPY
And the percent emission reduction required from
osjBtrolUM* sletioawry source* to attain n
II
Thttadwnetc
>do
i required from each
s bubWe would be M* li.«- the reductions
produced by applicable baselines (e.g.. application
of a RACT eminiof) rsjte) plu* whatever percent
tedneOoarw emt*9ip* rajtintns after this RACT
limit to sufftbent to yield the 94% lotal).
Stale* thai wnh to avoid SIP revision* for sources
for which RACT haa not yet been defined in an
approved SIP provision nay incorporate
-presumptive RACT* Itmila («.*- 80% reduction for
VOC) IB their generic rules. Source* would then
have the option of accepting the** RACT limits for
generic babble purpeea*. or nefoueJing different
RACT llnila through the SIP reviaione process.
However, where a source Involved m s trade \> one
for which EPA ha* isaoad a CTG. but ihe stale has
not yet adopted the CTG-apeafied limit as RACT
and no RACT ha* yet been specified by the siate fot
that souree. the presumptive or negotiated RACT
limit for the lr*d* must be at leest a* protective as
ihe CTC for
-------
Fed«rsJ Register / Vel SL No. 239 / Thunday Daenmr-, A ~~ / v «
"^"^^""•"•"•••'••••»»»»»»a»»»aa»»»aaa»»»M»»aa»»aa»»»^^^ii.i^^lI___-^:^Bgr *• *^» » ifOtlCeS
submitted with the rule, and must us*
the sane type and qnanty of analysis as
that required for an EPA-approvable
SIP; and
d. Provide assurances, in conjunction
with the State's submittal of the generic
rule to EPA. that the state (i) is making
reasonable efforts to develop a complete
approvable SIP that will achieve the
percent emission reduction from
controllable sources described in the
previous paragraph and (ii) intends to
adhere to the schedule for development
of such a SIP (including dates for
completion of emissions inventory and
subsequent increments of progress), as
stated.in the letter accompanying the
submittal or in previous letters. In
addition, to ensure that generic
approvals continue to complement and
do not interfere with attainment
planning, EPA will require the state to
include the specific assurances listed at
section I.A.l.b.(3) above in or with its
notices of proposed and-final approval
of each bubbfo issued under the generic
rule in such a nonaruu'nmeBt area.11
£ EPA Oinnight of Cymric Ruhr
In order to ensure proper
implementation -of EPA-approved
generic trading rule*. EPA intends to-fal
examine sad comment on. together with
any other pnbffc conunenlen the
information provided for*individual
trades proposed under a generic rale, (b)-
conduct reviews-of isxtfvkmal trad** ,
approved under such a rale, and (c)
periodically audit the implementation of
the generic rule itseff.
1. EPA Comment en Trades ProposeeV
Under Generic Rules
When processing emissions tradas
under generic rules, states are required
to provide EPA and the public with
adequate notice and opportunity to
comment See sections ILF. and ILG.
below. EPA will use stale procedures iar
notice and comment to oversee the
implementation of generic rules without
delaying state processing of trading
applications.
The information wjaieh a state must
provide to EPA by toe first day of the
comment period (see section JLG.
below) is generally sufficient for EPA ts>
~rThme refer rcqvrrtmtfUi muattMinetetad Ma
contingent pniwMm in all future gaa«fic nit*, wittt
the comuia«a>.> Hlggirrt M apply to IwbWta to
nn»«—r •mwmiMMfH ara»» nhicti I
determint that a trading application tr
being procsasad prayaiTy. Whare this
information is not sufficient EPA may
request the application Ittaif. and the-
state oust provide it promptly.
Where EPA sleets to provide any
comments on the proposed approval it
will do so IB writing, by the dose of the
comment period specified in the state's
notice. ETA may also testify at any
public heansjg held pursuant to the
approval of a trading application under
a generic rule. Trading applicants and
state officials are strongly advised to
address EPA's comments, and when
necessary to incorporate an appropriats
response to those comments in the final
approval docui
B»»S
2. Reviews of Individual Bubbles
Approved Under Generic Rules
Reviews of Individual generic bubble
approvals, span from tha regaiariy
scheduled reviews associated wita
activities under EPA's National Air
Audit System (sss section ffl » * below).
may be conducted at any time by EPA hi
order to promptly address identified or
suspected problems ano to avon*
patterns of improper approval or othar
adverse effects which aught ac
««•*«•*« vuwiv wuicn laigllT SU4L
before tha next biannual amfitur
conducted:
3. EPA Aanla of maCsnatal • *
IinpleiMntsnon of Generis Ma*
Under tha National Air Aadtt flysiaBi.
EPA conducts a program audit ofjsacb. ..
state agency responsible, foe ~ '
implementing the SIP and dalspslasV -
federal programs.'* Thaa* audits an .
nimmtly mrrlart nut iaa s htaaanal
basis. As. part of tha National Air Audit
System. EPA will conduct aa-in-deptk
file audit of a representative *amat» el
generic trading approvals issued by. th»
relevant stata.
4. Deficient Generic Tradas
As GisGsssso; soovs, gBttsnc rasas cast.
expedite the approval prooaas Isr
certain classes of amissioas tsades.
because they aUow such- trade* to bat
approved by states without undaigsaJig
a subsequent federal rdeauddnr.
process. I lowever. to be consMasssl'.
valid by EPA. * trstis approved unaer
teaaric rale asiat
(1) Bvoaa of a class of trades wr
within the scope of tha geasrc n it
(2) Be approved'oAar the f*f>?->: P.
has been approved by EPA. w.t
(3) Meet all the provisions r; 'he
generic rule as approved by E71 A .
If a state-approved emissicr.i ;TS ae
dots not meet all these /eqa^r-ren's it
cannot be considered part of ±e SI? a:
by definition cannot replace prior valic
emission limits in the SIP. See 4«FR
20S54-5S (April 8.1981). Should EPA
determine, as a result of its oversight
activities, that a state-approved trade .
inconsistent with ths above
requirements, it will notifiy the state ar
tource in writing and specify any
necessary remedial measures. In such
circumstances. EPA may take
appropriate reaiedial action to assure
•ttainmani and maintenance, including
direct snfatoament of the original SIP
limits.™
5. Deficrent Generic Rules
Exaataagaaaaric rales approved undi
praviotas EPA aoiicy and guidance JM>
nqtsini revisaaai in order to make them
consistent wita today's final policy. In
sdaiMsJSL»fBSMricni*»approv«dby
E"A naalsrlnslnsl policy may
sobseqaMsMry be Isand- to be defies
somasaspaft Because EPA-appro\
generic rates hawstindapendent fore
law. thay eaai only aa> amended upon
camplatKNraf a formal SUP tavision
m osoiar tar eitsnra mat*genetic rales
araconsartant with tha Agency's carre
rniisshnsj Ttsdtafftrilcy. EPA will
publish notices tn the Fedsnl Register
whick ioaBtify any generic rules
reqmrmsj formal modificstioa,7* These
noticaa witt invatify specific deficienci >
and means for correcting them, and wi;
sat form a schsduis for submission anc
review of revised rates. These notices
will start afiBcted states to the danger
that coatiflned professing of trades
"tai
10 a SIP c«U M«t »» a»p»»»BB>
•InrnimtT-aiifn i^tjf tin aanam ni» mi
p*nod will oa ba
mfnrrrmmi -ir miamaalns
foMitf to b* ineoiMMM
» 9ft ouy h**« approved itati
* to fcatettoMt om«r>« '
-
fc
S«* t+ NMMml Mr AwM OMMawAr F»
f*n ~f 1trT)iiin l~ii *igiii
-------
43054
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday, December 4. 1986 / Notices
under these rules may create or
accentuate plan deficiencies which may
have to be corrected at a later date or
compensated by other means. Where
states fail to remedy deficiencies
identified in the notice within the
prescribed period. EPA may either
rescind its previous approval of the rule.
or issue a notice of SIP deficiency under
section 110(a)(2)(H) of the Act.
F. Public Comment
For emissions trades processed under
generic rules, existing state statutes or
regulations will generally provide for
adequate public notice and opportunity
to comment, including opportunity for
judicial review sufficient, to make
comment effective. Under such statutes
or regulations, after the state ha«
reviewed a bubble application
submitted pursuant to an approved
generic rule, a newspaper or similar
notice is typically published providing a
comment period (usually thirty (30)
days) on the proposed decision to
approve or disapprove the application.
This notice generally informs the public
that the proposed approval document
(license, order, permit, consent
agreement, etc.). the-application itself
(with the exception of any portion'
entitled to confidentiality under state or
federal law*7, and the technical analysis
performed try the state Hi making its'
proposed determination, are available
for review at specified times and
locations. The notice also offers the
opportunity for a public hearing.
Under today's policy, the state must
also notify the relevant Federal Land
Manager if an emissions trade will take
place within 100 kilometers of a PSD
Class I area. Notification most occur
early enough in the review process to
allow at least 30 days for the submittai
of comments before-the trade will be
approved by the state.
Where adequate procedures for public
notice and comment are not already
provided in existing state statutes or
regulations, such procedures must be
provided as part of an EPA-approved
generic rules. In all progpscd and final
generic bubble action**afMea-mu*t
clearly and publicly iJetffiJy betrr the
pre- and post-trade actiraf and allowable
emissions of each source involved in the
trade, so that the ambient effects of each
bubble may be known.
To ensure adequate public awareness
consistent with 5 304 of the Clean Air
Act. state generic rules or other existing
state laws or regulations mast also make
publicly available any changes to
71 The specific poltutanti emitted by the source.
me amount of thos* pollutants, and their amoient
air impvct may not be deemed confidential.
emission limits which result from trades
approved under a generic rule.
G. EPA Notification
In addition to the above requirements
for public notice and comment the
generic rule or other state provisions
must require thai state*, by the first day
of the public comment period provide
the appropriate EPA Regional Office
(see addresses in Appendix A) with a
copy of the publk notice, the proposed
approval document, and die technical
analyses performed in evaluating the
trading application, together with any
summary of those analyses which is
available for public review.
State provisions must also require that
immediately upon issuance of a final
generic trading, approval, the state will
forward two copies of that document to
the relevant EPA Regional Office, and
will also submit to EPA any additional
documentation which is included in
comments or the post-comment record
and supporta-that final state approval.
Any notices issued by EPA to correct
notice and comment procedures which
do not meet these requirements under
current or future generic rules will not
trigger special progress requirements oc
otherwise affect this operation of those •
rules. Because of the importance of .
adequate public and EPA notice.
affected states should, however; comet
deficient notice- procedures to the extent .
practicable, ia the interim period before
formal rule revisions are submitted and
approved.
H. Rulemaking on Generic Haiti
EPA will process acceptable generic
trading rules for approval as revisions to
SIPs as expeditiousiy as possible. In the
interim, states are encouraged to use
parallel-processing SIP revision
procedures (see 46 FR 44477; Sept. 4.
1981) wherever practical. Trades may
not be genetically approved by a state
until EPA has published a notice of final
approval of the generic trading rule in
the Federal Register.
III. Trades Not Covered by State Generic
Rules
In the absence of a generic rule, statea
and sources must use case-by-case SIP
revisions to effect bubble or external
offset trades. Individual trades may also
fall outside the scope of an approved-
generic rule and still be implemented as
case-by-case SIP revisions. The
principles described in the Policy
Statement and this Document will be
used to evaluate these emission trades.
Because of the ability of the case-by-
case SIP revision process to take
account of greater individual variations.
many trades which could not be
accomplished under a generic rule may
nevertheless be approved as case-by-
case SIP revisions. Through- this SIP
revision process, states and sources may
also demonstrate that a general
principle discussed in Section I above
does not apply to their particular
circumstances, or that such a principle
may be satisfied in other ways.
EPA will make reasonable efforts to
take prompt action on SIP trading
proposals after a state has ruled on an
individual application and submitted it
to the Agency. EPA encourages "parallel
processing" of such proposals, with EPA
and state officials conducting concurrent
review so that both agencies can give
public notice of proposed action at
roughly the same time. EPA can then
take final action after the state
completes its proceeding*, provided the
state does not substantially alter the
proposal after public notice. EPA will
also publish noncontroversial SIP
revisions aa direct final actions.
converting thenrto proposals only if
request* to submit adverse comments
are received within 30 days (see
generally 46 FR 44477, September 4.
1981). In all bubble actions EPA will
clearly identify (or require states te,
identify, as appropriate) both pre- and
pott-trad* actual and allowable
emissions for each source involved in
the trade, so that the ambient effects of
each bobble ma; be known.
Appendix A—Regional EPA Emissions
"Trading Coordinator*
Region I. David Conroy (APS-2310).
State Air Programs Branch. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region I. {oho F. Kennedy Federal
Building. Boston. Massachusetts
02203.-(617) 505-3252: FTS 835-3252
Region II Betty Martinovich, Air Branch.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region U. 26 Federal Plaza.
New York. New York 10007. (212) 284-
2517: FTS 264-2517
Region III: Cynthia Stahl. Air Programs
Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III. 841 Chestnut
Building. Philadelphia. Pennsylvania
19101. (215) 597-6337; FTS 597-9337
Region IV: Melvin Russell. Air Programs
Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IV. 345 Courtland
Street N.E.. Atlanta. Georgia 30308
(404) 257-2884: FTS 257-2864
Region V: Joe Paisie. Air Compliance
Branch. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region V. 230 South
Dearborn Street. Chicago. Illinois
80804. (312) 886-5777: FTS 888-5777
Region Vt Bill Riddle. Air Program
Branch. U.S. Environmental
Protections Agency. Region VI. Pint
-------
Federal Register / Vol 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
International Building. 1201 Elm
Street Dallas, Texas 75270. (214) 767.
9870: FTS 7&-9870
Region Vlt Charles Whittnore, Air
Support Branch. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Region VII. 324
East llth Street. Kansas City.
Missouri 64106. (913) 236-2896: FTS
757-2896
Region VIII: Dale Wells. Air Programs
Branch. U.& Environmental Protection
Agency. Region VIII. 1860 Uncoln
Street Denver. Colorado 80296, (303)
293-1773; FTS 564-1773
Region IX: Nancy Harney. Air
Management Division. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Region DC 215 Fremont Street San
Francisco. California 94105. (415) 974-
7858: FTS 454-7658
Region JC David Bray, Air Programs
Branch. ITS. Environmental Protection
Agency. Region X1200 6th Avenue.
Seattle. Washington 98101. (206) 442-
4253: FTS 399-1233
Appendix B—Definitions of "Actual"
"Allowable" aad "Baseline" Fmissinns
f«» PnqmfTr frf Emlsthms Trading
As used in this document with respect
to bubbles, a source's "actual"
emissions equal its avenge historical
emissions, in tons per year, for the two-
year period preceding the source's
application to bank or trade emission
reduction credit Another time period
may be deemed more representative of
typical operations, but the applicant or
state must show that actual emissions of
such other period are consistent with air
quality planning for the area. The
definition of "actual emissions" for new
source review purposes is somewhat
different > See 45 FR 52745 (August 7,
1980): 40 CFR 51.18(j)(l)(xii). 51 J4(b)(21).
52.21(b)(21) and 52J4(f)(13).
A soorces's "allowable" emissions in
tons per year are calculated using the
maximum rated capacity of the source
(unless the source is subject to federally
enforceable operating restrictions) and
the most stringent ofc(a) A standard
applicable under 40 CFR Parts 60 or 61:
(b) any applicable SP emissions
limitation, inrlnrHm thaisn with a future
compliance date: orfc) an emissions
rate set in a federally enforceable permit
condition. See 40 CFR 51.18 (j)(l)(xi).
51.24(b)(16). 51.21(bK16) and 52^4{f)(ll).
The same definition of "allowable
emissions" appears at each of these
citations. See also 45 FR 52745 (August
7,1980).
For bubble*, a source's "baseline"
emissions are equal to the product of its
1 For instance, the calculation oriental emisaiona
for netting pnrpoM* i* u of Iht dale of Ibt tv«it
that bring* about iht reduction.
(1) emotion rate ("ER"J. specified in
terms of mass emission per unit of
production or throughput (e.g, pounds
SOt per million BTU or pounds of VOC
per weight of solids applied); (2) average
hourly capacity utilization ("CU")(e.g»
millions of BTU per hour or weight of
solids applied per hour): and (31 number
of hours of operation ("H") during the
relevant time period. I.e.. baseline
emissions » ER x CU x H. Net baseline
emissions for a bubble are the sum of
the baseline emissions of all sources
involved in the trade.
In attainment areas and
nonattainment anas with approved
demonstration* of attainment, a source's
baseline emissions for bubble purposes
must generally be determined using the •
lower of "actual" or "allowable" values
for each of the three baseline factors.
Actual values for these factors are
determined based on the source's
average historical valuea for the factors
for the two-year period preceding the
source's application to bank or trade
emission reduction credits. As discussed
above, another time period may be
deemed more representative of typical
operations, but the emissions for that
other period must be shown to be
consistent with air quality planning tor
the area. A source's allowable values for
the three baseline (actors an
determined bawd on its lowest federally
enforceable Qmft for those factors (i.e,
the lowest Ifanrt specified m an
applicable SIP. PSD or oner NSR permit
issued under an EPA-approved program.
compliance order, or consent decree).
including those with a future compliance
date.
The actual values for any of the three
baseline factors, when higher than
corresponding allowable values, may
not be used by e source in calculating
baseline emissions (Le.. reductions
down to compliance levels cannot
qualify for emission reduction credit).
The allowable values for one or more-of
these factors, when higher than the
corresponding actual values, may be
used in calculating bubble baseline
emissions for a source only in the
following circumstances:
• Where, in a nonattainment or
attainment area with an approved
demonstration, the applicant shows that
the demonstration assumes allowable
value(s) for the factors) in question.
Such a showing must be based on
written evidence.
• Where; in an attainment area, the
approved demonstration does not
assume allowable value(s) for the
baseline factorfs) in question, but the
applicant performs satisfactory ambient
tests to show that the use of such
allowable value(i) will not jeopardize
attainment and maintenance of VA '
PSD increments or visibility. Per
paniculate matter or SOj, this wt'
require at least a Level II modern.,
analysis using-actual emissions for>L
pre-trade case.* Where such an ana.'
is submitted to fustify allowable vahi
fora case-by-case SlP'revisfon bubbi
the Region may require * • u'tional
technical suppor ' deer.»c necessar
to protect applicable standards or
increments. See Section I.B.I.b above.
• Where, in a non-attainment area
with an approved demonstration of
attainment the demonstration does nc
assume allowable value(s) for the
baseline factorfs) in question, but the
applicant demonstrates through a Lev.
CD modeling analysis that the use of
such allowable value(s) will not
jeopardize attainment and maintenanc
of NAAQS or PSD increments.
• Where, in an attainment area or a
nonattainment area with an approved
demonstration, a source has a new
source preconstruction permit issued
after the PSD baseline date or the base
year of the attainment demonstration.
such cases, the applicant may use the
value(s) of ER. CU and H upon which
the new source permit was approved
While the Emissions Trading Policy
does permit sources to use allowable
values for ER. CUand H in determine
baseline emissions for bubbles und
certain carefully prescribed conditn.
the approach taken recognizes that SIP
demonstrations are frequently based or
a "hybrid" of allowable and actual
values, and that bubble baselines in
these areas must accurately reflect SiP
assumptions for all three baseline
factors, or be justified by appropriate
modeling, to maintain SIP integrity.
In nonattainment areas needing but
lacking approved demonstrations of
attainment, sources involved in a bubbl.
must use "lowest-of-acrual-SIP-
allowabie-or-RACT-allowable"
emissions baselines. The ER factor for
such baselines is based on the actual
emission rate, the SIP or other federally
enforceable emission limit, or a RACT
emission limit whichever is lower, as of
the time of the source's applicable to
bank or trade, whichever is earlier. The
CU and H factors for such baselines are
baaed on the lower of actual or
* Where iht PSD baMline has been trgge-ea arc
such amMion* data it available, tht pre-buoble
ntuation for soureet which were m existence or
commenced comtruciion prior to the PSD baseime
dale should bt modeled using emission* consistent
with the PSO baseline" concentration is defined m
40CFK St.24(bl(13| and 5121(b|[13| However.
efflitafoiu aad aisociatad parameter* msy be based
on more recent valuta where past emissions data
cannot readily be obtained, for related pnncipi
M* section I A.1 c.lJI above.
-------
4385ft
Federal RefiateT / VoL 51. No. 233 V Thursday. December 4. 1MB / Notices
allowable valuee4or these fetter*
Actual valuta for CU ami rrmaet be
determined using the vomit avenge
historical values for the two year period
preceding the source's application to
bank or trade, unless another two year
period it shown to be more
representative of typical operation*.
For sources which banked or sought
to bank credit in these nonattainment
areas prior to publication of today's
notice, the "date of application to bank"
is the date of written application to the
state to bank credit through a formal
bank or informal banking mechanism for
use in future trade*. For sources which
seek to bank credit in these areas
following publication of today's notice,
the date of application to bank will be
the date of written application to the
state to make a reduction ttato-
enforceablc through or concurrent with
use of a formal bank or-informal
banking mechanism.
Appendix C—Approvabla Modeling
Approacnes
U.S. EnviroameaUl Protection Agency
Office of Air. Noise; and Radiation
February 17.1983.
Memorandum
Subject Emissions Trading Poticy—
Technical Clarification*
From: Sheldon Meyers, Director. Office
of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (ANR-443)
To: Director, Air and Waste
Management Division. Regions B-
IV. Vt-vm. X: Director. Air
Management Division, Regions IV.
IX
The proposed emission trading policy
was published on April 7,1982. ia the
Federal Register. During the initial
implementation of the proposal.
numerous emissions trading issues have
arisen including several relating to the
technical requirements of dispersion
modeling and control strategy
evaluations. To address these modeling
issues, a special workshop was held to
solicit recomendations from Regional
meteorologists/modelers ae well as the
various Headquarters technical staff.
The Standing Committee on Emissions
Trading has also considered these issues
and the recommendations of the
workshop group.
This memo is intended to outline the
results of these meetings and to provide
interim guidance. It is effective
immediately and will be incorporated
into the final Agency policy when
promulgated. The following revisions or
clarifications on modeling for TSP, CO.
and SOi, are intended to supplement the
criteria included i& the April 7. IBtt.
emissions trading policy stateavent
Level I Analysit
• To ensure air quality equivalence
under Level I analysis (modeling is not
required), trades cannot be approved
when complex terrain (terrain greater
than any stack with increasing
emissions) is within the area of
significant impact of the source or SO
kilometers, whichever is less.
• Stacks with increasing emissions
must be at least good engineering,
practice (GEP) to prevent dowawash.
• FagiUve process and stack sources
can be traded under Level I (La, process
for process, process for stack. and stack
for. stack) aa long ae the •»•*<•""-
distance between any emitting points ia
less than 250 meters, (This is true for
trades under generic rules as well aa for
trades impiesMnted by SIP revisions.
The effective stack height requirement
in the April policy remains.)
• Since trades involving open dot
sources an very difficult to address to a
replicabie Banner, they canant currently
be approved aider generic Level I
bubble regstetians.{Beitara
-------
Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1986 / Notices
already invested significant resources in
• good-faith analysis based on prior
methods of demonstrating ambient
equivalence, (f you have specific
questions regarding implementation of
these policy changes, please call Tom
Helms.
cc: Chief. Air Branch. Regions I-X.
Meteorologist. Regions 1-X. Mike
Levin. Joe Tikvart. Darryl Tyler
Appendix D—Approvable Averaging
Time* for VOC Trade.
U.S. EnvironmeotaJ Protecdoa Ageocy
Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards. Research Triangle Park.
North Carolina 27711
iMHiary 20.1984.
Memorandum
Subject: Averaging Tunes for
Compliance With VOC Emission
Limits—SIP Revision Policy
From: John R. O'Connor. Acting
Director. Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards (MD-10)
To: Director. Air and Waste
Management Division. Regions II-
IV. VT-VTIL X. Director. Air
Management Division. Regions L V.
DC.
The purpose of this memorandum is to
clarify the Agency's policy regarding
emission time averaging for existing
sources of volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). Numerous State
implementation Plan (SIP) revisions.
both broad regulations and source-
speciftc changes, have been submitted
which provide for compliance
determinations by "time averaging"
emissions of VOC for periods exceeding
24 hours. These requests and the
following policy on this subject were
discussed extensively at a recent
meeting attended by those Regional
Offices which have the most pending
actions (Regions L UL IV, V); the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards:
and the Office of General Counsel. This
policy represents the consensus of the
meeting attendees.
The objective of EPA's national VOC
emissions control program is the timely
attainment and maintenance of the
national ambient air quality standard
(NAAQS) for ozone. SIP revisions and
other regulatory actions relating to VOC
control must maintain the integrity of
this basic objective. There should be
assurances that VOC emission control is
reasonably consistent with protecting
this short-term ozone standard. Further.
since SIP*s and associated VOC control
programs comtemplaie the actual
application of reasonably available
control technology (RACT). regulatory
actions that incorporate longer term
averages to circumvent the installation
of overall RACT level controls cannot
be allowed.
Current Agency guidance specifies the
use of a daily weighted average for VOC
regulations as the preferred alternative
where continuous compliance is not
feasible. An example might be where a
facility operates in a batch manner with
multiple lines and various products.
Reference is made to the December 8.
1980. Federal Register (copy attached)
where can coating operators are
allowed to "bubble" several production
lines and average emissions over a 24-
hour time period.
The preferred daily weighted average
alternative may not be feasible in all
cases. Where the source operations are
such that daily VOC emissions cannot
be determined or where the application •
of RACT for each emission point (line.
machine, etc.) is not economically or
tec Ttically feasible on a daily basis,
longer averaging times can be permitted
under certain conditions. In determining
feasibility, consideration might be given,
for example, to the extent to which
modifications can be made to testing.
inventory, or recordkeeping practices in
order to quantify daily emissions. Also.
variability or lack of predictability in a
source's daily operation might be
considered as well as availability of
control technology or the physical
impediment or restriction to control
equipment installation. In order to allow
longer than daily averaging in SIP
regulations, the following conditions or
principles must be honored:
1. Real reductions in actual emissions
must be achieved, consistent with the
RACT control levels specified in SIFi or
the control technique guidelines (CTG's).
These limits are typically expressed in
terms of VOC per unit of production (a
qualitative term such as Ibs VOC/gal
coating). When it is not feasible to
specify emission limits in such terms.
emission limits per unit of time can be
approved provided that:
a. The emission limits reflect typical
(rather than potential or allowable)
production rate and operating hours.
These emission limits must truly reflect
emissions reductions consistent with
RACT and are not simply an artificial
constraint on potential emissions. This
must be supported in the SIP revision by
historical production and operation
data.
b. Nonproduction or equipment
downtime credits are not allowed in the
emission limit calculation unless a
Federally enforceable document
specifically restricts operation during
these times. Such credit must b« b;.=
-------
43651
Fedarai Register / Voi tt. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1966 / Notices
the primary responsibility for *
determining the appnweorrrty at
application requests. Hpvravsr. in order
to assure Regional consisssacf;
coordination with the Office of Air
Quality Planning and Standards staff rs
encouraged during the initial
development of any single "time
average" SIP revision or regulation.
Also, all SIP revisions involving long-
term averaging must be proposed in the
Federal Register with an explanation of
how the principles listed above have
been satisfied.
Should there be any questions on this
policy, please call Tom Helms (FTS 629-
5526) or Brock Nicholson (FTS 629-
5516).
Attachment
cc:
Barbara Bank off
Ron Campbell
Jack Farmer
Mike Levin
Ed Reich
B.|. Steigerwaid
Darryl Tyler
Peter Wyckoff
Chief. Air Branch. Regions I-X
Regional Administrator. Region* I-X.
Append* B-!U£i of Slfrikealb
for Appcwia* "&a*bn Tara** PM,
SOi end CO TmtH Itetar Uvd I
Modehaf Approaches
Appendix E indicates on its vertical
axis the post-trade emiseion rate for the
stack with increasing emissions (E). and
on its horizontal axis the radius of
significant impact (R) within which level
I trades may be approved despite the
presence of complex terrain outside that
radius.
The curves in Appendix E have been
generated using a normally conservative
screening model. VALLEY, to estimate R
for each E. using the 24-hour and 3-hour
air quality impact significance level for
SOi and the 24-hour signiGcance level
for paniculate matter (PM] which have
been established for level II modeling. It
was assumed that the short-term
standards would be controlling.
The F-stability class was assumed.
and wind speed was presumed to be oae
meter per second for estimating the
radius of significant impact for the
three-hour period* and 1& mater*, per
second for the 24-hour cases, la.
developing the three-hour curve, it waa
assumed that F-stability and a wind
speed of one meter per second would
persist for aa •»«»* aa fourteen
consecutive ham. la dewetoaiosj Am M-
hour curves; it was assumed that F-
stability wttb a wind1 speed of 2J xeterc
per second would occur for six hours of
any 24-hour period. *
This Appendix provides different
estimates for SO* and PM because the
significance levels for these pollutants
are different For CO, the R value for E
value may be determined by multiplying
the E for SOi by twenty (20). This ie a
conservative approach towards
determining radii of significant impact
for CO. Where the effective height of the
stack with increasing emissions is not
changed (e.g., where the only change is
in the sulfur content of fuel burned), the
change in the hourly emission rate (E)
may be used in lieu of E."
1 The corvee in Appendix E wm derived using
the estunptiona described above w that they could
be used lo delaaiiai radii of rignfieMt impact for
sources in any part of tht country. However. It if
possible that tor tonw snas. local meteorological
condition will be each thai alternative, lest
eonaervativa leattoratafleat aeBamptiona can be
employed in detarauaina theea radii. Where tute*
can show that the oat of such alternative
saeiiapUou ia appreartwe-for a given area, they
devatof tllaraaait tiaiea ar farmaiaa tor
detarminirn radM of naaifirial impact and mbiafl
them *ar faviaw tat apptaval by EPA. either in
contancana wrth-an IndtMdnal bubble lubmiltal or
at part of a generic rule. Stalat ere advised to fork
ctaealy with (aa apamsjrtm ItifMtwl OSoe <• say
affort la aevatop mca ahanative approaahea.
-------
^J^2^TiT«jnCTS 43ST
FIGURE I:
Radfi of Sisniftcant Impact for PM & SO2 fo, Different Averagh,, Times
ton —
1
UJMQCOMl
45678 910 20 3040 50607080901
Radius of Significant Impact (Km)
-------
43860 Federal Register / Vol. 51. No. 233 / Thursday. December 4. 1996 / Notices
Appendix F— CFR Part 51 Conversion
Table
On November 7, 1988 (51 FR 406W)
EPA restructured CFR Part SI and
renumbered many of that part's
sections. Because most readers will be
more familiar with prior designations.
today's notice contains citations based
on Part 51 as it existed before this
restructuring. A detailed finding list of
the old versus new citations can be
found in Table 2 of the Preamble of the
November 7 notice. Today's readers
may also use the following table to
convert today's Part 51 citations to the
corresponding new ones.
CFR Part 51 Convtnkm Ttbto
Old -10 CFR 11 Citation ,V»w 40 CFR 31
Citation
51.18 ' Subptrt I
Sl.lSti) 51.16NI)
Sl.l«j)UI(xl
S1.1XJ)(l)(xi|
Sl.l«i)(ll(xii|
M.18(k| 51.16Kb)
51.22 51.281
S1.24 S1.168
51.18«b|U3)
n
51-24(bHl«l
5V24(bM23J 51.1«8(bK23|
[FR Doc 86-27002 Filed 12-3-8* 8:45 am}
•NXMO COM MM-W-M
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.2
-------
«< P«OV
PN 113-37-09-23-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP 2 3 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM:
Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator f ,4*^./<*.
for Air and Radiation sf '^J
\» \. C*«
Thomas L. Adams Jr. "-M**»»x**^r W. ^N^a-
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Monitoring
TO:
Francis S.
General Counsel
Office of General Counsel
Addressees
One critical function that your offices perform is to
assure that regulations developed for stationary sources
by the States under the Clean Air Act are enforceable and
legally sufficient. Our regulations require that the state
implementation plans ("SIPs") must "be adopted as rules and
regulations enforceable (emphasis added) by the State agency"
(40 C.F.R. S51.281 (1987)). We are concerned that review of
SIPs for enforceability has not been receiving adequate atten-
tion. The Agency sometimes experiences difficulties in its
efforts to enforce the current rules because they are not
sufficiently clear. The Regional Offices are at the forefront
of the federal SIP approval process. The purpose of this
memorandum is to remind you of the importance of doing the
review necessary to assure that. all SIP plans and revisions
are enforceable and in conformance with the Act. Please do not
forward for approval SIPs which fail to satisfy the enforce-
ability criteria in this memorandum.
Backaround
Recent information indicates that the attention being paid
to SIP approvals is declining, particularly for enforceability.
The Office of General Counsel reviews regulations as to their
adequacy under applicable law and Agency'policy, but. not for
enforceability. This void is not being filled by other offices.
Often, the problems with enforcing the regulations are not
immediately obvious and only become known where a case or issue
focuses on the particular reaulation. At the October 1986
-------
-2-
Annapolis meeting of Air Program Directors and Regional Counsel
Air Branch Chiefs, a number of problems in recent enforcement
cases due to difficulty in interpreting and enforcing regula-
tions were discussed. With the recent werK being done to
address the nonattainment problem, it is even more critical
that regulations be clear and enforceable.
It is appropriate that the Regional air compliance staff
and the Regional Counsel's Office have primary responsibility
for this enforceability review because they have the most direct
experience in compliance and rule interpretation. They also
have resources allocated through their workload models specifi-
cally for SIP review.
Timing of Review
The Regions should try to review developing State SIP
provisions prior to final approval by the State, when the
provisions are at their most malleable stage. In line with
this, each Region should provide its States with a copy of the
implementing guidance associated with this memorandum and a
briefing which outlines the enforceability requirements for new
SIP submittals. If we provide the States with more explicit
guidance and make earlier contacts to resolve problems, we can
avoid instances where EPA is pressured to settle for a flawed
regulation only because it is better than its predecessor.
Enforceabilitv Criteria
Your review should ensure that the rules in question are
clearly worded and explicit in their applicability to the
regulated sources. Vague, poorly defined rules must become a
thing of the past. SIP regulations that deviate from this
policy are to be disapproved pursuant to Section 110(a) of the
Clean Air Act, with appropriate references in the C.P.R. Speci-
fically, we are concerned that the following issues be directly
addressed. 'The rule should be clear as to who must comply and
by what date. The effect, if any, of changed con 'itions (e.g.,
redesignation to attainment) should be set forth. The period
over which compliance is determined and the relevant test
method to be used should be explicitly noted. Provisions which
exempt facilities under certain sizes or emission levels must
identify explicitly how such size or level is determined.
Also, provisions which allow for "alternate equivalent techniques'
or "bubbles" or any other sort of variation of the normal mod-e
of compliance must be completely and explicitly defined and must
make clear whether or not EPA case-by-case approval is required
to make such a method of compliance federally effective.
-------
-3-
Conclusion
SIP revisions should be written clearly/ with explicit
language to implement their intent. The plain language of all
rules, "as well as the related Federal Register notices, should
be complete, clear and consistent with the intended purpose of
the rules. Specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SIP process and structure.
We have attached detailed guidance to assist you in
implementing this memorandum.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I-x
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions 17 and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII.and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
-4-
cc: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Alan w. Eckert
Associate General counsel
Air Division
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
Air Enforcement Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SEP
1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT
FROM
Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions
for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency
Michael S. Alushin
Associate Enforcement Counsel
for Air Enforcement
TO:
Alan w. Eckert
Associate GenerkT'^ounsel
Air and Radiation Division
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Complia
Office of Air. Quality Plaft/fing
Addressees
Standards
This is to provide implementing guidance on the memorandum
issued by J. Craig Potter/ Thomas Adams and Francis Blake
on this date relating to review of SIP plans and revisions
for enforceability and legal sufficiency. We urge you to
provide copies of these memoranda to your State Agency Directors.
Applicability
This guidance applies to all SIP proposals which have
not completed the state or local agency legal and procedural
requirements for SIPs. For proposals that have not yet
been submitted to the Regional office for action, the state
and local agencies have forty-five (45) days from the date
of this guidance to submit such proposals for review in order
for the proposal to be considered under previous procedures.
SIP packages currently in Headquarters will undergo the usual
review but will be returned to "the Regions if they contain
deficiencies which raise significant questions as to whether
the regulation would be enforceable.
Enforceability Criteria
The notion of enforceability encompasses several concepts.
At the most basic level, a regulation must be within the statutory
authority of the promulgating"agency. For example, some states
have statutory restrictions or prohibitions on the promulgation
of regulations more restrictive than the federal counterpart.
-------
-2-
Although we should generally defer to a State's interpretation of
the scope of its authority, when there is real doubt we
should, at a minimum, consult the responsible State Attorney to
be certain the issue has been considered and resolved. When
appropriate, an opinion letter should be obtained from the
State Attorney General.
Please ensure that the following additional issues are
directly addressed.
0 Applicability
It should be clear as to whom the regulation applies. The
SIP should include a description of the types of affected
facilities. The rule should also state in which areas the rule
applies (entire state, specific counties, nonattairunent, etc.)
and advise the reader that State administrative changes require
a formal SIP revision. Also, some regulations might require a
certain percentage reduction from sources. The regulation
should be clear as to how the baseline from which such a reduction
is to be accomplished is set. In some cases it may be necessary
for enforcement purposes and independent of Clean Air Act
requirements for the SIP to include an inventory of allowable
and actual emissions from sources in the affected categories in
order to set the above baseline.
0 Time
The regulation should specify the reouired date of
compliance. Is it upon promulgation, or approval by EPA, or a
future date certain? Future effective dates beyond the
approved or proposed attainment date should not be allowed
unless the related emissions reductions are not needed for
attainment. Also, the regulation should specify the important
dates required of any compliance schedule which is required to
be submitted by the source to the state.
0 Effect of Changed C-mditions
If changed circumstances effect an emission limit or other
requirement the effect of changed conditions should be clearly
specified. However, you should not approve state regulations
which tie the applicability of VOC control requirements to the
nonattainment status of the area and allow for automatic nullifi-
cation of the regulations if the area is redesignated to an
attainment status. Such regulations should continue to apply
if an area is redesignated from nonattainment to attainment
status unless a new maintenance demonstration supporting a chance
in the rule's applicability is submitted and approved by EPA.
-------
-3-
0 standard of Conduct
The regulation must be sufficiently specific so that a
source is fairly on notice as to the standard it must meet.
For example, "alternative equivalent technique" provisions
should not be approved without clarification concerning the
time period over which equivalency is measured as well as
whether the equivalency applies on a per source or per line
basis or is facility wide.
0 Incorporation by Reference
Some federal regulations are inappropriate for adoption
by reference. For example, a state intending to enforce PSD
regulations adopted by reference must adopt 40 C.F.R. S52.21,
not 40 C.F.R. 551.166, as only the former is written in a form
imposing obligations on permit applicants. Even then, changes
may have to be made to take into account the difference between
the State's situation and EPA's.
0 Transfer Efficiency
Some states have attempted to provide particular voc
sources with relaxations of compliance limits in return for
improvements in the efficiency with which the sources use the
pollutant producing material. Any rules allowing transfer
efficiency to be used in determining compliance must be explicit
as to when and under what circumstances a source may use improved
transfer efficiency as a substitute for meeting the SIP limit.
Such provisions must state whether EPA approval is required on
a case-by-case basis. Also, such provisions may not simply
reference the NSPS auto coating tables for the transfer
efficiency. The improvement should be demonstrated through
testing and an appropriate test method should be set forth.
Implied improvements noted by the NSPS auto coating TE
table are not to be accepted at face value.
0 Compliance Periods
SIP rules should describe explicitly the compliance time
frame associated with each emission limit (e.g. instantaneous,
stack test, 3 hour average or daily). The Regions should not
assume that a lack of specificity implies instantaneous compliance
The time frame or method employed must be sufficient to protect
the standard involved.
0 Equivalency Provisions and Discretionary Emission Limits
Certain provisions allow sources to comply via "bubbles"
or "alternate equivalent techniaues" or through mechanisms
"as approved by the Director." These provisions must make it
-------
-4-
clear as to whether EPA approval of state granted alternative
compliance techniques is reauired on a case-by-case basis in
order for the changed mode of compliance to replace the existing
federally enforceable requirement. If EPA case-by-case approval
will not be required, then specific, objective and replicable
criteria must be set forth for determining whether the new
arrangement is truly equivalent in terms of emission rates and
ambient impact. Such procedures oust be consistent with the
control levels specified in the overall SIP control strategy
and must meet other EPA policy requirements, including the
"Emissions Trading Policy", 51 Fed. Reg. 43814 (1986), in
relevant instances.
0 Recordkeeping
The SIP must state explicitly those records which sources
are required to keep to assess compliance for the time frame
specified in the rule. Records must be commensurate with regula-
tory requirements, and must be available for examination on
request. The SIP must give reporting schedules and reporting
formats. For example, these rules must require daily records
if the SIP requires daily compliance. Additionally, the record-
keeping must be required such that failure to do so would be a
separate violation "in itself.
0 Test Methods
Each compliance provision roust list how compliance is
to be determined and the appropriate test method to be used.
The allowable averaging times should be explicit. Both the
test method and averaging times employed must be sufficient
to protect the ambient standard involved.
0 Exemptions
If sources under a certain size are exempted from control
requirements, the regulation must identify how the size of a
particular source is to be determined.
0 Malfunction and Variance Provisions
Any malfunction or variance exemptions must be clear in
their substantive application and in how they are triggered.
The rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the
standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination.
Conclusion
We appreciate your attention to this matter and hope
that the specific review for enforceability will be a further
step in improving the overall SI? process and structure.
To assist you, we have attached an enforceability checklist.
This checklist should be included as part of your technical
suocort cackaces in all future SI? oackaaes.
-------
-5-
Please contact the appropriate staff attorney in the Office
of General Counsel or the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Monitoring should you have any questions concerning issues of
enforceability in particular instances. Please contact Tom
Helms, OAQPS, FTS-629-5526, for other questions concerning
implementation of this guidance.
Attachment
Addressees:
Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsels
Regions I-X
Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
cc: Deputy Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
Regional Counsel
Air Contacts
Regions I-X
Air Compliance Branch Chiefs
Regions II, III, IV, V, VI, IX
Air Program Branch Chiefs
Regions I-X
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Gerald Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards
-------
IP APPOVABILITY CHECKLIST- ENFORCEABILITY
AttachmeiiL
SIP Package No.
Date Rec.
Date Due
STATE:
Subject Matter:
(Specific Provision and Description)
Enforceability Analysis State Submittal
EPA Requirement
Approvability (Approvable or Not
(list responses)]
1. Applicability
a. What sources are being
regulated?
b. What are criteria for
exemption?
c. Is calculation
procedure for exemption
clearly specified?
d. Is emission inventory
listed in the
background document
of the attainment
demonstration?
Clarity
Clarity
Example calculation or
clear explanation of
how to determine
exemption (line by line,
etc.)
Inventory including
allowable and actual
emissions in source
category should be
included, for enforce-
ment purposes and
independent of any Clean
Air Act requirements,
in the attainment demon-
stration if such data is
necessary for determin-
ing baselines in regula-
tions.
-------
Eniforceabi1ity Ana1ys is
State Submittal
EPA Reouirement
Ajjprovabi 1 i ty (Approvable pi
e.
f.
Is the averaging time(s)
used in the rule differ-
ent from that of the
ambient standard?
What are the units of
compliance (Ibs VOC per
gallon of solids
applied less water,
grains per standard
cubic foot?)
Is bubbling or averag-
ing of any type
allowed? If yes,
state criteria.
Could a U.S. EPA
inspector independently
determine if the
criteria were met? Does
EPA have to approve
each case?
Ttie averaging time in the
rule must be consistent
with protecting the ambient
standard in question.
Normally, it should be equal
to or shorter than the
time associated with the
standard. Longer term
averaging is available
only in limited instances
provided that the ambient
standard is not compromised.
Clearly
rule
'ated in the
Explicit description of
now averaging, bubbling,
or equivalency is to be
determined. VOC* .
equivalency must be on
• "solids applied"
basis. Any method must
be independently re-
producible. Provision
must be explicit as to
whether EPA case-by-
case approval required.
If provision intended
to be "generic" then EPA
bubble policy must be
-------
probability Analysis
h. If there is a redesigna-
tion, will this change
the emission limita-
tions? If yes, which
ones and how?
2. Compliance Dates
a. What is compliance
date?
b. What is the attainment
date?
3. Specificity of Conduct
a. What test method is
required?
b. What is the averaging
time in compliance
test method?
•
c. Is a compliance
calculation or
evaluation required?
(i.e., daily weighted
average for VDC).
d. If yes to "c," list
the formula, period of
State Submittal
EPA Requirement
Regulation may not
automatically allow for
self nullification upon
redesignation of area
to attainment. New
maintenance demonstra-
tion required in order
to drop regulation.
Must not be later than
approved or about to
be approved date of
attainment unless
emission reductions not
necessary for attain-
ment. In some cases,
it will be necessary
for the regulation to
specify dates in compli-
ance schedules that are
required to be submitted
by source to state.
Test method must be
explicitly stated.
Averaging time and
application of limit
must be explicit.
Formula must be
exnl \r\l-
Approvabilitv (At> /able or No
-------
Enforceabi11ty Analysis
State Submittal
EPA Requi rement
Approvability (Approvabie or Not
4. Incorporation by Reference
a. What is state authority
for rulemaking?
b. Are methods/rules
incorporated by
reference in the
right manner.
5. Recordkeepi ng
a. What records are
required to determine
compliance?
b. In what form or units
(Ibs/gal, gr/dscf,
etc.) must the
records be kept? On
what time basis
(instantaneously,
hourly, daily)?
c. Does the rule affirm-
atively require the
records be kept?
Clarity
Records to be kept
must be consistent
with units of
compliance in the per-
formance requirements,
including the appli-
cable time period.
There must be a clear
separately enforceable .
provision that requires
records to be kept.
-------
Enforceability Analysis
State Submittal
FPA Reouirement
Approvability (Approyab|e or Not)
6. Exempt ions
a. List any exemptions
allowed.
b. Is the criteria for
application clear?
7. Malfunction Provisions
Must be clearly defined
and distinguishable from
what constitutes a
violation.
Rule must specify what
exceedances may be
excused, how the
standard is to be
applied, and who makes
the determination.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.3
-------
•
I
""**
ll UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^. WASHtNGTON. O.C. 20460
^.
2 I B82
DFPICEOF
AIR. NOISE AND RAOUTIGV
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of "Continuous Compliance"
and Enforcement of O&M Violation*
P«OM» Kathleen M. Bennett
Assistant Adrainistrator^sor Air, Noise and Radiation
TO i Directors , Air and Waste "nagement Divisions
Regions I-IV, VI-VIII end X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions V and IX
The purpose of this memo is to provide you with some general
programmatic guidance as to the meaning of the term "continuous
compliance" and the role of operation and maintenance (O&M)
requirements in assuring that continuous compliance is maintained.
Of course, source specific guidance on O&M measures which can
assure continuous compliance is an essential part of this program
and this memorandum is not intended to substitute for such
guidance. As you know, DSSE has undertaken a number of
initiatives related to the continuous compliance effort and we
hope to discuss the progress of those efforts with you at the
upcoming workshop at Sou*h«*£TJ ?ine* DSSE will be forwarding to
you an updated summicy cf th». ,s •».ctivici«4S prior to the workshop.
However, given the cor.itRuing aiw.snt.icn being given to
"continuous compliance," I think it would be helpful to have a
common understanding of what that concept entails.
In the strict legal sense, sources are required to meet,
without interruption, all applicable emission limitations and
other control requirements, unless such limitations specifically
provide otherwise. However, of primary concern to the Agency are
those violations that could have been prevented, through the
installation of proper control eqv ip~.ent aac! the operation and
maintenance of that equipment in accordance with proper
procedures. We believe the concept of continuous compliance is
essentially the avoidance of preventable excess emissions over
time as a result of the proper design, operation and maintenance
of an air pollution source. .This includes avoidance of
preventable instances of excess emissions, minimisation of
-------
emissions during such instances, and the expeditious termination
of any instances which do occur.
In determining the appropriate enforcement responsji to a
violation, one factor the Regions should consider is whether the
source had in place an active program designed to maintain
continuous compliance.' Such a program would normally involve one
or more of the following elements! continuous or periodic
•elf-monitoring*of emissions; monitoring of operating parameters
such as scrubber pressure drop, incinerator combustion temperature
or flow rates; •lintenancc of a spare parts inventory; maintenance
of spare control •"'•vice modules; and procedures designed to
correct the types of violations that are most likely to occur.
Evaluating a violator's O&M program is a necessary step in
determining the type and degree of relief that an enforcement
action could be expected to achieve.
Documentation of avoi^tble departures from proper procedures
as just discussed may be ~&«d not on:? is supporting evidence in
cases involving emission limit violations, but as primary evidence
in cases involve.„ illations of O&M requirements specified in
permits and regulations. As the Agency continues to place more
emphasis on O&M requirements in the context of national standards/
and to encourage States to develop O&M requirements, the
enforcement program must be adapted to address violations of these
requirements. A violation of specified O&M requirements, even in
the absence of documented emission limit violations, can be an
appropriate trigger for EPA enforcement response.
In conclusion, evaluation of a source's continuing compliance
program would be useful both in determining the appropriate Agency
response to an emission limit violation, and in assessing the
source's compliance with specified O&M requirements-
If my staff can be of assistance in evaluating specific cases,
please feel free to call John *?j**nic e~ 382-2826.
-------
PN 113-83-02-15-011
•^ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON, O.C. 20460
F£3 I 5 1983
OFFICE OF
AIM. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on Excess Emissions During Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance/ and Malfunctions
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
I have been asked to clarify my memorandum of
September 28, 1982, concerning policy on excess emissions during
startup and shutdown.
Specifically/ I stated that "startup and shutdown of
process equipment are part of the normal operation of a source
and should be accounted for in the design and implementation of
the operating procedure for the process and control equipment.
Accordingly/ it is reasonable to expect that careful planning
will eliminate violations of emission limitations during such
periods." I further stated that "[i]f excess emissions occur
during routine startup and shutdown of such equipment, they
will be considered as having resulted from a malfunction only
if the source can demonstrate that such emissions were actually
caused by a sudden and unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment."
A question has been posed as to whether there can be
situations in which it is unreasonable to expect that careful
planning can eliminate violations of emission limitations
during startup and shutdown. I believe that there can be such
situations. One such situation, which was already mentioned
in the policy, is a malfunction occurring during these periods.
A malfunction during startup or shutdown is to be handled as
any other malfunction in accordance with the policy as
presently written.
Another situation is one in which careful and prudent planning
and design will not totally eliminate infrequent short periods
of excesses curing startup and shutdown. An example of this
situation would be a source that starts up or shuts down once or
twice a year and during that period there are a few hours when
the temperature of the effluent gas is too low to prevent harmful
113
17-1
-------
formation of chemicals which would cause severe damaae to
control equipment -if the effluent were allowed to pals t£
the control euiment. pass th
ar. KTherefJr6:-d?ring this latter situation, if effluent oases
are bypassed which cause an emission limitation to be excefdeT
this excess need not be treated as a violation it *K! «c««a«o,
is attached. P°liCy conc«™i"S this issue. A copy
Attachment
113
17-2
-------
Attachment
POLICT ON EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN,
MAINTENANCE, AND MALFUNCTIONS
Introduction
Several of the existing State implementation plans (SIPs)
provide for an automatic emission limitation exemption during
periods of excess emission due to startup, shutdown, maintenance,
or malfunction.* Generally, EPA agrees that the imposition of
a penalty for sudden and unavoidable malfunctions caused by
circumstances entirely beyond the control of the owner and/or
operator is not appropriate. However, any activity which can
be foreseen and avoided, or planned is not within the definition
of a sudden and unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs must
provide for attainment and maintenance of the national ambient
air quality standards, SIP provisions on malfunctions must be
narrowly drawn. SIPs may, of course, omit any provisions on
malfunctions. [For more specific guidance on malfunction
provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual
for preparing nonattainment plans].
I. EXCESS EMISSION FROM MALFUNCTIONS
A. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be
the type that provides for automatic exemption where a malfunctior
is alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions might aggravate
air quality so as not to provide for attainment of the ambient
air quality standards. Additional grounds for disapproving a
SIP that includes the automatic exemption approach are discussed
in more detail at 42 FR 58171 (November 8, 1977) and 42 FR
21372 (April 27, 1977). As a result, EPA cannot approve any
SIP revisions that provides automatic exemptions for malfunctions,
The term "excess emission" means an air emission rate which
exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and "malfunction"
means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of process or
control equipment.
113
17-3
-------
B. ENFORG^1£NT DISCRETION APPROACH—SIP EMISSION
LIMITATION ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the
"enforcement discretion approach". Such an approach can require
the source to demonstrate to the appropriate State agency that
the excess emissions, though constituting a violation, were due
to an unavoidable malfunction. Any malfunction provision must
provide for the commencement of a proceeding to notify the
source of its violation and to determine whether enforcement
action should be undertaken for any period of excess emissions.
In determining whether an enforcement action is appropriate,
satisfaction of the following criteria should be considered.
1. To the maximum extent practicable the air pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or processes were maintained
and operated in a manner consistent with good practice for
minimizing emissions;
2. Repairs were made in an expeditious fashion when the
operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limitations were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime
must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure
that such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
3. The amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable during periods of such emissions;
4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact
of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and
5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring
pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or maintenance,
II. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING STARTUP, SHUTDOWN, AND
MAINTENANCE
Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided,
or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and
unavoidable breakdown of equipment. For example, a sudden
breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation and
maintenance practice is not a malfunction. In such cases, the
control agency must enforce for violations of the emission
limitation. Other such common events are startup and shutdown
of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
H3
17-4
-------
Startup and shutdown of process equipment are part of the
normal operation of a source and should be accounted for in the
planning, design and implementation of operating procedures for
the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is reasonable
to expect that careful and prudent planning and design will
eliminate violations of emission limitations during such periods.
However, for a few sources there may exist infrequent short
periods of excess emissions during startup and shutdown which
cannot be avoided. Excess emissions during these infrequent
short periods need not be treated as violations providing that
the source adequately shows that the excess could not have been
prevented through careful planning and design and that bypassing
of control equipment was unavoidable to prevent loss of life,
personal injury, or severe property damage.
If excess emissions occur during routine startup and
shutdown due to a malfunction, then those instances will be
treated as other malfunctions which are subject to the malfunction
provisions of this policy. (Reference Part I above).
Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event
which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and
which can, therefore, be made to coincide with maintenance on
production equipment, or other source shutdowns. Consequently,
excess emissions during periods of scheduled maintenance should
be treated as a violation unless a source can demonstrate that
such emissions could have been avoided through better scheduling
for maintenance or through better operation and maintenance
practices.
113
17-5
-------
....*'
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON O C Z0*60
SEP
OFFICE OF
AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
^C'p: Policy on Excess Emissions Dating Startup, Shutdown,
Maintenance, and Malfunctions ^ ,, -77—
v L I i '!'\ *'• i /JVK/
FROM Kathleen M. Bennett •jybt''^f*' '' *'' "
Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise and Radiation
TO? ' Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
This memorandum is in response to a request for a
clarification of EPA's policy relating to excess emissions
during startup, shutdown, maintenance, and malfunctions.
Excess emission provisions for startup, shutdown,
maintenance, and malfunctions were often included as part of
the original SIPs approved in 1971 and 1972. Because the
Agency was inundated .with proposed SIPs and had limited
experience in processing them, not enough attention was given
to the adequacy, enforceability, and consistency of these
provisions. Consequently, many SIPs were approved with broad
and loosely-defined provisions to control excess emissions.
In 1978, EPA adopted an excess emissions policy after.
many, less effective attempts to rectify problems that existed
with these provisions. This policy disallowed automatic
exemptions by defining all periods of excess emissions as
violations of the applicable standard. States can, of course,
consider any demonstration by the source that the excess
emissions were due to an unavoidable occurrence in determining
whether any enforcement action is required.
The rationale for establishing these emissions as
violations, as opposed to granting automatic exemptions, is
that SIPs are ambient-based standards and any emissions above
the allowable may cause or contribute to violations of the
national ambient air quality standards. Without clear
definition and limitations, these automatic exemption
provisions could effectively shield excess emissions arising
from poor operation and maintenance or design, thus precluding
attainment. Additionally, by establishing an enforcement
discretion approach and by requiring the source to demonstrate
the existence of an unavoidable malfunction on the source, good
maintenance procedures are indirectly encouraged.
-------
-2 •
is a document stating F.PA'n pros^nc policy on
excess emissions. This document basically reiterates the
earlier policy, with some refinement of the policy regarding
excess "missions during period? of scheduled mai n tana nee.
A question has also been raised as to rfhdt extent
operating permits can be used to address excess emissions in
cases where the SIP is silent on this issue or where the SIP is
deficient. Where the SIP is silent on excess emissions, the
operating permit may contain excess emission provisions which
should be consistent with the attached policy. Where the SIP
is deficient, the SIP should be made to conform to the present
policy. Approval of the operating permit as part of the SIP
would accomplish that result.
If you have any questions concerning this policy, please
contact Ed Reich at (382-2807).
Attachment
-------
At tflohir.en i.
*s -
POLICY C.V EXCESS LMSSICNS Dl.'RU-"3 bTAf:T U'• • £t'l,"rrc'..>, ,
MAIHTTNANCr, ANT, f-.y. r FUNCT TO?^- .
Several of the exifttiro SI..MH urp J *?c>er -i.*': ion plans (i.IFs>
preside for an autcr-attc erissior 1 a n 11. «•-, t. i or. exer.'ption uurir.c
periods of excess ernssicn due to stfirt-ur, shutdown,
maintenance, or ralfunction. * Generally, EPA agrees that ths
imposition of a penalty for sudden and unavoidable
malfunctions caused by circumstances entirely beyond the
control of the owner and/or operator is not appropriate.
However, any activity which can be foreseen and avoided, or
planned is not within the definition of a sudden and
unavoidable breakdown. Since the SIPs must provide for
attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality
standards, GIF provisions on malfunctions must be narrowly
drawn. EIPs may, of course, onit any provision on
malfunctions. [For more specific guidance on malfunction
provisions for RACT SIPs, see the April 1978 workshop manual
for preparing nonattainment plans . ]
I. AUTOMATIC EXEMPTION APPROACH
If a SIP contains a malfunction provision, it cannot be
the type that provides for automatic exemption where a
malfunction is alleged by a source. Automatic exemptions
might aggravate air quality so as not to provide for
attainment of the ambient air quality standards. Additional
grounds for disapproving a SIP that includes the automatic
exemption approach are discussed in more detail at 42 FR 58171
(November 8, 1977) and 42 FR 21372 (April 27, 1977). As a
result, EPA cannot approve any SIP revision that provides"
automatic exemptions for malfunctions.
II. ENFORCEMENT DISCRETION APPROACH—SIP EMISSION LIMITATION
ADEQUATE TO ATTAIN AMBIENT STANDARDS
EPA can approve SIP revisions which incorporate the
"enforcement discretion approach". Such an approach can
require the source to demonstrate to the appropriate State
agency that the excess emissions, though constituting a
violation, were due to an unavoidable malfunction. Any
malfunction provision must provide for the commencement of a
proceeding to notify the source of its violation and to
determine whether enforcement action should be undertaken for
any period of excess emissions. In determining whether an
enforcement action is appropriate, satisfaction of the
following criteria should be considered:
* The term "excess emission" means an air emission rate which
exceeds any applicable emission limitation, and
"malfunction" means a sudden and unavoidable breakdown of
process or control equipment.
-------
i. To the maximum extent practicable liu' -*ir pollution
control equipment, process equipment, or procossc-n were
maintained and operated .in a manner rons i.s '•-»'•> t 'vilh goo-1
re for minimizing emissions:
.? Repairs were made i,i an expeditious* fashion when ti>i
operator knew or should have known that applicable emission
limit-aliens were being exceeded. Off-shift labor and overtime
must have been utilized, to the extent practicable, to ensure
that- such repairs were made as expeditiously as practicable;
J. The amount and duration of the excess emissions
(including any bypass) were minimized to the maximum extent
practicable during periods of such emissions;
4. All possible steps were taken to minimize the impact
of the excess emissions on ambient air quality; and
5. The excess emissions are not part of a recurring
pattern indicative of inadequate design, operation, or
maintenance.
III. EXCESS EMISSIONS DURING START-UP, SHUTDOWN, AND
MAINTENANCE
Any activity or event which can be foreseen and avoided,
or planned, falls outside of the definition of sudden and
unavoidable breakdown of equipment. Fpr example, a sudden
breakdown which could have been avoided by better operation
and maintenance practices is not a malfunction. In such
cases, the control agency must enforce for violations of the
emission limitation. Other such common events are start-up
and shutdown of equipment, and scheduled maintenance.
Start-up and shutdown of process equipment are part of
the normal operation of a source and should be accounted for
in the design and implementation of the operating procedure
for the process and control equipment. Accordingly, it is
reasonable to expect that careful planning will eliminate
violations of emission limitations during such periods.
If excess emissions occur during routine start-up and
shutdown of such equipment, they will be considered as having
resulted from a malfunction only if the source can demonstrate
that such emissions were actually caused by a sudden and
unforeseeable breakdown in the equipment.
Similarly, scheduled maintenance is a predictable event
which can be scheduled at the discretion of the operator, and
which can therefore be made to coincide with maintenance on
-------
production equipment, or other soue/cr shutdowns.
Consequently, excess emissions during periods ot: scheduled
maintenance should be treated as a violation unless a souv:^
can demonstrate that such emissions could not have been
avoided through better scheduling for maintenance or hhcoirjh
bet »:«'• operation and maintenance pracfices-
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C
March S, 137*
STJ3JZC7: Snergy Eaergency Tasfc Force? Isplesentatian of
Section 110 (f) of the Clean -Air Act
— ACTION H5SQSAH30H
F50.1: Assistant Adainistsatcr far S
1* yvi
Assistant Acnini strata? for Air, Xois«
mt uttitien
TO: Ti« Administrator
5u^3aris«4 b«low is backsrounc infcrration and cro^csac
ragional guidance on responding to an energy ececgency under
Section 112(f). W« are also initiating develsr^snt of an
emergency elan and iacles'-.tation guidance- (as aecroociata)
to -ainlsiza adverse en-rir'..cental effects which could rescit-
fron a gasoline shortage, ^e will forward the gasoline
ecergency jlra to you in the future.
t. COS/5?.*. :7orkir.c Relations
The Departaent of energy (COS) has established an
Snergy Saergency Center to coordinate the federal government
response to crisis situations resulting froc energy erergsnc
Although the center was initiated under the impetus of the
c:^7 strike, it would be the coordinating agent in any energy
emergency. £3& has also established an ad hoc tnergy
Zaergoncy Tasic Force to coordinate ETA's response to a
crisis. E7A's- Offices of Enforceaent, Air, Noise and
Radiation, General Counsel,, and Federal Activities are
represented, on the task force. E3A's contact with CCS'a
Snsrgy Emergency Center is Mrs. Tvonns Allen, Oirector cf
the Center (202-252-5155) . COE's contact with S2A's Snargy
Zsergency TasJc Force is Hs..!-!artha Prothro (alternate:
Hr. Leiden 3lake)._of, the Division of Stationarv Source
anforcefoent: (DSS2 - FTS 7S5-2S23) .
-------
Ms-. Allen has advised that coal supply information
(quantity/ quality/ and number of days of fuel supply) wi
be available from DOB: (1) weekly for utilities en"a State-
wide basis (approximately 10-day-oid data)r (2) daily for
specific utilities that DOS has determined ta have a criti-
cally short coal supply; and (3) weekly for industrial cca
burners on a State-wide basis. In addition, DCS can advise
EPA of State actions ta conserve and minimise- consumption c.
the fuel in short supply and federal actions to provide for
interconnections to assure that electrical power will be
transferred to areas most in need. Although this infcraa-
tion is specific for coal, this guidance is to be used in
any energy emergency. Coal availability indorsation would
be useful for sources presently burning oil or gas but whic:
have coal burning capability in the event of a shortage of
oil or gas.
DOS has established a formal day-to-day contact in. Jac.
Watson's office during energy emergencies in order to
expedite the flow of information, between EPA, DOE, and the
White House. DOE and EPA have- also.agreed ta maintain da.il
contact during such emergencies.
XX. Petitions for Energy Emergency Declarations under
Section 11Q{£) or ene. Clean Aar Acr
Section llQ(f) provides that emergency SX3 suspensions
may be granted in accordance with the following:
(1) de owner or operator of fuel burning- stationary
source applies ta the state fcr relief*
(2) The Governor- gives notic* and opportunity fcr
public hearing on- the proposed, petieion.
(3) She- Governor finds, thats
(a) an emergency exists in the vicinity of the s-
involving high levels of unemployment, or
loss* of necessary energy supplies fcr resi-
dential, dwellings; and
(b) such unemployment or loss can be totally cr
partiiliy alleviated by an emergency suspes-
£ioa of State Implementation Plan -
applicable to that sourcs*
-------
-3-
(4) The Governor petitions the President to declare
that a national or regional energy emergency exis^
of such severity that:
(a) a temporary suspension of any part of the
applicable implementation plan may be neces-
sary; aad
(b) other me ins of responding to the energy
emergency may be inadequate.
(3) Tie President determines that a national or regional
energy emergency exists. (This authori.ty say not be
red•legated.)
(6) The Governor may issue an emergency suspension to
the source which may take effect immediately. Hot
more than one such suspension say be issued to a.
source) based on the same se.t of circumstances or en
the basis of the same emergency. 'Suspensions are
limited in duration by any time limit the President
places on his determination, and in any case say
not exceed four months.
(7) SPA Administrator may raviev the Governor's suspen-
sion and disapprove it if he determines that it
does not satisfy the criteria set'forth in (2)
above. If the 2PA Administrator issues a disap-
proval, order, he will specify therein the date on
which the Governor's suspension shall no longer be
effective-.
•
(3) This procedure does not apply to a plan revision
promulgated by the Administrator pursuant to
Section 110(c) (such as for'sulfur oxides in Ohio).
The- President^ however, nay grant up* to a four
month suspension of a State Implementation Plan
promulgated by the Administrator if he makes the
findings in (2) and (4) above..
Whenever a Governor petitions the -President for a
declaration of an energy emergency- under Section llfl(f)^ w«
suggest that SPA make the following recommendations:
-------
A. Conservation measures;
-------
0. Limitations on tir.e and area covered bv err.errer.cv
declaration; ~
2?A should recommend that emergency declarations be as
precise as possible, especially as to the area affected, ca
allow boch an adequate response to true emergencies ar.d an
adequate opportunity to reevaluate the situation as events
develop*
III. S3 A Hesoonse to SI? Suscenaions Issued bv Governors
under Section 110 (e) or the Clean Air Act
A. Public hearines;
<«« strongly urge- that, whenever possible, the Regional
Office actively participate in any public hearing hela under
llQ(f). SSA's participation will be. useful for two reasons.
First, it will, help to ensure that the public health impacts
of alternative mitigative measured will be considered in the
decision maJcing process. Second , it will give us the
opportunity to establish on the record early in the process
that blanket 313 suspensions throughout a State may cot be
acceptable and that the findings recuired by
Section 110 (f ) (2) (AJ- and (S)-of the Act must. be made for
each source to be coverec by the suspension. Therefore,
Regional Offices should testify generally that EPA recognize
and will cooperate in attempting to ease the impact of fuel
shortages but that, because the health problems which could
result frcr- suspending- air quality standards are a grave
concern, suspensions should not be granted lightly. The
spokesperson should also advise that temporary energy
emergency suspensions should be issued on a source-specific
basis and only where the findings required by Section
llQ(f)(2}(A) and (3) have be-ea made.
•
The purpose of the public hearing required in Section
110(f) is, in part, to provide a factual record for the
Governor and EPA to use in. determining whether temporar?
suspension of portions of the implementation plan are
justified. As a minimum , the public hearing should cover
the following:
(1) the nature and extent of the energy eaerger.cy;
(2} current and projected unemployment impacts associ-
ated with the energy emergency;
-------
(3) current and projected loss of necessary energy
supplies for residential use associated wits the
energy emergency;
(4) alternative strategies for reducing the adverse
impacts of the energy emergency and the conse-
quences of these strategies on unemployment
and on residential energy supply;
(5) amount of energy savings expected to result from
temporary suspension of portions of the iaclemen-
tat ion plan;
(€) to the extent possible, pollutant emission levels
both before and after the proposed temporary
suspension of portions of the. implementation plan;
and
(7) to the extent possible/*preliminary assessment of
the air quality and health effect impacts of the
proposed temparary_suspensicn of portions of the
implementation plan.
Information- provided ca items (5) through (7) should,
whenever possible, include source by source data, for those
souress which, because of their location, the nature and
quantity of their emissions, the density of peculation in
the area, or other reasons, we might reasonably anticipate
would have an unacceptably adverse impact on public heaiih
should they be included under a temporary suspension ceter-
mination,
Because of the emergency nature of this process, it is
unlikely that: the public will be given much notics (prob*blv
less than one weejc) prior to a bearing. Accordingly, it
will be useful for those Regions lively to be affected to
begin to oreoare a position on SI? suspensions on a priority
basis for each State within the Region. Sfforts* should
begin immediately to evaluate possible adverse air qua I if
iaaacts with.in States expected to initiate the Section
110{f) process as soon as necessary. Clearly, any air
cualitv analyses cone as part of this effort will be cursor/
and can only be intended to oegin a screening process.
Unless recant atsospneric discersion modeling analyses.ror
particular areas or"sources has been done for other reasons,
simple rollback (rollforward) estimates will have to suffice
-------
-7-
tae oasis oc a±ert episode cays. Source impacts saov
be screened on the basis of size, degree of reliance on
affected fuel, emission density, stack heights, etc.
The general purpose of this analysis is to identify
those specific areas or particular sources where a suszer,
of the SI? would be nost likely to have severe air quality
impacts and resultant severe public health effects. It
would be most desirable to coordinate this effort to the
maximum extent possible with the appropriate State acency
since the State will sake the initial decision on the
case-by-case SI? suspensions*
3. Recional Resronsibilities Following SI? Suspension
Decisions
Tae Regional Office should maintain a current listing
of all individual sources that are granted a. suspension on a
day-to-day basis. Each source granted a suspension should
be contacted by the Regional Office to determine the specific
course of action wfaicn the source intends to take in response
to the suspension. Such information will facilitate a
better assessment of the potential air quality impacts that.
can be expected.
The Regional Office should ensure that every effort is
made to process at leasr daily data front all avilable
ambient monitoring networks in and around those areas where
SI? suspensions have been granted... To the extent that
resource*"constraints limit this effort, highest priority
should be placed on those areas that are most likely to
reacn episode levels based upon.historical ambient air
equality and the- number, concentration, and size of sources
granted SI? suspensions in the area.. The Regional Office.
should notify the Division of Stationary Source- Enforcement
(DSSE) and the Office of. Air Quality Planning and Standards
(OAQPS) when air pollution concentrations in areas affected
by SI? suspensions are exceeding dangerous levels (i.e./
episode alert levels and higher). . It is likely that timely
303
of the Clean Air Act or to reconssend that the President
rescind or not extend his emergency declarations for a
specific area..
-------
-fi-
de EPA Administrator say disapprove a suspension
issued by a Governor only in those limited situations in
which the suspension does not meet the requirements of
Section 110(2)(2)(A) and (3) of the Clean Air Act (i.e
where high levels of uneapiovraent and loss of necessary
energy supplies for residential dwellings do not exist or
the unemployment or loss cannot be totally or partially
alleviated by the SIS suspension). In order to assure that
suspensions apply only to sources experiencing an emergence,
EPA should act quickly to disapprove suspensions covering
sources for which the necessary findings cannot be-cade.
The 'authority to disapprove suspensions should be delegated
to the Regional Administrators, with EPA headquarters
concurrence, la order to assure expedited action. (A
delegation of Section U0(f)(3) authority is included Li tie
attached eeaorandua to the Regional Adninistrators for your
signature*)
Regional Offices should give'high priority ta reviewing
any actual suspension issued by Governors to assure that
they are consistent with the criteria set forth in Section
110(f)(2)(A) and (8). Reviews should focus on sources in
those areas (and, where known, major sources) for which DCi
has determined,, based on'available supplies and possible
interconnections, that the emergency is less critical. CSSZ
will keep the Regional Offices informed of DCE's deterr.i-z~
tions and will request DOS determinations as necsssary tc
enable Regional Offices to set proper priorities ccr ravi-ws
of SI? suspensions.
The memorandum attached for your signature direct each
Regional Adainistratar to designate a, contact for energy
emergency information. DSSS's Regional Programs Section
will contact Regional Office designers each- day to obtain
information for inclusion in a daily status chart. DSS2
will be primarily responsible for contacting the Regional
Offices ta request specific information, for answering any
Regional questions, and for receiving and disseminating
necessary data ta appropriate Regional and headquarters
Offices.
IV. E?A Response to Inquiries frca States and Sources
Generally, 'inquiries can be expected ta fall within ^a
categories listed below. .Suggested Regional Office respcr.sa*
are Indicated.
-------
A. Source inquiries about possible suspension of State
promulgated implementation plan:
Response: Only the Governor can suspend such a sip.
Source may petition Governor to petition the President for a
5110(2) emergency declaration. ESA will not ccncur in
relaxation of environmental regulations prior to a declara-
tion under $110(f)..
B* Source inquiries about possible suspension of federally
promulgated SI?:
Response": The President has not delegated his aathority
to suspend such a SIS. Sources aay direct petitions to the
President but should send copies to the Adainistrator and
Regional Administrator to assure quick response.- Source
must present information to allov the President to determine:
(1) that an energy emergency exists in the vicinity of the
source of such severity that, a temporary suspension of any
part of the SI? aay be necessary and other Beans of re-
sponding may be inadequate; (2) that there exists is the
vicinity of such source a temporary energy emergency in-
volving high levels of unemployment or loss of necessary
energy supplies for residential dwellings; and (3) that suci
loss, or- unemployment can be totally or partially alleviated
by a Sir suspension. (DSSE should be notified immediately
of any expected petitions for suspension of federally
promulgated SI?'s.)
C. Source or State inquiries about possible suspension of
non-512 federal air pollution control requirements (e.g.,
Hew Source Performance Standardsr interim requirements in
federal orders or consent decrees/ etc.):
Response: There is no statutory authority for emergency
suspension of non-513 requirements, since SllO(f) relates
only to S13'a. If, however, a determination of an emergency
has been made under SHQ(f) relative to SI3's, 2PA will
exercise enforcement discretion on a case-by-case basis in
dealing with non-313 situations. Where the findings necas-
sary for a SI3 suspension could not have been made in a
specific case, EPA will enforce the applicable requirements
and "ill seek appropriate penalties. Where those findings
could be made for a source subject to non-513 federal
requirements, E3A will generally refrain from enforcing ar
seejcing penalties based on a source's nonconclianca -here
-------
-10-
all other possible steps are being taken to comply and whe-»
violation results from efforts to minimize the impacts of 12
emergency on hi^h levels of unemployment or loss cf nec«ssa~
energy supplies to residences. A commitment not to enfcr-»""
may be made only ia writing to a specific source and only "
with the concurrence of the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement. In no event may a source be exempt from possibT£
action under Section 303 of the Clean Air Act. It is
unlikely that any relaxation of incremental compliance
schedules will be appropriate.
D. Source, or Stats inquiries about possible suspension of
federal rec^iirements for water pollution control:
Besponse: If, based oa the provisions of Section
110(f) of the Clean Air Act, a proclamation is made and
petitions for relief frcm NPCES requirements, are received,
the Regional Office should immediately contact the Office cf
Water Enforcement for guidance. .The following conditions
for temporary modification of individual discharge permits
will generally applyi
1* Oa a case-by-case- basisr ESA will review written
applications for relief frcm individual permit
conditions to determines
a* the specific pessit conditions which the
discharger wishes to have amended temporarily;
b. the specific energy savings frcm, each suspec-
sioa. of water treatment activity;*
c. additional steps the permittee is taking to
reduce total plant energy consumption?
d« the anticipated environmental damage which
will result frcm the cessation of all or
portions of the treatment, process;
«« other area wide energy conservation measures
2. Ezcept where- a balancing test would dictate a
contrary result, written recuests will be disap-
proved if-they petition for relief from the fcl-
1 ff*t i -t? •
lowing:
-------
-li-
ft. a requirement which, if suspended, would
result in short-term suspension of current
treataent activity and which would result Is
lang-tera environmental damage r
b. a requirement limiting the discharge of toxic
substances (H5DC, etc.);
c. the construction steps which are ia their
compliance ached ales;
d. disinfection requirements where water is used
for swimming or food processing, etc.
Za all cases, relief may be granted using prosecutoria
discretion and the Regions, will issue legally enforceable
documents, which recjuire full compliance at the end of the
emergency period. These documents, will, also require in-
creased levels- of monitoring and reporting ia order ta
safeguard the environment:.
T- Recommendation
We; recommend, that you siga the attached memorandum, to
the Regional Administrators which emphasizes that ETA's-
respcnse to an emergency must be handled as the highest
Agency priority.
Marrin, B. Durning David G. >&awicinai
Attachments
cc: OGEr attaa Ms. Tvonne Allen
-------
* UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, O.C 23*60
March 6, 1379
TXC ACMIMIS77
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions Z-X
Sw3JSCr: Response to Energy Emergency; lapleaer.tation of
Section 110 (f) of the Clean Air Act, as .\rended
The ?.egibnii Offices should place highest priority on
responding to any energy emergency which aay ariaa and
iaplesentisg E?A's responsibilities under Section 110 (f) cf
the Clean Air Act. Each Regional Administrator should taks
action to iapleraent the guidance and rscoasendaticns set
forth in the attached aeaorandus to ca froa Mr. Sursiag ac-
Mr.
The Clean Air Act provides that I =ay di sapor ore
51? suspension which £ determine does not ccaply vith
Section" 110 (f) (2) (A) and (3) of the Clean Air Act. To
assure that disapprovals of inappropriate suspensions are
expedited, I hereby delegate to the" Regional Ad-inis tracers
isr authority under Section 110 (f ) (3) to disapprove suspen-
sions- issued by Governors. This authority cay be exercisec
by the Regional Administrators only with the prior concur-
rence, of the Assistant Adninistrator for Znforcecent and
the Assistant Administrator for Air, Xoise and Radiation.
Concurrence froa the Office of Znforceaent and the Office cf
Air,. 3ois« and Radiation should be requested and will be
given by telephone through the designated S?A headquarters
contact. I have designated Ms. Martha Prothro (FTS 7Si-252;
of the Division of Stationary Sourca Enforcement as the E5.\
Seadcuarters- contact on all Section 110 (f) matters.
Us. Prothro's alternate is Mr. Weldon Slake (FTS 755-2542).
Each Regional Adainirtrator should designate a regional
contact and alternate and the contact should, call
Ms. Frothro as soon as possible.
-------
-2-
on te
«n«r9Y emergency plan to
the cevelocment
environcental
?«oline shortage. I
cuicJanceif
an
Couglas K. Ccatle
Attacfaaent,
cc: Decartaent of Snerey
-------
\ ^7£ I UNITED.STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C 20««0
IMC AOMIMISTJUTQft
JUL 21379
MEMORANDUM
TO: Regional Administrators, Regions I-X
SUBJECT: Supplement to the Memorandum of March 6, 1979, Regarding
Implementation of Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act
On March 6, 1979,* I sent to the Regional Administrators guidance on
implementing Section 110(f) of the Clean Air Act. Since that time
headquarter's staff has clarified the informational requirements for
adequately addressing Section 110(.f) issues-and .has also developed a
policy concerning the use of price differentials between low and high
sulfur, fuel oils in Section 110(f) proceedings. Each Regional
Administrator should take action to implement the supplemental guidance
and recommendations set forth in the attached memorandum to me from
Mr. Dunning and Mr. Hawkins.
I have designated Mr. Paul Stolpman (phone: 426-2482) as the
headquarters contact on the analysis needed to support all 110(f)
actions. Mr. Stolpman's alternate 1s Mr. George Suglyama
(phone: 426-2432). Action on the 110(f) applications remains as
set forth 1n previous guidance.
Douglas H. Costic
Attachment
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C 20460
JUK 1 9 1979
T»C AOMIHISTRA7C.
SUBJECT: Supplemental Guidance Regarding Implementation of Section 110(f)
of the Clean A1r Act - ACTION MEMORANDUM
FROM : Assistant Administrator for A1r, Noise, and
Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
TO : The Administrator
Regional guidance on responding to an energy emergency under Section
110(f) was Issued on March 6, 1979. Since that time the President has
declared a regional energy emergency '1n Florida; Connecticut and Hew York
have held hearings on low sulfur fuel oil availability; and the President
has instructed EPA to use full authority to take price differentials Into
account in making recommendations on Section 110(f) waiver requests. Basec
on our experience subsequent to the Section 110(f) regional cuidancs we no
propose the following supplemental guidance detailing 'informa.rion necsssar>
for determining the existence of an .energy emergency and policy guidance en
the extent to which price differentials are to be incorporated in a waiver
recommendation.
I. Policy on Price Differentials
The President, In his April 5, 1979, energy address* directed the
Administrator to "consider unusually large increases In the price
differential between complying and non-complying fuels as a basis for
recommending approval of state suspension requests" and to 'use his
full authority to take into account price differentials and to provide
the President with information on price differential Increases when making
recommendations to him on such requests." This directive does not imply
that states must make a price differential case when petitioning for
Section 110(f) waivers. It does allow the Administrator to consider
price differentials whenever a state makes such a case.
On June 7. 1979, the State of New York held hearings on a request by a
public utility for a Section 110(f) SIP suspension of the low sulfur fuel
oil. requirement^ The issue before New York was not based on an actual
unavailability of complying low sulfur fuel oil but was based on whether
the high price of complying fuel oil relative to non-complying fuel oil
was sufficient justification for a SIP suspension. EPA was requested
by Mew York to provide policy guidance on this issue.
-------
-2-
Prlce differentials between complying and non-corapTying fuel oils ma
provide a sufficient justification for a SIP suspension only when such
differentials actually cause (or are anticipated to cause) the effects
of an energy emergency listed in Section 110(f)(2), i.e.. high levels of
unemployment or a loss of necessary energy supplies for residential
dwellings and such effects could be totally or partially alleviated by
an emergency suspension.
Whenever It appears that price differentials nay become part of the
basis or the basis of a Governor's petition to the President for a
declaration of an energy emergency, Regional Administrators should make
every effort to assure that the state develops an adequate record en the
impact of price differentials. Recommendations to the President concerning
petitions for an energy emergency shall not be based on price differentials
in the absence of an adequate record establishing the Impact of such price
differentials. Further, 1n exercising the Section 110(f)(3) disapproval
authority EPA shall examine he price.differential impact of a SIP
suspension to determine its continued validity and act accordingly.
During the period of a suspension, price differentials and the impacts
of price differentials will be monitored by EPA to determine the continued
validity of a price differential basis for a SIP suspension.
II. Information Hecessary to Document the Existence of An Energy Emergen
The following list of information needs Is an expansion of those gen
items listed In paragraph III (A) on pages 5 and 5 of the March 6, 1979,
regional guidance. As the record of any EPA decision or recommendation
regarding a Section 110(f) waiver request will be primarily the state's
record, a concerted effort should be made to assure that such record
contains the following Information as well as any available information
on the Issues listed in paragraph III(A). Although EPA should provide
assistance 1n developing the state's record, the responsibility of provider
this Information rests with the state and the source.
1. Identities of affected or potentially affected parties* including:
(a) parties claiming a shortage together with the basis of
their claims,
(b) affected customers (ultimate users), and
(c) suppliers (potential or actual) to parties experiencing
shortages or cutbacks.
2. Information concerning the amount and duration of ah expected
shortage including:
(a) monthly demand for two calendar quarters before and aftar
a SIP suspension,
-------
-3-
(b) projected shortfall of conforming fuel for the period in
Item (a).
(c) any circumstances affecting a shortage, such as abnormal
weather conditions
(d) unanticipated changes in supply, demand, or availability cf
transportation.
3. A summary of the current Inventories of the various parties
affected, including the following Information:.
(a) by type and sulfur content
(b) storage capacity/blending capacity
(c) historical comparison of "supplies/inventory over last
2 years
(d} desulfurization capacity and a historical summary
of such capability, including any recent (3 year) changes
in desulfurization capacity.
4; Information on alternative supplies of available conforming fuel
and documentation of those steps taken to locate such fuels. An adequate
documentation will include a list of all suppliers contacted (including
date of contact and mode of contact), the response of each supplier
contacted, copies of correspondence with the suppliers (including telephone
logs), and any other memoranda, notes, or reports evidencing the
availability or unavailability of fuel oil.
5. Information on the availability of other fuel supplies which
though not conforming represent a minimal increase In sulfur levels
(i.e., IS sulfur content versus 0.32 sulfur content).
6. A summary of the contractual arrangements between various parties,
suppliers and users and a description of the available options in the
event of a fuel oil shortage.
7. What actions have been taken or considered to mitigate the
environmental, energy, and employment impacts of the shortage situation
or to conserve conforming fuel (mandatory or voluntary)? Examples of
such measures may be conservation measures, voltage reductions.
thermostat reductions, wheeling and the substitution of natural gas for
oil. The amount of conforming fuel oil saved by each measure -should be
detailed.
8. Which facilities may have to close down as a result of the
shortages? What is the potential impact on employment in the area?
9.' Which facilities can convert to alternate fuels? What is the
lead time necessary for these facilities to convert?
-------
10. How will SIP suspensions alleviate the shortage?
(a) what 1s the present SIP limitation on fuel use
(b) what would the new requirement be if the SIP is suspended.
(c) how much conforming fuel would be saved.
(d) can anything within the existing SIP be done to wholly or
partially alleviate the shortage.
(e) What steps will the state undertake to mitigate environ-
mental impacts.
(f) can a fuel user blend conforming and non-conforming fuels
to minimize any local environmental impact of using non-
conforming fuels?
11. Which sources would violate NAAQS if the emissions limitations
are suspended? What is the present attainment status in the affected areas?
With regard to a request for a 110(f) suspension based on price
differentials the following additional information would be requiredr
1. A discussion of fuel prices, including:
(a) a one year history of prices paid for conforming fuel,
under contract or on the spot market.
(b) the prices of non-conforming fuels by sulfur content.
(c) the prices of any available alternative fuels the use of
which would not require a suspension.
2. The impact of price differentials of complying fuels relative to
non-complying fuels (at various sulfur levels) on unemployment (e.g.* layoffs
plant closures) and residential energy supplies, including:
(a) a examination of various sulfur content fuels and alternative
fuels.
(b) the mitigating effects of conservation eeasures and the
substitution of natural gas for oil.
III. Recotmtendation
recommend that you sign the attached memorandum to the Regional
dminstrators.
- o «A* i
David S. Hawkins Marvin B. Ourning
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.4
-------
PN 113-88-03-31-048
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
3 1 MAR
AIR AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Transmittal of Reissued OAQ
Gerald A. Emison, Direct;
Office of Air Quality
Standards
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air Management Division Directors
Region I, III and IX
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Attached is the OAQPS policy on Continuous Emission
Monitoring Systems (CEMS) data. This policy was originally
issued on July 28, 1937. However, because of the late
transmittal date, FY 1988 implementation of the policy was
done voluntarily. The policy, after minor streamlining, is
being reissued at this time to insure implementation during
FY 1989. It has been streamlined by removing the outdated
section called "Future Actions."
In accordance with the Operating Year Plan, FTEs and
LOE contract funds have been allocated to the Regional Offices
for CEMS and compliance monitoring activities. Implementation
of this strategy should help you utilize these available resources
more efficiently and effectively.
-------
- 2 -
Furthermore, note that tracking SC>2 CEMS requirements is
an element of the FY 1989 Strategic Planning and Management
System (SPMS). The FY 1989 SPMS requires determination and
reporting of the compliance status of S02 sources subject to
CEMS requirements. Specifically, these sources are to be
identified, and their compliance status determined with
respect to CEMS installation, certification, report submission
and emission limits. While SC>2 sources are emphasized in
SPMS, this measure should be carried out for all sources with
CEMS requirements.
If you wish to discuss this further, please contact me or
Louis Paley of SSCD at FTS 382-2835.
Attachment
cc: John Calcagni, AQMD
Jack R. Farmer, ESD
William Laxton, TSD
Don R. Clay, OAR
Bruce Armstrong, OPAR
Paul M. Stolpman, OPAR
Michael S. Alushin, A ED
Alan W. Eckert, OGC
CEMS Technical Coordinators
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
3 1 MAR 1988
OFFICE OF
Alft AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: GEMS Policy
APPROVED: Gerald A. Emison, Direct? _ __
Office of Air Quality Planning 'and Standards
DATE:
Purpose
This states the OAQPS policy, which is effective
immediately, on the use of Continuous Emission Monitoring
Systems (CEMS) data and provides specific guidance as to how
that policy should be implemented.
Definition
CEMS is one of several self-monitoring techniques used
by regulatory agencies to monitor continuous compliance of
sources. Sampling and analysis of sulfur in fuel to assess
SO2 compliance of sources and recordfceeping for assessment of
compliance with volatile organic compound (VOC) emission
limitations are two other self-monitoring techniques.
Information
As the air compliance program resolves initial compliance
problems and sources install control equipment, efforts to
assure continuous compliance become increasingly important.
Based on the review of State and Regional programs that
promote the use of CEMS, OAQPS has found that CEMS is a
valuable tool for assuring continuous compliance.
Self-monitoring techniques should be integrated into the air
compliance program as a means of assessing stationary source
continuous compliance with air quality regulations.
-------
- 2 -
Some of the States which effectively use GEMS data in
compliance monitoring and in supplementing or supporting
enforcement actions are Washington (with S(>2 and total reduced
sulfur data) and Tennessee (with opacity monitoring data).
Ohio has a comprehensive program for requiring GEMS in
operating permits which has resulted in installation of C1MS
on a wide variety of source types. Pennsylvania and Indiana
have highly structured .GEMS programs, including penalty
programs based on reported excess emissions.
Policy
OAQPS is committed to promoting, encouraging and utilizing
GEMS data as a compliance assessment measure. Our Office is
also committed to the use of GEMS in direct enforcement where
GEMS is the compliance test method and for supporting enforcement
where GEMS is not the compliance test method. OAQPS encourages
the use of GEMS data by States in compliance monitoring and-
in supplementing or supporting enforcement actions. If it is
technically feasible, GEMS requirements should be incorporated
into NSR preconstruct ion reviews, operating permits and
resolutions of enforcement actions including consent decrees
and administrative orders.
GEMS should be used to assure continuous compliance of
sources in both attainment and nonattainment areas. Resources
should be allocated to monitor continuous compliance of .
sources in areas where the greatest environmental benefit is
likely to occur. Therefore, priority should be given to
NESHAPS sources subject to continuous monitoring requirements
(currently 40 CFR 61, subparts F, N, 0 and V) and to SIP
(including major and minor NSR sources) and NSPS sources in
nonattainment areas (for the pollutant for which the area is
in nonattainment). Next, GEMS should be used to monitor the
continuous compliance of NSPS and PSD sources in attainment
areas. Sources with excessive emission limit excursions
identified by GEMS data should be targeted for follow-up
action (on-site inspection or $114 letter). Vtiere GEMS is
the compliance test method, GEMS data should be used to identify
significant violators. These sources will then be tracked in
accordance with the "Timely and Appropriate Enforcement
Response Guidance," issued by OAR on April 11, 1986.
There are two different types of GEMS data - direct
compliance monitoring data and excess emissions monitoring data.
Where GEMS is the compliance test method, the status of the
source is established and documented by GEMS data. Compliance
status determined by GEMS data should be coded in the Compliance
-------
- 3 -
Data System (CDS). Violations identified by direct compliance
monitoring data require appropriate enforcement action
including the assessment of penalties. There are plans to
modify the GEM Subset of CDS to allow for entry of direct
compliance monitoring data. Use of CEMS data for direct
enforcement where CEMS is the compliance test method is
discussed in "Guidance: Enforcement Applications of Continuous
Emission Monitoring System Data," issued by OAQPS and OECM on
April 22, 1986.
The second type of CEMS data is where CEMS is not the
compliance method. In these cases, CEMS data should be used
to monitor the continuous compliance of sources and to initiate
follow-up action including on-site inspections, requesting
further information, and issuing a notice of violation. This
application is also discussed in the aforementioned guidance.
Conclusion
CEMS is an important technique for monitoring the
continuous compliance of stationary sources. It should be an
expanding component of the air compliance program. Evaluation
of CEMS data has been shown to be effective for identifying
sources with continuous compliance problems and has allowed
agencies to utilize their compliance monitoring resources
more effectively.
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 8.5
-------
August 25, 1988
NOTE TO JERRY EMISON
SUBJECT: Gibson County, Indiana, SOg Plan
THRU: John Calcagni
This note is a "heads up" concerning Indiana's S02 control plan for
Gibson County. The plan allows for delayed compliance with the SOg
limitations (one limit for attainment of the primary NAAQS and a second
limit for attainment of the secondary NAAQS with interim milestones) for
Public Service of Indiana's (PSI) Gibson Power Plant. The plan
also allows PSI Gibson to come in with alternate limitations. We concur
with the plan for the reasons stated in the attached analysis.
If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them.
Bob Bauman
Attachment
-------
Gibson County, Indiana, S02 SIP
Issue
Delayed compliance schedule.
Background
The State plan contains the following requirements:
1. SO? Limitations
(Ibs/mmBtu) Unit Compliance Dates
1.2 5 All times
5.1 1-4 Now to 12/31/91
3.57 1-4 12/31/91 - 12/30/93 (to attain
the primary 24-hour NAAQS)
3.13 1-4 12/31/93 - 12/30/95
2.57 1-4 12/31/95 (to attain the
secondary 3-hour NAAQS)
2. PSI Gibson is required to submit a compliance plan prior to 12/31/88
specifying control measures and increments of progress. The plan may also
contain alternative individual limitations for units 1-4.
3. The IDEM is required to present a compliance plan to the Indiana
Board prior to 11/30/89 and to submit a Board-adopted plan to EPA as a SIP
revision by 5/30/90.
Analysis
The date to attain the primary NAAQS (12/31/91) 1s within the 3-year
timeframe in section 110(a)(2)(A) for EPA's final approval of the State's
plan. The date to attain the secondary NAAQS (12/31/95) 1s reasonable. In
the case of attainment of the secondary NAAQS, section 110(a)(2)(A) requires
that a plan specify a reasonable time to attain. Although EPA has defined
reasonable at 40 CFR 51.110(c)(2), EPA does not have a written policy on
what length of time constitutes a reasonable time. In past cases, EPA has
deferred to the State.
PSI has not selected or been required to select the control method to
achieve the limitations. The State submittal outlines three control methods
and estimates times as required by section 110(a)(2)(B) to accomplish
compliance: switch to low sulfur coal, install two FGD's with interim switch
to low sulfur coal, and install one FGD with some low sulfur coal.
-------
Indiana has provided justification which is summarized as follows.
State Justification
The compliance schedule and cost estimates recognize that PSI's existing
coal contracts limit their ability to rapidly substitute lower sulfur coal
for their existing supply. The State has provided for:
- Sufficient time to renegotiate current coal contracts to the benefit
of the utility, ratepayers, coal companies, coal miners, and
communities.
- Sufficient time to design and construct one or two FGD's if necessary.
- Time to thoroughly investigate emerging clean coal technologies.
- Phased-in costs.
- Time for local coal companies to develop existing coal reserves which
could then supply compliance fuel.
Conclusion
Social and economic impacts are substantial and good cause exists for
postponing application of control technology for more than 3 years from plan
submission.
The degree of emission reduction (47 percent reduction), the social and
economic problems involved in carrying out the control options, displacement
of over 3 million tons of IN/IL coal or the design/construction/installation
of two FGD's or combination thereof, the length of time for phase-in of
control equipment, and the increased costs to ratepayers warrant effort to
minimize impacts consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act and
justify more than a 3-year schedule.
-------
PN 110-86-08-C7-
8 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
- ' WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
4UB-7B86
OFFICE Of
Alt AND »ADIAT1O*
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Policy on SIP Revisions Reouesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
FROM: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
t
A number of States have asked EPA to approve SIP revisions
granting compliance date extensions for individual VOC sources
in ozone nonattainment areas. The attached oolicy sets forth
EPA1s position on when approval of such SIP revisions is
appropriate and what the States must demonstrate in order for
EPA to approve them. Regional Offices should review the
requests for SIP revisions for conformance to this policy.
SIP revisions now pending at Headquarters will also need to
be reviewed by the Regions in light of this policy.
Attachment
cc: Richard H. Mays, OECM
Gerald A. Emison, OAOPS
Alan Eckert, OGC
Air Division Directors, Regions I-X
Regional Counsels, Regions I-X
-------
Policy on SIP Revisions Requesting Compliance Date
Extensions for VOC Sources
In order to approve a source-specific compliance date
extension, two tests must be met. First, a State must
demonstrate that the extension will not interfere with timely
attainment (attainment by the formally established attainment
date) and maintenance of the ozone standard and, where relevant
"reasonable further progress" (RFP) towards timely attainment. JY
The attainment date will generally be December 31, 1982, or the
date established under Section 110 where the State has adequate-
ly responded to a request for SIP revisions under $110(a)(2)(H),
or December 31, 1987 in ozone extension areas. The demonstra-
tion may be based on a comparison between the margin for
attainment predicted by the demonstration submitted with the
approved ozone SIP 2/ and the increased emissions that would
result under the pronosed compliance date extension. 3/ If
there is an adequate margin to absorb the increased emissions
(and the extension would not interfere with RFP), then EPA
may conclude that the compliance date extension will not
interfere with the attainment and continued maintenance of
the ozone standard.
I/ The reference to a demonstration of RFP towards timely
attainment is not intended to redefine RFP but only reaffirms
that an RFP analysis is reauired.
V For areas where revisions to the Part D SIP are required
(such as 1987 extension areas or SIP call areas) and those
revisions have not been fully approved, the State would have
to submit a demonstration the equivalent of that required
for EPA approval of the ozone SIP. Without an approvable
demonstration EP\ cannot determine whether the individual
compliance date extension will interfere with timely attain-
ment and maintenance of the standard, or with RFP. A
de minimus showing would not be acceptable, since in the
aggregate even very small sources would contribute signifi-
cantly to ozone formation.
3/ In making such a comparison it will be necessary to
determine what, if any, portion of the margin has been utilized
by new sources of VOCs that may have located in the area
since the SIP was approved, as well as by existing VOC sources
that may have already been granted compliance date extensions.
-------
-2-
If the State or EPA believes that there has been a substantial
chanqe in the inventory of VOC sources or total voc emissions
since the ozone SIP was approved so- that the margin of attain-
ment has channel siqnificantlv, a revised demonstration in
supoort of the source-specific SIP revision should be submit-
ted. _4/
Second, time extensions also must be consistent with the
requirement that nonattainment area SIPs provide for "imnlemen-
tation of all reasonably available control measures as
expeditiously as practicable* ($172(b)(2)]. Expeditiousness
should be demonstrated by determinina when the source was
first put on notice of the applicable requirement (e.g.,
adoption of the current reflation by the State) and the time
that has elansed since then. EPA has generally determined
that for most voc sources this period is less than three
years. 5/ Any source-snecific SIP revision for a compliance
date extension within these timeframes may be presumed to be
expeditious. Compliance date extensions for oeriods longer
than these timeframes, however, should be closely scrutinized
to determine whether or not they are truly expeditious. 6/
This should include an examination of the compliance status of
other sources nationally in the same VOC source cateaory
(this examination would be the responsibility of'the State),
and the most expeditious means of compliance available (includ-
ing add on control equipment, process chanqe, or raw material
imorovement) irrespective of the method proposed in the SIP
4/ Such a demonstration would be necessary* for example, in
areas originally demonstratina attainment by 1982, but for
which post-1982 monitoring data are indicating exceedances of
the ozone standard or raising serious questions about the
original prediction of attainment.
5/ For three source categories (can coatinq ooerations,
graphic arts printing and automotive assembly plant paint
shop operations), based on industry experience EPA has
through policy statements concluded that expeditiousness may
be longer than three years.
6/ The same holds true for review of individual compliance
date extensions incorporated in any area-wide ozone SI?
revisions submitted by a State (such as those being submitted
pursuant to an EPA SIP call under Section 110(a)(2)(H)). Any
change in the original deadline for an individual VOC source
incorporated in an area-wide ozone SIP revision must be
demonstrated to be expeditious (as well as not interfere with
timely attainment and maintenance).
-------
-3-
-s -
revision. Unless it can be shown that the original timefrane
approved in the SIP dirt not allow sufficient time for an
economically and technologically feasible compliance plan to
be implemented, a SIP revision for a compliance date extension
beyond the timeframes set forth above should be denied.
In conclusion, both the demonstration of timely attainment
(including RFP where relevant) and maintenance and the
expeditiousness tests must be met before a State SIP revision
can be approved.
J. JSpaig Pottrfr
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
/U6-7B66
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9.2
-------
Pt. M, Apt*. O
40 CPU Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
194
Environmental Protoctlon Agoncy
PortoO
ftm HvtBfia mummm • 9»j •»»• MMMI
144 PR 27571. May 10. I9T9: 44 FR 66070. Nov. 9. 1979; 44 FR 72591. Dec. 14. 1979. M amend
ed at SI FR 9S600. Mar. 19. IBM; 63 FR 24749. 24760. July 1. 19871
PART M—STANDARDS OF PERFORM-
ANCE FOR NEW STATIONARY
SOURCES
A—General frcvblwit
Sec
80.1
602
603
604
605
Applicability
Definitions.
Units and abbreviations
Address
DrlrrmiiiBtlon of construction <
modi heal ion
60 6 Krvirw of plans
60 7 Nolifii alion anil rrrnrd kerpliiK.
60 8 IVrlorinnnrc Irsls
60 9 Availahilll y <>f InforninlIon.
60 10 Slalr niilliiitlly
611 11 ('(iniiilinnrc with standards an
niaiulrnanrr ti'qtiirrnirnls
Sec.
60.11 Circumvention.
60.11 Monllorlni requirements.
6014 Modification.
60.16 Reconstruction.
6016 Priority list
60.17 Incorporations by reference.
60 18 Oeneral control device requirements
Plant f*r
6020 Applicability.
6021 Definitions
6022 Piibllcallnn of Kiildellne rinriimenls.
emission ituirirlliies, and final compll
anre llnii*s.
6023 Adopt I'll" and submit! al of Stale
plans; public hearings.
fit) 24 I-:III|SN|I)II standards and compliance
schedules
195
-------
r art 40
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
invrr*nni*nfal l*r*t*ctr«Ni Af*ncy
Sec.
60.26 Emission Inventories, source survell-
Isjice. reports.
M 39 Leisl authority.
80 27 Actions by the Administrator.
M 21 Plan revisions by the Slate.
00 2> Plan revisions by the Administrator.
CsaipNaiu* Il««s
0030 Scope.
4031 Definitions.
•0 32 Designated facilities.
to 33 Emlulon guidelines.
00 34 Compliance limes.
D — tlwidwdt »f t*r1nmmmt» fw
Flrwl ffwMi Qwiwwws fw
Whkfc Cmrnx*!** U C«wMnc*4 Aftw
ir, HM
00 40 Applicability and designation ol af
fected raclllty.
0041 Definitions.
00 42 Standard for paniculate matter.
0043 Standard lor sulfur dioxide
00 44 Standard lor nitrogen oxides.
00 46 Emission and furl monitoring.
0040 Test methods and pi «cedures.
60 41 Innovative technology waivers:
waiver of sulfur dlonldc standards of
performance for new stationary sources
for Homer City Unit Ho 3 under section
IIHD of the Clean Air Act for Multi-
Steam Coal Cleaning System.
iuhpwl D«— Stawdwds •» Pwf»
Clxtrtc UtNH* SIMM ewwrwhif) IMH fw
Wkldi CwntrvcMwi Is CWMMIKW! After
Scplmbw 10, l»76
60 40a Appllrablllty and designation of si
fecled facility
60 4 la Definitions.
00 42a Standard for paniculate matter.
60 43a Standard for sulfur dioxide.
60 44s Slnndard for nitrogen oxides.
60 45a Cnmmrrclal demonstration permit
60 tea Compliance provisions
60 47a Emission monitoring.
60 48a <'oni|>llanrc determination procr
rlurrs and methods.
6(1 49* RriHirl IIIR requirements
Sec.
00.46b Compliance and performance test
methods and procedures for sulfur diox-
ide.
00 40b Compliance and performance test
methods and procedures for participate
matter and nitrogen oxides.
0047b Emission monitoring for sulfur di-
oxide.
00 46b Emission monitoring for partlculale
matter and nitrogen oxides.
60.40b Reporting and recordkeeptng re-
quirements.
Mi
fw lr»-
G»iMt*Hn«) Until
0060 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
6061 Definitions.
60 S2 Standard for paniculate matter.
60 63 Monitoring of operations.
00.64 Test methods and procedures
lufcfart •— Slmdwdi •» P«rfwiM>K« fw
FwMand C*i«*«l *1«nls
0000 Applicability and designation of at
reeled facility.
•001 Deflnlllons.
60 62 Standard for partlculale matter.
60 63 Monitoring of operations.
60.64 Test methods and procedures.
SukfMrt 0— Stemlwdi •» P«rfwMWK» fw
NHtk AcM Plwili
60.70 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60.71 Definitions.
•072 Standard for nitrogen oxides.
00 73 Emission monitoring.
00 74 Test methods and procedures.
folhiflc AcM Plmli
6060 Applicability and ilrslcnallon of af
fecled facility
6061 Deflnlllons
00 02 Standanl for sulfur dioxide
60 63 Standard lor arid mist
60 64 Emission monitoring
60 66 Test methods anil procedures
I — Slwidwdt •! f •rf«rm«nc* f*r
611 40h Applicability and delegation iif au
thorlly
R04lb Definitions
CO 42b Hlandsril lor Millin ilumile
60 41I> Standard l"t pailii ulale mailer
fill 44ll SlanduHl lor nitrogen oxides
6090 Appllrahilily anil di'siKiiation of al
fii'lril larilily
fill R? Kl.inilaul fur pa r lien hit r nialti-i
fiO fl.'l Trsl mt-MiiMls .'mil ptfirrdiirrs
Sec.
•VV0MVV 9 9*m9d&t •» w9fw9NIMi&t6 w99
60 100 Applicability and designation or af-
reeled raclllty.
•0101 Definitions.
M. 10] Standard for paniculate matter.
60103 Standard for carbon monoxide.
80. 1 04 Standard for sulfur dioxide.
60106 Emission monitoring.
60. 106 Test methods and procedures.
Sec.
•«• V*ss*h fw
WhMi CwislrvcHwi.
i Gtmm»
Aflw
1*7). w«< Prtw »• May I*. ItTI
fw
w
II.
•0110 Appllcablllly and deslgnallon of af
reeled facility.
00.111 Definitions.
•0.112 Standard for volatile organic com-
pounds (VOC).
00.113 Morn •" ing or operation!.
WMdt Cw.
MwJtflraHwi Gtmmu** Aftw May It,
IW«, wtd Prtw to My M, IVM
60 I lOa Applicability and deslgnallon or ar
reeled facility
60 11 la Definition*.
60 M2a Standard for volatile organic com-
pound* (VOC).
00.113a Teillng and procedure*.
60 114a Alternative mean* or emission limi-
tation.
00 116a Monitoring or operation*.
s*h) fw WMcfc CwislmrHwi,
flwi, w Mowfkwlwi
My 23, IfM
60 I lOb Appllcablllly and designation of af
reeled faclllly
601Mb Definitions
00 Il2b Standard lor volatile organic com
pounds (VCM'I
60 I I3b Testing and proct-durra.
611 I I4b Alternative means of emission Mini
I at inn.
60 11 M> RccordkcrpliiK and report IIIK rr
i|iiiremenls
60 I Itil) Monltorlnc of i>|M-rallons
fill M7b l>clr(!:ilii.ii of niilliorily
•0.120 Applicability and designation of af-
recled raclllty.
•0.121 Deflnlllon*.
•0.122 Standard for partlculale matler
00123 Tesl methods and procedures.
WfcffdJff M—-tViWIdJoftft •! •^•ffdjmMMB fUf
60.130 Applicability and deslgnallon or af
fecled raclllty.
•0131 Definitions.
•0 132 Standard for particular matter.
60. 133 Test methods and procedure*.
awry favhslwM frwa> insli O>ya«pw SnwHw*
60 160 A|H>llcablllly and draiRiinlinn of al
frclrd facility
011.101 Di-f lull Ions
611 162 Standard lor paniculate mailer
60 16.1 Standard lor sulfur ilioxjHi-
611 164 .Slamlaril fiir visihli- emissions
60 IfiS Monitoiiiif ol ii|irrnlioit*;
196
197
-------
Part 40
Sec.
00 IM Teal method! and procedures.
00.170 Applicability and designation of af
fecled facility.
•0171 Definition*.
•0 111 Standard lor partlculate matter.
•0.113 Standard for lulfur dioxide.
•0.114 Standard for vblble emission*
•0116 Monitoring of operations.
•0. IK Te*t method! and procedure*.
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
Sec.
•0.221 Definition*.
•0.222 Standard for fluoride*.
•0.223 Monltorlni of operation*.
•0.224 Te*l method* and procedure*.
Cnvlronmcntal Frotoctlon Afjoncy
Sec.
twrfietUn Ve*»eh
rted Alter Avfuit 1, I*M
W— ftattcleieds of r*ifeiaia.nia far MM
*4Mta FerrHier tnovtlry: Triple loper-
80 230 Applicability and designation of at
fected facility.
•0231 Definition*.
•0.232 Standard for fluorides.
•0.233 Monitoring of operations.
60 234 Test methods and procedures.
60 270a Applicability and designation of af
fected facility.
60 27 la Definition*
80 212a Standard for partlculate matter.
60 273a Emission monitoring.
80 274a Monitoring of operation*.
•0.276a Teat methods and procedure*.
80276a Recordkeeplng and reporting re-
quirements.
r«it«o
See.
80.316 Reporting and recordkeeplng re-
quirement*.
•0.316 Tesl methods and procedure*.
t*4huBbauol ••
MMPpMCT fT—
60 ISO Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility
60.181 Definition*.
80 IB2 Standard for partlculate matter.
60.183 Standard for lulfur dioxide.
•0 1S4 Standard for vblble emission*.
•0 186 Monitoring of operation*.
•0181 Test method* and procedure*.
_«. fiitm ..... f m t^f Mk^
Or rarTOffmavKO WOT mO
Trlp4* $*•*»••**
Support i Slorioai* of Perf»
PlonN
60 100 Applicability and designation of at
fected facility.
•0101 Definition*.
80.1*3 Standard for fluoride*.
60 103 Standard for vblble emissions
80 104 Monitoring of operation*.
60.105 Test method* and procedures.
•0.240 Applicability and designation of af
fected facility.
60.241 Definitions.
•0.242 Standard for fluorides.
•0.243 Monitoring of operation*.
•0.244 Test methods and procedure*.
fw CM|
lufcpert f— Standardi of
PKetpkato r
for HM
riUsor HtoWttry: Wet-Preco»
Phosphoric AcM Plants
80 200 Applicability and designation of at
reeled facility.
60 201 Definitions.
60 202 Standard for fluoride*.
60 203 Monitoring of operations.
6U 204 Test methods and procedures.
Subvert U— Stand ord» of Performance lor Hi*
Pheiahate FirrUlier Inoutlry: Su»«r»rie»-
AcM Plant*
Prap«eatf*n Planlt
60 250 Applicability and designation of at
fected facility.
•0251 Definition*.
•0.252 Standards for partlculate matter.
60253 Monitoring of operations.
•0.254 Test methods and procedures.
Si*»»rl I— SI ••dardi •! P*rfwiii«K» fw
60210 Applirablllly and designation of si
lected fa< Illly.
60 21 1 Definitions
60 212 Slandsrd lor fluorides
60213 Monitoring of operations.
60214 Test methods and procedures
Sufcpart V— St.n4.r4> •! Performance »•» Hi*
Pt*9«alMle fertrHief Industry: Dlemmenrum
Ffcetphelo Plants
nn 270 Applicability snd designation i>l «l
(cried facility
80 260 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60281 Definitions.
60.262 Standard for participate matter.
60.263 Standard for carbon monoxide.
60.264 Emission monitoring.
60.265 Monitoring of operations.
60 266 Test methods and procedures
Svba*ri AA — Slwutordt •! Performance f*r
Steal Plant*: Electric Arc Furnecet Cen-
tlivcted After Deleter 21. 1*74 and en er
••fere Aufuit 17, 1961
60.210 Applicability and deslnnallon ol al
lectrd facility.
60211 IVfinillons
60 272 Standard for partlculale mailer
60 273 Rmlssion monitoring
6O 274 MonllorliiK ol operallniis
60 215 Test methods and procedures
60276 ItcconlkerpliiK and report Ing re
qulrcments.
KivH ^ulp MWt
60 280 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60281 Definitions.
•0.282 Standard for partlculate matter.
00.281 Standard for total reduced sulfur
ef lull Ions
60.302 Standards for volatile organic com
pounds.
60393 Performance test and compliance
provisions
60 394 Monitoring ol emissions and oper
nitons
198
199
-------
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
Sec.
60186 Reporting and recordkeeplng re
quIremenU.
60 106 Reference methodi Mid procedure*
•0.111 Modification*.
•0 198 Innovative technology waiver*.
ffcMf li.l. ••«> ftuntt
to AOO Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
•0401 Definition*.
•0 403 Standard for paniculate matter.
60403 Monitoring of emlMlon* and oper-
•lion*
60.404 Te»l methodi and procedure*.
fcibfMrt tf— ttmmtmtt ft r
•0 410 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60421 Definition*.
00.421 Standard* for partlculate matter.
60 421 Monltorlni of operallon*.
00.424 Test methods and pi uc«luros.
00—Sta
rd* •* f««t»i«i»»m fa*
KM OnpMt Art* Indmlryi rvk««»Mw« ••-
t^OTOTrrMfat
60 110 Applicability and designation of af
fecled facility.
6O «i I Definitions and notations
6O.432 Standard for volatile oigank com-
pounds.
00411 Performance test and compliance
provisions.
60.414 Monitoring of operations and rec-
ordkeeplng.
60 415 Test methods and procedure*.
Prsiwr* *MnMv. !••» and Ufcal
60 440 Applicability and deilfnatkm of af-
fected facility.
60 441 Definitions and symbol*.
60442 Standard for volatile organic com-
pound*.
60441 Compliance provision*.
•0 444 Performance lest procedure*.
•0 445 Monitoring ol operations and ree
ordkeeplng.
•0 446 Test methods and procedure*.
•0 447 II r port Ing requirements.
$ubfwtl SS—St.nd.fd* .1 PntoffMnc. fa*
IndvttrM twice* CMUfMj: !•>(• Ap.H.nc.t
"0 450 Applicability and designation <•( nl
lifted facility.
A04SI Definitions
Sec.
80.461 Standard for volatile organic com-
pound*.
00.451 Performance teal and compliance
provision*
60.464 Monltorlni of emission* and oper-
ation*.
60485 Reporting and recordkeeplng re-
quirement*.
60 456 Test method* and procedure*.
l*>p*rt II—Itandwd* »f f»rl«r»«iic« to
M*M (Ml fwfw* CMtlng
60.460 Applicability and deslinallon of af-
fected facility.
60.461 Definition*.
60 462 Standard* for volatile organic com-
pound*.
60.461 Perfomance ted and compliance
provision*.
60.464 Monitoring of emission* and oper-
ation*.
60.465 Reporting and recordkeeplnf re-
quirement*.
•0.466 Test method* and procedures.
Hf.nd.rf). •» Pwf •IWOIKO tw A»-
•fc.lt Pr»c.t>-lr»g ««d Aiphfrit •••fin*}
•0.470 Applicability and designation of af
reeled facllltleg.
•0.471 Definition*.
60.471 Standards for partlculate matter.
60.411 Monitoring of operations.
60.414 Test methods and procedures.
VV— lt.nd.rdi *f
|M!I* •• VOC U Mw (ynrlwHc
Oigalt OtMik^t aUmit»ctyrfin tndmtry
60.460 Applicability and deilgnallon of af-
fected facility.
60.481 Definition*.
60 461 I Standard*: General.
60.461-2 Standards: Pumps In light liquid
service.
60 461 1 Standard*: Compressors.
60.4(1-4 Standards: Pressure relief devices
In gas/vapor service.
60.482-6 Standards: Sampling connection
systems.
60463 6 Standards: Open ended valves or
lines.
00.4631 Standards: Valve* In gait/vapor
and In light liquid service.
60.483 6 Standards: Pumps and valves In
heavy liquid service, pressure relief de
vices In light liquid or heavy liquid serv
Ire. and flanges and other connectors.
60 481 • Standards: Delay of repair
60482 10 Standards. Closed vrnt systems
and control devices.
60 483 I Alternative standards for valves-
allowablr percentage ol valv<-s leaking
200
Protection Aponcy
See.
•0 481 2 Alternative standards (or valve*-
*klp period leak detection and repair.
60.464 Equivalence of means of emlaslon
limitation.
•0.46ft Test methods and procedures.
60.486 Recordkeeplnt requirements.
60.481 Reporting requirements.
60.481 Reconstruction.
60.486 List of chemicals produced by af-
fected facilities.
Bee.
60.142 Standards for volatile organic com
pounds.
60.841 Performance teat and compliance
provision*.
60644 Monitoring of operation*.
60.645 Recordkeeplng requirements.
60.646 Reporting requirement*.
60.547 Teit method* and procedures.
60.548 Delegation of authority.
•**•***• WW
MM 8«v*r*f« C*n iurt
•dl
it
60.480 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60.481 Definitions.
60.462 Standard* for volatile organic com-
pounds.
•0.461 Performance teat and compliance
provision*.
60.484 Monitoring of emission* and oper-
ations.
60.488 Reporting and recordkeeplnf re-
quirements.
60 406 Test methods and procedure*.
ftsiilM* Vinyl MM* UraMMfM Uarlnj *nd
60.880 Applicability and designation of af
fecled facility.
60.881 Definitions and symbols.
•0.582 Standard for volatile organic com
pound*.
60 561 Test method* and procedure*.
60.584 Monitoring of operation* and rec-
ordkeeplng requirements.
•0.586 Reporting requirements.
60 600 Applicability and designation of af
fected facility.
60501 Definitions.
60601 Standard* for Volatile Organic
Compound (VOC) emission! from bulk
gasoline terminal*.
60501 Test method* and procedure*.
60504 (Reservedl
60506 Reporting and recordkeeptng.
60506 Reconstruction.
•« VOC In rctrswn* •«.
•O.MO Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
•8581 Definition*.
60661 Standard*.
60.881 Exception*.
Sn*MMc
r *>»<.<««. ••
60 530 Applicability and deslgnalkm of af-
fected facility.
60531 Definitions.
60 531 Standard* for partlculate matter.
60.513 Compliance and certification.
•0 534 Test methodi and procedures.
60 535 Laboratory accreditation.
60536 Permanent label, temporary label.
and owner's manual.
60 637 Reporting and recordkeeplng.
60538 Prohibitions.
60.530 Hearing and appeal procedures.
60 538a Delegation of authority.
60.530b General provisions exclusions.
in*jp«rt •••—Stendwdf t>f P«f*«im.ma for
MM fhfbbor Tlr. MfMniftKivfifif Indvitr*
60 540 Applicability and designation of af
fected facilities
•0541 Definitions
60 600 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
•0601 Definitions.
•0602 Standard for volatile organic com
pounds.
60601 Performance lest and compliance
provisions.
60.604 Reporting requirements.
SvfcfMHt M— |IU»r**d|
Impart JJJ— Svmdwdt •» fwfwfMtK* f*r
Patrawwn Dry CI««iMrs
•0.620 Applicability and designation of at-
fecled facility.
60621 Definitions
60.622 Standards for volatile organic com
pounds.
60621 Equivalent equipment and proce-
dures.
60 624 Test mel hods and procedures.
60 625 KccordkreptitK rriiulrrmeiiU
201
-------
9«o.i
Sec.
KKK— ttmmtmtt •« r«rt»CR»«K« ••«
U«ks •» VOC Fran OnsHw*
•Mural OM PfMMtfafl «••*•
80 830 Applicability and declination of af •
leclcd facility.
•0611 Definition*.
M«» Standard*.
«a«33 Exception*
•0.114 AlUinatlve mean* of emission llml-
Utlon.
•O 635 Recordkeeplng requirement*.
(W 6»S Reporting requirement*.
Sec.
40 CM Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
QQQ— *f $
frisk*** IMml ••« rrac*s»a«ei
80.640 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facilities.
•0641 Definition*.
60.641 Standard* for sulfur dioxide.
60843 Compliance provisions.
•0.644 Performance teal procedures.
60 645 Performance teat method*.
«O.«46 Monitoring of emission* and oper-
ation*.
60647 Recordkeeplng and reporting re-
quirement*.
60646 Optional procedure tor measuring
hydrogen *ulflde In acid gas-TutwIler
Procedure.
-NUN
»M>p.rt OOO— ll-n«»r«l »f P
60 870 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
60671 Definitions.
60 672 Standard for partlculate matter.
60 671 Reconstruction.
60 674 Monitoring of operation*.
60 675 Test method* and procedures.
60 676 Reporting and recordkeeplnf .
Subpwl PPf— »m4a*4 •! P«r»«nii««it» fat
ri**r«4«t hwvMlaft
60 6BO Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
606BI Definitions
SO «S2 Slandaril for partlculale matter.
•0 6f>3 Monitoring of operations.
606K4 Kerordkccplng and reporting re
qutiements.
•0 6S5 Test mellimls and procedure's
l— Standards »f P»rl»nn«iK« fa» k»-
dtntrM Swfec* CMltnf: Surface CMrtlnsj
•I Ptoslk Paris f*t §«,!„••• MochkMt
60 720 Applicability and designation of af-
fected facility.
•0711 Definition*.
•0 722 Standard* for volatile organic com-
pound*.
60.723 Performance le«l and compliance
provisions.
•0.734 Reporting and recordkeeplng re-
quIremenU.
•0.725 Test method* and procedure*.
•0.726 Delegations of authority.
ArrENDix A-Rarrantcm Manioo*
ArrENDix B— PniroaMANci SrecmcATioHS
ArrKHDix C— DCTOIMINATION or EMISSION
RATS CHAIIOK
ArrENDix D— REQUIRED EMISSION INVENTO
av InroaMATion
ArriHDix El Risen vn>)
ArriNDix P-QUALITY AMURAMCI PMOCI-
DURCS
ArriNDix O— PROVIIIOIIS ro* AH ALTONA-
TIVI METHOD or DEMONSTHATINO Conri.1-
ANCI WITH 40 CFR 60.41 roil THE
NEWTON Pawn STATION or CENT»AI. IL-
LINOIS PUBLIC SERVICE COHFANY
ArrENDix H I RESERVED)
ArriNDix I REMOVABLE LAIEL AND OWNER'S
MANUAL
AUTHORITY: 42 U.8.C. 7401. 7411. 7414.
741*. and 7801.
SOURCE: 38 FR 24877. Dec. 23. 1971. unlea*
otherwise noted.
Subport A— General Provisions
1C*. I Applicability.
Except as provided In Subparts B
and C. the provisions of this part
apply to the owner or operator of any
stationary source which contains an
affected facility, the construction or
modification of which Is commenced
after the date of publication In this
part of any standard (or. If earlier, the
dale of publication of any proposed
standard) applicable to that facility.
140 FR 53346. Nov 17. 19751
II 60.2 Definitions
The terms used In this part are de
fined In the Act or in this section as
follows:
Environmental Protection Agency
"Act" means the Clean Air Act (42
U.8.C. 1857 et aeq.. as amended by
Pub. L. 91-604. 84 Stat. 1676).
"Administrator" means the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency or his authorized repre-
sentative.
"Affected facility" means, with refer-
ence to a stationary source, any appa-
ratus to which a standard Is applica-
ble.
"Alternative method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
an air pollutant which Is not a refer-
ence or equivalent method but which
has been demonstrated to the Admin-
istrator's satisfaction to. In specific
cases, produce results adequate for his
determination of compliance.
"Capita/ expenditure" means an ex-
penditure for a physical or operational
change to an existing facility which
exceeds the product of the applicable
"annual asset guideline repair allow-
ance percentage" specified In the
latest edition of Internal Revenue
Service (IRS) Publication 534 and the
existing facility's basis, as defined by
section 1012 of the Internal Revenue
Code. However, the total expenditure
for a physical or operational change to
an existing facility must not be re-
duced by any "excluded additions" as
defined In IRS Publication 534. as
would be done for tax purposes.
"Commenced" means, with respect
to the definition of "new source" In
section lll(a)(2) of the Act. that an
owner or operator has undertaken a
continuous program of construction or
modification or that an owner or oper-
ator has entered Into a contractual ob-
ligation to undertake and complete.
within a reasonable lime, a continuous
program of construction or modifies
lion.
"Conjfruc/ion" means fabrication,
erection, or installation of an affected
facility.
••Continuous monitoring syitrm"
means the tola! equipment, required
under the emission monitoring sec-
tions In applicable subparts. used (o
sample and condition (If applicable).
to analyze, and to provide a perma-
nent record of emissions or process pa-
rameters.
"Equivalent method" means any
method of sampling and analyzing for
5*0.7
an air pollutant which has been dem-
onstrated to the Administrator's satis-
faction to have a consistent and quan-
titatively known relationship to the
reference method, under specified con-
ditions.
"Exitting facility" means, with ref-
erence to a stationary source, any ap-
paratus of the type for which a stand-
ard Is promulgated In this part, and
the construction or modification of
which was commenced before the date
of proposal of that standard; or any
apparatus which could be altered In
such a way as to be of that type.
"liokinetlc lampling" means sam-
pling In which the linear velocity of
the gas entering the sampling nozzle la
equal to that of the undisturbed gas
stream at the sample point.
"Malfunction" means any sudden
and unavoidable failure of air pollu-
tion control equipment or process
equipment or of a process to operate
In a normal or usual manner. Failures
that are caused entirely or In part by
poor maintenance, careless operation,
or any other preventable upset condi-
tion or preventable equipment break
down shall not be considered malfunc-
tions.
"Modification" means any physical
change In, or change In the method of
operation of. an existing facility which
Increases the amount of any air pollut-
ant (to which a standard applies) emit-
ted Into the atmosphere by lhat facili-
ty or which results In the emission of
any air pollutant (to which a standard
applies) Into the atmosphere not pre-
viously emitted.
"Afoniforinp- de-Dice" means the total
equipment, required under the moni-
toring of operations sections In appli-
cable subparts. used to measure and
record (If applicable) process param-
eters.
"Nitrogen oxides" means all oxides
of nitrogen except nitrous oxide, as
measured by lest methods set forth In
this parl.
"One-hour period" means any 60-
mliuite period commencing on the
hour.
"Opacity" means the degree to
which emissions reduce the transmit
slon of light and obscure the view of
an object in the background
202
203
-------
(a) The provision was promulgated
by the Administrator, and
(b) The plan, as revised, will be con-
sistent with the Act and with the re-
quirements of this subpart.
Subporl C—Emlislon Guidelines and
Compliance Time*
SOURCE 41 FR 6S787, Oct. 18. 1077. unless
otherwise noted.
0M.3* Scope.
This subpart contains emission
guidelines and complance times for
the control of certain designated pol-
lutants from certain designated facili-
ties In accordance with section lll(d)
of the Act and Subpart B.
0*6.31 Definition*.
Terms used but not defined In this
subpart have the meaning given them
In the Act and In Subparts A and B of
this part.
I 60.32 Detlf naled faeililiea.
(a) Sulfurlc acids production units.
The designated facility to which
||60.33(a> and 60.34(a) apply Is each
existing "sulfurlc acid production
unit" as defined In I SO.BKa) of Sub-
part H.
ft 60.33 Emlnlon guideline*.
(a) Sulfurlc acid production units.
The emission guideline for designated
facilities Is 0.25 gram sulfuric acid mist
(as measured by Reference Method B.
of Appendix A) per kilogram of sulfu-
rlc acid produced (0.5 Ib/ton). the pro-
duction being expressed as 100 percent
II.SO..
0 64.34 Compliance lime*.
(a) Sulfurlc acid production units.
Planning, awarding of contracts, and
Installation of equipment capable of
attaining the level of the emission
guideline established under I 60.33(a)
can be accomplished within 17 months
after the affective dale of a Slate
emission standard for sulfurlc acid
mist
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
Subpart O—Standard* of Perform-
anco for Fo**ll-Fuel-Flrod Stoam
Generator* for Which Construc-
tion I* Commenced After Auguit
17, 1971
I (0.40 Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facilities to which
the provisions of this subpart apply
are:
(1) Each fossil fuel fired steam gen-
erating unit of more than 73
megawatts heat Input rate (250 million
Btu per hour).
(2) Bach fossil-fuel and wood resi-
due-fired steam generating unit capa-
ble of firing fossil fuel at a heat Input
rate of more than 73 megawatts (250
million Btu per hour).
(b) Any change to an existing fossil-
fuel fired steam generating unit to ac-
commodate the use of combustible ma-
terials, other than fossil fuels as de-
fined In this subpart, shall not bring
that unit under the applicability of
this subpart.
(c) Except as provided In paragraph
(d) of this section, any facility under
paragraph (a) of this section that com-
menced construction or modification
after August 17, 1971, Is subject to the
requirements of this subpart.
(d) The requirements' of ||60.44
. <5>. (b) and (d). and
60.45(f>(4)(vl) are applicable to lignite-
fired steam generating units that com-
menced construction or modification
after December 22, 1976.
(e) Any facility covered under Sub-
part Da Is not covered under this sub-
part.
(42 FR 37936. July 25, 1977. as amended at
43 FR 9278. Mar. 7. 1978: 44 FR 33012. June
17. 19791
0*0.41 Definition*.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them in the Act. and In Subpart
A of this part.
(a) 'Fossil fuel fired steam generat-
ing unit" means a furnace or boiler
used In the process of burning fossil
fuel for the purpose of producing
steam by heat transfer.
242
Environmental Protection Agency
9*0.43
(b) "Fossil fuel" means natural gas.
petroleum, coal, and any form of solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
such materials for the purpose of cre-
ating useful heat.
(c) "Coal refuse" means waste-prod-
ucts of coal mining, cleaning, and coal
preparation operations (e.g. culm, gob,
etc.) containing coal, matrix material.
clay, and other organic and Inorganic
material.
(d) "Fossil fuel and wood residue-
fired steam generating unit" means a
furnace or boiler used In the process
of burning fossil fuel and wood residue
for the purpose of producing steam by
heat transfer.
(e) "Wood residue" means bark, saw-
dust, slabs, chips, shavings, mill trim,
and other wood products derived from
wood processing and forest manage-
ment operations.
(f) "Coal" means all solid fuels clas-
sified as anthracite, bituminous, subbl-
tumlnous, or lignite by the American
Society and Testing and Materials,
Designation D388-77 (Incorporated by
reference—see 160.17).
(39 FR 20791. June 14. 1974. a* amended at
40 FR 2803, Jan. I*. 1975; 41 FR 51398. Nov.
22. 1976: 43 FR 9276. Mar. 7. 1978: 48 FR
3736. Jan. 27, 19831
0 60.42 Standard for paniculate mailer.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by I 60.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any affected facility any gases which:
(1) Contain partlculate matter In
excess of 43 nanograms per joule heat
Input (0.10 Ib per million Btu) derived
from fossil fuel or fossil fuel and wood
residue.
(2) Exhibit greater than 20 percent
opacity except for one slx-mlnute
period per hour of not more than 27
percent opacity.
(but) On or after December 28.
1979. no owner or operator shall cause
to be discharged Into the atmosphere
from the Southwestern Public Service
Company's Harrington Station #1. In
Amarlllo. Texas, any gases which ex-
hibit greater than 35% opacity, except
that a maximum or 42% opacity shall
be permitted for not more than 6 min-
utes In any hour.
(2) Interstate Power Company shall
not cause to be discharged Into the at-
mosphere from Its Lansing Station
Unit No. 4 In Lansing, Iowa, any gases
which exhibit greater than 32% opaci-
ty, except that a maximum of 39%
opacity shall be permitted for not
more than six minutes In any hour.
(3) Omaha Public Power District
•hall not cause to be discharged faito
the atmosphere from Its Nebraska
City Power Station In Nebraska City,
Nebraska, any gases which exhibit
greater than 30% opacity, except that
a maximum of 37% opacity shall be
permitted for not more than six min-
utes In any hour.
(39 FR 20792. June 14. 1974. a* amended at
41 FR 51398. Nov. 22. 1976: 42 FR 6IS37.
Dec. 5. 1977: 44 FR 76787. Dec. 26. 1979: 45
FR 36077. May 29. I960; 45 FR 47146, July
14. I960: 46 FR 57498. Nov. 24. 19611
0 60.43 Standard for sulfur dioxide.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance lest required to be
conducted by | 60.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any affected facility any gases which
contain sulfur dioxide In excess of:
(1) 340 nanograms per joule heat
Input (0.80 Ib per million Btu) derived
from liquid fossil fuel or liquid fossil
fuel and wood residue.
(2) 520 nanograms per joule heat
Input (1.2 Ib per million Btu) derived
from solid fossil fuel or solid fossil fuel
and wood residue, except as provided
In paragraph (e) of this section.
(b) When different fossil fuels are
burned simultaneously In any combi-
nation, the applicable standard (In ng/
J) shall be determined by proratlon
using the following formula:
PSw (y(340) l i(S20)|/(»iz)
where:
I'S«,. Is the prorated standard for sulfur
dioxide when burning different furl* •!•
mullHiiroiisly. In nanoframs per Joule
heat Input derived from all fossil fuel*
fired or from all fossil fuels and wood
residue fired.
V Is the i>ercent*Re of total hral Input de
rived from liquid fossil fuel, and
243
-------
960.44
* !• the perrenlage of toUl heal Input de-
rived from solid fossil fuel.
(c> Compliance shall be based on the
total heat Input from all fossil fuels
burned. Including gaseous fuels.
(d) (Reserved)
(e) Units 1 and 3 (as defined In Ap-
pendix O) at the Newton Power Sta-
tion owned or operated by the Central
Illinois Public Service Company will
be In compliance with paragraph
(aX2> of this section If Unit I and Unit
2 Individually comply with paragraph
(a>(2> of this section or If the com-
bined emission rate from Units I and 2
does not exceed 470 nanograms per
joule (1.1 Ib per million Btu) combined
hrat Input to Units 1 and 2.
139 FR 207*2. June 14. 1974. M intended at
41 FR 51398. Nov. 22. 1978: S3 FR 2S9S4,
Aug. 4. 19871
I M.4I Standard for nitrogen o«ldes.
(5> of this section).
(5) 340 nanograms per joule heat
Input (0.80 Ib per million Btu) derived
from lignite which Is mined In North
Dakota. South Dakota, or Montana
and which Is burned In a cyclone-fired
unit.
(b) Except as provided under para-
graphs (c) and (d) of this section.
40 CFR Cti. I (7-l-M Edition)
when different fossil fuels are burned
simultaneously In any combination,
the applicable standard (In ng/J) Is de-
termined by proratlon using the fol-
lowing formula:
B*a<0)tT<8«)l * 130) 1 2(300)
101 x i
where:
P5M»-ki the prorated standard for nitrogen
oxldef when burning different fuels si-
multaneously. In nanograms per joule
nest Input derived from (II fossil fuels
fired or from all fossil fuels and wood
residue fired;
lo-ls the percentage of total heat Input de-
rived from lignite:
x~ls the percentage of total heat Input de-
rived from gaseous fossil fuel;
»>-to the percentage of total heat Input de-
rived from liquid fossil fuel; and
• -to the percentage of total heal Input de-
rived from solid fossil fuel (except lig-
nite).
(r) When a fossil fuel containing at
li'ftsl 25 percent, by weight, of coal
reliihr Is burned In combination with
gaseous, liquid, or other solid fossil
fuel or wood residue, the standard for
nitrogen oxides does not apply.
(d) Cyclone-fired units which burn
fuels containing at least 25 percent of
lignite that Is mined In North Dakota.
South Dakota, or Montana remain
subject to paragraph (aM5> of this sr.-
tlon regardless of the types of fur)
combusted In combination with that
lignite.
IJ9 FR 20782. June 14. 1*74. as amended at
41 FR SI39S. Nov. 22. 1*78; 43 FR 8278. Mar.
7. 1*78; SI FR 427*7. Nov. 29. 19881
I «8.45 EMISSION and fuel monlloring.
(a) Each owner or operator shall In-
stall, calibrate, maintain, and operate
continuous monitoring systems for
measuring the opacity of emissions,
sulfur dioxide emissions, nitrogen
oxides emissions, and either oxygen or
carbon dioxide except as provided In
paragraph (b) of this section.
(b) Certain of the continuous moni-
toring system requirements under
paragraph (a) of this section do not
Envtr
Pr«t*cN4Nt Aftmcy
apply to owners or operator* under
the following conditions:
(I) For a fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
erator that burns only gaseous fossil
fuel, continuous monitoring systems
for measuring the opacity of emissions
and sulfur dioxide emissions are not
required.
(2) For • fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
erator that does not use ft flue gas de-
sulfurteatlon device, ft continuous
monitoring system for measuring
sulfur dioxide emissions I* not re-
quired If the owner or operator moni-
tors sulfur dioxide emissions by fuel
sampling and analysis under para-
graph (d) of this section.
(3) Notwithstanding |00.13(b>. In-
stallation of • continuous monitoring
system for nitrogen oxides may be de-
layed until after the Initial perform-
ance tests under 160.8 have been con-
ducted, tf the owner or operator dem-
onstrates during the performance test
that emissions of nitrogen oxides are
lesa than 70 ,. .cent of the applicable
standard* In 160.44. a continuous
monitoring system for measuring ni-
trogen oxides emissions Is riot re-
quired. If the Initial performance test
results show that nitrogen oxide emis-
sions are greater than 70 percent of
the applicable standard, the owner or
operator shall Install ft continuous
monitoring system for nitrogen oxide*
within one year after the date of the
Initial performance testa under 160.8
and comply with all other applicable
monitoring requirements under this
part.
(4) If an owner or operator doe* not
Install any continuous monitoring sys-
tems for sulfur oxide* and nitrogen
oxides, as provided under paragraphs
(bKl) and or paragraph* (bM2>
and (bH3) of this section a continuous
monitoring system for measuring
either oxygen or carbon dioxide Is not
required.
(c) For performance evaluation*
under I 60.13(0 and calibration checks
under |60.l3(d>. the following proce-
dures shall be used:
(I) Methods 3 or 3A. 6. 6A. 6B or 6C,
and 1. 7A. 7C. 7D or 7E. as applicable.
shall be used for conducting relative
accuracy evaluations of sulfur dioxide
and nitrogen oxides continuous emis-
sion inoiill.orlng systrms. Methods 3A.
§40.45
6C. and TB shall be used only ftt the
sole discretion of the source owner or
operator.
(2) Sulfur dioxide or nitric oxide, a*
applicable, shall be used for preparing
calibration gas mixtures under Per-
formance Specification 2 of Appendix
B to this part.
(3) For affected facilities burning
fossil fuel(s), the span value for ft con-
tinuous monitoring system measuring
the opacity of emissions shall be 80.
80, or 100 percent and for • continuous
monitoring system measuring culfur
oxides or nitrogen oxides the span
value shall be determined as follows:
tin pMl P-
SfWfl vriul tar
I'l
1.000
1.500
i.ooor i i.500i
where:
x-lhe fraction of total heat Input derived
from gaseous fossil fuel, and
v-lhe fraction of total heat Input derived
from liquid fossil fuel, and
s-ihe fraction of total heal Input derived
from Mild fossil fuel.
(4) All span values computed under
paragraph (cM3) of this section for
burning combinations of fossil fuel*
chad be rounded to the nearest 500
ppm.
(8) For ft fossil fuel-fired steam gen-
erator that simultaneously burns fossil
fuel and nonfossll fuel, the span value
of all continuous monlloring system*
shall be subject to the Administrator's
approval.
(d) I Reserved!
(e) For any continuous monitoring
system Installed under paragraph (a)
of this section, the following conver-
sion procedures shall be used to con-
vert the continuous monitoring data
Into units of the applicable standards
(ng/J. Ib/milllon Btu):
(1) When a continuous monitoring
system for measuring oxygen Is select-
ed, the measurement of the pollutant
concentration and oxygen concentra-
tion shall each OP on a consistent basis
(wot or dry). Alternative procedures
244
245
-------
8*0.45
approved by the Administrator shall
be used when measurements are on a
wet basis. When measurements are on
a dry basis, the following conversion
procedure shall be used:
E = Cn20.0/120.9-percent O.)l
where:
E. C. P. and %O. are determined under
paragraph If) of this section .
(2) When a continuous monitoring
system for measuring carbon dioxide Is
selected, the measurement of the pol-
lutant concentration and carbon diox-
ide concentration shall each be on a
consistent basis (wet or dry) and the
following conversion procedure shall
be used:
B= CF, (100/percent CO. I
whrre:
E. C, F, and %CO, are determined under
paragraph of this section
(f) The values used In the equations
under paragraphs (1) and (2) of
this section are derived as follows:
(1) E= pollutant emissions. ng/J (Ib/
million Btu).
(2> C= pollutant concentration, ng/
dscm (Ib/dscf), determined by multi-
plying the average concentration
(ppm) for each one-hour period by
4.15x10* M ng/dscm per ppm
(2 59x 10 • M Ib/dscf per ppm) where
IH= pollutant molecular weight, g/g-
mole and For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 160.7(c). periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
(1) Opacity. Excess emissions are de-
fined as any six-minute period during
which the average opacity of emissions
exceeds 20 percent opacity, except
that one six-minute average per hour
of up to 27 percent opacity need not
be reported.
(I) For sources subject to the opacity
standard of I 60.42(bMl). excess emis-
sions are defined as any six minute
period during which the average opaci-
ty of emissions exceeds 35 percent
opacity, except that one six-minute av-
erage per hour of up to 42 percent
opacity need not be reported.
(II) For sources subject to the opaci-
ty standard of |60.42(bM2). excess
emissions are defined as any six-
minute period during which the aver-
age opacity of emissions exceeds 32
percent opacity, except that one six-
minute average per hour of up to 39
percent opacity need not be reported.
(ill) Por sources subject to the opaci-
ty standard of |60.42(bK3). excess
emissions are defined as any six
minute period during which the aver
age opacity of emissions exceeds 30
percent opacity, except that one slx-
mlniite average per hour of up to 37
percent opacity need not be reported.
(2) Sulfur diojidr. Excess emissions
for affected facilities are defined as:
247
•m i:n o wi
-------
5 «>.«
(I) Any llirrc hour period durlnf
which the aveianc emissions (arithme-
tic average of three contiguous one-
hour periods) of sulfur dioxide as
measured by a continuous monitoring
system exceed the applicable standard
under I M.43.
(3) Nitrogen oxtdei. Excess emissions
for affected facilities using a continu-
ous monitoring system for measuring
nitrogen oxides are defined as any
three-hour period during which the
average emissions (arithmetic average
of three contiguous one-hour periods)
exceed the applicable standards under
160.44.
140 FR 443M. Oct. «. ItTBI
EDrrom/iL Non: For FcraiUL Raoisna d-
Ulloiu affecting I «0 45. tee the Llit of CFR
flections Affected In the Flndlnc Aid* sec-
tion of till* volume.
I M.4« Test melhodi and procedures.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A of this part, except as provided
In 160.8(b). shall be used to determine
compliance with the standards as pre-
scribed In 1160.42. 60.43. and 60.44 as
follows:
. (I) Method I for selection of sam-
pling site and sample traverses.
(2) Method 3 for gas analysis to be
used when applying Method S, SB. 17,
6. 7. 7A. 1C. or 7D.
(3) Method 5. 5B. or 17 for concen-
tration of partlculate matter and the
associated moisture content as follows:
Method 6 Is to be used at affected fa-
cilities without wet flue gas desulfurl-
zatlon (POD) systems; Melliini so Is to
be used only after wet Full systems;
and Method 17 may be used at facili-
ties with or without wet POO systems
provided that the stack fas tempera-
ture Hi the sampling locution does not
exceed an average temperature of 160
*C (320 "F). The procedures of .sections
2 I and 2.3 of Method SB may be used
with Method 17 only If It Is used after
wet POD systems Do not use Method
17 after wet POD systems If the efflu-
ent gas Is saturated or laden with
water droplets.
(4) Method 6 or 6C for concentration
of SO,. Method 6A may be used when-
ever Methods 6 or 6C and 3 or 3A data
are used to determine the SO, emis-
sion rate In n«/J Method 6C shall be
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M E4lltl«Ni)
used only at the sole discretion of the
source owner or operator.
(S) Method 7. 7A. 1C. ID. or 7E for
concentration of NO,. Method 7E
shall be used only at the sole discre-
tion of the source owner or operator.
(b) For Method B. SB. or 17. Method
1 shall be used to select the sampling
site and the number of traverse sam-
pling points. The sampling time for
each run shall be at least 60 minutes.
and the minimum sampling volume
shall be 0.68 dscm (30 dscf) except
that smaller sampling times or vol-
umes, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be ap-
proved by the Administrator. The
probe and filter holder heating sys-
tems In the sampling train shall be set
to provide a gas temperature of
I60±I4"C(320±25-P).
(c) For Melhods 6 and 7. 7A. 7C. or
7D the sampling site shall be the same
as that selected for Method 8. SB, or
17. The sampling point In the duct
shall be at the centrold of the cross
section or at a point no closer to the
walls than 1 m (3.28 ft). For Methods 6
and 7C or 7D. the sample shall be ex-
tracted at a constant volumetric flow
rate.
(d) For Method 6. the minimum
sampling time shall be 20 minutes and
the minimum sampling volume 0.02
dscm (0.71 dscf) for each sample. The
arithmetic mean of two samples shall
constitute one run. Samples shall be
taken at approximately 30 minute In-
tervals.
(e) For Method 7 or 7A. each run
shall consist of at least four grab sam-
ples taken at approximately IB-minute
Intervals. The arithmetic mean of the
samples shall constitute the run value.
For Melhod 7C or 7D. each run shall
consist of a I-hour sample.
(f) For each run using the melhods
specified by paragraphs (aM3), (aM4).
and (aHS) of this section, the emis-
sions expressed In ng/J (Ib/mllllon
Btu) shall be determined by the fol-
lowing procedure:
prrcenlO.l
where:
(I) E^pollutant emission ng/J (Ib/
million Btu).
248
ProUctUn Agency
(2) C>pollutant concentration, ng/
dscm (Ib/dscf) determined by Method
S. 6. 6C. 7. 7A. 7C. 7D. or 7E.
(3) Percent O,=Oxygen content by
volume (expressed as percent), dry
basis. Percent oxygen shall be deter-
mined by using the Integrated or grab
sampling and analysis procedures of
Method 3 as applicable, or by using
Method 3A. Melhod 3A shall be used
only at the sole discretion of the
source owner or operator. Oxygen
samples shall be obtained as follows:
(I) For determination of sulfur diox-
ide by Method 6 or 6C and nitrogen
oxides emissions by Method 7. 7A. 1C.
7D. or 7E. Ihe oxygen sample shall be
obtained simultaneously at the same
point In the duct. For Method 7 or 7 A.
the oxygen sample shall be obtained
using the grab sampling and analysts
procedures of Melhod 3, or by using
Method 3A.
(II) For determination of partlculate
emissions, the oxygen sample shall be
obtained simultaneously by traversing
the duct at the same sampling location
used for each run of Method 0. SB. or
17 under paragraph (b) of this section.
Method I shall be used for selection of
the number of oxygen traverse points
except that no more than 12 sample
points are required.
(4) F=a factor as determined In
paragraphs (f) (4). (S) or (6) of 160.45.
(g) When combinations of fossil
fuels or fossil fuel and wood residue
are fired, the heal Input, expressed In
walla (Btu/hr). Is determined during
each testing period by multiplying the
gross calorific value of each fuel fired
(In J/kg or Btu/lb) by Ihe rale of each
fuel burned (In kg/sec or Ib/hr). Gross
calorific values are determined In ac-
cordance with ASTM methods D20IS-
77 (solid fuels). D240-76 (liquid fuels).
or DI826-77 (gaseous fuels) as applica-
ble. (These three methods are Incorpo-
rated by reference- see 160.17.) The
method used to determine calorific
value of wood residue must be ap-
proved by Ihe Administrator. The
owner or operator shall determine the
rale <>l fuels burned during each test-
ing period by suitable methods and
shall confirm the rate by a material
balance over the steam generation
system.
§•0.4
(h) If the Central Illinois Publ
Service Company elects. und<
|60.43(e). to comply with the con
blned SO* emission rate of 470 nani
•rams per Joule (1.1 Ib per mllllo
Btu) of combined heat Input to Units
and 2. the test methods and proc<
dures described In Appendix O. "Prc
visions for an Alternative Method o
Demonstrating Compliance with 4'
CFR 60.43 for the Newton Power 8ta
tton of Central Illinois Public Service
Company" must be used. ''
I4C PR 462M. Oct. «. int. as amended at II
FR 13Iff. Nov. ». int. 4S FR 1737. Jan. n.
INI; 4* FR JiJUJ. Sept. 27. 19M: 91 FR
HIM. June II. !••«. 51 FR 42841. Nov. M.
ISM: M FR J»»55. Aug. 4. 1M7I
IM.47 lrnio*atl*« technology waivers;
waiver of nrifur dioxide standards of
performance for new rtaltonary
•ource* for Homer City Hull No. 3
•nder section III(J> of Ike Clean Air
Act for Multi-Steam Coal Cleaning
System.
(a) Pursuant to section lll(j) of the
Clean Air Act. 42 U.8.C. 741 l(J). com-
mencing on November 13. 1981 Penn-
sylvania Electric Company and New
York State Electric it Gas Corpora-
tion shall comply with the following
terms and conditions for electric gen-
erating Units Nos. I. 2. and 3 at the
Homer City Steam Electric Generat-
ing Station. Center Township, Indiana
County. Pennsylvania.
(b) The foregoing terms and condi-
tions shall remain effective through
November 30. 1981, and pursuant to
section I IK 1KB), shall be Federally
promulgated standards of perform-
ance. As such. It shall be unlawful for
Pennsylvania Electric Company and
New York State Electric & Gas Corpo-
ration to operate Units Nos. I. 2. and 3
In violation of the standards of per-
formance established In this waiver.
Violations of the terms and conditions
of this waiver shall subject Pennsylva-
nia Electric Company and New York
Stale Electric A Oas Corporation to
Federal enforcement under sections
113 (bl and (c). 42 U.S.C. 7413 (b) and
(c). and 120. 42 U.S.C. 7420. of Ihe Art
as well as possible citizen enforcement
under section 304 of the Art. 42 U.S.C.
7604. Pursuant to sprllon IIKcHI) of
249
-------
8*0.47
the Act, 42 U.8.C. 74U(c)(l). at 45 FH
3100. January 16. 1980. the Adminis-
trator delegated to the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania authority to
Implement and enforce the Federal
Standards of Performance for New
Stationary Sources of 1.2 Ib SO,/10*
Btu applicable to Homer City Unit No.
3. The SO, emission limitations speci-
fied In this waiver for Unit No. 3 are
new Federally promulgated Standards
of Performance for New Stationary
Sources for a limited time period.
Thus, during the period this waiver Is
effective, the delegated authority of
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
to enforce the Federal Standards of
Performance for New Stationary
Sources of 1.2 Ib SO,/10* Btu applica-
ble to Homer City Unit No. 3 Is super-
seded and enforcement of the terms
and conditions of this waiver shall be
the responsibility of the Administrator
•)t EPA. The Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania may, and Is encouraged to,
seek delegation of authority, pursuant
to section lll(cMl). to enforce the
temporary Federal Standards of Per-
formance for New Stationary Sources
specified In this waiver. Should such
authority be delegated to the State,
the terms and conditions of this
waiver shall be enforceable by the Ad-
ministrator of EPA and the Common-
wealth of Pennsylvania, concurrently.
Nothing In this waiver shall affect the
rights of the Commonwealth of Penn-
sylvania under the Decree filed In the
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court
on January 28. 1981. at Docket No. 161
C.D. 1981.
(c) On December I. 1981, and con-
tinuing thereafter, at no time shall
emissions of SO, from Unit No. 3
exceed 1.2 Ib/IO" Btu of heal Input, as
specified In 40 CFR 60.43(a>(2) (July 1.
1979).
On January IS. 1982. Pennsylva-
nia Electric Company and New York
State Elcclrlr St Gas Corporation shall
demonstrate compliance at Homer
City Unit No 3 with 40 CFR
60.43(a)(2) (July I. 1979) In accordance
with the test methods and procedures
set forth In 40 CFR 60.8 , (c). (d).
(e) and (I) (July 1. 1979).
(e> Emission limitations. (I) Com-
mencing on November 13, 1981 and
continuing until November 30, 1981:
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
(I) At no time shall emissions of SO,
from Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3, combined.'
exceed: 2.87 Ib SO./10* Btu of heat
Input In a rolling 30-day period (start-
ing with the 60th day after the effec-
tive date of the waiver); 3.6 Ib SO./10'
Btu of heat Input In any day;' and 3.1
Ib SO,/10* Btu of heat Input on more
than 4 days In any rolling 30-day
period.
(II) At no time shall emissions of SO,
from Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3, combined,*
exceed 696 tons In any day.
(Ill) At no time shall emissions of
SO, from Units Nos. I. 2. and 3. com-
bined,' exceed 91 tons In any discrete '
3-hour period.
(Iv) At no time shall emissions of
SO, from Units Nos. 1 and 2, com-
bined, exceed 463 tons In any day.
(v) At no time shall emissions of SO,
from Units Nos. 1 and 2. combined.
exceed 61 tons In any discrete ' 3-hour
period.
(f) Installation schedule. (1) Penn-
sylvania Electric and New York State
Electric & Gas have selected engineer-
Ing designs for necessary modifications
to the Multl Stream Coal Cleaning
System (MCCS) 93B Circuit.
(2) Pennsylvania Electric and New
York State Electric it Gas have placed
purchase orders for all major equip-
ment necessary to complete necessary
modifications to the MCCS 93B cir-
cuit.
(3) Pennsylvania Electric and New
York Stale Electric & Gas have com-
pleted design engineering of the modi-
fications to the MCCS 93B circuit.
(4) On or before September IS. 1981.
Pennsylvania Electric and New York
State Electric Si Gas shall complete
construction of the MCCS 93B circuit.
(5) On or before October IS. 1981.
Pennsylvania Electric and New York
Stale Electric ti Gas shall start up the
MCCS 93B circuit.
(g> Monitoring and reporting.
Throughout the waiver period the
Company shall acquire sufficient
quantities of emission monitoring and
1 A "day" (a 24 hour period) and • "dis-
crete 3 hour period" Is defined In section
(KMIKlv).
' The procedures used (or calciilallnR com
blued SO, emissions are Riven In paragraph
(KH5lof this srcUmi.
250
Environmental Protection Agency
960.47
fuel analysis data to continuously
demonstrate compliance with the com-
bined emission limitations. The Com-
pany shall acquire heat Input and
emission data (sufficient to demon-
strate compliance) from each boiler
during all operating periods (I.e..
whenever fuel Is being fired). Includ-
ing periods of process start-up, shut-
down, and malfunction. This require-
ment shall be met through the use of
continuous emission monitoring sys-
tems (CEMS) (or as supplemented by
continuous bubbler (CB> systems),
heating value as determined by as-
fired fuel analysis, and coal mass feed-
rate measurements.
(1) Continuous Emission Monitoring
System (CEMS): Primary compliance
monitoring method. (I) The Company
shall Install, test, operate, and main-
tain all CEMS as the primary compli-
ance monitoring method In such a
manner as to result In the acquisition
of validated data which are represent-
ative of each boiler's 3-hour, 24-hour,
and 30-day emission rates. (See para-
graph (gM7> of this section.)
(II) The validity of the emission data
obtained with CEMS shall be deter-
mined Initially by conducting a per-
formance specification test (PST).
Subsequent CEMS data validations
shall be performed In accordance with
paragraphs (gM6> and (gK7> of this
section. All PSTs of CEMS shall In-
clude at least: (A) All of the specifica-
tions and test procedures contained In
the January 26, 19B1 proposed Per-
formance Specifications 2 and 3 (Ref.
1). 48 FR 83S2; and (B) the calibration
error and response time specifications
and test procedures contained In the
October 10, 1979 proposed Perform-
ance Specifications 2 and 3 (Ref. 2). 44
FR S8602. The calibration error, re-
sponse lime, and all drift tests shall be
conducted using calibration gases
which conform lo Ihe requirements of
paragraph (g)(6XIII) of this section.
(2) Continuous Bubbler System (CB):
Secondary compliance tfit method. (I)
The Company shall use Ihe CB syslem
as a secondary compliance monitoring
method lo supplement CEMS dala
whenever a CEMS Is oul of service or
Is otherwise providing dala of Insuffi-
cient quality or quantity. The CB
technique shall also he used to periodi-
cally assess the validity of CEMS data
(See paragraph (g)(6)(l)(C) of this sec-
tion).
(II) The CB technique for quantita-
tively assessing SO, emissions (In Ib/
10* Btu) Is delineated In Appendix I of
this waiver. This technique 10 based
upon combining the basic wet-chemi-
cal technique of EPA's Reference
Method 6 at 40 CFR Part 60. Appen-
dix I. July 1, 1979. (for determining
SO, concentrations) with the gravime-
tric method (absorption of CO, onto
ascarlte) for determining CO. concen-
trations. Using reduced flow rates and
Increased reagent volumes and concen-
trations, the CB system may be run
for much longer periods of time than
Reference Method 6 at 40 CFR Part
60. Appendix 1 (July 1. 1979). The
Company may make the following
modifications to the CB method as
long as they periodically demonstrate
that their modified CB method meets
the performance criteria of paragraph
(CX6KII) of this section:
(A) Use a heated sample probe.
(B) Use an In-slack filler (up stream
of the Implngers) to remove panicu-
late mailer.
(C) Eliminate Ihe Isopropanol (Ini-
tial) Implngers.
(D) Use a diaphragm pump with
flow regulators In place of Ihe peristal-
tic pump.
(Ill) The Company shall Initially
demonstrate Its proficiency In acquir-
ing 8O./CO. dala with Ihe CB melhod
by comparing the results obtained
using the CB melhod with Ihose ob-
tained using Reference Methods 3 and
6 (See Ref. 3 and paragraph
(g>(6MII>(B> of this section). The CB
data shall be deemed Initially accepta-
ble If Ihe results of this test are within
the limits prescribed In paragraph
(gX6XII) (A) and (B) of this section.
Subsequently. Ihe CB dala shall be pe-
riodically re validated as per the QA re-
quirements of paragraph (g>(6XII) (A)
and (B) of this section.
(3) Requirements for obtaining 3-
hotir and 24-hour emission data from
individual boilers. Using Ihe methods
set forth In this waiver, the Company
shall obtain Ihe following quantities of
3-hour and 24 hour emission data.
Failure to acquire the specified quanti-
ty or quality nf (lain shall const Mute n
251
-------
I 40 47
violation of the terms and condition*
of tliU waiver.
(I) Data and calculation require-
ment* for continuous emission moni-
toring system (CEMS). During normal
operation of a CEMS (primary compli-
ance method) to obtain emission data
from one or more of Units Nos. I, 2,
and 3. the Company shall obtain the
following data from each CEMS:
(A) 3-hour discrete averaging times
using CEMS.—For each boiler, con-
tinuously measure and calculate eight
discrete 3-hour averages each day,
using the three consecutive (exclusive
of exemptions below) 1-hour emission
averages (each consisting of four
equally spaced data points per 1-hour
period). The only periods when CEMS
measurements are exempted are peri-
ods of routine maintenance (as speci-
fied In the Lear Slegler Operator's
Manual) and as required for dally
zero/span checks and calibrations.
Such exemptions notwithstanding, at
no lime shall less than six discrete 3-
hour averages per day be obtained.
Note that In calculations each 3-hour
average one only uses the data avail-
able from that specific discrete aver-
age.
24-hour averaging limes using
CEMS. For each boiler, continuously
measure and calculate one discrete 24-
hour average per day. using the avail-
able (18 24) 1-hour emission averages
obtained during that specific day. The
only periods when CEM3 measure-
ments are exempted arc |*ii The Company shall estimate the
average 3-hour heat Input rate (10*
Btu/3-hours) for each boiler from the
previously determined 24-hour values.
To estimate a 3-hour heat Input rate
multiply the corresponding 24-hour
value (10* Btu/24 hours) by the ratio
of the respective 3-hour to the 24-hour
megawatl outputs.
(S) Requirement* for calculating
combined SO, emissions. (I) 3-hour
averaging period: The combined emis-
sion rales from Ihe operating boilers
are equal to the sum of the products
of the Individual heal Input rates (10*
Btu/3-hours) and the SO, emission
rates (lb/10* Btu as determined for the
3-hour period). This quantity, when di-
vided by 2000 Ib/ton, equals Ihe com-
bined Ions of 3- hour SO. emissions
(see Equation I).
M,=
2000
940.47
Equation I
Where:
M,.combined (e.g.. Units Nos. I and 2 or
UnlU Nos. I. 2. and 3t emission rates for
the operating units In tons SO., for the
Kit averaging period (3-hour or 14-hour).
E»- average emission rates from the "Ith"
unit In Ib SO,, for the Jth average period
where J - 1-hour or 24-hour. ,
H.- average heat Input rates for the "Ith"
unit In I0« Btu per "Jlh" averaging
period where 1-3-hour or 24-hour.
it-number of operating unlU.
NOTE: Equation 1 Is to be used for calcu-
lating: (l> combined tons of SO. emissions
from Units Nos. I and 2 and (2) combined
tons of SO. emissions from UnlU Nos. I. 2.
and 1 Equation I Is applicable to both 3-
hour and 24-hour averaging periods. Fur-
thermore. If a unit Is not combusting fuel.
"H." will be sero.
(II) 14-hour averaging period:
(A) The combined emissions from
the operating boilers Is equal to the
gum of the products of the Individual
neat Inputs (10* Btu/24 hour) and the
SO. emissions (lb/10* Btu as deter-
mined for the 24-hour period). This
quantity, when divided by 2000 Ib/ton.
equals the combined tons of 24-hour
SO, emissions (see Equation 1).
(B) The combined emissions from
the operating boilers. In the units Ib/
10* Btu. Is equal to the sum of the
products of the Individual heat Inputs
(10* Btu/24 hour) and the SO. emis-
sions (lb/10* Btu as determined for the
24-hour period) divided by the sum of
the combined heal Inputs (see Equa-
tion 2).
. (E.H.)
r. tt.~
Equation 2
252
Where:
E combined emission rale* for the operat-
ing units In Ib SO,/10- Btu. for the 24-
hour averaging period.
E, - 24-hour average emission rates from the
"Ith" unit In IbSO./IO'Btu
H, = 24-hour averaie heal Input rates for Ihe
"Ith" unit In 10-Blu/34 hour.
n number of operating units.
NOTE: If a unit Is not combusting fuel.
"II," will bo r.rro
(III) 30 day rolling average: Oner
every day. calculate combined 30-cal-
253
-------
J 40.47
endar day emission average rates (be-
ginning 60 days after the effective
date of this waiver), using all available
combined 24-hour emission rate aver-
ages (paragraph (gXSXIIXB) of this
section), for the moil recent 30 consec-
utive calendar days. To make the two
calculations for the combined (Units
Nos. 1. 2. and 3; Units Nos. 1 and 2)
emission rates, add the 30 consecutive
dally combined average emission rates
(Ib 8O./10* Btu) and divide the sum by
30 days.
(6) Quality Aiturance (QA) require-
ment*. The Company shall validate
the required emission data by per-
forming at least the quality assurance
procedures specified herein. These QA
requirements are considered the mini-
mum necessary to ensure that the
sampling methods employed produce
valid data. The performance criteria
that are established In this section and
that are restated In Table I are consid-
ered both necessary and reasonably
achievable. If. for any reason, a CEMS
system falls to achieve the required
specifications, the CEMS shall be Im-
mediately taken out of service and
s&mpllng with a CB system shall be
Initiated. If. for any reason, a CB
(whlih Is being used while a CEMS Is
out of service) falls to meet the re-
quired specifications, the Company
shall notify the Director of the Divi-
sion of Stationary Source Enforce-
ment (Washington. DC) within 72
hours, as per paragraph (gXSXIv) of
this section. The Company is encour-
aged to supplement these procedures
to Improve the quality of the emission
data obtained.
(I) QA requirements, calculation pro-
cedures, and specification limits for
CEMS At a minimum, the Company
shall conduct the following Initial.
dally, weekly, and quarterly QA eval-
uations of each boiler's CEMS data.
Where designated, the response time
and calibration error test procedures
contained In Reference 2 and the re-
maining performance lest procedures.
Including those for relative accuracy.
of the January 26. 1981 proposed Per-
formance Specifications 2 and 3 (Ref.
1) shall be used.
(A) Daily zero and calibration
checks of the CEMS. Conduct the fol-
lowing zero and calibration drift
40 CM Ch. I (7.141 Edition)
checks of each CEMS at approximate-
ly 24-hour Intervals, and use the equa-
tions provided here to determine If the
CEMS meets the designated drift spec-
ifications. All monitors that have ex-
hibited drift during the previous 24-
hour period must be adjusted Immedi-
ately after the drift checks have been
performed and the results have been
recorded.
a.=xero gas value (%O.)
(J> 24-hour calibration drift of the
SO. monitor (this test Is to be per-
formed using 85-95% span gas):
Specification limits: 10.0% of span In any
one 24-hour period: 2.5% of span for any
three consecutive 24-hour periods.
Equation 5
24 hour SO.
calibration drift
CEMS. - Q.
CEM.
x 100
where:
CEMS. monitor reading (ppm)
O. calibration gas value (ppm)
CEMS.- monitor span value (ppm)
Environmental Protection Agency
(4) 24-hour calibration drift of the
O. monitor:
Specification limits: 2.0% O. In any one 24-
hour period: 0.6% O. for any three consecu-
tive 24-hour periods.
Equation 6
24-hour O.
calibration drift
CEMS,-O.
x 100
where:
CEM8,-monllor reading (%O.)
O.-calbrallon gas value <%O.)
(B) Daily mid-ranpe checks of the
CEMS. Conduct the following mid-
range calibration checks of each
CEMS after performing the zero and
calibration drift checks. The purpose
for requiring mid-range calibration
checks to to verify CEMS linearity be-
tween the zero and calibration values.
The mid-range calibration checks shall
be conducted at approximately 24-
hour Intervals (or more frequently),
and the equations provided shall be
used to determine If the CEMS meets
the designated specification limits:
24-hour mid-range drift check of the
SO. and the O. monitors (this test to
to be performed using 45-55% span
gas): Specification limits (same for SO.
and O. monitors): 10% of mid-range
gas In any one 24-hour period and
5.0% of mid-range gas In any three
consecutive 24-hour periods.
SO. and O. mid-
range drift
Equation 7
CEMS.
O.
x 100
where:
CEMS. = monitor reading t.
CB)
I x 100
where:
CEMS-8O./O. monitor system reading
(SO.Ib/10'Btu)
CB-CB measurement results (SO. Ib/IO*
Btu)
(D> Initial and quarterly perform-
ance specification tests of CEMS. Ini-
tially and once each three months,
conduct at least one 3-hour relative ac-
curacy test (combined SO. and O.
channels as per Ref erence; 1 >, and a re-
sponse time and calibration error test,
(as per Reference 2). The calculation
procedures provided In References I
and 2 shall also be used.
Specification llmlU:
Relative Accuracy =. ± 20% (maximum per-
cent difference between the CEMS and
the RM data In units of Ib SO./10' Btu)
Response Time- IS minutes
Calibration Error-8.0% (SO. and O. chan-
nels separately)
(E) Unscheduled performance speci-
fication tests of the CEMS. If for any
reason (other than routine mainte-
nance as specified In the Lear Slegler
operating manual) the CEMS to taken
out of service or Its performance Is not
within the specification limits of para-
graph (g>(6) of this section, the Com-
pany shall conduct a complete Per-
formance Specification Test (PST) of
the CEMS, according lo the combined
requirements of References 1 and 2. as
per paragraph (g)(6)(IHD) of this sec-
tion. Whenever a CEMS Is laken out
of service and a supplementary CB
system Is bring used, the CEMS shall
not replace the CB system until such
time that the Company has demon
slraled lhal Ihe performance of the
CEMS Is within all of the performance
limits established by paragraphs
(g)(6XI) (A). (B). (C). and (D) of this
section.
(II) QA requirements, calculation
procrduret, and specification limits
254
255
-------
J 40.47
for CB tyttenu. At a minimum, the
Company shall conduct the following
Initial, weekly, and quarterly QA eval-
uations of a/I CB systems that are
belnf used:
< I) For any quality assurance evalua-
tions of a CEM8; and
(2) Ss the secondary compliance
method when a CEMS Is out of serv-
ice. If a CB system does not meet
these specifications, then:
(1) The CB must Immediately be
taken out of service;
(2) The Company must notify the
Director, Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (Washington,
DC) within 72 hours after this deter-
mination Is made; and
(3) The Company will be considered
In violation of the provisions of the
waiver until an acceptable monitoring
method Is Initiated (see paragraph
(gXSXIII) of this section).
(A) Initial and weekly mid-range
calibration checkt of the CB lyitem.
Calibration checks of the CB system.
using mixed 8O./CO. mid-range cali-
bration gas, shall be performed Initial-
ly and at least once each week thereaf-
ter. The calibration gas shall be sam-
pled by the CB system for no leas than
2 hours at a flow rale approximately
the same as used during emission sam-
pling. The following equation shall be
used to determine If the CB meets the
designated mid-range calibration speci-
fication limit.
Specification limit: ld.0% (maximum per-
cent difference between CH value and mid
ranee *u value).
Equation f
Percent difference
(CB M calibration
cast
CB
(I.
xlOO
where:
CR -bubbler value (SO. !»•/10* Blul
Q.. mined RO./CO, mM taiise calibration
•as valur (SO. Ib/IO'BUK
(B> Initial and quarterly relative ac-
curacy trtts of the CB system*. Oper-
ate at least one of the CB systems
used during the quarter for a 3-hour
period. During the same three hour
period, collect at least one paired set
of Reference Method 3 and 6 camples.
Each paired set shall consist of at least
40 CM Ch. I (7-141 Mitten)
three to six 20-90 minute consecutive
("bark-to back") runs. The following
equation shall be used to determine If
the CB meets the designated relative
accuracy specifications limit.
CB Specification limit: 10.0% (maximum
percent difference between CB value and
and RM value).
Equation 10
Percent difference (CB I CB
"•""' fe
xlOO
where:
CB-bubbler value (SO. Ib/IO'Btu)
RM-average value of the paired Reference
Method 1 and • run* (SO. Ib/IO- Blu)
Oil) QA requirement* and ipecifica-
tion limit for calibration pates. All
calibration gases used for dally,
weekly, or quarterly calibration drift
checks. CB calibration checks and per-
formance specification tests shall be
analyzed following EPA Tract-ability
Protocol No. I (see reference 4) or
with Method 3 or «. If Method 3 or 0 Is
used, do the following. Within two
weeks prior to Its use on a CEMS. per-
form triplicate analyses of the cylin-
der gas with the applicable reference
method until the results of three con-
secutive Individual runs agree within
10 percent of the average. Then use
this average for the cylinder gas con-
centration.
(Iv) Qualify assurance- checkt for lab-
oratory analysis. Each day that the
Company conducts Reference Method
6 or CB laboratory analyses, at least
two SO! audit samples shall be ana-
lyzed concurrently, by the same per-
sonnel, and In the name manner as the
Company uses when analyzing Its
dally emission samples. Audit samples
must be obtained from EPA. The fol-
lowing equation shall be used to calcu-
late the designated specification limit
to determine If the Company's labora-
tory analysis procedures are adequate.
Analysis ipeclf(cation limit (for each of
two audit samples): 5% '(maximum percent
difference between laboratory value and (he
averase of (he actual valur ol the audit
samples).
r
Percent difference
(laboratory vs.
actual)
rrs)ffwclloft Afj •ncy
Equation II
8LV
8AV
-I
where:
8LV-laboratory value (mg/D8CM> of the
audit sample
8AV- actual value (mg/DSCM) of the audit
•ample
(v) QA requirement*, calculation
procedure*, and specification limits
for 21-hour fuel tampllnp and analy-
sts. At a minimum, the Company shall
conduct the following bi-weekly QA
evaluations of each boiler's fuel sam-
pling and analysis data.
(A) Initially and at least bi-weekly
the Company (or Its own contractor
laboratory) shall prepare and split a
60 mesh (260 micron) sample of coal
(24-hour composite) with an Independ-
ent laboratory. The Company shall
compare the in ''•pendent laboratory'*
heal content
PAY-reference value (Btu/lb)
(vl) The use of more than the mint-
mum Quantifies o/ data to calculate
the QA speci/icafions. Whenever lh«
Company supplement*, expand*, or
otherwise obtains more than the mini-
mum amount of QA data required by
. paragraph of this sec-
tion.
(B) Documentation thai the Compa-
ny acquired at leasl the minimum
quantity and quality of valid emission
data specified In paragraph (gX3> of
this section.
(C) Documentation that the Compa-
ny performed al least the minimum
quality assurance checks specified In
paragraph (gK6) of this waiver; and
(D) Timely and adequate reporting
of all data specified In paragraph
(gX8) of this section.
Failure to meet any of Ihese require-
ments constitutes a violation of this
waiver.
(II) SO. emissions rate data from In-
dividual boilers shall be obtained by
Ihe primary compliance lest method
(CEMS), by the secondary compliance
tesl method (CB). or other methods
approved by the Administrator. Data
for Ihe heal Input determination shall
be obtained by 24-hour as-fired fuel
analysis and 24-hour coal feed rate
measurements, or other methods ap-
proved by the Administrator. Compll
256
257
-------
|«0.47
ance with all SO. emission limitations
shall be determined In accordance
with the calculation procedures set
forth In paragraph (g>(5) of this sec-
tion or other procedures approved by
the Administrator. The Company
must demonstrate compliance with all
3-hour, 24-hour, and 30-day SO, emis-
sion limitations during all periods of
fuel combustion In one or more boilers
(beginning with the effective date of
the waiver), and Including all periods
of process start-up, shutdown, and
malfunction.
(Ill) If the minimum quantity or
quality of emission data (required by
paragraph (g) of this section) were not
obtained, compliance of the affected
fftclllly with the emission require-
ments specified In this waiver may be
determined by the Administrator
using all available data which Is
deemed relevant.
(Iv) For the purpose of demonstrat-
ing compliance with the emission limi-
tations and data requirements of this
waiver:
(A) "A day" (24 hour period) begins
at 12:01 p.m. and ends at 12:00 noon
the following day. The Company may
select an alternate designation for the
beginning and end of the 24-hour day.
However, the Agency must be notified
of any alternate designation of a
"day" and must be maintained
throughout the waiver period. Also.
for the purpose of reporting, each day
shall be designated by the calendar
dale corresponding with the beginning
of the 24 hour period:
(B) Where concurrent 24-hour data
averages are required (I.e.. coal feed
rate, fuel sampling/analysis. SO, tons/
24 hours, and SO, Ib/IO" Blu). the des-
ignated 24-hour period comprising a
day shall be consistent for all such
averages arid measurement data: and
(C) There are eight discrete 3-hour
averaging periods during each day.
(8) Notification and reporting ee-
quirements (i) Noliflcalion: The
Company shall provide at least 30 days
notice to the Director. Division of Sta-
tionary Source Enforcement (Wash-
ington. DC) of any forthcoming quar-
terly CEMS Performance Specifica-
tion Tests and CR accuracy tests.
(II) Quarterly Compliance and Moni-
toring Assessment Report require-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
ments: The Company shall submit to
the Director. Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (Washington,
DC) "hard copy" quarterly reports
that present compliance data and rele-
vant monitoring and process data (e.g.,
process output rate, heat Input rate,
monitoring performance, and quality
assurance) acquired during the report-
ing period. Quarterly reports shall be
postmarked no later than 30 days
after the completion of every (whole
or partial) calendar quarter during
which the waiver Is In effect.
Nora: These requirement* do not replace
or preclude the "Unscheduled Reporting
Requirement*" contained In paragraph
((MIMIII) of Ihli section.
The following specific Information
shall be furnished for every calendar
day:
(A) General information. (/) Calen-
dar date;
(2) The method(s). Including descrip-
tion, used to determine the 24-hour
heat Input to each boiler (In units of
Btu/hour);
(J) The "F" factor(s) used for all ap-
plicable calculations, the method of Its
determination, and the type of fuel
burned;
(B) Emitiion data. (J> Combined
(Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3) 24-hour aver-
age SO. emission rate (In units of Ib/
MMBtu):
(2) Combined (Units Nos. 1. 2 and 3)
rolling 30-day average SO, emission
rale (In units of Ib/MMBtu);
(J) Combined (Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3)
3-hour average emission rates (in units
of tons SO,):
(4) Combined (Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3)
24-hour average emission rates (In
units of tons SO.);
(5) Combined (Units Nos. 1 and 2) 3
hour average emission rates (in units
of tons SO,): and
(6) Combined (Units Nos. 1 and 2)
24-hour average emission rates (In
units of tons SO,).
Quality assurance check data.
(I) The date and summary of results
from all (initial and repetitions) of the
quality assurance checks performed
during the quarter. This Includes all
analytical results on EPA's SO, and
coal audit samples.
Environmental Protection Agency
(2) Description^) of any
modification^) made to the CEMS or
CB which could affect the ability of
those systems to comply with the per-
formance specifications In References
1 and 2. or the CB performance speci-
fications established by section (g) of
this waiver.
(D) Atypical operation*. (I) Identifi-
cation of specific periods during the
calendar quarter when each boiler was
not combusting fuel;
(2) Periods of time when 3-hour, 24-
hour, and/or 30-day averages were ob-
tained using continuous bubbler data:
(J) All emission averages which have
been calculated using a composite of
two or more different sampling meth-
ods (I.e., periods when both CEMS and
CB systems have been used) must be
Identified by designating all
duratlon(s) and cause(s) of data loss
during such periods;
(4) For each Instance when a CEMS
has been out of service, the Company
shall designate:
«> Time. date, duration;
(«) Reason for such downtime;
(iii) Corrective action taken:
(ii>> Duration before CB sampling
began;
(v> Time. date, and performance
specification test (summary) results
acquired before CEMS returned to
service; and
(i>O Time and date when CEMS ac-
tually returned to service, relative to
terminating CB sampling.
(S> Where only a portion of continu-
ous data from any averaging perlod(s)
was obtained, the duration per averag-
ing perlod(s) when data were acquired
and were used to calculate the emis-
sion average(s) must be Identified;
<«) If the required quantity or qual-
ity of emission data (as per paragraph
(g) of this section) were not obtained
for any averaging perlod(s). the fol-
lowing Information must also be re-
ported for each affected boiler. (See
also Unscheduled Reporting Require-
ments, paragraph (gM7>(lv) of this sec-
tion:
(i) Reason for failure to acquire suf-
ficient data;
(ii) Corrective action taken;
(it)) Characteristics (percent sulfur,
ash content, healing value, and mois-
ture) of the fuel burned;
§60.47
(D) Fuel feed rates and steam pro-
duction rales;
(t>i> All emission and quality assur-
ance data available from this quarter;
and
(tili) Statement (signed by a respon-
sible Company official) Indicating If
any changes were made In the oper-
ation of the boiler or any measure- •
ment change (±20 percent) from the ,|
previous averaging period) In the type •
of fuel or firing rate during such
period.
(E> Company certifications. The
Company shall submit a statement
(signed by a responsible Company offi-
cial) Indicating:
(1) Whether or not the QA require-
ments of this waiver for the CEMs.
CB. and fuel sampling/analysis meth-
ods, or other periodic audits, have
been performed In accordance with
the provisions of this waiver:
(2) Whether or not the data used to
determine compliance was obtained In
accordance with the method and pro-
cedures required by this waiver. In-
cluding the results of the quality as-
surance checks;
(31 Whether or not the data require-
ments have been met or. If the mini-
mum data requirements have not been
met due to errors that were unavoid-
able (attach explanation):
(4) Whether or not compliance with
all of the emission standards estab-
lished by this waiver have been
achieved during the reporting period.
(Ill) Unscheduled reporting require-
ments. The Company shall submit to
the Director. Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (Washington.
DC).
(A) Complete results of all CEMS
performance specification tests within
45 days after the Initiation of such
tests:
(B) The Company shall report.
within 72 hours, each Instance of:
(/) Failure to maintain the combined
(Units Nos. 1. 2. and 3 and Units Nos. 1
and 2. respectively) SO, emission rates
below the emission limitations pre-
scribed In section (e) of this waiver:
(2) Failure lo acquire the specified
minimum quantity of valid emission
data: and
(J) Failure of the Company's Cf)(s>
to meet the quality assurance checks.
258
259
-------
JW.4T
I. Standards of Performance for New Sta-
tionery Source*: Revisions to General Provl-
•Ion* and Additions to Appendix A. and Re-
piopuml of Revisions tu Appendix B. 40 FR
6162 (January M. 1031).
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
torlnc Performance Specifications 44 FR
MM2 lOctober 10. 1*791.
3. 40 CFR Part 60. Appendix A (July I.
1070).
4. Qualify Anuranct Handbook for Air
Pollution Measurement Svitemi. Volume
I. Proponed Standards of Performance for III. Stationary Source Specific Methods
New Stationary Sources, Continuous Monl EPA-600/4-77-027b. August IB77.
TAOIE l-ncoumED Prm-'j'tMtNCE CmrEMA ran OUMJTV ASSUHANCE (QA) EVAIUATIONS
mutton
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
ecus
CEMS
ecus*
CEMS
CEUS
CfUS
(fUS
ca
ca
Icbuotoiy
•oquoncy
Dvt,
DO*,
o*,
(My
(My
My
WMMy'
Molond
qu.rt.rty
InMlxd
qutrWrty
kiMond
qumrty
InMlondbi
Out,
'ft*** to iix-ol Kn fptotufcon toquici
CEUS null b> Moil oul o> MKVKO
OA chock
24 how ion dnn SOi
24 how <«o dri* (X
24 how IvodXlO.
24 how coM»t*on oWI
0,
24 how uttnMn OXH
a
24 haul ircdrona*
chK* (SO.OS.,1
24 how nwffftngo
dwc* ISO.OtJ
occwccy*
ISCvo, ...*•««
24 how c4Mj>MOn (Ml
(SO. •«* O, > COJ
COJ
A«talM« accuracy
ISO, 'CO, ci*j.-n<<
SpM vAn*** .ys.wy.it
•flt«V*r*
•nttyt*
BptCafsCtMaDn wfHH
fODOrowtlpMl
SOaMCMlpM.
tlooieonljMn
I00*vo»nlip«n
B] nmmn. .
20»«CMO.
05p4>conia
fOpweorta -
an veto
gn vduo
so* nrfuo
IS mnu*M
2 S fooonl ipon
90« vihM
100 p«c
CMoutollorl
P>OC«OWO>
E(juoSon4
Equolnn4
EquotanS
EquMonI
EquoMnS
equMon r
Cquosonr
1
2
Soo Rotoronco
2
SwRotwonc*
1
FquMan II
EquoDon 11
•w hm to b* fopMUd on* Kmo • In ta« dgtwiioM FOMIL Fun.
FIRED COMBUSTION Sonic r« <<:ONTIMU
ons RuR>i.r* MITIIOO)
(NOTE The Company may MM- I hi- method
or Its inodifk-atlons which II desslcanl. 6 mesh.
3.1.2 Aacarlle. Sodium hydroxide coaled
asbestos for absorption of CO.. 6 to 20 mesh.
• 3.2 Sample Recovery and Analysis. The
reagents needed for sample recovery and
analysis are the same aa for Method 6. Sec-
tions 3.2 and 3.3. respectively.
4. Preparation o/Collection Train.
Measure 75 ml. of 60 percent IPA Into the
first Implnger and 7» ml. of IP percent hy-
drogen peroxide Into each of the remaining
Implngen. Into one of the absorption tubes
place a one-hole stopper and glass wool plug
In the end and add ISO to 200 grams of
drlerlte to the tube. As the drlerlte to added
shake the tube to evenly pack the absorb-
ent. Cap the tube with another plug of glaas
wool and a one-hold stopper (use this end a*
the Inlet for even flow). The ascartte lube to
filled In a similar manner, using 160-111
grams of ascarlte. Clean and dry the outside
of the ascarlte tube and weigh (at room
temperalue. 20 degree* Cl to the nearest O.I
gram. Record this Initial mass aa M* As-
semble the train as shown In Figure I.
Adjust the probe heater to a temperature
sufficient to prevent water condensation.
4 I.I Sampling. The bubbler shall be op-
erated continuously at a sampling rate suffi-
cient to collect 70-60 liters of source efflu-
ent during the desired sampling period. For
(•0.47
example, a sampling rate of O.M liter/mm.
to sufficient for a 24-hour average and 0.40
liter per minute for a 3-hour average. The
sampling rate shall not. however, exceed 1.0
llter/mln.
4.3 Sample Recovery.
4.3.1 Peroxide Solution. Pour the con-
tents of the second and third Implngers Into
a leak-free polyethylene bottle for storage
or shipping. Rinse the two Implngen and.
connecting tubing with detonlzed distilled]1
water, and add the washings to the same
storage container.
4.3.3 Ascarlte Tube. Allow the ascarlte
tube to equilibrate with room temperature
(about 10 minutes), clean and dry the out-
aide. and weigh to the nearest O.lg In the
same manner as In Section 4.1.1. Record this
final mass (M.,) and discard the used aecar-
lle.
4.3 Sample Analysis. The sample analysis
procedure for SO, to Ihe same as specified In
Method 0. Section 4.3.
6 Calculation!.
6.1 SO, mass collected.
M,.- 33.03 (V. V»INV«.V.
Equation Al- 1
Where:
M_-maao of SO. collected, mg
V,- volume of barium perchlorate tltrant
used for Ihe sample, ml (average of rep-
licate Mirations).
V,- volume of barium perchlorate tltrant
used for the Wank. ml.
N- normality of barium perchlorate tltrant.
mllltequlvalenU/ml
V.M.- total volume of solution In which the
sulfur dioxide sample Is contained, ml.
V.^ volume of sample aliquot titrated, ml.
6.3 Sulfur dioxide emission rate
M..II
Equation All
Where:
M.- Initial mass of ascarlte. grams.
MM- final mass of ascarlle. grams.
E^, ^Emission rate of SO.. ng/J (Ib/
MMBtu).
P. -Carbon P factor for the fuel burned.
M VJ. from Method 19 (Ref. 21
K'= 1.620x10*
260
261
-------
*0 4Aa
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
MCUHI |
COMINOIIOUS IIHHIF* (so/™! s*Nn INC TMIN
INOII Se« SMI ion (|K»(ii| '«' •et«pi»bl« vodilic tl ion> nl ihr
Swbpart Do—Standard* *f Paris
one* far EUctric Utility Steam
Generatinj Units far Which Can-
•traction It Commenced Aftar
September It. 1971
Bounce 44 FR 33813. June II. 1979. unless
othervlse noted.
lie 4*. A»»llr.MIUy .nd •t.iftn.llon of
effectce* facility.
(a) The affected facility to which
this subpart applies Is each electric
utility steam generating unit:
That Is capable of combusting
more than 73 megawatts (250 million
Btu/hour) heal Input of fossil fuel
(either alone or In combination with
any other fuel): and
262
Environmental Protection Agency
§*0.41a
(2) For which < (instruction or modi-
fication Is commenced after Septem-
ber 18. 1078.
(b) This subpart applies to electric
utility combined cycle gas turbines
that are capable of combusting more
than 73 megawatts (250 million Blu/
hour) heat Input of fossil fuel In the
steam generator. Only emissions re-
sulting from combustion of fuels In
the steam generating unit are subject
to this subpart. (The gas turbine emis-
sions are subject to Subpart GO.)
75 ng/J (0.17 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input for liquid fuels.
(b) For sulfur dioxide Is determined
under 160 48a(b>.
(c) For nitrogen oxides Is:
(I) 200 ng/J (0.67 Ib/mllllon Utu)
heat Input for gaseous fuels:
(2) 310 ng/J (0.72 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input for liquid fuels: and
(3) 000 ng/J (2.30 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input for solid fuels.
"Combined cycle go* turbine" means
a stationary turbine combustion
system where heat from the turbine
exhaust gases Is recovered by a steam
generating unit.
"Interconnected" means that two or
more electric generating units are elec-
trically tied together by a network of
power transmission lines, and other
power transmission equipment.
"Electric utility company" means
the largest Interconnected organiza-
tion, business, or governmental entity
that generales electric power for sale
(e.g., a holding company with operat
Ing subsidiary companies).
"Principal company" means the
eleclrlc utility company or companies
which own the affected facility.
263
-------
|«0.4t«
••Neighboring company" means any
one of those electric utility companies
with one or more electric power Inter-
connections to the principal company
and which have geographically adjoin
Ing service areas.
•Net intern capacity" means the
sum of the net electric generating ca-
pability (not necessarily equal to rated
opacity) of all electric generating
equipment owned by an electric utility
company < Including steam generating
units. Internal combustion engines, gas
turbines, nuclear units, hydroelectric
units, and all other electric generating
equipment) plus firm contractual pur-
chases that are Interconnected to the
affected facility that has the malfunc-
tioning Hue gas desulfurlzatlon
syitem. The electric generating capa-
bility of equipment under multiple
ownership Is prorated based on owner-
ship unless the proportional entitle-
ment to electric output Is otherwise es-
tablished by contractual arrangement.
"Syitem load" means the entire elec-
tric demand of an electric utility com-
pany's service area Interconnected
with the affected facility that has the
malfunctioning flue gas desulfurlza-
tlon system plus firm contractual sales
to other electric utility companies.
Sales to other electric utility compa-
nies (e.g., emergency power) not on a
firm contractual basis may also be In-
cluded In the system load when no
available system capacity exists In the
electric utility company to which the
power Is supplied for sale.
"Syttem emergency reserve*" means
an amount of electric generating ca-
pacity equivalent to the rated capacity
of the single largest electric generat-
ing unit In the electric utility company
(Including steam generating units. In-
ternal combustion engines, gas tur-
bines, nuclear units, hydroelectric
units, and all ol her electric generating
equipment) which Is Interconnected
with the affected facility that has the
malfunctioning flue gas desulfurlza-
tlon system. The electric generating
capability of equipment under multi-
ple ownership Is prorated based on
ownership unless the proportional en-
titlement t The rated capacity of the power
transmission lines between the power
Interconnection devices and the elec-
tric generating units (the unit In the
principal company that has the mal-
functioning flue gas desulfurlzatlon
system and the unll(s) In the neigh-
boring company supplying replace-
ment electrical power) less the electric
power load on these transmission
lines.
"Spare flue gat de$ulfurization
$yitem module" means a separate
system of sulfur dioxide emission con-
trol equipment capable of treating an
amount of flue gas equal to the total
amount of flue gas generated by an af-
fected facility when operated at maxi-
mum capacity divided by the total
number of nonspare flue gas desulfurl-
zatlon modules In the system.
"Emergency condition" means that
period of time when:
(a) The electric generation output of
an affected facility with a malfunc-
tioning flue gas desulfurlzatlon system
cannot be reduced or electrical output
must be Increased because:
(I) All available system capacity In
the principal company Interconnected
with the affected facility Is being oper
atcd. and
264
tnvlr*mn«nt«l
§«0.41sj
(3) All available purchase power
Interconnected with the affected facil-
ity Is being obtained, or
(b) The electric generation demand
to being shifted as quickly aa possible
from an affected facility with a mal-
functioning flue gas desulfurbtatlon
system to one or more electrical gener-
ating unlU held In reserve by the prin-
cipal company or by a neighboring
company, or
(c) An affected facility with a mal-
functioning flue gas desulfurlzatlon
system becomes the only available
unit to maintain a part or all of the
principal company's system emergency
reserves and the unit to operated In
spinning reserve at the lowest practi-
cal electric generation load consistent
with not causing significant physical
damage to the unit. If the unit to oper-
ated at a higher load to meet toad
demand, an emergency condition
would not exist unless the conditions
under (a) of this definition apply.
"Electric utility combined cycle fat
turbine" means any combined cycle
gas turbine used for electric genera-
tion that to constructed for the pur-
pose of supplying more than one-third
of Its potential electric output capac-
ity and more than 2S MW electrical
output to any utility power distribu-
tion system for sale. Any steam distri-
bution system that to constructed for
the purpose of providing steam to a
steam electric generator that would
produce electrical power for sale to
also considered In determining the
electrical energy output capacity of
the affected facility.
"Potential electrical output capac-
ity" to defined as 33 percent of the
maximum design heat Input capacity
of the steam generating unit (e.g.. a
steam generating unit with a 100-MW
(340 million Btu/hr) fossil-fuel heal
Input capacity would have a 33-MW
potential electrical output capacity).
For electric utility combined cycle gas
turbines the potential electrical
output capacity Is determined on the
basis of the fossil-fuel firing capacity
of the steam generator exclusive of
the heal input and electrical power
contribution by the gas turbine.
"Anthracite" means coal that to clas-
sified as anthracite according to the
American Society of Testing and Ma-
terials' (ASTM) Standard Specifica-
tion for Classification of Coals by
Rank O3M-77 (Incorporated by refer-
ence-see |M.I7>.
"Solid derived fuer means any solid,
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
solid fuel for the purpose of creating
useful heat and Includes, but to not
limited to. solvent refined coal, liqui-
fied coal, and gasified coal. it
"H-Hour period" means the period
of time between 13:01 a.m. and 13:00
midnight.
"Retource recovery unit" means a fa-
cility that combusts more than 75 per-
cent non-fossil fuel on a quarterly (cal-
endar) heat Input basis.
"JvYmconftaentof area" means the
State of Hawaii, the Virgin Islands.
Guam, American Samoa, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
Northern Mariana Islands.
"Boiler operating day" means a 34-
hour period during which fossil fuel to
combusted In a steam generating unit
for the entire 34 hours.
(«« FR (Mil. June II. int. as amended st
«g m rm. Jan. 21. itaii
• *t.43a Standard for s*rtlr«lale muUtr.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance teat required to be
conducted under |«0.g to completed.
no owner or operator subject to the
provisions of this subpart shall cause
to be discharged Into the atmosphere
from any affected facility any gases
which contain partlculale matter In
excess of:
(I) 13 ng/J (0.03 Ib/mlllkm Btu)
heat Input derived from the combus-
tion of solid, liquid, or gaseous fuel;
(3) 1 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (9* percent re-
duction) when combusting solid fuel:
and
(3) SO percent of potential combus-
tion concentration (70 percent reduc-
tion) when combusting liquid fuel.
(b) On and after the date the partlc-
ulale matter performance test re-
quired to be conducted under 1W.g Is
completed, no owner or operator sub-
ject to the provisions of this subpart
shall cause to be discharged Into the
atmosphere from nny affected facility
any gases which exhibit greater than
20 percent opacity (6 minute average).
265
-------
9*0.49*
except for one 6 minute period per
hour of not more than 27 percent
opacity.
I M.43a Standard for sulfur dioxide.
(a) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance test required
to be conducted under I 60.8 Is com-
pleted, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility which
combusts solid fuel or solid-derived
fuel, except as provided under para-
graphs (c), (d). (f> or (h) of this sec-
tion, any gases which contain sulfur
dioxide In excess of:
(1) 520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input and 10 percent of the po-
tential combustion concentration (90
percent reduction), or
(2) 30 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (70 percent re-
duction), when emissions arc less than
260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
Input.
On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest required
to be conducted under | 60.8 Is com-
pleted, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility which
combusts liquid or gaseous fuels
iexcept for liquid or gaseous fuels de-
rive! from solid fuels and as provided
under paragraphs (e) or (h> of this sec-
tion), any gases which contain sulfur
dioxide In excess of:
(I) 340 ng/J (080 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input and 10 percent of the po-
tential combustion concentration (90
percent reduction), or
(2) 100 percent of the potential com-
bustion concentration (zero percent re-
duction) when emissions are less than
86 ng/J (020 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
Input.
(c) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest required
to be conducted under { 60.8 Is com-
plete, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility which
combusts solid solvent refined coal
(SKC I) any gasrs which contain
sulfur dioxide in excess of 520 nK/J
(1.20 Ib/million Bin) heal Input and 15
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
percent of the potential combustion
concentration (85 percent reduction)
except as provided under paragraph
(f) of this section; compliance with the
emission limitation Is determined on a
30-day rolling average basis and com-
pliance with the percent reduction re-
quirement Is determined on a 24-hour
basis.
(d) Sulfur dioxide emissions are lim-
ited to 520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input from any affected facility
which:
(1) Combusts 100 percent anthracite,
(2) Is classified as a resource recov-
ery facility, or
(3) Is located In a noncontlnental
area and combusts solid fuel or solid-
derived fuel.
(e) Sulfur dioxide emissions are lim-
ited to 340 ng/J (0.80 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input from any affected facility
which la located In a noncontlnental
area and combusts liquid or gaseous
fuels (excluding solid-derived fuels).
(f) The emission reduction require-
ments under this section do not apply
to any affected facility that Is operat-
ed under an SO, commercial demon-
stration permit Issued by the Adminis-
trator In accordance with the provi-
sions of I 60.45a.
(g) Compliance with the emission
limitation and percent reduction re-
quirement* under this section are both
determined on a 30-day rolling average
basis except as provided under para-
graph (c) of this section*
(h) When different fuels are com-
busted simultaneously, the applicable
standard la determined by proratlon
using the following formula:
(I) If emissions of sulfur dioxide to
the atmosphere are greater than 260
ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Blu> heat Input
E». = 1340 x + 520 yl/100 and
P.O. = 10 percent
(2) If emissions of sulfur dioxide to
the atmosphere are equal to or less
than 260 ng/J (0.60 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input:
£„„ - 1340 x i 520 y 1/100 »nd
Pv,. 190 x i 70y)/IOO
where:
fc,,., is the prorated sulfur dioxide emission
limit (tiK/J heal Input).
266
Environmental Protection Afjoncy
P.O. Is the percentage of potential sulfur di-
oxide emission allowed (percent reduc-
tion required = 100 PIOI).
x to the percentage of total heat Input de-
rived from the combustion of liquid or
gaseous fuels (excluding solid-derived
fuels)
jr Is the percentage of total heat Input de-
rived from the combustion of solid fuel
(Including solid derived fuels)
I M.44a Standard for nitrogen oxMei.
(a) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance test required
to be conducted under 160.8 la com-
pleted, no owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility,
except as provided under paragraph
(b) of this section, any gases which
contain nitrogen oxides In excess of
the following emission HmlU, baaed on
a 30-day rolling average.
(1) NO. emission limits.
9«0.45o
Fuaiixpa
Gaaaoua hiahv
CoatdanMdkialt
Alolhafluatl
liquid IM*
Coal4la
-------
requirements under 160.43a(c> but
must. M • minimum, reduce SO, emis-
sions to 30 percent of the potential
combuitlon concentration (80 percent
reduction) for each 24-hour period of
•team generator operation and to leas
than 520 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllnn Btu)
heat Input on a 30-day rolling average
bails.
(c) An owner or operator of a fluid-
lied bed combustion electric utility
•Uam generator (atmospheric or prea-
•urteed) who Is Issued a commercial
demonstration permit by the Adminis-
trator Is not subject to the SO, emis-
sion reduction requirement* under
160.43a(a) but must, as a minimum,
reduce SO. emissions to IS percent of
the potential combustion concentra-
tion (65 percent reduction) on a 30-day
rolling average basis and to less than
620 ng/J (1.20 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
Input on a 30-day rolling average basis.
(d) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility that combusts coal-de-
rived liquid fuel and who Is Issued a
commercial demonstration permit by
the Administrator Is not subject to the
applicable NO. emission limitation and
percent reduction under 160.44a(a>
but must, as a minimum, reduce emis-
sions to less than 300 ng/J (0.70 Ib/
million Btu) heal Input on a 30-day
rolling average basis.
(e) Commercial demonstration per-
mits may not exceed the following
equivalent MW electrical generation
capacity for any one technology cate-
gory, and the total equivalent MW
e'ectrlcal generation capacity for all
commercial demonstration plants may
not exceed 15.000 MW.
Sold n>v«nl wftnwl rotf fffv.
II
Fli4»t«d tod cofnfeislion IptM
Compliance provliloiM.
(a) Compliance with the parllculate
matter emission limitation under
|60.42a(aXI) constitutes compliance
with the percent reduction require-
ments for partlculate matter under
I 00.42aand<3>.
(b) Compliance will .,«,• nitrogen
oxides emission limitation under
160.44a(a> constitutes compliance
with the percent reduction require-
ments under I 00.44a(aK2).
(c) The partlculate matter emission
standards under |60.42a and the ni-
trogen oxides emission standards
under 160.44s, apply at all times
except during periods of startup, shut-
down, or malfunction. The sulfur diox-
ide emission standards under I 00.43a
apply at all times except during peri-
ods of startup, shutdown, or when
both emergency conditions exist and
the procedures under paragraph (d) of
this section are Implemented.
(d) During emergency conditions In
the principal company, an affected fa-
cility with a malfunctioning Hue gas
desulfurlzatlon system may be operat-
ed If sulfur dioxide emissions are mini-
mized by:
(1) Operating all operable flue gas
desulfurlzatlon system modules, and
bringing back Into operation any mal-
functioned module as soon as repairs
are completed.
(3) Bypassing flue gases around only
those flue gas desulfurlzatlon system
modules that have been taken out of
operation because they were Incapable
of any sulfur dioxide emission reduc-
tion or which would have suffered sig-
nificant physical damage If they had
remained In operation, and
(3) Designing, constructing, and op-
erating a spare flue gas desulfurlzatlon
system module for an affected facility
larger than 365 MW (1.250 million
Btu/hr) heat Input (approximately
125 MW electrical output capacity).
The Administrator may at his discre-
tion require the owner or operator
within 60 days of notification to dem-
onstrate spare module capability. To
demonstrate this capability, the owner
or operator must demonstrate cornpll
anre with the appropriate require
mrnts under paragraph (a), (b). (d).
(D. and (I) under 160 43a for any
268
•nvlroi
nt«J Protect!*!! Agoncy
period of operation lasting from M
hours to 30 days when:
(I) Any one Hue gas desulfurisatlon
module Is not operated,
(II) The affected facility la operating
at the maximum heat Input rate.
(Ill) The fuel fired during the 94-
hour to 30-day period la representative
of the type and average sulfur content
of fuel used over a typical M-day
period, and
(Iv) The owner or operator has given
the Administrator at leaat 30 days
notice of the date and period of time
over which the demonstration will be
performed.
(e) After the Initial performance teat
required under 160.1. compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limitations
and percentage reduction require-
ment* under 160.43a and the nitrogen
oxides emission limitation! under
160.44a Is baaed on the average emis-
sion rate for ."»" successive boiler oper-
ating daya. A separate performance
teat la completed at the end of each
boiler operating day after the Initial
performance test, and a new 30 day av-
erage emission rate for both sulfur di-
oxide and nitrogen oxldea and a new
percent reduction for sulfur dioxide
are calculated to show compliance
with the standards.
(I) For the Initial performance teat
required under 160.8. compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limitations
and percent reduction requirements
under I 60.43a and the nitrogen oxldea
emission limitation under |60.44a la
based on the average emission rates
for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and
percent reduction for sulfur dioxide
for the first 30 successive boiler oper-
ating days. The Initial performance
test Is the only lest In which at least
30 days prior notice to required unless
otherwise specified by the Administra-
tor. The Initial performance test Is to
be scheduled so that the first boiler
operating day of the 30 successive
boiler operating days Is completed
within 60 days after achieving the
maximum production rate al which
the affected facility will be operated.
but not later than 180 days after Ini-
tial startup of the facility.
(g) Compliance Is determined by cal-
culating the arithmetic average ol all
hourly emission rales for SO. and NO.
140.47.
for the M successive boiler operating
daya. except for data obtained during
startup, shutdown, malfunction (NO.
only), or emergency conditions (SO.
only). Compliance with the percentage
reduction requirement for SO. la de-
termined based on the average Inlet
and average outlet SO. emission rate*
for the 30 successive boiler operating
daya. ,
(h) If an owner or operator haa not.
obtained the minimum quantity of
emission data as required under
160.47a of this aubpart, compliance of
the affected facility with the emission
requirements under ||60.43a and
60.44a of this subpart for the day on
which the 30-day period en For a facility whlrh qualifies
under (lie provisions of |«.
269
-------
5 «0 47*
sulfur dioxide emissions arc only mon-
itored M discharged to the almoa-
phere.
(3) An "as fired" fuel monitoring
system (upatream of coal pulverizers)
meeting the requirements of Method
10 (Appendix A) may be used to deter-
mine potential sulfur dioxide emis-
sions In place of a continuous sulfur
dloxlile emission monitor at the Inlet
to the sulfur dioxide control device as
required under paragraph (b)(l) of
this section.
The continuous monitoring sys-
tems under paragraphs (b>. (c). and (d)
of this section are operated and data
recorded during all periods of oper-
ation of the affected facility Including
periods of startup, shutdown, malfunc-
tion or emergency conditions, except
fur continuous monitoring system
breakdowns. repairs. calibration
checks, and zero and span adjust-
ments.
(f) When emission data are not ob-
tained because of continuous monitor-
ing system breakdowns, repairs, call
brallon checks and zero and span ad-
justments, emission data will be ob-
tained by using other monitoring sys-
tems as approved by the Administra-
tor 01 the reference methods as de-
dcilbtd In paragraph of this sec-
tion to provide emission data for a
minimum of 18 hours in at least 22 out
of 30 successive boiler operating days.
The I hour averages required
under paragraph |60.l3(h> are ex-
pressed In ng/J (Ibs/mlllion Btu) heat
Input and used to calculate the aver-
age emission rales under i 60.46a. The
I hour averages arc calculated using
the data points required under
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-18 Edition)
|60.13(b). At least two data points
must be used to calculate the 1-hour
averages.
(h) Methods used to supplement
continuous emission monitoring
system data to meet the minimum
data requirements In 160.47a(f > will be
used aa specified below or as otherwise
approved by the Administrator.
(1) Methods 3 or 3A, 6 or 6C and 7.
7A. 1C. 7D or 7E as applicable, are
used. Method 0A or 6B may be used
whenever Methods 6 and 3 data are re-
quired to determine the SOi emission
rate In ng/J. Methods 3A. 6C. and 7E
are used only at the sole discretion of
the source owner or operator. The
sampling locatlon(s) are the same as
those specified for the continuous
emission monitoring system.
(2) For Method 0 or 6A. the mini-
mum sampling Is 20 minutes and the
minimum sampling volume Is 0.02
dam'<0.71 dscf) for each sample. Sam-
ples are collected at approximately 60-
mlnute Intervals. Each sample repre-
sents a I-hour average. Method OB
shall be operated for 24 hours per
sample, and the minimum sample
volume Is 0.02 dsm'(0.71 dscf) for each
sample. Each Method 6b sample repre-
sents 24 I-hour averages.
(3) For Method 7 or 7A, samples are
taken at approximately 30-mlnute In-
tervals. The arithmetic average of
these two consectlve samples represent
a 1-hour average. For Method 7C or
7O, each run shall consist of a 1-hour
sample.
(4) For Method 3, the oxygen or
carbon dioxide sample Is to be taken
for each hour when continuous SO,
and NO, data are taken or when
Methods 6 or 6C and 7. 7A. 7C. 7D, or
7E are required. Each sample shall be
taken for a minimum of 30 minutes In
each hour using the Integrated bag
method specified In Method 3. Each
sample represents a 1-hour average.
(5) For each 1-hour average, the
emissions expressed In ng/J (Ib/mll-
llon Btu) heal Input are determined
and used as needed to achieve the min-
imum data requirements of paragraph
(f) of this section.
(!) The following procedures are
used to conduct monitoring system
performance evaluations under
Environmental Prelection Agency
| 60.13(c) and calibration checks under
|60.13 of this section for
burning combinations of fossil fuels
are rounded to the nearest 500 ppm.
(5) For affected facilities burning
fossil fuel, alone or In combination
with non-fossil fuel, the span value of
the sulfur dioxide continuous monitor-
Ing system at the Inlet to the sulfur di-
oxide control device Is 125 percent of
the maximum estimated hourly poten-
tial emissions of the fuel fired, and the
outlet of the sulfur dioxide control
device Is SO percent of maximum esti-
mated hourly potential emissions of
the fuel fired.
(44 PR 33013. June II. 1979. as amended at
47 PR 54075. Dec. I. 1982; SI FR 21188. June
II. 1986; 52 PR 21007. June 4. 19871
§ 60.48.
IM.48* rxHitpllmec determination proce-
dure! and method*.
(a) The following procedures and
reference methods are used to deter-
mine compliance with the standards
for partlculate matter under I 00.42a.
(1) Method 3 Is used for gas analysis
when applying Method 5. 5B, or 17.
(2) Method 5. SB. or 17 la used for
determining partlculate matter emis-
sions and associated moisture content
as follows: Method 6 Is to be used at
affected facilities without wet FOD
systems; Method SB Is to be used only
after wet POD systems; and Method
17 may be used at facilities with or
without wet POD systems provided
that the slack gaa temperature at the
sampling location does not exceed a
temperature of 100 'C (320 *F>. The
procedures of sections 2.1 and 2.3 of
Method 5B may be used In Method 17
only If It Is used after wet FOD sys-
tems. Do not use Method 17 after wet
FOD systems If the effluent la saturat-
ed or laden with water droplets.
(3) For Method 5. 5B. or 17. Method
1 Is used to select the sampling site
and the number of traverse sampling
points. The sampling time for each
run Is at least 120 minutes and the
minimum sampling volume la 1.7 dscm
(60 dscf) except that smaller sampling
times or volumes, when necessitated
by process variables or other factors,
may be approved by the Administra-
tor.
(4) For Method 5 or SB the probe
and filter holder healing system In the
sampling train Is set to provide an av-
erage gas temperature of 160 *C (320
•F).
(5) For determination of parllculate
emissions, the oxygen or carbon diox-
ide sample Is obtained simultaneously
with each run of Method 5. SB. or 17
by traversing the duel al the same
sampling location. Method 1 Is used
for selection of the number of oxygen
or carbon dioxide traverse points
excepl that no more than 12 sample
points are required.
(6) For each run using Method 5. SB.
or 17. the emission rate expressed In
ng/J heat Input Is determined using
the oxygen or carbon-dioxide measure
merits and participate matter meas-
urements obtained under this section.
270
271
-------
I 49.49 m
the dry baste PC factor and the dry
bMte emtoilon rate calculation proce-
dure contained In Method 19 (Appen-
dix A).
(b) The following procedures and
method* are used to determine compli-
ance with the sulfur dioxide standards
under I 60.43a.
(I) Determine the percent of poten-
tial combustion concentration (percent
PCC) emitted to the atmosphere as
follows:
(I) Fuel pretreatment <% K,l Deter-
mine the percent redurtlon achieved
by any fuel pretrealmrnl using the
procedures In Method 19 (Appendix
A). Calculate the average percent re-
duction for fuel pretreatment on a
quarterly basis using fuel analysis
data. The determination of percent R,
to calculate the percent of potential
combustion concentration emitted to
the atmosphere Is optional. For pur-
poses of determining compliance with
any percent reduction requirements
under 160.43a. any reduction In poten-
tial 8O. emissions resulting from the
following processes may be credited:
(A> Fuel pretrealment (physical coal
cleaning, hydrodesulfurlzatlon of fuel
oil, etc.).
(B) Coal pulverizers, and
(C) Bottom and flyash Interactions.
(II) Sulfur dioxide control tyttem (%
K,): Determine the percent sulfur di-
oxide reduction achieved by any sulfur
dioxide control system using emission
rates measured before and after the
control system, following the proce-
dures In Method 19 (Appendix A); or.
a combination of an "as fired" fuel
monitor and emission rales measured
after the control system, following the
procedures In Method 19 (Appendix
A). When the "as fired" fuel monitor
Is used, the percent reduction Is calcu-
lated using the average emission rate
from the sulfur dioxide ronlrol device
and the average SO, Input rale from
the "as fired" fuel analysis lor 30 suc-
cessive boiler operating days.
(Ill) Overall percent reduction (%
«.): Determine the overall percent re-
duction using the results obtained In
pHragmplis (bxl) (I) and (III of this
section following the proccdiues In
Method 19 (Appendix A). KcsulLs are
calculated for rnrh 30-day period
using the quarterly average (xrrrnt
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-fi Edition)
aulfur reduction determined for fuel
pretreatment from the previous quar-
ter and the sulfur dioxide reduction
achieved by a sulfur dioxide control
system for each 30-day period In the
current quarter.
(Iv) Percent emitted (% PCC): Calcu-
late the percent of potential combus-
tion concentration emitted to the at-
mosphere using the following equa-
tion: Percent PCC» 100-Percent R.
(2) Determine the sulfur dioxide
emission rates following the proce-
dures In Method 19 (Appendix A).
(c) The procedures and methods out-
lined In Method 19 (Appendix A) are
used In conjunction with the 30-day
nitrogen-oxides emission data collect-
ed under f 00.47a to determine compli-
ance with the applicable nitrogen
oxides standard under I 60.44.
(d) Electric utility combined cycle
gas turbines are performance tested
for paniculate matter, sulfur dioxide.
and nitrogen oxides using the proce-
dures of Method 19 (Appendix A). The
aulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
emission rates from the gas turbine
used In Method 19 (Appendix A) calcu-
lations are determined when the gas
turbine b performance tested under
Subpart OO. The potential uncon-
trolled partlculate matter emission
rate from a gas turbine Is defined as 17
ng/J (0.04 Ib/mllllon Btu) heat Input.
144 PR J3SIJ. June II. Ml*, aa amended ml
M FR 4M42. Nov. M. 1*861
I fMta Rtpwtlnc retirement!.
(a) For sulfur dioxide, nitrogen
oxides, and partlculate matter emis-
sions, the performance test data from
the Initial performance test and from
the performance evaluation of the
continuous monitors (Including the
transmlasometer) are submitted to the
Administrator.
(b) For sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides the following Information Is re-
ported to the Administrator for each
24-hour period.
(I) Calendar date.
(2) The average sulfur dioxide and
nitrogen oxide emission rates (ng/J or
Ib/mllllon Blu) for each 30 successive
boiler operating days, ending with the
last 30 day period In the quarter: rea-
sons for non-compliance with I lie
•faction
emission standards: and. description of
corrective actions taken.
(3) Percent reduction of the poten-
tial combustion concentration of
sulfur dioxide for each 30 successive
boiler operating days, ending with the
last 30-day period In the quarter; rea-
sons for non-compliance with the
standard; and, description of correc-
tive actions taken.
(4) Identification of the boiler oper-
ating days for which pollutant or dllu-
tent data have not been obtained by
an approved method for at least 18
hours of operation of the facility; Jus-
tification for not obtaining sufficient
data; and description of corrective ac-
tions taken.
(5) Identification of the times when
emissions data have been excluded
from the calculation of average emis-
sion rates because of startup, shut-
down, malfunction (NO. only), emer-
gency conditions (SO, only), or other
reasons, and Justification for exclud-
ing data for reasons other than start-
up. shutdown, malfunction, or emer-
gency conditions.
(0> Identification of "F" factor used
for calculations, method of determina-
tion. and type of fuel combusted.
(7) Identification of times when
hourly averages have been obtained
baaed on manual sampling methods.
(•) Identification of the times when
the pollutant concentration exceeded
full span of the continuous monitoring
system.
(9) Description of any modifications
to the continuous monitoring system
which could affect the ability of the
continuous monitoring system to
comply with Performance Specifica-
tions 2 or 3.
(c) If the minimum quantity of emis-
sion data as required by 1 60.47a la not
obtained for any 30 successive boiler
operating days, the following Informa-
tion obtained under the requirements
of |00.46a(h) Is reported to the Ad-
ministrator for that 30-day period:
(I) The number of hourly averages
available for outlet emission rates (n.)
and Inlet emission rates (n,) as applica-
ble.
(2) The standard deviation of hourly
averages for outlet emission rates («.)
and Inlet emission rates as appli-
cable.
(4) The applicable potential combus-
tion concentration.
(5) The ratio of the upper confi-
dence limit for the mean outlet emis-
sion rate (E/) and the allowable em Is .
alon rate (£«•) aa applicable. ,
(d) If any standards under |00.43a
are exceeded during emergency condi-
tions because of control system mal-
function, the owner or operator of the
affected facility shall submit a signed
statement:
(I) Indicating If emergency condi-
tions existed and requirements under
|40.46a(d) were met during each
period, and
<2) Listing the following Informa-
tion:
(I) Time periods the emergency con-
dition existed;
(II) Electrical output and demand on
the owner or operator's electric utility
system and the affected facility;
(III) Amount of power purchased
from Interconnected neighboring utili-
ty companies during the emergency
period:
(Iv) Percent reduction In emissions
achieved:
(v) Atmospheric emission rate (ng/J)
of the pollutant discharged; and
(vl) Actions taken to correct control
system malfunction.
(e) If fuel prelreatment credit
toward the aulfur dioxide emission
standard under 160.43a Is claimed, the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility shall submit a signed statement:-
(I) Indicating what percentage
cleaning credit was taken for the cal-
endar quarter, and whether the credit
was determined In accordance with the
provisions of 160.4Ba and Method 19
(Appendix A); and
(2) Listing the quantity, heat con-
tent, and date each pretreated fuel
shipment was received during the pre-
vious quarter; the name and location
of the fuel prelreatment facility; and
the total quantity and tola! heat con-
tent of all fuels received at the affect
ed facility during the previous quarter.
(f) For any periods for which opaci-
ty, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides
272
273
-------
emissions data are not available, the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility ihall submit a signed statement
Indicating If any changes were made In
operation of the emission control
system during the period of data un-
availability. Operations of the control
system and affected facility during pe-
riods of data unavailability are to be
compared with operation of the con-
trol system and affected facility before
and following the period of data un-
availability.
(g) The owner or operator of the af-
fected facility shall submit a signed
statement Indicating whether:
(1) The required continuous moni-
toring system calibration, span, and
drift checks or other periodic audits
have or have not been performed as
specified.
(2) The data used to show compli-
ance was or was not obtained In ac-
cordance with approved methods and
procedures of this part and Is repre-
sentative of plant performance.
(3) The minimum data requirements
have or have not been met; or. the
minimum d»ir> requirements have not
been met for IT lore that were unavoid-
able.
(4) Compliance with the standards
has or has not been achieved during
the reporting period.
(h) For the purposes of the reports
required under I 60.7. periods of excess
emliuilons are defined as all 6-mlnute
periods during which the average
opacity exceeds I h« applicable opacity
standards under |60.42a(b>. Opacity
level* In excess of the applicable opaci-
ty standard and the date of such ex-
cesses are to be submitted to the Ad-
ministrator earh calendar quarter.
(I) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall submit the written
reports required under this section
and subpart A to the Administrator
for every calendar quarter. All quar-
terly reports shall be postmarked by
the 30th day following the end of each
calendar quarter.
40 CFt Ch. I (7-1-18 Edition)
Subpart Ob—Standard* of Perform-
ance for Indvttrial-Commercial-
Inttltutlonal Steam Generating
Units
SOURCE: 62 FR 47842. Dec. 10. 1*87. unless
otherwise noted.
IM.40* Applicability and delegation of
authority.
(a) The affected facility to which
this subpart applies Is each steam gen-
erating unit that commences construc-
tion, modification, or reconstruction
after June 19. 1984. and that has a
heat Input capacity from fuels com-
busted In the steam generating unit of
greater than 29 MW (100 million Btu/
hour).
(b) Any affected facility meeting the
applicability requirements under para-
graph (a) of this section and commenc-
ing construction, modification, or re-
construction after June 19, 1984, but
on or before June 19. 1986. Is subject
to the following standards:
(1) Coal-fired affected facilities
having a heat Input capacity between
29 and 73 MW (100 and 250 million
Blu/hour). Inclusive, are subject to
the partlculate matter and nitrogen
oxides standards under this subpart.
(2) Coal-fired affected facilities
having a heal Input capacity greater
than 73 MW (250 million Btu/hour)
and meeting the applicability require-
ments under Subpart D (Standards of
performance for fossll-fuel-flred steam
generators; f 60.40) are subject to the
partlculate matter and nitrogen oxides
standards under this subpart and to
the sulfur dioxide standards under
Subpart D (| 60.43).
(3) Oil fired affected facilities
having a heat Input capacity between
29 and 73 MW (100 and 250 million
Btu/hour). Inclusive, are subject to
the nitrogen oxides standards under
this subpart.
(4) Oil fired affected facilities
having a heal Input capacity greater
than 73 MW (250 million Btu/hour)
and meeting the applicability require-
ments undi i Subpart D (Standards of
performance for fossil fuel fired steam
generators: I 60.40) are also subject to
the nitrogen oxides standards under
this subparl and the partlculate
Environmental Protection Agency
matter and sulfur dioxide standards
under Subpart D (| 60.42 and I 60.43).
(c) Affected facilities which also
meet the applicability requirements
under Subpart J (Standards of per-
formance for petroleum refineries;
160.104) are subject to the partlculate
matter and nitrogen oxides standard*
under this subpart and the sulfur di-
oxide standards under Subpart J
(160.104).
(d> Affected facilities which also
meet the applicability requirements
under Subpart E (Standards of per-
formance for Incinerators; 160.60) are
subject to the nitrogen oxides and par-
tlculate matter standards under this
subpart.
(e> Steam generating units meeting
the applicability requirements under
Subpart Da (Standards of perform-
ance for electric utility steam generat-
ing units; 160.40a) are not subject to
this subpart.
(f) Any change to an existing steam
generating unit for the sole purpose of
combusting gases containing TR8 as
defined under 160.281 Is not consid-
ered a modification under I 60.14 and
the steam generating unit Is not sub-
ject to this subpart.
(g) In delegating Implementation
and enforcement authority to a State
under section lll(c> of the Act, the
following authorities shall be retained
by the Administrator and not trans-
ferred to a State.
(1) Section 60.44tXf).
(2) Section 60.44tXg>.
(3) Section 60.49b(aM4).
tM.4lb Definition*.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subparl
A of this part.
"Annual capacity factor" means the
ratio between the actual heat Input to
a steam generating unit from the fuels
listed In |60.42b(a). 160 43b(a>. or
| 60.44b(a). as applicable, during a cal-
endar year and the potential heal
Input to the steam generating unit
had It been operated for 8.760 hours
during a calendar year at the maxi-
mum steady stale design heat Input
capacity. In the case of steam generat-
ing units that are rented or leased, the
actual heat input slmll be determined
§«0.41I>
based on the combined heat Input
from all operations of the affected fa-
cility In a calendar year.
"Byproduct/waste" means any liquid
or gaseous substance produced at
chemical manufacturing plants or pe-
troleum refineries (except natural gas.
distillate oil. or residual oil) and com-
busted In a steam generating unit for
heat recovery or for disposal. Gaseous
substances with carbon dioxide levels
greater than BO percent or carbon
monoxide levels greater than 10 per-
cent are not byproduct/waste for the
purposes of this subpart.
"Chemical manufacturing plants"
means Industrial plants which are clas-
sified by the Department of Com-
merce under Standard Industrial Clas-
sification (SIC) Code 28.
"Coal" means all solid fuels classi-
fied as anthracite, bituminous, subbl-
tumlnous. or lignite by the American
Society of Testing and Materials In
A8TM D388 77. Standard Specific*
lion for Classification of Coals by
Rank (IBR-see 160.17). coal refuse.
and petroleum coke. Coal-derived syn-
thetlc fuels. Including but not limited
to solvent refined coal, gasified coal,
coal-oil mixtures, and coal-water mix-
tures, are also Included In this defini-
tion for Ihe purposes of this subpart.
"Coal refuse" means any byproduct
of coal mining or coal cleaning oper-
allons with an ash content greater
than 50 percent, by weight, and a
heating value less than 13.900 kj/kg
(6.000 Blu/lb) on a dry basis.
"Combined cycle system" means a
system In which a separate source.
such as a gas turbine. Internal combus-
tion engine, kiln, etc., provides ex-
haust gas to a heat recovery steam
generating unit.
••Conventional technology" means
wet flue gas desulfurizatlon (POD)
technology, dry PGD technology, at-
mospheric fluldlzed bed combustion
technology, and oil hydrodesulfurlza-
lion technology.
"Distillate oil" means fuel oils that
contain 0.05 weight percent nitrogen
or less and comply with the specifica-
tions for fuel oil numbers I and 2. as
defined by the American Society of
Testing and Materials In ASTM D396
78. Standard Specifications for Fuel
274
275
-------
emissions data are not available, the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility shall submit a signed statement
Indicating If any changes were made In
operation of the emission control
system during the period of data un-
availability. Operations of the control
system and affected facility during pe-
riods of data unavailability are to be
compared with operation of the con-
trol system and affected facility before
and following the period of data un-
availability.
The owner or operator of the af-
fected facility shall submit a signed
statement Indicating whether:
The required continuous moni-
toring system calibration, spap. and
drift checks or other periodic audits
have or have not been performed as
specified.
(2) The data used to show compli-
ance was or was not obtained In ac-
cordance with approved methods and
procedures of this part and Is repre-
sentative of plant performance.
(3) The minimum data requirements
have or have not been met; or. the
minimum dai<» requirements have not
been met for errors that were unavoid-
able.
(4) Compliance with the standards
has or has not been achieved during
the reporting period.
(h> For the purposes of the reports
required under I 00.7. periods of excess
emissions are defined as all 0-mlnule
periods during which the average
opacity exceeds the applicable opacity
standards under |00.42a(b>. Opacity
levels In excess of the applicable opaci-
ty standard and the date of such ex-
cesses are to be submitted to the Ad-
ministrator each calendar quarter.
(I) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall submit the written
reports required under this section
and subparl A to (he Administrator
for every calendar quarter. All quar-
terly reports shall be postmarked by
the 30th day following the end of each
calendar quarter.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M fdllion)
Svaport Ob—Standards »f Parfarm-
anca far Indutlrlal-CemMcrclal-
Initltutlonal Slsam Oanaratlng
Units
Souncr »2 FR 47(42. Dec
otherwise noted.
IM7. unlru
IM.44* AMlksMIHr and McgaUm of
avlhorllr.
The affected facility to which
this subpart applies Is each steam gen-
erating unit that commences construc-
tion. modification, or reconstruction
after June I*. 1984. and that has a
heat Input capacity from fuels com-
busted In the steam generating unit of
greater than 29 MW 4100 million Btu/
hour).
(b) Any affected facility meeting the
applicability requirements under para-
graph (a) of this section and commenc-
ing construction, modification, or re-
construction after June 19. 1984. but
on or before June 19. 1980. Is subject
to the following standards:
(I) Coal fired affected facilities
having a heat Input capacity between
29 and 73 MW (100 and 250 million
Btu/hour), Inclusive, are subject to
the partkulate matter and nitrogen
oxides standards under this subpart.
(2) Coal-fired affected facilities
having a heat Input capacity greater
than 73 MW (350 million Btu/hour)
and meeting the applicability require-
ments under Subpart D (Standards of
performance for fossll-fuel-flred steam
generators; I (0.40) are subject to the
partlculate matter and nitrogen oxides
standards under this subpart and to
the sulfur dioxide standards under
Subpart D (|60.43).
(3) OH fired affected facilities
having a heat Input capacity between
29 and 73 MW (100 and 250 million
Btu/hour), Inclusive, are subject to
the nitrogen oxides standards under
this subpart.
(4) OH fired affected facilities
having a heal Input capacity greater
than 73 MW (250 million Blu/hour)
and meeting the applicability require-
ments undi i Subpart D (Standards of
performance for fossll-fuel-flred steam
generators; |60.40) are also subject to
the nitrogen oxides standards under
this subparl and the participate
I nvlr*nm*nl«l Protection Agency
matter and sulfur dioxide standards
under Subpart D (| 60.42 and 160.43).
(0 Affected facilities which also
meet the appllcablllly requirements
under Subpart J (Standards of per-
formance for petroleum refineries;
I 60.104) are subject to the partlculale
matter and nitrogen oxides standards
under this subpart and the sulfur di-
oxide standards under Subpart J
(160.104).
(d) Affected facilities which also
meet the applicability requirements
under Subpart K (Standards of per-
formance for Incinerators; 160.50) are
subject to the nitrogen oxides and par-
tlculale matter standards under this
subpart.
(e) Steam generating units meeting
the applicability requirements under
Subpart Oa (Standards of perform-
ance for electric utility steam generat-
ing units; 160.40a) are not subject to
this subpart.
(f) Any change to an existing steam
generating unit for the sole purpose of
combusting gases containing TR8 as
defined under 160.261 Is not consid-
ered a modification under |60.14 and
the steam generating unit Is not sub-
ject to this subpart.
(g> In delegating Implementation
and enforcement authority to a State
under section MHO of the Act. the
following authorities shall be retained
by the Administrator and not trans-
ferred to a State.
(I)Section 60.44Mf>.
(3) Section 60.44Mg>.
(3) Section 60.49MaN4).
• «9.4I» DcfMUmw.
As used In this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
"Annual capacity factor" means the
ratio between the actual heal Input to
a steam generating unit from the fuels
listed In |60.42b(a>. |«0.43b4a). or
I 60.44b(a), as applicable, during a cal-
endar year and the potential heal
Inpul to Ihe steam generaling unit
had It been operaled for 8.760 hours
during a calendar year al the maxi-
mum steady state design heat Input
capacity. In the case of steam generat-
ing units that are roiled or leased, the
actual heal Input .shall be determined
J40.41b
baaed on the combined heat Input
from all operations of the affected fa-
cility In a calendar year.
"Byproduct/waste" means any liquid
or gaseous substance produced al
chemical manufacturing plants or pe-
troleum refineries (except natural gas.
distillate oil. or residual oil) and com-
busted In a steam generaling unit for
heat recovery or for disposal. Oasopus
substances with carbon dioxide levels
greater than 50 percent or carbon
monoxide levels greater than 10 per-
cent are not byproduct/waste for the
purposes of this subpart.
"Chemical manufacturing plants"
means Industrial plants which are clas-
sified by the Department of Com-
merce under Standard Industrial Clas-
sification (SIC) Code 28.
"Coal" means all solid fuels classi-
fied as anthracite, bituminous, subbl-
luminous, or lignite by the American
Society of Testing and Materials In
ASTM D388 77. Standard Specifics
lion for Classification of Coals by
Rank (IBR—see 160.17). coal refuse.
and petroleum coke. Coal-derived syn-
thetic fuels. Including but not limited
to solvent refined coal, gasified coal,
coal-oil mixtures, and coal-water mix-
tures, are also Included In this defini-
tion for the purposes of this subpart.
"Coal refuse" means any byproduct
of coal mining or jtoal cleaning oper-
ations with an ash content greater
than 50 percent, by weight, and a
heating value less than 13.900 kJ/kg
(6,000 Btu/lb) on a dry basis.
"Combined cycle system" means a
system In which a separate source.
such as a gas turbine. Internal combus-
tion engine, kiln. etc.. provides ex-
haust gas to a heal recovery steam
generaling unit.
"Conventional technology" means
wel flue gas desulfurteallon (POD)
technology, dry POD technology, at-
mospheric fluldlzed bed combustion
technology, and oil hydrodesulfurlca-
tlon technology.
••Distillate oil" means fuel oils that
contain 0.05 weight percent nitrogen
or less and comply with the specific*
lions for fuel oil numbers I and 2. as
defined by the American Society of
Testing and Materials In ASTM P396
78. Standard Specifications (or Fuel
274
275
-------
Oils (Incorporated by reference—see
180.17).
"Dry flue gas desulfurlzallon tech-
nology" means a sulfur dioxide control
a/stem that Is located downstream of
the steam generating unit and re-
moves sulfur oxides from the combus-
tion Rases of the steam generating
unit by contacting the combustion
gases with an alkaline slurry or solu-
tion and forming a dry powder materi-
al. This definition Includes devices
where the dry powder material Is sub-
sequently converted to another form.
Alkaline slurries or solutions used In
dry flue gas desulfurlzatlon technolo-
gy Include but are not limited to lime
and sodium.
"Duct burner" means a device that
combusts fuel and that Is placed In the
exhaust duct from another source.
such as a stationary gas turbine. Inter-
nal combustion engine, kiln, etc., to
allow the firing of additional fuel to
heat the exhaust gases before the ex-
haust gases enter a heat recovery
steam generating unit.
"Emerging technology" means any
sulfur dioxide control system that Is
not defined as a conventional technol-
ogy under this section, and for which
the owner or operator of the facility
has applied to the Administrator and
received approval to operate as an
emerging technology under
ifl0.4Bb(aH4>.
••Federally enforceable" means all
limitations and conditions that are en-
forceable by the Administrator. In-
cluding Hie requirements of 40 CFR
Parts 60 and 61, requirements within
Miy applicable State Implementation
Plan, «nd any permit requirements es-
tablished under 40 CFR 52.21 or under
40 CFR 61 18 and 40 CFK 51.24.
"Fluldlzed bed combustion technolo-
gy" means combustion of fuel In a bed
ur series of beds < Including but not
limited to bubbling bed units and cir-
culating bed uiiils) of limestone aggre-
gate (or other soiltenl materials) In
wlilc-h these materials are forced
upward by the flow of combustion air
and the gaseous products of combus-
tion.
"Fuel prelrratmenl" means a proc-
ess that removes a |K>rlion ol the
Giillur In a fuel before combustion of
the fuel In a steam general Ing unit.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-81 Edition)
"Full capacity" means operation of
the steam generating unit at 90 per-
cent or more of the maximum steady-
state design heat Input capacity.
"Heat Input" means heat derived
from combustion of fuel In a steam
generating unit and does not Include
the heat Input from preheated com-
bustion air, reclrculated flue gases, or
exhaust gases from other sources.
such as gas turbines. Internal combus-
tion engines, kilns, etc.
"Heat release rate" means the steam
generating unit design heat Input ca-
pacity (In MW or Bin/hour) divided
by the furnace volume (In cubic
meters or cubic feet); the furnace
volume Is that volume bounded by the
front furnace wall where the burner Is
located, the furnace side waterwall,
and extending to the level Just below
or In front of the first row of convec-
tion pass tubes.
"Heat transfer medium" means any
material that la used to transfer heat
from one point to another point.
"High heat release rate" means a
heat release rate greater than 730.000
J/sec-m' (70.000 Btu/hour-ftM.
"Lignite" means a type of coal classi-
fied as lignite A or lignite B by the
American Society of Testing and Ma-
terials In ASTM D388-77. Standard
Specification for Classification of
Coals by Rank (IBR-see I 60.17).
"Low heat release rate" means a
heat release rate of 730.000 J/sec-m9
(70,000 Btu/hour-ft*) or less.
"Mass feed stoker steam generating
unit" means a steam generating unit
where solid fuel Is Introduced directly
Into a retort or Is fed directly onto a
grate where It Is combusted.
"Maximum heal Input capacity"
means the ability of a steam generat-
ing unit to combust a stated maximum
amount of fuel on a steady state basis.
as determined by the physical design
and characteristics of the steam gener-
ating unit.
"Municipal-type solid waste" means
refuse, more than 50 percent of which
Is waste consisting of a mixture of
paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes.
plastics, leather, rubber, and other
combustible materials, and noncom-
bustlble materials such as glass and
rock.
Environmental Protection Agency
"Natural gas" means (Da naturally
occurring mixture of hydrocarbon and
nonhydrocarbon gases found In geo-
logic formations beneath the earth's
surface, of which the principal constit-
uent la methane; or (2) liquid petrole-
um gas. as defined by the American
Society for Testing and Materials In
ASTM D1838-82. "Standard Specifica-
tion for Liquid Petroleum Oases"
(IBR-see 160.17).
"Noncontlnental area" means the
State of Hawaii, the Virgin Islands.
Quam. American Samoa, the Com-
monwealth of Puerto Rico, or the
Northern Mariana Islands.
"OH" means crude oil or petroleum
or a liquid fuel derived from crude oil
or petroleum. Including distillate and
residual oil.
"Petroleum refinery" means Indus-
trial plants as classified by the Depart-
ment of Commerce under Standard In-
dustrial Classification (SIC) Code 29.
"Potential aul'«r dioxide emission
rate" means the ' nroretlcal sulfur di-
oxide emissions (ng/J. Ib/mllllon Btu
heat Input) that would result from
combusting fuel In an uncleaned state
and without using emission control
systems.
"Process heater" means a device
that la primarily used to heat a mate-
rial to Initiate or promote a chemical
reaction In which the material partici-
pates as a reactant or catalyst.
"Pulverized coal-fired steam generat-
ing unit" means a steam generating
unit In which pulverized coal Is Intro-
duced Into an air stream that carries.
the coal to the combustion chamber of
the steam generating unit where It Is
fired In suspension. This Includes both
conventional pulverized coal-fired and
mlcropulverlzed coal-fired steam gen-
erating units.
"Residual oil" means crude oil. fuel
oil numbers 1 and 2 that have a nitro-
gen content greater than 0.05 weight
percent, and all fuel oil numbers 4, 5
and 6, as defined by the American So-
ciety of Testing and Materials In
ASTM D396-78, Standard Specifica-
tions for Fuel Oils (IBR-see I 60.17).
"Spreader stoker steam generating
unit" means a steam generating unit
In which solid fuel is Introduced to the
combustion zone by a mechanism that
throws the fuel onto a grate from
9 «0.41b
above. Combustion takes place both In
suspension and on the grate.
"Steam generating unit" means a
device that combusts any fuel or by-
product/waste to produce steam or to
heat water or any other heat transfer
medium. This term Includes any mu-
nicipal-type solid waste Incinerator
with a heat recovery steam generating
unit or any steam generating unit that
combusts fuel and la part of a cogen-
eratlon system or a combined cycle |f
system. This term does not Include
process heaters as they are defined In
this subpart.
"Steam generating unit operating
day" means a 24-hour period between
12:00 midnight and the following mid-
night during which any fuel Is com-
busted at any time In the eteam gener-
ating unit. It Is not necessary for fuel
to be combusted continuously for the
entire 24-hour period.
"Very low sulfur oil" means a distil-
late oil or residual oil that when com
busted without post combustion SOt
control has an SO, emission rate equal
to or less than 130 ng/J (0.30 Ib SO,/
million Btu).
"Wet flue gas desulfurlzatlon tech-
nology" means a sulfur dioxide control
system that Is located downstream of
the steam generating unit and re-
moves sulfur oxides from the combus-
tion gases of the steam generating
unit by contacting the combustion gas
with an alkaline slurry or solution and
forming a liquid material. This defini-
tion applies to devices where the aque-
ous liquid material product of this
contact Is subsequently converted to
other forms. Alkaline reagents used In
wet flue gas desulfurlzatlon technolo-
gy Include, but are not limited to, lime.
limestone, and sodium.
"Wet scrubber system" means any
emission control device that mixes an
aqueous stream or slurry with the ex-
haust gases from a steam generating
unit to control emissions of parllculate
matter or sulfur dioxide.
"Wood" means wood, wood residue.
bark, or any derivative fuel or residue
thereof. In any form. Including, but
not limited to. sawdust, sanderdusl,
wood chips, scraps, slabs, millings.
shavings, and processed pellets made
from wood or oilier forest residues.
276
277
-------
J*0.4»
I «9.m Stalwart for miter tfloiMe.
Fuel prctreatment results In a 60
percent or greater reduction In poten-
tial sulfur dioxide emissions and
(2) Emissions from the pretreated
fuel (without combustion or post com-
bustion sulfur dioxide control) arc
equal to or less than the emission
limits specified In paragraph (c) of
this section.
(I) An affected facility subject to
paragraph (a), (b). or (c) of this sec-
tion may combust very low sulfur oil
or natural gas when the. .sulfur dioxide
|«0.43I>
control system Is not being operated
because of malfunction or mainte-
nance of the sulfur dioxide control
system.
IM.4U Standard for parti
ilcr.
(a) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance test Is com-
pleted or Is required to be completed
under |60.8 of this part, whichever!
comes first, no owner or operator of an
affected facility which combusts coal
or combusts mixtures of coal with
other fuels, shall cause to be dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from
that affected facility any gases that
contain partlculate matter In excess of
the following emission limits:
(1) 22 ng/J (0.06 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input,
(I) If the affected facility combusts
only COA|, or
(II) If the affected facility combusts
coal and other fuels and has an annual
capacity factor for the other fuels of
10 percent (0.10) or less.
(2) 43 ng/J (0.10 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input If the affected facility com-
busts coal and other fuels and has an
annual capacity factor for the other
fuels greater than 10 percent (0.10)
and Is subject to a federally enforcea-
ble requirement limiting operation of
the affected facility to an annual ca-
pacity factor greater than 10 percent
(0.10) for fuels other than coal.
(3) M ng/J (0.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input If the affected facility com-
busts coal or coal and other fuels and
(I) Has an annual capacity factor for
coal or coal and other fuels of 30 per-
cent (0.30) or less.
(II) Has a maximum heat Input ca-
pacity of 73 MW (250 million Btu/
hour) or less.
(Ill) Has a federally enforceable re-
quirement limiting operation of the af-
fected facility to an annual capacity
factor of 30 percent (0.30) or less for
coal or coal and other solid fuels, and
(Iv) Construction of the affected fa-
cility commenced after June 19, 1984.
and before November 25. 1986.
(b) On and after the date on which
the performance test Is completed or
required to be completed under f 60.8
of this part, whichever dale comes
first, no owner or operator of an af-
278
279
-------
S60.44b
fected facility that combusts oil or
that combusts mixtures of oil with
other fuels shall cause to be dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from
that affected facility any gases that
contain partlculate matter In excess of
43 ng/J «UO Ib/mllllon Btu) heat
Input.
(c) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest Is com-
pleted or Is required to be completed
under 100.8 of this part, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility that combusts
wood, or wood with other fuels, except
coal, shall cause to be discharged from
that affected facility any gases that
contain particulatc matter In excess of
the following emission limits:
(!) 43 ng/J (010 Ib/mllllon Blu)
heat Input If the affected facility has
an annual capacity factor greater than
30 percent (0.30) for wood.
<2> 86 ng/J (020 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input If
(I) The affected facility has an
annual capacity factor of 30 percent
(0.30) or less for wood,
(II) Is subject to a federally enforcea-
ble requirement limiting operation of
the affected facility to an annual ca-
pacity factor of 30 percent (0.30) or
less for wood, and
(III) Has a maximum heal Input ca-
pacity of 73 MW (250 million Btu/
hour) or less.
(d) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lest Is com-
pleted or Is required to be completed
under i 60.B of this part, whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operalor
of an affected facility that combusts
municipal-type solid waste or mixtures
of municipal typo solid waste with
other furls, shall cause to be dis-
charged into the atmosphere from
that affected facility any gases thai
conialn parlirulalc mailer In excess of
the following emission limits:
(I) 43 HK/J (0.10 Ib/million Bill)
deal Input.
(I) If the alleclcd facility combusts
only municipal type solid waste, or
(II) If the affected facility combusts
municipal type soli.I waste and olher
fuels and liar, an anmml rapacity
factor for the ollu-i furls of 10 percent
iO in) or less
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-S8 Edition)
(2) 86 ng/J (0.20 Ib/mllllon Btu)
heat Input If the affected facility com-
busts municipal-type solid waste or
municipal-type solid waste and other
fuels; and
(I) Has an annual capacity factor for
municipal-type solid waste and other
fuels of 30 percent (0.30) or less.
(II) Has a maximum heat Input ca-
pacity of 73 MW (250 million Btu/
hour) or less,
(III) Has a federally enforceable re-
quirement limiting operation of the af-
fected facility to an annual capacity
factor of 30 percent (0.30) for munici-
pal-type solid waste, or municipal-type
solid waste and other fuels, and
(Iv) Construction of the affected fa-
cility commenced after June 19, 1984,
but before November 25. 1986.
(e) For Ihe purposes of this section.
the annual capacity factor Is deter-
mined by dividing the actual heat
Input to the steam generating unll
during the calendar year from Ihe
combusllon of coal. wood, or munici-
pal-type solid wasle. and olher fuels.
as applicable, by the potential heat
Input to the steam generating unit If
Ihe sleam generating unit had been
operated for 8,760 hours at the maxi-
mum design heat Input capacity.
(f) On and after the dale on which
the Initial performance tesl Is com-
pleted or is required to be completed
under 160.8 of this parl. whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility subjecl lo Ihe
parliculale mailer emission limits
under paragraph (a), (b) or (c) of this
section shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere any gases thai
exhibit greater than 20 percent opaci-
ty (6 minute average), except for one
6 minute period per hour of not more
than 27 percent opacity.
(g) The parllculate matler and opac-
ity standards apply at all limes, exccpl
during periods of startup, shutdown or
malfunction.
H 6(M4b Standard for nitrogen iixidea.
(a) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance lesl Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under i 60.8 of this part, whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operalor
of an affected facility that Is subject
Environmental Protection Agoncy
to the provisions of this section and
that combusts only coal. oil. or natural
gas shall cause lo be discharged Into
the atmosphere from that affected fa-
cility any gases thai contain nitrogen
oxides (expressed as NO.) In excess of
the following emission limits:
Fud/SIMffl gmnkng untt, lypa
(I) Nalwal OM and dtoMaM oil. aireapl (4):
M low h*M ntoaM iato
(K) High hMt r«MM Ml*
m HMdual oi:
(V low haai idMM rate
m High hwi nriaata >«•
PI Co*
II) MM, la*d Motet
(I) Spraadai ItoMr and ftuMiiM tad
oofnbuclioft
(*) PuMnud cod
M llgnlto. «»c*p< (v)
|v) ligniM nwwd m North Dakota. South
CMoU. or Montana and ccvntumd n
a Hag Up Iwnaca
(vi| CoalKtacMd (yrthMic (MM
HI Duel bumf uud in a combinMl cyda
(l| NaMal oaa and oMMaM at
(>) Residual oil
ng/J (!>/
niton Btu|
"S5SS,"
Input
43(0101
ae 10201
130(0301
170 (040)
210(090)
HO (010)
300(0/0)
260 (0*0)
340(0 BO)
210 (090)
•6 (0?0|
170(040)
(b) On and after the dale on which
the Initial performance test Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under 1 60.8 of this part, whichever
dale comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility lhat simulta-
neously combusts mixtures of coal, oil.
or natural gas shall cause to be dis-
charged Into the almosphere from
lhal affecled facility any gases thai
contain nitrogen oxides In excess of a
limit determined by use of the follow-
ing formula:
H,.)l(EU H.)l/
280
where:
E. Is the nitrogen oxides emission limit (ex-
pressed a-i NO,). ng/J (Ib/mllllon Btu)
EL,. Is the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph <»MI> for combustion of nat-
ural gas or distillate oil. ng/J (Ib/mllllon
Blu)
H,. Is the heal Input from combustion of
natural gas or distillate oil.
EU. Is the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (aM2) for combustion of re
sldual oil.
H,. Is the heal Input from combusllon of re
sldual oil.
5 60.44b
EL, Is the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (»M3) tor combustion of coal,
and
H, Is the heal Input from combusllon of
coal.
(c) On and after the date on which
the Initial performance tesl Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under 160.8 of this part, whichever
comes first, no owner or operator of an
affected facility lhat simultaneously .
combusts coal or oil, or a mixture of';
Ihese fuels with natural gas. and wood.
municipal-type solid waste, or any
other fuel shall cause to be discharged
Into the atmosphere any gases that
conialn nitrogen oxides In excess of
the emission limit for the coal or oil.
or mlxlure of Ihese fuels with natural
gas combusted In the affected facility.
as determined pursuant to paragraph
(a) or (b) of this section, unless the af-
fected facility has an annual capacity
factor for coal or oil, or mixture of
these fuels with natural gas of 10 per-
cent (0.10) or less and Is subjecl to a
federally enforceable requirement
that limits operation of the facility to
an annual capacity factor of 10 per-
cent (0.10) or less for coal, oil. or a
mixture of these fuels with natural
gas.
(d) On and after Ihe date on which
the Initial performance test Is com-
pleted or Is required to be completed
under 160.8 of this part, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility lhal simulta-
neously combusts natural gas with
wood, municipal-type solid wasle, or
olher solid fuel, excepl coal, shall
cause lo be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from lhal affecled facility any
gases thai conialn nilrogen oxides In
excess of 130 ng/J (0.30 Ib/mllllon
Blu) heal Inpul unless Ihe affecled fa-
cility has an annual capacity factor for
nalural gas of 10 percent (0.10) or less
and Is subjecl lo a federally enforcea-
ble requirement lhal limits operation
of the affecled facility lo an annual
capacity factor of 10 percent (0.10) or
less for nalural gas.
(e) On and after Ihe dale on which
Ihe Initial performance lesl Is com-
pleted or Is required lo be completed
under 160.8 of this parl, whichever
date comes first, no owner or operator
of an affected facility that slmulta-
281
-------
{«0.44t>
neously combusts coal. oil. or natural
gas with byproduct/waste shall cause
to be discharged Into the atmosphere
from that affected facility any gases
that contain nitrogen oxides In excess
of an emission limit determined by the
following formula unless the affected
facility has an annual capacity factor
(or coal. oil. and natural gas of 10 per-
cent (0.10) or less and Is subject to a
federally enforceable requirement
which limits operation of the affected
facility to an annual capacity factor of
10 percent (0.10) or less:
«« C« Cli. I (7-l-M Edition)
Protection Agency
E.-KEU. H.IMEU. H..II CEI* H.)|/
•here:
E. U the nitrogen oxldea emission limit (ex
presned aa NO,). ng/J (Ib/nilllloii Rlu)
•Ov. It the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (aXI) for combustion of nat-
ural gas or distillate oil. ng/J (Ib/mllllon
Btul.
H», 1s the heat Input from combustion of
natural gas. distillate oil and gaseous by
product/waste. ng/J lib/million Bin).
EU. la the appropriate emission limit from
paragraph (aHJl tor combustion of re-
sidual oil. ng/J The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall conduct perform-
ance tests lo determine compliance
with the percent of potential sulfur di-
oxide emission rate (% P.) and the
sulfur dioxide emission rate (B.) pur-
suant to I 60 42b following the proce-
IM.4M
dures listed below, except as provided
under paragraph (d) of this section.
(I > The Initial performance test shall
be conducted over the first 30 consecu-
tive operating days of the steam gen-
erating unit. Compliance with the
sulfur dioxide standards shall be de-
termined using a 30-day average. The
first operating day Included In the Ini-
tial performance test shall be schedt
uled within 30 days after achieving the
maximum production rate at which
the affected facility will be operated.
but not later than 180 days after Inl
tlal startup of the facility.
(2) If only coal or only oil Is com-
busted, the following procedures are
used:
(I) The procedures In Method 19 are
used to determine the hourly sulfur
dioxide emission rate (E».) and the 30-
day average emission rate (E»). The
hourly averages used to compute the
90-day averages are obtained from the
continuous emission monitoring
system of 160.47b (a) or (b).
(II) The percent of potential sulfur
dioxide emission rate (% P.) emitted to
the atmosphere Is computed using the
following formula:
% P.. too
% R. to the sulfur dioxide removal efficiency
of the control device as determined by
Method I*. In percent.
% R, as the aullur dioxide removal efficiency
of fuel prelreatment aa determined by
Method I*. In percent.
(3) If coal or oil Is combusted with
other fuels, the same procedures re-
quired In paragraph (cM2) of this sec-
tion are used, except as provided In
the following:
(I) An adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
emission rate (E*.*) Is used In Equation
19-10 of Method 10 to compute an ad
lasted 30-day average emission rale
(!•:..•>. The Et. Is computed using the
following formula:
E^'-IE^ E.«l X.II/X.
•here:
EM* la the adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
emission rate. ng/J ilb/mllllon Btul.
EM Is Ihr hourly sulfur dioxide emission
rale. nt/J db/mllllon HMD
283
-------
9 A0.43B
E. U the sulfur dioxide concentration In
fueb) other than co»l »nd oil combusted
In the •Heeled facility, as determined by
the fuel sampllni and analysis proce-
dures In Method 19. m/J (Ib/mllllon
Blu). The value E. for each fuel lot Is
used for each hourly average during the
time that the lot Is being combusted.
X. Is the fraction of total heat Input from
fuel combustion derived from coal. oil.
or coal and oil. as determined by appli-
cable procedures In Method 19.
(II) To compute the percent of po-
tential sulfur dioxide emission rate (%
P.). an adjusted % R. (% R/> Is com
puled from the adjusted E..' from
paragraph (bH3HI) of this section and
aii adjusted average sulfur dioxide
Inlet rate <£«•) using the following for-
mula:
%R.--iood o IV/E*"»
To compute E**, an adjusted hourly
sulfur dioxide Inlet rate Is used.
The EH* ls computed using the follow-
ing formula:
E./-I&. E.II X.)I/X,
where:
E,,- Is the adjusted hourly sulfur dioxide
Inlet rale, ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu).
EM Is the hourly sulfur dioxide Inlet rate.
ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu).
(4) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility subject to paragraph
(b)(3) of this section docs not have to
measure parameters E. or Xt If the
owner or operator elects to assume
that Xk-I.O. Owners or operators of
affected facilities who assume X, ^ 1.0
shall
(I) Determine % P. following the
procedures In paragraph (c)(2) of this
section, and
(II) Sulfur dioxide emissions (E.) are
considered to be in compliance with
sulfur dioxide (-mission limits under
f 60.4 2b.
(5) Tho ownrr or operator of an af-
fected facility that qualifies under the
provisions of | 60.42b(d> does not have
to measure parameters E. or X. under
paragraph (b><3) of this section If the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility elecl.s lo measure sulfur dioxide
emission rales of the coal or oil follow-
ing the fuel sampling and analysis pro-
cedures under Method 19.
(d) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility thai roinlinsls only oil
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-08 Edition)
emitting less than 130 ng/J (0.3 Ib/
million Btu) SOi, has an annual capac-
ity factor for oil of 10 percent (0.10) or
less, and Is subject to a federally en-
forceable requirement limiting oper-
ation of the affected facility to an
annual capacity for oil of 10 percent
(0.10) or less shall:
(I) Conduct the Initial performance
test over 24 consecutive steam generat-
ing unit operating hours at full load;
(2) Determine compliance with the
standards after the Initial perform-
ance test based on the arithmetic aver-
age of the hourly emissions data
during each steam generating unit op-
erating day If a continuous emission
measurement system (CEMS) Is used.
or based on a dally average If Method
6B or fuel sampling and analysis pro-
cedures under Method 19 are used.
(e) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility subject to I 60.42b(d)(l)
shall demonstrate the maximum
design capacity of the steam generat-
ing unit by operating the facility at
maximum capacity for 24 hours. This
demonstration will be made during the
Initial performance lest and a subse-
quent demonstration may be request-
ed at any other time. If the 24-hour
average firing rate for the affected fa-
cility Is less than the maximum design
capacity provided by the manufactur-
er of the affected facility, the 24-hour
average firing rate shall be used to de-
termine the capacity utilization rate
for the affected facility, otherwise the
maximum design capacity provided by
the manufacturer Is used.
(f) For the Initial performance test
required under I 60.8. compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limits and
percent reduction requirements under
i 60 42b Is based on the average emis-
sion rates and the average percent re-
duction for sulfur dioxide for the first
30 consecutive steam generating unit
operating days, except as provided
under paragraph (d) of this section.
The Initial performance lest Is the
only tesl for which al least 30 days
prior notice Is required unless other-
wise specified by the Administrator.
The Initial performance test Is to be
scheduled so thai Ihe first steam gen-
erating unit operating day of the 30
successive steam generating unit oper-
ating days Is completed within 30 days
284
Environmental Protection Agency
after achieving the maximum produc-
tion rate at which the affected facility
will be operated, but not later than
180 day* after Initial startup of the fa-
cility. The boiler load during the 30-
day period does not have to be the
maximum design load, but must be
representative of future operating con-
ditions and Include at least one 24-
hour period at full load.
(g) After the Initial performance test
required under 160.8, compliance with
the sulfur dioxide emission limits and
percent reduction requirements under
160.42b la based on the average emis-
sion rates and the average percent re-
duction for aulfur dioxide for 30 suc-
cessive steam generating unit operat-
ing days, except aa provided under
paragraph (d). A separate perform-
ance test to completed at the end of
each steam generating unit operating
day after the Initial performance test.
and a new 30-day average emission
rate and percent reduction for sulfur
dioxide are calculated lo show compli-
ance with the standard.
(h) Except as provided under para-
graph (I) of this section, the owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
use all valid sulfur dioxide emissions
data In calculating % P. and E». under
paragraph (c), of this section whether
or not the minimum emissions data re-
quirements under 160.40b are
achieved. All valid emissions data. In-
cluding valid sulfur dioxides emission
data collected during periods of start-
up, shutdown and malfunction, shall
be used In calculating % P. and E,,.
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this sec-
tion.
(I) During periods of malfunction or
maintenance of the sulfur dioxide con-
trol systems when oil Is combusted as
provided under 160.42b(l>. emission
data are nol used lo calculate % P. or
E. under I 60.42b (a), (b) or (c). howev-
er, the emissions data are used to de-
termine compliance with Ihe emission
limit under | 60 421X1)
• «0.46b Compliance and performance tent
methods and procedures for paniculate
matter and nitrogen oxides.
(a) The participate mailer emission
standards and opacity limits under
160.43b apply at all times except
during periods of startup, shutdown.
fMMofc
or malfunction. The nitrogen oxides
emission standards under |60.44b
apply at all times.
Compliance with the partlculate
matter emission standards under
| 60.43b shall be determined through
performance testing as described In
paragraph (d) of this section.
(c) Compliance with Ihe nitrogen
oxides emission standards under
| 60.44b shall be determined through)
performance testing as described In
paragraph (e) or (f) of this section.
(d) The following procedures and
reference methods are used to deter-
mine compliance- with the standards
for partlculate mailer emissions under
160.43b.
(1) Method 3 Is used for gas analysis
•when applying Method 5 or Method
17.
(2) Method 5. Method SB. or Method
17 shall be used to measure the con-
centration of partlculale matter as fol-
lows:
(I) Method 5 shall be used at affect-
ed facilities without wet flue gas desul-
furlzatlon (POD) systems; and
(II) Method 17 may be used at facili-
ties with or without wet scrubber sys-
tems provided the stack gas tempera-
ture does not exceed a temperature of
160 *C (320 *P). The procedures of sec-
tions 2.1 and 2.3 of Method 5B may be
used In Method 17 only If It Is used
after a wet FGD system. Do not use
Method 17 after wet POD systems If
the effluent Is saturated or laden with
water droplets.
(Ill) Method SB Is to be used only
after wel FGD systems.
(3) Method 1 Is used to select the
sampling site and the number of tra-
verse sampling points. The sampling
lime for each run Is al leasl 120 min-
utes and the minimum sampling
volume Is 1.7 dscm (60 dscf) except
that smaller sampling times or vol-
umes may be approved by the Admin-
istrator when necessitated by process
variables or other factors.
(4) For Method 5. the temperature
of the sample gas In the probe and
filler holder Is monitored and Is main-
tained at 160 'C (320 -F).
(5) For determination of partlculate
mailer emissions, the oxygen or
carbon dioxide sample Is obtained si-
multaneously with each run of
285
-------
9M.44*
Method 6. Method SB or Method 17 by
traversing the duct al the same sam-
pling location.
(6) For each run using Method 5.
Method 6B or Method 17. the emission
rat« expressed In nanograma per Joule
heat Input Is determined using:
(I) The oxygen or carbon dioxide
measurements and par lieu late matter
measurements obtained under this sec-
tion.
(II) The dry basis F factor, and
(III) The dry basis emission rate cal-
culation procedure contained In
Method 19 (Appendix A).
(7) Method 9 Is used for determining
the opacity of stack emissions.
(e) To determine compliance with
the emission limits for nitrogen oxides
required under I 80.44b. the owner or
operator of an affected facility shall
conduct the performance lest as re-
quired under I 00.8 using the continu-
ous system for monitoring nitrogen
oxides under I 60.48(b).
(1) For the Initial compliance lest.
nitrogen oxides from the steam gener-
ating unit are monitored for 30 succes-
sive steam generating unit operating
d»ys and the 30-day average emission
rat? Is used to determine compliance
with the nitrogen oxides emission
standards under I 80.44b. The 30-day
average emission rate Is calculated as
the average of all hourly emissions
ilata recnnled by thr monitoring
system during the 30-day lest period.
(2) Following the dale on which the
Initial performance lest Is completed
or Is required to be completed under
(00.B of this part, whichever date
cnmes first, the owner or operator of
an affected facility which combusts
coal or which combusts residual oil
Imvlng a nitrogen content greater
than 0.30 weight percent shall deter-
mine compliance with the nitrogen
oxides emission standards under
I 60.44b on a continuous basis through
the use of .1 30 dny rolling average
emission rale. A now 30-day rolling av-
erage emission rale Is calculated each
steam generating unit operating day
as the average of all of the hourly ni-
trogen oxides emission data for the
preceding 30 steam generating unit op
crating days.
(3) Following the dale nil which the
Initial performance tcsl Is completed
40 OH Oi. I (7-1-88 IrfltUn)
or Is required to be completed under
180.8 of this part, whichever dale
comes first, the owner or operator of
an affected facility which has a heat
Input capacity greater than 73 MW
(260 million Btu/hour) and which
combusts natural gas. distillate oil. or
residual oil having a nitrogen content
of 0.30 weight percent or less shall de-
termine compliance with the nitrogen
oxides standards under I 80.44b on a
continuous basis through the use of a
30-day rolling average emission rate. A
new 30-day rolling average emission
rate la calculated each steam generat-
ing unit operating day as the average
of all of the hourly nitrogen oxides
emission data for the preceding 30
steam generating unit operating days.
(4) Following the date on which the
Initial performance test Is completed
or required to be completed under
160.8 of this part, whichever date
comes first, the owner or operator of
an affected facility which has a heat
Input capacity of 73 MW (250 million
Btu/hour) or leu and which combusts
natural gas. distillate oil. or residual
oil having a nitrogen content of 0.30
weight percent or less shall upon re-
quest determine compliance with the
nitrogen oxides standards under
I 00.44b through the use of a 30-day
performance lest. During periods
when performance tesls are not re-
quested, nitrogen oxides emissions
data collected pursuant to
f 80.48Mg XI) or 160.48b4gM2> are used
to calculate a 30-day rolling average
emission rale on a daily basis and used
to prepare excess emission reports, bul
will not be used to determine compli-
ance with the nitrogen oxides emission
standards. A new 30-day rolling aver-
age emission rale Is calculated each
steam generating unll operating day
as Ihe average of all of the hourly ni-
trogen oxides emission data for the
preceding 30 steam generating unll op-
erating days.
(5) If Ihe owner or operator of an af-
fected facility which combusts residual
oil does nol sample and analyze Ihe re-
sidual oil fpr nitrogen content, as spec-
ified In |60.49b(e). the requirements
of paragraph (III) of this section apply
and Ihe provisions of paragraph (Iv) of
Ihls section are Inapplicable.
fNVlf>
ntal f rotodton Agoncy
286
(f) To determine compliance with
the emission limit for nitrogen oxide*
required by |00.44b(4> for duct
burners used In combined cycle sys-
tems. the owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall conduct the per-
formance test required under |80.8
using Ihe nitrogen oxides and oxygen
measurement procedures In 40 CFR
Part 80 Appendix A. Method 30.
During the performance test, one sam-
pling site shall be located as close as
practicable to Ihe exhausl of the tur-
bine. as provided by section 8.1.1 of
Method 20. A second sampling lite
shall be located at the outlet to the
steam generating unit. Measurements
of nitrogen oxides and oxygen shall be
taken al both sampling sites during
the performance lest. The nitrogen
oxides emission rate from the com-
bined cycle system shall be calculated
by subtracting the nitrogen oxides
emission rate measured at the sam-
pling site at the outlet from the tur-
bine from the nitrogen oxides emission
rate measured at the sampling site at
the outlet from the steam generating
unit.
l«*.47b EmlMlon monitoring for snlfur
(a) Excel -i • . provided In paragraph
(b) of this Etttion. Ihe owner or opera-
tor of an affected facility subject to
the sulfur dioxide standards under
1 80.42b shall Install, calibrate, main-
tain. and operale continuous emission
monitoring systems (CEMS) for meas-
uring sulfur dioxide concentrations
and either oxygen (CM or carbon diox-
ide (COi) concentrations and shall
record the outpul of Ihe systems. The
sulfur dioxide and either oxygen or
carbon dioxide concenlratlons shall
both be monitored at the Inlet and
outlet of Ihe sulfur dioxide conlrol
device.
(b) As an alternative to operating
CEMS as required under paragraph
(a) of this section, an owner or opera-
tor may elect lo determine Ihe average
sulfur dioxide emissions and percent
rediicllon by:
(t) Collecting coal or oil samples In
an as-fired condition at II. '>ilet to
the steam generating unit i. nalyz-
ing Ihem for sulfur and hc;u mitenl
according lo Mel hod 19 Method 19
f«0.47h>
provide* procedure* for converting
these measurement* Into the format
to be used In calculating Ihe average
•ulfur dioxide Inpul rale, or
(2) Measuring sulfur dioxide accord-
ing to Method 8B at the Inlet or outlet
to the sulfur dioxide control system.
An Initial •trallflcallAn lest I* required
to verify the adequacy of the Method
8B sampling location. The slrallflca- ,|
tlon tesl shall consist of three paired '
run* of a suitable sulfur dioxide and
carbon dioxide measurement train op-
erated at the candidate location and a
second similar train operated accord-
Ing to the procedure* In Section 3.2
and the applicable procedure* In Sec-
tion 7 of Performance Specification 2.
Method 8B. Method 8A. or a combina-
tion of Method* 8 and 3 or Method*
8C and 3A are suitable measurement
techniques. If Method 8B Is used for
the second train, sampling time and
timer operation may be adjusted for
the slratlflcallon lest a* long a* an
adequate sample volume I* collected;
however, both sampling trains are to
be operated similarly. For the location
to be adequate for Method 8B 24-hour
test*, the mean of the absolute differ-
ence between the three paired run*
must be less than 10 percent.
(3) A dally sulfur dioxide emission
rate. E«. shall be determined using Ihe
procedure described In Method 8A.
Section 7.8.2 (Equation 6A-8) and
stated In ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu) heal
Input.
(4) The mean 30-day emission rale Is
calculated using Ihe dally measured
value* In ng/J (Ib/mllllon Blu) for 30
successive steam generating unit oper-
ating day* using equation 19-20 of
Method 19.
(c) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall obtain emission
data for at leasl 75 percenl of Ihe op-
erallng hours In al leasl 22 out of 30
successive boiler operating days. If
this minimum data requirement Is nol
mel with a single monitoring system.
the owner or operator of the affecled
faclllly shall supplcmenl Ihe emission
dala wllh dala collected with other
monitoring systems as approved by
the Administrator or the reference
methods and procedures as described
In paragraph (b) of this section.
287
-------
S 60.4lb
(d> The 1-hour average sulfur diox-
ide emission rates measured by the
CEMS required by paragraph (a) of
this section and required under
I 60 13(h» Is expressed In ne/J or Ib/
million Btu heat Input and Is used to
calculate the average emission rales
under 16.
12) Quarterly accuracy determina-
tions and daily calibration drift tests
shall be performed In accordance with
Procedure 1 (Appendix P).
(3) For affected facilities combusting
coal or oil. alone or in combination
with other fuels, the span value of the
sulfur dioxide CEMS at the inlet to
the sulfur dioxide control device Is 125
percent of the maximum estimated
hourly potential sulfur dioxide emis-
sions of the fuel combusted, and the
span value of the CEMS at the outlet
to the sulfur dioxide control device Is
SO percent of the maximum estimated
hourly potential sulfur dioxide emis-
sions of Ihr fuel combusted.
DK0.4Hb KmlBslon monitoring for particu-
lale mailer and nitrogen iiiidt*.
(a) The owner nr operator of an af-
fected facility subject to the opacity
standard under i 60.43b shall Install.
calibrate, maintain, and operate a con-
tinuous monitoring syslem for measur-
ing the opacity of emi.sslons dis-
charged to the atmosphere and record
the output of I he system.
(h» Except as provided in paragraphs
<•?> and (h) of this section, the owner
01 operator of an affected facility sub-
ject to the nitrogen oxides standard of
}8U44h For affected facilities combusting
coal, wood or municipal-type solid
waste, the span value for a continuous
monitoring syslem for measuring
opacity shall be between 60 and 80
percent.
(2) For affected facilities combusting
coal, oil, or natural gas, ihe span value
for nitrogen oxides Is determined as
follows:
Span valum ta*
nrtronan OMNlas
IPPMI
NiluM gn
Ot
CoH
500
500
1.000
500(« i y) | I 000,
where:
x is tho fraction of tolal heat Input derived
from natural gas.
y is the 11 act Ion of tolal heal Input derived
from oil. and
7. Is I lie fraction of (olal heat Input derived
from eoal.
288
Environmental Protection Agoncy
(3) All span values computed under
paragraph (e)(2) of this section for
combusting mixtures of regulated
fuels are rounded to the nearest 600
ppm.
(f) When nitrogen oxides emission
data are not obtained because of con-
tinuous monitoring system break-
downs, repairs, calibration checks and
zero and span adjustments, emission
data will be obtained by using standby
monitoring systems. Method 7,
Method 7A, or other approved refer-
ence methods to provide emission data
for a minimum of 75 percent of the op-
erating hours In each steam generat-
ing unit operating day. In at least 22
out of 30 successive steam generating
unit operating days.
(g) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility that has a heat Input
capacity of 73 MW (250 million Btu/
hour) or less, and which has an annual
capacity factor for residual oil having
a nitrogen content '» 30 weight per-
cent or less, natural gas. distillate oil,
or any mixture of these fuels, greater
than 10 percent (0.10) shall:
(1 > ^Comply with the provisions of
paragraphs (b). (c). (d). (eM2>. (eM3>.
and (f) of this section, or
(2) Monitor steam generating unit
operating conditions and predict nitro-
gen oxides emission rates as specified
In a plan submitted pursuant to
I 80 49b(c).
The design heat Input capacity of
the affeclcd facility and Identification
of the fuels lo be combusted in the af-
fected facility.
§ 60.49k
(2) If applicable, a copy of any feder-
ally enforceable requirement that
limits the annual capacity factor for
any fuel or mixture of fuels under
|«0.43b(dMl). |60.44b(c).
|«043(bMaMJ). |60.44b(d).
|«043b(aM3MIII). | 60.44b(ei. or
160.43b.
KKMStXdMlMIII),
(3) The annual capacity factor at
which the owner or operator antic!-
pates operating the facility based on
all fuels fired and based on each Indi-
vidual fuel fired, and.
(4) Notification that an emerging
technology will be used for controlling
emissions of sulfur dioxide. The Ad-
ministrator will examine the descrip-
tion of the emerging technology and
will determine whether the technolo-
gy qualifies as an emerging technolo-
gy. In making this determination, the
Administrator may require the owner
or operator of the affected facility to
submit additional Information con-
cerning the control device. The affect-
ed facility Is subject to the provisions
of | 60.42b(a) unless and until this de-
termination Is made by the Adminis-
trator.
(b) The owner or operator of each
affected facility subject lo the sulfur
dioxide, parllculate matter and nitro-
gen oxides emission limits under
|60.42b. |60.43b. and 160.44b. shall
submit to the Administrator the per-
formance lest data from the Initial
performance test and the performance
evaluation of the CEMS using the ap-
plicable performance specifications In
Appendix B.
(c) The owner or operator of each af-
fected facility subject to Ihe nitrogen
oxides standard of I 60.44b who seeks
to demonstrate compliance with those
slandards through the monitoring of
steam generating unit operating condi-
tions under the provisions of
|60.48b
-------
§«0.49b
latlonshlp between these operating
conditions and nitrogen oxides emis-
sion rates (I.e.. ng/J or Ibs/mllllon Btu
heat Input). Steam generating unit op-
erating rondltlom Include, but are not
limited to. the decree of staged com-
bustion (I.e.. the ratio of primary air
to secondary and/or tertiary air) and
the level of excess air (I.e.. flue gas
oxygen level);
(2) Include the data and Information
that the owner or operator used to
Identify the relationship between ni-
trogen oxides emission rates and these
operating conditions;
<3) Identify how these operating
conditions. Including steam generating
unit load, will be monitored under
|60.48b(g> on an hourly basis by the
owner or operator during the period of
operation of the affected facility; the
quality assurance procedures or prac-
tices that will be employed to ensure
that the data generated by monitoring
these operating conditions will be rep-
resentative and accurate; and the type
and format of the records of these op-
erating conditions. Including steam
generating unit load, that will be
maintained by the owner or operator
under I 60.49b(j>.
If the plan Is approved, the owner or
operator shall maintain records of pre-
dicted nitrogen oxide emission rates
and the monitored operating condi-
tions. Including steam generating unit
load. Identified In the plan.
(d) The owner or operator of an af-
fected facility shall record and main-
lain records of I he amount* of each
fuel combusted during each day and
calculate the annual capacity factor
Individually for real, distillate oil. re-
sidual oil. natural gas. wood, and mu-
nicipal-type solid wi-ste for each calen-
dar quarter. The annual rapacity
(actor IK determined on a 12-month
rolling average basis with a new
annual capacity factor calculated at
the end nf eaeh calendar month.
(e) For affected facilities that: (I)
Combust residual oil having a nitrogen
content of 0.3 weight percent or less;
(2) have heal Input capacities of 73
MW (250 null.nn Bin/hour) or less;
and (3) mumi.ii nitrogen oxides emis-
sions or steam generating unit operat-
ing conditions under }60.48b(g>. the
owner or operator shall maintain
40 CFR Ch. I (7-I-M Erfttlwi)
records of the nitrogen content of the
oil combusted In the affected facility
and calculate the average fuel nitro-
gen content on a per calendar quarter
basis. The nitrogen content shall be
determined using A8TM Method
D343I 80. Test Method for Trace Ni-
trogen In Liquid Petroleum Hydrocar-
bons (IBR-see | 00.17). or fuel specifi-
cation data obtained from fuel suppli-
ers. If residual oil blends are being
combusted, fuel nitrogen specifica-
tions may be prorated based on the
ratio of residual oils of different nitro-
gen content In the fuel blend.
(f) For facilities subject to the opaci-
ty standard under I 60.43b. the owner
or operator shall maintain records of
opacity.
(g> For facilities subject to nitrogen
oxides standards under |80.44b. the
owner or operator shall maintain
record* of the following Information
for each steam generating unit operat-
ing day:
(1) Calendar date.
<2> The average hourly nitrogen
oxides emission rates (expressed as
NO,) (nt/J or Ib/mllllon Btu heat
Input) measured or predicted.
(1) The 30-day average nitrogen
oxides emission rales (ng/J or Ib/mll-
llon Btu heat Inpul) calculated at the
end of each steam generating unit op-
erating day from the measured or pre-
dicted hourly nitrogen oxide emission
rates for the preceding 30 steam gen-
erating unit operating day*.
(4) Identification of the steam gener-
ating unit operating days when the
calculated 30-day average nitrogen
oxides emission rates are In excess of
the nitrogen oxides emissions stand-
ards under |60.44b. wllh Ihe reasons
for such excess emissions as well as a
description of corrective actions taken.
(5) Identification of the steam gener-
ating unit operating days for which
pollutant data have not been obtained.
Including reasons for nol obtaining
sufficient data and a description of
corrective actions taken.
(6) Identification of Ihe times when
emission data have been excluded
from the calculation of average emis-
sion rates and the reasons for exclud-
ing data.
290
f nvkwmmntal Protection Afcncy
(7) Identlll. ..nun of "F" factor <
for calculations, method of determina-
tion, and type of fuel combusted.
(8) Identification of the times when
the pollutant concentration exceeded
full span of the continuous monitoring
system.
(9) Description of any modifications
to the continuous monitoring system
that could affect the ability of the
continuous monitoring system to
comply with Performance Specifica-
tion 2 or 3.
(10) Results of dally CEMS drift
tests and quarterly accuracy assess-
ments as required under Appendix F.
Procedure 1.
(h) The owner or operator of any af-
fected facility In any category listed In
paragraphs (h) (I) or (2) of this sec-
tion Is required to submit excess emis-
sion reports for any calendar quarter
during which there are excess emis-
sions from the affected facility. If
there are no excess emission* during
the calendar quarter, the owner or op-
erator shall submit a report semlannu-
ally stating that no excess emissions
occurred during the semiannual re-
porting period.
(I) Any affected facility subject to
the opacity standards under
160.43b.
(3) For the purpose of |60.43b.
excess emissions are defined as all 6-
mlnute periods during which the aver-
age opacity exceeds the opacity stand-
ards under I 60.43tXf).
(4) For purposes of 160.48b(gKl).
excess emissions are defined as any
calculated 30-day rolling average nitro-
gen oxides emission rale, as deter-
mined under i 60.46b(e). which ex-
9«0.4«%
ceeds the applicable emission limits In
160.44b.
(I) The owner or operator of any af-
fected facility subject to the continu-
ous monitoring requirements for nitro-
gen oxides under 160.4B(b) shall
submit a quarterly report containing
the Information recorded under para-
graph of this section. All quarterly
reports shall be postmarked by the;
30th day following the end of each cal-
endar quarter.
(J) The owner or operator of any af-
fected facility subject to the sulfur di-
oxide standards under |60.42b shall
submit written reports to the Adminis-
trator for every calendar quarter. All
quarterly reports shall be postmarked
by the 30th day following Ihe end of
each calendar quarter.
(k) For each affected facility subject
to the compliance and performance
testing requirement* of |60.45b and
the reporting requirement In para-
graph tj) of this section, the following
Information shall be reported to the
Administrator:
(1) Calendar dates covered In the re-
porting period.
(2) Each 30-day average sulfur diox-
ide emission rate (ng/J or Ib/mllllon
Btu heal Input) measured during Ihe
reporting period, ending wllh Ihe last
30-day period In the quarter; reasons
for noncompllance wllh Ihe emission
standards; and a description of correc-
tive actions taken.
(3) Each 30-day average percent re-
duction In sulfur dioxide emissions cal-
culated during the reporting period.
ending with the last 30-day period In
the quarter; reasons for noncompll-
ance with the emission standards; and
a description of corrective actions
taken.
(4) Identification of the steam gener-
ating unit operating days that coal or
oil was combusted and for which
sulfur dioxide or diluent (oxygen or
carbon dioxide) dala have not been ob-
tained by an approved method for at
least 75 percent of the operating hours
In Ihe steam generating unit operating
day; Justification for nol obtaining
sufficient dala: and description of cor-
rective action taken.
(5) Identification of the times when
emission!! data have been excluded
from the calculation of average em Is
291
-------
9 *0.4»b
alon rates; Justification for excluding
data; and description of corrective
action taken If data have been ex-
cluded for periods other than those
during which coal or oil were not com-
busted In the steam generating unit.
(6) Identification of "F" factor used
for calculations, method of determina-
tion, and type of fuel combusted.
(7) Identification of times when
hourly averages have been obtained
based on manual sampling methods.
(8) Identification of the times when
the pollutant concentration exceeded
full span of the CEMS.
(9> Description of any modifications
to the CF.MS that could affect the
ability of the CEMS to comply with
Performance Specification 2 or 3.
(10) Results of dally CEMS drift
tests and quarterly accuracy assess-
ments as required under Ap|>endlx F.
Procedure 1.
(II) The annual capacity factor of
each fired an provided under para
graph (d> of this section.
(I) For each affected facility subject
to the compliance and performance
testing requirements of 16(M5IKd>
end (he reporting requirements of
paragraph (J> of this section, the fol-
lowing Information shall be reported
to the Administrator:
(1 > Calendar dates when the facility
was In operation during the reporting
period;
(2) The 24-hour average sulfur dlox-
Me emission rate measured for each
steam generating unit operating day
during the reporting period that coal
or oil was combusted, ending In the
last 24-hour period in the quarter; rea-
sons for noncompliancc with the emis-
sion standards: and a description of
corrective actions taken:
(3) Identification ol the steam gener-
ating unit operating days that coal or
oil was combusted for which sulfur di-
oxide or diluent (oxygen or carbon di-
oxide) data have not been obtained by
an approved method for at least 75
percent of the operating hours; Justifi-
cation for not obtaining sufficient
data; and description of corrective
action taken.
»4> Identification of the times when
emissions data have been excluded
from the calculation of average emis-
sion rates; justification for excluding
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-68 Edition)
data; and description of corrective
action taken If data have been ex-
cluded for periods other than those
during which coal or oil were not com-
busted In the steam generating unit.
(5) Identification of "F" factor used
for calculations, method of determina-
tion, and type of fuel combusted.
(6) Identification of times when
hourly averages have been obtained
based on manual sampling methods.
(7) Identification of the times when
the pollutant concentration exceeded
full span of the CEMS.
(8) Description of any modifications
to the CEMS which could affect the
ability of the CEMS to comply with
Performance Specification 2 or 3.
(9) Results of dally CEMS drift tests
and quarterly accuracy assessments as
required under Appendix F, Procedure
1.
(m> For each affected facility sub-
ject to the sulfur dioxide standards
under I 60.42b for which the minimum
amount of data required under
I «0.47b(f) were not obtained during a
calendar quarter, the following Infor-
mation Is reported to the Administra-
tor In addition to that required under
paragraph The ratio of the lower confidence
limit for the mean outlet emission rate
and the allowable emission rate, as de-
termined In Method 19. Section 7.
(n) If a percent removal efficiency
by fuel pretreatmenl (I.e.. % R,) Is
used to determine the overall percent
reduction (I.e.. % R.) under I 60.45b.
the owner or operator of the affected
facility shall submit a signed state-
ment with the quarterly report:
(1) Indicating what removal efficien-
cy by fuel prctreatment (I.e.. % ft,) was
credited for the calendar quarter;
(2) Listing the quantity, heat con-
tent, and dale each pretreated fuel
292
Environmental Protection Agency
shipment was received during the pre-
vious calendar quarter; the name and
location of the fuel prelrealment facil-
ity; and the total quantity and total
heat content of all fuels received at
the affected facility during the previ-
ous calendar quarter:
(3) Documenting the transport of
the fuel from the fuel pretrealment
facility to the steam generating unit.
<4) Including a signed statement
from the owner or operator of the fuel
pretreatment facility certifying that
the percent removal efficiency
achieved by fuel pretreatment was de-
termined In accordance with the provi-
sions of Method 19 (Appendix A) and
listing the heat content and sulfur
content of each fuel before and after
fuel pretreatment.
(o) All records required under this
section shall be maintained by the
owner or operator of the affected fa-
cility for a period of 2 years following
the date of such record.
(Approved by the Office of Management
and Budget under control number 2060-
0135)
Subpart E—Standards of Performance*
for Incinerators
ICO.M Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to each Incinerator of
more than 45 metric tons per day
charging rate (50 tons/day), which Is
the affected facility.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after August
17, 1971, Is subject to the requirements
of this subpart.
142 PR 37*36. July 25. 19771
180.51 Definition*.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
(a) "Incinerator" means any furnace
used. In the process of burning solid
waste for the purpose of reducing the
volume of the waste by removing com-
bustible matter.
(b) "Solid waste" means refuse, more
than 50 percent of which Is municipal
5*0.54
type waste consisting of a mixture of
paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes,
plastics, leather, rubber, and other
combustibles, and noncombustlble ma-
terials such as glass and rock.
(c) "Day" means 24 hours.
136 FR 24677. Dec. 23. 1971. a* amended »t
39 FR 20792. June 14. 19741
I M.62 Standard for partkulalc matter.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by |80.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this part shall cause to be dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from any
affected facility any gases which con-
tain partlculate matter In excem of
0.18 g/dscm (0.08 gr/dscf > corrected to
12 percent CO,.
13* FR 207*2. June 14. 1*741
IM.63 Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any In-
cinerator subject to the provisions of
this part shall record the dally charg-
ing rates and hours of operation.
I (0.64 Teil method* and procedure*.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided
for In | 60.8(b>. shall be used to deter-
mine compliance with the standard
prescribed In I 60.52 as follows:
(1> Method 5 for the concentration
of partlculate matter and the associat-
ed moisture content:
(2> Method I for sample and velocity
traverses;
(3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate; and
(4) Method 3 for gas analysis and
calculation of excess air. using the In-
tegrated sample technique.
(b) For Method 5. the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 60 min-
utes and the minimum sample volume
shall be 0.85 dscm (30.0 dscf) except
that smaller sampling times or sample
volumes, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be ap-
proved by the Administrator.
(c) If a wet scrubber Is used, the gas
analysis sample shall reflect flue gas
conditions after the scrubber, allowing
for carbon dioxide absorption by sam-
pling the gas on (hr scrubber Inlet and
293
-------
140.140
C.-UO •MCj./S.M Metric UnlU* or
•here:
C»-parllculal« emluton
dry iludse (En«IUh unlU: Ib/ton dry
•ludte).
10 '-Metricconvenloit factor, g/mg.
WOO-CnslUh oonvenlon factor. Ib/ton.
ll» PR tan. Mar. i. 1174; It PR IJ77«. Apr.
11. It7«: It PR I»3M. May I. 19741
$vbp*rl P—Standards •! Performance
Is* Primary Coppar Smelters
Sconce 41 PR 33M. Jan. 16. 1I7S, unleu
otherwise noted.
IM.IM Applicability and deiif nation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpmrt
are applicable to the following affect-
ed facilities In primary copper smell-
era: Dryer, roaster, smelting furnace,
and copper converter.
(b) Any facility under paragraph
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after Octo-
ber 16. 1914. Is subject to the require-
ments of this subpart.
MJ PR J7tS7. July >». It77l
IM.Itl Dcflnllloiw.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
(a) "Primary copper smelter" means
any Installation or any Intermediate
process engaged In the production of
copper from copper sulflde ore concen-
trates through the use of pyrometal-
lurglcal techniques.
(b) "Dryer" means any facility In
which a copper sultlde ore concentrate
charge Is heated In the presence of air
to eliminate a portion of the moisture
from the charge, provided less than 6
percent of the sulfur contained In IIie
charge Is eliminated In the facility.
(c) "Roaster" means any facility In
which a copper suUlde ore concentrate
charge Is healed In the presence of air
to eliminate a sigiiif Irani portion (5
percenl or more) of the sulfur con-
tained In Ihe charge.
(d) "Calcine" means Ihc solid male-
rials produced by a roaster.
ID "Smelling" means processing
techniques (or the melting of a copper
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-tt Idlllmt)
sulflde ore concentrate or calcine
charge leading to the formation of
separate layers of molten slag, molten
copper, and/or copper malic.
(f) "Smelling furnace" means any
vessel In which Ihe smelling of copper
sulflde ore concenlrales or calcines Is
performed and In which Ihe heal nec-
essary for smelting Is provided by an
electric current, rapid oxidation of a
portion of the sulfur contained In the
concentrate as It passes Ihrough an
oxidizing almosphere, or Ihe combus-
llon of a fossil fuel.
(g) "Copper converter" means any
vessel to which copper matte Is
charged and oxidized to copper.
(h> "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
facility producing sulfurlc acid by the
contact process.
(I) "Fossil fuel" means nalural gas.
petroleum, coal, and any form of solid.
liquid, or gaseous fuel derived from
such materials for Ihe purpose of cre-
ating useful heat.
(J> "Reverberatory smelling fur-
nace" means any vessel In which the
smelting of copper sulflde ore concen-
trates or calcines Is performed and In
which the heal necessary for smelling
Is provided primarily by combustion of
a fossil fuel.
(k) "Total smelter charge" means
the weight (dry basis) of all copper
sulflde ore concenlrales processed al a
primary copper smeller, plus Ihe
weight of all other solid materials In-
troduced Into the roasters and smell-
Ing furnaces al a primary copper
smelter, except calcine, over a one-
month period.
(I) "High level of volatile Impurities"
means a total smelter charge contain-
ing more than 0.2 weight percenl ar-
senic. 0.1 welghl percenl antimony. 4.6
weight percenl lead or 5.5 welghl per-
cenl zinc, on a dry basis.
I M.IU Standard for aartlcolale mailer.
(a) On and afler Ihe dale on which
Ihe performance lesl required lo be
conducted by f 60.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject lo Ihe provi-
sions of tills subpart shall cause lo be
discharged Into Ihe almosphere from
any d;ycr any gases which contain
paniculate matter in excess of 50 in«/
dscm (0.022 gr/dscO.
332
A.•.•.—-I-.
IM.IM Standard for luiriir dfeiMe.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by |60.B la completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any roaster, smelting furnace, or
copper converter any gases which con-
tain sulfur dioxide In excess of 0.065
percent by volume, except as provided
In paragraphs shall be com-
pleted prior to the Inlllal performance
test required under 160.8. During the
performance evaluation, the span of
the continuous monitoring system
may be set at a sulfur dioxide concen-
tration of 0.15 percent by volume If
necessary to maintain the system
output between 20 percenl and M per-
cent of full scale. Upon completion of
the continuous monitoring system per-
formance evaluation, the span of Ihe
continuous monitoring system shall be
set at a sulfur dioxide concenlrallon of
0.20 percent by volume.
(II) for the purpose of the continu-
ous monitoring system performance
evaluation required under |60.13(e)
the reference method referred to
under the Field Test for Accuracy
(Relative) In Performance Specifica-
tion 2 of Appendix B to this part shall
be Reference Method 6. For the per-
formance evaluation, each concentra-
tion measurement shall be of one hour
duration. The pollulanl gas used to
prepare Ihe calibration gas mixtures
required under Performance Specifica-
tion 2 of Appendix B. and for calibra-
tion checks under 160.13 (d). shall be
sulfur dioxide.
(c) Six-hour average sulfur dioxide
concentrations shall be calculated and
recorded dally for Ihc four consecutive
6-hour periods of each operating day.
Each six hour average shall be deter-
mined ILS the arithmetic mean of (he
333
-------
9M.IM
appropriate six contiguous one-hour
average sulfur dioxide concentrations
provided by the continuous monitor-
Ing system Installed under paragraph
(b) of this section.
.
<2> Sulfur dioxide. All six-hour peri-
ods during which the average emis-
sions of sulfur dioxide, as measured by
the continuous monitoring system In-
stalled under I 60.163. exceed the level
of the standard. The Administrator
will not consider emissions In excess of
the level of the standard for less than
or equal to 1.6 percent of the six-hour
periods during the quarter as Indica-
tive of a potential violation of
leoil(d) provided the affected facili-
ty. Including air pollution control
equipment. Is maintained and operat-
ed In a manner consistent with good
air pollution control practice for mini-
mizing emissions during these periods.
Emissions In excess of the level of the
standard during periods of startup.
shutdown, and malfunction are not to
be Included within the 1.5 percent.
Ml FR 1IM. Jui. IV IMS: 41 FR 834*. Feb.
M. l»1*. a* amended al 42 FR 57I2«. Nov. I.
1*17: 41 PR 23611. May 25. IB831
IM 1(4 Test method* and procedure*.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided
for In | 60.8(b). shall be used to deter-
mine compliance with the standards
prescribed In || 60.162. 60.163 and
60.164 as follows:
(1> Method 5 for the concentration
of participate matter and the associat-
ed moisture content.
<2> Sulfur dioxide concentrations
shall be determined using the continu-
ous monitoring system Installed In ac-
cordance with |60.165. One 6-hour
average period shall constitute one
run. The monitoring system drift
during any run shall not exceed 2 per-
cent of span.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-M Edition)
(b) For Method S. Method 1 shall be
used for selecting the sampling site
and the number of traverse points,
Method 2 for determining velocity and
volumetric flow rate and Method 3 for
determining the gas analysis. The
sampling time for each run shall be at
least 60 minutes and the minimum
sampling volume shall be 0.86 dscm
(30 dscf) except that smaller times or
volumes, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be ap-
proved by the Administrator.
SubfHHt Q—Standards of Perform-
ance far Primary Zinc Smarter*
SOURCE 41 FR 2340. Jan. IS. 1»7«. unleu
otherwise noted.
IM.I7* Applicability and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to the following affect-
ed facilities In primary zinc smellers:
roaster and sintering machine.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after Octo-
ber 16. 1974. Is subject to the require-
ments of this subpart.
142 FR 37937. July 25. IV77J
IM.I7I Definition*.
As used In this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
(a) "Primary zinc smelter" means
any Installation engaged In the pro-
duction, or any Intermediate process
In the production, of zinc or zinc oxide
from zinc sulflde ore concentrates
through the use of pyrometallurglcal
techniques.
(b) "Roaster" means any facility In
which a zinc sulflde ore concentrate
charge is heated In the presence of air
to eliminate a significant portion
(more than 10 percent) of the sulfur
contained In the charge.
(c) "Sintering machine" means any
furnace in which calcines are heated
In the presence of air to agglomerate
the calcines Into a hard porous mass
called "sinter."
334
Environmental Prelection Agency
(d> "Sulfurlc acid plant" means any
facility producing sulfurlc acid by the
contact process.
I M.I72 Standard for partlculale matter.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by | 60.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any sintering machine any gases
which contain partlculale matter In
excess of 60 mg/dscm (0.022 gr/dscf).
I M.I73 Standard for «ulfur dioxide.
On and afler Ihe date on which
the performance lest required to be
conducted by I 60.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any roaster any gases which contain
sulfur dioxide In excess of 0.065 per-
cent by volume.
(b) Any sintering machine which
eliminates more than 10 percent of the
sulfur Initially contained In the zinc
sulflde ore concentrates will be consid-
ered as a roaster under paragraph (a)
of this section.
I M.I74 Standard for vlilble emlralon*.
(a) On and afler the dale on which
the performance teat required to be
conducted by I 60.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any sintering machine any visible
emissions which exhibit greater than
20 percent opacity.
(b) On and after Ihe dale on which
the performance tesl required lo be
conducted by | 60.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject lo Ihe provi-
sions of this subparl shall cause lo be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any affected facility that uses a sulfu-
rlc acid planl lo comply with Ihe
slandard sel forlh In | 60.173. any visi-
ble emissions which exhibit greater
than 20 percent opacity.
0 CO. 175 Monitoring of operation*.
(a) The owner or operalor of any
Primary zinc smeller subject to Ihe
Provisions of this subparl shall Install
and operale:
9 40.17$
(1>A continuous monitoring system
to monitor and record the opacity of
gases discharged into the atmosphere
from any sintering machine. The apart
of this system shall be set at 80 to 100
percent opacity.
(2) A continuous monitoring system
to monitor and record sulfur dioxide
emissions discharged Into Ihe atmos-
phere from any roaster subject lo
I 60.173. The span of this system ahaty
be sel al a sulfur dioxide concentra*
tlon of 0.20 percent by volume.
(I) The continuous monitoring
system performance evaluation re-
quired under |60.13(c) shall be com-
pleted prior lo Ihe Initial performance
test required under | 60.8. During the
performance evaluation, the span of
the continuous monitoring system
may be set al a sulfur dioxide concen-
tration of 0.15 percent by volume If
necessary to maintain Ihe ayslem
oulpul between 20 percent and 00 per-
cent of full scale. Upon completion of
the continuous monitoring system per-
formance evaluation, the span of the
continuous monitoring syslem shall be
sel at a sulfur dioxide concentration of
0.20 percent by volume.
(II) For Ihe purpose of the continu-
ous monitoring syslem performance
evaluallon required under |60.13(c>.
the reference method referred to
under the Field Test for Accuracy
(Relative) In Performance Speclflca
lion 2 of Appendix B lo this parl shall
be Reference Method 6. For Ihe per-
formance evaluallon. each concentra-
tion measurement shall be of 1 hour
duration. The pollutant gas used to
prepare the calibration gas mixtures
required under Performance Specifica-
tion 2 of Appendix B. and for calibra-
tion checks under f 60.l3(d>. shall be
sulfur dioxide.
(b) Two hour average sulfur dioxide
concentrations shall be calculated and
recorded daily for the 12 consecutive
2-hour periods of each operating day.
Each 2 hour average shall be deter-
mined as Ihe arithmetic mean of the
appropriate two contiguous 1-hour av-
erage sulfur dioxide concentrations
provided by the continuous monitor
ing syslem installed under paragraph
(a) of this section.
(c) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 5tii).7(c). periods of
335
-------
J40.I7*
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
(I) Opacity. Any (-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
ing system Installed undo paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under | 60.17«(a>.
(2) Sulfur dioxide. Any 2-hour
period, as described In paragraph (b)
of this section, during which the aver-
age emissions of sulfui dioxide, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
ing system Installed under paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under 160.173.
141 PR 2140. Jui. It. IMS. a* amended at 4s
FH 11(11. May 25. IM1I
IM.I7t T«»l method* and procedure*.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided
for In | 60.8
-------
5*0.184
Itorlng system Installed under para-
graph (a) of this section.
(c) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 160.1t c>. periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
(1) Opacity. Any six-minute period
during which the average opacity, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
Ing system Installed under paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under 160.184U).
(2) Sulfur dioxide. Any two-hour
period, as described In paragraph (b)
of this section, during which the aver-
age emissions of sulfur dioxide, as
measured by the continuous monitor-
ing system Installed under paragraph
(a) of this section, exceeds the stand-
ard under I 80.183.
141 PR 2340. Jan. 16. 1978. as amended at 48
PR 3381 I.May 26. 1983)
188.IM Test methods and procedures.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided
for In 180.8(b). shall be used to deter-
mine compliance with the standards
prescribed In 1160.183. 80.183 and
«0.184 as follows:
(I) Method 5 for the concentration
of participate matter and the associat-
ed moisture content.
(2> Sulfur dioxide concentrations
shall be determined using the contlnu-
OUH monitoring system Installed In ac-
cordance with |80.186(a). One 3-hour
average period shall constitute one
run.
(b) For Method 5. Method 1 shall be
used for selecting the sampling site
and the number of traverse points.
Method 3 for determining velocity and
volumetric flow rate and Method 3 for
determining the gas analysis. The
sampling time for each run shall be at
least 80 minutes and the minimum
sampling volume shall be 0.85 dscm
(30 dscf) except that smaller times or
volumes, when necessitated by process
variables or other factors, may be ap-
proved by the Administrator.
Subpart S—Standards of Performance
for Primary Aluminum Reduction
Plants
Souacc 4S PR 44207. June 30. 1980. unless
otherwise noted.
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
I M.IM Applicability and detonation of
affected facility.
(a) The affected facilities In primary
aluminum reduction plants to which
this subpart applies are potroom
groups and anode bake plants.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after Octo-
ber 33. 1974. Is subject to the require-
ments of this subpart.
[42 PR 37937. July 25, 1977. as amended at
46 PR 44206. June 30. 1980]
1*0.191 Definitions.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In subpart
A of this part.
"Aluminum equivalent" means an
amount of aluminum which can be
produced from a Mg of anodes pro-
duced by an anode bake plant as deter-
mined by | 60.195(g>.
"Anode bake plant" means a facility
which produces carbon anodes for use
In a primary aluminum reduction
plant.
"Potroom" means a building unit
which houses a group of electrolytic
cells In which aluminum Is produced.
"Pofroom group" means an uncon-
trolled potroom, a potroom which Is
controlled Individually, or a group of
potrooms or potroom segments ducted
to a common control system.
"Primary aluminum reduction
plant" means any facility manufactur-
ing aluminum by electrolytic reduc-
tion.
"Primary control system" means an
air pollution control system designed
to remove gaseous and particular
flourldes from exhaust gases which
are captured at the cell.
"Roof monitor" means that portion
of the roof of a potroom where gases
not captured at the cell exit from the
potroom.
"Total fluoride?" means elemental
fluorine and all fluoride compounds as
measured by reference methods speci-
fied In i 60.195 or by equivalent or •>
ternatlve methods (see I 60 8
-------
i 40.92
used to manufacture hot mix asphalt
by heating and drying aggregate and
mixing with asphalt cement*.
let PR mat. APT. 10. 10001
I M.tS Standard for partleulale mailer.
(a) On and alter the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by |00.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall discharge or
cause the discharge Into the atmos-
phere from any affected facility any
gases which:
(1) Contain participate matter In
excess of 90 mg/dscm (0.04 gr/dscf I.
(2) Exhibit JO percent opacity, or
greater.
I3> PR MM. Mar. 9. It74. M amended at 40
PR 4t2to. Oct. o. io7ti
I M.M Tc*t method* and procedure*.
<•> The reference methods appended
to this part, except as provided for In
|60.8(b>. shall be used to determine
compliance with the standards pre-
scribed In 160.92 as follows:
(1) Method 5 for the concentration
of paniculate matter and the associat-
ed moisture content.
(2) Method I for sample and velocity
traverses,
<3> Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rate, and
(4) Method 3 for gas analysis.
(b) For Method 5. the sampling time
for each run shall be at least 00 min-
utes and the sampling rate shall be at
least 0.9 dscm/hr (0.63 dscf/mln)
except that shorter sampling times.
when necessitated by process variables
or other factors, may be approved by
the Administrator.
Swbpcrt J—Standards of Per
rW Patralovm ••niwrkra
IM.IW Applicability and declination of
affected facility.
(a> The provisions of till* subparl
are applicable to the following affect-
ed facilities In petroleum refineries:
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators, furl gas combustion de-
vices, and all Clan* sulfur recovery
plants except Claus plants of 20 long
tons per day (LTD) or leu. The Claus
sulfur recovery plant need not be
40 CM Ch. I (7-1-00 fditlwt)
physically located within the bound-
aries of a petroleum refinery to be an
affected facility, provided It processes
gases produced within a petroleum re-
finery.
Any fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerator or fuel gas com-
bustion device under paragraph (a) of
this section which commences con-
struction or modification after June
11. 1973. or any Claus sulfur recovery
plant under paragraph (a) of this sec-
tion which commences construction or
modification after October 4. 1970. Is
subject to the requirements of this
part.
143 PR IOSM. Mar. It. 1970. ai amended at
44 PR 01043. Oct. at. I tit I
IM.I9I Definllloiw.
As used In this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A.
(a) "Petroleum refinery" means any
facility engaged In producing gasoline.
kerosene, distillate fuel oils, residual
fuel oils, lubricants, or other products
through distillation of petroleum or
through redistillation, cracking or re-
forming of unfinished petroleum de-
rivatives.
"Petroleum" means the crude oil
removed from the earth and the oils
derived from tar sands, shale, and coal.
(c) "Process gas" means any gas gen-
erated by a petroleum refinery process
unit, except fuel gas and process upset
gas as defined In this section.
(d) "Fuel gas" means any gas which
Is generated at a petroleum refinery
and which Is combusted. Fuel gas also
Includes natural gas when the natural
gas Is combined and combusted In any
proportion with a gas generated at a
refinery. Fuel gas does not Include
gases generated by catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerators and fluid
coking burners.
(e> "Process upset gas" means any
gas generated by a petroleum refinery
process unit as a result of start-up.
shut-down, upset or malfunction.
(f) "Refinery process unit" means
any segment of the petroleum refinery
In which a specific processing oper-
ation Is conducted.
300
environmental Protection Agamy
"Fuel gas combustion device"
means any equipment, such as process
heaters, boilers and flares used to com-
bust fuel gas. except facilities In which
gases are combusted to produce sulfur
or sulf uric acid.
(h) "Coke burn-off" means the coke
removed from the surface of the fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst by
combustion In the catalyst regenera-
tor. The rate of coke burn-off la calcu-
lated by the formula specified In
100.104.
(I) "Claus sulfur recovery plant"
means a process unit which recovers
sulfur from hydrogen sulflde by a
vapor-phase catalytic reaction of
sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulflde.
(J) "Oxidation control system"
means an emission control system
which reduces emissions from sulfur
recovery planU by converting these
emissions to sulfur dioxide.
"Reduction control system"
means an emission control system
which reduces emissions from sulfur
recovery plants by converting these
emissions to hydrogen sulflde.
(I) "Reduced sulfur compounds"
means hydrogen sulflde (H.S). carbon-
yl sulflde (COS) and carbon dlsulflde
(CS.).
130 PR Ml». Mar. S. I§74. M amended at 4)
PR lOtSS. Mar. It. 1070; 44 PR 13411. Mar.
12. 1070; 44 PR *I5«J. Oct. 3t. 1070; 4t PR
7*4t3. Dec. I. IBWI
I M. IM Standard for paniculate nailer.
(a) On and after the dale on which
the performance lest required to be
conducted by 160.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall discharge or
cause the discharge Into the atmos-
phere from any fluid catalytic crack-
Ing unit catalyst regenerator or from
any fluid catalytic cracking unit regen-
erator:
(1) Parllculate matter In excess of
1.0 kg/1000 kg (1.0 ID/1000 Ib) of coke
burn-off In the catalyst regenerator.
(2) Oases exhibiting greater than 30
percent opacity, except for one slx-
mlnute average opacity reading In any
one hour period.
(b) Where the gases discharged by
the fluid catalytic cracking unit cata-
lyst regenerator pass through an In-
cinerator or waste heal boiler in which
{ 00.104
auxiliary or supplemental liquid or
solid fossil fuel Is burned, partlculate
matter In excess of thai permitted by
paragraph Burn In any fuel gas combustion
device any fuel gas which contains hy-
drogen sulflde In excess of 230 mg/
dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). except that the
gases resulting from the combustion of
fuel gas may be treated lo control
sulfur dioxide emissions provided the
owner or operator demonstrates to the
satisfaction of the Administrator that
thto to as effective In preventing sulfur
dioxide emissions lo Ihe atmosphere
as restricting the H. concentration In
the fuel gas lo 230 mg/dscm or less.
The combustion In a flare of process
upset gas, or fuel gas which Is released
to the flare as a result of relief valve
leakage, to exempt from this para-
graph.
(2) Discharge or cause Ihe discharge
of any gases Into Ihe atmosphere from
any Clans sulfur recovery plant con-
taining In excess of:
(I) 0.025 percent by volume of sulfur
dioxide al zero percent oxygen on a
dry basis If emissions are controlled by
301
-------
I WIOS
an oxidation control system, or a re-
duction control system followed by In-
cineration, or
Oil 0.090 percent by volume of re-
duced sulfur compounds and 0.0010
percent by volume of hydrogen sulflde
calculated as sulfur dioxide at zero
pei cent oxygen on a dry basis If emis-
sions are controlled by a reduction
control system not followed by Incin-
eration.
143 FR 10M9. Mar. It. I97BI
I 49.106 Emlulon monitoring.
(a) Continuous monitoring systems
shall be Installed, calibrated, main-
tained, and operated by the owner or
operator as follows:
(DA continuous monitoring system
for the measurement of the opacity of
emissions discharged Into the atmos-
phere from the fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerator. The contin-
uous monitoring system shall be
spanned at 60, 70. or 80 percent opaci-
ty.
(2) An Instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording the concen-
tration of carbon monoxide In gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from
fluid catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators. The span of this contin-
uous monitoring system shall be 1,000
ppm. Installation of carbon monoxide
(CO) continuous monitoring systems Is
not required If the owner or operator
files a written request for exemption
to the Administrator and demon-
strates, by the exemption performance
lest descrHied below, that the average
CO rmUslons are less titan 10 percent
oi the applicable standard listed In
leu.lOJ. The exemption performance
lest shall consist of continuously mon-
itoring CO emissions for 30 days using
«n Instrument that meets the require-
ments of Performance Specification 4
of Appendix B, except the span value
shall be 100 ppm Instead of 1000 ppm,
and If required, the relative accuracy
limit shall be 10 percent or 5 ppm.
whichever Is greater.
(3) A continuous monitoring system
for the measurement of sulfur dioxide
In the gases discharged Into the atmos-
phere from the combustion of fuel
gases (except where a continuous mon-
itoring system for the measurement of
hydrogen suKicle Is installed under
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
paragraph (a) (4) of this section). The
pollutant gas used to prepare'calibra-
tion gas mixtures under Performance
Specification 2 and tor calibration
checks under I 60.13(d), shall be sulfur
dioxide (SO.). The span shall be set at
100 ppm. FOr conducting monitoring
system performance evaluations under
160.13(0, Reference Method 6 shall
be used.
(4) An Instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording concentra-
tions of hydrogen sulflde In fuel gases
burned In any fuel gas combustion
device. If compliance with
|60.104(aMl) Is achieved by removing
HJ3 from the fuel gas before It Is
burned; fuel gas combustion devices
having a common source of fuel gas
may be monitored at one location. If
monitoring at this location accurately
represents the concentration of H.S In
the fuel gas burned. The span of this
continuous monitoring system shall be
300 ppm.
(5) An Instrument for continuously
monitoring and recording concentra-
tions of SOi In the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere from any Claus
sulfur recovery plant If compliance
with 160.104UM2) Is achieved through
the use of an oxidation control system
or a reduction control system followed
by Incineration. The span of this con-
tinuous monitoring system shall be set
at 500 ppm.
(6) An Inslrument(B) for continuous-
ly monitoring and recording the con-
centration of HfS and reduced sulfur
compounds In the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere from any Claus
sulfur recovery plant If compliance
with 160.104(aM2) is achieved through
the use of a reduction control system
not followed by Incineration. The
span(s) of this continuous monotorlng
system(s) shall be set at 20 ppm for
monitoring and recording the concen-
tration of HJS and 600 ppm for moni-
toring and recording the concentration
of reduced sulfur compounds.
(b> [Reserved]
(c) The average coke burn-off rate
(thousands of kilogram/hr) and hours
of operation for any fluid catalytic
cracking unit catalyst regenerator sub-
ject to | 60.102 or I 60.103 shall be re-
corded daily.
302
Environmental Protection
For any fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerator which Is sub-
ject to 160.102 and which utilizes an
Incinerator-waste heat boiler to com-
bust the exhaust gases from the cata-
lyst regenerator, the owner or opera-
tor shall record dally the rate of com-
bustion of liquid or solid fossil fuels
(liters/hr or kllograms/hr) and the
hours of operation during which liquid
or solid fossil fuels are combusted In
the Incinerator-waste heat boiler.
(e) For the purpose of reports under
1 60.7(c), periods of excess emissions
that shall be reported are defined as
follows:
(1) Opacity. All one-hour periods
which contain two or more six-minute
periods during which the average
opacity as measured by the continuous
monitoring system exceeds 30 percent.
(2) Carbon monoxide. All hourly pe-
riods during which the average carbon
monoxide concentration In the gases
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any fluid catalytic cracking unit cata-
lyst regenerator subject to i 60.103 ex-
ceeds 0.050 percent by volume.
(3) Sulfur dioxide. (I) Any three-
hour period during which the average
concentration of H.S In any fuel gas
combusted In any fuel gas combustion
device subject to 1 60.104(aXl> exceeds
230 mg/dscm (0.10 gr/dscf). If compli-
ance Is achieved by removing H.S from
the' fuel gas before It Is burned; or any
three-hour period during which the
average concentration of SO. In the
gases discharged Into the atmosphere
from any fuel gas combustion device
subject to |60.I04(aMl> exceeds the
level specified In | 60.104(aXl>. If com-
pliance Is achieved by removing SO,
from the combusted fuel gases.
(II) Any twelve-hour period during
which the average concentration of
SO. In the gases discharged Into the
atmosphere from any Claus sulfur re-
covery plant subject to I 60.104(a)(2)
exceeds 250 ppm at zero percent
oxygen on a dry basis if compliance
with |60.104(b) is achieved through
the use of an oxidation control system
or a reduction control system followed
by Incineration: or any twelve-hour
period during which the average con-
centration of H.S. or reduced sulfur
compounds In the gases discharged
Into the atmosphere of any Claus
§M.10«
•ulfur plant subject to
| 60.l04(aM2Mb> exceeds 10 ppm or 300
ppm. respectively, at zero percent
oxygen and on a dry basis If compli-
ance Is achieved through the use of a
reduction control system not followed
by Incineration.
(4) Any six hour period during
which the average emissions (arithme-
tic average of six contiguous one-hour
periods) of sulfur dioxide as measured ,1
by a continuous monitoring system
exceed the standard under I 60.104.
lit FR (316. MM. I. 1974. as amended at 40
FR 48259. Oct. 6. 1975: 42 FR 32427. June
24. 1*77; 42 FR 39389. Au« 4. 1977: 41 FR
10889. Mar. 15. 1978: 48 FR 23811. May 25.
1983: 50 FR 31701. Au|. 5. I98SI
149.104 Tut method! and procedure*.
(a) For the purpose of determining
compliance with | 60 102(a)(l). the fol-
lowing reference methods and calcula-
tion procedures shall be used:
(1) For gases released to the atmos-
phere from the fluid catalytic cracking
unit catalyst regenerator:
(I) Method SB or 5F Is to be used to
determine parllculate matter emis-
sions and associated moisture content
from affected facilities without wet
FOO systems; only Method SB Is to be
used after wet FOD systems.
(II) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses, and
(III) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rale.
(2) For Method SB or SF. the sam-
pling time for each run shall be at
least 60 minutes and the sampling rate
shall be at leasl O.OIS dscm/min (0.53
dscf/mln), except that shorter sam-
pling times may be approved by the
Administrator when process variables
or other factors preclude sampling for
at leasl 60 minutes.
(3) For exhaust gases from the fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst regen-
erator prior to the emission control
syslem: the integrated sample tech-
niques of Method 3 and Method 4 for
gas analysis and moisture content, re-
spectively; Method I for velocity tra-
verses; and Method 2 for velocity and
volumetric flow rale.
(4) Coke burn off rale shall be deter
mined by the following formula:
303
-------
SM.IM
R.-OMI2 QM <%CO.t%COM30gg
QU io.oM4 QH i%co/a««co.«%o.i
(Metric UnlU) or
R.-O.OIM QM (%C0.4%CO>i«IM>3 Qu-
0.00*1 QH I%CO/2»%C0.4%O.I (Eng
lUh UnlU)
•here:
R.-coke bum-off rate, kg/hr (English
unlU: Ib/hr).
0 Mil-metric unlU material balance factor
divided by 100. kg mln/hr m >.
OOISS-English unlU malerlal balance
factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr ft*.
QU'fluid catalytic cracking unit calalyit
regenerator exhausl fan flow ral» before
enterlni the emlulon control sy«lem. H
determined by method J. dacm/mln
(English unlU: dscf/mln)
*CXJ.-perrenl carbon dioxide by volume.
dry bull, as determined b> Method I.
•HO* percent carbon monoxide by volume.
dry ba*U. a* determined by Method 1.
%O,« percent oxygen by volume, dry basis.
u determined by Method 3.
IOM~melrte unlU material balance factor
divided by 100. k| mln/hr m'.
O.I 303 = English unlU material balance
factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr 11«.
Qu-alr rale to fluid catalytic crackln* unit
catalyst regenerator, a* determined
from fluid catalytic cracking unit con-
trol room Instrumentation, dacm/mln
(English unlU: dscf/mln).
O.OM4- metric units material balance factor
divided by 100. kg mln/hr m'.
0.0002'English unlU material balance
factor divided by 100. Ib mln/hr If.
(5) Participate emissions (hall be de-
termined by the following- equation:
R.-«Ox 10 ')Q..C. (Metric UnlU)
R.-(I.S7x 10- 'KJ..C. (English UnlU)
where:
R.- partlculale emission rate, kg/hr (Eng-
llsh unlU: Ib/hr).
MX I0~ '-metric unlU conversion factor.
m In kg/hr mg.
IMxIO'1. English unlU conversion factor.
mln-lb/hr gr.
Q,v T= volumelrfc flow rate of gases dis-
charged Into the atmosphere from the
fluid catalytic cracking unit ralalyst re-
generator following the emission control
system, as determined by Method 9.
dscm/mln (English unlU: duel /mini.
O. partlculale emission concentration dls
charged Into the atmocpliere. as deter-
mined by Method 6. mg/dscm (English
unlU:
(0) For each run, emissions ex-
pressed In kg/ 1000 kg (Kiifcllsh units:
40 Cf t Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn off In the cat-
alygt regenerator shall be determined
by the following equation:
R.- lOOOm./R.MMelrlc or English UnlU)
where:
R.-partlculale emission rale, kg/1000 kg
(English unlU: Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn-
off In the fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerator.
1000-conversion factor, kg to 1000 kg (Eng-
lish units: Ib to 1000 Ib).
RI-parllculate emission rale, kg/hr (Eng-
lish unlU: Ib/hr).
R,-coke burn-off rate, kg/hr (English
unlU: Ib/hr).
(7) In those Instances In which auxil-
iary liquid or solid fossil fuels are
burned In an Incinerator-waste heat
boiler, the rate of parllculate matter
emissions permitted under |80.l02(b>
must be determined. Auxiliary fuel
heat Input, expressed In millions of
cal/hr (English units: Millions of Btu/
hr> shall be calculated for each run by
fuel flow rate measurement and analy-
sis of the liquid or solid auxiliary fossil
fuels. For each run. the rate of partlc-
ulale emissions permitted under
|60102(b> shall be calculated from
the following equation:
R.- I.I t (0.11 H/R.) (Metric UnlU)
R.-1.01 (0.10 H/R.) (English UnlU)
where:
R.-allowable parllculate emission rate, kg/
1000 kg (English unlU: Ib/IOOO Ib) of
coke burn-off In the fluid caUlytlc
cracking unll catalyst regenerator.
l.l-emlsslon standard. 1.0 kg/1000 kg (Eng-
lish unlU: 1.0 Ib/IOOO Ib) of coke burn-
off In the fluid catalytic cracking unit
catalyst regenerator.
Oil-metric unlU maximum allowable In-
cremental rate of partlculale emissions.
g/mllllon cal.
0.10« English unlU maximum allowable In-
crements! rale of parlkulale emissions.
Ib/mllllon Blu.
H = heat Input from solid or liquid fossil
fuel, million cal/hr (English unlU: mil
lion Btu/hr).
R,-coke burn-off rate, kg/hr (English
unlU: Ib/hr).
(b) For the purpose of determining
compliance with I 60.103. the Integrat-
ed sample technique of Method 10
shall be used. The sample shall be ex-
tracted at a rale proportional to the
gas velocity at a sampling point near
304
Environmental Prelection Agency
the centrold of the duct. The sampling
time shall not be less than 60 minutes.
.
Method 6 shall be used to determine
the concentration of SO, and Method
15 shall be used to determine Ihe con-
cenlallon of H.S and reduced sulfur
compounds. Method ISA may be used
as an alternative method for determin-
ing reduced sulfur compounds.
(1) If Method 6 Is used, the proce-
dure outlined In paragraph (c)(2) of
this section shall be followed except
that each run shall span a minimum
of four consecutive hours of continu-
ous sampling. A number of separate
samples may be taken for each run,
provided the total sampling time of
these samples adds up to a minimum
of four consecutive hours. Where more
than one sample Is used, the average
SO, concentration for the run shall be
calculated as the lime weighted aver-
age of the SO, concentration for each
sample according to the formula:
c.
where:
C. -SO, concentration for the run.
M' Number of samples.
CM »8O, concentration for sample i.
(„.Continuous sampling time of sample i.
T--Total continuous sampling lime of all N
samples.
(2) If Method 15 Is used, each run
shall consist of 16 samples taken over
a minimum of 3 hours. If Method ISA
Is used, each run shall consist of one 3-
hour sample or three I-hour samples.
The sampling point shall be at the
cenlrold of the cross section of the
duct If the cross-sectional area Is less
lhan 5 m' (54 ft') or at a point no
closer to the walls than I m (39 In.) If
the cross-sectional area Is 5 m'or more
and the centrold is more lhan I m
from Ihe wall. For Method 15. to
ensure minimum residence lime for
lite sample inside the sample lines, the
sampling rate shall be at least 3 liters/
min (O.I flVmln). The SO, equivalent
for each run shall be calculated as the
arithmetic average of the SO, equiva-
lent of each sample during (lie run.
305
-------
9M.no
Method 4 shall be used to determine
the moisture content of the gases
when using Method 15. The sampling
point lor Method 4 shall be adjacent
to the sampling point for Method IS.
The sample shall be extracted at a
rate proportional to the gas velocity at
the sampling point. Each run shall
span a minimum of 4 consecutive
hours of continuous sampling. A
number of separate samples may be
taken for each run provided the total
sampling time of these samples adds
up to a minimum of 4 consecutive
hours. Where more than one sample Is
used, the average moisture content for
the run shall be calculated as the time
weighted average of the moisture con-
tent of each sample according to the
formula:
N
"•" JL.
•si
where:
B«= Proportion by volume of water vapor
In the |u tlream lor the run.
N - Number of sample*.
Bu = Pi "Hydrocarbon" means any organ-
ic compound consisting predominantly
of carbon and hydrogen.
(f> "Condensate" means hydrocar-
bon liquid separated from natural gas
which condenses due to changes In the
temperature and/or pressure and re-
mains liquid at standard conditions.
(g) "Custody transfer" means the
transfer of produced petroleum and/
or condensate. after processing and/or
treating In the producing operations.
from storage tanks or automatic trans-
fer facilities to pipelines or any other
forms of transportation.
(h) "Drilling and production facili-
ty" means all drilling and servicing
equipment, wells, flow lines, separa-
tors, equipment, gathering lines, and
auxiliary nontransportatlon-related
equipment used In the production of
petroleum but does not Include natu-
ral gasoline plants.
(I) "True vapor pressure" means the
equilibrium partial pressure exerted
by a petroleum liquid as determined In
accordance with methods described In
American Petroleum Institute Bulletin
2517. Evaporation Loss from External
Floating-Roof Tanks. Second Edition.
February 1980 (incorporated by refer-
ence—see 160.17).
(j) "Floating roof" means a storage
vessel cover consisting of a double
deck, pontoon single deck. Internal
floating cover or covered floating roof,
which rests upon and Is supported by
the petroleum liquid being contained.
and Is equipped with a closure seal or
seals to close the space between the
roof edge and tank wall.
(k> "Vapor recovery system" means
a vapor gathering system capable of
collecting all hydrocarbon vapors and
gases discharged from the storage
vessel and a vapor disposal system ca-
pable of processing such hydrocarbon
vapors and gases so as to prevent their
emission to the atmosphere.
(I) "Reid vapor pressure" is the abso-
lute vapor pressure of volatile crude
oil and volatile nonvlscous petroleum
liquids, except liquified petroleum
gases, as determined by ASTM D323-
$60.113
82 (Incorporated by reference—see
160.17).
(39 FR 9317. Mar. 8. 1974; 39 PR 13776. Apr.
17. 1974, as amended at 39 FH 20794. June
14. 1974: 45 FR 23379. Apr. 4. 1980; 48 FR
3737. Jan. 27. 1983; 52 PR 11429. Apr. 8.
19871
IM.II2 Standard fur volatile organk
compounds (VOO.
(a) The owner or operator of any
storage vessel to which this subpart
applies shall store petroleum liquids as
follows:
(1) If the true vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquid, as stored. Is equal to
or greater than 78 mm Hg (1.5 psla)
but not greater than 570 mm Hg (11.1
psla). the storage vessel shall be
equipped with a floating roof, a vapor
recovery system, or their equivalents.
(2) If the true vapor pressure of the
petroleum liquid as stored Is greater
than S70 mm Hg (11.1 psia). the stor-
age vessel shall be equipped with a
vapor recovery system or its equiva-
lent.
(39 PR 9317. Mar. 8. 1974: 39 PR 13776. Apr.
17. 1974. as amended at 45 PR 23379. Apr. 4.
19801
I «0.113 Monitoring of operalions.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(d) of this section, the owner or opera-
tor subject to this subpart shall main-
tain a record of the petroleum liquid
stored, the period of storage, and the
maximum true vapor pressure of that
liquid during the respective storage
period.
(b) Available data on the typical
Reid vapor pressure and the maximum
expected storage temperature of the
stored product may be used to deter-
mine the maximum true vapor pres-
sure from nomographs contained In
API Bulletin 2517. unless the Adminis-
trator specifically requests that the
liquid be sampled, the actual storage
temperature determined, and the Reid
vapor pressure determined from the
sample(s).
(c) The true vapor pressure of each
type of crude oil with a Reid vapor
pressure less than 13.8 kPa (2.0 psia)
or whose physical properties preclude
determination by the recommended
method is to be determined from avail
307
-------
}M.Stt
case-by-case basis If the owner or oper-
ator can demonstrate to the satisfac-
tion of the Administrator that testing
of representative stacks yields results
comparable to those that would be ob-
tained by testing all stacks.
W— |Rt>t«rv.«f]
OO—Standards *f r*rf*n»-
f«r Stationary O«s TurMnas
Bound 44 FR M1M. Sept. 10. IfT*.
unless otherwise noted.
IM.130 Applicability •»«" designation of
affected facfMly.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to the following affect-
ed facilities: All stationary gas tur-
bines with a heat Input at peak load
equal to or greater than 10.7 glga-
Joules per hour, based on the lower
heating value of the fuel fired.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section which commences con-
struction, modification, or reconstruc-
tion after October 3. 1077. Is subject to
the requirements of this part except
as provided In paragraphs (e) and (J)
of 180.332.
144 PR S17M. Sept. 10. Itia, as amended it
SJ FR 41434. Nov. S. Kill
I M.31I Definitions.
As used In this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
"Stationary gas turbine" means
any simple cycle gas turbine, regenera-
tive cycle gas turbine or any gas tur-
bine portion of a combined cycle
steam/electric generating system that
Is not self propelled. It may. however.
be mounted on a vehicle for portabil-
ity.
(b) "Simple cycle gas turbine" means
any stationary gas turbine which does
not recover heat from the gas turbine
exhaust gases to preheat the Inlet
combustion air to the gas turbine, or
which does not recover heat from the
gas turbine exhaust gases to heat
water or generate steam.
(c) "Regenerative cv< Ir gas turbine"
means any stationary gas turbine
which recovers heal from I he gas lur-
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-tt f dlrlon)
bine exhaust gases to preheat the Inlet
combustion air to the gas turbine.
(d) "Combined cycle gas turbine"
means any stationary gas turbine
which recovers heat from the gas tur-
bine exhaust gases to heat water or
generate steam.
(e) "Emergency gas turbine" means
any stationary gas turbine which oper-
ates as a mechanical or electrical
power source only when the primary
power source for a facility has been
rendered Inoperable by an emergency
situation.
"Ice fog" means an atmospheric
suspension of highly reflective Ice
crystals.
"ISO standard day conditions-
means 2M degrees Kelvin. 40 percent
relative humidity and 101.3 kllopascals
pressure.
(h) "Efficiency" means the gas tur-
bine manufacturer's rated heat rate at
peak load In terms of heat Input per
unit of power output based on the
lower healing value of the fuel.
(I) "Peak load" means 100 percent of
the manufacturer's design capacity of
the gas turbine at ISO standard day
conditions.
(j) "Base load" means the load level
at which a gas turbine Is normally op-
erated.
(k) "Fire-fighting turbine" means
any stationary gas turbine thai Is used
solely to pump water for extinguishing
fires.
(I) "Turbines employed In oil/gas
.production or oil/gas transportation"
means any stationary gas turbine used
to provide power to extract crude oil/
natural gas from the earth or to move
crude oil/natural gas. or products re-
fined from these substances through
pipelines.
A "Metropolitan Statistical
Area" or "MSA" as defined by the De-
partment of Commerce.
(n) "Offshore platform gas turbines"
means any stationary gas turbine lo-
cated on a platform In an ocean.
(o) "Garrison facility" means any
permanent military Installation.
"Oas turbine model" means a
group of gas turbines having the same
nominal air flow, combuster Inlet pres-
sure, combuster Inlet temperature.
firing temperature, turbine Inlet tem-
perature and turbine Inlet pressure.
382
of this section.
(2) No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subparl shall
$40.192
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any stationary gas turbine.
any gases which contain nitrogen
oxides In excess of:
(14.4)
8TD . 0.0160 4 F
Y
where:
8TD-allowable NO. emissions (percent by
volume at IS percent oxysen and on a "
dry basis).
Y-manufacturer's rated heal rale at manu-
facturer's rated peak load (kllojoules per
watt hour), or actual measured heal rale
based on lower heallns value of fuel as
measured at actual peak load for the fa-
cility. The value of Y shall not exceed
14.4 kllojoules per wall hour.
F-NO. emission allowance for fuel-bound
nitrogen as defined In paragraph (aN»
of this section.
(3) P shall be defined according to
the nitrogen content of the fuel as fol-
lows:
FMltounri
f (NO.
N..OOIS
eaiaOZS
o
-------
(10 mUllon Rtu/hourl but leas than or
equal to 101.2 glgajoules per hour (100
million Blu/liour) based on the lower
healing value of the fuel fired, shall
comply with the provisions of para-
graph UM2) of this section.
(d) Stationary CM turbines with a
manufacturer's rated base toad at ISO
conditions of 30 megawatts or less
except as provided In I 00 333 Stationary gas turbines with a
heat Input at peak load equal to or
greater than 10.7 glgajoulea per hour
(10 million Btu/hour) but less than or
equal to 107.2 glgajoules per hour (100
million Btu/hour) based on the lower
heating value of the fuel fired and
that have commenced construction
prior to October 3. 1082 are exempt
from paragraph (a) of this section.
(f) Stationary gas turbines using
water or steam Injection for control of
NO. emissions are exempt from para-
graph (a) when Ice fog Is deemed a
traffic hazard by the owner or opera-
tor of the gas turbine.
(g) Emergency gas turbines, military
gas turbines for use In other than a
garrison facility, military gas turbines
Installed for use as military training
facilities, and fire fighting gas turbines
are exempt from paragraph (a) of this
section.
(h) Stationary gas turbines engaged
by manufacturers In research and de-
velopment of equipment for both gas
turbine emission control techniques
and gas turbine efficiency Improve-
ments are exempt from paragraph (a)
on a case-by-case basis as determined
by the Administrator.
(I) Exemptions from the require-
ment* of paragraph (2) of
this section when being fired with an
emergency fuel.
(I) Regenerative cycle gas turbines
with a heat Input less than or equal to
107.2 glgajoules per hour (100 million
Btu/hour) are exempt from paragraph
(a) of this section.
144 PR 62708. Sept. 10. 1079. a* amended at
47 FR 3770. Jan. 27. 1912}
I M>.333 Standard for tulfur dioxide.
On and after the date on which the
performance test required to be con-
ducted by 160.8 Is completed, every
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sion of this subpart shall comply with
one or the other of the following con-
ditions:
(a) No owner or operator subject to
the provisions of this subpart shall
cause to be discharged Into the atmos-
phere from any stationary gas turbine
any gases which contain sulfur dioxide
In excess of 0.015 percent by volume at
16 percent oxygen and on a dry basis.
(b) No owner or operator subject U>
the provisions of this subpart shall
bum In any stationary gas turbine any
fuel which contains sulfur In excess of
0.8 percent by weight.
I M.334 Monitoring of operations.
(a) The owner or operator of any
stationary gas turbine subject to tlie
provisions of this subpart and using
water Injection to control NO. emis-
sions shall Install and operate a con-
tinuous monitoring system to monitor
and record the fuel consumption and
the ratio of water to fuel being fired In
the turbine. This system shall be accu-
rate to within 1 5.0 percent and shall
be approved by the Administrator.
(b) The owner or operator of any
stationary gas turbine subject to (l'e
384
Environmental Protection Agency
provisions of this subpart shall moni-
tor sulfur content and nitrogen con-
tent of the fuel being fired In the tur-
bine. The frequency of determination
of these values shall be as follows:
(1) If the turbine Is supplied its fuel
from a bulk storage tank, the values
shall be determined on each occasion
that fuel Is transferred to the storage
tank from any other source.
(2) If the turbine Is supplied Its fuel
without Intermediate bulk storage the
values shall be determined and record-
ed dally. Owners, operators or fuel
vendors may develop custom schedules
for determination of the values based
on the design and operation of the af-
fected facility and the characteristics
of the fuel supply. These custom
schedules shall be substantiated with
data and must be approved by the Ad-
ministrator before they can be used to
comply with paragraph (b) of this sec-
tion.
(c) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under |60.7(c>, periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as follows:
(1) Nitrogen oxide*. Any one-hour
period during which the average
water-to-fuel ratio, as measured by the
continuous monitoring system, falls
below the water-to-fuel ratio deter-
mined to demonstrate compliance with
160.332 by the performance test re-
quired In |60.8 or any period during
which the fuel-bound nitrogen of the
fuel Is greater than the maximum ni-
trogen content allowed by the fuel-
bound nitrogen allowance used during
the performance test required In
160.8. Each report shall Include the
average water-to-fuel ratio, average
fuel consumption, ambient conditions,
gas turbine load, and nitrogen content
of the fuel during the period of excess
NO. x (NO
"obs
where:
NO. emissions of NO. si IS percent oxygen
9*0.335
emissions, and the graphs or figures
developed under 160.335(a).
(2) Sul/vr dioxide. Any dally period
during which the sulfur content of the
fuel being fired In the gas turbine ex-
ceeds 0.8 percent.
(3) Ice fog. Each period during which
an exemption provided In I 60.332(g) Is
In effect shall be reported In writing to
the Administrator quarterly. For each
period the ambient conditions existing^
during the period, the dale and lime'
the air pollution control system was
deactivated, and the dale and lime Ihe
air pollution control system was reacti-
vated shall be reported. All quarterly
reports shall be postmarked by the
30th day following the end of each cal-
endar quarter.
(4) Emergency fuel. Each period
during which an exemption provided
In |60.332(k) is in effect shall be In-
cluded In the report required In
160.7(c). For each period, Ihe type.
reasons, and duration of Ihe firing of
the emergency fuel shall be reported.
144 PR 52798. Sept 10. 1979. at amended at
47 PR 3770. Jan. 27. 19821
0 M.33S Teil melhodi and procedure*.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to tills part, excepl as provided
In | 60.8(b). shall be used lo determine
compliance with the standards pre-
scribed in I 60.332 as follows:
(1) Reference Method 20 for Ihe
concentration of nitrogen oxides and
oxygen. For affected facilities under
this subpart. the span value shall be
300 parts per million of nitrogen
oxides.
(I) The nitrogen oxides emission
level measured by Reference Method
20 shall be adjusted to ISO standard
day conditions by the following ambi-
ent condition correction factor:
NO1—. i measured NO, emissions al 15 per
cent oxygen, ppmv
and ISO standard ambient conditions.
385
-------
I40J40
P—-reference eombuster Inlet absolute
prcMiire at I9I.I kUopaacals ambient
preamuc.
p^.meMiired combtulor Inlet absolute
preMtire at leal ambient prewure.
H^.-*pedfk humidity ol ambient air at
tat.
e-transcendental oomtant . shall be as fol-
lows:
(I) Reference Method 20 for the
concentration of sulfur dioxide and
oxygen or
<2MI) AflTM D 2880 71 for the sulfur
content of liquid furl* ami AS I'M D
40 CFI Ch. I (7.141
1072 80. D 3031-81. O 4014-62. or D
3240-81 for the sulfur content of gase-
ous fuel* (these methods are Incorpo-
rated by reference— see I 60.17). These
methods shall also be used to comply
with | 60.334(b).
(II) The applicable ranges of some
ASTM methods mentioned above are
not adequate to measure the levels of
sulfur In some fuel gases. Dilution of
samples prior to analysis (with verifi-
cation of the dilution ratio) Is allow-
able subject to the approval of the Ad-
ministrator.
(c) Analysis for the purpose of deter-
mining the sulfur content and the ni-
trogen content of the fuel as required
by |60.334(b), this subpart. may be
performed by the owner/operator, a
service contractor retained by the
owner/operator, the fuel vendor, or
any other qualified agency provided
that the analytical methods employed
by these agencies comply with the ap-
plicable paragraphs of this section.
144 PR M7M. Sept. 10. ItlB. as amended st
4f PR 3M72. July II. IM4I
Swfcpmt MM— Standards *f ParUaa-
•nca fa* Urn* Manufacturing
Plaints
Bounce 4* PR ISOSO. Apr. M. IM4. unlen
otherwise noted.
1 60.34a Applicability and taigaaltoa *f
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to each rotary lime kiln
used In the manufacture of lime.
(b> The provisions of this subpart
are not applicable to facilities used In
the manufacture of lime at kraft pulp
mills.
(c) Any facility under paragraph (a).
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after May 3.
1977. Is subject to the requirements of
this subpart.
1*0.341 nefiallioni.
As used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the same
meaning given them In the Act and In
the General Provisions.
(a> "Mine manufacturing plant"
means any plant which uses a rolsrV
386
!nvrr»nM«nt«l ProfoctUn Agency
lime kiln to produce lime product from
limestone by calcination.
(b) "Lime product" means the prod-
uct of the calcination process Includ-
ing, but not limited to. calcltlc lime.
dolomltlc lime, and dead-burned dolo-
mite.
(c) "Positive-pressure fabric filter"
means a fabric filler with the fans on
the upstream side of the filter bags.
(d) "Rotary lime kiln" mean* a unit
with an Inclined rotating drum that Is
used to produce a lime product from
limestone by calcination.
(e) "Stone feed" means limestone
feedstock and mlllscale or other Iron
oxide additives that become part of
the product.
• M.34I Blaadsrd for sartlcalalc Matter.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by |60.8 la completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any rotary lime kiln any gases which:
(I) Contain paniculate matter In
excess of 0.30 kilogram per megagram
(0.60 Ib/ton) of stone feed.
(2) Exhibit greater than 15 percent
opacity when exiting from a dry emis-
sion control device.
IM.343 Monitoring of emlMlow and •»-
eralloai.
(a) The owner or operator of a facili-
ty that Is subject to the provisions of
this subpart shall Install, calibrate.
maintain, and operate a continuous
monitoring system, except as provided
In paragraphs (b) and (c) of this sec-
tion, to monitor and record the opaci-
ty of a representative portion of the
gases discharged Into the atmosphere
from any rotary lime kiln. The span of
this system shall be set at 40 percent
opacity.
(b) The owner or operator of any
rotary lime kiln having a control
device with a multiple stack exhaust
or a roof monitor may. In lieu of the
continuous opacity monitoring re-
quirement of 160.343. monitor visi-
ble emissions at least once per day of
operation by using a certified visible
emissions observer who. for each site
where visible emissions are observed,
will perform three Method 9 tests and
9M.M)
record the results. Visible emission ob-
servations shall occur during normal
operation of the rotary lime kiln at
least once per day. For at least three
6-mlnute periods, the opacity shall be
recorded for any point* s) where visible
emissions are observed, and the corre-
sponding feed rate of the kiln shall
also be recorded. Records shall be
maintained of any 6 minute average
that Is In excess of the emissions specl- ,|
fled In | 60.342(a) of this subpart.
(c) The owner or operator of any
rotary lime kiln using a wet scrubbing
emission control device subject to the
provision* of this subpart shall not be
required to monitor the opacity of the
gases discharged as required In para-
graph (a) of this section, but shall In-
stall, calibrate, maintain, operate, and
record the resultant Information from
the following continuous monitoring
devices:
(DA monitoring device for the con-
tinuous measurement of the pressure
loss of the gas stream through the
scrubber. The monitoring device must
be accurate within ±250 pascals (one
Inch of water).
(2) A monitoring device for continu-
ous measurement of the scrubbing
liquid supply pressure to the control
device. The monitoring device must be
accurate within ±5 percent of the
design scrubbing liquid supply pres-
sure.
(d) For the purpose of conducting a
performance lest under |60.8, the
owner or operator of any lime manu-
facturing plant subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall Install, cali-
brate, maintain, and operate a device
for measuring the mass rale of stone
feed to any affected rotary lime kiln.
The measuring device used must be ac-
curate to within 15 percent of the
mass rate over Its operating range.
(e) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 160.7(c). periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as all 6-mlnule periods
during which the average opacity of
the visible emissions from any lime
kiln subject to paragraph (a) of this
subparl is greater llian IS percent or.
In the case of wel scrubbers, any
period In which the scrubber pressure
drop Is greater than 30 percent below
the rale established during the per
387
-------
8*0.70
Stibparl 0—Standards el
Perfemance far Nitric Acid Plant*
168.7* AppUcaMlltjr and designation of
affected facility.
(a) The provisions of this subpart
are applicable to each nitric acid pro-
duction unit, which Is the affected fa-
cility.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section that commences con-
struction or modification after August
17, 1971. Is subject to the requirement*
of this subpart.
(43 FH 37*36. July 38. 1*771
066.71 Definition*.
A* used In this subpart, all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
(a) "Nitric acid production unit"
means any facility producing weak
nitric acid by either the pressure or at-
mospheric pressure process.
(b) "Weak nitric acid" means acid
which Is 30 to 70 percent In strength.
0 66.71 Standard for nitrogen oiides.
(a) On and after the date on which
the performance test required to be
conducted by 160.8 Is completed, no
owner or operator subject to the provi-
sions of this subpart shall cause to be
discharged Into the atmosphere from
any affected facility any gases which:
(1) Contain nitrogen oxides, ex-
pressed as NO,. In excess of 1.6 kg per
metric ton of acid produced (3.0 Ib per
ton), the production being expressed
as 100 percent nitric acid.
(2) Exhibit 10 percent opacity, or
greater.
13* FR 307*4. June 14. 1*74. at amended at
40 FR 46286. Oct. 6. 18761
06*73 EmlsaloB monitoring.
(a) A continuous monitoring system
for the measurement of nitrogen
oxides Khali be Inslallril. calibrated.
maintained, and operated by the
owner or operator. The pollutant gas
used to prepare calibration gas mix-
lures under paragraph 2.1. Perform-
ance Specification 2 and for calibra-
tion checks under |60.l3(d) to this
part shall be nitrogen dioxide (NO.).
The span shall be set at SOO ppm of
40 CFR Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
NO.. Method 7. 7A. 7B. 1C. or 7D shall
be used for conducting monitoring
system performance evaluations under
(b) The owner or operator shall es-
tablish a conversion factor for the pur-
pose of converting monitoring data
Into units of the applicable standard
(kg/metric ton. Ib/short ton). The
conversion factor shall be established
by measuring emissions with the con-
tinuous monitoring system concurrent
with measuring emissions with the ap-
plicable reference method testa. Using
only that portion of the continuous
monitoring emission data that repre-
sents emission measurements concur-
rent with the reference method test
periods, the conversion factor shall be
determined by dividing the reference
method test data averages by the mon-
itoring data averages to obtain a ratio
expressed In units of the applicable
standard to units of the monitoring
data. I.e.. kg/metric ton per ppm (Ib/
short ton per ppm). The conversion
factor shall be reestablished during
any performance test under | 60.8 or
any continuous monitoring system
performance evaluation under
| 60.13(0.
The owner or operator shall
record the dally production rate and
hours of operation.
(d) I Reserved!
(e) For the purpose of reports re-
quired under 1 60.7(c>. periods of
excess emissions that shall be reported
are defined as any 3-hour period
during which the average nitrogen
oxides emissions (arithmetic average
of three contiguous 1-hour periods) as
measured by a continuous monitoring
system exceed the standard under
| 60.72
-------
§40.M
I M.M EmlMloii monitoring.
(•) A continuous monitoring system
for the measurement of sulfur dioxide
shall be Installed, calibrated, main-
tained, and operated by the owner or
operator. The pollutant gas used to
prepare calibration gas mixtures
under Performance Specification 2
and for calibration checks under
|«O.I3(d>. shall be sulfur dioxide
(SO.). Reference Method 8 shall be
used for conducting monitoring
system performance evaluations under
I «0.13(c> except that only the sulfur
dioxide portion of the Method 8 re-
sulU shall be used. The span shall be
set at 1000 ppm of sulfur dioxide.
of this sec-
lion from which they were computed
(I.e.. CP. r. and s).
(d) Alternatively, a source that proc-
esses elemental sulfur or an ore that
contains elemental sulfur and uses air
to supply oxygen may use the follow-
40 CFH Ch. I (7-1-88 Edition)
Ing continuous emission monitoring
approach and calculation procedures
In determining SOt emission rates In
terms of the standard. This procedure
Is not required, but Is an alternative
thai would alleviate problems encoun-
tered In the measurement of gas ve-
locities or production rate. Continuous
emission monitoring of Sd. Ot. and
CO, (If required) shall be Installed.
calibrated, maintained, and operated
by the owner or operator and subject-
ed to the certification procedures In
Performance Specifications 2 and 3.
The calibration procedure and span
value for this SO, monitor shall be as
specified In paragraph (b> of this sec-
tion. The span value for CO, (If re-
quired) shall be 10 percent and for O,
shall be W.V percent (air). A conver-
sion factor based on process rate data
Is not necessary. Calculate the 8O,
emission rale as follows:
I
0 265 0 01 WO, > A(CO>)
Where:
KM.-.M emission rate, kf/t acid (Ib/ton
add).
CM-H. concentration, ks/dscm llb/dscf)
(see table below).
8- Acid production rate factor.
-Ml dscm/t acid for metric units.
-IISOO dscf/ton acid for Bnsllsh units.
O.-Oi concentration, percent.
A-Auxiliary fuel factor.
-0.00 for no fuel.
-0.01M for methane.
.0.0317 for natural so.
-0.0100 for propane.
-0.0173 for f 3 oil.
-0.0101 for »t oil.
-0.0140 for coal.
-O.OIM for coke.
Oi-CO, concentration, percent.
NOTK II la necessary In some cases to con-
vert measured concentration units to other
unlU for these calculations:
Use the following table for such conver-
sions:
mo/tern
ppm ISO,)
HXilSO.1
kg/Km
fc'icl
10
10
7MO.IO
I 600 . 10 •
298
f nvkwiMcnlail Protection Agency
(e> For the purpose of reports: under
|00.7(c). periods of excess emissions
shall be all three-hour periods (or the
arithmetic average of three consecu-
tive one-hour periods) during which
the Integrated average sulfur dioxide
emissions exceed the applicable stand-
ards under I 60.82.
110 FR M7M. June 14. 1074. as amended at
40 FR 40260. Oct. 0. 1076: 40 FR 93011. May
26. 1003: 40 FR 4700. Sept. 30. 1001: 40 FR
40000. Oct. 30. 1011)
I M.M Test methods aM procedures.
(a) The reference methods In Appen-
dix A to this part, except as provided
for In 180.8(b), shall be used to deter-
mine compliance with Ihe standards
prescribed In It 80.82 and 80.83 as fol-
lows:
(I) Method 8 for the concentrations
of SO. and acid mist;
(2) Method 1 for sample and velocity
traverses;
(3) Method 2 for velocity and volu-
metric flow rale; and
(4) Melhod 3 for gas analysis.
(b) The moisture content can be con-
sidered to be zero. For Method 8 the
sampling time for each run shall be at
least 80 minutes and the minimum
sample volume shall be 1.15 dscm (40.8
dscf) except that smaller sampling
times or sample volumes, when neces-
sitated by process variables or other
factors, may be approved by the Ad-
ministrator.
(c) Acid production rate, expressed
In metric tons per hour of 100 percent
H.8O.. shall be determined during
each testing period by suitable meth-
ods and shall be confirmed by a mate-
rial balance over the production
system.
(d) Acid mist and sulfur dioxide
emissions, expressed In g/metrte ton of
100 percent H.SO.. shall be deter-
mined by dividing the emission rale In
g/hr by the acid production rale. The
emission rale shall be determined by
the equation:
t/lir-Q. xc.
where:
O. =. volumetric (low rate of the effluent In
dscm/hr as determined In accordance
with parasrapli (aM3> of this section.
and
j*o.ti
c-acld mist and SO. concentrations In •/
dscm as determined In accordance with
paragraph (aH I > of this section.
(e) Alternatively, a source that proc-
esses elemental sulfur or an ore that
contains elemental sulfur and uses air
to supply oxygen may use Ihe SO,.
acid mist. O,. and CO, (If required)
measurement dala In determining SOt
and acid mist emission rales In terms
of the slandard. Dala from the refer-,
ence melhod les*s as specified In (a) of,
Ihls part are required; that Is. Method
8 for SO, and acid mist and Method >
for Oi and CO,. No determinations of
production rale or total gas flow rate
are necessary. Calculate the SO* and
acid mist emission rate as described In
|80.84(d) substituting the acid mist
concentration for CM, as appropriate.
130 FR 30704. June 14. 1074. as amended at
40 FR 44701. Sept. 30. 1003; 40 FR 40000.
Oct. 30.10031
Svbpawt I—Standards *>f P«rf*rnHmc«
f*r rl*t Mix Asphalt FaclMltoo
IOO.M AorllcaMlity and designation sf
affected facillly.
(a) The affected facillly to which
the provisions of this subpart apply Is
each hot mix asphalt facility. For the
purpose of this subpart. a hot mix as-
phalt facility Is comprised only of any
combination of the following: dryers;
systems for screening, handling, stor-
ing, and weighing hot aggregate; sys-
tems for loading, transferring, and
storing mineral filler, systems for
mixing hot mix asphalt; and the load-
ing, transfer, and storage systems asso-
ciated with emission control systems.
(b) Any facility under paragraph (a)
of this section thai commences con-
struction or modification after June
II. 1973. Is subject to the requirements
of this subparl.
143 FR 37030. July 25. 1077. as amended at
61 FR 13125. Apr 10. 10001
IM.OI ItefmMiwM
As used In this subpart. all terms not
defined herein shall have the meaning
given them In the Act and In Subpart
A of this part.
(a) "Hot mix asphalt facility" means
any facillly. as described In 160.00.
299
-------
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9.3
-------
§40.13
40 CFR Ch. I (7-1-8S Edition)
torlng procedures or requirements of
this part Including, but not limited to
thi1 following:
(1) Alternative monitoring require-
ments when Installation of a continu-
ous monitoring system or monitoring
device specified by this part would not
provide accurate measurements due to
liquid water or other Interference!
caused by substances with the effluent
gases.
<2> Alternative monitoring require-
ments when the affected facility Is In-
frequently operated.
<3) Alternative monitoring require-
ments to accommodate continuous
monitoring systems that require addi-
tional measurements to correct for
stack moisture conditions.
(4) Alternative locations for Install-
ing continuous monitoring systems or
monitoring devices when the owner or
operator can demonstrate that Instal-
lation at alternate locations will
enable accurate and representative
measurements.
(5) Alternative methods of convert-
Ing pollutant concentration measure-
ments to units of the standards.
(6) Alternative procedures for per-
forming dally checks of zero and span
drift that do not Involve use of span
gases or test cells.
(7) Alternatives to the A.S.T.M. test
methods or sampling procedures speci-
fied by any subpart.
(8) Alternative continuous monitor-
Ing systems that do not meet the
design or performance requirements In
Performance Specification I. Appen-
dix B. but adequately demonstrate a
definite and consistent relationship
between Its measurements and the
measurements of opacity by a system
complying with the requirements In
Performance Specification 1. The Ad-
ministrator may require that such
demonstration be perfoimed for each
affected facility.
(9) Alternative monitoring require-
ments when the effluent from a single
affected facility or the combined efflu-
ent from two or more affected facili-
ties are released to the atmosphere
thiougli more than one point
()> An alternative to the relative ac-
ruiar y i«st specified in Performance
Specification 2 ul Appendix D may be
reqnrbled as follows:
(1) An alternative to the reference
method tests for determining relative
accuracy Is available for sources with
emission rates demonstrated to be less
than 50 percent of the applicable
standard. A source owner or operator
may petition the Administrator to
waive the relative accuracy lest In sec-
tion 7 of Performance Specification 2
and substitute the procedures In sec-
tion 10 If the results of a performance
test conducted according to the re-
quirements In | 00.8 of this subpart or
other tests performed following the
criteria In 100.8 demonstrate that the
emission rate of the pollutant of Inter-
est In the units of the applicable
standard Is less than SO percent of the
applicable slandard. For sources sub-
ject to standards expressed as control
efficiency levels, a source owner or op-
erator may petition the Administrator
to waive the relative accurancy test
and substitute the procedures In sec-
tion 10 of Performance Specification 2
If the control device exhaust emission
rate Is less than SO percent of the level
needed to meet the control efficiency
requirement. The alternative proce-
dures do not apply If the continuous
emission monitoring system Is used to
determine compliance continuously
with the applicable standard. The pe-
tition to waive the relative accurancy
lest shall Include a detailed descrip-
tion of the procedures to be applied.
Included shall be location and proce-
dure for conducting the alternative.
the concentration or response levels of
the alternative RA materials, and the
other equipment checks Included In
the alternative procedure. The Admin-
istrator will review the petition for
completeness and applicability. The
determination to grant a waiver will
depend on the intended use of the
CEMS data (e.g.. data collection pur-
poses other than NSPS) and may re-
quire specifications more stringent
than In Performance Specification 2
(e.g.. Ihe applicable emission limit is
more stringent than NSPS).
(2) The waiver of a CEMS relative
accuracy test will be reviewed and may
be rescinded at such time following
successful completion of the alterna-
tive RA procedure that the CEMS
data indicate the source emissions ap-
proaching Ihe level of the applicable
228
Environmental Protection Agency
§60.14
standard. The criterion for reviewing
the waiver Is the collection of CEMS
data showing lhal emissions have ex-
ceeded 70 percent of Ihe applicable
slandard for seven, consecutive, aver-
aging periods as specified by the appli-
cable regulation^). For sources sub-
ject to standards expressed as control
efficiency levels, the criterion for re-
viewing the waiver Is the collection of
CEMS data showing thai exhaust
emlssons have exceeded 70 percenl of
the level needed to meet the conlrol
efficiency requirement for seven, con-
secutive, averaging periods as specified
by the applicable regulation^) (e.g.,
|60.45(g> (2) and (3). 160.73(e). and
|60.84! notify the Adminis-
trator within iO days of such occur-
rence and Include a description of the
nature and cause of the Increasing
emissions. The Administrator will
review the notification and may re-
scind the waiver and require the
owner or operator to conduct a rela-
tive accuracy test of the CEMS as .
specified In section 7 of Performance
Specification 2.
MO PR 46255. Oct. «. 1975; 40 FR 59205.
Dec. 22. IBIS. U amended at 41 FR 15185.
Auc. 20. 1878: 48 FR 13328. Mar. 30. 1983; 48
FR 23810. May 25. 1983; 48 FR 32B88. July
20. 1B83; 52 FR 9783. Mar. 28. 1987; 52 FR
17555. May II. 1987; 52 FR 21007. June 4.
IB871
I CO. 14 Modification.
(a) Except as provided under para-
graphs (e) and (f) of this section, any
physical or operational change to an
existing facility which results In an in-
crease in the emission rate to the at-
mosphere of any pollutant to which a
standard applies shall be considered a
modification within the meaning of
section 111 of the Act. Upon modifica-
tion, an existing facility shall become
an affected facility for each pollutant
to which a slandard applies and for
which there is an Increase In the emis-
sion rale lo Ihe atmosphere.
(b) Emission rale shall be expressed
as kg/hr of any pollutant discharged
Into the atmosphere for which a
standard is applicable. The Adminis-
trator shall use the following lo deter-
mine emission rate:
(I) Emission factors as specified In
the latest Issue of "Compilation of Air
Pollutant Emission Factors," EPA
Publication No. AP 42. or other emls
sion factors determined by the Admin
Islralor lo be superior to AP-42 emis-
sion factors. In cases where utilization
of emission factors demonstrate thai
the emission level resulting from the
physical or operational change will
either clearly Increase or clearly not
Increase.
(2) Material balances, continuous
monitor dala. or manual emission tests
In cases where utilization of emission
factors as referenced In paragraph
(b)(l) of this section does nol demon
slrale to Ihe Administrator's sallsfac-
tlon whether the emission level result-
ing from Ihe physical or operational
change will either clearly Increase or
clearly not Increase, or where an
owner or operator demonstrates to the
Administrator's satisfaction that there
are reasonable grounds to dispute the
result obtained by the Administrator
utilizing emission factors as referenced
In paragraph (b)(l) of this section.
When the emission rate Is based on re-
sults from manual emission tests or
continuous monitoring systems, the
procedures specified In Appendix C of
this part shall be used lo determine
whelher an Increase In emission rate
has occurred. Tests shall be conducted
under such conditions as the Admlnis-
Iralor shall specify to the owner or op-
erator based on representative per-
formance of the facility. At least three
valid tesl runs must be conducted
before and at least .Ihree afler Ihe
physical or operational change. All op-
erating parameters which may affect
emissions must be held constanl to the
maximum feasible degree for all test
runs.
(c) The addition of an affected facili
ly lo a stationary source as an expan
sion to lhal source or as a replacement
for an existing facility shall not by
Itself bring within the applicability of
this part any other facility within that
source.
(d) I Reserved I
229
-------
^60.15
The followlni shall not. by them-
selves, be considered modifications
under this part:
(1) Maintenance, repair, and replace-
ment which the Administrator deter-
mines to be routine for a source cate-
gory, subject to the provisions of para-
graph (c) of this section and I 60.15.
(2) An Increase In production rale of
an existing facility. If that Increase
can be accomplished without a capital
expenditure on that facility.
(3) An Increase In the hours of oper-
ation.
(4) Use of an alternative fuel or raw
material If. prior to the date any
standard under this part becomes ap-
plicable to that source type, as provid-
ed by 100.1. the existing facility was
designed to accommodate that alterna-
tive use. A facility shall be considered
to be designed to accommodate an al-
ternative fuel or raw material if that
use could be accomplished undrr the
Uclllty's construction specifications as
amended prior to the change. Conver-
sion to coal required for energy consid-
erations, as specified In section
111<*>(«> of the Act. shall not be con
sidered a modification.
The addition or use of any
system or device whose primary func-
tion Is the reduction of air pollutants.
except when an emission control
system Is removed or Is replaced by a
(system which the Administrator deter-
mines to be less environmentally bene-
fUial
i«M The relocation or change In own-
ership of an existing facility.
(f I Special provisions set forth under
an applicable siibparl of this part shall
supersede any conflicting provisions of
this section.
(g> Within 180 days of the comple-
tion of any physical or operational
change subject to thr control meas-
ures specified in paragraph (a) of this
section, compliance with all applicable
standards must bo achieved.
(40 PR SH4I9. IVr 16. 1975. »mrnHrd at 41
HI 34347. AUK 3. I97»; 45 FR 5617. Jan 23.
19801
HSOI5 Kcr»nii(rurll»n.
An existing facility, upon recon-
struction, becomes an affected facility.
irrespective ol any change In emission
r:ite
40 OH Ch. I (7-l-M Edition)
(b) "Reconstruction" means the re-
placement of components of an exist-
ing facility to such an extent that:
(I) The fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 60 percent of the
fixed capital cost that would be re-
quired to construct a comparable en-
tirely new facility, and
(2) It Is technologically and economi-
cally feasible to meet the applicable
standards set forth In this part.
(c) "Fixed capital cost" means the
capital needed to provide all the de-
preciable components.
(d) If an owner or operator of an en-
isling facility proposes to replace com-
ponents, and the fixed capital cost of
the new components exceeds BO per-
cent of the fixed capital cost that
would be required to construct a com-
parable entirely new facility, he shall
notify the Administrator of the pro-
posed replacements. The notice must
be postmarked 00 days The Administrator will deter-
mine, within 30 days of the receipt of
the notice required by paragraph (d)
of this seclion and any additional In
formation he may reasonably require.
whether the proposed replacement
constitutes reconstruction.
(f) The Administrator's determina-
tion under paragraph (e) shall be
based on:
230
Environmental Protection Agency
(I) The fixed capital cost of the re-
placements In comparison to the fixed
capital cost thai would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new
facility;
<2> The estimated life of the facility
after the replacements compared to
the life of a comparable entirely new
facility;
<3) The extent to which the compo-
nents being replaced cause or contrib-
ute to Ihe emissions from Ihe facility;
and
<«> Any economic or technical limita-
tions on compliance with applicable
standards of performance which are
Inherent In the proposed replace-
ments.
PhotprxM Rock Pxpvmon
Foundrrat SIM* and Gray Iron
Potynwt* and flaunt Pdysfhyfww
Charcoal Prorkjehon
f>| f«a manufacture
|b| SBR production
5*0.17
PRIORITIZED MAJOR SOURCE CATEGORIES—
Continued
Mum
n
24
2t
10
Jl
tt
M
it
3*
M
40
41
42
4J
M
SI
52
S3
M
M
M
Sotfcf Cutogory
li
By Product Cot* OMM
Plywood ftMnufacftM
tndinlngl Swi>e> CoMng
Mnknl Swtaci Cottng
CnOm Or) ml NMurtf GM Product**.
FMMh (DMMMl
•nd ftotifiriV Uk4M-N)Mwiwnv
gMalad)
and Rnm
AflpfMN fVocvtwnf Muf AcylicN NooKn
Brrck and IMMMl Oar ProducM
Caiame Pay MaiMacliiiint (Onaiadl
AmmDnum MkaM Faiaknr
Borai and Baric Aad IPaMar*
SWrrti
llOaOtadl
Uraa (tor kjrtaw and poVmam
OMKMXI (OriMdl
Onar Sum CMaaonM
laad acrd bamry manutacw* >
SWronary am totam •
I lav luabara haira MahaM i
pnor*r. No Sdakjuprianlr
JFarmarV MM -Smlarn» Oar and Fl» Ath"
3Mm§ anuoa c«Hanr>. «M nctalad an M tinea an
NSPS r> bana dnHmiid tot tial Muc
tndu»lnt» Surlarr Coilno Mrlal f.at
4Noi prnrSmd. anca an NSPS tor ihn major aouca
category tan akaady baan arournlaatad
147 PR tSI. Jan. •. IM2. ai amended at 47
PR 3U7«. July n. 1982: SI PR 427M. Nov.
25. 1986: 52 PR II42R, Apr. ». 19871
* M.I7 liH-nramralloiit bjr nftrtntt.
Thr materials listed below are Incor-
porated by reference In the corre-
sponding sections noted. These Incur
porallons by reference were approved
by the Director of the Federal Regis-
ter on (lie dale listed. These materials
are Incorporated as they exist on the
231
-------
\ ^$SL ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
*»•. .O WASHINGTON DC .JO 4 50
t swO^*
FES I 5 1989
Mr. John W. Boston
Vice President
Wisconsin Electric Power Company
Post Offi_-e Box 2046
Milwaukee. Wisconsin 52301
Dear Mr. Boston:
This is a revised final determination, on reconsideration,
regarding the applicability of the Clean Air Act's New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) and Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) provisions to the proposed life extension
project at the Port Washington steam electric generating station,
which is owned and operated by Wisconsin Electric Power Company
(WEPCO). This determination supplements the determination set
forth in an October 14, 1988 letter to you from Lee M. Thomas,
which in turn incorporated my September 9, 1988 memorandum. I
find it necessary to reconsider EPA's original determination and
issue this revised determination in part to address matters
raised by, and new information submitted by, WEPCO
representatives since the October 14 letter. WEPCO believes that
these new aspects call .into question the accuracy of EPA's prior
determination.
For the following reasons, EPA today reaffirms, with limited
exceptions detailed below, its earlier findings regarding the
Port Washington life extension project. I hereby incorporate by
reference the October 14 letter and the September 9 memorandum,
and reaffirm the findings and conclusions in those two documents
except where they are specifically superseded below.
This action constitutes final agency action for purposes of
judicial review under section 307(b) of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C. S 7607(b).
I. CAPITAL EXPENDITURE
EPA explained in its earlier determination that under the
General Proviaion* of the NSPS regulations, a physical or
operational change which increases emissions at an affected
facility is a modification subject to NSPS. See 40 CFR 60.14(a).
However, 40 C7R 60.14(e) provides certain exceptions to that
general rule. In particular, section 60.14(e)(2) provides that
an increase in production rate at an affected facility would not,
by itself, be considered a modification if that increase is
accomplished without a capital expenditure.
As has been discussed in recent meetings between WEPCO and
EPA, the October 14, 1988 letter from Lee M. Thomas was based in
-------
- 2 -
part on information supplied by WEPCO in a letter dated October
11, 1988 which indicated that the increase in production rate at
each of the five units would be accomplished with a capital
expenditure. On October 13, 1988. and November 22. 1988 WEPCO
submitted revised capital expenditure calculations. EPA has
carefully reconsidered its earlier determination based on those
two additional submissions.1 However, as explained below, they
provide no grounds on which to alter EPA's earlier finding on
capital expenditure.
The modification provisions are designed in part to subject
to NSPS those emissions increases caused by an increase in
production rate that is in turn attributable to a significant
investment in improvements to the capital stock. Consistent with
this intent, capital expenditure calculations employ the total,
as opposed to annual, cost of a given project at each affected
facility.
Thus, the December 16, 1975 preamble to the promulgated
definition of capital expenditure states that "...the total cost
of increasing the production or operating rate must be
determined. All expenditures necessary to increasing the
facility's operating rate must be included in this total" (40 FR
58416) (emphasis added). The total cost of the planned work at
each facility is then compared to the product of the existing
facility's basis and the annual asset guideline repair allowance
percentage used by the Internal Revenue Service for taxation
purposes. If the total project cost for each facility exceeds
-.he product of the basis and repair percentage for each facility,
there is a capital expenditure at that facility. See 40 CFR
60.2.
It is appropriate to accumulate, for capital expenditure
purposes, the cost of the renovations necessary to increase the
facility's production rate, because the overall work necessary to
increase a facility's production rate pursuant to a particular
renovation project is the same whether the work is performed in
one calendar year or during two (or more) years. The use of
annual coats could encourage sources to distort normal business
planning.by artificially stretching out costs over time as a
means of-trading a finding of capital expenditure and consequent
NSPS coverage.*
1 The October 13, 1988 submission was not received in
time to be considered in issuing BPA's letter of October 14,
1988.
2 Indeed, it appears that WEPCO may have extended the planned
length of the Port Washington life extension project for
precisely this purpose after being informed by EPA in the Octobr
-------
Rather, the purpose of the exemption in 40 CFR 60.14(e)(2)
is to exclude from NSPS coverage increases in production rate
that are accomplished without "an expenditure for long-term
additions or improvements." See 39 FR 36948 (preamble to
proposed NSPS regulations>. Where the economic realities of the
case are that increased production and, hence, emissions, are due
to normal fluctuations in the business cycle rather than a
considered decision to invest in substantial capital
improvements, the NSPS do not apply.
The letter submitted on October 13 from Neil Childress of
your staff to Gary McCutchen of EPA presented updated basis
figures (determined by multiplying the original capital
investment in the facility by a coefficient'representing the
inflation in construction costs between the year of the
investment and the year in which the capital expenditure
calculation is made) for each of the emissions units at Port
Washington. These figures included costs of repair or
replacement of equipment, such as steam turbines, that is not
part of the existing affected facility for NSPS purposes. Since
applicability determinations under the NSPS modification
provisions are based on the existing affected facility, capital
expenditure determinations likewise are limited to costs
associated with the affected facility. For NSPS Subpart Da, the
affected facility is the steam generating unit as defined at 40
CFR 60.40a. Therefore, EPA staff requested WEPCO to limit the
basis figures to the steam generating unit.
The November 22, 1988 letter from Neil Childress to Walt
Stevenson of EPA presented revised cost figures on the renovation
work on steam generating units 1-4 related to the capital
expenditure calculations. These November 22 basis figures are
understood to be limited to costs associated with the affected
facility. The November 22 letter also presented a revised and
extended schedule for the renovation work, under which the costs
of repairs in any one year would not exceed the product of the
annual asset guideline repair allowance percentage, which is 5%
for electric utility steam generating units, and the basis of
each unit. Mr Childress' letter concluded that since 5% of each
14, 1988 letter that there would be a capital expenditure using
the original schedule. The unit 1 renovations have been extended
from four years to five; unit 2 has been extended from four years
to six; unit 3 has been extended from three years to six; unit 4
has been extended from two years to four. (Compare Telecopier
Transmission, Neil Childress, WEPCO, to Gary McCutchen, EPA,
October 11, 1988 (table attached to Response to Question No. 4)
with Letter, Neil Childress, WEPCO, to Walt Stevenson, EPA,
November 22, 1988, at page 2.)
-------
unit's updated basis is not exceeded by the cost of renovation
work in any one year, there would not be a capital expenditure at
any of the units. The revised figures also show that the total
costs for each unit over the entire renovation period would
exceed the 5% basis figure by 50% to 325%.
As explained above, it is the total cost/ not the annual
cost of a renovation project that determines whether a capital
expenditure has occurred. Accordingly, based on the calculations
and total project costs in WEPCO's November 22, 1988 letter, the
proposed project would result in a capital expenditure at each of
the five Port Washington units, and those units would not qualify
for the exemption in the NSPS modification provisions at 40 CFR
60.14(e)(2).' As to unit 5, WEPCO did not submit cost data
limited to the affected facility. Thus, I have no reason to
alter EPA's original determination that WEPCO has not
demonstrated that the increase in production rate at unit 5 can
be accomplished without a capital expenditure.
In addition, I have determined that it is more appropriate
to utilize the original basis of each affected facility (as
adjusted to reflect past capital improvements), expressed in
nominal dollars, rather than the updated basis, expressed in
current dollars, in determining NSPS applicability. Thus, even
if WEPCO were correct that annual renovation costs, rather than
total costs, should be used in capital expenditure calculations,
in this case a comparison of annual renovation costs and the
3 WEPCO has argued that since the definition of capital
expenditure at 40 CFR 60.2 refers to the IRS "annual asset
guideline repair allowance percentage" (emphasis added), EPA is
bound by the literal language of its own regulations to use
annual rather than total project costs in aaking capital
expenditure calculations. However, the regulations do not
dictate such a result. Instead, on their face they call for a
comparison between total renovation costs and the annual asset
guideline. Bad EPA intended the result suggested by WEPCO, it
would have explicitly called for comparison of annual costs of
the change for projects exceeding one year with the annual asset
guideline. This it did not do. In addition, as indicated above,
the purpose of the capital expenditure provision would not be
served by annualizing project costs for capital expenditure
purposes.
-------
- 5 -
(adjusted) original basis of each affected facility shows that a
capital expenditure would still occur.*
In making a more detailed inquiry into the capital
expenditure matter in response to WEPCO's request, I have found
that neither the NSPS General Provisions nor the preamble thereto
contain any discussion of the matter of original versus updated
basis, and that EPA has rarely been called upon to address this
issue. However, upon review of EPA's past practice in this area,
I have found that in developing performance standards for
particular industries, EPA has provided the regulated community
a mechanism to calculate the original basis in making capital
expenditure calculations. See, e.g., "Equipment Leaks of VOC in
Petroleum Refining Industry — Background Information for
Promulgated Standards," EPA-450/3-81-015b, December 7, 1983.3
This suggests that EPA intended the original basis to be utilized
to determine whether a capital expenditure is going to be made.
Moreover, I believe chat the use of original basis is
consistent with the overall purpose of the NSPS modification
regulations in general, and the capital expenditure provisions in
particular. The effect of using original basis is that the
greater the age of an affected facility, the more likely it is
that a/given investment resulting in increased production will be
deemed a capital expenditure and trigger NSPS. This is
consistent with Congress* intent in adopting new source
performance standards. Older facilities are more likely to use
outdated equipment which does not reduce pollution to the extent
more current technology does. Congress included modified sources
within the new source performance standards of section 111 to
ensure the use of new technology on such sources. See CAA
§§ lll(a)(2), lll(a)(4);
II. AIR HEATER RENOVATIONS AT UNIT 1
In January 1989, WEPCO asked EPA to determine whether
replacement of the heat transfer surface elements on the unit 1
air heater would trigger PSD or NSPS applicability. However, in
a letter dated February 3, 1989, WEPCO withdrew this request,
4 It is worth noting in this regard that if EPA were to
adhere to a literal reading of IRS guidelines as urged by WEPCO,
it would have no choice but to use original basis as well as
annualized costs in making capital expenditure calculations for
Port Washington. Using this formula, WEPCO would exceed the
repair allowance percentage at units 1-5 for most years, and
NSPS would still apply.
9 This Background Information Document provides an
alternative to the method prescribed in the General Provision
when it is difficult to determine original costs. The formula
uses replacement costs and an inflation index to "approximate the
original cost basis of the affected facility."
-------
- 6 -
asserting that it could not receive approval in the time
necessary, while reserving the right to renew it at a later time
as to unit 1 or any other unit at Port Washington. Because this
issue may arise again, and because I believe it bears upon the
project as a whole, I find it appropriate to address the matter
of air heater element replacement. Based on the information
submitted regarding this new plan, as well as the earlier
information submitted regarding air heater replacement work, I
conclude that if WEPCO were to proceed under its revised and now
withdrawn plan, it would not alter EPA's earlier finding that PSD
and NSPS would apply, in order-to explain this finding, it is
useful to first summarize the relevant facts.
Originally, WEPCO advised EPA that it planned to replace the
air heaters at units 1 - 4 in their entirety. As WEPCO
explained:
Air heaters are subject to the erosive and
corrosive effects of the flue gas passing through them
and require regular maintenance of the heat transfer
surfaces.
The plate-type air heaters on Units 1 - 4 do not
lend themselves to replacement of the individual
elements. Worn sections have been patched and blocked,
where accessible, over the years. Now, however,
overall corrosion and perforation Jus passed beyond the
practical point of repair, and replacement of the air
heaters is the economical way to maintain the air
preheater system.
The air heaters on Port Washington Unit 5 and the
other units on the Wisconsin Electric system [other
than Port Washington units 1-4] are of the Ljungstrom
basket design, which allows the heat transfer surfaces
i~ .ikets) to be replaced easily. ***
See, e.g., Li»t of Port Washington Projects, p. 6 (Attachment to
April 22, 1988 letter from John W. Boston, WEPCO, to Gary
McCutch«n. SPA).
On January 11, 1989, WEPCO informed the State of Wisconsin
that it was considering replacing all the plate elements at unit
1. In a letter to the State of Wisconsin, WEPCO described this
project as routine repair work, "necessary to halt the continuing
decrease in the capability of Unit 1," and submitted a list of 40
generating units where significant portions of the air heater
have been replaced. See Letter, with attachment, froa Mark P.
Steinberg, WEPCO, to Dale Ziege, Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, January 11, 1989.
-------
- 7 -
In a telephone conversation with EPA staff the next day,
WEPCO indicated that it desired to perform the unit 1 plate
replacement work during a current unit outage; that it intended
to replace only half, not all, of the elements, at a cost of
approximately $500.000; that it intended to later scrap this work
and replace the entire air heater as described in the original
scope of work, at a cost of $2.600,000; and that it was
considering performing the same work at unit 4 also. See Record
of Telephone Conversation between David Schulz. EPA, and Mark
Steinberg. Neil Childress, and Walter Woelfle, WEPCO, January 12.
1989.
In a meeting on January 17, 1989, WEPCO related that if it
replaced half of the plate elements now, it probably would
replace the remainder as part of the total renovation project at
a later date and not replace the air heater in whole. WEPCO also
related that complete replacement of the plate elements should
increase unit 1's capability to the original design capacity.
Finally, WEPCO stated in response to questions from EPA staff
that none of the air heaters or plate elements at units 1-4 had
ever been replaced in the past. See Memorandum, Meeting with
WEPCO regarding the Port Washington Generating Station, from
David Schulz, EPA, to Files, January 27, 1989.
In addition to the above information, I note that WEPCO's
list of 40 units at which air heater element replacements have
occurred include no units containing plate elements such as those
on units 1 - 4 at Port Washington. Instead, all of the examples
submitted are of the Ljungstrom basket type or the tubular type.
I conclude that those examples are too dissimilar to the plate-
type elements in use at units 1 - 4 to support WEPCO's contention
that the work in question is routine.*
Based on all of the foregoing, I find no reason to depart
from EPA's earlier conclusion that PSD and NSPS would apply to
the air heater work on unit 1. It appears that despite WEPCO's
recent recharacterization of this work as a separate project, it
is properly viewed as an integral part of the overall Port
Washingtoa life extension project. WEPCO cannot evade PSD and
NSPS applicability by carving out, and seeking separate treatment
of, significant portions of an otherwise integrated renovation
program. * *9ueh piecemeal actions, if allowed to go unchallenged,
could readily eviscerate the clear intent of the Clean Air Act's
•Further, even the list of air heater replacement work
submitted by WEPCO did not establish this as routine repair work.
Those 40 units comprise only a small fraction of total operating
utility units, and even at the 40 units, air heater repair or
replacement appears to have been a one-time occurrence, not
routine repair.
-------
new source provisions. Accordingly, if seen as part of WEPCO's
previously proposed renovation project, the recent
recharacterization of the unit 1 air heater work does nothing to
alter the factors determinative of PSD and NSPS coverage.
III. CAPACITY TESTING FOR UNITS 1-4
A. Impact of Test Results on NSPS Applicability.
In Lee Thomas' October 14, 1988 letter, EPA seated that
baseline emissions for NSPS purposes are determined by hourly
maximum capacity just prior to the renovations. EPA relied on
actual operating data to determine that current maximum capacity
at units 1-4 has significantly deteriorated, such that the
restoration of original design capacity through the life
extension project would result in corresponding emissions
increases. As to unit 5, EPA stated that current capacity at
unit 5 is zero because it is physically inoperable. EPA rejected
WEPCO's unsupported assertions that all five units could be
operated at high capacities, but held open the possibility of
further discussions on that point. Subsequently, in November and
December of 1988, following discussions with EPA, WEPCO conducted
capacity tests to determine current actual capacity.
Based on its review and analysis of the test data, EPA finds
that the tests adequately demonstrate that units 2 and 3 can be
operated at their original design capacity on a sustained basis.
Accordingly, I hereby supersede EPA's earlier determination and
find that NSPS would not apply to units 2 and 3 by virtue of the
proposed renovations so long as the capacity of these units after
completion of the work is no higher than demonstrated in the
recent tests (694,000 and 690,000 pounds of steam per hour,
respectively). As discussed in more detail below, this revised
NSPS determination does not affect our determination that the PSD
provisions would be applicable to the proposed work on these two
units.
During the tests on units 1 and 4, WEPCO was able to operate
these units at 497,000 and 586,000 pounds of steam per hour,
respectively, representing 72% and 89% of these units' respective
original design capacities. These testa are adequate to confirm
EPA's original determination that units 1 and 4 are not capable
of operating at their original design capacities, and that
restoration of the lost capacity through the life extension will
trigger NSPS coverage. EPA today also determines that these
tests are not adequate to show that current actual capacity for
purposes of establishing the NSPS baseline is as high as the
levels achieved during the recent tests. Rather, I reaffirm that
baseline for those units is determined by the lower capacities
reflected in recent actual operating data as set forth in Lee
Thomas' October 14 letter. EPA must reject the tests for
-------
- 9 -
purposes of establishing actual NSPS baselines because during the
testing discussed above, there were significant, measured
exceedances of the applicable particulate mass emission limit,
and several measured exceedances of the applicable opacity limit
contained in the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan. One of the
purposes of these tests was to determine the maximum actual
capacity of the Port Washington units that can be achieved in a
lawful manner. As a consequence of the measured exceedances,
WEPCO's tests cannot be relied on to demonstrate that the company
could lawfully sustain the levels achieved during the testing.
Regarding unit 5, I find that by declining to conduct or
schedule capacity tests, WEPCO has effectively conceded that unit
5 is at present inoperable. Therefore. I reaffirm that its
baseline for NSPS purposes is zero.
B. Impact of Test Results on PSD Applicability.
In its February 3, 1989 letter, WEPCO asserted that EPA's
October 14, 1988 determination assumed that the emission rate of
each unit would increase following the renovations. Thus, WEPCO
claims, EPA did not address the question whether units that are
not increasing their emission rates following renovation can be
deemed to trigger PSO. WEPCO is incorrect on both counts.
EPA's prior determination explained that under the PSD
program, unlike NSPS, baseline emissions are determined by
representative actual emissions prior to the physical or
operational change. Accordingly, the results of testing
conducted by WEPCO, intended to determine current maximum hourly
capacity, have no impact on the existence of a significant net
emissions increase for PSD purposes. Hence, those test results
provide no reason to alter EPA's prior determination regarding
PSD applicability.
Actual emissions are the product of the emission rate
(amount of pollution per unit of production or throughput, e.g.,
pounds of sulfur dioxide per ton of coal combusted), the
production rat* or capacity utilization (amount of production or
throughput per hoar, e.g., tons of coal combusted per hour), and
the hour*>-~«f operation (e.g., hours per year). In its prior
determination, SPA explained that an increase in any one of these
three factors, if attributable to a physical or operational
change, can trigger an emissions increase for PSD purposes, and
rejected WBPCO's contention that only increases in the emission
rate were determinative. In so doing, EPA explicitly assumed
that emissions increases at Port Washington would come not from
an increase in emission rate, but rather from increases in
production rate or hours of operation. See Memorandum from Don
R. Clay, September 9, 1988 at 8.
-------
- 10 -
WEPCO further i.T.plies i- its February 3. 1939 letter that
the demonstration that uni-s 2 and 2 can operate now at r.axi-.u.-. '
design capacity means that cher^ will be no increase in
production rate for PSD purposes following the renovations. This
is not the case because PSD baseline emissions are determined by
representative actual emission rate, production rate, and hours
of operation prior to the physical change. Representative actual
emissions are determined by examining the actual emissions
during a representative two year period, (See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(21)(ii)) which in this case the Administrator determined
to be 1983 and 1984 (See Lee Thomas' Oct. 14 letter, at 5). The
hourly capacity demonstration for NSPS purposes is not relevant
to the PSD analysis.
IV. NSPS OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS
In my September 9, 1988 memorandum, I pointed out that an
affected facility cannot avoid NSPS applicability by offsetting,
through the use of fuel with a lower sulfur content, an increase
in the emission rate that would otherwise occur due to a physical
or operational change. As I explained at that time, 40 CFR
60.14(e) provides that use of an alternative fuel or raw material
— such as higher-sulfur coal — which an existing facility was
designed to accommodate before a physical or operational change
does not constitute a modification for NSPS purposes. It follows
that the facility cannot avoid NSPS by switching to lower-sulfur
fuel to counteract a prospective increase in emission rate
because, under the regulations, the facility would always have to
option to switch back to a higher-sulfur fuel at a later date
without triggering NSPS.
Subsequent t'o ~.~e issuance of EPA's October 14, 1988 letter,
WEPCO inquired whether it might be able to utilize lower-sulfur
coal to avoid NSPS at Port Washington, notwithstanding the
regulatory provision explained above, by agreeing to federally
enforceable permit conditions that would bar the company from
switching back to higher sulfur coal in the future. Restrictions
of this nature are acceptable for netting transactions under the
Act's PSD provisions. However, the statute reflects a basic
political decision that fossil fuel-fired sources not rely only
on natural occurring less-polluting fuels to comply with the
NSPS. Instead, Congress declared that compliance must depend in
part upon the application of flue gas treatment or other
pollution control technologies. Thus, section 111(a)(1)(A)(ii)
defines "standard of performance" for fossil fuel-fired sources
as
requiring the achievement of a percentage reduction in
the emissions from such category of sources from the
emissions which would have resulted from the use of
-------
- 11 -
fuels which are not subject to treatment prior to
combustion ... .
Congress further clarified this point in a later paragraph of
section 111(a) by adding:
For the purpose of subparagraph (1)(A)(ii), any
cleaning of the fuel or reduction in the pollution
characteristics of the fuel after extraction and prior
to combustion may be credited ... to a source which
burns such fuel.
This core policy judgment is reflected as well in the
legislative history of the 1977 Clean Air Act amendments. For
example, the Conference Report states:
The Senate concx,: s in the House provision with
minor amendments. The agreement requires (1) that the
standards of performance for fossil fuel-fired boilers
be substantially upgraded to require the use of the
best technological system of continuous emission
reduction and to preclude use of untreated low sulfur
coal alone as a means of compliance; ... (3) that for
fossil fuel-fired sources, the new source performance
standards must be comprised of both a standard of
performance for emissions and an enforceable
requirement for a percentage reduction in pollution
from untreated fuel.
H.R. Rep. No. 95-564, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 130.
Because the will of Congress is so clear that lower-sulfur
fuels alone will not suffice to comply with NSPS, it would be
inconsistent with the legislative intent for EPA to allow sources
to use lower-sulfur fuel to avoid coverage of NSPS in the first
instance in the manner suggested by WEPCO. If EPA were to follow
such a course, numerous modifications to existing facilities
could escape coverage in a manner contrary to the statutory
purpose. •••••
V. THE TIMING OP THE LIFE EXTENSION PROJECT
In discussions with EPA, WEPCO has challenged, on grounds of
timing, BPA's position on baseline emissions for NSPS purposes.
In its prior determination, EPA explained that under the NSPS
regulations, baseline emissions are determined by hourly maximum
capacity just prior to the renovations. Thus, the baseline for
unit 5 at Port Washington is zero because the unit has been shut
down for several years due to safety concerns. In response.
-------
- 12 -
WEPCO has presented the hypothetical question whether EPA would
still have found a zero baseline if unit 5 had been shut down on
a Friday due to some unexpected or catastrophic failure of a
major component previously in good working order, and WEPCO had
sought to replace that component on the following Monday. WEPCO
asserts that in such circumstances, EPA should have established
baseline emissions using the emissions rate just prior to the
breakdown.
I find it unnecessary to engage in speculation by addressing
the hypothetical situation presented by WEPCO, because it is far
removed from the true circumstances surrounding the proposed Port
Washington life extension project. In fact, unit 5 has been shut
down for over four years, not a vaekend. and that is the
foundation cf EPA's analysis and determination.
In conclusion, with limited exceptions, EPA today reaffirms
the decisions reached in the October 14 determination. In
addition, EPA has concluded that the work on each unit
constitutes a capital expenditure and that the proposed air
heater plate replacement work on unit 1 would trigger PSD and
NSPS. As a result of the capacity test demonstration, however,
I find that units 2 and 3 at Port Washington can be operated at
their design capacity on a sustained basis. Therefore EPA's
earlier determination with respect to NSPS applicability is
superseded and NSPS would not apply to units 2 and 3 by virtue of
the proposed renovations so long as the capacity of these units
after the completion of this work is no higher than demonstrated
in the recent tests. This determination does not affect PSD
applicability for these two units. If you should have any
questions about the foregoing, please feel free to contact me.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
Don R. Clai
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air & Radiation
-------
APPENDIX B
S02 CHECKLIST
-------
SO2 Checklist
This checklist was developed from several other
checklists and from the SO2 Guideline itself for use in
SIP processing oversight as required by SIP processing
reform. It should be used as a guide to identify
problems when reviewing a SIP and to prevent problems
from occuring when writing a SIP. This checklist is an
overview and is not intended to be comprehensive.
Readers are encouraged to refer to the appropriate
chapter in the SO2 Guideline for more information.
-------
sdps/jvitas
CHECKLIST YES NO REFERENCE
Determining Air Quality Status of Areas
* Modeling is used in demonstration
(see below)
* Justifies exclusion of any areas as
not ambient air
* Demonstration that SIP is being
implemented
* Redesignation will result in a
change in emission limits
— Redesignatic allows
emission increase
Emission increase justified
by SIP revision
* Monitoring includes eight
quarters of data showing
attainment
Ambient Air Quality Monitoring and Data Usage
* Monitoring data are included
Data are quality assured
Data are part of
SLAMS network
* Monitors located at points
of expected maximum ground
level concentrations
Air Quality Modeling
* Specifies version of Guideline on Air
Quality Models (Guideline) used
If prior to current version,
specifies reason for
grandfathering
* Specifies model(s) used
* Specifies terrain
-------
Specifies the 5-year set of
meteorological data used
If on-site data exist but were
not used, provides rationale
Outputs include 3 and 24 hour and
annual average results
Inputs reflect maximum allowable
emissions for short-term analyses
Justifies treatment of any
emissions not input at
maximum allowable
Justifies stack heights input with
respect to good engineering practice
(GEP) requirements
— Modeling does not credit above
formula GEP stack height
Justifies any merged gas streams
input with respect to stack height
regulation
Does not include varying
emission rates with
meteorological conditions
Specifies background sources or
justifies absence
If background sources are
present they are explicitly
modeled
Justifies
background
concentrations
for those sources
not modeled
If actual stack height is below
formula GEP, downwash modeling is
provided
Justifies any deviations from
Guideline
-------
Stack Height Regulations
Stack height negative declaration
evaluates sources:
with stacks > 65 meters
with merged gas streams and
emissions > 5000 tons/year
grandfathered and shows date of
documention for grandfathering
Control Strategy
* Specifies block (or running) averages
used
* Demonstrates no exceedance of NAAQS
and PSD increment
* Justifies rollback or multipoint
rollback
SIP Provisions
* Revision contains PSD
analysis
* Bubbling, trading or
balancing is included
Justifies use of above
Describes before and after
conditions of bubble, trade
or balance
* Sulfur variability is not credited
* Documents interstate and
international impacts
Implementation Enforcement Aspects
* Test method uses averaging time
consistent with modeling
demonstration
Test method does not rely on 30-day
averaging
-------
Does not allow administrative
revisions to the rule/permit
requirements
Specifies EPA test method
Rule/permit does not include an
expiration date
Rule/permit justifies any
malfunction, startup/shutdown, or
maintenance provision
Rule/permit requires Continuous
Emission Monitoring
Units of compliance are
specified in the rule/permit
(e.g. Ibs/mmBtu)
Justifies any mass/time
limits
Rule/permit specifies final
compliance date
compliance date does not exceed
3 years
Rule/permit specifies more than one
emission limit for any emission point
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing;
. REPORT NO.
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
SO? Guideline
5. REPORT DATE
October 1989
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Radian Corporation
Progress Center
3200 E. Chapel Hill Road/Nelson Highway, PO Box 13000
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-02-4392
Work Assignment No. 44
2 SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
The S02 Guideline is an integration and clarification of policy and guidance
information available for S02 programs. This Guideline is to aid the States and EPA
Regional Offices, especially in the development, review, and enforcement of future
S02 SIP revisions.
Each chapter of the Guideline presents a distillation of key policy and guidance for
various subjects that are important to S02 programs. Each chapter also contains
comprehensive references to the original material upon which the chapter is based.
These references include relevant statutory and regulatory requirements (i.e., the
Clean Air Act and the Code of Federal Regulations), FR notices, EPA guideline
documents, and Agency policy and guidance correspondence.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTlFlERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
S02
State implementation plan (SIP)
Attainment
Ambient Air
Ambient Monitoring N$PS
Dispersion Modeling Redesignation
Stack Height Enforcement
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEVEN1
19. SECURITY CLASS i Ttus Report/
20. SECURITY CLASS (Tim page/
22 PR'CE
EPA Form 2:2C-] (R«». ^-77) oRtv.ous ED'T:CN i s OBSOLETE
-------