NEW SOURCE REVIEW
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
AND
NONATTAINMENT AREA
GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
Volume I
Prepared byt
New Sourca Review Section
Noncpiteria Pollutant Pro-ams Branch
Air Quality Management Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environaantal Protection Agency
JANUARY 1988
-------
***NOTICE***
The purpose of the New Source Review Prevention of Significant
Deterioration and Nonattainment Area Guidance Notebook is to
provide a compilation of new source review (NSR) reference
material. Inclusion of material in the document does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the current views and
policies of the Environmental Protection Agency. Every attempt
has been made to make this material as complete and accurate as
possible; however, because the discussions within the document
are, by nature, a condensed version of the actual material, they
are to be used for the sole purpose of directing the user to the
specific material of interest. For additional information
relating to material contained in this document (or current EPA
policy on any subject matter covered within this document), users
are directed to consult with their EPA Regional Office NSR
contact.
This document was prepared, under contract, for:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Air Quality Management Division
Noncriteria Pollutant Programs Branch
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
This document was prepared by:
Pacific Environmental Services
1905 Chapel Hill Road
Durham, North Carolina 27707
-------
NEW SOURCE REVIEW
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION
AND
NONATTAINMENT AREA
GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK
Volume 1
-------
NOTEBOOK CONTENTS
Volume 1
c HOW TO USE THE NOTEBOOK
0 TABLE I. PSD SUBJECT HEADINGS
0 TABLE II. NONATTAINMENT SUBJECT HEADINGS
8 SUBJECT HEADINGS 1-8
Volume 2
0 SUBJECT HEADINGS 9-28
0 APPENDIX A. DETERMINATIONS OF APPLICABILITY PSD/1-148, SSR 1-53
0 APPENDIX B. ANNOTATED NEW SOURCE REVIEW REGULATIONS
-------
riOW TO USE IKE
PSD/NONATTAINMENT POLICY REFERENCE GUIDE NOTEBOOK
Purpose
This notebook 1s a compilation of policy memorandums, letters, and
Information that have been developed to aid implementation of the
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment area
air pollution control programs. The material included in this notebook
primarily includes policy statements, policy interpretations, and
applicability determinations.
This notebook is an "active" file - it has been designed to accom-
modate new or revised policy. Additions, deletions, replacements, and
cross-referencing information will be provided by Mr. David Solomon
of OAQPSrCPDD as it becomes available.
How to Use the Notebook
PSD-related policies are found in Chapters 1-14 of the notebook;
nonattainment-related policies are found in Chapters 21-27. The subject
headings and types of policy included under each subject heading are
listed in Tables I and II. To use the notebook properly, please follow
these steps:
Step 1. See Table I or Table II to locate your subject area of interest
under the subject headings listed.
Step 2. Next, look at the index under the same subject heading to
locate a specific entry (memorandum, letter, etc.) addressing
your subject. Each index entry presents pertinent summary
identification information and it is organized as follows:
a. Each entry is numbered and the entries in each chapter are
arranged generally in chronological order. For each
numbered entry, digits to the left of the decimal indicate
the chapter in which the entry is located; digits to the
right of the decimal are assigned individually for each
entry.
b. Entry index summary information:
(1) DATE: the date the memorandum or policy statement was
issued.
(2) SUBJECT: the "Subject" line on the memorandum. For
letters or other types of policy statements, a brief
statement of the policy is presented here.
(3) FROM: the originator(s) or originating office(s) for
the policy statement.
(4) TO: the recipient(s) of the policy statement, usually
the originator(s) of the request for guidance.
-------
(5) DISCUSSION: a orief summary of issues or policies
discussed In the entry. The discussion is included
to provide the user with more information than the
"Subject" line.
(6) CR: cross referencing. Where an entry cannot easily
be placed under a single subject heading, the index
shows the other possible subject headings where the
entry could be placed. The term [Hard Copy] following
a cross reference index number indicates the location
of the actual memorandum, letter, etc. Entries are
cross referenced only when the subject matter of the
entry pertains to two or more policies (i.e., the
policies discussed in the entry fall under more than
one subject heading).
[NOTE: Where an entry is cross referenced, the body
of the notebook contains index information to help
locate the hard copy. For example, entry 8.4 in the
body of the notebook shows index information indicating
that the hard copy can be found under entry 10.6.]
Step 3. The final step - locate the notebook entry or entries that
relate to your need.
Updating the Notebook
Periodically, David Solomon will forward additional .entries for
the notebook. For each addition, the following information will be
included along with a hard copy of the entry:
a. index number;
b. complete entry index summary information;
c. additional CR information, as necessary; and
d. index numbers of any existing entries partially or entirely
superceded by the addition. Memos wholly outdated or super-
ceded should be removed from the notebook.
-------
TABLE I. PSD SUBJECT HEADINGS
1. PSD: Trans ition/Grandfa then ng
Exemptions from PSD requirements entirely or from "new"
requirements based upon date construction commenced
2. PSD: Potential to Emit/Limitations on Capacity to Emit
Calculating "Potential to Emit"
Federal enforceability
Limits on operating conditions
3. PSD: Definition/Classification of Source
Definitions
Source applicability for PSD
Source reactivation
4. PSD: Modification
Allowable/actual emissions increase
Fuel conversions - "capable of accommodating," etc.; DOE
exemptions
Accumulations of emissions
de minimus levels for modification
Netting of emissions
5. PSD: Geographic/Pollutant Applicability
Snip unloading
Exempt solvents
Fugitive (secondary) emissions
de minimus levels for new sources; quantification of enris-
si on rates
6. PSD: Baseline/Increment Consumption/Impact Analysis
Baseline date, area, emissions
Increment consumption
Air quality offsets under PSD
Air quality degradation determination
Modeling
Creditable emissions decreases
7. PSD: Ambient Monitoring/Analysis
Preconstruction monitoring
Quality Assurance
Minimum data requirements for permit application
Significance levels for monitoring
-------
TABLE I. PSD SUBJECT HEADINGS
(concluded)
8. PSD: BACT
BACT decisions
Source's ability to meet BACT
BACT baseline
BACT exemptions
Unregulated pollutants
9. PSD: Class I Areas
Notification of Federal Land Manager
Inter-agency coordination
National Park Service PSD permit application review guidance
Redesignation of Class I areas
10. PSD: Permits/Permit Processing/Public Notice
Permit administrative procedures
Permit conditions/approval
Permit appeals
Phased permits
Contingency plans
Performance testing
Publication policy
11. PSD: Permit Changes/Extension/Expiration
Extensions
Permit modifications
Rescissions
12. PSD: Relation to Nonattainment Program
Offsets and PSD
Nonattainnient sanctions
Dirty and clean areas affected
13. PSD: Temporary Source/Portable Source/Other Exemptions
Temporary emissions
Portable sources - PSD applicability
Specific sources - requirements, exemptions
14. PSD: Allowable Construction Activities Prior to Permit Issuance
Definition of "constructed"
Definition of "commence construction"
Allowable activities
15. PSD: SIP Processing
-------
TABLE II. NONATTAINMENT SUBJECT HEADINGS
21. NAA: Transition/Grandfathering
Exemptions from nonattainment review based on date
construction commenced
22. NAA: Potential to Emit/Limitations on Capacity to Emit
Calculating "Potential to Emit"
Federal enforceabllity
Limits on operating conditions
23. NAA: Definition/Classification of Source
Definitions
Source applicability for EOP
Source reactivation
24. NAA: Geographic/Pollutant Applicability
Ship unloading
Exempt solvents
Fugitive (secondary) emissions
25. NAA: Offsets
Emissions Offset Policy
Emissions credits
26. NAA: LAER
LAER decisions
Source's ability to meet LAER
LAER baseline
LAER exemptions
27. NAA: Statewide Compliance
Enforceability
EOP Condition 2
Sanctions
28. NAA: SIP Processing
-------
1. PSD: TRANSITION/GRANDFATHERING
i.l DATE: August 25, 1976
SUBJECT: PSD Review Requirements for Modified Petroleum
Refineries
FROM: Richard G. Stoll, Jr., Attorney
Air Quality & Noise Control Division, OGC
TO: Robert R. McKearin, Assistant Regional Counsel
Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/7
CR: None
1.2 DATE: March 5, 1980
SUBJECT: Establishment of Baseline Date for PSD Areas
FROM: Richard 0. Wilson, Deputy Asst. Administrator
Office of Enforcement
TO: Robert L. Davies, Asst. Administrator
Office of Fuels Conversion, DOE
DISCUSSION: See PSD/100
CR: 6.7 [Hard Copy]
1.3 [DELETED]
1.4 DATE: February 8, 1983
SUBJECT: Westvaco Paper Mill - PSD Applicability
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: W. Ray Cunningham, Acting Deputy Director
Air & Waste Management Division
DISCUSSION: See PSD/140
CR: None
1.5 DATE: February 13, 1978
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/40
CR: None
1.6 DATE: July 1, 1978
SUBJECT: "Commence Construction" under PSD
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: David Kee, Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region V
DISCUSSION: See PSD/56
CR: None
-------
1.7 DATE: August 18, 1978
SUBJECT: Interpretation of §52.21(1)(3) of the PSD
Regulations
FROM: Joan F. Bernstein, Attorney
Office of General Counsel
TO: Henry V. Nickel, Esq.
Hunton & Williams
DISCUSSION: See PSD/65
CR: None
1.8 DATE: June 19, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD and NSPS Applicability Determination for
Guardian Industries' Flat Glass Plant in Corsicana,
Texas
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/113
CR: None
1.9 DATE: April 12, 1979
SUBJECT: PSD and NSPS Applicability - PEPCO Dickerson
Generating Station Unit #4
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Steve Wassersug, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD/88
CR: 10.9 [Hard Copy]
1.10 DATE: March 11, 1980
SUBJECT: Applicability of Major Source to PSD Review if
Construction Commenced after March 19, 1979
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Charles H. Tisdale, Jr.
King and Spalding Co.
DISCUSSION: See PSD/101
CR: 10.15 [Hard Copy]
-------
2. PSD: POTENTIAL TO EMIT/LIMITATIONS ON CAPACITY TO EMIT
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.8
2.9
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 25, 1979
Submission of State Air Permits as SIP Revisions
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division;
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
All Regional Directors
Air and Hazardous Materials Divisions
The need for States to submit construction and
operating air permits as revisions to State Imple-
mentation Plans (SIP) is discussed. Of particular
concern is the Federal enforceability of State-
issued air permits that have not been incorporated
individually within a SIP by means of an EPA approval
through rulemaking.
10.4
September 1, 1978
Applicability Determination for PSD - Hot Mix Asphalt
Operations
Howard Bergman, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Enforcement Division
See PSD/66
None
May 16, 1979
Definition of Peak load Power Plant
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Jerry L. Phillips, Environmental Specialist
Burns & McDonnel 1
See PSD/91
None
-------
2.10 DATE: March 25, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
Genera] Enforcement Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/103
CR 10.17
2.11 DATE: June 9, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability: Asphalt Concrete Plants
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: F.W. Giaccone, Chief
Air Facilities Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/111
CR: 5.7 [Hard Copy]
2.12 DATE: July 7, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability: Industrial Scrap Processing
Company
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Samuel P. Moulthrop, Acting Chief
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/114
CR: None
2.13 DATE: August 22, 1980
SUBJECT: The Use of Permit Conditions to Define a
Source's Potential to Emit
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
DISCUSSION: Federally enforceable permit conditions, as defined
in the memorandum, may oe used along with other
stated restrictions in defining a source's poten-
tial to emit.
CR: None
2.14 DATE: November 25, I960
SUBJECT: Calculation of Firing Rate for Facility
Cofiring Municipal Waste and Paper-mill Sludge
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Daniel J. Dent, Project Engineer
Bechtel, Inc.
DISCUSSION: See PSD/118
CR: None
-------
2.15
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas U. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials, Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the
period from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard
to PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de
minimus in order to be subject to PSD (see
PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to repre-
sent actual emissions for new sources and,
therefore, an increase in production at the
PSD source is not an increase in actual
emissions. (Also see PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered to be one of
the 28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary
metal production plant) if it uses scrap
metal to produce iron, even if the metal is
poured into molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
increases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be
one of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a
chemical process plant. A chemical process
plant is any establishment in Major Group 28
of the SIC Code.
Beverage distilleries are in Major Group 20.
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not sub-
ject to PSD unless the triggering increase
is of the same pollutant as the one for
which a significant increase "esults. (Also
see PSD/120).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforce-
able; however, the State can impart Federally
enforceable conditions to a construction
permit issued for the source in accordance
with the New Source Review procedures of the
SIP at the time of issuance.
3.16 [Hard Copy]; 4.16; 5.9; 10.22; 12.9; 13.5
-------
2.16 DATE: April i, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Questions
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Merrill S. Honman, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region I
DISCUSSION: See PSD/124
CR: 4.7 [Hard Copy]; 13.6
2.17 DATE: June 12, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Determination: Sun Oil Company and the Defini-
tion of Major Modification
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Julio Morales-Sanchez, Director
Enforcement Division, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/127
CR: None
2.18 DATE: July 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see
PSD/117).
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, there-
fore, not a VOC for purposes of PSD is
detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattain-
ment area projected to be attainment (based
on the approved Part D SIP) before startup,
is not subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4} Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is
discussed.
5} If an ambient monitor has been shut down,
data obtained may still be deemed pertinent
and useful under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD
area and impacts a nearby PSD area may
trigger baseline and consume increment
within each of the areas under certain
conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission
point could not escape PSD by considering
previous decreases which cause the net
increase to be less than the major source
threshold.
8} An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
-------
2.19
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
2.20 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
2.21 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
2.22 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
9) The 50 tons per year exemption jnaer 40 CFR
52.21(1)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
Increase of £ny_ pollutant unless the Increase
of each pollutant Is less than 50 tons per
year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for NOg is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
3.19; 4.19; 5.10; 6.11; 7.5; 10.23
April 28, 1982
Federal Enforceability under PSD
Kathleen M. Bennett, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
All Regional Directors
Air & Waste Management Divisions, Regions I-IY,
VI-VIII, X;
All Regional Directors
Air Management Divisions, Regions V and IX
Federal enforceability of emissions limitations, as
required for offsets or applicability purposes, is
defined within the memorandum.
None
June 28, 1985
.Seasonal Afterburner Policy, Applicability of Part D
New Source Review Requirements
Robert D. Bauman, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch, CPDD
William S. Baker, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region II
Applicability discussion for sources using EPA Seasonal
Afterburner Policy
5.20; 22.5 [Hard Copy]
September 11, 1985
Action Taken by the Indiana Air Pollution Control
Board over U.S. EPA Objections
Valdas V. Adamkus, Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region V
Uoodrow A. Myers, State Health Commissioner
Indiana State Board of Health
An amended PSD permit issued by Indiana was not con-
sidered Federally enforceable by EPA as it included
inappropriate BACT emissions limits.
None
December 17, 1985
Federal Enforceability
Thomas W. Rarick, Chief
Air Operations Branch, AMD, Region IX
James D. Boyd, Air Pollution Control Officer
California Air Resources Board
Memo provides clarification regarding which permits
may be Federally enforceable.
None
-------
2.23 DATE: Marcn 13, 1986
SUBJECT: Time Frames for Determination of Applicability to
New Source Review
FROM: Ed Reich, Director, Stationary Source Compliance
Division
OAQPS
TO: Bruce P. Miller, Acting Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
DISCUSSION: Memo discusses the averaging time that EPA has agreed
is the longest time frame that should be accepted as
Federally enforceable for permit restrictions on
production (hours of operation) which limit potential
to emit to below major source or modification thres-
hold. This policy is not to be extended to dete-mi-
nation of compliance with emission limitations. See
April 8, 1987, memo from John Seitz for further
clarification.
CR: None
2.24 DATE: February 18, 1987
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Request, Valero Hydrocarbon Company,
Yoakum, DeUitt County, Texas
FROM: William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
TO: Ken Ward, P.E., President
Ward and Associates, Austin, Texas
DISCUSSION: Memo discusses the use of SIC codes to determine
applicability of a facility to PSD regulations.
CR: None
2.25 DATE: April 6, 1987
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD regulations for 3M pilot coating
equipment
FROM: Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch
TO: Roger D. Anderson, P.E.
3M Corporation, St. Paul, Minnesota
DISCUSSION: Memo discussed whether PSD regulations are applicable
to a pilot coater being added to an existing source
that has the potential to emit more than 250 tpy of
VOC in an ozone attainment area. Further, the memo
discusses how a permit could be written to avoid PSD
review if the PSD regulations should apply.
CR: None
2.26 DATE: April 8, 1987
SUBJECT: Clarification of New Source Review Policy on Averaging
Times for Production Limitations
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
OAQPS
TO: Air Division Directors
Regions I - X
-------
DISCUSSION: The policy described In the March 13, 1986, memo on
maximum allowable averaging times for production and
operational limitations shall not be applied to emis-
sion limitations, rather it applies only to produc-
tion/operational limitations. This memorandum further
distinguishes between EPA's policy on averaging times
for production limitations versus emission limitations,
and clarifies the proper implementation of the March 13,
1986, memorandum.
CR: None
-------
3. PSD: DEFINITION/CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCE
3.1 [REPLACED]
DATE: June 9, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability, South Hospah Mine
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Allyn Davis, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
DISCUSSION: See PSD/110
CR: None
3.2 DATE: May 2, 1977
SUBJECT: PSD Determination of Applicability -
UMD Coal Gasification Plant
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: David A. Ullrich, Acting Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region V
DISCUSSION: See PSD/28
CR: None
3.3 DATE: September 8, 1977
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability to Exxon Chemical Modification:
Bay town, Texas
FROM Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Eloy R'. Lozano, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/32
CR: None
3.4 [REPLACED]
DATE: December 19, 1979
SUBJECT: Clarification of Federal PSD Regulations Concerning
Municipal Incinerators
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Miro Dvirka
DISCUSSION: The applicability of both PSD and NSPS regulations
to municipal incinerators is discussed in terms of
charging capacity and potential to emit.
CR: None
3.5 DATE: October 17, 1977
SUBJECT: Application of PSD Review to a Portland Cement
Manufacturing Operation, Texas Industries, Inc.
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Eloy R. Lozano, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/34
CR: . None
-------
3.6
3.7
3.8
3.9
3.10
3.11
3.12
3.13
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
November 23, 1977
PSD Applicability of Coal Preparation Plants
Constructed Without a Thermal Dryer
Eric Cohen
Air Enforcement Branch, Region V
Rich Biondi
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
See PSD/38
None
July 14, 1978
PSD Requirements
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
See PSD/59
None
March 16, 1979
Definition of Source
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
See PSO/83
None
CR:
June 13, 1980
Old Sources Being Brought Online - PSD Applicability
Roger Pfaff
Region IV
Rich Biondi
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Generally, if a source has been shutdown for a time
period of greater than two years and then restarted,
it is considered a new source. An exception can be
made if the State demonstrates the source was
carried in the emission inventory during the time
it was shutdown.
None
-------
3.14 DATE: August 8, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination: Babylon 2
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: William K. Sawyer, Attorney
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/116
CR: None
3.15 DATE: October 3, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD and NSPS Applicability to a Reactivated Source
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Sandra S. Gardebring, Director
Enforcement Division, Region V
DISCUSSION: See PSD/117
CR: None
3.16 DATE: March 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Oevine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the
period from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard
to PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de
minimus in order to be subject to PSD (see
PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to repre-
sent actual emissions for new sources and,
therefore, an increase in production at the
PSD source is not an increase in actual
emissions. (Also see PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered f) be one of
the 28 PSD categories (i.e., a -.econdary
metal production plant) if it uses scrap
metal to produce iron, even if the metal is
poured into molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
increases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be
one of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a
chemical process plant. A chemical process
plant is any establishment in Major Group 23
of the SIC Code. Beverage distilleries are
in Major Grouo 20.
-------
CR:
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not sub-
ject to PSD unless the triggering increase
is of the same pollutant as the one for
which a significant increase results. (Also
see PSD/120).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(0(7) is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforce-
able; however, the State can impart Federally
enforceable conditions to a construction
permit issued for the source in accordance
with the New Source Review procedures of the
SIP at the time of issuance.
2.15; 4.16; 5.9; 10.22; 12.9; 13.5
3.17 [MOVED TO 4.7]
3.18 DATE: June 30, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Definition of Source
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region V
DISCUSSION: See PSD/129
CR: None
3.19 DATE: July 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas U. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see
PSD/117).
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, there-
fore, not a VOC for purposes of PSD is
detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattain-
ment area projected to re attainment (based
on the approved Part D SIP) before startup,
is not subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air
quality levels for 3-hour and.24-hour averages
is discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down,
data obtained may still be deemed pertinent
and useful under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD
area and impacts a nearby PSD area may
trigger baseline and consume increment
within each of the areas under certain
conditions.
-------
7) A minor source which adds a major emission
point could not escape PSD by considering
previous decreases which cause the net
increase to be less than the major source
threshold.
8} An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase
of each pollutant is less than 50 tons per
year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14 g/nr annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
CR: 2.18 [Hard Copy]; 4.19; 5.20; 6.11; 7.5; 10.23
3.20 OATE: March 29, 1982
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability of Aluminum Rolling Mill.
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: John Noland
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DISCUSSION: See PSD/134
CR: None
3.21 DATE: July 9, 1982
SUBJECT: Reactivation of Amerada Hess Corporation's Port
Reading Facility and PSD Review
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/136
CR: 6.14
3.22 DATE: May 31, 1983
SUBJECT: Potential Emission Threshold of Coal Preparation
Facility and Surface Coal Mine Located at a
Common Site
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: John M. Daniel, Jr. P.E., Assistant Executive
Director State Air Pollution Control Board
(Virginia)
DISCUSSION: See PSD/144
CR: None
-------
3.23 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
3.24
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
3.25
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
3.26 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
reoruary il, 1981
Applicability of PSD requirements and NSPS standards
to a proposed fuel conversion at Great Northern
Paper In Millinocket, Maine
Ed Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
John Chandler
Department of Environmental Protection, Maine
The memo discusses applicability of NSPS and PSO
requirements for two steam generators currently
burning No. 6 fuel oil and proposing to convert to
coal.
None
October 17, 1986
Application of NSR rules to the conversion to coal
at the Hibbard Station Units 3 and 4..
Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch
Louis M. Chamberlain
Division of Air Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Discusses the circumstances under which a conversion
to coal of two units at the Hibbard Station would
cause the plant to be subject to PSD regulations for
sulfur dioxide. Also, discusses the term "capable of
accommodating" and the implications of the construction
ban in this case.
4.34 [Hard Copy]; 12.11
November 3, 1986
PSD Applicability Request, Valero Transmission Company,
Yoakum, DeWitt County, Texas
Jack S. Divita
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division
Allen Eli Bell, Executive Director
Texas Air Control Broad
Memo discusses applicability of Valero Transmission
Company's facilities to PSD regulations based on the
SIC codes to which they belong, and generally dis-
cusses how source classification using SIC codes
should operate.
None
March 26, 1987
Request for Guidance in Drafting a State Implementa-
tion Plan (SIP) Deficiency Notice for Michigan's
Nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) Program
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division, Region V
-------
DISCUSSION:
3.27
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
A dual source definition is consiaerea co oe more
stringent than EPA's minimum requirement, and,
therefore, an NSR regulation that includes a dual
source definition.requires no demonstration for EPA
to approve the SIP revision.
None
May 27, 1987
Reactivation of Noranda Lakeshore Mines' RLA Plant
and PSD Review
John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division, OAQPS
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
This memo determines that startup of a -oste" leach
acid (RLA) plant closed for 10 years would be subject
to PSD review due to the intent of permanent shut-
down as demonstrated by the owner. The specific
reasons to demonstrate the permanency of shutdown in
this case are discussed.
None
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Entry
Discussion Number: 3.28
Regulatory Citation (current): 40 CFR 52.21(b)(l)(iii)(z)
(old):
Date: September 30, 1987
To: Mr. Dell Collins
Impel 1 Power Projects
From: Mr. David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division
Region 5
Subject: Gas turbine/fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants
CR:
Discussion: This letter discusses whether heat input of a gas
turbine, which produces electricity directly, should
be counted towards the 250 MM BTU/hr cut off given
in the PSD source category of "fossil fuel-fired
steam electric plants of more than 250 MM BTU/hr
heat input.
-------
4. PSD: MODIFICATION
4.1 DATE: November 1, 1977
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination - ARCO Petroleum
Refinery
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Lloyd A. Reed, Director
Enforcement Division, Region X
DISCUSSION: See PSD/35
CR: None
4.2 DATE: March 20, 1978
SUBJECT: PSD Determination
Cabot Corporation - Fuel Conversion
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Oscar Cabra, Jr., Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/43
CR: None
4.3 [REPLACED]
DATE: March 24, 1983
SUBJECT: Ersana PSD Applicability Determinations
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/141
CR: None
4.4 DATE: July 14, 1978
SUBJECT: PSD Requirements
FROM: Stuart N. Roth, Attorney
General Enforcement Branch
TO: Li boy Scopino
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
DISCUSSION: See PSD/58
CR: None
4.5 DATE: July 21, 1978
SUBJECT: PSD Permit for Marblehead Lime Company
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region V
DISCUSSION: See PSD/60
CR: 11.1
-------
4.6 [REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.7 [REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSIOH:
CR:
4.8 [REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.10 [DELETED]
4.11
4.12
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
May 6, 1983
Applicability Determination for Delco Products in
Dayton, Ohio
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
See PSD/143
12.10
April 1, 1981
PSD Questions
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Merrill S. Hohman, Director
Air & Hazardous Material Division, Region I
See PSD/124
2.16; 13.6
March 26, 1979
Applicability of PSD to the Consolidated Edison
Company
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Meyer Scolnick, Director
Enforcement Division, Region II
See PSD/85
None
4.9 [MOVED TO 4.8]
September 19, 1979
Definition of "Capable of Accommodating"
(40 CFR 52.2Kb) (2) (d))
Roger Pfaff
Region IV
Bill Mitchell
Georgia Air Pollution Control
A proposed fuel switch is permitted if the source had
commenced construction under PSD prior to January 6,
1975 and if the design of the source allowed firing
of-the proposed fuel.
None
April 11, 1980
Exemptions from PSD Permit Requirements for Coal
Conversions Resulting from DOE Prohibition Orders
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Howard R. Heim, Chief
-------
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.13 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.14
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
Air Programs Branch, Region III
See PSD/104
6.9; 13.3
January 22, 1981
PSD Applicability
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Charles Whitmore, Chief
Technical Analysis Section, Region VII
See PSD/120
None
February 9, 1981
Petitions for Review of PSD Regulations
Michael Trutna, Chief
New Source Review Section
All New Source Review Contacts
Petitions for review of PSD regulations.
- Utility Air Regulatory Group Petition
1) Consideration is given to the increase in
actual emissions resulting from a fuel
switch and the resulting impact on increment
consumption.
2) The term "demolition" as applied to reduction
in capacity utilization and the corresponding
effect on increment consumption.
3) The definition of major modification excludes
any voluntary fuel switch at a source deemed
"capable of accommodating" and compliance
with certain other conditions.
4) Definition of term "significant" as applied
to de minimus emission levels both for
pollutants listed and those not listed.
5)
6)
"minor" source
CR:
A "minor" addition to a
would contribute to the baseline concentra-
tion if it occurred before the applicable
baseline date; however, it would not trigger
PSD review.
Section 52.21(i)(7) exempts any major modifi-
cation, which meets certain conditions, from
the air quality assessments relating to
Class II areas. A source may claim more
than one such exemption.
- America Petroleum Institute (API) Petition.
See (2) and (4) above.
- American Mining Congress (AMC) Petition
1) The treatment of fugitive emissions, with
regard to a source's designation as "major1
for PSD purposes, is further clarified.
6.10; 13.4; 5.12
-------
4.15 DATE: February 13, 1981
SUBJECT: Baseline Date n Determining Net Emissions Increases
FROM: Darryl D. Tyi *, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/122
CR : None
4.16 DATE: March 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the
period from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard
to PSD applicability.
A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de
minimus in order to be subject to PSD (see
PSD/120).
Allowable emissions can be presumed to repre-
sent actual emissions for new sources and,
therefore, an increase in production at the
PSD source is not an increase in actual
emissions. (Also see PSD/120).
Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
An iron foundry is considered to be one of
the 28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary
metal production plant) if it uses scrap
metal to produce iron, even if the metal is
poured into molds.
Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
increases.
A whiskey distillery is not considered to be
one of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a
chemical process plant. A chemical process
plant is any establishment in Major Group 28
of the SIC Code. Beverage distilleries are
in Major Group 20.
A proposed increase in emissions is not sub-
ject to PSD unless the triggering increase
is of the same pollutant as the one for
which a significant increase results. (Also
see PSD/120).
The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i )(7) is pollutant specific.
Ooerating permits are not Federally enforce-
aole; however, tne State can 'moart reaerally
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
3)
9)
-------
enforceable conditions to a construction
permit issued for the source in accordance
with the Mew Source Review procedures of the
SIP at the time of issuance.
CR: 3.16 [Hard Copy]; 2.15; 5.9; 10.22; 12.9; 13.5
4.17 DATE: June 24, 1981
SUBJECT: Application of PSD for Stationary Gas Turbines that
Switch from Middle Distillates to Natural Gas
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Mr. Amasjit S. Gill
Gas Turbine Division
General Electric Company
DISCUSSION: See PSD/128
CR: None
4.18 DATE: July 13, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability for Ashland Chemical's Maleic
Anhydride Plant in Neal, West Virginia
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: W. Ray Cunningham, Chief
Air Media and Energy Branch, Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD/130
CR: None
4.19 DATE: July 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the
period from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to ?SD (see
PSD/117).
2} The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, there-
fore, not a VOC for purposes of PSD is
detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattain-
ment area projected to be attainment (based
on the approved Part D SIP) before startup,
is not subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is
discussed.
S) If an ambient monitor has been shut down,
data obtained may still be deemed pertinent
and useful under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD
area and impacts a nearby PSD area may
trigger baseline and consume increment
within each of :he areas jnaer certain
conditions.
-------
7) A minor source which adds a major emission
point could not escape PSD by considering
previous decreases which cause the net
increase to be less than the major source
threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designa-
tion from major to minor by accepting a
Federally enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase
of each pollutant is less than 50 tons per
year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
CR: 2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 5.10; 6.11; 7.5; 10.23
4.20 DATE: August 26, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability of Product Storage Change at
Petroleum Storage Facility
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Steven A. Goldberg, Attorney
Hogan & Hartson
DISCUSSION: See PSD/133
CR: None
4.21 DATE: January 5, 1983
SUBJECT: Accumulations of Emissions
FROM: Richard Biondi, Chief
Regulations Analysis Section
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: Michael Johnston, Chief
Air Operations Section, Region X
DISCUSSION: See PSD/138
CR: None
4.22 [DELETED]
4.23 DATE: April 7, 1983
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination - Southwestern Public
Service Company
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division;
Acting Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division
TO: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region VI;
Paul Seals, Regional Counsel
Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/142
CR: None
-------
4.24 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.25 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.26 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.27 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.28 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
June 2, 1983
Net Emission Increase Under PSD
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
See PSD/145
None
June 7, 1983
Region IV Policy Concerning Applicability of Coal
Conversions to EPA PSD Regulations
James T. Wilburn, Chief
Air Management Branch
Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV
Richard E. Grusnick, Director
Air Program
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
Fuel conversion PSD applicability - "capable of
accommodating" criteria for exemption and require-
ments for major modifications.
None
July 11, 1983
Request by the Hawaiian Electric Co. to Burn 2.0%
Sulfur Fuel Oil at their Kahe Units #1-5
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
See PSD/146
11.4
July 28, 1983
PSD Applicability Pulp and Paper Mill
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Michael M. Johnston, Chief
Air Operations Section, Region X
See PSD/147
None
July 28, 1983
Bridgeport Harbor Coal Conversion
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Harley Laing, Director
Air Management Division, Region I
See PSD/148
None
-------
4.29 DATE: August 29, 1985
SUBJECT: Buckeye Cellulose Modification
FROM: Bruce P. Miller, Acting Chief
Air Programs Branch
Air & Waste Management Division, Region IV
TO: C.H. Fancy, P.E., Deputy Chief
Bureau of Air Quality Management
Florida DER
DISCUSSION: 1) Emission reductions not used up in a PSD review
may not be banked for netting out of a future PSD
review.
CR: None
4.30 DATE: January 19, 1981
SUBJECT: Clarification of PSD regulations as amended in 40 CFR
52.21 (1980)
FROM: Douglas M. Costle
TO: Andrea S. Bear, Esquire
Hunton and Williams, Washington, D.C.
DISCUSSION: 1} An increase in actual emissions would contribute
exclusively to the baseline concentration if the
increase occurs: (a) as a result of a fuel switch
that is not a major modification, (b) between
8/7/77 and the applicable baseline date, and (c)
at any major stationary source whose construction
commenced on or before January 6, 1975.
2) Discussion of whether decreases in actual emis-
sions that occur as a result of reductions in
capacity utilization not resulting from demolition
and that occur between January 6, 197b, and the
applicable baseline date would affect increment
consumption. Includes discussion of the condi-
tions under which short-of-demolition reduction
in capacity utilization amounts to construction.
3) Guidance on the meaning of "capable of accommoda-
ting" will be provided by EPA upon '•eceiving
specific fact patterns supplied by the quest:one".
4) EPA states its intent to delete the. requirement
that, for pollutants not having specific "de
minimus" levels set, any emissions rate at all is
significant upon promulgation of technical and
conforming amendments.
5) The regulations do provide that a "minor" addi-
tion to a "minor" source would escape PSD review,
and, if it occurred before the applicable base-
line date, would contribute to the baseline
concentration.
6) Sources may qualify for more than one exemption
unde" Section 52.21(1)(7) of 45 FR 52739 for any
major modification that meets certain conditions
from the air quality assessments relating to
Class II areas.
CR: 5.21; 13.7
-------
a.31 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.32 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
4.33
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
4.34 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
April 25, 1984
PSD Applicability to Coal Conversions
Ed Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division, OAQPS
Directors
Air Management Divisions, Regions I - X
Memo recites EPA draft policy on the applicability of
PSD to coal conversions.
None
July 7, 1986
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Defi-
nition of Modification
Gerald A. Emison, Director
OAQPS
Directors
Air Management Division, Regions I-X
The memo discusses why a major modification would
result from the replacement of wet scrubbers with
baghouses that would improve control of particulate
matter, but allow a significant net increase of
sulfur dioxide emissions. The proposed change would
be subject to PSD review. The memo also discusses
whether the modification requires review under NSPS
regulations.
None
October 13, 1986
Applicability of PSD to Portions of a Plant Con-
structed in Phases Without Permits
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
The memo discusses the applicability of PSD "eview
to a minor source that becomes a major through a
series of modifications. A BACT -eview applies only
to the emissions units or modifications that define
a major modification to an existing major source or
a new major source unless the source has made a
deliberate effort to circumvent review.
None
October 17, 1986
Application of NSR rules to the conversion to coal at
the Hibbard Station Units 3 and 4
Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch
Louis M. Chamberlain
Division of Air Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Discusses the circumstances under which a conversion
to coal of two units at the Hibbard Station would
cause the plant to be subject to PSD regulations for
-------
4.35
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
sulfur aioxide. Also, discusses the term "capable of
accommodating" and the implications of the construc-
tion ban in this case.
3.24; 12.11
December 1, 1986
Need for Emission Cap on Complex Netting Sources
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V
Memo provides further guidance on the appropriate
context for defining an emissions decrease for PSD,
and on the level of administrative effort appropriate
to make an emissions decrease permanent and enforce-
able.
None
-------
5. PSD: GEOGRAPHIC/POLLUTANT APPLICABILITY
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
5.7
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 4, 1981.
PSD Applicability to Nonattalnment Pollutants
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Julio Morales-Sanchez, Director
Enforcement Division, Region II
See PSD 123
10.21 [Hard Copy]; 12.8
October 23, 1979
B.F. Goodrich - PSD Modification
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
See PSD/94
12.6 [Hard Copy]
[MOVED TO 1.7]
May 27, 1980
New Source Review Requirements in Areas Unclassified
for Ozone
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
The memo lists options for persons desiring to con-
struct a new major source of VOC in a rural area
designated as "unclassifiable" for ozone, and sum-
marized requirements for such a permit.
None
June 9, 1980
PSD Applicability: Asphalt Concrete Plants
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
F.W. Giaccone, Chief
Air Facilities Branch, Region II
See PSD/111
2.11
-------
5.8 DATE: March 17, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Evaluation of Secondary Emissions for Houston
Lighting and Power
FROM: Edward F. Tuerk, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
TO: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/126
CR: None
5.9 DATE: March 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard
to PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de
minimus in order to be subject to PSD (see
PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to repre-
sent actual emissions for new sources and,
therefore, an increase in production at the
PSD source is not an increase in actual
emissions. (Also see PSD/120}.
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered to be one of
the 28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary
metal production plant) if it uses scrap
metal to produce iron, even if the metal is
poured into molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
increases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be
one of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a
chemical process plant. A chemical process
plant is any establishment in Major Group 28
of the SIC Code. Beverage distilleries are
in Major Group 20.
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not sub-
ject to PSD unless the triggering increase
is of the same pollutant as the one for
which a significant increase results. (Also
see PSD/120).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) is pollutant specific.
-------
5.10
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforce-
able; however, the State can impart Federally
enforceable conditions to a construction
permit issued for the source in accordance
with the New Source Review procedures of the
SIP at the time of issuance.
3.16 [Hard Copy]; 2.15; 4.15; 10.22; 12.9; 13.5
July 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see
PSD/117).
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, there-
fore, not a YOC for purposes of PSD is
detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattain-
ment area projected to be attainment (based
on the approved Part D SIP) before startup,
is not subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is
discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down,
data obtained may still be deemed pertinent
and useful under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD
area and impacts a nearby PSD area may
trigger baseline and consume increment
within each of the areas under certain
conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission
point could not escape PSD by considering
previous decreases which cause the net
increase to be less than the major source
threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase
of each pollutant is less than 50 tons per
year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 4.19; 6.11; 7.5; 10.23
-------
5.11
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
5.12
CR :
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
June 29, 1983
Exclusion of Exempt Solvents from VOC Calculations
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
All Regional Chiefs
Air Branches
This memorandum is to clarify that exempt solvents
should be subtracted out from coatings just like
water, with the ultimate value of interest being
the mass of VOC per unit volume of coating less
exempt solvent and water. Attached are examples of
calculations related to the VOC content of coatings
with exempt solvents.
None
February 9, 1981
Petitions for Review of PSD Regulations
Michael Trutna, Chief
New Source Review Section
All New Source Review Contacts
Petitions for review of PSD regulations.
- Utility Air Regulatory Group Petition
1) Consideration is given to the increase in
actual emissions resulting from a fuel switch
and the resulting impact on increment consump-
tion.
The term "demolition" as applied to reduction
in capacity utilization and the corresponding
effect on increment consumption.
The definition of major modification excludes
any voluntary fuel switch at a source deemed
"capable of accommodating" and compliance with
certain other conditions.
Definition of term "significant" as applied to
de minimus emission levels both for pollutants
listed and those not listed.
A "minor" addition t
contribute to the baseline concentration if it
occurred before the applicable baseline date;
however, it would not trigger PSD review.
Section 52.21(1) (7) exempts any major modifica
tion, which meets certain conditions, from the
air quality assessments relating to Class II
areas. A source may claim more than one such
exemption.
- American Petroleum Institute (API) Petition.
See {2} and (4) above.
- American Mining Congress (AMC) Petition.
1) The treatment of fugitive emissions, with
regard to a source's designation as "major"
for PSD purposes, is further clarified.
4.14 [Hard Copy]; €.10; 13.4
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
"minor" source would
-------
5.20 DATE: June 28, 1985
SUBJECT: Seasonal Afterburner Policy, Applicability of
Part D New Source Review Requirements
FROM: Robert D. Bauman, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch, CPDD
TO: William S. Baker, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: Applicability discussion for sources using EPA
Seasonal Afterburner Policy
CR: 2.20; 22.5 [Hard Copy]
5.21 DATE: January 19, 1981
SUBJECT: Clarification of PSD regulations as amended in 40 CFR
52.21 (1980)
FROM: Douglas M. Costle
TO: Andrea S. Bear, Esquire
Hunton and Williams, Washington, D.C.
DISCUSSION: 1) An increase in actual emissions would contribute
exclusively to the baseline concentration if the
increase occurs: (a) as a result of a fuel switch
that is not a major modification, (b) between
8/7/77 and the applicable baseline date, and (c)
at any major stationary source whose construction
commenced on or before January 6, 1975.
2} Discussion of whether decreases in actual emis-
sions that occur as a result of reductions in
capacity utilization not resulting from demolition
and that occur between January 6, 1975, and the
applicable baseline date would affect increment
consumption. Includes discussion of the condi-
tions under which short-of-demolition reduction
in capacity utilization amounts to construction.
3) Guidance on the meaning of "capable of accommo-
dating" will be provided by EPA upon receiving
specific fact patterns supplied by the questioner.
4) EPA states its intent to delete the requi~ement
that, for pollutants not having specific "de
minimis" levels set, any emissions "ate at all is
significant upon promulgation of technical and
conforming amendments.
5) The regulations do provide that a "minor" addition
to a "minor" source would escape PSD review, and,
if it occurred before the applicable baseline
date, would contribute to the baseline concentra-
tion.
6) Sources may qualify for more than one exemption
under Section 52.21(i)(7) of 45 FR 52739 for any
major modification that meets certain conditions
from the air quality assessments relating to
Class II areas.
CR: 4.30 [Hard Copy]; 13.7
-------
5.22 DATE: June 18, 1986
SUBJECT: Exempt Ton of dimethyl acetamide from regulation unae"
PSD
FROM: Bruce P. Miller, Acting Chief
Air Programs Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Manage-
ment Division
TO: Mr. J. Preston Campbell, P.E., Environmental Engineer
Bureau of Air Quality Control, S.C. Dept. of Health
and Env. Control
DISCUSSION: Letter reiterates policy on exempt solvents explained
in a July 31, 1981, letter fpom Thomas W. Devine, and
contained at 2.18 in this document. Dimethyl
acetamide is not exempt from PSD review.
CR: None
-------
o. PSD: 3ASELINE,INCREMENT CONSUMPTION/IMPACT ANALYSIS
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
6.8
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCISSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
May 23, 1977
Applicability of PSD Increments Over Company P-operty
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Gordon M. Rapier, Director
Ai" and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III
See PSD/29
None
April 29, 1980
PSD Analysis for SIP Relaxation in Metropolitan
Boston
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Linda Murphy, Chief
Stationary Source Section, Region I
See PSD/107
None
CR:
March 5, 1980
Establishment of Baseline Date for PSD Areas
Richard D. Wilson, Deputy Asst. Administrator
Office of General Enforcement
Robert L. Davies, Asst. Administrator
Office of Fuels Conversion, DOE
See PSD/100
1.2
March 13, 1980
Question from Otto Pearson
(South Carolina State Aaency)
Bill Beal
Control Programs Development Division
Files
Regarding fuel-switching, under the regulations
proposed September 5, 1979, there would be no increment
consumption if the switch was made before the baseline
date had been established. If the fuel switch occurred
after the baseline date, howeve-, there would be
increment consumption.
None
-------
6.9
6.10
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
April 11, 1980
Exemptions from PSD Permit Requirements for Coal
Conversions Resulting from DOE Pronibition Orders
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Howard R. Helm, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region III
See PSD 104
4.12 [Hard Copy]; 13.3
February 9, 1981
Petitions for Review of PSD Regulations
Michael Trutna, Chief
New Source Review Section
All Regional New Source Review Contacts
Petitions for review of PSD regulations.
- Utility Air Regulatory Group Petition
1) Consideration is given to the increase in
actual emissions resulting from a fuel
switch and the resulting impact on increment
consumption.
2) The term "demolition" as applied to reduction
in capacity utilization and the corresponding
effect on increment consumption.
3) The definition of major modification
excludes any voluntary fuel switch at a
'source deemed "capable of accommodating"
and compliance with certain other conditions.
4) Definition of term "significant" as
applied to de minimus emission levels
both for pollutants listed and those not listed.
5) A "minor" addition to a "minor" source
would contribute to the baseline
concentration if it occurred before the
applicable baseline date; however, it
would not trigger PSD review.
6) Section 52.21(i)(7) exempts any major
modification, which meets certain
conditions, from the a-i r quality assessments
relating to Class II areas. A source may
claim more than one such exemption.
- America Petroleum Institute (API) Petition.
See (2) and (4) above.
- American Mining Congress (AMC) Petition
1) The treatment of fugitive emissions, with
regard to a source's designation as
"major" for PSD purposes, is further clarified.
4.14 [Hard Copy]; 13.4
-------
6.11 OATE: July 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see
PSD/117).
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, there-
fore, not a VOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattain-
ment area projected to be attainment (based on
the approved Part D SIP) before startup, is
not subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is
discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
obtained may still be deemed pertinent and use-
ful under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD area
and impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger base-
line and consume increment within each of the
areas under certain conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission
point could not escape PSD by considering
previous decreases which cause the net increase
to be less than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(1)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of ajiy_ pollutant unless the increase
of each pollutant is less than 50 tons per
year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
CR: 2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 4.19; 5.10; 7.5; 10.23
6.12 DATE: April 1, 1982
SUBJECT: Response Concluding that Flares are not Considered
"Stacks" under the Stack Height Regulations
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO: Ms. S. Kay Phillips
Shell Oil Company
DISCUSSION: Response concluding that flares are not considered
"stacks" under the stack height regulations and
ramifications on ambient air quality modeling.
-------
CR:
None
6.13 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.14 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.15
6.17
6.18
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
6.16 [DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 5, 1982
A.I. DuPont Institute PSD Permit
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
W. Ray Cunningham, Chief
Air Programs & Energy Branch, Region III
See PSD/135
11.5 [Hard Copy]; 10.25
July 9. 1982
Reactivation of Amerada Hess Corporation's Port
Reading Facility and PSD Review
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Conrad Simon, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region II
See PSD/136
3.21 [Hard Copy]
May 3, 1983
Determination of Air Quality Degradation
Alexandra B. Smith, Director
Air and Haste Management Division, Region X
Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
The determination of air quality degradation is
discussed in terms of amount of PSD increment consumed.
None
January 20, 1984
PSD Increment Consumption Calculations
John R. O'Connor, Acting Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV
Regarding PSD increment consumption calculations, the
spatial and temporal calculation of PSD increments is
appropriate for all cases where PSD increment
consumption calculations need to be made.
None
June 11, 1984
Applicability of PSD Increments to Building Rooftops
Joseph A. Cannon, Assistant Administrator
Air and Radiation
Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator, Region IV
Memo discusses whether the PSD system intended that
PSD increments be monitored at rooftop level.
None
-------
6.19 DATE: May 3, 1985
SUBJECT: NSR Advisory Memorandum II: TSP PSD Increment Con-
sumption in North Carolina
FROM: Gary McCutchen, Senior Engineer
New Source Review Section, SIB, CPDD
TO: Mike Trutna, Chief
New Source Review Section
DISCUSSION: The memo includes a discussion of whether a new emis-
sions limit that causes no change in actual emissions
consumes PSD increment. Further, it contains discus-
sions of annual average increment consumption, 24-hour
increment consumption calculations, and the use of
test data for this issue.
None
January 29, 1987
Implementation of the Revised Modeling Guideline for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Directors, Air Divisions
Regions NX
The memo describes the specific mechanism by which
the revised PSD air quality modeling guidelines
should be implemented for each type of program
approved to review PSD permits (EPA, State, or local
agency programs, depending on whether and to whom EPA
has transferred the PSD program).
CR: 15.2
6.21 DATE: May 29, 1987
SUBJECT: UNAMAP 6 Dispersion Modeling with Building Wake Effects
FROM: Joseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch
TO: Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
DISCUSSION: The memo provides a discussion of which background
(off-site) sources should be explicitly modeled in a
regulatory analysis, especially if PSD increment con-
sumption is involved.
CR: None
CR:
6.20 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
-------
7. PSD: AMBIENT MONITORING/ANALYSIS
7.1
7.2
7.3
7.4
7.5
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
THRU:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[DELETED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
July 6, 1979
EPA Quality Assurance Policy Statement
James H. Finger, Director
Surveillance and Analysis Division, Region IV
All Division Directors and Office Chiefs
Region IV
John C. White, Regional Administrator
Region IV
The Agency quality assurance policy statement provides
general descriptions of program responsibilities and
basic management requirements. For the purpose of
this policy statement, monitoring is defined as all
environmentally related measurements which are
funded by the EPA or which generate data mandated by
the EPA.
None
(None provided)
PSD Significance Levels for Monitoring
Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Div-ision
All Regional Directors
Air and Waste Management Divisions
The August 7, 1980, PSD promulgation introduced
significance levels of projected ambient impacts for
the purpose of determining whether a proposed source
or modification would be eligible for an exemption
from the requirement for ambient monitoring [40 CFR
51.24(i)(8) and 52.21(i)(8)].
None
July 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas U. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see
PSD/117).
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, there-
fore, not a VOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattain-
ment area projected to be attainment (based on
the approved Part 0 SIP) before startup, is
not subject to PSD or Part* D requirements.
-------
7.6
7.7
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is dis-
cussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
obtained may still be deemed pertinent and use-
ful under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD area
and impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger base-
line and consume increment within each of the
areas under certain conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission
point could not escape PSD by considering
previous decreases which cause the net increase
to be less than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase
of each pollutant is less than 50 tons per
year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
CR: 2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 4.19; 5.10; 6.11; 10.23
DATE: June 12, 1984
SUBJECT: Significance Levels for Air Quality Impacts
FROM: James T. Mil burn. Chief
Air Management Branch, Region IV
TO: Mr. Fin Johnson, Chief
Air Quality Section, Div. of Env. Management, North
Carolina NRCD
DISCUSSION: Letter discusses when significance levels could be
used such as in determining whether new source impacts
are existing NAAQS or increment violation, or in
cases where the impact of the new source is the first
incremental impact that carries the total air quality
above the increment or standard.
CR: None
DATE: July 27, 1987
SUBJECT: Ambient Air Issue from New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP)
FROM: G.T. Helms. Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch
TO: Williams. Baker, Chief
Air Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: Memo discusses whether property outside of a property
lease controlled by a source facility is considered
ambient air, both in the case when a physical barrier
around the lease site is present, and when it is not.
CR: None
-------
8. PSD: BACT
8.1 [DELETED]
8.2
8.3
8.4
8.5
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
November 9, 1977
Contingency Plan for FGD Systems During Downtime as a
Function of PSD
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
G.T. Helms, P.E., Deputy Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
See PSD/37
10.3
June 22, 1978
IPALCO's Proposed Patriot, Indiana, Generating Station
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Dale S. Bryson, Acting Director
Enforcement Division, Region V
See PSD/54
10.1
September 13, 1978
Conditional PSD Permits
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Darryl Tyler, Chief
Control Programs Development Division
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance
on whether and under what conditions, conditional
permits can be issued. Specifically, the amount
and detail of control equipment information required
for submittal before issuance of a PSD permit.
10.2
November 15, 1978
BACT Baseline for Louisa Generating Station
Michael A. Trutna
Control Programs Development Division
Gale A. Wright, P.E., Chief
Technology Analysis Section, Region VII
The baseline level from which BACT for this plant was
determined is clarified. Although the source may
have filed a complete application before the date of
NSPS proposal, the accepted practice within EPA is to
make the initial presumption* that all power plant
applicants subject to the new PSD regulations can
accomplish emission reductions at least equivalent to
those required under the proposed NSPS revisions.
None
-------
8.6 [DELETED]
8.7
8.8
8.9
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE-:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
8.10 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
December 22, 1978
BACT Information for Coal-fired Power Plants
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
All Regional Directors
Air & Hazardous Materials Divisions
This memorandum provides an example checklist of the
type and amount of information required from power
plant applicants in order to determine whether the
source is applying BACT.
None
January 4, 1979
Guidance for Determining BACT under PSD
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
All Regional Administrators
The purpose of the guidelines is to provide the
framework for a-consistent approach in determining
BACT. The guidance is rather general, focusing on
the parameters which should be considered in the
analysis supporting the proposed control system.
The guidelines suggest a significant effort by the
source to provide data and analysis to support a
permit application.
None
January 10, 1979
BACT Determinations for Power Plants
Subject to Revised NSPS
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
All Deputy Regional Administrators
For new steam electric power plants where the
proposed NSPS identifies the applicable standard,
all PSD permit decisions regarding BACT and applica-
tion completeness should be made to reflect at
least the level of stringency contained in this
proposal.
None
(None listed; received at Region IV from Region VI
on April 12, 1979)
BACT for Fugitive Emissions of Hydrocarbons (Checklist)
(None listed)
(None listed)
This checklist details the work practices and equip-
ment specifications to be included in a plan,
developed and implemented by the applicant, to
control fugitive emissions of hydrocarbons from a
proposed facility.
None
-------
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
8.12
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
8.13 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
8.14 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
August 5, 1983
Pollution Control Technical Manual
Howard D. Zeller, Assistant Regional Administrator
Region IV
T. Devine, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region IV
P. Traina, Director
Mater Management Division, Region IV
J. Finger, Director
Environmental Services Division, Region IV
The EPA has published six (6) process-specific
Synthetic Fuel Pollution Control Technical Manuals
describing several synfuels processes (three oil
shale and three coal).
None
August 15. 1986
North County Resource Recovery Associates PSD Appeal
No. 85-2
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region 9
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
U.S. EPA
This memo is a response to the 6/3/86 remand of
Region 9's April 2, 1985, determination to issue a
PSD permit to the North County Resource Recovery
Associates for the construction of a 1,000 tpd resource
recovery facility. The remand charged Region 9 with
reconsidering the effects of unregulated pollutants
when making PSD determinations. Region 9 concluded
that no greater controls for the regulated pollutants
could be applied that would be more effective in
reducing the emissions of unregulated pollutants.
None
September 10, 1986
Information .regarding the June 3, 1986, remand of the
North County Resource Recovery Associates PSD Permit
in San Marcos, California
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
Mr. R.J. Sommerville, Air Pollution Control Officer
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
The memo discusses EPA's suggestions for determining
BACT and permitting sources of unregulated pollutants.
None
September 11, 1986
Draft Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Guidance for Impacts of the North County Resource
Recovery PSD Remand
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
-------
TO:
DISCUSSION:
6.15
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
8.16
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
8.17
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
Winston A. Smith, Director
Air, Pesticides, ana Toxics Management Division,
Region IV
This memo responds to comments by Region IV on draft
guidance on this subject, especially concerns about
the applicability of the remand and the need for a
consistent scientific basis to use in determining
negative health effects of unregulated pollutants.
See September 22, 1987, memo from Gerald Emison for
current EPA policy guidance.
None
April 22, 1987
Huntsville Incinerator - Determining Best Available
Control Technology (BACT)
Gary McCutchen, Chief
New Source Review Section, CPDD, OAQPS
Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
The memo reviews and comments on several significant
issues and questions, especially in relation to
economic arguments in BACT analysis, raised by the
Region's review of a BACT determination made by the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management for
the proposed Huntsville incinerator facility.
None
May 14, 1987
Salt Water Drift from Cooling Towers
Gary D. McCutchen, Chief
New Source Review Section, CPDD, OAQPS
Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
This memo describes, for a particular case, whether
current cooling tower emissions would have represented
BACT at the original permit application time eight
years previous to the memo. EPA responded that such
a determination appears appropriate, but should not be
considered to be a precedent because it leaves many
other important issues undecided.
None
June 3, 1987
Administrative Order Under Section 167 of the Clean
Air Act for Lake County, Florida, Maste-to-Energy
Facility
Jack E. Ravan, Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region IV '
Mr. Halt Walters, President
NRG/Recovery Group, Lakeland, Florida
Finding of deficiency of permit issued on 9/24/86 by
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
for the construction of the Lake County Maste-to-
Energy facility due to inadequate BACT deterciination
for control of sulfur dioxide emissions, and for lack
of consideration of emissions of unregulated pollu-
tants such as hydrogen chloride and dioxin.
None
-------
8.18 DATE: June 23, 1987
SUBJECT: Administrative Order for Reconsideration by Region IX
of Concurrence with PSD Permit Issued on November 17,
1986, for the Honolulu Resource Recovery Facility, a
Municipal Waste Burner
FROM: Lee Thomas, Administrator
U.S. EPA
TO: U.S. EPA, Region IX
DISCUSSION: Permit concurrence is remanded based on inappropriate
BACT determination for sulfur dioxide and inadequate
analysis on impact of controls on emissions or unregu-
lated pollutants.
CR: None
8.19 DATE: July 24, 1987
SUBJECT: Calculating Amortized Capital Costs
FROM: Robert D. Bauman, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch, CPDD, OAQPS
TO: Stephen H. Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch, Region V
DISCUSSION: Unless a source can offer compelling data to the con-
trary, the useful life of a control option should be
selected from one of the following: (a) for process-
related controls, use either the NSPS/NESHAP BID, or
the IRS Class Life Asset Deterioration Range System
guideline with a mid-point estimate (if no NSPS/NESHAP
applies), and (b) for add-on controls, use the EAB
"Control Cost Manual." The appropriate annual interest
rate is also discussed.
CR: None
8.20 DATE: July 28, 1987
SUBJECT: Issues Concerning Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) Determinations
FROM: Gary McCutchen, Chief
New Source Review Section, CPDD, OAQPS
TO: Mr. Richard E. Grusnick, Chief
Air Division, Alabama Department of Environmental
Management
DISCUSSION: (1) The role of NSPS in BACT determinations - des-
cribes the reasons why BACT determinations almost
always should be more stringent than NSPS for any
given source.
(2) The relationship between BACT and air quality
impacts - BACT is a specific requirement for a PSD
permit regardless of air quality impact or amount of
increment consumed, provided all else was acceptable.
CR: None
8.21 DATE: September 22, 1987
SUBJECT: Implementation of North County Resource Recovery PSD
Remand
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
-------
TO: Directors
Air Management Divisions, I - IX
DISCUSSION: The purpose of this memorandum is to advise of the
impact of the PSD remand involving the North County
Resource Recovery Project on PSD permitting and to
provide implementation guidance.
CR: None
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Entry
Discussion Number: 8.22
Regulatory Citation (current): 40 CFR 52.21(j)
(old)
Date: November 19, 1987
To: J. David Sullivan, Chief
ALO Enforcement Section, Region VI (6T-EA)
From: Gary McCutchen, Chief
New Source Review Section, SIB, CPDD (MD-15)
Mikael Trutna, Chief
Air Toxics Program Section, SIB, CPDD (MD-15_
Subject: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Issues-
Ogden Martin Tulsa Municipal Waste Incinerator
CR: 11.9 (hardcopy)
Discussion: This memo discusses the circumstances that could lead
to a re-opening of a past BACT determination and how
it should be handled.
-------
Additional New Source Review Notepook Entry
Discussion Number: 8.23 (hardcopy)
Regulatory Citation: (new) 40 CFR 52.21(j)
(old)
Date: December 1, 1987
To: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
From: 0. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Subject: Improving New Source Review (NSR) Implementation
CR: 10.30
Discussion: The memo establishes certain program initiatives
(e.g., real-time permit overview, "top-down" best
available control technology, general and specific
program guidance and training) designed to improve
the timeliness, certainty, and effectiveness of the
NSR programs.
-------
9. PSD: CLASS I AREAS
9.1
9.2
9.3
9.4
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
PREPARED BY:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 19, 1979
Notification to Federal Land Manager
Under Section 165(d) of the Clean Air Act
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
All Regional Administrators
Notification to Federal Land Manager under Section 165(d)
of the Clean Air Act
None
July 6, 1979
Notification to Federal Land Managers Under
Section 165(d) of the Clean Air Act
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
All Regional Administrators
Memorandum presents lists of Federal officials respon-
sible for each of the mandatory Class I areas under
the jurisdiction of the U.S. Forest Service and the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
None
February 26, 1981
EPA, FWS, NPS Coordination Procedures for Determining
Air Quality Impact in Region IV Class I Areas
Thomas U. Devine, Director
Air and Hazardous Management Division, Region IV
Air Programs Branch, Region IV;
Air Facilities Branch, Region IV
EPA has established procedures to assist the Fish and
Wildlife Service-(FWS) and the National Pane Service
(NPS) in carrying out their assumed responsibilities
under Section 165(d) for determining the air quality
impact in Cl-ass I areas.
None
April 1981
PSD Guidance Document
Air Quality Division
National Park Service
This document provides guidance to persons intending
to submit a PSD permit application for a major source
that has the potential to impact a Class I area
managed by the National Park Service (NPS). This is
an NPS document and does not necessarily reflect EPA
policy.
None
-------
9.5 DATE: April 8, 1981
SUBJECT: Response to National Park Service Concerns about
Limited Time for Review of PSD Permit Applications
FROM: Edward F. Tuerck, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
TO: Russell E. Dickinson, Director
National Park Service
DISCUSSION: EPA presents guidelines for transmittal of PSD permit
applications in response to National Park Service
(NPS) concerns about limited time afforded for review
of applications that might significantly affect a
Class I area.
CR: None
9.6 DATE: August 23, 1982
SUBJECT: Department of Interior Procedures for Determinations
of Adverse Impact on Certain Federal Lands under
the PSD Program
FROM: Sara Schneeberg, Attorney
Air, Noise and Radiation Division, OGC
TO. Robert Bauman and Michael Trutna
Control Programs Development Division
THRU: Peter Uyckoff, Acting Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division, OGC
DISCUSSION: The Department of Interior procedures for determina-
tions of adverse impact on certain Federal lands
under the PSD program are presented within this
memorandum.
CR: None
-------
10. PSD: PERMITS/PERMIT PROCESSING/PUBLIC NOTICE
10.1
10.2
10.3
10.4
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
[REPLACED]
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
June 22, 1978
IPALCO's Proposed Patriot, Indiana, Generating Station
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Dale S. Bryson, Acting Director
Enforcement Division, Region V
See PSD/54
8.3 [Hard Copy]
September 13, 1978
Conditional PSD Permits
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Darryl Tyler, Chief
Control Programs Development Division
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide guidance
on whether and under what conditions, conditional
permits can be issued. Specifically, the amount and
detail of control equipment information required for
submittal before issuance of a PSD permit.
8.4 [Hard Copy]
November 9, 1977
Contingency Plan for FGD Systems During Downtime as a
Function of PSD
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
G.T. Helms, P.E., Deputy Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
See PSD/37
8.2 [Hard Copy]
May 25, 1979
Submission of State Air Permits as SIP Revisions
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division;
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
All Regional Directors
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
The need for States to submit construction and
operating air permits as revisions to State Implemen-
tation Plans (SIP) is discussed. Of particular
concern is the Federal enforceability of State-issued
air permits that have not been incorporated individually
within a SIP by means of an EPA approval through
rulemaking.
2.1 [Hard Copy]
-------
10.5 [MOVED TO 8.4; 10.2]
10.5 [DELETED]
10.7 [DELETED]
10.8 DATE: January 19, 1979
SUBJECT: Public Notices
FROM: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All Branch Chiefs
Region IV
DISCUSSION: A listing of minority editors and publishers is
presented in order that public notices can be
placed in the minority press wherever an impacted
area is served.
CR: None
10.9 DATE: April 12, 1979
SUBJECT: PSD and NSPS Applicability - PEPCO Dickerson
Generating Station Unit #4
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Steve Uassersug, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD/88
CR: None
10.10 [DELETED]
10.11 [MOVED TO 2.1]
10.12 [DELETED]
10.13 DATE: August 20. 1979
SUBJECT: Permitting Multi-Phase Construction Under Prevention
of Significant Deterioration Regulations
FROM: Edwap? E- Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/93
CR: None
10.14 DATE: November 14, 1979
SUBJECT: PSD Performance Testing for 1C Engines
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/95
CR: None
-------
L0.15 DATE: March 11, 1980
SUBJECT: Applicability of Major Source to PSD Review
if Construction Commenced after March 19, 1979
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Charles H. Tisdale, Jr.
King and Spalding Co.
DISCUSSION: See PSD/101
CR: None
10.16 DATE: March 11, 1980
SUBJECT: Phased Permits for PSD
FROM: James B. Wei gold, Chief
Control Programs Development Division
TO: File
DISCUSSION: See PSD/102
CR: None
10.17 DATE: March 25, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/103
CR: 2.10 [Hard Copy]
10.18 [MOVED TO 6.2]
10.19 DATE: June 18, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability: Coal Blending
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Allyn Davis, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/.112
CR: None
10.20 [MOVED TO 1.8]
10.21 DATE: March 4, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability to ionattainment Pollutants
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Julio Morales-Sanchez, Director
Enforcement Division, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/123
CR: 12.8
-------
10.22
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the
period from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard
to PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de
minimus in order to be subject to PSD (see
PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to repre-
sent actual emissions for new sources and,
therefore, an increase in production at the
PSD source is not an increase in actual emis-
sions. (Also see PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered to be one of
the 28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary
metal production plant) if it uses scrap
metal to produce iron, even if the metal is
poured into molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
sources with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
increases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be
one of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a
chemical process plant. A chemical process
plant is any establishment in Major Group 28
of the SIC Code. Beverage distilleries are in
Major Group 20.
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not sub-
ject to PSD unless the triggering increase is
of the same pollutant as the one for which a
significant increase results. (Also see
PSD/12U).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforce-
able; however, the State can impart Federally
enforceable conditions to a construction
permit issued for the source in accordance
with*the New Source Review procedures of the
SIP at the time of issuance.
3.16 [Hard Copy]; 2.15; 4.16; 5.9; 12.9; 13.5
-------
10.23 DATE: July 31. 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see
PSD/117).
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, there-
fore, not a VOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattain-
ment area projected to be attainment (based on
the approved Part D SIP) before startup, is
not subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is dis-
cussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
•obtained may still be deemed pertinent and use-
ful under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD area
and impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger base-
line and consume increment within each of the
areas under certain conditions.
. 7) A minor source which adds a major emission
point could not escape PSD by considering
previous decreases which cause the net increase
to be less than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase
of each pollutant is less than 50 tons per
year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14 g/m^ annual average, as stated in the
puolished version of the regulation.
CR: 2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 4.19; 5.10; 6.11; 7.5
10.24 DATE: August 3, 1981
SUBJECT: Appeal Procedures for PSD Permits Under the
Consolidated Permit Regulations
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: William K. Sawyer
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/132
CR: 11.3
-------
10.25 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
10.26 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
10.27 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
10.28 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
May 5, 1982
A.I. DuPont Institute PSD Permit
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
W. Ray Cunningham, Chief
Air Programs & Energy Branch, Region III
See PSD/135
11.5 [Hard Copy]; 6.13
August 11, 1983
Requirement to Publish All Significant Final Actions
under Title I of the Clean Air Act
James T. Mil burn, Chief
Air Management Branch, Region IV
Section Chiefs, Unit Chiefs, Team Leaders, Bruce Miller,
and Roger Pfaff
Air Management Branch, Region IV
Presented within the memorandum are requirements
considered in publishing all significant final
actions under Title I of the Clean Air Act.
None
December 14, 1983
Guidance on Enforcement of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements Under the Clean Air Act
Michael S. Alushin, Assoc. Enf. Counsel for Air and
Edward E. Reich, Director
SSCD
Regional Counsels and Directors
Air Management Divisions, Region I - X
Memo provides guidance for enforcement of Part C or
Title I of the CAA, specifically explaining the use
of Section 167 and its alternatives for enforcement
against PSD violations. Violations discussions
include construction or operation of a PSD source
without a permit, construction or operation with an
invalid permit, and construction or operation in a
manner not consistent with a validly-issued permit.
11.8; 14.7; 15.
April 26, 1986
Federal Enforceability of Combined "Construction and
Operation" Permits
William D. Anderson, Asst. Regional Counsel
U.S. EPA, Region IV
N.D. Gerald, Asst. Chief
Air Quality Section, DEM, DNRCD, North Carolina
A combined construction and operation permit, issued
pursuant to existing NC SIP regulations, would be
Federally enforceable.
None
-------
10.29 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
November 24, 1986
Need for a Short-term Best Available Control Technology
(BACT) Analysis for the Proposed William A. Zimmer
Power Plant
Gerald A. Emison, Director
OAQPS
David Kee, Director
Air Management Division Region V
PSD permits must contain short-term emission limits to
ensure protection of the applicable NAAQS and PSD
increments. Such short-term limits could be more
stringent than the BACT limit.
None
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Entry
Discussion Number: 10.30
Regulatory Citation: (new) 40 CFR 52.21(j)
(old)
Date: December 1..1987
To: Regional Administrators
Regions I-X
From: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
Subject: Improving New Source Review (NSR) Implementation
CR: 8.23 (hardcopy)
Discussion: The memo establishes certain program initiatives
(e.g., real-time permit overview, "top-down" best
available control technology, general and specific
program guidance and training) designed to improve
the timeliness, certainty, and effectiveness of the
NSR programs.
-------
11. PSD: PERMIT CHANGES/EXTENSIONS/EXPIRATIONS
11.1 DATE: July 21, 1978
SUBJECT: PSD Permit for Marble head Lime Company
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Robert L. Duprey, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region V
DISCUSSION: See PSD/60
CR: 4.5 [Hard Copy]
11.2 DATE: November 26, 1980
SUBJECT: Request for Extension on PSD Permit for Indianapolis
Power and Light Company
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Sandra S. Gardebring, Director
Enforcement Division, Region V
DISCUSSION: See PSD/119
CR: None
11.3 DATE: August 3, 1981
SUBJECT: Appeal Procedures for PSD Permits Under the Consolidated
Permit Regulations
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: William K. Sawyer
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/132
CR: 10.24 [Hard Copy]
11.4 [REPLACED]
DATE: July 11, 1983
SUBJECT: Request by the Hawaiian Electric Co. to Burn
2.OS Sulfur Fuel Oil at Their Kahe Units #1-5
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
DISCUSSION: See PSD/146
CR: 4.26 [Hard Copy]
11.5 DATE: May 5, 1982
SUBJECT: A.I. DuPont Institute PSD Permit
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: W. Ray Cunningham, Chief
Air Programs & Energy Branch, Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD/135
CR: 6.13; 10.25
11.6 [MOVED TO 4.3]
11.7 [MOVED TO 4.6]
-------
11.8
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
December 14, 1983
Guidance on Enforcement of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements Under the Clean Air Act
Michael S. Alushin, Assoc. Enf. Counsel for Air and
Edward E. Reich, Director
SSCD
Regional Counsels and Directors
Air Management Divisions, Regions I - X
Memo provides guidance for enforcement of Part C or
Title I of the CAA, specifically explaining the use
of Section 167 and its alternatives for enforcement
against PSD violations. Violations discussions
include construction or operation of a PSD source
without a permit, construction or operation with an
invalid permit, and construction or operation in a
manner not consistent with a validly-issued permit.
10.27 [Hard Copy]; 1.47; new
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Entry
Discussion Number: 11.9
Regulatory Citation (current): 40 CFR 52.21(j)
(old)
Date: November 19, 1987
To: J. David Sullivan, Chief
ALO Enforcement Section, Region VI (6T-EA)
From: Gary McCutchen, Chief
New Source Review Section, SIB, CPDD (MD-15)
Mikael Trutna, Chief
Air Toxics Program Section, SIB, CPDD (MD-15_
Subject: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) Issues-
Ogden Martin Tulsa Municipal Waste Incinerator
CR: 8.22
Discussion: This memo discusses the circumstances that could lead
to a re-opening of a past BACT determination and how
it should be handled.
-------
12. PSD: RELATION TO NONATTAINMENT PROGRAM
12.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
12.2 [DELETED]
12.3 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
12.4 [DELETED]
12.5
12.6
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
July 28, 1978
When Is a Source Subject to Review for
Both Offsets and PSD?
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Gene W. Lewis, Vice President - Operations
Alabama By-Products Corp.
See PSD/61
None
May 4, 1979
Need for Emission Offsets in Rural Ozone
Nonattainment Areas
Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Thomas Devine, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
The intent of this memorandum is to reiterate EPA
policy concerning the need for emission offsets in
rural areas for ozone.
None
June 8, 1979
Impact of Clean Air Act Nonattainment Sanctions
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
All Regional Administrators
This memorandum describes Agency policy and procedures
regarding the July 1, 1979 nonattainment sanctions.
Three main topics are addressed: Construction Prohi-
bitions (permit processing, sources affected and
geographic applicability); SIP Approvals (area
specific approval, conditioner approval, and area
redesignation); and Federal Funding Sanctions (discre-
tionary aspects).
None
October 23, 1979
B.F. Goodrich - PSD Modification
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
See PSD/94
None
12.7 [MOVED TO 25.4]
-------
12.8 DATE: March 4, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability to Nonattainment Pollutants
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Julio Morales-Sanchez, Director
Enforcement Division, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/123
CR: 10.21 [Hard Copy]
12.9 DATE: March 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from November 1-3, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard to
PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de mini-
mus in order to be subject to PSD (see PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to repre-
sent actual emissions for new sources and,
therefore, an increase in production at the
PSD source is not an increase in actual emis-
sions. (Also see PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered to be one of the
28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary metal
production plant) if it uses scrap metal to
produce iron, even if the metal is poured into
molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit *hose
permit conditions did not prohibit suosequent
increases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be
one of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a
chemical process plant. A chemical process
plant is any establishment in Major Group 28
of the SIC Code. Beverage distilleries are in
Major Group 20.
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not subject
to PSD unless the triggering increase is of the
same pollutant as the one for which a signifi-
cant increase results. (Also see PSD/120).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforce-
able; however, the State can impart Federally
enforceable conditions to a construction
oermit issued for the source in accordance
-------
CR:
with the New Source Review procedures of the
SIP at the time of issuance.
3.16 [Hard Copy]; 2.15; 4.16; 5.9; 10.22; 13.5
12.10 DATE:
SUBJECT:
May 6, 1983
Applicability Determination for Delco Products
in Dayton, Ohio
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region Y
DISCUSSION: See PSD/143
CR: 4.6
12.11
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
October 17, 1986
Application of NSR Rules to the Conversion to Coal at
the Hibbard Station Units 3 and 4
Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch
Louis M. Chamberlain
Division of Air Quality, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency
Discusses the circumstances under which a conversion
to coal of two units at the Hibbard Station would
cause the plant to be subject to NSD regulations for
sulfur dioxide. Also, discusses the term "capable of
accommodating" and the implications of the construc-
tion ban in this case.
3.24; 4.34 [Hard Copy]
-------
13. PSD: TEMPORARY SOURCE/PORTABLE SOURCE/OTHER EXEMPTIONS
13.1 DATE: December 11, 1978
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability - Temporary Emissions
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Anita B. Turpin, Chief
Technical Support Section, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See PSD/80
CR: None
13.2 [MOVED TO 3.4]
13.3 DATE: April 11, 1980
SUBJECT: Exemptions from PSD Permit Requirements for Coel
Conversions Resulting from DOE Prohibition Orders
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Howard R. Heim, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD 104
CR: 4.-12 [Hard Copy]; 6.9
13.4 DATE: February 9, 1981
SUBJECT: Petitions for Review of PSD Regulations
FROM: Michael Trutna, Chief
New Source Review Section
TO: All Regional New Source Review Contacts
DISCUSSION: Petitions for review of PSD regulations.
- Utility Air Regulatory Group Petition
1) Consideration is given to the increase in
actual emissions resulting from a fuel
switch and the resulting impact on increment
consumption.
The term "demolition" as applied to reduction
in capacity utilization and the corresponding
effect on increment consumption.
The definition of major modification
excludes any voluntary fuel switch at a
source deemed "capable of accommodating"
and compliance with certain other conditions.
Definition of term "significant" as
applied to de minimus emission levels
both for pollutants listed and those not listed.
A "minor" addition to a "minor" source would
contribute to the baseline concentration if it
occurred before the applicable baseline date;
however, it would not trigger PSD review.
Section 52.21(i)(7) exempts any major modifica-
tion, which meets certain conditions, from the
air quality assessments relating to Class II
areas. A source may claim more than one such
exemption.
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
-------
- America Petroleum Institute' (API) Petition.
See (2) and (4j above.
- American Mining Congress (AMC) Petition
1) The treatment of fugitive emissions, with
regard to a source's designation as
"major" for PSD purposes, is further clarified.
CR: 4.14 [Hard Copy]; 5.12; 6.10
13.5 DATE: March 31, 1981
SUBJECT: Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
FROM: Thomas VI. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
TO: All State/Local Directors
Region IV
DISCUSSION: Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard to
PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de minimus
in order to be subject to PSD (see PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to represent
actual emissions for new sources and, therefore,
an increase in production at the PSD source is
not an increase in actual emissions. (Also see
PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered to be one of the
28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary metal
production plant) if it uses scrap metal to
produce iron, even if the metal is poured into
molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
increases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be
one of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a
chemical process plant. A chemical process
plant is any establishment in Major Group 28
of the SIC Code. Beverage distilleries are in
Major Group 20.
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not subject
to PSD unless the triggering increase is of the
same pollutant as the one for which a signifi-
cant increase results. (Also see PSD/120).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforce-
able; however, the State can impart Federally
enforceaole conditions to a construction
-------
permit issued for tne source in accordance
with the New Source Review procedures of the
SIP at the time of issuance.
CR: 3.16 [Hard Copy]; 2.15; 4.16; 5.9; 10.22; 12.9
13.6 DATE: April 1, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Questions
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Merrill S. Hohman, Director
Air 4 Hazardous Materials Division, Region I
DISCUSSION: See PSD/124
CR: 4.7 [Hard Copy]; 2.16
13.7 DATE: January 19, 1981
SUBJECT: Clarification of PSD Regulations as Amended in 40 CFR
52.21 (1980)
FROM: Douglas M. Costle
TO: Andrea S. Bear, Esquire
Hunton & Williams, Washington, D.C.
DISCUSSION: 1) An increase in actual emissions would contribute
exclusively to the baseline concentration if the
increase occurs: (a) as a result of a fuel switch
that is not a major modification, (b) between
8/7/77 and the applicable baseline date, and (c)
• at any major stationary source whose construction
commenced on or before January 6, 1975.
2) Discussion of whether decreases in actual emis-
sions that occur as a result of "eductions in
capacity utilization not resulting from demoli-
tion and that occur between January 6, 1975, and
the applicable baseline date would affect incre-
ment consumption. Includes discussion of the
conditions under which short-of-demolition
reduction in capacity utilization amounts to
construction.
3) Guidance on the meaning of "capable of accommo-
dating" will be provided by EPA upon receiving
specific fact patterns supplied by the questioner.
4) EPA states its intent to delete the requirement
that, for pollutants not having specific "de
mini mis" levels set, any emissions rate at all is
significant upon promulgation of technical and
conforming amendments.
5) The regulations do provide that a "minor" addi-
tion to a "minor" source would escape PSD review,
and, if it occurred before the applicable baseline
date, would contribute to the baseline concentra-
tion.
6) Sources may qualify for more than one exemption
under Section 52.21(0(7) of 45 FR 52739 for any
major modification that meets certain conditions
-------
from the air quality assessments relating to
Class II areas.
CR: 4.30 [Hard Copy]; 5.21
13.8 DATE: November 3, 1986
SUBJECT: Exemption of Administration of Federal Air Pollution
Control Laws on Indian-governed Lands
FROM: William B. Hathaway, Director
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division
TO: Mr. Craig J. Reece, Law Department
Arizona Public Service Company, Phoenix, AZ
DISCUSSION: This memo discusses the Federal Indian Policy and its
ramifications for Federal air pollution control law
in general, and specifically, for NSPS and NESHAP
implementation
CR: None
-------
14. PSD: ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
14.1 [MOVED TO 1.5]
14.2 [MOVED TO 1.6]
14.3 DATE: October 10, 1978
SUBJECT: Source Construction Prior to Issuance of PSD Permit
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Thomas U. Devine, Chief
Air Branch, Region I
DISCUSSION: See PSD/73
CR: None
14.4 DATE: December 18, 1978
SUBJECT: Interpretation of "Constructed" as it Applies
to Activities Undertaken Prior to Issuance of
a PSD Permit
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: All Enforcement Division Directors;
All Air and Hazardous Materials Division Directors
DISCUSSION: See PSD/82
CR: None
14.5 DATE: May 5, 1980
SUBJECT: Boilout under PSD
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Jan Geiselman, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/108
CR: None
14.6 DATE: April 29, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability of Demolition Activities
FROM: Valdas V. Adamkus, Acting Administrator
Region V
TO: Joseph M. Poll to, Esquire
Honigman, Miller, Schwartz and Cohen
DISCUSSION: See PSD/125
CR: None
14.7 DATE: December 14, 1983
SUBJECT: Guidance on Enforcement of Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Requirements Under the Clean Air Act
FROM: Michael S. Alushin, Assoc. Enf. Counsel for Air and
Edward E. Reich, Director
SSCD
TO: Regional Counsels and Directors
Air Management Divisions, Regions I - X
DISCUSSION: Memo provides guidance for enforcement of Part C or
Title I of the CAA, specifically explaining the use
of Section 167 and its alternatives for enforcement
-------
14.8
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
against PSD violations. Violations discussions
included construction or operation of a PSD source
without a permit, construction or operation with an
invalid permit, and construction or operation in a
manner not consistent with a validly-issued permit.
10.27 [Hard Copy]; 11.8; New
March 28, 1986
Construction Activities Prior to Issuance of a PSD
Permit with Respect to "Begin Actual Construction"
Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
OAQPS
Robert R. DeSpain, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region VIII
The term "emissions unit" as defined at Section
52.21UH7) is clarified. Before issuance of the PSD
permit, construction is prohibited on any emissions
unit or on any installation designed to accommodate
the emissions unit. Activities discussed in the
December 18, 1978, memo as allowed prior to issuance
of a PSD permit are undertaken at the risk of the
owner or operator. Reaffirms December 1978 policy
on preconstruction activities as still current.
None
-------
15. PSD: SIP PROCESSING
15.1 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
15.2
15.3
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
September 11, 1986
Ozone Control Strategy - Regional Office Review of
Potential Improvements in New Source Review (NSR)
Regulations
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Numerous addresses (see memo)
Memo lists NSR "loopholes" that occur in some State
regulations and that are inconsistent with Federal
requirements as adopted in 1980. Closing the loopholes
provides a potential control measure under the ozone
control strategy to minimize emissions increases that
otherwise might result from new source growth.
27.3 [Hard Copy]
January 29, 1987
Implementation of the Revised Modeling Guideline for
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Directors, Air Divisions
Regions I - X
The memo describes the specific mechanism by which
the revised PSD air quality modeling guidelines should
be implemented for each type of program approved to
review PSO permits (EPA, State, or local agency
programs, depending on whether and to whom EPA has
transferred the PSD program).
6.20 [Hard Copy]
February 4, 1987
Region IX New Source Review/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (NSR/PSD) Rulemaking Backlog
Gerald A. Emison, Director
OAQPS
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
The memo responds to Region IX1s concern about their
NSR/PSD rulemaking backlog and the need to make local
NSR/PSD regulations Federally enforceable to enhance
enforcement options.
None
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Entry
Discussion Number: 15.4 (hardcopy)
Regulatory Citation (current):
(old)
Date: November 13, 1987
To: Bruce Miller
Chief, Air Programs Branch
From: Howard J. Hoffman, Attorney
Office General Counsel
Subject: Approval of Implementation Plans
CR: 28.1
Discussion: This memo discusses the OGC opinion on EPA options
when approving an implementation plan submitted by
States on behalf of a local agency. The options
include how much EPA considers the local plan a
separate document rather than just the delegation
of an already approved SIP and how much autonomy can
or should be given to the local agency with respect
to implementing the plan and enforcement.
-------
21. NAA: TRANSITION/GRANDFATHERING
21.1 DATE: February 23, 1981
SUBJECT: Source Applicability Under the Interpretative Ruling
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Carl C. Konnert, Jr., Acting Director
Enforcement Division, Region IX
DISCUSSION: Not available: SSR/51
CR: None
21.2 DATE: June 16, 1981
SUBJECT: Federally Enforceable Permit Conditions for Richmond
Lube Oil Project
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: R.W. Kreutzen, General Manager
Environmental Affairs
Chevron, U.S.A., Inc.
DISCUSSION: Not available: SSR/52
CR: None
21.3 DATE: August 26, 1981
SUBJECT: Qualifications for Exemption from Providing Offsets
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Charles Tompkins, P.E., Manager of Air Quality
Corporate Environmental Protection
Kimberly-Clark Corporation
DISCUSSION: Not available: SSR/53
CR: None
21.4 DATE: January 5, 1978
SUBJECT: Determination of Interpretative Ruling (IR)
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: James 0. McDonald, Director
Enforcement Division, Region Y
DISCUSSION: See SSR/34
CR: 23.10 [Hard Copy]
-------
22. NAA: POTENTIAL TO EMIT/LIMITATIONS ON CAPACITY TO EMIT
22.1
22.2
22.3
22.4
22.5
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
April 13, 1977
Emission Offset Policy
John B. Rasnic, Chief
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Warren Peters
Region I
See SSR/9
None
October 17, 1977
New Source Review Modeling Emission Baselines
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
David Kee, Chief
Air Enforcement Branch, Region V
See SSR/26
None
May 6, 1977
Applicability of Offset Program to FEA's SPR Program
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Robert L. Davies, Deputy Asst. Administrator
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, FEA
See SSR/12
24.1
February 27, 1979
Policy Decisions with Regard to the Applicability
of the Clean Air Act Requirements to the Strategic
Petroleum Reserve
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation;
Marvin B. Durning, Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement;
Joan Z. Bernstein, Attorney
Office of General Council
Adlene Harrison, Regional Administrator
Region VI
See SSR/47
None
June 28, 1985
Seasonal Afterburner Policy, Applicability of
Part D New Source Review Requirements
Robert D. Bauman, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch, CPDD
William S. Baker, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region II
Applicability discussion for sources using EPA
Seasonal Afterburner Policy
2.20; 5.20
-------
23. NAA: DEFINITION/CLASSIFICATION OF SOURCE
23.1 DATE: April 8, 1977
SUBJECT: Applicability of Offset Policy to Relocated Source
Having No Emissions Increase
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: H.C. Phelan, Jr., Executive Director
California Asphalt Pavement Association
DISCUSSION: See SSR/8
CR: None
23.2 [REPLACED]
DATE: September 18, 1978
SUBJECT: Exemption of Municipal Sewage Sludge Combustion from
Offset Ruling
FROM: D. Kent Berry, Director
Policy Analysis Staff, OAQPS
TO: William Davis
LA/OMA Project (California)
DISCUSSION: See SSR/45
CR: None
23.3 [MOVED TO 22.3]
23.4 [DELETED]
23.5 [DELETED]
23.6 DATE: September 15, 1977
SUBJECT: Interpretation of Offset Policy
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Howard R. Helm, Chief
Air Programs-Branch, Region III
DISCUSSION: See SSR/23
CR: None
23.7 DATE: September 30, 1977
SUBJECT: Determination of Emission Points Subject to LAER
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: G.T. Helms, Jr., P.E., Deputy Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
DISCUSSION: See SSR/25
CR: None
23.8 [DELETED]
23.9 DATE: January 1, 1978
SUBJECT: Conditions for Coverage by IR for Source Reactivation
FROM: Lloyd A. Reed, Director
Enforcement Division, Region X
-------
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
23.10 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
23.11 [DELETED]
23.12 [DELETED]
23.13 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
23.14 [DELETED]
23.15
23.16
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
E.J. Weathers bee, Administrator
Air Quality Division
Department of Environmental Quality
(Oregon)
See SSR/33
None
January 5, 1978
Determination of Interpretative Ruling (IR)
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
James 0. McDonald, Director
Enforcement Division, Region V
See SSR/34
None
March 26, 1978
Jewell Coal and Coke Company - Applicability of
Condition 2 of the Interpretative Ruling
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Gordon M. Rapier, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III
See SSR/40
None
May 22, 1978
Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, Monessen Coke
Battery No. 1; Evaluation of Corporation Proposed
Rehabilitation and NSR Applicability Determination
Richard D. Wilson, Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement
Steve Wassersug. Director
Enforcement Division, Region III
See SSR/43
None
February 27, 1979
Emission Offset Policy - Determination of Replacement
Facility
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Carl V. Blomgren, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VII
See SSR/48
None
23.17 [DELETED]
-------
23.18 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
23.19 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
23.20 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
February 24, 1981
Source Applicability Under the Interpretive Ruling
Ed Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Carl C. Konnert, Jr., Acting Director
Enforcement Division, Region IX
This memo supplies an applicability determination for
Kernridge Oil Company application for the installa-
tion of 15 steam generators. The questions discussed
concerned the requirements to which Kernridge should
be subject due to a long delay in the permit review
process during which changes in the Offset Policy
"clean spot" exemption was eliminated.
None
March 28, 1986
Applicability of Nonattaininent New Source Review (NSR)
to Tennessee Valley Authority Shawnee Plant Demonstra-
tion Project
Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Bruce C. Miller, Acting Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
The memo discusses appropriate action to be taken at
the Regional level on the issue of a "plant-wide"
rather than dual definition of source in a NSR program
for nona ttai nine nt areas in the time period before a
national policy statement on the issue. See February
27, 1987, memo from Craig Potter for current EPA
policy guidance.
None
February 27, 1987
Plant-wide Definition of Major Stationary Sources of
Air Pollution
J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and
Radiation
Directors
Air Management Divisions, Regions I - X
Memo provides guidance on the preparation of Federal
Register notices proposing action on pending submis-
sions of SIP revisions to allow adoption and use of
the "plant-wide" definition of "source" in nonattain-
ment areas.
None
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Entry
Discussion Number: 23.21
Regulatory Citation: current: 51.165 (a)(l)(ix)
(old) 51.18 (J)(l)(1x)
Date: October 6, 1987
To: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
From: Gerald A. Emison, Director
OAQPS
Subject: Emissions from Landfills
CR:
Discussion: Memo clarifies how landfill emissions should be
considered (i.e., fugitive or non-fugitive) for the
purpose of determining nonattainment new source
review applicability.
-------
24. NAA: GEOGRAPHIC/POLLUTANT APPLICABILITY
24.1 DATE: May 6, 1977
SUBJECT: Applicability of Offset Program to FEA's SPR Program
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Robert L. Davies, Deputy Asst. Administrator
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, FEA
DISCUSSION: See SSR/12
CR: 23.3 [Hard Copy]
24.2 [MOVED TO 27.2]
24.3 [DELETED]
24.4 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
24.5 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
24.6 [DELETED]
January 25, 1978
Applicability of the Emission Off-set Policy
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Jack Chicca, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region V
See SSR/36
None
June 13, 1978
Impact of Secondary Emissions in New Source Reviews
David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Waste Management
All Regional Administrators
See SSR/44
None
24.7 [MOVED TO 22.4]
24.8 DATE: May 27, 1980
SUBJECT: New Source Review Requirements in Areas Unclassified
for Ozone
FROM: Richard G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development Division
TO: AllynM. Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: Rural areas designated as "unclassifiable" for ozone
are subject to the new source review requirements
discussed for proposed construction of new major
sources of volatile organic compounds.
CR: None
-------
25. NAA: OFFSETS
25.1 DATE: March 17, 1977
SUBJECT: Response to Action Memorandum - Policy for New
Sources In Nonattainment Areas, Hampton Roads Oil
Refinery
FROM: Edward F. Tuerk, Acting Assistant Administrator
Office of Air and Waste Management
TO: Daniel J. Snyder, III, Regional Administrator
Region III
DISCUSSION: See SSR/7
CR: None
25.2 DATE: May 16, 1977
SUBJECT: Emissions Offset Policy - City of Philadelphia
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Howard R. Helm, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region III
DISCUSSION: See SSR/14
CR: None
25.3 DATE: July 15, 1977
SUBJECT: Interpretative Ruling: Allowable Emissions
Baseline
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: R.L. O'Connell, Director
Enforcement Division, Region IX
DISCUSSION: See SSR/18
CR: None
25.4 [REPLACED]
DATE: March 10, 1980
SUBJECT: Emission Offset Requirements in Secondary Standard
Total Suspended Particulate Plans
FROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
TO: All Regional Administrators
DISCUSSION: Emission offset requirements are detailed for TS?
nonattainment areas violating the secondary standard
only. If the Federal offset policy expires, no
major new sources may be permitted to commence
construction prior to development and approval of
a SIP revision for an area violating the secondary
standard only.
CR: None
25.5 DATE: November 3, 1977
SUBJECT: Offset Credit; G.M. Plant, Shreveport, La.
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Howard G. Bergman, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
DISCUSSION: See SSR/30
CR: None
-------
:S.5
[MOVED TO 25.2]
25.7 DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
25.8 [DELETED]
25.9
25.10
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
April 11. 1978
Offset Policy - Marathon Oil Company, Garyville,
Louisiana
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Howard G. Bergman, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
See SSR/41
None
October 11, 1985
Acceptability of Emission Offsets
Robert D. Bauman, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch, CPDD
James T. Hi!burn, Chief
Air Management Branch, Region IV
Memo responds to a request for a ruling concerning
the Federal enforceability of emission offsets being
allowed by a local agency in Region IV, where neither
the operating permit program-nor the specific operat-
ing permits, or conditions to the permits in question,
had been approved by EPA..as part of the applicable SIP.
The operating permit was not considered to be
Federally enforceable.
None
May 22, 1986
Use of Banked Emission Reduction Credits (ERC's) as
Both External Offsets and Reasonable Further Progress
(RFP) Reductions
Darryl 0. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
Discussion of whether a source can use a banked emis-
sion reduction to comply with the offset requirement
if this ERC had been relied upon to demonstrate RFP.
None
-------
26. NAA: LAER
26.1 DATE: March 23, 1978
SUBJECT: LAER Standards - U.S.S. Corporation
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Gordon M. Rapier, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III
DISCUSSION: See SSR/39
CR: None
26.2 DATE: December 30, 1977
SUBJECT: Offset Requirements for U.S. Steel's Fairfield
Modernization
FROM: Richard D. Wilson, Deputy Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement
TO: Paul J. Traina, Director
Enforcement Division, Region IV
DISCUSSION: See SSR/32
CR: None
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Eniry
Discussion Number: 26.3
Regulatory Citation (current): 40 CFR 5l.l65(a)(l)(x111)
(old): 40 CFR 5l.l8(j)(l)(x111)
Date: October 29, 1987
To: Marcia Spink, Chief
State Air Programs Section
From: Rich Biondi, Chief
Regulations Analysis Section
Subject: LAER Applicability to Relocated Coating Lines
CR:
Discussion: This memo discusses LAER applicability to an existing
source that-plans to relocate to the site of an
exisitng major source.
-------
27. NAA: STATEWIDE COMPLIANCE
27.1
27.2
27.3
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
April 2, 1979
Enforceability Requirements under Condition 2 of
the Emission Offset Policy
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Diane Ajl
Enforcement Branch, Region III
See SSR/49
None
June 17, 1977
Applicability of Offset Policy to Certain Choctaw
Salt Dome Project Emissions
Walter C. Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
R.T. Sutton, Commissioner
Dept. of Conservation (Louisiana)
See SSR/17
None
September 11, 1986
Ozone Control Strategy - Regional Office Review of
Potential Improvements in New Source Review (NSR)
Regulations
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Numerous addressees (see memo)
Memo lists NSR "loopholes" that occur in some State
regulations and that are inconsistent with Federal
requirements as adopted in 1980. Closing the loop-
holes provides a potential control measure under the
ozone control strategy to minimize emissions increases
that otherwise might result from new source growth.
15.1
-------
28. NAA: SIP PROCESSING
28.1
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
September 11, 1986
Ozone Control Strategy - Regional Office Review of
Potential Improvements in New Source Review (NSR)
Regulations
G.T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
Numerous addressees (see memo)
Memo lists NSR "loopholes" that occur in some State
regulations and that are inconsistent with Federal
requirements as adopted in 1980. Closing the loop-
holes provides a potential control measure under the
ozone control strategy to minimize emissions increases
that otherwise might result from new source growth.
27.3 [Hard Copy]; 15.1
-------
Additional New Source Review Notebook Entry
Discussion Number: 28.2
Regulatory Citation (current):
(old)
Date: November 18, 1987
To: Bruce Miller
Chief, Air Programs Branch
From: Howard J. Hoffman, Attorney
Office General Counsel
Subject: Approval of Implementation Plans
CR: 15.4 (hardcopy)
Discussion: This memo discusses the OGC opinion on EPA options
when approving an implementation plan submitted by
States on behalf of a local agency. The options
include how much EPA considers the local plan a
separate document rather than just the delegation
of an already approved SIP and how much autonomy can
or should be given to the local agency with respect
to implementing the plan and enforcement.
-------
1. PSD
Transition/Grandfathering
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICI OF oZNERAL COUNSEL
3JECT. ?SD Review Requirements for DATE: August 25, 1976
Modified Petroleum Refineries .- (TC.
FROM: Richard G. Stoll, Jr., Attorney v> ^
Air Quality & Noise Control Division (A-133)
TO: Robert R. McXearin
Assistant Regional Counsel
Region VI
This is in response to your memorandum of August 18. It is
my understanding that installation work began after June 1,
1975 on a catalytic cracking unit at an existing petroleum
refinery in your Region. The cracking unit had been in
operation in"Canada, and its components have been moved to
your Region for "re-erection." You are seeking written con-
firmation from me that such "re-erection" commencing after
June 1, 1975 would trigger the review procedures of SPA's
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) regulations
(40 CFR 52.21(d)).
This is to confirm that if the catalytic cracking unit will
increase SO, and/or particulate emissions from the refinery,
then unless there was a binding contract for continuous on-
site construction executed prior to June 1, 1975,I/ the
"re-erection" commencing after that date would trigger the
PSD review procedures. If this work has begun and no permit
has been granted, the owner or operator is in violation of
an implementation plan and subject to enforcement under §113
of the Clean Air Act. 40 CFR 52.21(e)(2).
New or modified petroleum refineries for which construction
or modification has commenced on or after June 1, 1975 are
unouestionably subject to review* 40 CFR 52.21(d)(1)(xi).
Onlv modifications which do not increase SO-) or particulate
emissions (or fuel switchings) may be exempt. 40 CFR
52.21(d) (1). The fact that the modification .in question
may be the result of moving certain equipment from Canada
and "re-erecting" it in your Rngion is totally irrelevant
under the PSD regulation.
XTSee Roger Strelow's memoranda of December 18, 1975 and
"" April 21, 1976 to all Regional Administrators.
£?* Barm iJ7
-------
- 2 -
It is also irrelevant for PSD purposes that the cracking
unit may be exempt from NSPS standards because it was
originally erected prior to the proposal for those standards.2/
The basic purpose of the PSD regulation is to assure that
significant new emissions in an area do not cause or contri-
bute to violations of the applicable air quality increments.
This purpose would not be served by ignoring new emissions
caused by equipment which is dismantled in one area and "re-
erected" in the area of concern.
cc: George Stevens, DSSZ
Kent Berry, OAQPS
27wnetner your Region's assumption regarding the NSPS
exemption is correct is an open question as far as
I know. If you have not done so,* you should check
this matter with headquarters' Division.of Stationary
Source Enforcement.
-------
1.2
1.2 DATE: March 5, 1980
SUBJECT: Establishment of Baseline Date for PSD Areas
FROM: Richard 0. Wilson, Deputy Asst. Administrator
Office of General Enforcement
TO: Robert L. Davies, Asst. Administrator
Office of Fuels Conversion, DOE
DISCUSSION: See PSD/100
CR: 6.7 [Hard Copy]
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
bU&J&CT: Vvestvaco Paper Mill - PbU Ap
FKUM: Director
bcationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning ana Standards
Tu: w. Ray Cunningham, Ac tiny Deputy Director
Air and Waste Management Division (3AhUu)
This is in response to your request catea January 11, 1983
concerning the applicability or PbD to the Westvaco pulp ana
payer mill located in Luke, nd. The questions you pose in this
request involve the issue of air qualilty increment consumption
wnen reviewing revisions to state implementation plans (sl?s).
Vvestvaco has, under consideration, a SIP revision wnicn will
allow them to increase their tft>2 emissions. Various versions
of this bIP revision have been under consideration by the btste
and EPA since 1975. Your two specific questions ana our responses
are as follows:
1. Tinder the current PSD regulations, including the
August 7, 1980 promulgation, is there any provision for grano-
f lathering SIS' revisions "pending" bdrore June of lb>78 (or any-
other date certain so as to exempt them from PSD review)? (Tnere
was such a provision for yrancfathering unoer earlier PSD
regulations.)
The August 7, 198U regulations do provioe that a bl?
relaxation pending at the time a baseline oate is esta&iisnea is
exempt from inaiviaual increment analysis (4U CFH Sl.24(a)12)).
The preamble to the August 7, 1980 rules states at pa^e FR 52715,
"EPA is exempting from indivicual increment analysis bIP
relaxations pending at tne time a baseline aate is estaolisned
in the area affected by the revision-." As explained further in
tnat same paragraph such relaxations do consume increment.
•However, increment consumption due to emissions trom tnese
relaxations must be evaluated as part of a state's ^eripaic
assessment." Therefore, the indiviaual SIP revision will not
nave to include an air quality increment analysis, but the state
will have to consiaer this increase in emissions wnen conducting
£PA F.« 1320., 02.70) OFFICIAL F!L£ CS
-------
junto, Iii7b regulations old contain sucn a
prevision, wnicii placec; ail emission increases rcsuitiny crotn
relaxations t<«nainv on /tu^u&t 7, ls»77 into the uasenne
concentration, however, t,j?A noted u»at tflis exemption was no
longer necessary anc statec at
believes tnis exemption rrou
increment cons motion analysis is no
longer necessary . States ano sources
have been on notice since June ib»7B
that emissions increases at existin*
sources due to bli» relaxations aust
be evaluated tor ^ussible incren-ent.
census* ticn. No state or source nas
&e«n uncertain a& to tne at.j' 11 cable
baseline datcr or be«n piacec in an
inequitable position as to otner states
or sources. Tn ere tore, tooa^'s
regulations oo not exer^t true, increment
consumption analysis tnose bl?
relaxations not finally a^^rovec by
prior to the baseline oate in tne '
area.
2. li tne re is any provision tor •granatatnenn*" unaer
cur re r.t frsLr regulations* is tn« ueyree or continuity tr>at exists
in tne nestvaco case sutticient to class ir* tlte final limit tnac
Maryland will estaolisn tor Me&;tvacc as ^art of a SIV revision
i..«snoinid be r ore tn« cutotr aatc (June, l»7b or wr.dtev«r other-
cutotz oate j-ou determine exists unuer current regulations)?
Tne exemption contained in the, June, 1970 HaD regulations was
included due' to uncertainty as to hew tne 1977 Clean Air Act
would attect ^.endin^ bli* relaxations, however, as or August 7,
sources and states nave had adequate notice Uia^ such
relaxations will consume increment. The August, l^ttU rules diu
provide some tlexiLiiilty r as mentioned earlier* b^ allowing
states to ^oet^one this increment analysis tor bl> revisions
t-wnainj prior to June IS*, ist?U until the rirst periodic assess: -ei-it
attar the SIP relaxation toecoa.es rinal.
In suicoary, the increase in actual emissions, since tne
establishement ot the baseline oate, resulting trom the bl?
relaxations will consune air quality increment, bucn increment
analysis does not necessarily need to be cot^letea rrior to tne
approval ot tne bIP relaxation, however, all increases in actual
emissions occurring as a result ot it oust be consicureu bj tn«
state as a ^art or their next periodic assessment. -
-------
1.4
response has Oben reviewed ana concurred in a, cne
L»veAojiff«rit uiviaions of OAv'rb ana tiic utticc cc
counsel, a^ouin jou navt any questions ^Ifcase contact, .-.icr.
at
Eawara b. Keich
ccx Mike Trutna
hecer
LN-J4l:K.biondi:
-------
/.£"
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
February 13, 1378
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
KEHORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch - Recion II
This is in response to your request dated January 12, 1978,
concerning the applicability of the regulations for prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD) to the Virgin Islands Re-
finery Corporation's (VTRCO) petroleum refinery to be located
on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands. The question at issue is
whether VTP.CO had commenced construction of the refinery prior
to June 1, 1975.
Commenced, as it was defined on June 1, 1975, means
that an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program
of construction or modification or that an owner or operator
has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and
complete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of
construction or modification. This definition has been
refined to apply to on-site construction (See nemos from
Roger Strelow to Regional Administrators dated December 18,
1375 and April 21, 1976, copies attached). Therefore, only
significant and continuous site preparation work such as
major clearing or excavation or placement, assembly, or
installation of unique facilities or equipment at the site
should be considered a program of construction or aodification
for purposes of §52.2Kb) (7).
While the question at issue is whether VTRCO commenced
construction prior to June 1, 1975, it breaks down into two
areas: 1) Sas VTRCO undertaken a program of continuous
construction, or 2) has it entered into a contract to undertake
a conrinuous program. It is not enough that a major source
has purchased a site to qualify for exemption from the PSD
permit. If this were true many major companies with large
land holdings could avoid the PSD requirements by virtue"of
owning these potential sites. Sven if the sits clearing,
-------
new sources (§51.18). Failure t= obtain approval before
commencing on-site construction of a source requiring such
approval would, of course, violate the applicable plan.
Therefore, any source of the type covered by the significant
deterioration regulations that has not yet received approval
to construct pursuant to the. applicable plan should be subject
to review. In any situation where such approval is not
required for a source prior to cscnencement of on- si -a
construction, the lack of such approval will not be deter-
minative that the source has not commenced on-site construction.
There may also be situations where, although actual on-
site work has not commenced or been contracted for, the
source is so irrevocably committed to a particular site that
it should be considered as having commenced construction.
Such situations could include sources which are only a few
days or weeks from commencing on-site construction or sources
which have contracted for or constructed unique site specific
facilities or equipment: which are not yet being installed
on-site. Such situations will be rare but may be taken into
account in determining whether the source is in effectively
the same position as if it had commenced on-site construction.
Because some sources may, JLn good faith, have construed
§52. 2Kb) (7) differently before this guidance and have since
entered into binding: commitments on the assumption that they
were exempt from review, it is necessary to provide for such
cases. Therefore, where a source has, in good faith, begun
on-site construction or entered into a contractual obligation
to begin on-site construction after June 1, 1975, on the
good faith assumption that the source was exempt from the
significant deterioration regulation, the source will not: -be
subject to review. Baiia*^ unon 'fq"~«aT ***' *•*• "• it^^mg^^s
bv EPA personnel .that the source in question would not be
subject to new source ysvuw t^rua-r +*e^» recuj.ar2.ons wo cad
on the assumption that the regulations do not apply to such
sources. Conversely aay source taat xs aware or tnis guj-aranee
at~tEe""tiae on-site construction commenced or a contractual
obligation was undertaken could not be considered to have
done so ia good faith, reliance that it did not need to be
reviewed. Therefore you should review all major sources
-------
UNITED 5T 7E5 ENVlrSCW.ENTAL
WASHINGTON. D C.
Ai"ic X : 1375
MEMORANDUM
.3SiC~E2T;CN AGENCY
cC. OF
AIR AIXO /'AST
SUBJECT: PSD Regulations - Interpretation cf
"Commencement of Construction"
FROM:
TO
Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Waste Management1 (AW-443) /V-v -^
Regional Administrators '
Because several questions have been raised about my
memo of December 18, 1975 on the above-referenced subject,
I would like to stress one basic point and clarify another.
A. The "Contract" Exemption. For a contractual
obligation to qualify a source for an exemption, 40 C?S
52. 2Kb) (7) requires that the obligation be for a "con-
tinuous program of construction or modification." Page 1 of
my December 18 memo states that ordinarily, "only signifi-
cant and continuous site preparation work, such as najor
clearing or e>cavation or placement, assembly, or installa-
tion of unique facilities or equipment at ^ha si-ts should: be
considered a 'program of construction or aiodif icacion1 ."
(Emphasis added)-.
Thus, as a general rule, for one to qualify for the
contractual exemption, he must have contracted for continuous
on-site construction worST The discussion in che first full
paragraph on page 3 of my December 18 memo is r.ot intended
to provide exceptions to this general rule. That discussicr.
relates to s:.t.aations in which even rhoucn a "contract" for
on-site work were executed prior to June 1975, the "contract"
might still not qualify the source for an exemption.
Accordingly, the mere fact that a source had contracted
for the fabrication of a piece of equipment prior zz June
1975 (i.e., placing an order for a boiler) would not
ordinarily exempt the source. Only if a non-si te-work.
contract could fit within the "irrevocably committed"
-------
the other two units. On the other hand, comsiencenent of
construction of the basis oxygen furnaces at a new grass--
roots steel mill would' exempt other facilities, such as a
blast furnace, continuous casting operation, rolling mill,
and sintering plant, which are necessary to operate the
basic oxygen furnaces.
As this guidance indicates, there is no clear lir.e
dividing those sources which, are grandfathered and those
which are not. Judgments must be made on a case-by-case
basis. For »***? reason it is not possible to predict without
knowing the facts of each case which sources are subject to
FSO review.
The policy contained in this guidance package has been discussed
af length with Regions VIH and X and was also discussed and agreed to
at-the December 12 meeting in Dallas with the Regional Division Directors
for Air and Hazardous Materials.
-------
UNITEL -fATES = :JVIRONMEM • AL. PROTECTION AGENCY
'BJECT: PSD Regulations - Interpretation DATE- C£-" 1 - 3 '5
of Commencement of Construction " - «* —
FROM: Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator^ \J£* //'
for Air and Waste Manaement AW-433 /J- xU' -^
for Air and Waste Management (AW-433) /UJ-i
T0: Regional Administrators '
This memorandum provides guidance on how the phrase
"ceiaaence" as that tera is used in SPA's regulations to pre-
vent significant deterioration of air quality (40 CFR
§52.21) is to be interpreted.
Section 52.21(d]1(2) of the regulations requires that
any of the 19 specified types of sources which "commence
construction or modification subsequent: to June 1, 1975, are
required to obtain a permit. 40 CFR §52.2Kb) (7) defines
commenced as follows:
"Commenced" means that an owner or operator has
undertaken a continuous program of construction or
modification or that an owner or operator has entered
into a contractual obligation to undertake and com-
plete/ within a reasonable time, a continuous program
of construction or modification.
The purpose of the regulations to prevent significant
deterioration is to ensure that a source is not located at a
site which would result in emissions from that source
violating the applicable increment. Thus the term "commence-
ment of construction" as 'that term is used in the regulations
to prevent significant deterioration, refers to on-site
construction. Ordinarily thereforte only significant and
continuous site preparation work such as major clearing or
excavation or placement, assembly, or installation of
unique facilities or equipment at the site should be con-
sidered a "program of construction or modification" for
purposes of £52.2Kb) (7). However each case BUS- be reviewed
on its own facts, as noted below.
There are two additional factors that ^should be con-
sidered. Under 40 Part 51,. Regulations for Preparation,
Adoption, and Submittal of State Implementation Plans (SIP's),
all SIP's are required to include a procedure for review
(prior to construction and modification) of the location of
-------
exception (discussed in the first -full paragraph or. page 2
of my December 18 memo) would it qualify the source for an
exemption from review. As my memo indicates, such situations
should be "rare."
B. Pemits Under '40 CFR 51.18. I did not intend to
state that as an iron-clad rule, a source which had not
received a'51.18 permit would be subject to PSD review.
Since this is a reasonable inference from the discussion at
the top of page 2 of my December 18 memo, I should clarify
the matter.
What I did intend to -say was that the absence of a
51.18 permit should be considered as a relevant fac-or in
determining whether a source could meet the "irrevocably
committed" exception (discussed in the first full paragraph --
on page 2 of my December 18 memo) . A source' s arguments
regarding an "irrevocable commitment" would have to be
looked at extremely skeptically if it had not yet even
obtained a 51.13 permit.
Z should .ote in concluding this point that the presence
of a 51.18 permit, by itself, neither constitutes the
commencement of construction nor an "irrevocable cozsitsient"
to do so.
cc: Regional Air Division Directors
Regional Counsel
-------
intending to construct in your Region and notify those
sources which are subject to review in accordance with this
guidance.
Finally, 40 CFS. §52.2Kb) (7) states that an owner or
operator has commenced construction not only when he has
undertaken a continuous program of construction or modifica-
tion himself but'also when he has entered ir.to a "contractual
obligation to undertake and complete, within a reasonable
tine, a continuous program of construction or modification".
The question of whether a contract represents a "contractual
obligation" will depend upon the unavoidable loss that would
be suffered by a source if it is required to cancel such
contract.. It is clearly beyond the intent of these regula-
tions, for example, to permit a source which has only a
contract revocable at will to escape review under these
regulations. Correspondingly, where the contract may be
cancelled or modified at an insubstantial loss to the plant
operator, the proposed source should not be allowed to
escape review under these regulations. The determination of
whether a source will suffer a substantial loss if the
contract were terminated and therefore whether there is, in
fact: a "contractual obligation", must be made on a case-by-
case basis as there are no general guidelines that would
cover all situations. Factors that would be considered
would include the question of whether or not the contract
could be executed at another site or modified for the site
in question and the amount of any additional costs of con-
structing at another site or of cancelling the contract.
Additional 'questions may arise concerning the applica-.
bility of the PSD regulations to phased construction projects.
If a new stationary source will contain a number of facilities
to be built in- a program of phased* construction, the entire
project should not automatically be exempt from review just.
because one of the facilities is grandfathered- Only chose
additional facilities which are necessary for the operation
of the grandfatherad facility should be exenpt from review.
For example, if a power company has commenced con-
struction only on the first unit of a planned three-unit
power plant prior to June 1, 1975, the other two units would
normally not*be exempt from significant deterioration review,
since the first unit can operate completely independently of
-------
which VIRGO has accomplished to date, satisfies the conten-
tions in Strelow's memo, it is ray opinion that VIRGO could
not have undertaken a continuous program of on-site construc-
tion in light of the fact that they have not resumed their
construction for a period in excess of two and one-half years.
It appears from item $2 in your memo that VIRGO's liability
under their site, preparation contract is limited to 3250,000.
However/ liability pursuant to a liquidated damages provision,
should VIRGO cancel the contract entirely, is a different
issue from how much liability VIRGO could incur for site prep-
aration work done without its written approval. It is our
position that the $250/000 does not constitute a significant
expenditure. However/ should there be a large difference in
liability incurred by VIRGO resulting from cancellation of
the contract this issue may be re-opened.
In summary, based on the information submitted in your
memo, it is the determination of this office that VIRGO will
not suffer a significant loss should they be unable to con-
struct this source at this site. This is provided, as dis-
cussed previously that the figures in item 12 of your
memo do not significantly change. Therefore/ I believe that.
the proposed VIRGO petroleum refinery has not commenced con-
struction and is subject to the PSD regulations. Further,
VIRGO, should they not obtain a PSD permit prior to March I/
1978, will be subject to the new PSD requirements as proposed
on November 3, 1977.
If you have any additional questions or comments/ please
contact Rich Biondi (755-2564) of my staff.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Hike Trutna - CPDD
Note: Although this determination was made based on
the definiton of "commenced" contained in 52.21 (b}(7),
the results of this decision would not have been
altered had the definiton contained-in the Clean
Air Act Amendments (§169(2)) been used instead.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. •20450
JUL ! £75
OPHCS Or
. i
ii
• Mil • • 1<^T3
n .-J!.:i.3.8
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: "Commence Construction" under PSD
PROM: Director, _. _...-•
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement ^^^-^ ^
TO: David Kee, Chief Air Enforcement Branch
Region V
This is in response to your memo of April 7, 1978,
requesting guidance on how to apply the definition of
"commence construction" under the new PSD regulations.
One of the requirements a major new source or major
modification must satisfy in order to have .commenced con-
struction is that the owner or operator must have obtained
and: must continue to hold all necessary preconstruction
approvals required under the applicable SI?. If all neces-
sary preconstruction approvals have not been obtained and
maintained, construction aas not commenced. Your memo
requests guidance on the application of this requirement
in cases where a State grants limited permitsr grants
permits in stages, or allows site work without a permit.
Rather than providing you with general^examples to follow,
we would prefer to address individual situations involving
these State permitting procedures on a case by case
basis. In this manner, consistency can be maintained in
applying the regulations to unique and complex situations
which sight not fit a garerai example. If you are aware
of specific cases where unusual State permitting proce-
dures affect applicability of PSD, please feel free to
refer them to us.
In addition to-obtaining all required permits, a
source must also satisfy one of two additional requirements
in order to commence construction. A source must either
1) begin a continuous program of physical on-site con-
struction or 2) enter into a contractual obligation to
undertake a program of on-site construction to be completed
within a reasonable time. Three specific questions re-
garding these requirements were raised in your memo and
are addressed below.
?r=T!
•ill
-------
1) What constitutes 'physical on-site construction?
We have interpreted physical on-site construction to
refer to placement/ assembly, or installation of materials,
equipment, or facilities which will make up part of the
ultimate structure of the source. In order to qualify,
these activities must take place on-site or must be site
specific. Placement of footings, pilings and other materials
needed to support the ultimate structures clearly consti-
tutes on-site construction. As stated in the preamble
to the draft regulations, "it will not suffice merely to
have begun erection of auxiliary buildings or construction
sheds unless there is clear evidence (through contracts
or otherwise) that construction of the entire facility will
definitely go forward in a continuous manner". Activities
such as site clearing and excavation work will generally
not satisfy the commence construction requirements.
2) What constitutes a contractual obligation to under-
take a program of construction?
In order to satisfy the commence construction require-
ments, a contractual obligation must be a site specific
commitment. The types of activities which will be con-
sidered site specific for purposes of a contract are identi-
fied in question *1 above. Contracts for work on footings,
pilings, and other site specific materials and equipment
will clearly satisfy the requirement while contracts for
site clearing and excavation will not. The legislative
history clearly indicates that contracts for non site
specific equipment, such as boilers, will typically not
suffice, regardless of any penalty clauses contained in the
contracts.
A .contractual obligation for purposes of commencing
construction must also be one which cannot be cancelled or
modified without substantial loss. The PSD regulations
provide guidance on determining whether a loss should be
deemed "substantial". A loss which would exceed 10% of
the total project cost will clearly be considered sub-
stantial. Whether a loss of less than or equal to 10%
of the total project cost will be considered substantial
will be determined on a case by case basi-s.
3) What constitutes a reasonable time?
In order to assure that construction proceeds in a
continuous manner and is completed within a reasonable
-------
time, the regulations require that a break in construction
of greater than 18 months or failure to commence con-
struction within 18 months of PSD permit issuance will
generally invalidate a source's PSD permit. This 13 month
period may be extended by the Administrator upon a
satisfactory showing that an extension is justified.
Your memo raises a question as to what test should
be used to decide, for enforcement purposes, if construc-
tion has commenced when a source has proceeded on a pro-
ject without a permit. The PSD regulations state that
no major stationary source or major modification shall be
constructed until the preconstruction approval require-
ments are met. If a source subject to PSD review has
begun on-site construction without a PSD permit/ the
source is in violation of §52.21.
Additionally, your memo requests guidance on Sections
113(a)(5)f 113(b)(5), and 167. My staff is currently
preparing a guidance document which addresses implementa-
tion of these sections and which will be forwarded to you
upon completion.
If you require any further assistance, please contact
Libby Scopino (755-2564) of my staff.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Mike Trutna Peter Wyckoff
Eric Cohen Linda Murphy
Ken Eng Glenn Hansen
Winston Smith Steve Rothblatt
Don Harvey Bob Chanslor
Dave Joseph Lloyd Kostow
Mike Johnston John Johnson
Bennett Stokes
-------
7 ? UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2C-1SO
August IS, 1913
Henry V. Nickel, Esq. CCMCIUU.
Huntcn & wiiliass
P.O. Boy. 15230
1730 Pennsylvania, Ave., N.W.
Suite 1060
.Washingtonr D. C. 20036
Set Section 52.21(iH3) of the PSD Regulations
Dear-Hr. KicJcel:
.. "This is in response to your lettsr dated July 31, 1S7S.
In that latter you asked for sy interpretation cf section
52.21(i) (3} of the regulations for the prevention of signifi-
cant air qualitv deterioration ("PSD") which SPA, srca-^lgated-
on June 19, 1973. 43 TR 26323.
A set of circumstances cemon to sorse electric utilities
pron»pted your request. According to your letter, these
utilities had b'.gun physical cr.-sits' construction on several
power plants well before June 1, 1575. In the early 15"G's,
however, these utilities tc=rcrarily disccn-ir.ued construc-
tion on the power pianzs, sera for as Ion?-as IS ssntr.s cr
sore, because of financial difficulties and reduced lead
growth. Ncnsthaless, by :-Sarch 1, 157S, the utilities had
restarted, and in sorae iastansss cc-pleisd, constructicr. or.
the plants. Your letter su'ccss-s, and therefore I an: .
ascuaing, that construction on the cover plants "ccrmsr.ced,"
within the aa&ning cf Section 159(2) cf the Clean Air Ac^,
before June 1, 1275. \/ In other v:ords, the u-ilities had
not only begun construction before then, but hcd also
obtained all preconstruc-cion pcrni-s required under the
applicable stats inplessr&'saticn plan ("SIP") .
I/ I should note, too, that in using the phrase "power
"" plant" I have in mind rssrsiy a single electric generat
ing unit having no sore -shan one boiler, net a project:
consisting of aany units to be constructed in distinct
phases.
T- • REGIONAL
IX r /•/••» * ?* '37** ' I I !
s *»r /• ' ~. i« i i i
P. i w u' " " ' : ; !
-------
- 2 -
As you point out/ if one were to apply the relevant
provisions of the June IS regulations literally to these
'circumstances,, one night conclude chat those regulations
apply to those cow^r plants whose construction the utilities
discontinued for 13 nonths, or isorc. Section 52.21(i)(l) of
the regulations gives the general rule that the regulations
apply to any "major stationary source cr major modification."
'These power plants are undoubtedly "major stationary sources,
and none of the exceptions to the general 'rule which appear
on the face of the regulations fit the facts. The exception
in -section 52.21(i)(3) coses close to fitting, but that
section only provides that the regulations do not apply to:
(aj-sajor stationary source or major
modification that was ncz subject
to 40 C?a 5-2.21 as in'effect before
March 1, 1978, if the owner or
operator —
(i) Obtained all final Federal,
State -and local ^reconstruction
peraits necessary under the
applicable State implementation
plan before March 1~, 1973;
(ii) Commenced construction before
March 13; 1979; and
-------
—2 Claan Air
Aft »r exarj.nir.g tne PSD provisions of
and the June 19 regulations, I have concluded thsr -hose
regulations do not apply to any sour 03 or rodifi cation en
which construction cczsier.cec within th« neanirg of Section
169(2) of 'the Act before August 1, 1977. 2/ Sines the Jure
J.9 regulations, and, particularly Seczicr. .52.21 (L'j (1) of
these regulations isf*therefcre inapplicable to tha sources
that concern "you, it is unnecessary to consider the ccrrecir.ess
of your interpretation of Section 52.21(i) (3) .
My conclusions are based primarily en, Secticr. 16E (b) cf
the Act. In pertinent part that section provides:
In the case of a facility on vhich con-
struction was correr.cec (in accordance
with the definition of "cerrisneed11 in
section 169(2)) after June 1, 1273, and
prior to the enactment . of ths Clean Air
Act 'Aaenczien-cs of 1577, the review and.
permit-ting of such facility shall be in
accordance with the regulations for the
prevention ' of significant deterioration
in effect prior to the enac=isr.t cf the
Clean Air Act A=sncr:ants cf IS 77.
Put 'differently, section: 168 Rs) declares thai the PSD
•regulations in effect before August 1, 1277, net any in
effect after that tine, govern the rsrisv and permitting of
any souice on which construction ccrzisnosc vizhin zhs
meaning of section 165(2) betveez June 1, 1373, and 'Au rust
7, 1377. Plainly, Congress thcurht that it should "grand-
father11 such sources. Since sources en vhich censzrueticn
commenced within the ssaning of section 169(2} bsf ers- June
1, 1375, are certainly no less deserving cf crandfa^hsr
status than sources en which construe Tier, cerrrsnesd af-sr
that time, Congress sust have intended to exerpt ther, as
well froa any"- regulations in effect -after August 7, 1977.
In the face of this Congressional intent, 2?A could nee
apply uhe new ?SD regulations tc any setrca or. vrhieh cen-
struction ccrrienced within the esaning cf section 155(2»
before August 7, 1977. Section 52.21Ci) (1) sssc bs read,
consequently, as not applying to sources and noe^ificizions
commencing construction before August 7.
2/ I am e^^jressing here no opinion en whether a source
"" which coic=enceo construction before June 1, 1575,
within the meaning of section'52.21fb)(7) cf ths prs-
August 7 regulations, but net* wizhin the r.ecning of
section 1"69 (2) , would be subject ~o ?SO ravisv. Also,
I do not intend to affeei rhe rulss fer sranefszhcring
independent facilities at a nulci-ceiliv/ coures v.-ien
was or is beincr ccr.szructac: ir. diseinee ::::r.r2S. For
t::osc rules, see 42 ?7x 2S29-5 (J^r.s 19, 1273).
-------
-4-
My interpretation of Section 52.21(i)(l) is supported
by the preamble to the June 19, 1973 regulations. The
portion of the preasble under the heading "Ccmencc Con-
struction" explains:
It is irportant in nany cases to
detemine whether a source has
cozcaenced construction by z certain
date. If a source corsr.er.csd con-
structicr. before June 1, l'i?75, it
would be exeapz (or "ersnsr'a-r.erec")
from PSD review si-coce-cr.er. 40 CJS
52.21(d). Iz a source cc=r,er.cec
construction before August 7/ I977/
it would be exempt frca the a=end-
aents that Z?A aronulgated en
November 3, 1577. 42 PS 57439.
43 PS 26395 (June 19, 1978) (esphasis added). One car.'find
support for. ny interpretation also in the definition of
baseline concentration (Clean Air Act §165(4}; S32.21(b) Cll)/
43 FR 26404) and Section 1=5 U) of the Act.
Therefore, with regard to power plants vhcse caastrustis
the ntilities discontinued, I beliere that they are net
subject to the June 19 regulations, if indeed ccns-=r==ricn
on then ccracenced -cithin the seaning of section 1S9 (25
before June 1, 1S75, ana the discontin-ances vare taspcrarv.
I should note that, if the utilities in disccnz^nuing
construction intended in fact to close the projects perr-ansr.tly
rather than to suspend theri tesporarily, the reopening cf
the projects would"be subjecc to the new regulations/ since
the 'power plants wculd upcn closing hare ceased zo exis- f cr
PSD purposes. Khezher a"cisccntinuance were tcnpcrarv cr
pernanent- would have to be determined on a case-by-case
basis fraa all of the facts and circusstances. A disccn-
tinuance of 18 s»nths or'nsre nichr'vsll raise a strong/
rebuttable presur^sicn thst the utility inter.dad ro clcsa
the project cersanently. See especially, 40 CT3. 52.21Ce)
(1977).
If you have anv cuesticns, please call Perer Wyckoff
(755-0744)
Very truly yours,
i t
fi&n Z. larnstein
General Counsel (A-130}
CH«
** •
-------
•JNI7ED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL =RCTECT1CN AGENCY
WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20*50
JUN I 9 iSSO
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT: PSD and NSPS Apolicability Determination for
Guardian Industries' Flat Glass Plant in
Corsicana, Texas
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
I have reviewed vour memoranda of March 11 and March 17,
1980, regarding Guardian Industries' (Guardian/the Company)
claim that it "commenced construction* of a flat glass, plant
in Corsicana, Texas prior to March 19, 1979, and is therefore
not subject to the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) regulations of June 19, 1973. Guardian has also
asserted, based on a "commenced construction" date, that the
plant's furnace is not covered- by the New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS) for glass manufacturing facilities proposed
on June 15, 1979. I agree with your conclusion that Guardian
has failed to adequately demonstrate that it commenced con-
struction of its Corsicana flat glass plant by March 19, 1979.
Without an adequate showing of comsencement of construction
by that date Guardian is subject to the June, 1978 PSD regula-
tions. I also agree with your conclusion regarding the
applicability of NSPS to Guardian's glass manufacturing furnace,
Because the Company has not "adequately demonstrated that it
entered into a contract for a continuous program of construc-
tion of the furnace by June 15, 1979, NSPS applies to the
furnace.
PSD
Section 169(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act, the June 19,
1978, PSD regulations (40 CFR 52.21), the Strelow memoranda
of December 18, 1975 and April 21, 1976, arrc Montana Power
v. EPA, 13 ERC 1385 (9th Cir. 1979) provide definitions and
estanlish criteria for determining whether a PSD sourca has
"commenced construction." In general, EPA regulations allow
the "orandfathering" or exemption of a source fron the
June 19, 1978, PSD review and permitting requirements only
if," as of March 19, 1979, the source had either begun a
continuous orogram of physical on-site construction, entered
-------
intn bind inn aare«ner.r.s or contractual obligations for
on-site construction which could not nave been cancelled or
modifier! without substantial loss or .entered into binding
aareements or contractual obligations for off-site construc-
tion which irrevocably committed the source to a specific
sits. In addition, the source must have obtained, by March 1,
197S, certain oreconstruction oemits necessary under the
Stafi l-nl»T.entation Plan. "Construction" is defined in the
?Sf? reculations >as fabrication, erection, installation or
notification of the source.
assessment of "substantial loss" is a case-by-case
analysis which involves calculating the loss a source would
have'sustained as of March 19, 1979, if contracts for
continuous on-site construction were cancelled or modified.
This loss is then conpared to the total project cost. If
the loss is greater than 10% of the total project cost, it
is considered a substantial loss and the source is considered
to have commenced construction for PSD grandfathering
purposes. If the loss represents less than 10% of total
project cost, it may or may not be considered a substantial
loss defending on whether, as of ".arch 19, 1979*, the source
han committed itself, financially and otherwise, to a
particular site for a particular facility to the point that
relocation was not possible and a delay or substantial
modification would have heen severely disruptive.
Assessment of "irrevocable commitment" is also a case-
bv-case analysis dependent upon whether, as of March 19,
1979, the Company had entered into contracts or binding
aoreenents for the off-site construction of a source which,
due to characteristics uniaue to the source or site, can
only be located at a specific site. In these cases, the
adecuacv of the commitment is also dependent upon whether
the site-specific contract or agreement could have been
cancelled without a substantial loss under the foregoing
analysis.
a.s outlined in your memoranda and attached documenta-
tion. Guardian had not beaun what amounts to a continjous
program of physical on-site construction by March 15, 1979.
To avoid PSn requirements Guardian must rely on its State
permit, issued on February 23, 1973, coupled with contractual
obligations or binriine aoreements. Guardian, points to the
following exnenriitures and arrangements in «upoort of its
-------
(1) 3400 hours snent by Guardian's Sngineerinc Depart-
ment during 1973 and the first quarter of 1979 preparing
design criteria, specifications and drawings;
(2) various engineering authorizations including:
(a) June 1973, Decemoer 1979 and February 197S,
arrangements with Efficient Engineering Company
authorizing uo to 3140,000 in engineering services
(5120,000 paid out as of March 19, 1979),
(b) June 1978, December 1973 and March 1979,
arrangements with St. Clair Technical Services
authorizing up to 3185,000 in engineering services
for process equipment ($146,000 paid out as of
March 19, 1979),
(c) a June 1978, arrangement with General Machine
Design authorizina up to $25,000 in engineering
services for process eauioment ($14,000 oaid out
by Parch 19, 1979);
(3) a February 16, 1979, letter to Toledo Engineering
Company/ authorizing design of a glass melting furnace;
(4) purchase of land on September 7, 1978, for $205,081.05;
(5) a February 1979 arrangement, as evidenced by a
letter to the'corsicana City Manager, to reimburse the
City for installation of a sewer lift station and water
line with reimbursement contingent on the development
and installation of a revision to the City's water and
sewer system;
(6) an April 24, 1978,"arrangement with Southwestern
Laboratories for soil borings, boundary surveys and
other site work costing $14,700.
I have reviewed the documents submitted by Guardian
regarding each of the above. I have the following sugges-
tions concerning use of these items in finding the total
project cost to loss ratio for substantial loss purposes and
for detemunina the extent of Guardians commitment:
-------
j-atn i - 7*ie 3400 hours of in-nouse nesigr. wor!< cannot
he counted in the ratio because Guardian's suc-ission
does not indicate that the work involved contracts for
site-specific construction or contracts for continuous
or.-site construction. Further, no dollar amount
or information which could be used to determine such an
amount has been provided even if this in-house work
could he shown to involve site-specific or or.-site
construction contracts.
2 - The enqineerinq agr-err.ents authorizinq up
to 5350,000 in costs (3230,000 actually paid out by
March 19, 1979), cannot be used unless the agreements
are shown to be site-specific contracts for the con-
struction of the source or contracts for continuous
on-site construction of the source. The Guardian
submission does not provide sufficient information in
order to make these determinations.
Iten 3 - The February 16, 1979, letter to Toledo
Engineer inn regarding the glass furnace should not be
used. As you point cut, the letter represents, at
best, an "authorisation to proceed with design of ons
500 ton/day regenerative flat glass furnace" rather
than a contract for the construction of a site specific
511,000,000 furnace or a contract for continuous
on-site construction of the furnace. Guardian has
supplied no estimate of what would be an appropriate
aoount to use in determining exact liability to Toledo
if Guardian had cancelled or modified the February,
1979 arrangement as of '-iarcii 13, 1579. Even if, for
argument's sake, this letter does reoresent such a
contract, I aoree with your analysis of Guardian's
orobable liability as roughly one month of the usual
contract measure of damages.
Ite? 4 - Cecause land can be re-sold or held for other
pur noses, a contract for its purchase is not an example
of either a contract for the construction bf a site-
soecific facility or for a contract for continuous
on-site construction. Therefore, the land contract
should not be used in d et era i nine substantial loss or
irrevocable
-------
I » gn 5 - The reimbursement arrangement with Corsicana,
wnicn was contingent on deveioorcent and revision of the
City's water systems and finalization of the plant plan,
should not be used. Guardian has not provided informa-
tion on what, if any, reirnbursaole costs were actually
incurred bv the City of Corsicana as of March 19, 1979,
nor has it demonstrated any contractual obligation with
the City as of that date.
Item 6 - Your memorandum discusses 514,000 in initial
site work pursuant to a September 13, 1979, agreement
with Metric Construction. Guardian's documentation,
however, does not contain any indication of an initial
site work aeireenent with Metric Construction. The
Company's submission does contain a copy of an April 24,
1973, purchase order made out to Southwestern Laboratories
authorizina 514,700 for field, laboratory and engineering
reoorts and for boundary surveys. For the purposes of
this memorandum I have assumed that the initial site
work mentioned in your March 11, 1980, memorandum refers
to the Aoril 1978, Southwestern Laboratories purchase
order. 'Shile this work was performed on-site, it can
not be considered as a fabrication, erection, installa-
tion or modification of the source, and thus does not
constitute a continuous program of physical on-site
construction of the source. The work was also not
performed pursuant to an off-site source construction
contract. Thus, the S-14,000 expenditure does not
establish that continuous on-site construction had
cor.3»enc8-i, nor should it be use« in determining sub-
stantial loss or irrevocable consitment.
Upon review of your memoranda and the attached documenta-
tion it apnears that Guardian" has not adequately demonstrated
that the above items involved binding agreements or contractual
obligations fo'r construction of a site-specific facility or for
continuous on-site construction of the source. 'Without more
detailed information and documentation from Guardian regarding
the Company's commitment to the Corsicana site, I must
conclude that the Company had not conenced construction by
March 19, 1979. For this reason, Guardian is subject to the
PSD reculations of June 1978.
-------
-6-
I sugqest that you issue a preliminary applicability
determination providing a 30-day period during which Guardian
would have the opoortunity to present more detailed informa-
tion on what items the Company feels should be included in
determining whether it commenced construction by March 19,
1^79. If Guardian does not submit additional materials by
the end of the 30-period, I would issue a final determination
at that time and would publish it in the Federal Recister.
If Guardian does submit additional information, it snould be
carefully evaluated prior to issuing a final determination.
In any case, the final determination should be published in
the Federal Register.
NSPS
The issue involved under NSPS is whether construction
had commenced on the affected facility, the glass furnace,
on or before June 15, 1979, the oroposal date of the glass
furnace standard. If constuction commenced on or before
June 15, the facility is not subject to NSPS.
For MSPS purposes, construction is defined under
40 CFR 60.2(a) as fabrication, erection, or installation of
an affected facility. Commenced, under 60.2(i), means that
an owner or operator has undertaken a continuous program of
construction or modification or that an owner or operator
has entered into a contractual obligation to undertake and
comolete, within a reasonable time, a continuous program of
construction or modification.
The issue presented here is whether Guardian entered
into contractual obligations to build a glass furnace prior
to t:-« proposal date of the glass furnace standard.
Evidence of entering into a binding contractual ooliga-
tion can be established by proof of significant lost expendi-
tures which would be directly attributable to the cancellation
of a contract for construction or modification of the affected
facility. Typically this evidence consists of a penalty in the
nature of liquidated damages for contract breach. The Agency
also has found that a letter of intent can establish a binding
contractual obligation where cancellation of the order conten-
alated by the letter of intent would sunject the prospective
buyer to significant penalties.
-------
Guardian's Documents show that the purchase order for a
qlass furnace from Toledo Engineering was written October 25,
1979. *ut Guardian asserts its February 15, 1973, letter to
Toledo =*naineering as the contractual obligation which
establishes th«» Company's coonence construction date. The
February 1979, letter,"by itself, is difficult to accept as a
bindina contractual obligation for the construction of the
furnace for several reasons. First, the letter expressly
authorizes design of the furnace rather than its construction.
Further, the letter does not annoar to represent a final and
bindino agreement due to its references to a purchase order
which v/ill follow, a later finalization of contract details,
and a firm nrics only after specifications and designs are
finalized.
Guardian's February 22, 1380, letter to Diana Dutton,'
Director of the Region VI Enforcement Division, allages that
calculations, drawings, and studies were executed by Toledo
in reliance on Guardian's February 1979 letter. However,
these activities appear tc relate to the design, and not to
the construction, of the furnace. In the absence of clear data
demonstrating that Guardian had entered into a contractual
obligation for construction on or before June 15, 1979, I
consider Guardian subject to MS?S requirements for glass
manufacturing plants.
\s I recommended in the PSD section of this nemo, I
would issue a preliminary anplicability determination which
would allow Guardian a 30-day period in which to show that a
contractual obligation did exist on or prior to June 15, 1979.
If you would like to discuss this issue further, please
contact Rich Riondi of aiy staff at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Michael James
Diehard Rhoads
Don Goodwin
-------
DATE: Kerch 11, 1980
*uaj£CT-. ?5i?>y>a/»3r5 Applicability Detsrrcinanoris for Guaroisn Industries'
new f loaa(jcJreSsDlant y^crejcana. Texas
II
Diana
Enforcement Division (6AE)
T0 Edward €. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Er.forceeent (EW-341J
We received a letter dated Kovcm&er 6, 1979, froa a law firm in North
Carolina concerning the possible construction of a new float glass
plant by Guardian Industries without a PSO penr.it. Ke sent a request
for information to Guardian and received the response by letter o'ateo
January 2, 1280. Guardian claimed to have ccassenced construction
prior to the proposed KSPS for the glass eanufacturing industry,
Subpart CC, 44 FR 34S53, June 15, 1979. Guardian also claimed to
have act the "grandfathering" provision for PSO, 40 CFR 52.21(i)(3)
by obtaining all preconstruction permits necessary unser the SIP
before Karch 1, 1978, by cocrcencinQ construction before &rch 19,
1979, and did not discontinue construction for a period of 18 months
or Bore.
Analysis for PSD Regulations
Guardian bases its data to have commenced construction on its having
so financially cccnitted itself tc a particular site for its glass
plant that relocation or substantial modification would be severely
disruptive and financially damaging to the company. As evidence of
this cocBTttcent prior to torch 19, 1979, Guardian gives:
(1) 3400 hours expended by the Guardian Engineering Department
> * preparing design criteria, specifications anc drawings for
» the plant»
(2) contracts for engineering services for $350,000,
(3) contract with Toledo Engineering and its ccnstruction sub-
sidiary to initiate engineering and authorizing the ordering
of long lead naterials for Lhe glass melting furnace for
£1,000,000,
(4) purchase of plant site for $205,031.85,
(5) commitment to the City of Corsicana to reimburse the City
for water and sewer systems for 5105,000, and
(6) contracts for initial site work for $14,000.
—• >n»-4 <*••. 3.74T
-------
In addition Guardian clains that its manner of doins business is
sosewhat different frcct ather companies. Guardian claims that it
does nost of the engineering vsork in-house as oppossc to other companies
that let turnkey contracts. Only the glass furnace contract was a
turnkey contract. Therefore, Guardian claiii.s that its forr.al contracting
i point 1s later than eost companies. Guardian says that each of its
" /plants requires individual and specific design. Thus the coafflilaant
' i to the site is Blade prior to the letting of contracts.
Guardian points to its contract Kith Toledo as primary evidence of
Its coesrftaent, Toledo has built each of Guardian's three glass
furnaces* This contract vas let without competitive bidding anc was
'.based on the Ions term relationship between the companies. The purchase
. Border which was. issued in October 25, 1979, is cleiiEed to be just a
'"" / f ornality. Guardian claims that Toledo initiated engineering;, desAsn, "J . A^
.; and procurement without a purchase order contract. Guardian has f**r" -.(
«-"•' subnitted evidence of the aany discussions with Toledo establishing -r/iv * '*•
J "", the design criteria of tfcc furnace prior to the forrsal aut fieri zati en.
-•-""•' Guardian has obtained a letter from Toledo statins Toledo was of the
"'•«•
,
•' *"
*
opinion that Guardian had coRtnitted itself to the awarding of the
contract to Toledo prior to the forraal purchase order.
Koreover, Guardian claies that their consnitcent to this particular
site should be judged in the overall plan of the cocspany. Guardian
1s going to shut down an existing plant with the scheduled start up
of the Corsicana plant in Kovecber, 1SSO. If the Corsicana plant is
delayed, the cospany will not be able to fulfill its contracts and
will suffer severe financial
In our analysis of these facts we are §uided by the Strelow mecoranda
of Oecesber 18, 1975, and April 21, 197G, the discussion in the preamble
to the PSD regulations of June IS, 197C, and the decision in .'-fcntana
Porer Cccsany v. EPA. 13 ER C 1385, 1979. For the purpose of tnis
fleteminauon, tfte issue is whether Gwaroiaft has "entsrec into binding
asreecents or contractual cbligatiors, which cannot be cancelled or
Bodified without substantial loss to the owner or operator to undertake
a prograo of construction of the source to be ccp.pl e ted within a
reasonable tiise." The crucial elements are that there- be a contractual
obligation and a contract that cannot be cancelled or modified without
substantial loss. Contract law must answer the first and EPA 101
guideline must answer the second.
item 4, 5, and 6 relate to on-site construction. The contract for
on-site construction was not sicned until Septecbcr 13, 1279, with
Ketric Construction* The three listad itenis are not sufficient to
deaonstrate a continuous program cf on-site construction or ccntractcc
on-site construction, nor has Guardian claicao this as the bas:s for
coanence&ent of construction.
-------
Guardian's claim of grandfather-ing is based on having, in the words
of the Ninth Circuit, "contracted for construction net amounting to a
continuous program of on-site construction, but which nevertheless
irrevocably cocsritted the source to a specific site." Guercian is
emphasizing the financial coffcritiscnt ana less to tne cospany if the
Guardian Is saying that we should consider all the work it did before
letting contracts as evidence of its financial ccwr.itKent. Apparently
it 1s true that the engineering staff completed cetailce plans for
the Corslcana site before letting contracts. However, we have rejected
this factor 1n jnaking cur determination. There are no contracts
involved so there are no legs! obi 1 cat-tons thst cart be cited as consiit-
aents* Allowing considerations of in-house work in this case irould
open the door to companies claiming sow type of in-house work evidenced
a financial coRSBitcent- Host importantly vie believe we are bound by
the statutory definition «hich nay, unfortunately, work against a
coopany like Guardian that does a great ceol of preparatory in-house
work prior to entering into contractual agressents.
*
We have the same view on Guardian's argument on the relation of this
project to the shut down of another plant. We believe that we are
bound to consider only the contractual obl$s2tions of the site in
question In making our PSD applicability determination. If you have
a different view on these two points, we would request formal guidance
on how these factors should be considered.
Turning, to the contractual obi 1 gat ions,* we must decide if the company
would suffer substantial loss based on a ratio of unavoidable losses
to total project cost, tfe assuse that all the engineering contracts
can be counted In the contractual ccnrritments category when computing
the ratio of unavoidable losses to total project cost. These dales
total $250,000. Using a total project cost of $51,000,000, «e calculitj
that these contractual obligations for construction of the plant
constitutes .586S of the project's cost and conclude that this sum
1s not substantial.
Under the court-* s analysis in the Montana Porer Company case, it
appears that a cospany oust
-------
This leads us to Guardian's daira that on February 16t 1979, it con-
tracted with Toledo for construction of the slass Halting furnace.
The total cost as reflected In the purchase orcer of October 25,
1979, is $11,000,000, This ar.ount v.-ould clearly demonstrate that
(auardian had irrevocably ccasritted to 2 specific site if the necessary
elements are met by this agreement.
Is the letter of February 16, 1979, from Guardian to Toledo a binding
agreteent or contractual obligation? At this time, a year latsr,
both parties are claiming there was an agreement.
The elements in question here are certainty of obligations and of
pries or compensation. A contract must be reasonably certain ss to
the obligations of the parties. Concerninq the' design of the furnace,
it is clear that the design ts not finalized. Previous discussions
are cited as having taken place on the design* Khile there is a
question on the certainty cf the design requirements at this tise,
giving Suardiaa the benefit of interpretation, it is possible that
Guardian could show from the discussions having taken place tiist the
design was reasonably certain.
The crucial point here 1s lack of certainty of price compensation.
The letter states that Guardian has taken under considerable informa-
tion concerning fees but there is no indication of an agreement on
price. In fact there is the explicit statement following the discussion
of the fees that Guardian "will finalize the contract details at a
later data." Clearly the contract details will include costs. Guardian
has ^reatly eaqihastzejl the individuality of design of each- of its
glass plants* The furance is by Guardian's own argirr.ent not a standard
off-the-shelf iteou Price then oust be somewhat individual for each
furnace and cannot be taken as a foregone conclusion or agreement.
Price or corapensation is an essential ingredient and must be definite
and certain or capable of being ascertained from the contract itself.
As a general rule, an agreement which does not specify the price or
any s»thod for determining it, but which leaves the price for future
determination and agreement of the parties, is not binding. (17 fit.
2d p. 423. }
Where a party is attempting to recover for work performance where
price is not mentioned, a court will invoke the standard of reasonable
ness', and the fair value of the services or property is recoverable.
Even if thert is not a contract, a court will impose a constructive
contract to prevent unjust enrichment. We are not in such a situation
so the concerns are very different. Here the burden is on Guarcien
to demonstrate that all the requisites of a binding agreement have
been fulfilled.
-------
'•O
Where the material tenas and conditions of a contract are not ascertain-
able and the negotiations have not reached the point where the agreement
53yes the parties an absolute r-icht without further necotiationst no
enforceable contract is crested." (17 C.J.5. p. £96 note 1.) To be
final, the acreenent roust extend to all the tenss which the parties
intend to introduce and raaterial terms cannot be left for future
settlesent. (17 C.J.S. p. 627.) Sxisply put, where an essential
decent is left for future agreement, there is no contract.
Even considering the neogi tat ions between Suerdien and Toledo, we
cannot conduce that there xas a meeting of the Rinds on prices*
Therefore, the letter fails to'fulfill the requirepents of a binding
agreement*
If "we assuae for the safce of arguccnt that the February 16 letter is
a contract, what is it a contract for? The only authorization is to
proceed with the 6esi.cn of the furnace. This contrasts with the
purchase order of October 25, 1979, that authorized Toledo to "cesign
and install complete and reacy for operation" the furnace. We do
not believe that this letter could be construed as doing rr,ore than
authorizing the design of the furnace. There is just no basis for
including the whole of the purchase order into the February 16,
letter.
€1ven the- United authorization of the February 15 letter, what would
the loss to Gurdian be if Guardian had cancelled whatever agreement
1t had Kith Toledo on Karch IS, 1575. Certainly not $!!aGCO>000-
Even in Toledo's letter of February 21, 12£0, which obviously was
written at Guardians request, Toledo stated that it undertook the
necessary studies., cost esticates and preliminary engineering •prior
to the purchase order in reliance upon Guardian's ccnr,itr.ent. These
actions taken by Toledo were limited in nature and did not encompass
the scope ot the purchase order. OR Karch IS, 1579, Guardian would
have been liable for only the costs Toledo incurred relating to assign
work for that one month. These costs clearly would not approach
several million Collars that would be necessary to demonstrate the
substantial loss test had been met.
V.'s believe that Guardian did not have a contractual csiiget:on for
the furnace which is the oajor piece of equi&neni at the plant until
Octcter 25, 1S7S. Even if there were a contract bascc on the February
16, 1979 letter, we believe th&t it uould not cr.ablt: Guardian to
Beet the irrevocable cccn-.itr.ent test because of the limited authorization.
Therefore, we conclude that Gurdian old not conr.ar.ce construction by
Karch 19, 1S7S, and is subject to review uncsr the PSd regulations-
-------
K5PS Regulations
The NSPS detersnnatioR 1s SMiewhat easier. The questions to
ere sfeen did the continuous on-site construction becin anc ivhen was
the contractual obligation entered into for the piece of equipment
regulated. The glass furnace is the ecfjipsent in question. For the
reasons given above, we conclude that the earliest ate for the contract
1s the October 25, 1579, purchase order and for the continuous en-site
construction would be the Ketric contract of September 13, 1975.
Both dates are after the publication of the proposed fiSPS for glass
furnaces. Therefore, Guardian is subject to the Kew Source Performance
Standards.
He ask your concurrence on these deterrainations. If Guardian is
subject to ?SO, Guardian 1s in violation of the regulations by beginning
on-site construction without a penr.it. We Kill publish a Federal
Register Kotice of our dctensination for purposes of a Section 3C7
judicial review end isswe a Notice of Violation to Guarcian. we
recuest your action as soon as possible. Delay on our part will
only be detrimental to Guardian.
Enclosure a/s
-------
1.9 DATE: April 12, 1979
SUBJECT: PSD and NSPS Applicability - PEPCO Didcerson
Generating Station Unit *4
FRCM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Steve Wasserug, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division. Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD/88
CR: 10.9 [Hard Copy]
-------
1.10
1.10 OKIE:
SUBJECT:
FRCM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
GR:
March 11, 1980
Applicability of Major Source to PSD Review
if Construction Ccranenced after March 19, 1979
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforc
Charles H. Tisdale, Jr.
King and Spa 1 ding Co.
See PSD/101
10.15 [Bard Copy]
-------
2. PSD
Potential to Emit/Limitations on Capacity to Emit ^
§
-------
WASHINGTON. D.C. 204GO
2 5 SvfAT 12"?
™* OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
Subject: Submission of State Air Permits
as SIP Revisions
From: Richard G. Rhoads , Director x'<£.' V^xr-?£^J-
Control Programs Development Division
Edward E. Reich, Director *^.L^,(L_ T~ /^•—' w
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
To: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
A question has been raised concerning the need for
States to submit construction and operating air permits as
revisions to State implementation plans (SI?). Of particular
concern is1 the Federal enforceability of State-issued air
permits thar have not been incorporated individually within
a SIP by means of an EPA approval through rulemaking.
Federal.enforcement of construction permits issued
under procedures complying with the requirements of
40 CFR 51.18 (new source review) is provided in
40 CFR 52.02(d) which reads, in part, as follows:
...all permit conditions or permit denials
issued pursuant to approved or promulgated
regulations for the review of new or modi-
fied stationary or indirect sources, are
enforceable by the Administrator...in
accordance with...assigned responsi-
bilities under the plan.
Thus, State construction permits which have beer, issued
in accordance with SI? procedures approved cy E?A as
satisfying 40 CFR 51.18", and which satisfy tne interpretative
ruling of'the requirements of 40 Cr'R 51.18 (the emissio:-.
offset policy), 4~4 Fed. Reg. 3274 et sea. (January 15,
1979), are enforceable by EPA. (However, if emission
reductions to meet Condition 3 of the emission offset policy
-------
-2-
are obtained from existing sources other than those con-
trolled by the .owner of the proposed new source, Section
V.B. of the policy provides that these "external" offsets
must be effectuated through a SIP revision.) The provisions
of 40 CFR 52.02(d) also provide for EPA enforcement of
prevention of significant deterioration construction permits
which have been issued by States under arocedures comolying
with 40 CFR 52.21.
The conditions upon construction contained in these
permits which are needed to meet federal requirements
(e.g., the source must achieve the lowest achievable emission
rate, or operate best available control technology) have
continuing application to a source built under the permit.
Any State limitations upon the effective duration of a State
'construction permit is deemed to effect only the authorization
to construct under the permit. Once a source is actually
built, it must continue to meet the conditions imposed upon
its construction unless they are modified by a federally
approved SI? revision.
Operating permits present some special problems.
Since State procedures for the issuance of operating permits
to new sources are not required under 40 CFR 51.18 or
40 CFR 52.2*, State new source operating permits are not
federally enforceable-under 40 CFR 52.02[d). Of course, to
the extent the behavior required in new source operating
permits is consistent with the behavior required in the SIP
(including any previously issued construction permit enforce-
able by reason of 40 CFR 52.02(d)), EPA can enforce the
behavioral requirement on the basis o£ noncompliance with
the SIP. In addition, EPA can enforce, on the basis of
noncompliance with the SIP, behavioral requirements contained
in opera tiny permits for existing sources to the extent that
the permit requirements are the same as the SI? requirements.
"However, if the provisions of an operating permit differ
from the SIP, the permit must, at the present time, be
approved as a SIP revision before it is enforceable (or
recognized) oy EPA. If an operating permit condition more
stringent than the SI? is necessary to assure attainment or
maintenance of a national ambient air quality standard,
failure to revise the SIP accordingly results in the SIP
being inadequate. Therefore, we are advising each Regional
Office to notify the States of this potential need to revise
their SIPs. States wnich do, in fact, need to rev.se t.neir
STPs to incorporate individual operating permits whicn are
necessary to assure attainment and maintenance of a national
ambient air quality standard should do so as soon as possible.
-------
2.1
-3-
Sofi'e State- issued operating permits may not
require ::. dividual EPA approval through ruic~aJ:inc in
to tie considered part of" the SI?. Section :iO{a)(2)(d) vS
the Clean Air Act requires SI?s to include "a program to
provide for the enforcement of emission limitations and
regulation of the modification, construction, .-r-J one. ration
of any stationary source, including a permit program ?.z
required in parts C and D and a permit or ec'.i .. .'ilen- program
for any major emitting facility..." In addition, Section
l'72(b}(6) of the Act provides that SIPs must "require
permits for the construction and operation of iii-w or ir.ocT.fied
major stationary sources..." Although no relictions
implementing these sections yet exist, a wcr.!.j:*.g group i".
developing a regulatory proposal requiring GT*%s to contain
an operating permit program (or its- equivalent) and estab-
lishing the standards for EPA approval of such a program.
The -issue of the- federal enforceabil'ity of St&ts-issucd
operating permits will be addressed by these regulations.
In the interim, States are encouraged to suc._it permits as
SIP revisions 'as appropriate.
cc: Director, Enforcement Division
Regions I-X
Michael Janes, OGC
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGi 2.3 (PARTIALLY OUTDATED1
SUBJECT Applicability Detenni nation for PSD - Hot Mix Asphalt Operations
FROM Howard Bergman, Director
Enforcement Division
T0 Ed Reich
Division Director
Stationary" Source Enforcement (EN 341)
E.P.A.
401 M. St. SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
This is to confirm a telephone conversation between Libby
Scopino of your staff and Dennis Isaacs of our Special
Projects Section on August 9, 1978. It is our understanding
that potential emissions from a new source should be calculated
using the number of hours it is allowed to operate if the
limitation on operating hours is a provision of a fully approv-
able SIP new source permit. We are now implementing this decision
in our determinations of PSD applicability, please contact Carl
Edlund if we misunderstood.
P»
IJJ0.4 Be, :.74i
-------
'ED 5TA7E5 £N . -RONMZNTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
V.ASnINGTCN. D C 20-5D
18 MAY 1S7S
Orr-rr
Mr. Jerry L. Phillips
Environmental Specialist
Sums & McDonnell
P.O. Box 173
Kansas City, Missouri 64141
Dear Mr. Phillips:
Mr. Barber has asked that I respond to your letter of
March 1, 1979, concerning the applicability of the PSD
regulations to power plants that are certified by DOE as
"peakload power plants"; the tern "peakload power plant"
being defined in the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act
as "a power plant which, over any 12 calendar month period,
generates electricity not in excess of the power plant's
design capacity multiplied by 1,500 hours". In your letter
you ask whether for PSD purposes the potential emission rate
of such a plant may be calculated based on a maximum of 1,500
hours of operation per year.
The PSD regulations state in §52.21(b)(3) that the
annual potential emissions of a source "shall be based on its
maximum annual rated capacity unless the source is subject to
enforceable permit conditions which limit the annual hours of
operation". See 43 FR 26404, June 19, 1978. In tlie absence
of an enforceable limitation on hours of operation we would
normally base the potential emission rate of a source on
8,760 hours of operation per year (24 hours/cay x 365
days/year).
At issue in this case is the question of whether a
combustion turbine certified by DOE as a "peakload power
plant" under the Power Plant and Industrial Fuel Use Act of
1978 is "subject to enforceable permit conditions whicr. limit
the annual hours of operation". In order to qualify as an
"enforceable permit condition" for purposes of PSD, operating
limitations would have to be enforceable by EPA. The purpose
of the provision whicn allows potential emissions to be
limited by operating limitations is to exclude from PSD
coverage those sources which, although capable of e-nitring
-------
pollutants in excess of the PSO cutoff levels, are effec-
tively prevented from doing so. In order to carry cjt our
responsibility of protecting the PSD air quality increments,
EPA must require that any operating limitations wnich serve
to exempt a source from PSD, be enforceable by EPA.
I would suggest that the owner/operator of the proposed
combustion turbine ask the appropriate State Air Pcllatior.
Control Agency to incorporate, as part of the State permit, a
limitation on operating hours. The State permit would be
enforceable by EPA, if issued under the State Implementation
Plan's new source review requirements (§51.18) and would
serve as the basis for calculating potential emissions for
PSD purposes.
Certification of the power plant by DOE as a ?eakload_.
power plant is not, in and of itself, a sufficient basis foV
limiting potential emissions because it does not constitute
an EPA enforceable requirement.
Should you have any further questions on this issue,
please contact Libby Scopino at (202) 755-2564.
Sincerely yours,
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement
cc: Richard Rhoads, CPDD
Mike Trutna, CPDD
Peter Wyckoff, OGC
Dave Joseph, Region vm
waiter Barber, OAQPS
-------
2.10
MAR 2 5 1950
Office of
Enforcement
FU2JECT:
FFCiX:
TO.
PSr Applicability
Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch - Region 2
This is in response to your memo dated January 7, 1960,
concerning the enforceability of a pens it issued by the New York
City Department of Air Resources (NYC CAP.). Specifically, you
asked whether a UYC DAK permit which contains an annual licit en
the airount of fuel combusted by two diesel-fired co-generation
units can be used to licit the units' potential to emit. The
existing PSD regulations allow a source's annual, potential to eir.it
to be limited by "enforceable permit requirements."
"Enforceable permit requirements"/ as that-terp is used in
the PSE definition of.potential to emit, was intended to mean
requirements that are enforceable under the SIP. Unless a source
has a SIP enforceable requirement limiting it to 100/250 "tons of
emissions per year, EPA cannot ensure that the source will not
exceed the FSD threshold.
If the I7YC DAP penr.it was not issued under the Sir and is not
enforceable as part of the SIP, it cannot limit the source's
potential to emit for purposes of PSD avoidance.,
I suggest that your Division issue a fcrnal applicability
determination which reflects the above paragraphs.
Libby Scopino of isy staff has communicated this response tc
Ctu Roth by telephone. If you wish to discuss this further,
plfcase call Libby at 755-2564.
SYU80L
SUflM,
3ATE
S^-^l
b> ••• •• ••••*•••
*&iig$M
m^ . .^ . M •••••• .•••••
W&U$L&
/>/
/zv/s*
c?rr.
OFFICIAL ?!U£
-------
2.11 DATE: June 9, 1980
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability: Asphalt Concrete Plants
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: F.W. Giaccone, Chief
Air Facilities Branch, Region I!
DISCUSSION: See PSD/111
CR: 5.7 [Hard Copy]
-------
2.12
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL 7 1930
Office of
Enforcement
HEMGRAHDUH
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability: Industrial Scrap Processing Company
TROK: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TC: Samuel P. Moulthrop, Acting Chief
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
This is in response to your memo of May 19, 1280, in which you
requested guidance on the applicability of PSD regulations to an"
automobile shredding plant in Kev; York- City.
According to your neir.o, the plant in question has four diesel
engines, whose potential to eip.it, absent any enforceable permit
conditions, exceeds 250 tons/year of CO and ITOX. Two of the
engines generate electricity for the entire plant and two engines
directly drive the shredder. In order to avoid PSD review, by
reducing the source's potential to emit, the company would like to
limit the hours of operation of the shredder with a bindinc permit
condition.
PSD applicability under the January 30, I960 stav is deter-
mined by a source's potential to er.it under both the September 5
1975 proposed PSD regulations and the June 1?, 197E regulations.
The September 5, 1979 proposed PSD regulations co net provide
for limited hours of operation when determining a source's poten-
tial to emit. Under the proposal, potential to err it is based on
the capability at maximum design capacity to emit a pollutant after
the application of air pollution control equipment. Since the
source's emissions are uncontrolled, applicability will depend en
any limitations which can be imposed under the June 19, 1978 PSD
regulations.
The June 15, 1976 PSD regulations allow for potential to er.it
to include limitations on hours of operation but net the use of air
pollution control equipment.
— ' ' "^ I ! ' j "
vi'T^; l T T-
OFP1CUL ?'•_=:
-------
If the autoracbile shredcinr. plant has the potential to er.it
25C tens/year or rccre of emissions, permit conditions liritina
hours of operation of the shredder ir»ay be used to avoid PCT review.
These permit conditions nust be federally enforces!:le, \:hich would
require a SIF revision, or inclusion within a cemit i?sueti under
provisions of Part El.lc of the SIF.
To specifically answer your questions, a binding rvsrr.it
condition limiting the hours cf operation could be placec": on the
shredder. This would, in effect, limit the operation cf the two
diesel engines which drive the shredder. Itowever, limited hours of
operation of the shredder would not provide an enforceable
limitation on the diesel engines which provide electricity for the
entire plant. These engines can be operated independently frcir the
shredder and could be used for purposes other than the actual
shredding process*
If limited hours of operation are placed on the shredder, the
source's potential to emit would include the mazinxss design capa-
city cf the two engines used for plant electricity (without hour
limitations) and the design capacity of the engines which drive the
shredder, including any federally enforceable conditions which
lir.it the hours of operation.
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please
contact Janet LittleJohn cf my staff at 755-2SC4.
Edward E. Peich
cc: Jim V.'eigold (CACFC)
Peter Wyckoff (OCC)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ?
- • it
RIG:::: ::
OATE -HAf I 3 TS80
--SJECT Request for Guidance on Application of PSD Regulations
PROM Samuel P. Moulthrop, Acting Chief
General Enforcement Branch
TO Edward S. Reich, Esc, (EN 341)
Director, Stationary Source Enforcement
Division
The Industrial Scrap Processing Company constructed a new
automobile body shredding plant during 1979 in the Bronx,
New York, without first applying for or obtaining a PSD
permit; the company also failed to obtain the required
operating permit from the State of Sew York. Region II has
initiated enforcement actions against the company for several
violations, and is presently involved in settlement
negotiations. The company expects to apply for and receive
its New York State Certificate to Operate this summer; it
will also apply for a PSD permit if one is necessary.
This memorandum seeks your guidance on the application of the
PSD regulations with particular respect to one issue which
has been raised. The- auto shredder is directly driven by
two diesel engines. Two additional' diesel engines are used
to generate all the electricity used at the plant (the
facility apparently does not draw any power from Consolidated
Edison). Auto shredding is the only activity at the plant.
The company does not expect to use the shredder constantly.
Potential emissions from the four diesel engines exceed 250
tons per year of Carbon Monoxide and NOx. The company would
be willing to accept a binding permit condition limiting its
annual hours of operation so as to reduce the potential emissions
to below 250 tons. Our question involves the enforceability
of such permit conditions, and their acceptability for the
purpose of limiting potential emissions for ?5D review.
As you will recall, New York State does nor require rhac. diesel
engines be covered by operating permits; New York City does.
Only the State's permitting authority is a portion of"the
New York SIP. The City's operating permits covering the four
diesel engines, then, will not be enforceable by EPA, and would
not alone be satisfactory to limit the calculation of potential
emissions.
"A Form 1320-6 (R««. ].7«)
-------
The shredder itself, however, must hold a State Certificate to
Operate, and a limitation on operating hours could be included
in that permit. Our question is whether such a condition may
be viewed as limiting the operation of the diesel engines also.
It would appear that"this question can be broken dowr. into two
further questions:
(a) Would an enforceable limit on operating hours
applicable to the shredder itself be an enforce-
able limit on the operating hours of the two
diesel engines which provide direct power to
the shredding machine?
(b) Would the limit on the shredder be an enforce-
able limit on the operating hours of the two
additional diesel engineelectric generators,
since their sole use is supplying electricity
to the plant, and the sole use of the plant is
shredding cars?
It may be logical to answer Question (a) in the affirmative,
since the two direct drive engines have no function other than
to operate the shredder. Question (b) is more difficult;
although the second pair of engines is not likely to be used
unless the shredder is also being used, there is nothing to
prevent the company from operating them independently.
I would appreciate having your response as soon as possible so
that we can advise the company as to our interpretation of the
regulations. If you need any further information please
contact Walter Mugdan, Esq. at (FTS) 264-4434.
-------
SUBJECT:
PROM:
2.13
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
DATE: AU6 22 1980
G. Rhoads, Director
Control Programs Development^
Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
This is in response to your memorandum of July 15, 1980 rsoi
guidance on using permit conditions to define a source's _
_ specifically, you cited a gasoline bulk terminal fnat nad
requested a change in their State operating permit that would limit
gasoline throughput such that the terminal's VOC emissions would remain
under 100 tons per year (TPY). The purpose of this request by the bulk
terminal was to obvia-te the need for RACT controls at their facility.
Prior CPOO guidance has provided that urban and rural nonattainment
areas not needing an extension until 1987 (by virtue of a demonstration
of attainment by 1982) may have a source cutoff size of 100 tons per
year. The use of permit modification to comply with the TOO TPY cutoff
was not addressed.
The recently published PSO regulations (PR 52676, dated
August 7, 1980) include as part of the definition of "potential to
emit": "any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of the
source to emit a pollutant, including air pollution control equipment
and restriction on hours of operation or on the type or amount of
material combusted, stored, or processed may be treated as part of its
design only if the limitation or the effect it would have on emissions
is Federally enforceable."
Source permits with conditions whi:h are duly adopted by the Stats
and submitted and then approved by EPA is part of the SIP are Federally
enforceable. Therefore, it would appear that a restriction or condition
on a State operating permit that would limit gasoline throughput sucn
that the terminal's emission would remain under 100 TPY could be accept-
able. However, it is pointed out that in determining if a bulk gasoline
terminal is a 100 TPY source, the gasoline throughput of the terminal as
well as the emissions from gasoline storage tanks at the facility must
be added together. (See attached memorandum dated August 8, 1980 from
G. T. Helms, Chief, CPOB to John Hanisch, Mobile Source Emissions Section,
-------
Region I.) Care should be taken in determining the extent of control
of storage facilities as there may be many tanks under one person's
control at a large pipeline tank farm.
Determination of a daily emissions limit or corresponding gasoline
throughput, commensurate with the <100 TPY level, must be made for
inclusion in the permit. Thus, the source will be restricted from
emitting at a 100* TPY rate during the ozone season (summer) while
complying with the annual restriction of <100 TPY. In addition, as a
permit condition, provision must be made for record keeping and
periodically reporting gasoline throughput. Long-term averages of
gasoline throughput would not be acceptable.
Also, in that the original emission limit for this source is
incorporated in the approved SIP for Mecklenburg County, the State must'
submit a revised attainment demonstration ensuring that RFP is maintained
and that attainment by December 31, 1982 is achieved. This would be
especially Important if numerous sources were requesting changes in
their operating permits.
In summary, in determining 100 tons per year sources, operating
restrictions on permits may be used under certain conditions to define
potential to emit. Permits must specify proper record, keeping, reporting
requirements, and any other conditions deemed necessary to ensure
compliance with the operating restrictions.
Please contact Ton Helms (FTS 629-5226) or Bill Polglase
(FTS 629-5251) should you have any questions.
Attachment
-------
•? • •
DATE:
ieircn Tri'angie'Parx, .IcrtrTCi'roiTni'277'"
8 1960
: Reouest for Conf-irmation of the Definition of a "00-Ton Source
as Applied to Controls in tne Gasoline Storage and Marketing Cnain
FROM: 3. 7. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Ooerations Sranch (MD-15)
TO: John L. Hani sen
Mooile Source Emissions Section, Region I
This is in response to your memorandum of May 22, 1980 requesting
confirmation of the definition of a 100-ton source as aoplied to controls
in the gasoline storage-and marketing chain.
As stated in previous determinations of 100 tons/year sources (see
memorandum dated Septemoer 7, 1978 from Richard G. Rhoads to Director,
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X), the potential
emission-s from all similar or connected CTG category sources on a
facility-wide basis should be added together to determine if CTG control
is required. In the case of bulk gasoline terminals, this would ae
based on potential emissions from tank trucks (using the aoprooriate
emission factor for .splash or submerged fill and the loading rack
throughput) as well as potential emissions from storage tanks if they
are located on contiguous or adjacent properties wnicn are owned or
ooerated by the same person (or by persons uncer common control).
In accordance with the above, the responses to your questions are:
(1) tank truck potential emissions during loading operations should ce
calculated as part of the potential emissions at gasoline loacing
terminals; (2) compliance with the storage tank CTSs (fixed-rocf'tanxs
and floating-roof tanks) are required at an-y terminal wnicn has oeen
determined to be a 100-ton/year source and tne potential emissions from
these tanks should have been considered when tnis determination was maoe
if the tanks are located on contiguous or adjacent prooerties wnicn are
owned or operated oy the same person (or persons under common control);
ir.d (2) s tank truck certification program s-s a retirement cr.'.y f.r
those uraan areas requesting an extension aeycnc 1S82 to attain" tne
ozone standard; however, the bul< terminal CTG requires loading into
"essentially leakless" tank trucks and tne States must incluce'a test
method in tneir regulations for certifying that tank trucks are
essentially leakless irregardless of an extension aeyona 1982.
As indicated above, Item 3 is in" agreement with your uncerstancinc,
out only "essentially leakless" trucks may ce loaded at bulk gasoline
-»*m 13:0.4 ,-R
-------
terminals if trie bulk terminals r"e greater than 'OC tens/year sources.
(See memoranaum June 15, 1980 -"om Ricnara 3. ^hoacs, -irac'cr, C?CD to
Jacx Divita, Chief, Air Programs aranc.i, .Region VI.;
It is hooed that this will clarify the reauirensn-s necessary for
the determination if a Bulk gasoline terminal is a "GG-ton/year source.
Please contact Bill Pol glass (FTS 529-5251) or Tom Milliams*(rT3 52S-5225)
should you have any questions.
cc: Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X
?eta Hagerty, Region I
Paul Truchan, Region II
Neil Swanson, Region III
Doug Cook, Region IV
Dick Dal ton, Region V
'Donna Ascenzi, Region VI
3avid Doyle, Region '/IL
Bill Bernarao, Region VIII
Tom Rarick, Region IX
Ken Lepic, Region X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NOV25I980
Mr. Daniel J. Dent
Project Engineer
Bechtel, Inc.
15740 Shady Grove Road
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760
Dear Xr. Dent:
This is in response to your letter of October 1, 1980, in
which your requested guidance or. PSD applicability for
refuse- to— energy facilities. Specifically, you requested
information on how the daily firing rate of such a "facility should
be determined, c: --.:<.:
To determine if the facility in question is capable of
charging 250 tons of refuse per day (and thus falling into the IOC
ton major source category for PSD applicability) the firing rate
should be based on the solids content of the municipal waste and
tfc< dry weight of the papermill sludge. These parameters are used
in order to maintain consistency with applicability and source
testing under the new source performance standards" for incinerators
and sewage treatment plants (See 40 CFR 60, SuLparts C and C).
If you have any questions regarding this -determination, please
contact Janet Little John of my staff at 755-2564.
Sincerely yours,
Edward C. Peich, Director
Division cf Stationary
Source Enforcement
iHN-iui J i i
•I™ -*-*O .• f
I.
's X i'uiiV\So"'!yv.7>"v^i f
Form 1320.1 (12-70)
-------
2.14
Bechte! InccrscTated
15740 Shaay Grove Road
Gaithersourg. Maryland 20750
301-258-3000
October 7, 1980
NM-8
Mr. Edward Rice, Director
Division of-'S'tationary Source Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.U.
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dear Mr. Rice:
Subject: Bechtel Job 14487
New Milford Project
PSD Regulations -
Qualifying Definition of Sludge
We are presently engaged in a feasibility study for a refuse-to-energy
facility to be located la the State of Connecticut with capabilities of
steam and/or electricity production. The facility will utilize modular in-
cinerators to co- fire both municipal solid waste (MSW) and papermill sludge.
The papermill sludge will have a solids content of approximately 35 percent,
and the moisture content of the MSW will be in the range of 20 to 25 percent.
PSD regulations at present do not define sludge for purposes of co-disposal,
and we are therefore not sure whether the wet or dry weight of the sludge should
be used In arriving at the total firing rate at the facility. That is, .In the
250 tons/day cut off limit that determines whether an incinerator is a major
source, should the dry weight of the co-fired sludge be used in reckoning
that component of the mixed waste.
Please call me if there are any questions concerning this request. We would
appreciate your written response as soon as possible to enable us to proceed
with the sizing of this facility.
Very truly yours,
D. J. Dent
Project Engineer
DJD:FR:jd
cc: W. R. Elliott
F. S. Roberts
-------
2.15
2.15
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials, Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard to
PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de minimus
in order to be subject to PSD (see PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to represent
actual emissions for new sources and, therefore,
an increase in production at the PSD source is
not an increase in actual emissions. (Also see
PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered to be one of the
28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary metal
production plant) if it uses scrap metal to
produce iron, even if the metal is poured into
molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
i ncreases.
7) A whislcey distillery is not considered to be one
of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a chemical
process plant. A chemical process plant is any
establishment in Major Group 28 of the SIC Code.
Beverage distilleries are in Major Group 20.
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not subject
to PSD unless the triggering increase is of the
same pollutant as the one for which a significant
increase results. (Also see PSD/120).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforceable;
however, the State can impart Federally enforceable
conditions to a construction permit issued for
the source in accordance with the New Source Review
procedures of the SIP at the time of issuance.
3.16 [Hard Copy]; 4.16; 5.9; 10.22; 12.9; 13.5
-------
2.16
2.16 DATE: April 1, 1981
SUBJECT: PSD Questions
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Merrill S. Hohman, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region I
DISCUSSION: See PSD/124
CR: 3.17 [Hard Copy]; 13.6
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUEJECT; P5D Determination: Sun Oil Company and the Definition
of rajor ^edification
FRC2!: Director* Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Julio Morales-Sanchez, Director,
Enforcement Division Pegion II
This IB in response to your nemo dated April 21* 1981,
concerning the Eun Oil Company in Yabucou. Puerto Pico and the
definition of major modification as that tern is used in the
context of the Prevention of Significant Petcrioration (PSD)
regulations. The source in question received a perr.it to
construct in 1974, which limited the* boiler to 30C million Btu/hr
heat input. The source nov propor.es tc increase the boiler's heat
input to 475 rillion Btu/hr and clair an exception fror PSD review
under 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (iii) (f). Specifically you seek
clarification of this exception in ?52.21(b)(2)(iii) (f) which
provides that an increase in the hours of operation or in the
production rate eh all not constitute a physical change or chanae
in the method of operation unless such change would be prohibit d
under any federally enforceable permit condition which wae
established after January 6, 1S75. pursuant to 4f CFF. 52.21 or
under regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFP 51.18 or 40 CFF
51.24.
This exclusion is interpreted to wean that any major sourer
seeking tc increase its hours of operation or its production ra e
shall be allowed to do so without the need of a PSD pern it
provided that such source was not licited by an enforceable perr.it
condition which was established after January 6, 1975 In the
instant case at band, this would mean that the boiler could
increase its rate of operation from 300 MK Etu/hr heat input tc
475 KM Ptu/hr without the need for a PSD penr.it.
The preamble to the August 7, 19FO PSD regulations states at
page 52704:
"It (the exclusion) would exclude
any increase in hours or rate
of" operation, ar long as thr
increase would not require a change
in any preconstructdon perait
condition established under the SI?
(including PST permits) after t.w«
X M&i /
: OFFICIAL rlLs CCf
SPA Fomi 1320.1 (12-70)
-------
For th€ purposes: of PSD t^e relevant date of concern is
January 6, 1575. This IP the date when E?A initiated its PST
prograr. and began trackinr. changes in air cuality iirract. Actior
taken prior to that time could not have been undertaken with any
prior knowledge or prejudice toward the PSD recuiremcnts.
While it in true that increase in production and operation
nay result in significant errission increases they are not
obligated to obtain prior approval under PSD. This is explained
in the prcanhle also at page 52704.
•This exclusion stens largely frort
EPA's decision that the definitions
of najor "modification" should focus
on changes in "actual er.lssions."
While EPA has concluded that as a
general rule Congress intended any
significant net increase in such
eaicsions to undergo PSD or non-
' attainment review, it is also convinced
that Congress could not have intended
a corpany to have to get a N£F perr.it
before it could lawfully change hours
or rate of operation. Plainly, such
e requirement would severely, and unduly
hanper the ability of any company to
take advantage of favorable narket
conditions.""
Although such chances will not be rccuired to get PSD approval,
they will consume air quality increment provided the baseline- date
has b*-en established. Subseouent applicants should ta?e such
effects into account.
This response has been prepared'with the concurrence of OAPPS
and OGC. Any questions or comments you have concerning it should
be directed to Janet LittJejohn Farella of my staff. She can be
reached at 755-2564.
Edward E. Prich
cc: Mike Trutna
Peter Wyckoff
Gerald be Caetano
-------
UNITED .TATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 2.1!
-*-= APR 2 : :981
JECT Clarification of PSD Definition of Ma^or Modification
*r
PROM Julio Morales-Sanchez, Directo
Enforcement Division P*%
~° Edward E. Reich, Director ~ •'""' "".''" '
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement " -../ ~
i
The purpose of this memorandum is to request clarification with
respect"to the definition of "major modification" as that term
is used in the context of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration of Air Quality ("PSD") regulations, codified at
40 CFR §52.21 (45 FR 52676, August 7, 1980), because a case
being considered by the Region II Office may be affected by the
definition of that term.
"Major modification" is defined in the PSD regulations as "any
physical change in or change in the method of operation of a
major stationary source that would result in a significant net
emissions increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under
the {Clean Air] Act." 40 CFR iS2.21(b)(2)(i). The regulations
further state: "A physical change or change in the method of
operation shall not include: ...\'An increase in the hours of
operation or in the production rate, unless such change would
be prohibited under anv federally enforceable permit condition
which was established after January 6, 1975, pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21 or under regulations aporoved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.13 or
40 CFR 51.24." 40 CFR §52.2l"(b) (2) (iii) (f) (emphasis added) 7f
The situation in question involves a proposed increase in an
existing boiler's'allowable capacity. The original permit to
construct was issued by the State in 1974 pursuant to the New
Source Review ("NSR") procedures promulgated by that State and
approved by EPA as part of the SI? on May 31, 1972 pursuant to
40 CFR §51.18. The construction permit is, therefore, federally
enforceable.
That permit limited the boiler in question to a capacity of
300 million British thermal units per hour ("MMBtu/hour") heat
input although the boiler was rated in excess of 500 MMBtu/hour.
In December of 1980 the source applied to the State for a permit
to increase the capacity of the boiler to 47S- MMBtu/hour; this
permit was issued in February of 1981. The source now contends
that it should be exempt from PSD review pursuant to the defini-
tion of "major modification" because its permit to construct was
issued before January 5, 1975.
(A... 3-761
-------
The definition itself is not clear with respect to whether the
January 6, 1975 date applies only to the regulations codified
at 40 CFR §52.21 or, in"the alternative, to regulations approved
pursuant to 40 CFR 351.18 and 40 CFR §51.24 in'addition to those
codified at 40 CFR §52.21.
Region II notes that the preamble to the August 7, 1980 PSD
regulations give's some guidance on this issue. Specifically,
the preamble states that the phrase "change in the method of
operation" does not encompass "any increase in the hours or
rate of operation of a source, so long as the increase would
require no change in any preconstruction permit condition es-
tablished after January 6, 1975 under the SIP." 45 FR 52698.
This guidance would tend to support the interpretation that
the January 6, 1975 date is intended to apply to all regulations
referenced in the definition in question. This would, in turn,
support the argument that, in the instant case, the intended
increase in the rate of operation would not be subject to PSD
review because the source's §51.18 or preconstruction permit
was issued before January 6, 1975.
The Region, however, recognizes that there is an argument for
interpreting the January 6, 1975 limitation as applicable only
to those federally enforceable permit conditions" established after
January 6, 1975 pursuant to 40 CFR §52.21. In the instant case,
this would lead to a determination that the source would be
subject to PSD1 review. This argument can be summarized as follows:
1. While January 6, 1975 is the effective date of
the first PSD regulations, it apparently has , ;,/-•"
no relevance to permits issued oursuant to §51.18. h*r •?/< "
As the January 6, 1975 date was"not factored into ~f ,.'«-,'
the definition of "major modification" codified &f- /,.JL.-/ .
under the June 19, 1978 PSB regulations, it is '
unclear why it would be a factor under the current
regulations (if such is indeed the case). A case
can be made that a significant emissions increase
at an emissions unit which was limited under a
federally enforceable (§51.18 NSR permit) permit
condition is comparable to a significant emissions
increase which results frrm the addition of a new
emissions unit at a source.
-------
2. This is a modification of an existing major source
which would potentially (a) increase emissions in
significant amounts, (b) consume increment, and
(c) degrade the ambient air quality.
An expeditious reply to this request would be appreciated. Should
you require additional information relative to this proposal please
contact Mr. Gerald DeGaetano at (212) 264-4726.
cc: F. Giaccone, 2AIS-AF
K. Eng, 2PM-PA
R. Stein, 2ENF-GE
-------
2. IS
3e«r State/Local yirrrtsr:
> 'te»TJ: 11, l?£i, 1 s*rt yes * sutsary of
?.i»ci--.r IV. Enclose.;! is »n uop'~t.c ^nlc* snsal'J ?*• a^cci ~.s **e *1riS. s^ir'iry,
* _
{•••"• •• /J3 i -Vfcil-1.
r
Air i H2i5rf?cus .-teteHalj Division
Enclosure
4AH-AF:PFAFr:je:7/2S/31{511S)
4AH-AF 4AH-AF *AH
PFAFr GIBBS
-------
2.18
Policy 3r:snJ«:5nc|p-s .W-zjr-rnr. j>SJ w'
1. 2/5/iii
Answer:
A Boiler :t a raj or st.:tio*;arv SC'-r^f ics seer, s'^at cuwr.
fcr 11 /ears. At t?:c wire of crs shutccftin extansi've
efforts vere srsde to *er?s tfcc boiler free ui»t-ir:cMt1-"s-.
0«r1sfl tf.e shut-Jewn psrloo this Oiif.Ttsnsnce !».as cr.ntlr-jjsc.
A rscer.t ins|>*ct1"r. '~* t^e ^a.*uf=ctKr»;r sJ.v.vs tv.st very
little effort woui-j 5« rsxpjirad ts return tf.* tollar to
r*^-:- to ^xpir;?.
s i-.tinn^c to
at sr/r^ tisw in ti"S f':turr. Is t1:*?
service of the ocilsr subject to ?SD?
SsrssTiy, a s*ut::c*n of greater t*en i y*,
asv if* constcsrsa t&t'oorar*. If tl.s s^.itC<:u.o Is
tftenc tccporsiry. a startup •-•caTc *?st ba sucjcct tc
?S3« T»e "sclc tsst" 1s u^sttsr tr« snuscctir. Is psrca^ef.!.
in any c«sc, tr'.e 1ncress£ vyoclc De c-jnsicsnri asj ir.cr.-sic
1n actual edssions for «ny future net increase C£l«Ut1cn
and forIncresent consaaptlcn purposes.
Hen» frao Edward Rslch, "Succary cf PSD 3etsrw{nations,"
PSD 117.
2. 2/5/31
Question:
Answer:
In th* July *2, 1SSO F^tferal Register. EPA esclarec 7
additional coepounus (in acjciticu to sethyl crtlcrsfora enc
oethylene cMoHee) to be of negligible pMtofnec-fcsl
reactlvi^r. Does this expand the list cf cc-npcunos wnich
are not considered VOC's for purposes of
Yes. The complete list cf orcsnic csspouncs net considered
pootoc^talcally reectlve fcr purpcses of ?5D 1s n
1. 1,1,1 - trfchloroethane
2.
3.
4. ethane
S.
6. d1cfe1orod1flueroeet!ierr
-------
"eforsncs:
7. ciilorodflucrsnethane
8. tri fJ uorccethase
iO.
11.
Scssc cf tfcese cnapcasus are snsocsoc for regulation under
SS?S. When th* «S?3 is proal§at2i, each of ttasc
ccepcunds will £e cc"r! «isrsa a ssparats 50 Mutant for ?SO
purposes, but *W sit 13 rot :» ccrsicersfl a VOC.
45
3. 2/10/31
Question:
eference:
A F4jer source prcscscs to fcuilc in c no'.iattairas.-.t *»-2if
£«t tne area is projected tc "» attaiTasr.t (basac an t^e
npurowc Psr* 0 Si?) te*?ra s-urtup of tn* sca^e. Is tnc
sourca «ibjsct to PSD?
Bo. It 1s ftct wfiject to ?SO, and tne stats is ast
requirec to subject it to Part D rc«ui recants. This 1s
loophole In tht? rsguUtlons. £?A has propose c a
to eHffinats the locpfcole.
45 HI &124, Januarr 28, 1521
4. 2/15/31
Question:
Answer:
The ?S3 baseline air quality 1s hascd en actual missions
fmt existing sources. Actual eoisslons ars ceflned «s the
average earfsslou rate In tans p«r year. Hw coes 2eg1cn IV
interpret tftls 1n establishing short-tcra (24-{iour. j-.K.ft.r)
baseline air quality levels v*en air quality Bc^Hns is
used?
Baselines far 3-hoqr «nd 24-hour averages should fes s«t
using tne saxlma 3-hour averaee or 24-ncur average
ealsslOR rate of tte existing source, respective'/, which
occurred during the period over wftlcf! the anneal esrfsslcn
rate was determined, ror ezaspl«, if a source's aanuA?
esrtsslon rate 1s tfetersrtnetf ts t>e *30 tens per year 'art
averaging 4CC tons per year In 1973 ana 4cO tors per year
In 1379, t»»e 3-hoor baseline esi'sslen rate woold he the
asx1 eufi 3-hoor avertce Mission rate which occarrec euricc
the period of 1S73 and 1379.
-------
2.18
An aabl-ent rasriltisr *?.& speretrs TOP 1 year I or s.-crtrr
tlss, If representative af Diciest Values) sine tn»n s^;t
A pro9Q5«i sourca «1sh5S to use tlis c-dta for Its PSD
cown.
.
application. Ltcept for me tins laps;1, we 3ata is
representative cf carraat air cu*H"y -s tr-e prspascc sits,
1s of good quality, anc *as sitnarsc esitirrt/ 1n a tine
perluo l«ss wan 3 y<»«rs osfor? the source sui,«1ts Us
application. Can !l:s uata ?& ui-:y, ev^n nvi^.i tr,a me
ihut
As long « all tn* rtata neeccci in ape'n'cation zrz crlirCt
s*q-£mti£liy, anc ali ti:e uata ars Cullact^a s-j^ic tia: in
the pr^vlsas tr.r«e y«ars, tfce tlartng re««.irecant is
s«tls?ied. For csacpte, suppose a stats acency opb-r^tsc
ozone monitor throu^ncut £ particular c;one S3«su«i,
tftfr ag«ncy cifiverninss to ce P,pril trroagf. Saptetsoar uf
used In a PSD .ippHcatiso swaitt?s in/ tine tefurn A
1* l^ii prevlcsd th« ca!^ ara still rc-pressfttatnvc or
current ccncitlcns, and all o£:er rsarjlrsscnts ire aet,
as quality assurance ana nsjiltvr location.
Reference: 40 CrS 52.21 (a); 45 FR S2?i:4
6. 5/5/31
Question:
Ar.swcr:
A si nor source locates 1n a ?SO area vtter? the b
bee.
-------
5/0/31
A slncr scurca -,.'<:ic.i JCtis isrriss;crw tf a pollutant in a
aajsr aiscunt 1s stiDjecT to i»5D *s a new rajor source,
ratter than as 2 serf f leaden. T"* -ernno concsct is
only 1n tlie teflnUion of sa^ar eociflcaticn, sr.u nc-t in
the definition o? p?jor stationary source. This SSMSS *s
Indicate that a srinor scarce acolac « cajor emission point
cauld not escape ?SO cy consfccrtns pp-vioas cecr^ases
wlcJ» Cfiuss &« "*:t increase to ce Toss tnan We sajer
source :*r«>o1d. Is »ls tna case?
ror exr.it.p1-j, suspose 4 rslncr source
had j decrease in actual sc^ssir>;-!S in i:»73 of jQ tcy.
leaving 150 toy. in Urii, 2sd tpy 1s propose to i,c-
»c«efi. If the 50 tpy redicticn ccaVj Lr usea ts offse: t.H.i
2SO tpy Increase, the Increase vcula te only £10 *.?y ar,s
the scarce woulrf escape r«v1*a. The 50 toy acrcsss c£"nL*
be used, however, sc tnc «0 tpy increase is su\'".ct to
as a *!&* ?ajcr stationary source.
40
3. S/5/81
Question:
Answer:
Reference:
An existing scare? 1s eajcr only because Its
epns«1o«is are 12C tons per year. Tbo ssurca proposes ts
acd 60 tons per year of porticulots eslsslsns. At tne
tlB». the source Is willing ta accept a new, feceralljf
enforeeAtlc llsUaffon which lowers Its iSj eclsifons tr-
90 tons per year. Is the proposed accltian ef bO teas pe
year cf partlcnUte subject, ta PS3?
4o. Since the source *W not be cajar after the chsnge.
the action 1s not subject to ?S3.
40 ^K S2.21(&)(2H1)
. SA5/31
Qaestlcn:
An ei1 sting njer source proposes to Increase esrissicns by
45 tons per year of SOj and 55 tons per year cf MOX.
Can tee SO ton exesptlon uncer 40 CfS 52.21 (4.)(7) :-e usss
to exenpt SOj free ac&lent analysis, even though the
-------
Answer:
Refereic?:
10. 7/is/ai
Answer:
;iOx Increase 1s «T~2tar t^n 50 tors oer vsir? I.i cr.vr
wores. past eacn poll at ant Increase Qe lass w»n :y tons
per ye«r for *n? pollutant ta qualify?
The exs;=?t1on weald net apoi.y. lac* pollutant Increase
nust t»« 1«ss than 50 ts-n? per year tc'-i-re the Sj
applies for a^y gcllutant.
*a CrR 52.21 {i
The ?3y oreacile gives t?is ac5. The rcyulaticns 51 va
1t is 1* us/a?1* annual average, amcr: is correct?
Reference:
n t^e regulation was pu^Hshsc, 1t vas iocsnt to say
25-hcur average.' ifcacqyirtsrs hes recsr.tly Mciccc *c
chs^QB 1-t to an onrjal 'avsragc-, alcn? with ssr» «t::*r
chances to tte tafcle. Since tne published versicn cf
rcgulotlcn alresc/ s«/s annual, f.s sines the
-------
2.19
•JNITID S. A7Z3 ENVIRONMENTAL "ROTSCTICn AGZNCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20469
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
R 28 .9=2
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Federal Enforceability under PSD/-I /
jrl JH-ri^mP^^^
FROM: Kathleen M. Bennett ^Jjtfljiiu^'n^
Assistant Administrafcprirfor Air/ Noise and Radiation
TO: Directors, Air & Waste
Regions I-IV, VI -VIII, X
Directors, Air Management Divisions
Regions V and IX
This memorandum is prompted by a request for clarification of
the status of the requirement that to be cognizable under PSD for
offset and applicability purposes, emission limitations must be
federally enforceable.
On August 7, 1980, SPA published amendments to the PSD and
non-attainment regulations which included a provision that
emission limitations must be federally enforceable in order to be
taken into account for offsets or applicability purposes. The
amendments went on to define federally enforceable as:
all limitations and conditions which are
enforceable by the Administrator, including
those requirements developed pursuant to
40 CFR parts 60 and 61, requirements within
any applicable State Implementation Plan, and
any permit requirements established pursuant
to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regulations approved
pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18 and 40 CFR 51.24.
(40 CFR 52. 2Kb) (17))
Under a petition for reconsideration of the August 7 rules,
which was submitted by several parties, this concept of federally
enforceable limitations was challenged. The petitioners
maintained that the requirement of federally enforceable
limitations was unnecessary.
-------
The Agency decided to reconsider the requirement of federally
enforceable emission limitations. In addition to reconsidering
the issue, EPA temporarily stayed the federally enforceacle
requirements (see Federal Register July 15, 1981). The stay
expired on October 5, 1381 ana tne Administrator declined an
extension of the stay, thus once again requiring federally
enforceable emission limitations.
, At the present time, the amendments, as published -on
August 7, 1980, are in effect and binding. The definition of
federally enforceable still stands: emission limitations must be
federally enforceable in order to be taken into account for
offsets or PSD applicability. As to the definition of federally
enforceable, the Agency continues to maintain the position that
operating permits not incorporated into a SIP under an approved
general bubble rule are not federally enforceable.
During the past six months the Agency has been in the process
of negotiating a settlement of the industry challenges to the
August 7, 1980 amendments, including the issue of Federal
enforceability.
The Agency has offered a settlement proposal, which has been
accepted by the industry petitioners, that would change the
federally enforceable concept. EPA has agreed to propose
accepting emission limitations as creditable to the extent that
they are enforceable by either Federal, State or local
jurisdictions. The word "federally" would be dropped from the
term "federally enforceable" as used in the regulations. At the
same time the term "enforceable" will be defined as "enforceable
under Federal, State, or local law and discoverable by the
Administrator and any other person." This change will most likely
have the result of making operating permits acceptable for offsets
and applicability.
Changes in Federal enforceability, as well as other chances
that result from the settlement agreement, must go through general
rulemaking procedures. Rulemaking procedure will follow the
outline in the February 22, 1982 settlement agreement. The
rulemaking may also include some type of grandfathering provisions
for the period of the temporary stay. The grandfathering
provisions may focus on the commencement of construction curing
the period of the stay.
Please note that until the rulemaking processes are completed
the existing rules are still in effect, if any specific proolems
concerning Federal enforceability and applicability arise,
questions should be referred to Ed Reich at 382-2807.
-------
*«. T •
LNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - :iNCV
\ REGIONS
;. / IjO SOUTH DEARBORN 57.
.•' CHICAGO. ILLINOIS o6o04
ZS i i -cec
.. m i iwWW
v <
I'occrcw A. yyers Jr. «..j.
Ststs -ssltn Ccnimis-!oner
iTcisna Stats 3oara of Health
". 22C 4. M.icmgan Street
'is, Indiana
~^is letter concerns a recant action taken oy the Indiana Air PoT'ufion Control
Soara :IA?C3) in wnich a construction permit modification was aoorovec for the
proaosed Seng''s1 ^o^°^_':ru^ assembly plant near Fort Wayne. On August 7,
•"rom tne -eventian or significant Deterioration (DSO) permt issued 3y rne State
20, 1984.
srinary concern is tMat :he State of Inciana, wnich has seen Gelaflft£atf_/
ta i^plament tne ?SO program on benalf of the Aaministrator of r
_.i. Environmental Protection Agency (UScPA), is expected to imolentent t!ie
jrogram in accoraance witn tne ?SD regulations and guidance. In spite of
aersistent. jU-j^gStJP|g^^SPlffS>har granting the orooosed oermt noaification
would ae in ccnri-ict witn tne PSD regulations and guidance, tne State acauiescec
to tne GM request and removed the SO? control condition.
•Let me provide a more detailed description of the events leading to this situa-
tion. On Seotamber 30, 1980, USEPA's Region V delegated partial authority to
:.ie State of Indiana to imolement tne PSD program statewide. This.delegation
was amenced on January 21, 1982, to grant the State full authority to implement
ana enforce the PSO program statewide. The delegation means that the Stata of
I-tdiana has the responsibility to review proposed construction projects for
tneir imoact on air quality and for tne aopropriata emission control techno!ocy,
•n accordance with the Federal PSO regulations. If the aroaosea araject meets
tre air quality imoact limits ana tne emission control racuirsments (3est
-vailaole Control Technology - 3ACT), the State *ouid ac: on aenaif of t-^e
Aministrator of USEPA and issue the persnt.
-------
.'jst oner to issuing the oennit on Novemoer 20, 1?3£, t-.e ~ec.".n-cs! Secretary
;f tne IAPC3 SUPP!ementea tne_j_rjpfls_ed^SQ^_aej.yt condition of '.2 '.ss 5C2/"MB~-
:y iscing a. 90 peftc^|i^;'^'-"^r>tift':f'0 you can readily conclude from the above summarized action, the JSEPA con-
siders that the construction wnich is now talcing place near "or: Wayne is only
ized forFeder»l PSO purposes, by the *fovemoer 30, 1934, permit and not
the permit amendment, as adopted by the IAPC3 on August 7, '985.
.-.:• JSEPA must continue to view the 90 percent SO? removal condition as
"ederally enforceable and "aoolicaole to the operation of the two fluidized
csmoustion boilers in question.
~ia State's oracsssing of the 3N permit has aroused concern about ^nether or
•«ct the intentions of "Congress for preventing significant detsnopat:on of our
:'r resources are pest oeing siet oy implemenfing the 3SO orogram at t.ie State
ievei in Indiana. When the Tecanical Secretary of the IAPC3 supports a sosi-
tion contrary to the Federal regulations, and wnen the IAPC3 tanes actions tnat
'•rr.are Federal guidance, :t is appropriate for ne to asx the State :o reassess
•"s csmmtnient and aoility to implement the 'SO program in accordance «
-------
I- ".ncnana aemonstratss in tne future tnat it -s jnwiT'ng to foi'cw JSErA's
gu'cartca anc -aginations *nt.i resaect to tne 3SD program, I am sraoarafi to
ameno tne c-eiegafon agreement to reauce tne State's '•oie-. Sucn a -eoucfon
•vcuia, of course, eitati a commensurate reaucticn -n CTaan Air Act, Section
iC5 grant •"uncing.
If /ou nave *urtner questions on tne retails of tn:s :ettar, oiease contact
'*r. ^tsve ^otnolatt of my star*. 3y al1 iieans, please 'et ne
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105
Ref: NSS 1-1
Mr. James D. Boyd
Air Pollution Control Officer
California Air Resources
Board
1102 "Q- Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Mr. Boyd:
The enclosed letter provides clarification regarding which
permits may be federally enforceable. This is especially
important in determining major source status under the PSD,
NSR, and construction ban regulations, and in determining the
potential for federal enforcement when a source is in violation.
Please note that three major tests must be passed for a
permit your agency issues to be considered federally enforceable.
First, the permit itself must be enforceable. In other words/
it must contain emissions limits with a reasonable averaging period
(usually not exceeding three hours), a method for determining
compliance on a regular basis (annual stack tests are the
minimum here)/ and adequate record keeping. Secondly, the
permit program must have been approved under federal regulations
at 40 .CFR 51.18 (although not necessarily under 51.18(j)).
Finally/ the permit and the permitting procedures must fully
comply with or exceed the requirements of the federally approved
rule.
If you have any questions regarding the legal aspects of
Federal Snforceability, please contact Nancy Marvel of our
Office of Regional Counsel at (415) 974-8905. All other
questions regarding permitting should be directed to Matt aaber
of our New Source Section at (415) 974-8209.
Sincerely,
w. RaricJc, Chief
Air Operations Branca
Air Management Division
Enclosures
-------
'JKJITSD STATES ENVIRONMENTAL =>90~SCT1CN AGENCY
SEGiONIX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105
November 6, 1985
G. William Prick, Esq.
Lathrop, Koontz / Rigtiter,
Clagett & Norquist
2600 Mutual Benefit Life Bldg.
2345 Grand Avenue
Kansas City, MO. 64108
Dear Mr. Frick:
In response to your letter of July 3, 1985, to the
General Counsel, I have reevaluated my letter of June 14,
1985, to Mr. Richard O'Connell of the Hawaiian Electric
Company ("HECO"). Our letters concerned the "federal
enforceability" of a new source review ("NSR") construction
permit issued by the State of Hawaii to HECO.
After considering the issues you raised, I have decided
to withdraw my earlier letter and to revise some of my initial
conclusions.
First, I agree that a State NSR permit program can be
approved and included in a State Implementation Plan ("SI?")
under 40 CFR SS51.18(a)-{i), even though it may not satisfy
the additional requirements of §§51.18(j) or (k). Sections
51.18(a)-(i) specify the minimum criteria that must be met
for an NSR program to satisfy the requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean Air Act that a SI? include "a permit
or equivalent program to assure . . . that national ambient
air qualitv standards are achieved and maintained." Sections
51.18(j) and (k) establish additional criteria that an NSR
program must meet to satisfy the separate requirements of the
Act for nonattainment and PSD areas, respectively. See Title I,
Parts C and D of the Clean Air Act, respectively.
However, nothing in §51.18 requires a State HSR program
satisfying section 110(a)(2)(D) to also meet the requirements
of SSS1.18(J)or(k). In fact, SPA aas indicated in the past
that an NSR program aiay be approved under §S51.13(a)-(i) for
inclusion in a SI? without meeting those additional require-
ments. 48 Fed. Reg. 3875-2 (August 25, 1983). Accordingly,
if a State NSR permit program has been approved under
§S51.18(a)-(i)," any requirement in a perait issued under -hat
program ordinarily woula se "federally snf crcsacle,'' as ;n
-------
term is defined in 40 CFR Parts 51 and 52. _!/
In this case, as I stated in my earlier letter, Hawaii's
SSR rules were approved for inclusion in the Eawaii SI? as
being "in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51." 48 Fed. Reg. 37402
(Aug. 18, 1983). Further investigation of EPA files reveals
that these rules were originally approved in 1972 and were
found to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR §51.18. See
37 Fed. Reg. 10860 (May 31, 1972). EPA's 1983 approval of
Hawaii's SI? revisions did not change that approval status.
See 48 Fed. Reg. at 37402, col. 2. Therefore, Hawaii's
NSR rules were approved pursuant to 40 CFR §51.13, even
though they did not address §§51.18(j) or (X).
On the second major issue you raised, I agree that the
definition of "federally enforceable" does not require that a
particular limitation in a permit issued under approved NSR
rules must be specifically mandated by, or included in, the
SI? to be enforceable by EPA. EPA's definition only requires,
in such a case, that the limitation be established "under
regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.IS . . ." E.g.,
40 CFR 552.2Kb) (17). Thus, once EPA has approved a State's NSR
permit regulations under §51.18, any permit limitation issued
under those State regulations would be federally enforceable/
even if the limitation was not specifically required by the
SIP.
This interpretation is consistent with 40 CFR §52.23,
which makes "any permit condition . . . issued pursuant to
approved . . . regulations for the review of new or modified
stationary . . . sources" enforceable by EPA under section
113 of the Clean Air Act, without regard to whether the
condition is otherwise required. 2/ Moreover, as you pointed
out, this interpretation is also Consistent with the August 7,
1980r Federal Register notice announcing, inter alia, the
"federal enforceability" definitions. In that, notice, EPA
stated that source operators could voluntarily "agree to
source-speciific permit limitations," 45 Fed. Reg. 52689
I/ "Federally enforceable" permit limitations include "any
~" permit requirements established . . . under regulations
approved pursuant to . . . [§] 51.18 . . . ." E.g., 40 CFR
S51.18(jHl)(xiv).
2/ This interpretation is also consistent with 40 CFR §52.21(r)
~~ (4) which requires that a source that becomes major-because
of "a relaxation in any enforceable limitation" on ics emitting
capacity 2e suojscted no ?SD review. Again, nothing i"
S52.21'r)(4) limits its applicaoility -3 limitations mat
are sanca-sd oy me SI?.
-------
(Aug. 7, 1980), that could be federally enforceable. EPA
intended by this to allow operators to agree to permit
limitations that might not otherwise be required.
Accordingly, with regard to the 3ECO permit limitation
in question, if that limitation was issued under the Hawaii
NSR rules, the limitation could still be federally enforceable
even though not required by the Hawaii SI?. 2/
If you need any additional information on the matters I
have discussed/ please feel free to contact Nancy Marvel of
ay staff at (415) 974-8905.
Very truly yours,
Karl. R. Mor thole
Regional Counsel
cc: Regional Administrator
General Counsel
QAQPS
Air Management Division, Reg. IX
3/ Of course, if the permit limitation (sulfur-in-fuel) is
~* not enforceable as a practical matter, then the limitation
would not be federally enforceable. I cannoc express any
opinion on that point at this time.
-------
SiilTA. MEYSR.JTL,
Office c: tr.i- -...-i. ,..,ir«wr
MORRIS :ioo
n SI ilHI $TXF«.N V
UJ.H-MONE: (JOJ) 123 Ol«0
miconui- :i
TU.RX. (»!«><
DIRECT DlAf. (rtU) :27-I2*:
December 5, ±385
CINCINNATI. OHIO *««
7IUPMONE.nl I) ilt*>eO
SWITE :»0 HUNTM6TON 8UILSINC
C£V«UND. OHIO «*M>
7UEPHONC: CU)*4l-«aBB
TtLECOREt: m«> *» v-Wl I
:ioo niur NAnoNAt, «ANK aunsmc
?o toxiaoi
t A//v ~ O s ^ ' ~
: /^ /&• / f
Freedom cf Information Officer
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, o.C. 20460
Re: Freedom of Information Act Reques
Dear Sir or Madam:
This is a request, pursuant to the Freedom cf Information
Act, 5 U.S.C. §552, and" the Environmental Protection Agency's
implementing regulations, 40 CFR Part 2, for copies of documents
which identify each instance in which a requirement reflecting or
purporting to reflect "best available control technology" ("SACT")
and set forth in any final permit under the prevention cf signifi-
cant deterioration ("PSD") provisions of the Clean Air Act and
implementing regulations, w.as changed, adjusted, or revised after
As used in this recueg ""
n
"identify" means to provide the date, subject, source, and nature
of any -such revision or adjustment.
If there is one single document which identifies all 3ACT
revisions or adjustments, you need only provide that document in
response to this request. If such revisions are identified in mere
than one document, please provide the fewest number of documents
necessary to fully respond to this request.
You may take this letter as our agreement to pay any
lawful costs you incur in responding to this request, up to a
maximum of $100.00. Please contact me by telephone before incur-
ring costs in excess of ihis amount.
If you have any questions regarding this request, or if
further information is necessary, please contact me. Thank ycu ir.
advance for your prompt cooperation.
Verv -rulv vours ,
-
/' / V'
Su <:'// /W'. <
>,^~, - ^ . . / f. /1-
'Robert A. Meyer, Jr. //
-------
"~ - ^ . . — u - — , ^""
MAR 131986
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT Time Frames for Determination of Applicability to
New Source Peview
FPOM- Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO Bruce P. Killer, Acting Chie^
Air Programs Branch, Peg ion. IV
In a recent phone conversation between Roger Pfaff of
your staff, and Sally Parrell of my staff, time- frames for
determination of compliance with permit restrictions on hours
of operation, or rate of materials/fuel use were discussed.
Specifically, inouiry was made as to whether SSCD considered
a rolling yearly average on a daily basis (i.e. averagina
some parameter over 365 days, where each day starts the
.sunming/averagino period for a new year) as an appropriate
measure of applicability to Prevention of Sianif leant
Deterioration (PSD) and nonattainment new source review
A source may commit to limit its production by includina
federally enforceable restrictions on hours of operation or
fuel and materials consumption in its nermit. Limited
operation of the source may serve to lower its emission rites
to levels below those which triager PSD/NSP review. Such
permit limits are used by sources to avood .major source
review.
At the HSR meetings in Denver this January, attended by
new source review staff from Readouarters and all ten Regions.
it wab aareed that a month long period ror these permit restric-
tions is the longest time frame that snould be accepted as
Federally enforceable. Under the constraints of Section 113
SVMSOb
SUNMAMC '
EP» r~m I320-) (12*70) OFFICIAL Fi'
-------
-2-
of the Clean Air Act it would, in practice, be difficult to
enforce violations using a longer time frame, such as an
annual average. Open finding of a violation. Section 113
requires that EPA first issue a Notice of Violation. Zf the
violation extends 30 days beyond notification, the Agency may
then issue an order to comply or take civil action. Zf com-
pliance is baaed on an annual average, there may be a con-
siderable time lag before the violation can be enforced.
Therefore, a one month limit is agreed to be the maximum time
EPA should generally accept for avoiding a PSD/HSR threshold.
However, if a source ia unable to use the monthly limit (due to
seasonal variations in production, for example), rolling periods
of longer durations are also acceptable for determining applica-
bility to major source review. With the year long rolling average
on a daily basis, the source must demonstrate compliance for any
consecutive 365 days, thereby averting the problems encountered
with enforcing discrete annual averages. A twelve month rolling
average (year long, on a twelve month basis) is the maximum time
frame that would be accepted as federally enforceable.
It should be emphasised that-the averaging periods recommended
are for the purpose of determining applicability to new source
review. The above policy ia not to be extended to determination
of compliance with emission limitations.
If you have any Questions, please contact Sally H. Parrell
8 382-2875.
at PT8
Edward E. Reich
cc: Marcia Spink, Region X
Ken Rng, Region ZI
Ben Nykijewycs. Region ZIZ
Roger Pfaff, Region ZV
Ron Van Mrsbergen, Region V
Troy Oberg, Region VI
Dan Redrigues, Region VII
Steven Prey, Region VIZI
Matt Baber, Region ZZ
David Bray, Region X
Klrt Cos, OAOP*
EN-341:S.Farrell:ard:3-4-86:Disk*ltDraftil:3/3/86:Final*1:3/4/8 6.
-------
FEB 1 & JS37
"S7LT TO: *T-ET
. to?n
and Associates
r:*yton lan«»
Suit* 3?0 U
•jistin. Texas 7^773
5*: ?S!) Applicability 9«juest, Valero Hy^rrcartw Coopony
County, T*»*as
NT, '.{aid:
tave rpviwed yawp January 1<3, l«7, request for a determination of
Valero Transrrisslan Cowany and Valero Hydrocarbon Cooqany are separate
Stiurces for t.ta purposes of deteroriaimj the applicaoillty of our relations
'"or t^• »rif»ent1on of Significant npt«»ri orati (*n (PS11. T?J* Infnntation tr»*t
/o-j ^ave provi-Jad Indicates tnat Valero ^ydrocaraon Coapany ?tas an extraction
facility in clos« proximty to Valero ^atP*ring Copvany and Valero Transwssinn
'"ncpany. Th»» extraction facility's primary orortucts ara cthan* and heawy
rr»novort fpoa tn*? natural gas. T>s mova! of liquirts Is not
to twife tftp natural -jas swrvetanlc. Valero Ky<>on Cor4pany
a standarri Intiustrial Hassificafion (StO cort- of 1321 (Major Cronp 13)
p -.'r»lero Transmission L'otsyany has d SIC CWP of ^"32 (Hajor Ircup '!«).
nn our revirw of t*p .ivsilahl*" infomafion. it is evident t^at tn<-
products of ^alero Hvrtrocarhon are f-tnane and neawy hyr»rocart»ons
tne principle product of Valero «a taring Co«pa«y and Valero TransFrission
ny Is natural 535. It fs further »virtent that tfalero Hyrtrocarfton
•'fx»s not assist in tne pro-Aietlnn of trre natural gas pru<*»c*i dt Valero* s
r.«*prfn»j and Tr.^ssrissinn plants. «• t*»prefnre conclude that Valero
is ft s«»uarat» facility frcr» V«l«»ro Transmission CoH>any and Valero
Camcamr r'cr t?>« purposes of aS*> aoclicability.
This o kiatrserimj Company and Yalero Transmss'icn
are to K«* consider*^ <«s one swircf* 'or t*»» (Jtirjcses f?* nsn
-------
2
'-> flppreciate th<» opportunity to review this matter. If you have any
•i'i«-stions, ;.l*a$e caM ir. Stanley M. Sprulell of ?y staff at (214) 767-0875.
Sincerely yours.
•s/ William B Hathaway
Will Ian n
ni r*»ctor
Air, P»%ticirtes and Toxics Division (6T)
••r: --T. fllipn Kl i
Pi net or
A1p Control
"r. Lawr-ncs.- Pcwitt, f'.".. Director
s l^visio^
Air Cnntrol !«
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION 5
< 230 SOUTH DEARBORN ST.
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 40604
_ .fM «£PIY TO THE ATTWTION OF
Roger D. Anderson, P.E.
Building 21-2W-05
Environmental Engineering and
Pollution Control
3M Corporation
P.O. Box 33331
St. Paul, Minnesota 55133
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This is in response to your letter that we received on March 2, 1987, concerning
appropriate volatile organic compound (VOC) emission limits for the proposed
pilot coating equipment in Maplewood. The pilot coater is being added to an
existing source that has the potential to emit more than 250 tons per year
(tpy) of VOC's in an ozone attainment area.
Two issues have been raised during our discussions about this project.
namely, (1) are the Prevention of Significant Heterioration (PSD) regulations
applicable if the pilot coater is not expected to have emissions greater
than 40 tpy, and (2) if the PSD regulations could apply, how can a permit he
written to avoid PSD review.
The PSD regulations apply if an existing major source is modified resulting
in a significant net increase in emissions. In determining what is the net
increase in emissions of a modification, "actual" emission increases from the
project are added to other "actual" increases and decreases occurring during
the contemporaneous time period. In this case, the only emission increase is
from the pilot coater. There are no other contemporaneous increases or decreases.
Since the significance level for VOC emissions is 40 tpy for PSD purposes,
you are correct in your understanding that the PSD review requirements are
triggered when there is an "actual" net emission increase of 40 tpy of VOC
occurring at an existing major stationary source. However, in your assumption
that PSD does not apply to the proposed project because actual emissions rom
the pilot coater will be less than 40 tpy, one provision of the Federal rules
was overlooked. That provision states that "actual emissions ...for any
emission unit which has not begun normal operations on the particular date
shall equal the potential to emit of the unit on that date" (emphasis added).
See section 40 CFR 52.21{b)(21)(iv). With this understanding, the addition
of the pilot coater is a major modification because its potential to increase
VOC emissions exceeds 40 tpy at an existing major stationary source.
The terra "potential to emit" is defined in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(4) as the capacity
to emit a pollutant at maximum designed capacity after considering any federally
enforceable limits on control equipment and federally enforceable limitations
-------
on operations. The potential emissions of the pilot coater can be reduced to
below 40 tpy, if a federally enforceable permit condition is placed in the
the construction permit. To be federally enforceable according to 40 CFR
52.21(b)(iv), the Administrator must be able to enforce limits under the
State Implementation Plan which includes permit conditions issued under the
Minnesota construction permit program.
Futhermore, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has
determined in one of the two memoranda you cited in your letter (Attachment
*1, January 20, 1984 memorandum from John O'Connor, Acting Director of the
Office of Air Quality and Standards) its policy on federally enforceable
averaging times for VOC emissions. The O'Connor memorandum states that for
VOC emissions a daily emission limit is required for regulatory actions where
continuous compliance is not feasible. Regulatory actions referenced in the
memorandum include construction permits. If a daily emission limit is not
economically or technically possible, a longer averaging time may be considered,
but it must be as short as practicable and no longer than 30 days. In order
for VOC emission limits to be federally enforceable ancr able to affect the
potential to emit, the emission limit must comply with the averaging time
requirements of the O'Connor memorandum.
USEPA has further determined in the other memorandum cited in your letter
(Attachment #2 March 13, 1986 memorandum from Edward Reich, former Director
of the Stationary Source Compliance Division) that if operating parameters
(for example, hours of operations or amount of raw materials entering a
process) are going to be limited, short-term averaging of these parameters is
also required. Monthly averaging is generally the longest averaging time
that USEPA will accept as federally enforceable with regard to operational
limits. Please keep in mind that the March 13, 1986, memorandum from Edward
Reich states that averaging periods recommended for operational limits are
.not to be confused with our policy on averaging periods for emission limits.
The 3M Company has not, as yet, demonstrated why a daily emission limit is
not possible for the pilot coater. Perhaps, if such a demonstration cannot
be made, the project should be considered a PSD source.
If you have additional questions in regard to this matter, please contact
Ron Van Mersbergen at (312) 886-6056.
Sincerely
Stevi Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch (5AR-26)
Attachments
cc: Elizabeth Henderson MPCA
-------
USE/
UMTED STATES EM IRO.YMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
^'3 _ Q . "•"
ir r\ o - ^ i
OFFICE OF
AIR AND RAOUT1O*
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Clarification of New Source Review Policy on
Averaging Times for Production Limitations
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director
Stationary Source ComplL
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III and IX
Air and Radiation Division Director
Region V
Air and Waste Management Division Director
Region II
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division
Directors
Regions IV and VI
Air and Toxics Division Directors
Regions VII, VIII and X
On March 13, 1986 the Stationary Source Compliance Division
issued the attached memorandum which describes EFA's policy
on maximum allowable averaging times for production and
operational limitations. The limitations addressed are those
which restrict a source's potential to emit to below PSD/NSR
major source or major modification thresholds. Since the
issuance of this memorandum last March, there have been
several attempts to misuse the policy and apply it to emission
limitations, rather than to production/operational limitations.
The purpose of this memorandum is to distinguish between
EFA's policy on averaging times for production limitations
versus emission limitations, and to clarify the proper
implementation of the March 13, 1986 memorandum.
Production limitations place restrictions on a source's
operating rate, or rate of material throughput- Examples of
production limitations are: hours of operation, gallons of
coating per joo or per unit time, .milion 3TU per unit time,
-------
- 2 -
iraterial processed per unit time. Federally enforceable
limitations on these parameters •nay serve to limit a source's
potential to emit to below major source thresholds. EPA's
policy on the longest averaging times that are considered
Federally enforceable is s^t Forth in the -March 13, 1986
iiemorandum from Edward E. Reich. The longest averaging time
generally acceptable for the purposes of practical Federal
enforcement is one month, however, a source nay seek approval
of longer rolling averages as discussed in that memorandum.
Emission limitations place restrictions directly on the
source's pollutant emission rate. Examples of emission
limitations are: Ib VOC/gal coating, Ib VOC/hour, Ib S92/MBTU,
Ib SC^/hour, grains partieulates/dscf. In order for emission
limitations to be Federally enforceable from the practical
stand point, they must be short term and specific so as to
enable the Agency to determine compliance at any time.
Emission limitations on a yearly basis alone (e.g., tons per
year, or rolling yearly averages) do not satisfy EPA's
requirements with respect to Federal enforceability. EPA's
policy on averaging times for VOC emission limitations is stated
in the January 20, 1994 memorandum from John O'Connor,
Acting Director of OAQPS.
The March 13, 1986 Edward Reich memorandum describes
EPA's policy on averaging times for production limitations
which limit potential to emit to below major source or major
modification thresholds. That memorandum states that the
averaging time policy for production limitations does not
apply to emission limitations. Therefore, limitations on a
source's emission rate (e.g., Ib VOC/unit time) designed to
keep the source's potential emissions below NSR/PSD thresholds
must comport with EPA policy on emission linitations. Sources
may not use the March 13, 1986 memorandum on averaging times
for production limitations to justify the use of longer (e.g.,
yearly or monthly) averaging times for emission limitations.
Any questions regarding this memorandum or the March 13, 1986
memorandum may be directed to Sally M. Farrell at FTS 382-2875.
Attachment
-------
- 3 -
cc: Gary McCutchen, CPDD
David Soloman, CPOD
Marcia Spink, Region I
John Courcier, Region I
Kenneth Eng, Region II
Karl Mangels, Region II
Esf.ena McGhee, Region III
Wayne Aronson, Region IV
Roger Pfaff/ Region IV
Ron Van Mersbergen, Region V
Rizalino Castenares, Region V
John Behnam, Region VI
Stanley Spriuell, Region vi
Charlie whitmore, Region VII
John Dale, Region VII[
Steve Frey, Region VIII
Wayne A. Blackard, Region IX
David Bray, Region X
Gregory Foots, OGC
Judy Katz, OECM
-------
3. PSD
Definition/Classification of Source
09
-------
JUN 9 I3SO
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability, South Ho s pah Mine
FP.OM j Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Allyn Davis, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
This is in response to your iceno of May 6, 1980, in which you
requested guidance regarding the accounting of fugitive emissions
in determining potential to emit for surface coal mine and coal
preparation facilities .
The September 5, 1979 proposed PSC regulations require the
consideration of fugitive emissions in determining PSD applicabil-
ity for sources regulated under Sections 111 and 112 of the Clean
Air Act, as well as those source categories listed in the defini-
tion of major source under PSD* Facilities which prepare coal by
one or mere of the following processes: breaking, crushing,
screening, wet cr dry cleaning, and thermal drying are considered
coal preparation plants subject to regulation by Section 111 XS?S.
4C CFR 6C Subpart 7.
A surface coal mine and coal preparation plant are located or.
a ccraon site at the South Eospah Mine. The mine and preparation
plant are considered one source under the Septer-ber 5, 1979
proposal since they are located on contiguous cr adjacent property
and are owned or operated by the sane person. What remains to be
determined is: What type of source is this?
/According to data received from your staff regarding this
source, the coal preparation plant will have .the potential tc cr..it
approximately 5.G tons of controlled coal ends si on s per year.
There are virtually no fugitive emissions froc the plant since the
major emitting equipment is basically enclosed. The 5.6 tons is
far be lew the 250 tens/year potential to en.it which is necessary
for PSD review. " "
COMCURBEMC23
1 1
»A = •«•
i:28.l UZ-70)
OFFICUi. ?lt£ C3PY
-------
US-TED ;• ~-f d-r
The main activity located at this site is the coal. mine. In
determining FSD applicability, this source would be considered a
surface coal nine and, therefore, fugitive emissions would
generally not be counted in the source's potential to emit.
However, I would like to point cut that while this interpretation
excludes the mine's fugitive emissions when determining
applicability of the PSD regulations, if the coal preparation
plant, in ccaiination with the non-fugitive emissions free the
mining operation, had the potential to emit 250 tons per year of
any pollutant regulated under the Act, the entire source would be
subject to PSD review. BACT analysis would be required for all
emissions, both fugitive and non-fugitive, at both the mine as
•well as at the coal preparation plant.
In view of the above decision, the following are resoonses to
the questions you specifically raised in your memo reearding
potential to eeit as it applies to the circumstances at the South
Kcspah Mine:
1. Fugitive emissions from blasting removal of overburden
and haul road traffic would net be included.
2. Fugitive emissions from blasting, loading, dumping and
storage of coal would -not be counted.
3. Process emissions both fugitive and ncn-furitive would ke
counted at the coal preparation plant.
If you have any further questions regarding this matter,
please contact Janet Little John of *ny staff at 755-2564.
Zdvard C. r.eich
cc: Jijr, V,cigolc (CACPS)
Feter Uyckoff (CGC)
SSs341:jl/ncfc:5/15/30:
-------
, Determinations for Sosjrce-Corrleaes. Consisting of
.02! Preparation Facilities and Surface Coal :'/;nss~
-illyn Davis, Director _.>..
Air 2 Hazardous Materials Division, Region 6
Edward Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
In two phone conversations on April 23, 1980. and on Hay 2, 1S30, we Indicated
a need for guidance as to whether fugitive emissions frcra nining operations
(particularly, ncn-coal fugitives) should be included in determining potential
esif ssipr.s frca a mi.ne which has a coal preparation plant on site.
In another phone conversation on April 28, 1930, Bob Myers said that a facility
as sinple as a crusher or a breaker can be considered"-* coal preparation plant
as defined in the applicable ttSPS. The definition of "potential to emit" ._•
in the Septaaber 5, 1S79, proposed PSO regulations indicates that fugitive
emissions count with respect to any stationary source which is beino reflated
under section 111 (HS?S) of the Clean Air Act. Must fugitive enissions'frcm
tne aining operations, including non-coal fugitives, be counted in determining
potential pissions?
One'exanple of" the problea is the South Kospah Kine application.' The mine
will yield a raaximua of 3.4"million tons of sub-bitaainuous coal annually and
will include coal crashing, storage, and rail load-out facilities. The coal
is hauled by truck to a preparation plant where it will undergo the primary and
secondary crushing. •' '- v ..
Esrfssion rate calculations are based on 24-.COG tons per day and 3.4 million
tens per year of coal rssoval and preparation. The total controlled maxima
esnssioa rates fron all sources of particular matter (coal and non-coal emissions)
will be 2.353 tons per year. Before the coal is removed and prepared, the over-
burden is blasted, drilled, and is reaoved by draglines and dozers. These
operations, along with haul roads and -surface-vind erosion, are all sources of
inon-coal fugitive dust—The South Hospah Mine should generate 2.350 tons per year
.{after control) of these non-coal fugitives.
^l_
There are, 13.3 tons per year of actual coal emissions (not overburden or
native soil). The controlled coal emissions which are attribrt»d to fugitives
?re i:7 tons Per year. These emissions come frccn such operations 4S coal
Djasking. drilling, loading, duirpir.t«, and storage. The controlled co.tl emissJons
>«icn are derived frca its preparation are 5.6 tons per year.
If only coal emissions are considered, the Scuth Hojpth'iltne is not a major
source. If all sources of particulate Missions are considered, the South Kospsfc
m be required to receive a penait.
-------
-2-
In determining the nine's potential to eait» must we include:
(1) fugitive emissions frets blasting and renoval of overburden, and haul
road dust;
(2) fugitive esrissions fron blasting, ranoval,. loading, diBrp-inSt
and storage of coal; and
(3) process emissions at the coal preparation plant?
We have several other similar applications whose applicability determinations
are pending under the interim PSD provisions. We, therefore, urge you to respond
as expeditiously as'possible anrf no later than Kay-15, 19SO. • If you have
questions, please contact ma or Jack Divita at 72S-2742.
cc: Lifaby Scopino
Division of Stationary Source Enforcenent-
-------
3.2
5-2-77
SUBJECT: PSD Seteraination of Applicability -
CMD Goal'Gasification Plant
r?.CM: Director, (ZH-341)
Division of Stationary Source Znforcesent
TO: David A. Ullrich, Acting Chief
Air Enforcement Branch - Reg. V
This is in response to your ceso dated April 15, 1977,
concerning the coal gasifier proposed for the University of
Minnesota Duluth (UMD) Caspus and its applicability to the
Prevention of Significant Deterioration "(PSD) regulations.
This office in conjunction with the Control Programs
Development Division (C?DD) has decided that the facility is
not subject to-the recuiremen-es of •*«> Snlth
Edward E. Reich
DSSZ:"SBiondi;and 4/28/77
CONCURRENCES
-------
D-t'i
STiTSS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGESCY
r.o^ " ' 1C7"? REGION V
Ji.Prv iv b/+-
PSD Determination of Apslicability -
U.'-'D Coal Gasification Plant
David A. Ullrich, Acting Chief
Air Enforcement Branch
TO Edward E. Reich, Director
Division cf Stationary Source
Enforcement (EN-341)
The Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) and the
University of Minnesota are jointly planning to retrofit a Foster
Wheeler Stoic two-stage coal gasifier unto existing boilers at the
University of Minnesota Duluth (UMD) Campus heating plant. Region V
has made an initial determination that this gasifier is a fuel
conversion plant subject to the Federal Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) regulations, 40 CFS §52.21. However, the only
emissions will be from the existing boilers. Me plan to meet with
ERDA and UMD officials in Minneapolis on April 27, 1977, to discuss
this matter. Please review the attached two letters and the attached
2-volume Program Opportunity Notice, and furnish your verbal deter-
mination on whether or not this gasifier is subject to PSD, to Mr. Bruce
Varner at 353-2086 or Mr. Eric Cohen at 353-2090, by April 26. Mr. tfarner
has discussed this matter with your Mr. Richard Biondi.
Relevant technical information on the gasifier is contained in Volume 1
of the attached Program Opportunity Notice as follows:
pp. 4-5 Coal specifications
pp. 16-22 Process description
p. 29 Mass and heat.balances
Appendix A-4, pp. 6 and 7 Oil and gas flow diagrams.
Appendix A-6, all Equipment drawings
Appendix A-9, p. 7 Emission estimates
Should you determine that this plant is subject to PSD, we will undoubt-
edly request assistance from the Office of Air Qua-lity Planning and
Standards in determining Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for
particulate and sulfur dioxide. However, any BACT guidance you can
furnish by April 26 would be most appreciated.
David A. Ullrich
Attachments
i. 8,. j ;«.
-------
-2-
cc: Michael Trutna
NSR Focal Point, CPDO
(NO-15)
(w/attached 2 letters only)
-------
UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA , Ph/stcji =>:an: '/c-.irsnanc- ana Operations
TWIN CITHS
200 Shops Eui!c!:ng
Minneapolis. Minnesota 55455
March S, IS"'
Kr. Erick Cohen
C«r.?li£acs Section
Air Enforcement Branch
Znvirorer.er.tal Protection Agency
Region V
230 South Daarbom Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. Cohen:
I aa forwarding a copy of our proposal on coal gasification as informative Tnateria.
on the unit to be installed at the University of Minnesota Duluth Catnp-js Keating
Plant. In addition/ we have received your correspondence on Application tor Appro*
to Construct/ and we will be submitting a formal response within ten days.
Since the proposal details the technical Requirements, Design Approach fi Kethodolo:
Environmental Considerations and Socio-Economic Impact of the installation/ ic is
submitted as background information.
It is the intent of this State of the Art demonstration plant to prove that low Bf
coal gasification/ as a front-end system for steam boiler operation/ can be a cost
effective process as well as being environmentally sound.
All on-site coal storage/ coal handling/ ash storage and ash handling will he com-
pletely housed. Oust control equipaent will be installed in the coal unloading
and ash loading facility.
Stack emissions from ths bailers burning the low Btu gas vail be below present-day
regulations on stack emissions for both participate and sulphur oxides.
In addition to instrumentation and metering equipaent for evaluating the gasifier
and the gas cleanup equipment/ the best in shelf item monitoring equipment will be
installed for the analysis of stack emissions. We,will request the approval of til
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency in the selection of the monitoring equipment.
As ve progress through the detail design of this installation, we are copying ths
MPCA with all drawings. If your office desires copies of drawings other than fina
drawings/ please inform me by letter or phone/ 373-4521.
Yours very truly,
l-7ES:VP W. E. Soderberg 1
Director, Physical Plant
cc: Russ Oardos, ERDA
Edward Wii):, MPCA
Fran:-. Blackball, MPCA
Del Hrcss, FKEC N« L- Rich/ UI-lD
C. II. Coldsoith. GSM Joseph TooacK, CM
A. k. Potami, UM Richard Lewis, UK
-------
:• i; j r.'.1!"* CITIES
2CO 5ior>s :~u.'.t -ic
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55-155
March 15, 1977
Mr. James 0. McDonald, Director
Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region V
230 South Deariscrr. Street
Chicago, Illinois SG5C4
AT7H: Air Compliance Section
Dear Kr. McDonald:
Shis is an inquiry letter asking for clarification on the nee= for an SA "Approve
to Construct" fcr a aodificatior. to tr.e university of Minnesota Duluth Campus haat
ing pla.-.t. We have previously submitted a copy of the University of Jlinnesota Z3I
Proposal as background inferaaticn.
The nodifications at the Duluth plant include the following:
1. Installation of a fixed bed/ two-stage coal gasifier {rT-^Stsic).
2. Gas cleanup equipment.
3. Burner codifications on two boilers.
4. Add-on coal storage and oil storage facilities.
Presently, the plant is IJeited to gas/oil firing cue to the type of boilers and
the lack of stack emission cleanup eeuipr.ent. As we project to the near future,"
the plant will ba further restricted to oil firing only, we further prs;cct lir.i*.
supplies of fuel oil that coule. jeopardize the continuity of Cacpus operarisn.
The retrofit of this plant is a partnership venture between EOA anc the Oniversir
of Minnesota. It is the goal of this program thar the addition of a close couplsc
gasifier as an expansion of the boilers will creche no er.viromcncal deteriora~icr
and will bo an environmental and cost effective method of retrofitting existir.^
gas/oil fired boilers.
r
As I review* the sources subject, the only classification that seeas to apply is
Identification IS — Fuel Conversion Plants. I would like to list the following
corcsents for your review:
1. The normal points of esiission will be the same as a conventional coal-
fired boiler plant, exic flue gas from boilers and asn residue. 7he
ninor add-on point is a small gas flare for startup and shutdown of the
gasifier.
2. Gas generation will bo limited to in-plane use.
-------
To: Jc:-=S 0. .".cConald, US LIT
'r.si -"Approval to Construct" I .r a nodification to the v.O Jicating j^ii.nt.
3. This is a relatively rraall demonstration unit f3 tons/hr., maxirausi)
that will be closely monitored and evaluated for not only efficiency
and cost effectiveness, but also changes in the environment of the
involved Ccnsnunity.
In conclusion, we are continuing in the preparation of an application for appr-sval
to construct as well as working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency on the
needs for the application of a perjr.it for construction. We are avare that one of
the two Agencies will be involved in the issuing of a perait for this installa€io"H:
Your comments will be greatly appreciated.
Yours very truly,
WES:VF
W. E. Soderberg
Director, Physical Plant
cc: Russ Bardosr ESDA
Edward WiiJc, :-3CA
Richard Starns, I!PCA
Richard Lewis, D of M
3/17/77: Cohen-''
-------
UNITED STATES'ENVIRONMENTAL? PROTECTION AGENCY
*^r - 1-^ .J>fc ^* -'
'CLw-n^)-
tre/fl'/ '/ /_•
in
«N
m
jj
se-
ar
CN-
e
(N
It
e
fM
SUBJECT: "PSD ' Aoplic
PROft :
TO:
: Chwaidar ^MpdTf i'cat ion ,
:Di rec t'orV-lD iy is Com of$ batfiona ry '•Sour ce "Snibr cenent
Eloy.-IT. Lozanov^D tree tor
\Air_ and .Baza rdous* Ma tetials ".b iv islbn. *
. Th-iTs ;-f 37 iri'^r e spo nae^jto»-ypur ^ineato" dated "July:* 13- £ 197 T;
n tstnln the "Eixon.. Cheni'eal CAahr-j!ns'Sat:onf ' Texait"1*>:
con tstnlng
It .Involves-" a
; ; CpAgahyr-j!ns'Sayt:onf '
" Bsucon
existing''rpetrobbenical':plant, ."located ':at "tbe^si te. of^the^r
Exxon" p'etrpl'eua. ref ine"ryr,--"AB«.':tfie'; regulations are*pr^s;-:^
aul'ga ted ii Parti 52 ^the-etr ociiem ical* lant.' would*. &e-suB
auga ted; ii; Parti 52 ^the-petr ociiem ical* plant.' would*. &e-^
-ject .ta -theMrequirencntV oft'-PSD-, -if "if we re-con side red":
-.ref inetj..
' Prjey_i'6u^deterBina.tIqns --'regaroTing- petrochemical-;. ^.
pla'nfcs .'a.t'^e.troi'eon ;refirief ies' have-v-ConsisteptiyT- inter^,
pc'etedithe.-iregulat-iohs "as-japplyihgithe PSD requireiaenCs''
'to- • suci^pjsj^ochCT^alJpla^ts.^^'J^a^reaibn [ f p'r-i'tJi
•pteV iduafcr interplFe€atton.i.wa^t:ha€s>tB»^pe-nr oietfe 'i
^ • *•• ™ ^ ^ ^ * • • • -^j ^ *^»**^M ^^ _y V» • •••i^^* X™ " • «^'»,~ ™ ^^> ^— • " .
.v*ous ijtt"erpcataTwas^fia7V^reOT.ifeo>^ali"acifa:ctii
to Ibe subiect^ Vo^ihe^PSTfer^ulxeiaehtsi;:: J ^eiieve^thafr^
.5xxon- Chemicai^/Bbaifrcation -»—»•'-»•- -i -•»• w-3iAw'4.**-«**
"to- the PSD:ir1equrreinen.ts."
Passage of.;_the.-Clean'.;Air
explic'i*tly.:requlires sources of. this nature\tp--cbmp'l^ir:C
with PSD rec'uirement'a upozi^-rsvisic'ii of SIP&.^'I-da "hot--
thinJc-if would fee. benef icial~.f or the Agency.-ta-chang-e.'V
its -interpretation. r.ov;.;regarding these faci-litires^V^p
and then-to.go bac^-and'require these source J:ype's-'tos:
'seet the-PSD reeoireaent "a "short tiaie th'efea"fteri-?:'-':V
-------
yea have any :ad?itiohall'questions or consents
please contact .Rich Biondi -(755-2564} *.o£ ay staff.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Dicic Rhoads *
Hike Tronta
-------
i, UN TED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
'j
.•f
Mltr
1 9 '379
* OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Miro Dvirfca
William F. Gosulieh Associates/ P.C.
I Cros sways Park West
woodbury, 3R»w York 11797
Dear Mr. Dvirfca:
I am writing in response to your Letter of November 9, 1979,
in which you requested clarification, of the Federal air
pollution regulation for the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) as it applies to municipal incinerators.
letter seemed to confuse the PSD regulations, which
specify a size cutoff of 250 tons/day charging capacity with the
Standard of Performance for new incinerators (40 CFR 60.50
(1978}} which specifies a size cutoff of 50 tons/day charging
capacity. For that reason, this memo will address both sets of
regulations, HSPS and PSD.
I should point, out that new incinerators locating in areas
designated as "non-attainment" under §107 of the Act may also be
subject to the -Interpretative Ruling, published at 44 Federal
Register 3274, January 16, 1979, or the ruling on growth
sanctions published at Federal Recister 38471, July 2, 1979.
The 8SPS applies to new incinerators of more than 50
tons/ day charging rate. -It applies only to each individual
incinerator which by itself has a charging rate of 50 tons /day.
•It does not apply, for example, to a group of 3 incinerators
which each charge at a rate of 20 tons /day.
The Pa'D regulations apply to any new incinerator, or any
group of new incinerators, with a charging rats of more than 250
tons? day if it has the potential to emit 100 tons or mere/year of
a regulated pollutant. The PSD regulations also apply to any
smaller incinerator or group of incinerators ( 2SO tons/day
charging rate} if it has the potential to emit 250 tons or more
per year.
-------
The distinction between 27SPS and ?SD wizh regard to the
treatment of groups of incinerators arises because the two
regulations contain different rules for determining applica-
bility. The NSPS applies to each "affected facility" which, in
the case of a group* of incinerators, is each individual
incinerator unit with a charging rate of 50 tons/day. See 40 CFR
€0.50, (1978). PSD, on the other hand, applies to each source,
as the tera "source" is defined at 40 CTR~ 52.21(b)-(4) . ,In the
case of a group of incinerators, the entire group is the PSD
"source". Thus, the charging rates and potential emission rates
of all incinerators within the same source are grouped for the
purpose of determining PSD applicabilitv. See 40 CTR 52.21,
(1978).
.It is possible that both NSPS and PSD may apply tc the same
new source. .1 have developed some examples of different groupings
of incinerator units and evaluated them with respect to BTSPS and
PSD applicability. .X have presented these examples below:
1) Six new units within the same plant and under common
ownership, each having a charging rate of 50 tons/day. These
units are all exempt from HSPS because SJSPS applies only to each
unit with a charging rate of more than 50 tons/day. PSD applies
to the group of units if it has the potential to emit 100
tons/year because together the units are capable of charging more
than 250 tons/day.
2) Two new units within the same plant and under common
ownership, each having a charging capacity of 130 tons/day.
These units are both subject to NSPS because each is capable of
charging more than 50 tons/day. The units are subject to PSD if
they emit 100 tons/year of a regulated pollutant because- together
they have a charging capacity of mare than 250 tans/day.
3) One new unit charging 100 tons/day.. The unit is subject
to NSPS. .It is subject to PSD only if it has the potential to
emit 250 tons of a regulated pollutant per year.
•In your letter, you mentioned 3ACT requirements. 3ACT
refers to Best Available Control Technology and is one of the P-SD
requirements. Unless a PSD permit is required for a source, BACT
does not apply.
* In using the word "group", we mean to convey that the
incinerators are at one site and under common ownership.
-------
I should point out that EPA proposed rather extensive
changes to the PSD regulations in the Federal Register on
September 5, 1979. These changes will go into effect after final
promulgation. While they would not affect the interpretation in
this letter, they would affect several Xey definitions such as
"potential to emit".
I appreiate this opportunity to clarify our regulations.
Should you have any further questions, please contact libby
Scopino at (202) 755-2564.
Sincerely yours,
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement
cc: Dick Hhoads, CAQPS
Mike James, OGC
Enforcement Division Directors, Regions I-X
Air & Hazardous Materials Division Directors, Regions I-X
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MEMORANDUM
SCBJECT : Application of PSD Review to a Portland
Manufacturing Operation, Taxas Industries, Ir.c.
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
70: : Eloy P.. Lozano, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
So
1
•o
o
This is in response to your me no dated September 14, 1977,
concerning Texas Industries' proposed plans to" cons cruet
Portland ceaent manufacturing facilities.
We concur with your evaluation that both operations
qualify as portland ceaent plants and, that -they will be
subject to the review for the prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD). The PSD applicability will require
icth facilities to apply best available control technology
for all facilities eaitting particulate matter and/or'sulfur
dioxide. It will also require— that separate acbient air
quality analyses be performed at each site for particulats
natter and sulfur dioxide, if applicable.
If you have any questions or consents, please contact
Hich Biondi (755-2564) of my staff.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Dick Rhoads - C?DD
Silce Trutna- C?DD
CONCURRENCES
TUG!. _£
SPA
OFFICIAI—FIUS CCP'i
-------
SUBJECT
FROM
TO.
UNlTEDSTA'ISi
14. 1577
rNT-... ;-07;CTiOr« AGENC
3'. 5
Application of PSD Review to a Portland Cement
Manufacturing Operation, Texas Industries, Inc.
Eloy R. Lozano, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Ed Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
As indicated in the attached submittal of August 30, 1977, Texas
Industries, Inc. plans to construct Portland cement manufacturing
facilities. The proposed operations are unique in that a cement
clinker producing facility will be constructed near Hunter, Texas,
and a finish grinding facility will be constructed near Clodine,
Texas. The clinker will be shipped by rail from Hunter to Clodine
where finish cement will be prepared.
We have determined that Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
review applies. The issue is how to apply PSD review in this instance.
It would seem reasonable to apply best available control technology
requirements to both facilities. It would then follow that two air
quality analyses should be performed.
We would appreciate receiving your comments on this issue by September 30,
1977. If you have difficulty responding by that time, please call me at
FTS 749-3837.
Attachment
cc: 6AEPP
E P* Pom. 1170-6
3 76>
-------
ROUTING AN D TRANSMIT! AL SLIP —
1 TO (Not*. o.'/ie» ira+ol or Italian)
Rich Biondi
a
thru
9
Ed Reich
4
Stationary Source
Enforcement
OA1K
OATC
miTIAU
""
ACTIO*
eooaoi>ATioa
"*•"
•ci eo»-
V1I11TIM
,„-.
iiuAruac
REMARKS
Pursuant to a phone conversation (memo attached)
with Rich Biondi on 11/22/77, coal preparation
plants without thermal dryers and potential
emissions of a subject pollutant of less than 250
tons/year will not be subject to a Psd review •
after March, 1978 regs are promulgated.
•
Do HOT me this fern ts • RECORD of approvals, concurrences,
disapprovals, clearances, and similar actions
FROM (*•»•• o/lw* trmtol or lociMonj
_ . * , Region V
Eric Cahen Air Enforcement Branch
OATC
11/23/77
MmC
OPTIONAL FORM
AUOU1T 1*47
CIA rntm (4terni
4J»H)U
JMU10I
ioo-n.ao«
-------
.'.'KE.'.'TAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region V
Enforcement Division
TELEPHONE H5HO
TO :
FROH :
SUBJECT:
*+*
SUK-IAKY:
\ SetA-^n.
\ I •
oV
. . e,$ *C _ fjf '" C, " Ccc.l
-S»bxec* 'i
'
-\/
-------
->
Jl" _"" " • »^ •• *<• "rfi *• J ™ -
',-\.. .-; •«-jr:f.-.v..-^
fp£br:~.. -: — -
ave-revxewed^your inemo of
in= which' "-
reraise-questions regarding the applicability of the PSD*-
recuiatiohs:::in-^situations- wbere a source'; is modified or--
. ccnstructcdTintdiscret.e-;increnents,--noneiof. which are • . •
individually- subjeets?to-preconstruction- rev rev, but- which -.-
resulfciiri potentiai;:jemissions greater-than 100/250 '.' • •**
toils'per: year whenr'.accuaula ted. Section-52.2Kb) (2) of
• the* PSD regulations'-'defines ""major .modification" as "any
•phyai'cair:change...^S?%^or^ch"ange_ in the method- of operation
"of.^oc7'.«~pansioo"7of-..a- stationary' source'^, taking- into
" aceoah£raitraccoauIaCed5,Increases in! potential, emissions'
:JeT^^^hl£^es^a£tX9^^^emissions shouid^also .he. accuaur-.
^•la"£5£!;jBe£S:fetlferaan"ei.tSe^need; "for • a". secori3rtier-'revTev ; "~j-
:^*»»:!r-S'*s'.«?**.'5>rS+'fuiV-ttrOB^ a^ntiili^-h^ annl-farf ' «-af-»-nac<-4^kiu • »'•
*. Your, meao also-^reqfcf%sts^".a;deteraination, as to "whether
the ^source categpryr^pr'ijaary "alusii'atiaiinare '"reduction, plant*
should apply to" a--oi.ai^ involved.sol^r^jirlth extracting
-------
alumina~:from bauxite.'-* We understand, .from talking to
Paul fzahnt (Region"''TIT/' that the-Region-'II source in question
wiH,-have'rpotential"'emissions ouch greater than 250 tons per
year-'rand'.will be»-subject to. PSD --review, regardless of-'whether
itr-isr~considered~a-'primary aluminum.-ore reduction plant"
we=3 further discussed^ this question with _the Control Programs •
-DeyelopaenfDivisioir"<.(CPDD-)-in-an effort.-.to determine .whether
.the>.ica,'te%or7>%waa*'Izit'ended to" include*-such • a sourca.'• In."
ligh't^of.: the factijthat, such a.determination, is-not-critical^
in,-jappixing. ^the: regulations-to. the-5Jlegion II source In ques-
tion^CPDD would'.prefer to. resolve-it"-after further con-'
sideratipnv.- We-'will^advise you onceva deterainatioh-
has 'been-made»
Pinal-ly your^asked" whether, a pharmaceutical manufacturing
plant,should be»'considered'a. "chemical process plant". We-"
also--.discussed . this^question with CPDD-and reached^ .the con.—
elusion-that a pharmaceutical manufacturing operation-should
be considered a chemical process plant.
Libby Scopino-.-( 755-2564) of my staff will be in con- •
t act;, with you regarding the. final interpretation of .the
emissions.accumulation provision and the interpretation of
"primary •aluainuat ore reduction plant"- Please contact
her if you have any^ -additional questions.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Mxke"Zrutna".
Peter Wvckoff
"Paul-'Kahn
bcc: Rich Biondi
Dave•Rochlin
DSSE/EN-341:LScopino:ncb:x52564-: 7/11/78 :Rm32Q2
-------
-I 5 1979
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Definition of Source
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Diana Dutton, Director
Enforcement Division, Region VI
This is in response to Howard Bergman's memo of
January 9, 1979, requesting a determination as to whether
the International Paper Company's paper mill and the
Arizona Chemical Company's plant, both located on the
same piece of property in Springhill, Louisiana, consti-
tute a single source or two separate sources. The Arizona
Chemical Company is a joint venture half owned by the
International Paper Company and half owned by the American
Cyanaoid Company. The piece of property on which both
plants are located is owned by International Paper.
The PSD regulations define "source" as,
any structure, building, facility, equipment,
installation, or operation (or combination
thereof) which is located on one or more con-
tiguous or adjacent properties and which is
owned or operated by the same person (or by
persons under common control)." (43 PR 26404,
June 19, 1978.)
The PSD regulations offer no guidance on what is meant
by "common control". However, the newly amended Inter-
pretative Ruling states on page 3279 that for purposes of
both the Interpretative Ruling and PSD, the guidelines
for determining common control are as follows:
"For the time being, determinations of what entities
control, are controlled by, or are under common control
with, the applicant will be made on a case-by-case basis.
However, to save time and resources of both applicants and
decision makers, EPA proposes to establish criteria for
determining issues of common control. For example, any person
-------
with a ten percent votinc interest in an entity, or with the
power to make or veto decisions by the entity to implement
major emission-control measures, might be deemed to control
the entity. Such criteria would also be used for determining
whether facilities are part of the sane source..." (44 PR
3279, January 16, 1979.)
We must decide this issue case-by-case until EPA has
completed review of the public comments submitted in regard
to the amended Interpretative Ruling, and has taken final
action on it. It is my feeling that a person who has as
much as 50% voting interest in an entity should be considered
to control the entity. Therefore, until the Agency responds
to the public on this issue, a person with 50% voting
interest in an entity will be considered to have control.
If the International Paper Company has 50% voting
interest in the Arizona Chemical Company, it can be con-
sidered "in control* for PSD (and IR) purposes, and the
International Paper mill and Arizona Chemical plant, both
located at the Springhill, Louisiana complex, can be considered
as a single source.
I will inform you immediately of any EPA response to
any public comment on this issue. The period of public
consent on this issue will end March 19, 1979.
Should you have any further questions, please contact
Libby Scopino at FTS 755-2564.
Edward E.« Reich
cc: Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Hike James,. OGC
Paul Traina, Region IV
Kent Berry, OAQPS
DSSE:EN-341:LScopino:neb:3202:3*13/79
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
:.:o
x-
SUBJECT.
V •-» • • -' — ,—y -
.J'S-A-sz^i-e,
>
PSD Determination - Definition of Source
Howard G. Bergman
FROM.Di rector
Enforcement Division (-oAE)
T0.Edward E. Reich
Director, Division of
Stationary Source Enforcement (EN-340)
We have been contacted by the International Paper Company (IP) concern-
ing proposed construction at their Spnnghill, Louisiana, paper mill
complex. The pulp and paper plant is being shut down. The container
plant and finishing and shipping operations will continue. IP proposes
to construct a wood products plant at the complex. IP plans to apply
for a PSD permit for the wood products plant. Because there will be a
net decrease in emissions, IP will be exempt from the air quality anal-
ysis and the monitoring requirement.
At the complex on IP's land,Arizona Chemical Company makes a product
from black liquor soap produced at other IP pulp and paper mills.
Arizona Chemical is a joint venture, half owned by IP. Arizona Chemical
is independently managed from IP. An IP steam boiler has supplied steam
to Arizona Chemical but this boiler will be shut down. Arizona Chemical
plans to build its own boiler. This boiler will be subject to the PSD
regulations by itself.
IP claims that the Springhill mill complex should be treated as one
source - that Arizona Chemical is part of the Springhill mill. This
would allow IP and Arizona Chemical to make one PSD application and re-
ceive one permit and, more importantly, use the decrease in emissions
of the old boiler against the new boiler so that the new boiler would
also be exempt.from air quality analysis and monitoring. This will
make a difference of several months in when the PSD perait(s) would be
issued.
It appears that the issue turns on the interpretation of "source" in
the PSD regulations: are there two sources here or only one? Attached
is the information provided by IP.
We have learned that Region 4 has an almost identical situation with
IP and Arizona Chemical. Therefore, we believe that your office should
be involved in the determination. If you have any questions, please
contact Jim Veach of my staff at 729-2760.
cc: EPA - Region 4
Phaff (4AAH-AP)
. El>» conn l}20-« i*SV 3-7«r '''•'
-------
flECORD OF
COMMUNICATION
PHONE CAU. Q DISCUSSION ^ F'6I-O TRIP
(Rwotd of Item eluekad «bor«>
FROM:
DATE
TIME
SUBJECT
SUMMAMV Of COMMUNICATION
^<^*£
»-. -i
v-
,£?£»£
^T"
lYj-^S
sY r? a
y
'/
eena.usioHi. AcnoirTAKCN on MKOUINKO
UNTIL
n CMMAUSTCO.
-------
DATE-
SUBJECT
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3EGION II
2.14
L 2 S r&:
Request for PSD Determination on Babylon 2
FROM-
TO-
THRU:
William K. Sawyer, Attorney
General Enforcement Branch
Edward E. Reich, (EN 341)
Director, Stationary Source Enforcement
Division
Samuel P. Moulthrop, Acting Chief
General Enforcement Branch
This office has recently become aware of the possible re-
opening in New York State of three incinerators which had
shut down at different times over the past six years.
Region II requests a determination on whether one of these
incinerators, Babylon incinerator 12, would be subject to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") regulations.
Babylon #2 is a municipal incinerator capable of charging
more than'250 tons of refuse per day and will emit more than
100'tons per year of particul'ate matter. (See PSD/97
dated December 19, 1979 and 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (1)) . In 1974,
EPA issued a NOV to the-source for violating a New York
State regulation relating to the permitted opacity of smoke
emissions from incinerators. In April 1975, EPA ordered the
incinerator to close, and it shut down that summer. Since
then, the source has remained closed and it has been deleted
from the State emissions inventory. Upon the basis of this
information, Region II believes the shutdown must be deemed
to be permanent and that Babylon #2 is a new source. (See
September 6, 1978 memo on "PSD Requirements" and the April
10, 1978 "Portland Cement Plant PSD Determination" — both
were sent frcm the Director of DSSE to Region II.)
According to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
Part 52.21 [1979], "no major stationary source or majox
modification shall be constructed unless the requirements
of (j) through (r) of this section, as applicable, have been
met." The town may argue that there is no construction here
1J20-6 [R... 3-76)
-------
and PSD regulations are not applicable. Current regulations
define construction as "fabrication, erection, installation, or
modification of a source." §52.2Kb) (7) . This definition is
expected to change under the new PSD regulations. According
to the latest draft of the new regulations, construction is
defined as, "any physical change or change in the method of
operation (including fabrication, erection, installation,
C. i-•——— ^.-Cr./ C— r..»'ii^^.. ««C»Cr./ w_ <^>. e^u.^^^C^iS °
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
AUG 8 1930
Office of
Enforcement
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination: Babylon 2
TO: William K. Sawyer, Attorney
General Enforcement Branch, Region II
This is in response to your memo dated July 28, 1980,
concerning the Babylon incinerator f2. Babylon *2 is a municipal
incinerator capable of charging more than 250 tons of refuse per
day and will have the potential to emit greater than 100 tons per
year of particulate matter. The incinerator has been shutdown
since 1975 and has been removed from the state's emission
inventory. The source now wishes, to reopen and the question is
what are the implications as to the PSD permitting requirements.
Consistent with an earlier determination dated September 6,
1978, (copy attached), a source which has been shut down would be
a new source for PSD purposes upon reopening if the shutdown was
permanent. Whether a shutdown was permanent depends upon the
intention of the owner or operator at the time of the shutdown as
determined from all the facts and circumstances, including the
cause of the shutdown and the handling of the shutdown by the
State.- Under the facts you have given us, we would presume that
the shutdown was permanent, since it has lasted for five years,
and the State'has removed the .-incinerator from its emissions
inventory. Consequently unless the owner or operator of the
source were to rebut that presumption, we would treat the source
as a new source (or modification if it occurs at an existing major
source) for PSD purposes. Babylon #2 will be required to meet the
BACT standards, but will not necessarily have to meet a limit at
-------
least as stringent as 40 CFR 60.52, unless this facility is itself
subject to the requirements of NSPS. BACT sets NSPS as the
minimum level of control when such- source is subject to the NSPS.
This means that the individual source would have to be subject to
NSPS not just that .NSPS applies to the source category.
This response was completed with the concurrence of the
Office of General Counsel, should you have any additional
questions or coranent-.s.
1/J'JjL
wTdward E. Rei$h
cc: Peter Wyckoff
Jim Weigold
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL =ROTECT!ON AGENCV
MZ : ,330 REGION II ' l^
Memo Dated July 28, 1980 from William Sawyer to Edward Reich Concerning / &
Applicability of PSD Regulations to the Babylon $2 Incinerator
PROM Charles S. Warn
Regional Administta1
\J
TO Richard D. Wilson (EN-339) / Michael James (A-133)
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Associate General Counsel
General Enforcement Air, Noise & Radiation Division
Region II is conducting negotiations with the town of Islip and the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation on the issue of re-
opening several incinerators to burn solid waste presently being disposed
of in a local landfill. Pursuant to these negotiations, William Sawyer
of the Enforcement Division in Region II has communicated by telephone
with Rich Biondi and Janet LittleJohn, both of the Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement, as well as to Edward Reich by the above-referenced
memorandum. The issue he has raised is whether one of the incinerators
(Babylon #2)will be required to meet PSD regulations upon reopening. We
are operating under serious time constraints since the landfill is.a
severe health and environmental hazard. I hope that we will be able to
receive a determination from headquarters on this issue by no later than
Monday, August 11.
EPA Form 1320-4
-------
£
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. DC. 20450
»• PS: r
SEP 6 1975
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Requirements
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enforcement Branch
Region II
In response to your memo dated June 29, 1978, we have
consulted with the Offices of General Counsel and Air
Quality Planning and Standards and provide the following
responses to your questions regarding the applicability
of several PSD requirements.
Q - l(a). Is a source which shut down approximately four
years ago because of an industrial accident, and which was
not and is not required to obtain a permit under a SIP,
subject to the requirements of PSD? This source was not
subject to PSD requirements prior to March 1, 1578.
A - This is a question which we have not previously
addressed, but we believe that EPA policy should be as
follows. A source which had been shut down would be a new source
for PSD purposes upon reopening if the shutdown was permanent.
Conversely, it would not be a new source if the shutdown was
not permanent. Whether a shutdown was permanent; depends upon
the intention of the owner or operator at the time of the
shutdown as determined from all the facts and circumstances,
including the cause of the shutdown and the handling of the
shutdown by the State. A shutdown lasting for two years or more,
or resulting in removal of the source from the emissions in-
ventory of the State, should be presumed perpfenent. The
owner or operator proposing to reopen the source would have
the burden of showing*that the shutdown was not permanent,
Si
-------
and of overcoming any presumption chat it was. Under the
facts you have given us, we would presume that the shutdown
was permanent, since it has already lasted about four years.
Consequently, unless the owner or operator of the source
were to rebut that presumption, we would ttfinat the source
as a new source fpr PSD purposes.
We assume that your statement that the source was not
subject to the PSD regulations in effect before March 1, 1973,
means that it was not in one of the nineteen source cate-
gories listed in Section 52.21(d)(l) of those regulations.
A proposed new source which was not in one of those categories
would be subject to the PSD regulations promulgated on June 19,
1978, unless (1) all required SIP permits had been obtained
by- March 1, 1978, and (2) construction commences before
March 19, 1979, is not discontinued for 13 months or more and
is completed.within a reasonable time. See §52.21(1)(3),
43 FR 26406. Here, all required SIP permits were obtained by
March 1, since none was required. Consequently, the source
would not be subject to the new regulations, assuming that the
reopening is commenced before March 19, 1979, is not discon-
tinued for more than 18 months and is completed within a
reasonable time.
If we were to treat the source as an existing source for
PSD purposes, we would also conclude that it is not subject
to the new regulations. No source on which construction com-
menced before June 1, 1975, would be subject to those reou-
lations. See Clean Air Act §§168(b), 169(4); 40 CFR
52.21(d)(l) (1977). Here, since the source was in operation
about 4 years ago, construction on it presumably commenced
before then, well before June 1, 1975. Hence, it would
(presumably) not be subject to the new regulations.
Q - l(b). Would your answer to l.a., above,, change if
the source is or was required to obtain a SIP permit?
A - If the source shut down temporarily, it would not be
required to obtain a PSD permit in order to start up.
Application of this rule requires special guidance
for multifacility sources which construct in phases. Generally,
if one phase of a multifacility source commenced construction
by June 1, 1975, all other mutually dependent phases specifi-
cally approved for construction at the same time will also be
"grandfathered". On the other hand, each independent facility
must have commenced construction individually by June 1, 1975,
to have achieved grandfather status. See 43 F?." 26396,
19 June 1578.
-------
On the other hand, if the source shut down permanently,
it would, upon reopening, be required to obtain a PSD permit
unless the following two conditions were met: 1) the SIP
permit was obtained prior to 3/1/78 and 2) any construction
necessary for reopening is commenced prior to 3/19/79, is not
discontinued for 18 months or more and is cfTSpleted within
a reasonable time.
Q - 2. Is the EPA required in all cases to forebear
from issuing a PSD permit until a SIP permit has been issued
or is such forebearance required only when the source is
subject to the "Interpretative Ruling" (41 FR 55524, December 21,
1976)?
A - EPA should refrain from issuing a PSD permit prior
to' issuance of a SIP permit only in cases where the source
is also subject to the Interpretative Ruling. (See 43 FR
26402, column 3.)
Q - 3. In the evaluation of BACT, does equipment
reliability play a part, i.e., should a unit capable" of 80%
control with a 20% downtime, be preferred to a unit capable
of 90% control with a 35% downtime? Can backup equipment be
required for BACT purposes?
A - Questions concerning BACT should be addressed to
the Control Programs Development Division in Durham, N.C.
Q - 4. For the purpose of determining what constitutes
"air pollution control equipment," what is meant by the
phrase "... normal product of the source or its normal
operation"? (43 FR 26397, mid. col., June 19, 1978). Does
•that refer to the quantity or quality of the product or
both, i.e., if a baghouse collects 100% of the product, a
settling chamber collects 20%, and without some device no
product is collected, what is deemed to be "air .pollution
control equipment"?
A - If a source (such as one which produces zinc-
oxide) cannot capture any of its product without the use of
some type of control device, the least efficient control
device used in the industry will be considered vital to the
process. For example, if sources in such an industry
typically employ either settling chambers or baghouses,
potential emissions will be calculated as the emissions from
such a source with a settling chamber installed.
Q - 5. Do the provisions of Section 167 of the Clean
Air Act, which refer to issuance of an Order and seeking in-
junctive relief for PSD violations, create enforcement
authorities independent of those created in Section 113 for
SIP violations, or do they simplv incorporate Section 113 sv
reference?
A - We believe tnac Section 157 provides tr.e Agency
-------
with enforcement authority which is not necessarily other-
wise provided by Section 113. The Office of Enforcement is
drafting guidance on implementation of Section 167. This
guidance should be completed shortly, in t.He interim, the
Agency should enforce against violations of the PSD require-
ments under the mechanisms established by Section 113, generally.
There is one important situation, however, in which resort to
Section 167 may be necessary. This would occur when a state
had issued a permit that EPA considered to be invalid. In
this situation, ve believe that Section 167 provides the
Agency with the authority to halt the construction of the
source directly, without first having to resort to the
cumbersome process of seeking a judicial declaration that
the state permit is invalid. (See 42 FR 57473 (1977)). In
this respect, Section 167 provides the agency with authority
similar to that provided by section 113{a)(5) and (b)(5) to
prevent sources with invalid permits from constructing in
nonattainment areas. Please note, however, that no delega-
tions for enforcement of the PSD requirements have keen
signed yet, and so any action under §167 would have to be
taken in close coordination wijih DSSE, and any §167 orders
would have to be signed by the Administrator.
If you have any further questions on these issues,
please contact Libby Scopino at FTS 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
-------
.. Jar-.»: ; -.- .:rr
tv ar.i •l...:".i;~i...
^V^c
. - ,
/" •'***' »**•*'•-
i-:s:-:o ?---•: DUM or L;V?
FACTS
Your nemorar.'-ur. of Tabruary 2, 1573, briefly discusses
tha issue of the rscpar.iiic of e::i3~inc plants which have
basr. closacl for c. parior. of tir.3. Sere have closed because
of ire!: of cerjar.-:" lz. il'.sir ^rc-^crs, otiiirs or.arr.ta or. z>
scr.rcr.il basis.
of -ST.: source p
You hrvs ir.ruirc;! r£r5.riir.g tlV; applicability
er^orr.r.r.ca szar.d=r:lo zo zl*.«se sourc'ss.
•_• a sourr.-.
..ta of a -
class of r-j/.
es operatio
. •::.t i.: t::iscer.ca pri'or to the pro-
rr2 parfornanca standard (applicable
rcis; bs rvi:;==r.acl to tr.a standard i:har.
cllsv:ir.r tho proposal?
No, the source <.:ould not be a "new sourca" within the
meaning of §111 (a) (2) of the Clean «ir Act.
DISCUSSION
The sources which your memorandum describes are "existing
sources", not "new sourc=s" which raay.be regulated under §111.
Tha section defines "new source" as f ollo-.rj :
[A]ny stationary source, the construction
or modification of which is commenced
after the publication of regulations (or,
-------
think this could Iecitir,at2ly bs charec-srized as
"fabrication, erec-ion, or installazier, of an affected
.facility" .Jl/ In acLclition, r.o nodif ication v/ithin the
~aanir.r cf ths secticr. is ir.vol"2d, sir.cg it appsars that
r.iithar the source's physical structure nor ius r.azhod
cf c-pc-'aiicr. ir. ch-mr-::! frorr. its ccr.J'.icio:': ur.der previ
ocsrstior.s.
Which is tha definition of "construction" under
EPA regulation 40 CFR 60.2(g).
-------
PROM
T0
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
HZGION II
JUL 1 6 !32fj
SUBJECT Request for PSD Determination on Babylon 2
2.14
William K. Sawyer, Attorney^, '• "*
General Enforcement Branch •
Edward E. Reich, (EN 341)
Director/ Stationary Source Enforcement
Division
THRU: Samuel P. Moulthrop, Acting Chief
General Enforcement Branch
This office has recently become aware of the possible re-
opening in Hew York State of three incinerators which had
shut down at different times over the past six years.
Region II requests a determination on whether one of these
incinerators, Babylon incinerator #2, would be subject to
Prevention of Significant Deterioration ("PSD") regulations.
Babylon #2 is a municipal incinerator capable of charging
more than-250 tons of refuse per day and will emit more than
100 tons per year of particulate matter. (See PSD/97
dated December 19, 1979 and 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (1)) . In 1974,
EPA issued a NOV to the source for violating a New York
State regulation relating to the permitted opacity of smoke
emissions from incinerators. In April 1975, EPA ordered the
incinerator to close, and it shut down that summer. Since
then, the source has remained closed and it has been deleted
from the State emissions inventory. Upon the basis of this
information. Region II believes the shutdown must be deemed
to be permanent and that Babylon #2 is a new source. {See
September 6, 1978 memo on "BSD Requirements" and the April
10, 1978 "Portland Cement Plant PSD Determination" — both
were sent frcm the Director of DSSE to Region II.)
According to Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) ,
Part 52.21 [1979], "no major stationary source or majo:
modification shall be constructed unless the requirements
of (j) through (r) of this section, as applicable, have been
met." The town may argue that there is no construction here
PA Fw» 1330-6 (H... 3-74)
-------
and PSD regulations are not applicable. Current regulations
define construction as "fabrication/ erection, installation, or
modification of a source." §52.2Kb) (7) . This definition is
expected to change under the new PSD regulations. According
to the latest'draft of the new regulations, construction is
defined as, "any physical change or change in the method of
operation (including fabrication, erection, installation,
demolition, or modification) of an emissions unit at a stationary
source whicn would result in a change in the potential to emit
of the unit." (See page 245.) The town will be installing
a baffle wall and rebricking a furnace in the incinerator. In-
the view of Region II, this work plus the recommencement of
operations at the source satisfies the "construction" require-
ment.
Upon the basis of all the above, Region II believes Babylon -2
is subject to PSD, and, therefore, under 40 CFR 52.21(j), the
source is required to meet best available control technology
(BACT) standards, which will be at least as stringent as the
standard of performance set forth in 40 CES 60.52. We would
like confirmation of this conclusion and any further legal
authority that supports this position.
cc: Janet LittleJohn, (EM 341)
-------
WITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OGT 3
MEMORANDUM
SUFJECTs PSD and NSPS Applicability to a Reactivated Source
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Sandra 6. Gardebring, Director
Enforcement Division, Region V
This is in response to your nemo of September 22, I960, in
which you requested clarification of EPA's policy concerning PSC,
NSR and NSPS applicability for reactivated sources.
According to your merto, the source in question (SKE Cement,
Inc.) has installed and begun opeTatinc a rotary cenent kiln which
had been shutdown in 1976. After shutdown in 1976, the emission5
front the kiln were removed from the state's emissions inventory and
the owner issued a statement that the closure was permanent. The
issue of whether the kiln, upon reactivation is subject to PSD or
KEF review or KSFS, must nov be addressed.
Consistent with previous PSD determinations, (See Attachment A)
and the purpose of the PSC program, the reactivation of the kiln is
subject to PSD review, since its 1976 shutdown was deemed permanent.
For the same reasons that the source**1 s emissions must be assessed
under PSD, the kiln would also be subject to New Source Review.
Under NSPS, the kiln would be considered an existing source.
Reactivation would not subject the kiln to NSPS unless the kiln is
modified or reconstructed, as defined in 40 CFE 60.14 and 15,
respectively. This determination is also consistent with previous
Agency policy (See Attachment E).
CONCURRENCES
*«BOL
iol'iHo
Ofj^'j-^
1330.1 (12-70)
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
If you have any questions regarding this determination, please
contact "Janet Little John of siy staff at "755-2564.
'Edward E. Reich
Attachments
cc: -Jiir Weigcld (CACPS)
Peter Wyckoff (OGC)
Mike 'Janes (OGC)
-------
2.15
UNITED iTATESlilviRONM&NlAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
2 2 198C
•JBJECT PSD and NSPS Applicability to a Reactivated Source
Sandra S. Gardebring
Director, Enforcementtrtvisibn
ro Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement (EN-341)
Region V requires clarification concerning United States Environmental
Protection Agency (hereinafter "U.S. EPA") policy on PSD and NSPS applicabi-
lity to a reactivated source.
This source, which is presently owned and operated by SME Cement, Inc.,
8282 Middlebranch Avenue, Middlebranch, Ohio, Division of Standard Machine
& Equipment, Inc., was shutdown on December 15, 1976, pursuant to a U.S.
EPA Consent Order. The Order required Flintkote Company, the former owner,
to cease operations of rotary cement kilns #1, #2 and #3 and cease operation
of kiln #4 unless it was operated in compliance with Ohio Air Pollution
Control Regulations concerning particulates. Prior to shutdown, kiln #4
was operated as a dryer.
SME Cement, Inc. purchased the facility in November 1977, and received a
permit to Install on April 24, 1979, from the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency (hereinafter "Ohio EPA"). The permit allowed SME Cement, Inc. to
install rotary cement kiln #4. The kiln was reactivated and began operations
approximately May 1, 1980, without obtaining a PSD applicability determination
or permit, or a NSPS applicability determination.
On September 4, 1980, the Director of the Enforcement Division, Region V,
issued a notice of violation to SME Cement, Inc. SME Cement, Inc..was
found to be in violation of PSD Regulations, 40 C.F.R. §52.21, as amended
at 43 Fed. Reg. 26403(1978), NSPS, 40 C.F.R. §60.7(a), and Ohio Air Pollution
ControTReg'uTations AP-3-07 and AP-3-12(B), (Ohio Ad. .Code 3745-17-07 and
3745-17-11, respectively) dealing with the control of particulate emissions.
A conference with officials and attorneys of SME Cement, Inc. is scheduled on
September 29, 1980, to discuss the notice of violation. During the conference,
it is expected that SME Cement, Inc.'s representatives will contest the PSD
and NSPS applicability determinations.
This source was considered to be a new source for'PSD purposes pursuant to
a September 1978 memo from the Director of the Division of Stationary Source
Enforcement (hereinafter "DSSE") to Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief, General
Enforcement Branch, Region II. The memo stated that a reopened source is con-
sidered a new source if the shutdown had been permanent. Facts relied on in
categorizing the shutdown as permanent include a period in excess of three
years during which the source failed to operate, the Ohio EPA Emissions
Inventory System Point Source Report for 1979 which listed no emissions
for this source, and a statement by a Flintkote Comoany official that the
closure of kiln #4 was permanent.
-------
Ohio EPA has consistently classified this source as a new source and required
SME Cement, Inc. to obtain a permit to install, rather than a permit to operate.
Region Y determined that SME Cement, Inc. is a new source for both PSD and the
NSPS applicability as definitions of "construction" includes fabrication,
erection, or installation for both PSD and NSPS. 40 C.F.R. §52.21(b)(7)
and 40 C.F.R. §60.2(g). These PSD regulations were in effect when SME Cement,
Inc. commenced construction. .The definition of construction in the amended
PSD regulations has been expanded to include "any physical change in the
method of operation....which would result in a change in actual emissions".
45 Fed. Reg. 52676(1980)(to be codified in 40 C.F.R. §52.21).
Region V has contacted various headquarter1 s staff members and received con-
flicting opinions concerning this matter. Please clarify the applicability of
PSD, NSPS and new source review to this source within the usual ten day turn
around period.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ,
= £ 3 IC N V
343 i
CEOflCi*3C3*S
RE?: 4AB-AF
Dear State/toe?1 Director:
At the State Air Directors' meeting last fall, a request was made for EPA to
prepare and distributee regular sunnary of PSD policy determinations made by
Region IV. Enclosed is the first such summary. The frequency of future
summaries will depend on the number of determinations, but will probably be
monthly. The summary will be in addition to copies of any Headquarters'
letters or means we send you.
I hope th-se summaries assist your new source review program. Any questions
or suggestions should be sen't to Roger Pfaff (404/881-3286) .
Sincerely yours,
Thomas M. Devine
Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Enclosure
-------
i?A Region IV
Policy Determinations Regarding PSD Questions
1. 11/13/80
Question:
Answer:
Reference:
An engine manufacturing plant sprays VOC-contaminated
wastewater into the air to dispose of VOC. Is the
activity, if new, subject to PSD?
If the source has nonfugitive emissions greater than 2SO
TPY, the new emissions which are fugitive would count in
determining PSD applicability. The only place fugitives are
given special treatment is in determining if the source is
subject to PSD.
$S2.21(i)(4) (vii)
2 . 11/24/80
Question:
Answer:
Reference:
A major source makes a physical change which increases
emissions, but has offsetting reductions elsewhere at the
same time. In the past 5 years, however, there have been
other increases such that the net result over 5 years is
greater than de minimis. is the new physical change
subject to PSD.
No. The proposed change must, by itself, result in a net
increase greater than de minimis in order to be subject to
PSD.
1/22/81 memo, DSSE to Charles Whitmore, Region VII.
3. 12/2/80
Question:
A major source wishes to take two actions: 1) increase
production at a previously PSD-permitted emission unit; 2)
Build a new emission unit with less than de minimis
emissions. Emissions of fluorides from the two actions,
when added together, are greater than de minimis and occur
within the contemporaneous time frame. Does the physical
change (new unit) trigger PSD review because of the change
in actual emissions at the previously permitted units being
greater than de minimis?
-------
Answer:
Reference:
No, unless the production rate of the previously permitted
unit was limited in the permit. . S 52. 2Kb) (21) (iii) allows
allowable emissions to be presumed to represent actual
emissions for new sources. Therefore, the increase in
production at the PSD source is not an increase in actual
emissions. Also, due to a 1/22/81 policy memorandum, the
new unit by itself must be greater than de minimi s to
trigger review.
SS2.21(b)
1/22/81 memo, DSSE to Charles Whitmore, Region VII.
4. 12/2/80
Question:
Answer:
CHANGE:
Reference;
In the previous example, what if the previously permitted
source were an existing source which did not have a new
source construction permit under the SI??
In this case, the proposed unit would be subject to PSD,
since the net increase calculation would include the
production rate increase from the existing source. After
the new PSD permit is issued, the "slate is wiped clean',
and only future increases and decreases would count.
As of 1/22/81, this situation would also not trigger PSD,
because the physical change (new unit) is not, by itself,
greater than de minimis.
1/22/81
DSSZ to Charles Whitnore, Region VII.
S. 12/2/80
Question:
Answer:
Reference:
Is an iron foundry one of the 28 PSD categories?
Yes, it is a secondary metal production plant, if it uses
scrap metal to produce iron, even if the metal is poured
into molds.
SS2.21(b)(l) (i) (a)
6. 12/2/80
Question:
(Offset Policy) A modification is subject to the Offset
Policy. In addition to the proposed SO TFY emission
increase, the company had a 500 TOY increase from an
unreviewed production rate increase 3 years ago. Do
offsets have to be obtained for the full 550 TPY?
-------
-3-
Answer: Yes, unless the 500 TPY was from a new source with a SIP
construction permit whose permit conditions did not
prohibit the increase.
Reference: Part 51, Appendix S, Section II.A.7.(iii).
7. 12/12/80
Question:
Answer:
Reference:
Is a whiskey distillery one of the 28 categories (chemical
process plants) listed in S52.21(b)(1)(i)(a)?
No. A chemical process plant is any establishment in Ma]or
Group 28 of the SIC Code. Beverage distilleries are in
Major Group 20.
8. 12/12/80
Question:
Answer:
Reference:
A major stationary source wishes to make a physical change
resulting in a 15 TPY increase in particulate. Less than 5
years ago, the source had a production increase (not
subject to PSD) resulting in a SO TPY increase in SC>2.
Is the proposed increase subject to PSD?
No. The triggering increase must be of the same pollutant
as the one for which a significant increase results. Also,
due to a 1/22/81 policy memo, the proposed physical change
must be greater than de minimis by_ itself.
1/22/81 memo, DSSE to Charles Whitmore, Region VII.
9. 1/12/81
Question:
An existing source is operating in compliance with the
conditions of its operating permit. The operating permit
conditions are identical to the requirements stated in the
S.IP for the source. The source was in operation long
before the New Source Review Procedures were incorporated
into the SIP.
-------
Answer:
Reference:
The source owner proposes to construct a new emission unit
at the source and to simultaneously offset the increased
emissions by reducing emissions (through installation of
emission control equipment) at an existing unit at toe
source. Emissions from the proposed new unit will be
completely offset for all pollutants emitted except sulfur
dioxide which will increase by a significant amount, thus
subjecting the proposed construction to PSD review. The
reduced emission rate for the existing unit will be made a
condition of the unit's operating permit. The proposed
construction and simultaneous offsetting reduction of
emissions at the existing unit will be subject to public
scrutiny during the 30-day comment period required as part
of the PSD review. Will the proposed emission reductions
at the existing unit be "federally enforceable'?
No. But if appropriate conditions are included in the
construction permit for the new unit (requiring the
existing unit to reduce emissions) , this situation would be
Federally enforceable.
552.21(b) (3)
10. 1/12/81
Question:
Answer:
A source is operating in compliance with the conditions
stated on ita operating permit. The conditions of the
operating permit are identical to the conditions contained
in the construction permit which was issued for the source
in accordance with the New Source Review procedures of the
SZP at the time of issuance.
The source owner proposes to reduce emissions to a lower
level SMi* is currently allowed under the operating permit
by some method such as installation of more efficient
control equipment. The source owner requests that the
operating permit be revised to limit source emissions to
this lower emissions level and proposes an appropriate
method (stack testing, continuous monitoring, etc.) to
demonstrate compliance with this lower emission limit.
Will this proposed new emission limit be "federally
enforceable" as defined in the August 7, 1980 PSD
regulations at 40 CTO $52.21(b)(17)?
NO. Operating permits are not federally enforceable.
State could, however, change the conditions of the
construction permit to make the reduced emission rate
federally enforceable.
The
Reference:
552. 21 (b) (17).
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3.13
JUN 30 1981
SUBJECT: • PSD Definition of Source
FPC?-: Director
Division- of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Fteve Pothblatt, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Peg ion V
This is to respond to your memo of June E, 1S81, in which you-
requested a deterrination of whether two General Motors facilities.
located in Lansing, Michigan, should be considered one "source* as
that term is applied under PSD review. Specifically, the two
facilities are approxirately one mile apart, have a dedicated
railroad line between them and are programed together to produce
one line of automobiles.
The PSD regulations define stationary source as any building,
structure, facility or installation which enits or nay eirit any
pollutant regulated under the Clean Air Act. The regulations go on
to define "building, structure, facility or installation* as:
all of the pollutant-emitting activities which
belong to the sane industrial grouping, are
located on one or icore continguous or adjacent
properties, and are under the control of the
sane person (or persons under connon control).
Pollutant-emitting activities shall be considered
cs part of the seme industrial grouping if they
belong to the sane T.cjcr Group" (i.e., which have
the sane first two digit code) as described in
the Standard Industrial Clascif ication Manual,
1572, es arended by the 1977 Supplement (U. S.
Government Printing Office stocJ: number 4ini-OC66
and 003-005-00176-0, respectively) (40 CFP £2.21
The two General Motors facilities without question meet the
criteria of cordon ownership end sane industrial grouping. The
rensir.inq test is one of adjacency. Based on the unique set-up of
these facilities as described above end previous EPA
determinations, (see attached) this office agrees that the two
facilities car. be considered adjacent, and therefore, nay he
-* ~
OFFICIAL p'L= CCPY
-------
Since t'he two segments of tne source ere loc?ted in a
non-ettflinr-ent ares, I would like to emphasize that the use of
this deterr.ination is continaent up or. the adoption of the PSD
definition of "source" for non-attainnent review.
If you have any questions regarding this determination,
please contact Janet Farella of my staff at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Peter V.Vckcff (OCC)
Kike Trutne (OAQPS)
-------
NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL =S.CTECT1CN AGENCY
DATE. 5 g JUN 1981
suBJEcrOefining Two Separate Plants as One Source
Steve Rothblatt, Chief
Programs Branch "
*
Edward E. Reich, Director
TO-Stationary Source Enforcement Division, (E341)
Region V has been asked by the State of f-ichigan and the General Motors Corporation
to make a determination as to whether or not two plants on different sites
constitute a single source. The purpose of this memo is to describe the
circumstances related to this request and seek your counsel before we respond
to the State and GM. We request your recommendation on our tentative position
by June 12, 1981 at which time we will be responding to the State.
During the assembly of some vehicles in Lansing, Michigan, auto bodies are made
in the Fisher Body plant and then are transported by truck to an Oldsmobile
plant one mile away. At the Olds plant the bodies are placed on frames and
the fenders and hoods are attached. At the present time the bodies are painted
at the first location and the fenders and hoods are painted at the second locatior.
GM is proposing to move the painting operations to^ne of the locations.
Under the present definition of source in nonattainment areas, Gfl would have
to meet the Part D new source review requirements. However, under the Karen
12, 1981 proposed definition of source, the curtailment of painting at one
place in a source could be used to. offset additional painting elsewhere in
the source and thus the source would avoid the Federal new source review
requirements. The issue of concern for GM is whether or not these two plants
which are separated by approximately 4,500 feet can be considered as one source.
Our investigation has revealed that both plants come under the same SIC code.
Additionally, the two plants are the only facilities serveJby a special spur .of
the C&O Railroad for raw material delivery and in the future the spur will be used
to move unpainted parts from one plant to another when the painting is done at
one location. Furthermore, at other locations in the State where vehicles
are assembled in this two step body/frame fashion, tha two plants are under one
roof or are connected by a conveyor for transporting the bodies.
It is our opinion that these Lansing plants are functionally eauivalent to'~a- -source
and that U.S. EPA has the flexibility to arrive at that "conclusion . The reqeral
Register of August 7, 1980 on page 52695 states the following when discussing
proximity of PSD activities "EPA is unable to say/precisely at this point how
far apart activities must be in order to be treated separately. The Aqency
can answer that question only through case-by-case determinations." With the
distance between the two plants less than one mile and the plants being connected
by a railroad used only for Gtf, we believe that the plants meet the requirement
of being adjacent and therefore can be considered one source.
Such an interpretation apoears to be consistent with U.S. EPA's position which
appears in the March Federal Recister on page 16281. This position as stated,
when supporting the change in "source" definition, is "even outside of these
'construction moratorium' areas unaer the oresent regulatory scheme, the
PCJIM tsc-6 -Tr: «•
-------
August 7 definition can act as a disincentive to new investment and moderni-
zation by discouraging modifications to existing facilities."
We have concluded that should the March 12, 1981 proposed definition of source
become final, the State under the existing SIP though a variance from the.
Commission will be able to issue a State permit to GP. The State will also
reouire a phased in LAER by 1986. Thus, the environmental costs of this
interpretation will be negligable.
Please contact Ronald J. Van Mersbergen at FTS 886-6056 for further information.
cc: E. Smith
M. Trutna
-------
3.19
3.19
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
July 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see PSD/117)
2} The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, therefore,
not a VOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3} Construction of a major source in a nonattainment
area projected to be attainment (based on the
approved Part D SIP) before startup, is not
subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4] Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
obtained may still be deemed pertinent and useful
under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD area
and impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger baseline
and consume increment within each of the areas
under certain conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission point
could not escape PSD by considering previous
decreases which cause the net increase to be
less than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(1)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase of
each pollutant"is less than 50 tons per year.
10) ThT~air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
2.18 [Hard Copy]; 4.19; 5.20; 6.11; 7.5; 10.23
-------
"UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3.20
MAR 291982
Kr. John KcJand
Toy F. Vfccton, Inc.
t.eston Key
v:eetchesterr PA 1938C
Dear Kr. Kolend:
This is to confinr your telephone conversation cf
Parch 23, 19C2 vith Janet Fsrella c£ my staff ccr.cerning
PSD applicability of fluainuc Felling Kills. As r.s . Farella
stated, for the purpose of PSD applicability under 4C CFP
52.21 (b) (!)(*) en Alur.inuir Foiling *ill (£ic 3353) is not
considered a secondary metal production plant end is
therefore subject to the 250 tons/year threshold.
If you have any further questions concerning this
determination, please contact £s. F&relle at (202)
382-2E74.
Sincerely yours,'
Fdvard E. Reich, Director
Diviricn of Stationary
Source Enforcement
cc: Kirt Cox
EN-341:JFarella:amd:3/26/82:Rm3202:x22874
CONCURRENCES
OATC
r
1"
EPA F»f» ! 320-1 (13WOI
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
UNITED'STATES ENVIRONMEMTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUL - 9 1982
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT* Reactivation of Anerada Hess Corporation's Port Reading
Facility and PSD Review
FROM i Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO i Conrad Simon* Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
This is in response to Michael Bonchonsky's memo of May 25,
1992. concerning the applicability of PSD review to the .
reactivation and modification of the Port Reading Refinery, which
is owned by the Amerada Bess Corporation.
Your memorandum basically outlines two issues i 1) Is the
reactivation of existing facilities at Port Reading subject to PSD
review and 2) Upon reactivation, what emissions aay Anerada Hess
use as creditable emission decreases.
On the issue of reactivation, the Agency has maintained the
policy that if a source can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of
the Administrator, that its shutdown was not intended to be of a
permanent nature, PSD review does not apply to its reactvaticn.
Although the facility in question has been inactive since 1974,
Anerada Eess has submitted adequate evidence to demonstrate that
its shutdown was not intended to be permanent. The reactivation
of boilers 1 and 2 and the FCC Unit would not trigger PSD review.
PSD review may be applicable only if new facilities or
modifications cause a significant net emissions increase.
Regarding creditable emissions, Amerada Hess would like to
take credit for the difference in emissions between operation
prior to shutdown in 1974 and operation after the reactivation of
the facility. During the shutdown of the plant (1978) the
baseline for the area in which the source is located was
triggered. Your memo contains the correct analysis of baseline
emissions and creditable emission reductions! The baseline
concentration includes the actual emissions of a source in
existence on the baseline date. Upon reactivation of its
facility, Amerada Hess may only credit a decrease in emissions
from the actual emissions occur ing on the baseline date.
* — :•« Actual «ni
CONCURRENCES
1
I PA ?«•• 1370.1 (13-70)
OFFICIAL F1U£ COPY
-------
According to the information in your memo, Airernda Hess will
only have creditable decreases in eirissions at boilers. 1 and 2 of
18 TPY of NOX, 32 TPY of SO- and 2 TPY of CO. Araerada Hess
nay not take any credit for emission changes occurring at the FCC
Unit, since emissions at this unit were zero on the baseline
date.
The proposed modifications and the additional new facilities
to the refinery will be subject to PSD review for CO. Amerada
Hess is not required to perform an increment and/or NAACS analysis
of the SO2 and HOX emissions are not subject to PSD review.
Nevertheless, the S02 emissions still consume increment and irust
be addressed by the next major modification or najor source of
S02 to locate in the area.
In closing, I would like to erphaeize that,-at this tine,
this determination (or any other PSn determination) is in no way
affected by the CMA settlement agreement. The PSD regulations, as
amended on August 7, 1980, remain in effect and binding until
amended through formal rulemaking procedures*
This response has been reviewed and received concurrence front
the Office of General Counsel and the Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards.
If you have any questions regarding this determination,
please contact Janet Farella of ny staff at 332-2677.
Edward £. Reich
ccs Ken Eng, Region II
Mike Trutna, OAQPS
Peter Wyckoff, OGC
BY,JF*RELIA=rbr:J2877!7/l/82,DISK JAHZT «!AMERADA/HESS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
N* WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
'£
-\«-
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
W 31 1983
Mr. John M. Daniel, Jr. P.E.
Assistant Executive Director
State Air Pollution Control Board
Room 801, Ninth Street Office Building
Richmond, Va. 23219
Dear John:
In your letter of April 4, 1983 you sought clarification of
an EPA conditional determination made on June 9, 1980. That
determination dealt with the impact of fugitive dust on the PSD
applicability decision for a source consisting of a surface coal
mine and a coal preparation facility (including a thermal dryer).
You now request that a final determination be made on this issue
and that we review whether the facts in your case should in anyway
alter that decision.
EFA's June 9, 1980 decision involved the application of the
PSD rules to a surface coal mine and coal preparation plant located
at a common site. The conclusion of that determination for PSD
purposes, was that the coal mine and coal preparation plant comprised
one single source and that the main activity of the source was the
mining of coal. Thus applicability in that case was based on a
threshold of 250 tons per year of any pollutant. Jy
After carefully reviewing that decision and the facts in
the case cited in your letter, we reach the same conclusion.
The main activity of the source involved in your case is the mining
of coal and although the major point of emissions in this case is
the preparation of that mined coal, the 250 tons per year threshold
is again appropriate for determining PSD applicability.
JJy 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(l) defines 'major stationary source* to
include sources which emit 250 tons per year of any pollutant, or
100 tons if the source is specifically identified. Coal mines are
not identified although coal preparation plants are.
-------
The PSD regulations at 40 CFR 52.21 (b)(5) and (6) define
stationary source and building, structure, facility or installation
as follows:
" 'Stationary source1 means any building, structure,
facility, or installation which emits or nay
emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act."
" 'Building, structure, facility, or installation1
means all of the pollutant-emitting activities
which belong to the same industrial grouping, are
located on one or more contiguous or adjacent
properties, and are under the control of the same
person (or persons under common control). Pollutant-
emitting activities shall be considered as part
of the same industrial grouping if they belong
to the same 'Major Group1 (i.e., which have the
same first two digit code) as described in the
Standard Industrial Classification Manual, 1972, as
amended by the 1977 Supplement...."
The deep mine and the coal preparation plant in your
case are located at one sice, are under the control of the same
person and a review of the SIC Manual reveals that they fall under
the sane Major Group. -Therefore, the coal mine and coal preparation
plant constitute one source for the purposes of PSD applicability.
When interpreting what the overall source should be described
as and thus what threshold should be used for applicability, the
Agency has consistently determined that the key to this issue
should turn on the primary -activity of this source. This decision
is reached independently of the fact that a coal preparation plant
(including a thermal dryer) is an identified source category and a
coal mine is not. In this case, as Tin earlier decisions, the
primary activity of this source is the mining of coal. The coal
mine provides the raw material for the coal preparation plant and
as such best describes the source's primary purpose. The SIC
Manual itself lists coal preparation as a subcategory of coal
mining.
It should be pointed out, however, that this decision involves
the interpretation of EPA's own rules and that it provides the
Agency's minimum requirements for PSD applicability. The State, in
interpreting their rules, should feel free to adopt a more stringent
approach and conclude that the threshold in this case be 100 tons
per year.
-------
-3-
This decision has been reached with the concurrence of our
Office of General Counsel. Should you have any questions concerning
this response, please contact Rich Biondi at 382-2831.
Sincerely yours,
Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
cc: Peter Wyckoff
Mike Trutna
David Rochlin
Jim Sydnor
Daniel E. Rogers - Consolidation Coal Co.
-------
,.t» w^
A ': JNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 3ROTE-ZTiON AGENCV
> WASHINGTON. 0 C. 20460
1281
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
Mr. John Chandler
Department of Environmental Protection
State House station 17
Augusta, Maine 04333
Dear Mr. Chandler:
This letter is in response to your request dated December 15,
1980 concerning the applicability of new source performance
standards (NSPS) and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD)
requirements to a proposed fuel conversion at Great Northern Paper
in Millinocket, Maine. The question concerns two steam generators
which are currently burning No. 6 fuel oil that are proposing to
convert to coal. I will respond to the NSPS and PSD questions
individually as those requirements apply to both boilers.
NSPS
Since the boilers in question commenced construction prior to
the time of proposal of 40 CFR Part 60 Subpart D they will "be
subject to the NSPS only if they undergo a modification or
reconstruction as those terms are defined under 40 CFR 60. 2 (h) and
implemented under 40 CFR 60.14 and 60.15.
As provided under 40 CFR 60.14(e)(4), the following shall not
be considered modifications under Part 60:
"Use of an alternative fuel or raw material if,
prior to the date any standard under this part
becomes applicable to that source type, as'
provided by §60.1, the existing facility was
designed to accommodate that alternative use.
A facility shall be considered to be designed
to accommodate an alternative fuel or raw
material if that use could be accomplished
under the facility's construction
specifications as amended prior to the change. . ."
Since in this case the two boilers (the facilities in question
as defined in §60.41) were designed to accommodate the use of coal
prior to August 17, 1971 (the date of proposal of Subpart D) these
boilers will qualify for the exemption in £ 60. 14 (e) (4*5 and will not
become affected facilities as a result of the switch in fuel
types .
-------
As defined•in 60.15(b), "reconstruction"
"means the replacement of components of an
existing facility to such an extent that:
(1) the fixed capital cost of the new
components exceeds 50 percent of the fixed
capital cost that would be required to
construct a comparable entirely new
facility, and (2) it is technologically and
economically feasible to meet the
applicable standards set forth in this
part."
The facility, in this case, is the fossil fuel-fired steam
generator or boiler. GNP has demonstrated in their October 3,
I960, submittal to the Maine DEP, that the costs of the new
components for boilers one and two will require only 26.4 percent
of the cost for comparable entirely new boilers. While we have not
conducted an independent analysis of GNP's demonstration nor do we
necessarily agree with GNP's itemization of what boiler components
would be included in such a demonstration, the costs in question
are so significantly less than that which would be required to
.qualify as a reconstruction that it is reasonable to accept their
demonstration. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this Office
based on GNPs analysis that GNP's two boilers will not be subject
to the provisions of 40 CFR 60 Subpart D as a result of the costs
incurred to switch from oil burning to coal burning.
PSD
PSD like NSPS generally identifies modifications as any
physical change or change in the method of operation of an existing
stationary source which results in an increase in emissions. There
are, .however, a few distinctions between the two provisions. These
are most noted in some key definitions. It is my understanding
that the State of Maine has a SIP for PSD that was approved by EPA
pursuant to the June 19, 1978 PSD requirements. Thus, Maine is
processing PSD permits pursuant to State regulations as approved
under the SIP. The June, 1978 PSD requirements differ
significantly from the August 7, 1980 requirements particularly in
the definitions of source, modification and potential to emit.
Therefore, you should examine the provisions of your SI? to
ascertain the effect of that SIP, particularly the definitions of
source and modification on the proposed changes being considered by
GNP.
If it is determined that there will be an increase in
emissions as applicable under the appropriate regulations (the
Maine SIP) then some level of PSD permitting may be applicable. It
appears that the alterations being conducted at the boilers will
not subject them to BACT applicability (i.e., they were capable of
accommodating the alternative fuel prior to January 6, 1975,
52.21(b)(2) (iii)(e)(l), and they were not prohibited from
switching as a cesuit of a -permit condition). In addition the
reconstruction previsions of the Maine 37? «i_l -ot =i£-2Ct -r.ese
si'-.sca •'.ons since t'.ts 73:ne =>nalvsis conducted for MS?S
-------
3.23
applicability would apply under Maine's PSD provisions. However,
it is not so clear that the additional activities being undertaken
at the paper mill, which are necessary additions in order to allow
the combustion of coal, are not modifications. The description
supplied by GNP indicates "that the adaptation of boilers 1 and 2
to burn coal will include the addition of coal handling equipment
and related facilities." Depending on the extent of these
additions there may be some need for PSD review including
application of BACT to these "additions". Even if the changes are
not a modification the increase in emissions (if any) will consume
air quality increment providing that the baseline date has been
triggered.
In closing, I would like to stress the need for you to
consider the effect of Maine's PSD requirements on this project as
well as to supplement the information the company has submitted
with additional material so that a more definitive decision can be
reached regarding the scope of any PSD applicability. My staff has
discussed this response with members of our Region I Office.
Should you have any additional questions please contact John
Courcier at 617-223-4448 of that Office. Should you have any
questions regarding this response, please contact Rich Biondi of my
staff at 202-755-2564.
Sincerely yours,
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement
cc: Linda Murphy
Mike Trutna
Peter Wyckoff, Earl Salo
Bob Ajax
-------
NOV 0 3 1986
Mr. Allen Eli Bell
Executive Director
Texas Air Control Board
6330 Highway 290 East
Austin, Texas 78723
Re: PSD Applicability Request, Valero Transmission Company
Yoakum, DeWitt County, Texas
Hear Mr. Bell:
We have reviewed Valero Transmission Company's request for an applicability
determination of Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit
rpquirements to the expansion at their Gohlke Plant in DeWitt County, Texas.
At issue is whether the relationship between Valero Transmission Company, as
a service provider under the SIC major code 49, to Valero Gathering Company
under SIC major code 13 is such that there are two distinct PSD sources here.
Valero asserts that its gathering company is a separate company from its
transmission company. Valero Gathering Company processes the gas from
wells to remove hydrogen sulfide, carbon dioxide, and water to meet pipeline
specifications prior to custody transfer to Valero Transmission Company. The
principal product of Valero Gathering Company is pipeline quality natural gas
under the SIC major code 13, while the principal product of Valero Transmission
Company is the distribution of natural gas through a pipeline system under the
SIC major code *9. Valero maintains that the Gathering Company does not
convey, store, or otherwise assist in the production of Valero Transmission's
principal product, and therefore concludes that the two companies are separate
sources for the purpose of PSD applicability. For similar reasons, Valero
maintains that Valero Hydrocarbon Company, an extraction facility in close
proximity to Valero Transmission Company with an SIC major code 13, is a
separate source from Valero Transmission Company.
In reviewing the PSD requirements, it is evident that each source is to be
classified according to its primary activity which is determined by its
principal product or group of products. Thus, one source classification
encompasses both primary and support facilities, even if it includes units
with different two digit SIC codes. Support facilities are typically
those which convey, store, or otherwise assist in the production of the
principal product or group of products produced or distributed, or services
rendered. See 45 FR 52695 (August 7. 1980).
6T-EN:SPRUIELL:ys:09/25/86:xl594 SPRUIELL DISC 3
6T-EH 6T-E 6C-T
ASCENZI HEPOLA GREENFIELD
-------
At issue Is whether Valero Transmission Company is a support facility to
Valero Gathering Company. A review of the activities of the two conpanies
indicates that both companies produce natural gas as their principal product.
We consider Valero Transmission Company as a support facility to Valero
Gathering Company since the Transmission Company receives the processed
natural gas from Valero Gathering Company and compresses It for distribu-
tion into a pipeline system. Thus, Valero Transmission Company is a support
facility to Valero Gathering in that it conveys the product natural gas from
the processing plant into the pipeline system. Available information further
indicates that conveyance of the product natural gas through the Transmission
Company is the only means of Introducing the product natural gas into commerce.
The Gathering Company is not equipped to introduce its product into commerce
by any means other than through the Transmission Company. Consequently,
for the purposes of determining whether modifications to Valero Transmission
Company would be subject to PSD, Valero Transmission Company and Valero
Gathering Company are considered to be one source.
On September 26. 1986, Mr. Ken Maid of Maid and Associates asked for clari-
fication on how the distance between two facilities would affect the
applicability of the PSD regulations' one source classification to such
facilities. In the case of Valero Gathering Company and Valero Transmission
Company, the distance between them does not affect the applicability of the
PSD regulations' one source classification to such facilities since they are
on contiguous properties. The gathering and transmission plants are one
source for the reasons stated above. For cases where sources are not located
on contiguous or adjacent properties, EPA cannot say precisely how far apart
tne activities must be in order to be treated separately. EPA can only
answer that question through case-by-case-determinations. See 45 PR 52695
(August 7, 1980).
If you have any questions, please call Mr. Stanley M. Spruiell of my staff
at (214) 767-9875.
Sincerely yours,
(s) JACK & DIVITA
~1
William B. Hathaway
Oi rector
Air, Pesticides and Toxics Division (6T)
cc: Mr. Lawrence Pewitt, P.E., Director
Permits Division
Texas Air Control Board
bcc: Ascenzl (6T-EH)
D1ggs (6T-AN)
Rasnic
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMEN-AL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Plai ning and Standards
\, *X Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
4 *'
l ••0**'*'
MAR 2 6 1937
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request for Guidance in Drafting a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Deficiency Notice for Michigan's Nonattainment New Source Review
(NSR) Program
FROM: * Darryl D. Tyler, Director
V^/Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division, Region V (5A-26)
This is in response to your recent memo in which you requested guidance
on a SIP deficiency notice for Michigan (MI) NSR regulations. I agree with
you that the program deficiencies outlined 1n your memo for the MI NSR
rules warrant a SIP deficiency notice.
Your first concern relating to the Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA's) general policy and guidance on SIP deficiencies should be answered
by the Office of General Counsel (06C). The OGC is currently developing
legal strategies on the relationship between notices of SIP deficiency and
the Imposition of a construction moratorium as well as other sanctions.
A copy of your memo has been sent to Peter Wyckoff for response.
I can answer the other concern you included in your memo on the
approvab111ty of an NSR regulation which includes a dual source definition.
As we have stated before, if an NSR regulation is otherwise approvable,
the use of a dual source definition requires no demonstration for EPA to
approve the SIP revision; we consider such definition to be more stringent
than our minimum requirement. In fact, our concern is with proposals to
use a plantwide source definition. The EPA requires a demonstration or
certification for all States wishing to adoot a Part 0 NSR program which
contains a plantwide source definition with netting. The requirements of
this demonstration or certification are contained in a memo signed by Craig
Potter on February 27, 1987. A copy of this guidance memo has been sent to
you under separate cover.
cc: Ron Van Mersbergen
Nancy Mayer
Gary McCutchen
Greg Foote
Peter Hyckoff
Rich Ossias
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION V
DATE
SUBJECT-
'Request for Guidance in Drafting a SIP Deficiency Notice
for Michigan's Nonattainment Mew Source Review Program
FROM:
David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division (5A-26)
TO:
Oarryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division (MD-15)
This Region has concluded that there are certain deficiencies with respect
to the current Federal requirements in the Michigan new source review
regulations for nonattainment area (NAA) sources. Michigan's state
implementation plan (SIP) NAA rule was patterned after the December 21, 1976,
offset policy and submitted and approved before the August 7, L980, Federal
regulations were promulgated. The State rules were approved by giving strong
consideration to equivalency with what the August 3, 1980, regulations would
require on balance. However, we find at this time that implementation of the
Michigan NAA new source review (NSR) program has major inconsistences with
the current Federal requirements.
Examples of the program deficiencies are as follows:
1. The State rule does not define the baseline for providing offset and now
we find that many offset actions involve pre-appl ication shutdowns.
2. Certain significant -modifications to major sources in nonattainment areas
are exempted because they do not exceed 100 tons per year (tpy) which is
the SIP cut-off level .
3. Certain significant modifications which are required by the SIP to provide
offsets are exempted from the public comment requirements.
We are currently considering drafting a notice of SIP deficiency. We request
that you provide to us policy and guidance with respect to the relationship
and timing of issuing a SIP deficiency notice and a proposal to impose the
Section 110 (a)(2)(I) construction oar. We understand the Agency's policy to
be that a ban is imposed only when and if Michigan falls off schedule in suo-
mitting a plan in response to a SIP deficiency notice or submits a disapprovaole
plan, and then a ban is imposed only after further notice and comment. We
would also appreciate any recommendations you may give with respect to this
As an area of further concern, we would like to know if Headquarters will be
able to give expedited approval to an approvable dual-source (definition of
source) NSR rule if one is submitted by the State. We very much want to avoid
EM *ONM ISM (HIV. >7Q
-------
2.25
-2-
an embarrassment to the Agency if the State submits an approvable NSR rule to
avoid the construction ban and United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) cannot approve it because we experience delays in approving dual-source
rules. We encourage you to do what you can to help the Regions to correct
environmental deficiencies in SIP regulations by making it possible to expeditiously
approve adequate rules.
If you have any questions in this matter please contact Ronald Van Mersbergen
at 312/886-6056.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C 20460
MAY 271987
omaor
AtKAMDMOUTWII
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Reactivation of Noranda LaJceshore Mines' R1A
Plant and PSD Review
FROM: John S. Seitz, Director _
Stationary Source CompliiHce Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David P. Hovekaap, Director
Air Management Division, Region IX
Pursuant to your recent request, this memorandum addresses
the status of Noranda LaJceshore Mines' roaster leach acid (RLA)
plant in Arizona. Noranda is contemplating startup of the RLA
plant which has been shut down since 1977. The company contends
that the shutdown was not intended to be permanent, and there-
fore believes that the plant should not be subject to PSD review.
Whether or not a source which has been shut down is subject
to PSD review upon reactivation depends on whether the shutdown
is considered permanent. EPA evaluates permanence of shutdowns
based on the intent of the owner or operator. The facts and
circumstances of the particular case, including the duration of
the shutdown and the handling of the shutdown by the State, are
considered as evidence of the owner or operator's intent. This
decisionmaking framework follows the policy on plant reactivation
which EPA set forth in 1978. The September 6, 1978 memorandum
which initiated this policy states: "A shutdown lasting for two
years or more, or resulting in removal of the source from the
emissions inventory of the State, should be presumed permanent.
The owner or operator proposing to reopen the source would have
-------
3.27
the burden of showing that the shutdown was not permanent, and of
overcoming any presumption that it was." Several memoranda later
issued by SSCD (August 8, 1980; October 3, 1980; July 3, 1982)
applied this shutdown/reactivation policy.
In the case of Noranda's RLA plant, your staff has provided
the following information. The RLA plant, previously owned by
Hecla Mining Company, was shut down by Hecla in 1977 due to
market conditions. Reports issued by Hecla at the end of 1977
stated that the RLA facility could be operational within one
week. However, due to poor economic conditions Hecla decided to
terminate their lease for the RLA plant. In 1979 Noranda
purchased the facility, but never operated the RLA plant due to
similar economic problems; the RLA plant itself has not operated
since 1977. The RLA plant was deleted from Noranda's operating
permits in 1980, and Noranda's remaining operating permits were
surrendered in 1984. In 1986, the RLA plant was removed from the
State's emission inventory. Your staff has also indicated that
the roaster may need at least several hundred thousand dollars
worth of work before being operable, and could not come on line
for approximately four months.
Since the RLA plant: has. been shut down for well over 2 years
and has been removed from the State's emission inventory, EFA
presumes that the shutdown was permanent. However, Noranda has
submitted documentation to Region 9 seeking to demonstrate that
the shutdown was not intended to be permanent. Included is
a 1980 statement of intent for long term operation of the
facility, evidence of some search for toll concentrates of
sufficient quality to allow operation, and evidence of some level
of custodial maintenance. The question which now arises is
whether the information submitted is sufficient to rebut the
presumption of a permanent shutdown.
EPA evaluates the permanence of the shutdown based on
the demonstrated intent of the owner or operator to reopen the
source. Facts and circumstances surrounding the shutdown,
including duration of the shutdawn and the handling of the
shutdown by tha source and Stats, are evidence of the owner's
intent. In Noranda's case, the significant amount of time that
has elapsed, as well as Noranda's failure to maintain the
operating permit, removal of the RLA plant from the emissions
inventory, and the time and capital that must be invested in
the rehabilitation of the plant in order to mak» it operable,
are evidence that the shutdown was intended to be permanent.
-------
3.27
There is not sufficient evidence of intent to reopen the source
to regard this as a temporary shutdown. Therefore, SSCD concurs
with Region 9's determination that the source, for FSD purposes,
is permanently shut down, and must meet Federal PSD requirements
for construction and operation.
If you have any questions, please contact Sally M. Farrell
at FTS 382-2875.
cc: Wayne Blackard, Region IX
Nancy Harney, Region IX
Bruce Armstrong, OFAR
NSR Contacts
-------
3.28
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* REGION 5
-------
- 2 -
source performance standard (NSPS). As you know, there is no NSPS
for "fossil fuel-fired steam electric plants of more than 250 million
Btu/hr heat input." Although there are NSPS's for certain emission
units within such steam electric plants, it is inappropriate to
conclude that the NSPS definition for affected facility should be
considered the same as the PSD source category for "steam electric
plants."
3. With respect to the precedent setting value of another Region's
determination that the gas turbines should not be included in the 250
million Btu/hr heat input, we are not in a position to defend or
refute that position. Our determination is based upon staff support.
from the Stationary Source Compliance Division and the Control Programs
Development Division of USEPA Headquarters.
4. It is the general approach of the PSD regulations to be comprehensive
in its inclusion of activities or equipment and pollutants in making
regulation applicability determinations, whereas NSPS applicability
is emission-unit and pollutant specific. For example, in determining
applicability for most PSD categories, fugitive emissions are taken
into account as well as emissions from ancillary equipment, neither of
which is regulated by the comparable NSPS. It would be contrary to
the general approach of the PSD program to separate out specific
equipment or activities of a source while making an applicability
determination.
5. With respect to the heating value used in applicability determinations
involving gas turbines, the higher heating value should be used. (As
you are aware, the higher heating value includes the energy needed to
heat the moisture in the fuel. The data used in setting the gas
turbine NSPS, which was developed by the aircraft'industry, introduces
the concept of a lower heating value). Although the lower heating
value is used for NSPS applicability determination, it is more
consistent to use the higher heating value of gas when calculating a
turbine's contribution for a PSD applicability determination for
steam electric plants. The higher heating values of gas and other
fuels are used in evaluating all other types of combustion equipment.
It is, therefore, our determination that the heat input associated with the
gas turbine must be included in the 250 million Btu/hr applicability limit
and that the higher heating value should be used for the turbine.
-------
- 3 -
If you have need for further clarification, please do not hesitate to
contact me at (312) 353-2211 or Ron Van Mersbergen, at (312) 886-6056.
Sincerely yours,
David Kee, Director
Air and Radiation Division (5AR-26)
cc: Gerald Avery
Air Quality Division
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
-------
4. PSD
Modification
a
-------
4.1
1377
PSD Applicability Determination - ARC3
fetroieua Refinery
?r-CM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
70: Gary L. O'Neal, Director
Surveillance and Analysis Division-Region X
Hark Hooper, Chief
Air Technical Coxpliance Section-Region X
Lloyd A. Reed, Director
Enforcement Bivisicn-Segion X
This is in response to several raeaos frcra your oifice
tiat-Ci June 17, August 15, and August 24, 1977 concern-
in? the proposed construction of a coke calciner at AKCO's
cstroleua refinery in Cherry Point, Washington. Rice
FUcnui of ny stafi has been in contact with Paul Soys
sr.z Cicfc Sauer of your staffs as well as sezcers of Dicx
Tihoads* staff in the Control Programs Development Division
in Durban, K.C. After considerable discussion between all
interested parties, the relevant questions appear to be
as follows:
(1) Is the proposed coke calciner suoject to the
racuireaents of ?S2?«
(2) Can APCC delay installiton of control ecuiprasnc i:
ccxpli2r.ce with the 2&C? requirements, until sons
tine after ccaaencesent of operation?
(3) Can tha source avoid acrlication of the PSD
regulations by controlling tr.e r.ev racility er.i
so-re existing facilities so as to r.egats any
increased enissions?
-------
- t.u.is r.e.-
1. Tr.e petrol ear, coke calcir.er, if csr.structes,
wcuid be a part of tne overall exist ir.s ARC3 pecrcisua
refinery and is therefore a potential -oditication o'l the
cetroieun refinery. The determination of wfietner tr.is new
facility, does in fact constitute a .-Edification would
depend on vnether tnere would be a potential increase or
ICO tons cer year or '".ore or, an air pollutant tree the
petroleua" refinery. '-r.e use or potential e=Lssions is a
change iron the present Fart 52 requirements, ilowever,
this nas been necessitated fey tne
Clear. Air Act A^encaents
of 1377
2. 7r.e PSD regulations have two r.ajcr require-
ments (1) that the source install 3AC7 and (2) that the
source not violate the applicable air quality increment.
In order to assara tnat oota these recuiraaer.ts are satis-
fied, EPA requires a preconstruction review. This precep.-
struction review requires LPA to respond to the application
for construction, ossed on tne effect of the emissions irons
tf.s source and all otner sources added to or subtracted fron
the enission inventory since DeceiEfcer 31, 1374. We =ust
(1) be assured tnat tne source will be in compliance witn
all eaission liaits -at the tirse it consences operation, and
(2) be acle to predict the anticipated impact on air
quality. Not only will the allowance of a cosipliance
schedule sake this .latter prediction raich core difficult, it
will als'o interfere with SPA's ability to perfora suassquent
~-30 reviews of sources locating in the area of this proposed
source. Ar.v extension of tiae allotted to tr.is one source
will necessarily affect our. ability to grant subsequent
serait approvals, and say delay the construction of tnese
rubsecuent new source applicants. We cannot provide tor
tr.is phased in construction of additional sources within the
scope of 552.21 and r.ust, therefore, disapprove any netnos
wrich would provide for delayed compliance.
3. ARCS will not be able to avoid application
of the PSS regulations by totally negating the increase
in the emissions caused oy tne construction'or tne coke
calciner, as long as the coke calciner has the potential
tc esit ICO tens per year of any air pollutant.
If you nave any questions or coazents, please
contact Ricn Biondi (755-2564) of ay staff.
Edward £. P.eich
Dick ?.no3cs -
hifce Trutr.a - Cr
Dick Stoli - 03
-------
U';:7ED STATES ENVl.^C1" ~ _ .
WASH!\3TC . .- C 2:--..
No ve .Tier 1, 1977
MEMORANDUM c~::: " ES'OHCSWCNT
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination - A3CC Petroleum
Refinery
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Scarce Enforcement
TO: Lloyd A. Reed, Director
Enforcement Division - Region X
This is in response to a telephone conversation between
Dick Bauer of your staff and Rich Biondi of my staff concerning
the applicability of the regulations for the prevention of • -•
significant deterioration (PSD) to the ARCO refinery. This
memo is intended to clarify a determination made by this Office
on September 28, 1977, concerning this facility. This clari-
fication has been necessitated by the recent events concerning
the interpretation as to the effectiveness of §155 of the 1977
Clean Air Act, as amended.
An October 6, 1977, memo from Messrs. Hawkins and Durr.ing
states EFA's position requiring the immediate application of
§165. Since that time EPA has further considered this point
and has determined that §165 will be effective only after
proposal and promulgation'of these changes in 40 CFR 51 and 52.
A memorandum providing further guidance is attached.
The effect of all this on the ARCO facility will be that
the Cherry Point refinery will not be subject to PSD if ARCO
can demonstrate that the operation of the coke calciner will
not result in a net increase in emissions of sulfur dioxide
and/or particulate matter from the entire refinery. That is,
if ARCO can control other facilities within their refinery to
such an extent so as to totally offset the' emissions of'parti-
culate matter and sulfur dioxide caused by the operation
of the coke calciner, they will not be subject to the PSD
requirements. This presumes that ARCO receives its permit
before the revision to our ?SD regulations which will expand
the categories covered (approximately March 1, 1973) and they
commence construction before the new PSD plan submissions are
due from the States.
-------
li you have any additional questions or caimants please
contact Rich Biondi (755-2564) of my staff.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: i.i.Ke Trutna - C?DD
Dxch Bauer - Rsgion X
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WG 24 1577 4.1
Request for Applicability Deternination - Under PSD Regulations
Lloyd A. Reed
Director, Enf
Edward E. Reich, Director
FPOv Director, Enforcement Division M/S 517
T° DSSE, EN-341
Region A is'currently reviewing an application froa ARCO for a per=ic
under PSD to install a coke calciner at its Ferndale, Washington
refinery. Please provide this office with a determination whether the
installation of a coke calciner at a petroleua refinery constitutes
a modification subject to the currently effective PSD regulations. It..
does appear co Region X staff that the PSD regulations do not apply in
this case. This determination is needed in this office by August 31,
1977.
ce: D. E. Cooper
Bob Courson
Clark Gaulding
a,,
-------
JM TE j .> i - :. .- =N7-1
= *TE August 19. 197?slon •'• " : ' "
-------
application co construct und-ir 153. ;ir vied concurrence can be obtained
from CPDD and DSS£. The concurrence o your divisions is hereby requested.
As you are aware, the review cicr'c. started on August 11.* Your response
is needed before August 31. I£ you have any questions concerning this
request, please call Dick Bautr or me at 399-1387.
cc: R. R. Bauer
D. E. 6oo?er
Bob Courson
-------
.7E Ju.na 1
?RO.-; ,'CiL-y L. O'l.cal,
' S-rvcillar.ee: C Analysis Division Jli\,' 28 Z' 31
TO DicV. :»hodas, Director
C."'"D Di"i£icr.
r.?A, OAQPS
Research Triar^la Par!:, MC 27711
r..j.s neso ccr.Jiras c recent nliona cor.vcr.-.;.tier. or. 6/12/77 iju.cen ?-ji
Soys and lii..e Irattia cor.cerr.ir.g t.ie PSD ravic" oi :r.o .M'»CO co'..e caiciner.
.'.s a result o.' that conversation tlicre are sc'-eral question;, :>..ic nc^d to
Si ad^resrc.-. I request chat ;*ou or the .? j.iropr —:c pers«' • 1.1 OWy.'s or
jSSL provico us vitli suica.ice o.: each of c/.i rlu<:stior.£, lifted tcl^'..
1. Available SC2 Control Systems for a Co-:j Cilciner (2ACT).
r
11>.' • To cur knouledge thera are currurtly no S'J? control systacs
,; c installed on rotary hearth coka calciners in this cour.tr>-.
^- ' . However, the characteristics ol ;l:e cr.iiausc 323 scream fra-
-V - ,• ' ARCC's proposed coke calciner are siuilar to other processes
/\r\'O • ' ' (particularly industrial boilers) which c.o have SU2 control
\f '}'• •*' systsas. Tha p'• .*? :••*'• - -
sized calcir.ers)
(cssperature to control device)
-' ,- , :••
v" . ' , 1125 - 1425 ppi S02 (dr/ basis 2 72 02)
•" \ • 100 ns/c=^ particulace (O.C-i ;r/scf)
Several sources vitii similar e.V.iaus: ^s. streacs are controlled
X with S02 scrubbers as suaaariaat in the traft PI^^o report enti-
. 4,*' " clud "Son-Utility SOX Control Syscacs - ..ovonbar, 197C.." la
^ »' orJtr to dctwTiniiic wii.it is U/.'-T fur CIIL- .iro|iosca u.-.j oilcliiar,
\ ' ye need your input to the follovi-.'.?:
Car. a S02 control systea be ar.t:lied to th^ proposal coke c-lciner?
What level of control can bi achieved tl-.rou^h th^ use of che sysrcnis"
<••' r
u tJhat are the capital and operjcir.s: costs ior the control sysca=s?
\i r
.. '.^--It is our opir.icn disc a catr:il_c sr.sir.aarir.^ avalu.:tion =f appli-
• /;" cable S02 ccr.rrol systa^i will ba nscissiry baforc tr.s rev_&v c:
_, ., this PSD annlicatior. car. be COL. *._ced. One possibility for accos-
.';- ' plishing such a, szudy would at :.irouih tha JiSu contract u-ich PEDCo
• (. 'Re. : 761
-------
^^rC*
•.:'.-.•,>.:. fr.j.5 ccr.o ccr.Siwirabie -/or. in -.;:'-... .:. 5' _ c:,.:-r,
nclc^y. t.or>i*f uliy such a stu' ; v-ouiu j,«r\c ..*> - z?z:i*.i<:.'.-
for transfer of So control cec.volojy co or.:.r -: vcc.: -<. . ^o.-c
b/ ::£.'-3. Plaasa Ueuerzir.c- : - .".-asib.lif. ." .airrin^ o»; . . .11-
r.
T..a cocpany has propose* an cl:c.r-»ii'-o j, T.'O;C!I :o uahi'.v.; - fi:::
{3A" deterr.ina:ion a: c.~ii£ tir.e • .;ic.i rw^ies a policy rui.£u.or. :;
Zr-'.. EasicaJly, th. company ?rt\-..-.lis :o cr-i:ir.u.- e.-.-.l^ac 1^ • cT
f., available S02 control sys:er.s. ..: sc:-.e ti..«- ir. :>.e future (as ^c
v » ur.rpacified) the co-oar.y u-oulc install cr.o S-_i control systtr ci...
is :cdsei to Le :".;£ ...^s; cpprcpriacu fcr :heir source. Ihu q-cs-
tiov. to EPA is:
Ur.Lv.7 x;hac circuss.ances, if ar.y, can a source be cpo
the 2ACT .portion of the PSD reguiation if t'.iay agret co a co.T.pii
ance schedule for ii.scuilacicn cf ir. 502 con:rol systen a: _
specified date which is later thsn t!.a plant starc-u? dati?
"W
Factors relevant co the A"C3 case ara:
»»>{• a. Ho 5^2 control sysce-.-s are curic:::ly applied to tl:i type 01 pro-
l> cess proposed by the £?plic&?.c. I.i c.-ur case ch; oroccss :s a
rccary hearth p^:roleuc. co'.ce cal;in-ir.
b. Exact daca are not available for c::c fiu2 £«s chaL-ac:cri:--.i=s
since t!\ij type of procsss usir.^ col.c fro:.; Ai-iSi^n cruUj _j no;
ir. operation anyr;here ac this :ir.&.
c. SC>2 control systens are used u.^. similar r;is strean^ such as fron
i.-.duscrial boilers.
d. Ths company's econouic ccciticr. on vr.s:>.2r to build the ^lanc
depends largely on tht cost of 2 jCi control avs;c?-.. The con-
nauy scutes that the uncertainty of the: con.rol systcn: tCL.uiolcs
and cose for their process vraulc probably cause the:,i uat co buii
the project at c'.'iis ti«e.
e. Tl.e calcincu col>.e iror. :his plar.t will. jc. abou: 2.6..' S. '.'his
plant would provide 1603 T/D of coks Miicl. is enough to supply
all the alusinu= ST?.elters ir. I «.£.:inc:cn cnr Orese-. Projo-ticns
of future coke sulfur l&veis iniiCi;c tua: the sulfur Iwvcl r.ay
e::cced 3Z by thu 12CO's. Thtrefor^, if tins plane is ir.sc-lled
there will be a ceiling on col^ suliur levels for this area ar.w
a suosecu&nc '.)uncfit of liui •._.-.. SGi e.-.issionc tro= aluain^n
-------
4.1
"'. _s plant w.il .Tlicw the rc:l.-jry co sl-.Jt ;.o .p. so'. OL
rc:'cr boiler- i/i:Ii a net red-ctior. in p-.ticuiiUv: . iiSi
The- boiler shu:_s:-. (i.jjs eli=ir.:.te ciia £0, si.itsio :ro
DOilcrs, but c'.n iacr6£sc in SO/ jL.iiiioni fro.. . ^i ':.-.
r.-.ore chan off-sots :hc reduction fro?, the boiler
^. The corspsny has previously foliovsd tlie cc.'.plisncw schtdule
approach vitn :na local cor.trol ij;er.cy with rts;)cct to tht tail
raL scrubber or t.ijir sulfur ?lar.t. At clic; ci* j :iic refv/cry
'.:.-.. suilt in 1571, the tail 515 -nits ware ;uct iaing i-ivo-
cuc£cl on a cosur.erciai seals. The sarly ur.ics c:.;^ricncc. ra..r-
atins problenis, braalid3*..T.s, and sigh cos;, '."hi co~.s^.-y l.r.s
recently installed c Ciil g^s ur.it v'.iich they clci is ?.ove
reliable and cheaper :hnr. tr.ay cculc have installed in 15 "1.
The cor.pany ststes: ch^t chs currsrt question of SO? :oncroi
frcx che coke calcir.gr is analogous to die sulfur plant t^il
gas experience, end tha: they caulc be expected to Jollov a
similar process coward eventual control.
Your early response zo chese issues, particularly the availability cf con
tract assistance in che 2/iCT process, will be appreciated. If you have
questions , contact Paul Boys at (772) 399-1106.
cc: t'cd Reich, DSSE
:!yra Cypsar, DSSE
>j.ke Trucna, OAQPS
Lob Coursan, EPA
Clark Gculdir.g, E?A
Dick Bauer, EPA
-------
4 2
12 2 Q -=7:
•.-...vs."
Cabot Corporation - Fuol Conversion
ilirsctcr
Division of 2tr:tior.3ry Source
Oscar Czar a, Jr., Chief
Technical Support Section, Air frc^rarss 2rar.ch
Region VI
"ichael Trutna of the Control Programs Develocrr.-ar.t
Division has asked us to respond to your csr.o of January £-.,
1J72, rerusstir.g^seter^inatior. cs to whether t:-.e Calrot
Corporation's proposed fuel conversion fro.? natural ^as to
-recess i.-23te gas constitutes s "r.ajcr rocification" ^s
t-irin*:' in C52.21{b) (2) of tr.2 procossu P£2 r^aulatior.s (42
rr. 574S3, Eovenber 3, 1977).
L'ncer the proposed regulations, a fuel conversion will
not be considered 2 "aajor modification" if, prior to
January C, 1S75, the source was designed to acccinnodate use
of the alternative fuel. Therefore,"Cabot will not be
subject to ^reconstruction review on the basis of the fuel
conversion if it can be shown that, prior to S5> January 6,
1575, the dryers were capable of burning the alternative
fuel without requiring notifications, or the design for the
soll-.'t bTiers shewed a clear ir.-Jicctior. of the intent to
Lurn rroceas v,3ste =es at sc.-e future &ate.f
Please note that under the old ?S2 rsoulationa, a
source .-akinc rcdifications to utilise an alternative fuel
would nat be subject to ths ??D review and t.i«t the Federal
F:;i5tsr iatad Cece-jber 5, 1977 saXes certain clarificariar.s
ro-7arcir.c applicability of tr.e pronosed/rc^ulations to
source: covered under the Ilovenser 3, l?77*prooosal but r.ot
uicer tlie old regulations. (See 42 ?P. S2Q21, b&eercer 2,
1977).
y r^vie.
(•••••••••••••
"
tirr'/e
tr if ccs<^*
• •••••••• •»••*•*••?"•?•*!••• .••
•^•^^W^hrthrf •••!•<••••<•••• •••••
^•/j.7r 1 2//7//
-J»A FM« 1113-1 (U-70)
OFFICIAL FILE C3r
-------
unless -
1) the source obtained, .prior to March 1, 1978, all
final preconstructios pesai-ta required by the
applicable SIP,, and
2} the source ccnaenced .construction prior to
December 1, 1973.
Since you have indicated .that Cabot did not obtain
the required State peraits prior to March 1, 1973, the
fuel conversion will be .subject to PSD review under the
proposed regulations, if..an increase of 100 tons or sore
per year in the potential emissions of any regulated
pollutant will result unless .-
1) the design specifications for the burners
indicated r prior to January 6, 1975, the
intaat to sake .futura modifications to accoa-
sodate use of waste gas fuel, or
2} the source was capable, prior to January 6, 1975,
of burning waste gas without aaking any'sodifi-
catioas.
Should you have any questions regarding this determina-
tion, please contact Rich Biondi (755-2564)'of my staff.
Edward S. Reich.
ce: Michael Trutna
DSSE:LSCOPXHO:ncb 3/17/78:Rm3202:SX752564
-------
7 ,-yei Conversion 3etermnation
FROM Michael A. Trutna/NSR Focal Point
Control Program Development Division
T0- Rich Biondi, NSR Contact
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Region VI has requested assistance in determining the
of a source under the new PSD review process. Cabot Corporation is
proposing to'convert five pellet dryers to burn process waste gas.
We feel the applicability determination hinges upon the amount of
increased emissions (if any) and whether the piping cnanges to utilize
the new fuel constitute a modification as defined in the new PSD
regulations.
I am enclosing the information sent to us by Region VI. Additional
information may be obtained directly from John Bunyak (FTS 729-2742) in
Region VI.
Enclosure
cc: 0. Cabra
D. Dunbar
EP» Fo.... IJ» t 'Of, 3 7«i
-------
- ' R- > •> :-. LS7£
:* Fuel Conversion D
FROM oscar Cabra, Jr.,
Technical Support Section, Air Program Branch
T0 Mike Trutna
Control Programs Development Div-ision (MD-15)
We have attached two letters frorr. Curt Beck of Cabot Corporation. Cabot
is proposing to convert five pellet dryers to burn process waste gas as a
substitute for natural gas fuel.
According to the Thursday, November 3, 1977 Federal Register, the
proposed PSD regulations provide that use of an alternate fuel (if prior
to January 6, 1975 the source is designed to accommodate such alternate
fuel) will not be considered a modification and will therefore be exempt
from PSD review.
As stated in the January 4, 1978 letter from Cabot, these pellet dryers
were in existence prior to January 1, 1975, and were capable of using
process waste gas as a fuel prior to that time. It also states that some
modification of the fuel burners and additional piping will be required.
Since these changes will occur, we question that the dryers were actually
capable of using waste gas prior to January 1, 1975.
We request a determination if this proposed fuel switch is considered a
fuel conversion under 52.21 (b) 2 and therefore exempt from PSD review or
a modification of an existing source and thus subject to PSD review. We
would appreciate a response by February 3. 1978. If you have any
questions, please contact me or John Bunyak of my staff at FTS 729-2742.
Attachments (2)
'. t-l '-. . t*-< > ,tr. J 74.
-------
4.2
January 4, 1978
Mr. Oscar Cabra, Jr., Chief
Technical Sunport Section
Air Programs Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Dallas,'Texas 75270
Re: Proposed Fuel Corwersic
Calx>t CornoraMen
Vi'i'ie Plaite Plant,
Ville Platte, Louisiana
Dear Mr. Cabra:
This letter is in response to your letter of December 30,
1977, and my telephone conversation of January 3, 197C, with Mr. John
Bunyak. This supplies additional information to my letter to you of
Pscember 12, 1977, requesting PSD review exemption for the subject
fuel conversion.
Cabot Corporation wishes to convert five pellet dryers at
our Ville Platte, Louisiana, furnace process carbon black plant to
burn process waste gas as a replacement for natural gas. Excess process
.waste gas will be burned in an existing flare.
These dryers and flare were in existence prior to January 1,
1975, and were capable of using process waste gas as a fuel prior to
that time.
The changes required will be piping the low Btu process waste
gas to the dryers, and some modification of the fuel burners. Burner
modification is necessary in oracr to convert the crycrs1 fuel fmr.
1000 Btu natural gas to 50 - 55 Btu process waste gas.
We trust that this additional information will place this
modification in order for exemption from PSD review.
RECEIV:
JAN 9
GAAH
-------
fir. Cscdi- Cabm, Jr. P ,-,.!•• '• Janjar/ •", 197;
Should any addition.il -. • -'omalior. I.-: njruired, nleaso feel
free to contact me at (506) GGO-Zaru.
Sincerely yours,
CAM* CORPORATION
_
Curt B. Deck, P.E.
Acting Corporate
Pollution Control Officer
CBB/pc
cc: nr. John liunyak - U. S. tnvii on.-M.-iH.al ProLL'Ciipn /'-goncy
Hr. James Coerver, Technical Secretary, Louisiana Air Control Cotnnission
-------
4.2
C/.::O7
CAEOi CGRFC^ATIOM r o oo« uoi. »«•»».
December 12, 1977
Mr. Oscar Cabra
Air Programs Branch
U. S. Environmental Protection
Dallas; Texas 75270
Dear Mr. Cabra:
Re:
Proposed Fuel Conversio:
Cabot Corporation
Ville Platte Plant,
Ville Flatte, Louisiana
Cabot Corporation proposes to convert five pellet dryers.at
our Ville Platte, Louisiana, furnace process carbon black manufacturing
plant to burn process waste gas as a substitute for natural gas fuel.
Excess process waste gas will be burned in an existing flare.
The dryers and flare were in existence prior to January 6, 1977,
and were capable of using process waste gas as fuel prior to "hat tine.
We have applied to the Louisiana Air Control Coaraission for an
Approval of Emissions fron't.vis facility (as a result of this fuel con-
version). We believe that tne emissions frost this installation will ccmpl}
with all Louisiana and Federal ar.bient air quality and emission standards.
That portion of this conversion which results in increased
emissions, will begin upon aporoval by the Louisiana Air Control Com-
mission; operation is expected to begin in October, 1973.
We would therefore request that this fuel conversion be
exempted from Prevention of Significant Deterioration review.
Very truly yours,
CABOT CORPORATION
Curt B. Beck, P.E. '
Acting Corporate
Pollution Control Officer
CBB/pc
cc: Mr. John Bunyak - U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. James Coever, Technical Secretary, Louisiana Air Control Cornaissio:
RECEIVED
DEC I*
6AAHA
-------
j/.3
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
MAR 24 ^
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ersana PSD Applicability Determinations
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Coppliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning ana* Standards
TOt Conrad Simon, Director
Air 6 Waste Management Division, Region II
This is to respond to your request for comments concerning
the applicability of PSD to the proposed modification at Frsana
Inc's pharmaceutical plant in Humacao, Puerto Pico. Specifically,
Ersana is proposing to increase its production of s'team from
1000 to 1ROO HP and to increase its sulfur in fuel content from
0.13 to 1.8 percent.
Ersana1s operating conditions are currently limited by a
SSI.18 permit condition to 1000 HP at any given time. The current
sulfur in fuel limitation for Ersana is 2.48*, however, the source
has bften burning 0.13% sulfur fuel since 1977.
I agree with your analysis that the increased production will
be subject to PSD since the source*has been limited by a federally
enforceable permit condition (See 40 CPR 52.2Kb) (2) ). The
increased production rate will occur from one stand-by boiler.
BSD review (and in particular the BACT analysis') will only apply
to this unit.
The increase in emissions due to the change in sulfur content
at the other boilers is not subject to PSD review, however, as
you correctly pointed out in your memo, they.do consume increment.
The increase in emissions is an actual emissions increase occurring
after the baseline date and therefore must consume increment (See
40 CFP..52.21(b) (13)). I am not persuaded by Ersana's argument
that allowable emissions should be part of the baseline emissions.
The increase .from the sulfur in fuel change at the non-modified
unit is, in fact, contemporaneous with Ersana's proposed increase
in production rate and must be accounted for in Ersana's air
rrual if.v analysts.
•SOL
I I
i .................
• i
1 ' "~" •V^"*-1 •*"•*•| 'i T
BATE
-a. i —o.l m.TtH ' — si <
-------
-2-
As to the determination of an accej-.tafcle WAfT level for the
stand-by boiler, this is * question which Trust he re«?olv*H
between Ersana and your *ta?f. Your staff r.wy receive gvidancft
nn appropriate PACT levels hy contaetinrj thf» PACT/LAFTP Clearing-
house in Durbar, North Carolina. Brock Kicholsrn henc's up the
Clearinghouse ctaff and may he reached at 629-551fi.
If you have any further question? regarding this rtetemination,
contact Rich Mondi »t
Bdwarfl E. Peich
cci Brock Nicholson
Hike Trvtna
Peter Wyckoff
EN-341:R.Biondi:kw:Pinalll-13-83:382-2831
RAS*1
-------
•JNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL 3RCTEC";r".' -G£NCV
OATt JUL 14^978
SUBJECT PSD Requirements
FROM: Stuart N. Roth, Attorney
General Enforcement Branch
T0 Libby Scopino, (EN-341)
Stationary Source Enforcement Division
On Monday, 10 July 1978, we spoke about the applicability of the recently
published PSD regulations to a proposal submitted by the Seaview Petroleum
Company. The primary issue concerned the meaning of 40 CFR §52.21(b)
(2)(ii)(C) as applied to petroleum and petroleum product storage and
transfer facilities. It was your advice that a change of the material
stored or transferred would not be subject to the PSD regulations, not-
withstanding the potential to increase emissions by the requisite
amounts, if prior to 6 January 1975, the storage and transfer facilities
were capable of handling the material intended to be stored and trans-
ferred, and that no change to a permit issued prior to 7 August 1977
would be required to allow such use.
Please advise me immediately if your understanding of our conversation
differs from that summarized above.
cc: Richard Biondi (EN 341)
DSSE
Mike Trutna, OAQPS
Jehuda Menczel, 2 FT-AF
EPA roan I12O-4
-------
.
lj*rr.-.it lor .".aruiei-.eau Lur.
r;XH: Director
Division of Stationary Source Lr.forceir.er.t l.:.-j
TU: fcooert L. Duprey, ui rector
Air and Hazardous .".aterials Division
F.e^ion V,
'.r.is is in response to your letter oi June 15, 137b.
lo-j as.«ili nut suffice. In f)(-) f
ti.'.c »s "ov* us-ri;iit \/ould nave osen retjuiroc- sven 11 t.ia r.«»
:.iin, as oriyinally proposed, hau alreacy jtcn completed.
The ar.&ncieJ Clean Air Act is quite specific accut
requiring opportunity for a pi^lifi "r.e«rinr;, r-.ahiny r.o
exceytions for lac.1: of puslic ir.t-rfist. l.'r.ile «-e s^/n-:at::i2e
witr. your cesiro to UVOIG wasteful ?roce-Jur*is, there- ioes
.lot seen to ue any way to escape tne levjil rfa-.-Mirtr.e'-itr of
tr.s Act. It is [xjssiole, of course, tnat citizens r-ay "is.i
to cucrsss tne issues relates to the si^niricantly larger
ylcsnt, and so tr.s opportunity for a ruslic r.c-arinc sr.oulJ JG
i-rovi&fC. In auditicn, t.K.e process of issuir»j j r.«v. V-IT LI
t.-ili iilow IP.--, to recsnsiaer tr.e nrcper ievsi cjf cor.trcl.
It 3ssa:.is possicle in tnecry, at least, tnat tne cr.Jivje ir.
size of the plar.t could effect the BACT determination.
It you have «iny fuirtnc-r cu^stions on tr-.u. r..attc.-, • ie-se
Cell uave Kochlir. ( :'TJ-7 js^jj-,^; oi
f
-------
I."S« Ft....*. »ou>( OrXI 8u.UJ.Ml
t!j£ Saritob State
12>11M
of
iHasfjtngtcn, 3.C. 20515
aiNC AMD
COMMITTEE
SELECT COMMITTEE OH
SAOCOTIC *ausc AMO cahT
PC»M**»SWT S&LECT
COMMITTEE ON IMTELUC6MCC
June 29, 197S
Mr. Douglas H. Costle
Ad-ir.iscrator
E^vironr.sr.ral Protection Agency
.M Street, S.W.
D.C. 20460
Dear "r. Coscle:
I ar. vricing Co you concerning the "arblehaad Lir.e Cp^.-any
plaiit thac is located in ay District. The company receivsc s
psririt froc EPA to construct a 1200-tor.-?er-day li-e hiir..
Shortly afcsr che permit uas issued, Xarblshiac had S.T. opportunity
co purchase a 1600 con kiln chat would re?la:e the 120C ton kiln
as i:all as a 450 ton kiln that was already in o?rra:ior. .
"arblihead contacted the ::idv:st office of the •:?.-. ?.nc
ssV.ed tliSB to grant a psrr.it for cha 15"*0 'lilr-.Tr-e "id-. :st
Office conducted the ssccssary $vsl;:jti;-s arc recc.-.r.=r.c3C that
a perr.it be granted. Not only vzs ths liJO '..iin tech-.ic.elly
acceptable, buc it would actually i'.rrove t'r.s er.vircr.rer. ial
conditions in che area.
Unfortunately, EPA's General Cour.sel ruled that a p&rrait
could noc be granted for the 1600 ton 'r.ila because ::arbla:iaac
did not ceet administrative requirements that are necessary vhen
applying for a permit. I nust point out that the EPA's denial
has no relationship co Marblehead's environcental status.
EPA's refusal to granc Marblehead a pernit for a 1600 ton
kiln will cose ay District at lease 250 jobs. Ir. addition,
>tarblahead's inability Co produce li=e r.ay further endanger the
eaplo>T.enc picture in the sceel industry wl-iicn relies heavily on
liae. I would like co point out that ciy Congressional District
has been severly icpacted by nassive layoffs and cutbacks in the
steel industry. Any future loss of jobs vould only further car.pea
an already bleak economic picture la =y District.
THIS STATIOMERr POINTED ON fAPS.it MAOS WITH R=CYC'_S3
-------
Mr. Douglas M. Costie
June 29, 1978
Page Two
I am not asking EPA to overlook any environmental standards
in this matter. As I mentioned earlier, the construction of the
1600 ton >-*!« would actually be more advantageous to the environment
than the previous kilns. In addition, Harblehead Lime has a record
second to none in obeying the lav as it pertains to environmental
•control.
I am troubled that EPA does not show a greater concern for
Che impact of its decisions. The loss of hundreds of jobs sicply
because of an administrative requirement is ludicrous. I strongly
recoB&end that EPA reconsider its decision concerning Marblehead
Lime and grant a permit for the 1600 ton tils.
Thank you for your assistance in this natter,
looking forward to a prompt response.
Morptty
' Member j/f Con:
«FK:lttf:nmg
/I Member dt I
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
KD10RAKDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability Determination for Delco
Products in Dayton, Ohio
FP.OM: Director
Stationary Source Coepliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division - Region V
This is in response to your'request dated March 16, 1983,
concerning the applicability of new source permitting
requirements to Delco's autocobile parts manufacturing facility
in Dayton, Ohio. Delco operates two coal-fired boilers at
their Dayton facility which are limited to S02 emission rates
of 1.2 pounds per aillion Btu. These emission rates were
established under new source requirements. Delco now wishes
to raise these emission limits to 1.6 pounds per nillion Btu.
Delco's unit #4 was permitted under Ohio nonattainnent
new source review requirements which established as LAEB. an
emission limit of 1.2 pounds of SC£ per 10° Btu. As a
condition of this permit Delco was required to reduce the
emission licit applicable to then existing unit #3 from 1.6
to 1.2 pounds of S02 per 10° Btu. This latter reduction
vas necessitated is order to supply sufficient emission
offsets required by the new source permitting requirements.
At the time the original permit was issued, the area
where unit 04 was constructed had not attained the national
ambient air quality standards (1-7AAQS) for SCh. Slice that
tise, this area's air quality has improved to such a degree
that NAAOS are now being attained. (For purposes of this
response it is assumed that both primary and secondary
standards are currently being attained.)
CONCURRCNCSS
-------
As a result of this request, you seek to ascertain whether:
CD unit i?4 can increase its" emission level beyond that
established as LAE7, (2) unit 03 can exceed the level agreed
upon in supplying emission offsets for Che construction of
unit £4 acd (3) any additional regulatory requirements apply to
this proposed relaxation.
EPA can allow the relaxation of a permitting requirement
vithin the constraints of the State or local arency's authority.
The original permitting requirements vere established based
on the nonfittainncnt status of the Montgomery County, Ohio
area* Inasmuch as thia area has now been redecijnated to
attainment, EPA can no longer require the continued application
of the nonattainment requirements. As lone as any relaxed
eelssion licit will net interfere v;ith_the_.&cintenance. o.f
the KAfeQS nor_aay applicable, a Jr. quality... increment, such a
relaxation can be"approved.
Since this change in esission licitations vill result in
a significant net increase in emissions. Delco will be required
to obtain a PS3 permit. .As a part of~the PSD permitting
ret?uirer.ents, Delco oust obtain a year's vorth of air quality
data. This vill be critical ic this instance to ensure the
continued attaincent status of this area. Along with this
conitoring data, Delco vill also have to perform 3ACT and
air quality analyses. As alluded to earlier, Delco vill also
have to codify their existing §51.18 permit to allov for
thia relaxation. A careful review of the State or local
Agency's authority should be conducted te ascertain whether
ie poasesses the authority to modify the existing pcnrit.
This response has been coordinated with the Office of
General Counsel and the Control Progress Development Division
and they concur in its findings. Should you have any additional
questions or concerns, please contact Rich Ciondi at 3G2-2231.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Darryl Tyler
Mike Trutaa
Peter Wyckoff
David Rochlia
Ron Van Mersbergen
EN-341:R.HBiondi:kw:Final 5-6-82 Rm 3202 382-2831
Disk Rich if I Item No. 7
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION GENCY
REGION V
MAR 161383
SUBJECT Applicability Determination for
Deco Product in Dayton, Ohio
p»OM: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division
T0: Edward Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance
Division
Attached is a self explanitory request for a policy determination from the
air pollution control agency in Dayton, Ohio. The request deals with the new
source review requirements which apply to an area which has been redesignated
from nonattainment to attainment. If you have any questions, pi ease call
Mr. Ron Van Mersbergen at FTS 886-6056 or call Mr. James Grass in Dayton at
FTS (513) 225-4435.
cc: James Grass
Robert Meyers
Michael Trutna
R. Van Mersbergen
-------
REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION CONTROL AGENCY
Serving Car*. Oarke. Greene. Miami, Montgomery S. P-eole Counties
uS " '/v. ""hira Screec. P O. Sox S72. Cavcon. C^io *iS^£2. '5 "• 3) SS5-——2S
February 22, 1983
Mr. Ronald VanMersbergen
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Air Programs Branch
230 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604
Dear Mr. VanMersbergen:
Recent telephone conversations between you and John Paul
of this agency have focused on regulatory applicability
regarding two coal fired boilers operated by a local auto-
mobile parts manufacturing facility, Delco Products Division,
General Motors Corporation. This facility has requested
that the sulfur dioxide emission limitations for these two
units be increased from 1.2 pounds of S02 per million Btus
to 1.6 pounds per mmBtus. Since the existing 1.2 limits
were established under new source requirements, we feel
Delco Products' request raises some fundamental new source
requirement issues. We are writing at this time to seek
written responses to these issues.
For the sake of background, a copy of the following
documents has been enclosed for your review:
- Boiler £4 application for permit to install;
- Boiler fr4 permit to install with agency new source
review;
- Boiler #4 permit to operate with special terms and
conditions;
• Boiler #3 permit to operate with special terms and
conditions;
• August 28, 1981 Federal Register notice redesignating
Montgomery County to attainment for S02;
- Delco Products original request dated January 15, 1932;
- Ohio EPA response (in draft form), letter sent on May
1, 1982; and,
- Delco Products' second request dated January 26, 1983.
In light of the potential widespread impact the Delco
Products' request may have on both existing- sources and future
new sources, we welcome any pertinent discussion you feel is
-------
Page 2
U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency
February 22, 1983
appropriate. We do, however, wish to pose some specific
questions which apply to this matter.
First, applicable regulations during the installation
of Unit t?4 called for sulfur dioxide emission reductions
which satisfied emission offset requirements. A portion of
these offsets were achieved through a tightening of the
allowable limitation applicable to Unit #3 from 1.6 pounds of
sulfur dioxide per million Btus to 1.2 pounds of S02 per million
Btus. Since Delco Products' request includes limitation increases
froui 1.2 pounds to 1.6 pounds for both units, the question of
emission offset permanency arises. Specifically, are the
emission offsets from Unit #3 permanent even though the ambient
air quality now lies within the national standards?
The existing Unit #4 sulfur dioxide emission limitation
of 1.2 pounds per million Btus reflects lowest achievable
emission rate (LAER). An increase to 1.6 pounds would thus
represent a relaxation from LAZE. Therefore, a similar question
to offset permanency arises. Are LAER determinations lifelong
or can emission limitations established under LAER be modified
once National Ambient Air Quality Standards are achieved?
Finally, if the established limits are "renegotiable"
due to improved air quality, what regulatory requirements apply?
Specifically, would the Prevention of Significant Deterioration
rules now apply?
Mr. Vanilersbergen , as you can see. the Delco Products'
request impacts some of the basic principles of the new source
review program. We feel this high level of importance necessi-
tates a written federal response. We appreciate your consider-
ation in this matter.
Sincerely ,
i/ James W. Gross
Air Pollution Control Specialist
Abatement Unit
JWG/vmt
Eaelosu"s
cc: Robert Meyers
Edward Reich 11| PIS 2 5 1983
Michael Trutna
AJR w-., ;js
U A £!'/., ...^JuriV.A
-------
UNITED STATES ENV1RONME NTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
APR I
MEMORANDUM OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
SUBJECT: PSD Questions
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Merrill S. Hohman, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Region I
This is to respond to your memo of February 26, 1981 in which
you requested answers to five questions that were raised by
industry representatives concerning PSD. I would like to respond
to your questions in the order in which they were raised.
(1) The answer to this question is found in section 52.21
(b)(3)(i) of the August 1, 1980 amendments to the PSD regulations.
In order for a decrease ifaoelf in emissions to be .considered
contemporaneous, the actual decrease itself must take place within
five years of the particular physical change or change in method
of operation at a stationary source. The decrease must be
enforceable in order to be creditable; however, enforceability is
a requirement distinct from the five year contemporaneous time
frame of the actual emissions dec.-ease.
(2) In order to determine if PSD review is applicable for a
modification, it is necessary to look at the source status (major
vs. non-major) before and after the proposed modification. If the
existing source is of major status Sor one pollutant but the
results of the modification will bring the source below the major
source threshold for that pollutant, PSD review will not be
required. In order for PSD review to be applicable for the case
in question, the source must either retain its major status for
SO-? or propose increases that would make the source major for
TS? after the modification. Any contemporaneous creditable
increases or decreases in emissions should be included when
determining the emission results of the proposed modification.
(3) PSD review, or exemptions to PSD review are based on
preconstruction information. A major source which qualifies ai a
non-profit health institution may receive an exemption from PSD
review. The effect of a change in the source's non-profit status
upon its exemption would depend on any conditions of the exemption
-------
or factors concerning the change in status. This office would
like to reserve judgement on your question until more specific
information on the source in question is available.
(4) The following definition of "municipal solid waste,"
which is found in 40 CFR 60.51(b) should be used when determining
a possible exemption under 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (2).
"Solid Waste" means refuse, more than 50 percent of
which is municipal type waste consisting of a mixture of
paper, wood, yard wastes, food wastes, plastics,
leather, rubber, and other combustibles, and
noncombustible materials such as glass and rock.
This definition is used to maintain consistency between the
P3D and NSPS programs. The policy of using NSPS definitions
(where appropriate) for PSD and NSR is supported by language in
the PSD workshop manual and in an October 24, 1980 memo from OAQPS
to the Regional Offices (copy attached).
(5) The definition of "steam generating unit" given in 40 CFR
€0.41faf should be used when determining an exemption under 40 CFR
52.21 (b)(2)(iii)(d). As you mentioned in your memo, the
application of the aforementioned exemption was more narrowly
defined between proposal and promulgation of the PSD amendments.
The proposed rule exempted from modification any use of RDF
generated from municipal solid waste. The promulgated rules
exempted the use of RDF only at steam generating units. The
language in the August 7, 1980 preamble and the purpose of the
exemption itself, however, supports the use of the broader
definition of "steam generating unit."
If you have any questions regarding this response, please
contact Janet LittleJohn of my staf€ at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
ce: Mike Trutna (OAQPS)
Peter Wyckoff (OGC)
-------
•esruary 26, iW*J"23 STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
TE
.BJECT PSD Questions
PROM Merrill S..Hohman, Director /^.A i r l]l
Air & Hazardous Materials Division^ Y\g^iM. J W*-~
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Washington, DC
Subsequent to our recent PSD workshop, representatives of the attending industries
presented us with some interesting questions. I am hopeful that you can assist us in
answering the following questions. Assume all sources are in PSD areas for all
pollutants.
Question 1: A source shuts down an old boiler in 1976. Several years after the
shutdown, the source decides to build a new boiler and commence construction on it
in 1983. (Therefore, the emissions reduction from the old facility would not
normally be considered contemporaneous because it occurred beyond the five year
period before the new source construction.) However, the old boiler shutdown was
not federally enforceable until the source consented to a permit condition in 1979.
Question: Would the reduction from the shutdown be considered contemporaneous?
Question 2z An existing source is considered major for SO. emissions only. (It has
the potential to emit 5O,at a level that is slightly in excess of the 250 tons per
year applicability level.) ihe source plans a new boiler modification that increases
only TSP above the "de minimus" levels. Normally, this would bring TSP under a
PSD review. However, after the modification is completed, there will be enough
contemporaneous reductions to bring the SO, levels below 250 tons per year;
therefore, making the source, as modified, a minor source. Question: Is the source
still considered a major source after the modification and subject to a PSD review
for TSP, or would it be considered a minor source and not subject to PSD?
Question 3: A source applies to the Governor and requests an exemption from PSD
because they are a non-profit health institution. Assume the request is approved
and EPA concurs.
Scenario A: After the source commences conduction, but before it starts
operation, ownersmp changes to an organization that cannot be considered
"non-profit" and would not operate the source in a "non-profit way".
Question: Is Region I correct in assuming that the source being operated by
the new owners would be subject to a PSD review?
Scenario B: Source is built and commences operation. Ownership changes to
the organization not considered non-profit after the source is operating.
Question: Would the new owners be required to retrofit BACT and be subject
to other PSD requirements because they no longer qualify for the "non-profit"
exemption, or would they be exempt from PSD because there is only a change
in ownership (and no increase in emissions)?
-------
^Question 4: Is there a definition for municipal solid waste as that term is used
under the exemption at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)Gii)(d)? Would construction site waste
that consists mostly of wood, with some nails and bolts, bits of concrete and gravel,
steel strapping, wire, shingles, etc., be considered municipal solid waste? Note:-
Such waste is currently being landfilled at a municipal dump.
Question 3: Under the same exemption indicated in Question 4, the term "steam
generating unit" is used. On page 5270* of the August 7, 1980 revisions, the
preamble states that only the switch to ROF at a "steam generating unit11 is
exempt. It goes on to explain that the term shall have the same meaning for the
purposes of PSD as it does for the purposes of the new NSPS for certain electric
utility "steam generating units". Under 40 CFR 60.4la, there is a definition for
"steam generating unit" and a definition for "electric utility steam generating
.unit". Question: Which definition is applicable? Since the exemption may either
apply to virtually all boilers, under one definition or only those that contribute to
the generation of electricity for sale, under the other definition the distinction is
important.
Since these are questions that involve real case situations, we would appreciate it
greatly if you could respond to these questions by March 13, 1921.
Please contact 3ohn Courtier of my staff if you should have any questions. He can
be reached at (FTS) 223-4448.
cc: Janet Littlejohn, DSSE
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
< OC7 24 1980
Definition of "Installation" ijn Nfltiattajjiment Regulations
FROM: Walter C. Barber, Director) i l£ffi
Office of Air Quality Planning and St
TO: Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division
Regions I-X
The definition of source in the regulations pertaining to review of
major new sources and modifications in nonattainment areas is focused at
two levels: the entire plant and an installation within the plant. The
term installation refers to "an identifiable piece of process equipment".
(See August 7, 1980 Federal Register, p. 52742 and 52744.) I and my
staff have responded orally to questions over the past year or so on how
to-interpret the term "installation", especially in cases where an I-JSPS
applies to a source category. Our guidance has been that where an ?5PS
exists or is under development, the "affected facility" definition is
usually the most appropriate definition of "installation". This memo
restates that guidance in writing.
If an ISPS identifies an "affected facility", the reviewing agency
should consider such an affected facility'as an installation for the
purpose of new source review applicability determinations. For example,
an installation at a power plant would be any electric utility steam
generating unit.
Where a portion of r plant is not specifically defined as an affected
facility, either because an MSPS is silent or there is no iiSPS for the
source category, the reviewer should still refer to the iiSPS approach
for guidance as to how small a portion of a plant the term installation
should apply to. To illustrate, in October 1979 EPA proposed an fISPS
for auto surface coating operations which defined the affected facilities
as the prime coat, surface coat, and top coat lines. Spray booths,
flash-off areas and ovens within these lines are not defined as affected
facilities by the proposal. Therefore, such line elements*should not be
considered installations; in this case, an installation is one of the
three lines noted above
This position is not new; it has been the basis for decisions for
more than a year. It is being presented here for clarification and to
avoid inconsistency in the new source review process. /If your staff has
any questions on this subject in the future, please contact our New
Source Review Office (FTS 629-5291).
cc: Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X
E. Reich 0. Hawkins
P. Wyckoff S. Kuhrtz
L. Wegman ^* E. Tuerk
R. Biondi*^^ \\. Trutna
D. Rhoads D. Gooawin
= * CQOM 1320-4 '«CV J-7«>
-------
TDATED)
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
«i, x? WASHINGTON. D C 20460
"< «w*
MAR 26 1379
OFFiCt 0s af.?0»C£"£ST
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD to the Consolidated -Edison
Company
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Meyer Scolnick, Director
Enforcement Division - Region II
This is in response to your memo of February 15, 1979,
requesting a determination as to whether the Consolidated
Edison Company's proposed switch from .3% sulfur oil to"
1.5% sulfur oil constitutes a "major modification" for
purposes of PSD.
As discussed below, an increase in the sulfur content
of a particular fuel burned at a source does not constitute
use of an "alternative" fuel; is not considered a change
in the method of operation; and therefore does not constitute
a major modification.
I believe it has been the Agency's intent, since the
development of the original PSD regulations, to exempt
sulfur-'in-fuel changes from preconstruction review. I refer
you to 40 CFR S52.21(d)U) [1977] which states,
"...A source which is modified, but does not increase
the amount of sulfur oxides or particulate matter emitted, or
is modified to utilize an alternative fuel, or higher
sulfur content fuel, shall not be subject to this paragrapn...
The paragraph referred to is entitled "Review of New Sources".
It is clear that under the old regulations, in effect prior
to March 1, 1978, an increase in the sulfur content of oil
did not bring a facility under PSD. I am not aware of any
discussion in the amended PSD regulations or the preamble
to the amended regulations which indicates a change in this
policy. I believe an increase in the sulfur content of
oil is beyond the scope of the preconstruction review
-------
requirements of the PSD regulations.
As I'm sure you are aware, any SIP relaxation that would
affect a PSD area must include a determination that the
applicable. increment will not be exceeded. The amount of
increment that will be consumed by a SIP relaxation is
determined by modeling the difference between the allowable
emissions resulting from the new relaxed SIP limit and the
source's baseline emissions level.
Should the State of New York decide to relax its sulfur-
in-fuel regulations applicable to Con Ed, a demonstration
must be made that the PSD increments will not be exceeded. In
this way, protection of the increments will be accomplished.'
Should you have any further questions on this issue,
please contact Libby Scopino at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Darryl Tyler, CPDD
Jerry Ostrov, OGC
Stu Roth, Region II
-------
4 V
RECORD OF
COMMUNICATION
Q PMONO CALL QOUCUOSION Q FIILD TNI*
QOTHIIHSMCIFVl
QCONMftlMCI
(tUcord of torn etoctod »6
-------
4.12
„<«»»•>.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
? WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
APR | I 1580
omee OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Exemptions from PSD Permit Requirements for Coal
Conversions Resulting from DOE Prohibition Orders
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Howard R. Heim, Chief
Air Programs Branch - Region 3
This is in response to your memo of March 6, 1980, regarding
the applicability of PSD to Delmarva1s Edge Moor Power Station
which must begin burning coal in response to a prohibition order
from DOE. As stated in your memo, there is an apparent
discrepancy between $169 of the Act and $52.21(b)(2){ii) of the
June 19, 1978 PSD regulations as concerns the applicability to DOZ
ordered fuel conversions.
Section 169 of the Act indicates that for PSD purposes the
term "modification" shall be defined as it is in §111 of the Act.
Section 111 provides that, "A conversion to coal (A) by reason of
an order under §2,{a) of the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act of 1974 or any amendment thereto., .shall not be
deemed to be "a modification..;" "These two sections of. the Act
seem to indicate that certain DOE-ordered conversions should be
exempt from the PSD regulations. However, $52.21(b)(2)(ii)
attempts to limit that exemption in effect by modifying it with
the phrase, "unless previously limited by enforceable permit
conditions."
The modifying phrase says that if a source holds a SI? permit
which prohibits it from burning coal, it will not be eligible for
the exemption, even if the state plans to amend the SIP permit.
In view of the discrepancy between §169 and §111, this
Office, OGC, and OAQPS plan to recommend that the final Alabama
Power rulemaking delete the limiting phrase. I suggest that you
advise Delmarva of our intent. As I understand it, Delmarva will
not begin the fuel conversion until late this year. By that time
it is hoped that the PSD rules proposed on September 5, 1979 will
be finalized. Deletion of the limiting phrase would exempt
Delmarva from PSD review requirements.
-------
Three questions about increment consumption were raised by
your memo and by a subsequent telephone conversation between
Bob Blaszczak and Libby Scopino. The three questions and my
responses to them are as follows:
1. Q. - What is the mechanism for evaluating increment
consumption by a source which is exempt from PSD review?
A. - Increment consumption is evaluated by the next major
source or modification that applies for a permit in the area, or
by the permitting authority during its periodic increment
assessment. There is no mechanism available to stop an exempt
source from constructing or modifying even if it would violate the
increment. However, as soon as a violation is discovered, the
State would be required to restore the increment through a
revision to the SIP. I agree that the DCO process, is not an
adequate mechanism for considering increment consumption.
2. Q. - What portion of Oelmarva's emissions should be
counted into the baseline?
A. - Delmarva's actual emissions, as of the baseline
date, should be counted into the baseline. In calculating actual
emission levels, the hours of operation, capacity utilization, and
types of materials combusted, processed or stored should be based
on the preceding year of operation unless another previous year
would be more representative.
Assuming the baseline has been triggered around the Edge
Moor Plant, Delmarva's baseline emissions would be based on oil
because it has been burning oil since 1971.
3. Q. - What portion of Delmarva's emissions consume
increment?
A. - The increment consumption is'calculated by modeling
the difference between Delmarva's baseline emissions and its
allowable emissions after the switch to coal. See 43 PR 26400&1
for discussion on increment consumption.
If you would like to discuss these issues further, please
contact me cr Libby Scopmo of my staff at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: David Hawkins
Walter Barber
Richard Rhoads
Michael James
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTIOM AGENCY 4.13
JAN 2 2 1981
HWOP.AHDO*
SUBJECT! PSD Applicability
Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TC: Charles vhitnore. Chief
Technical Analysis Section, Region VII
This is in response to your memo of December 4, 1980, in which
you requested a PSD applicability determination for Cargill Inc.1*
proposed ethanol plant in Eddyville, Iowa.
The proposed plant ia to be located in a designated attainment
area and will consist in part of wet-milling and ethanol
facilities (collectively, the "ethane! plant"). Steam and
electricity for the plant are to be generated by an on-site
existing power plant, which is to be converted into a co-qeneration
unit. The addition of the ethanol plant will cause a large
increase in the hours of operation of the power plant and a fuel
switch to burn coal exclusively.
I would like to mention first that the project may be exempt
from PSD review through a "grandfather* exception if the state
air permit for the project was issued before August 7, 1SFO, the
project would not have been subject to the 1978 PSD reaulations,.'as
stayed, and certain other conditions are met. (See 40 CFP 52.21
If the grandfather exemption does not spply the addition of
the ethanol plant should be concidered a modification to an
existing major stationery source. In order to determine if the
modification is major and cubjcct to ^reconstruction PFP review, it
is first necessary to determine if there will be a significant net
emissions increase from the modification itself. FPJN is
intcrrr ot ino the te*??fi ^.nj^—Ainj-gslpng incy^'se* as anv s ion 1 f Icsnt
in ggtuaJ—gSLi-g-g-lgns fgpgi g ghvclcaJ.
incr eases or •»;
!
1
1 •"
EPA f»-> .220-1 02-70)
-------
I'U'rD STATi . ::.. . . ,-« «: iL P-?TECTIO». AGENCY
" .
Deceabe:
TPY Of 60, «nd less than 40 TPT TOC. "All'of these emission
rate* are de minimus, (See 40 C7P. 52.2Kb) (23)) and therefore this
•edification would not.be subject to PSD review. Pegardless of
•whether or not this is determined to be a modification any
increase in eaission will consume increment provided the baseline
has been triggered.
It is also important to note that, in the absence of any SIP
or pcrnit limitations, neither the increase in emissions fron the
switch to burn coal exclusively nor the increase in hours of
operation at the power plant would be considered a modification
(See 40 CFB 52.2Kb) (2) (iii)(£> and (f)).
This determination has been made with the concurrence of the
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards and the Office of
General Counsel. Zf you have any questions regarding this memo,
please contact Janet Littlejohn of my staff at 755*2564.
Edward E. Peich
ect Peter Kyckoff, OGC
Kike Trutna, OAOPS
Harry1 Tyler, OAQPS
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Or TICK or Air Duality Piuiininy and Standards
DEC 1 6 1980 ^search Triangle Park, i.orth Carolina 2/711
Interpretation of "Significant Contribution"
1.13
Rlciiard G. Riioads, Uirector
Control Programs Uevelopraent Division (MD-15)
Alexandra S»iith, Director
Air a hazardous Materials Division, Region X
'.liJ..!l in !li!> i'Sw U|^>1 iLdL .wil
Ul SOV AUI^Uiic wildw.U.U
iaao-1
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
that his SO? impacts are significant only on tnc edge of the 5107 area which
is demonstrated to actually be in attainment of standards. The source owner
also danonstratcd tiiat his impacts are not significant in the area of actual
violation of the S(L standards. A second scenario is the case where the
owner dencnstrates Chat on the days when the 24-Iiour SO., standard violation
is actually occurring, the proposed source's 24-hour averaged impacts are
not significant. The owner has also shown that on other days wnen the air
quality meets the 24-hour SO, stanoard, his impacts are significant but do
not cause the air quality to exceed the 24-hour starJard. The third example
is where the area was only nonattainment for the SO- annual standard. The
source owner-shows his impacts on tne nonatta1oment area arc significant for
the 24-hour averaging time and Insignificant on an annual basis, for all
three scenarios, the source owner has demonstrated that he will not contribute
to air pollution 1n violation of the HAAQS and has met the PSD review require-
ments of 40 CFR 52.2l(k)(1) for SO.,, providing that he will not cause any new
violations. Tills source would also not be subject to nonattainroent I1SR
requirements under 40 CFR 51.18(k).
If you have further questions, please contact KiKe Trutna (FTS 629-5291}
for core information.
cc: Q. Hawkins
U. Barber
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I - X
U1rector. Enforcement Division. Regions I - X
NSR, PSD Regional Contact, Regions 1 - X
bcc: E. Smith
B. Diamond
R. Biondi
0. Borchers (ANR-443}
E. Tuerk (ANR-443)
I. Artico (A-107)
B. Steigerwald
R. Campbell
B. Hogarth
CPOD:I1ATrutna:js:rm 513:Mu:xS425:12-15-80
Control No. CPOD-308 Due: 11-6-80
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3eg-ion iO, 1ZOO S'.xtn Avenue, ;ead!e, «« ;o.0i
DATE 27 OCT1S30
SUBJECT interpretation of "Significant Contribution"
«OM Alexandra B. Smith, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division
T0 Richard Rhoads
Director, Control Program Development Division (MU-15)
EPA new source review regulations contain a requirement that proposed
major stationary sources not contribute (or significantly contribute) to
air pollution in areas which are violating the NAAQS (40 CFR 51.24(k);
52.21(k); 51.18(k); and Part 51, Appendix S, Section III). The interpre-
tation and implementation of this requirement may impact the final
decision on the Northern Tier PSD permit application. Because of the
sensitivity and high national priority placed on the timely processing
of Northern Tier's permit applications, we are requesting that you
provide us with a response to the following questions by November 7,
1980:
1. The PSD regulations, in 40 CFR 5l.24(k) and 52.21(k), require that
the proposed source not "contribute to air pollution in violation
of" the NAAQS. Does this consider the concept of "significant"
contribution as defined in Part 51, Appendix S, Section III. A?
2. The language in the PSD regulations (40 CFR 5l.l8(k) and 52.21(k))
differs from that in 40 CFR 5l.l8(k) and the Offset Interpretive
Ruling as to what the source is contributing. In the PSD regula-
tions the source must not contribute to "air pollution in violation
of" the NAAQS. In the Offset Interpretive Ruling the source must
not significantly contribute "at any locality that does not meet
the NAAQS." Is, then, the determination of a source's contribution
(or significant contribution) at a receptor in an area that does
not meet the MAAQS independent of the concentration at tnat receptor
at the time of contribution, or must that receptor be experiencing
pollution in violation of NAAQS simultaneously with the contribu-
tion of the proposed source? (That is, simply modeling the pro-
posed source or simultaneously modeling the proposed source and all
existing sources causing or contributing to the violations of
NAAQS. )
,:a will greatly appreciate a timely response ;o tnese questions. If you
,iave any questions, please contact Mr. David Bray of my staff at 3-399-
1125.
cc: D. Hawkins
W. Barber
IP* F«B 1370-4 (R.«. l-7i)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECT
DATE FEB 9 1981 Office -r Air Quality Planning and Stanwurts . . .
Research Triangle Part. North Carolina 27711 ^
UBJBCT petitions for Review of PSD Regulations
New Source Review Section (MD-15)
T0: New Source Review Contacts
Regions I-X
The Agency has received several petitions for reconsideration of the
PSD regulations promulgated on August 7, 1980. Attached are initial responses
to three of the parties: the American Petroleum Institute, the Utility Air
Regulatory Group, and the American Mining Congress.
These documents were prepared by our Office of General Counsel , after
consultation with QAQPS. The policy approaches chosen were carefully
considered for their potential to limit the scope of litigation. Although
litigation nay result, at the present time it appears that it will not
be nearly as extensive as that in Alabama Power. Review of these memoranda
should provide guidance on several issues arising from the regulations.
Attachments
cc: U. Barber
P. WycJcoff (w/o attachments)
D. Tyler
PA f~m 13»* (fe*.
-------
.14
< UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JAN 1 9 1981
THC ADMINISTRATOR
David F. Petersf Esquire
Bunton & Williams
707 East Main Street:'
P.O. Bo* 1535
Richmond, Virginia 23212
Dear Mr. Peters:
In your latter of October 6, 1980, the American Petroleum
Institute (API) petitioned EPA to reconsider those portions of
the recent amendments to the Part 52 PSD regulations which
established that the fugitive emissions of certain sources and
modifications are to be taken *-!•***•? account in determining whether
the permit requirements of the PSD regulations apply to them.
The amendments appear at 45 FR 52676 (August 7, 1980).
EPA hereby denies that petition on the ground that API made
no argument against the new approach to fugitive emissions which
EPA had not already heard and considered during the rulemaking.
EPA intends to put a notice of this denial in the Federal Register
in the near future.
In the October 6 letter, API also asked for clarification
of two of the new PSD provisions, specifically, Sections 52.21
(b)(3)(iv) and 52.2Kb) (23)(ii). SPA has just responded to a
request from the Utility Air Regulatory Group for clarification
of the same two provisions* among others. A copy of the response
is attached. Those portions of the response which appear under
the headings "Question 2" and "Question 4" answer API's questions.
Thank you for seeking clarification of the new amendments
in advance of litigation. If you have any questions about this
letter, please contact Lydia Wegman (755-0788) or Peter Wyckoff
(755-0766) in the Office of General Counsel.
cc: All -counsel of record in litigation on 45 FR 52676
(August 7, 1980)
Patrick Cafforty, Esquire, Department of Justice
Elizabeth Stein, Esquire, Department of Justice
-------
'i
l' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC
4.14
_
\ ,r ' WASHINGTON. 0 C 20460
•: met**
JAN 1 9 1987
T*e »OMINISTR*TCH
Andrea S. Bear, Esquire
Bunion & Williams
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.W.
P.O. Box 19230
Washington. D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Bear:
This is EPA1 s response to your letter of October 31, 1980,
in which you asked for clarification of some of the recent
amendments to 40 CPU 52.21 (1980), the PSD regulations govern-
ing new source review in moat states.. The amendments appear
at 45 FR 52676* (August 7, 1980).
In your view, the new version of 40 CFS 52.21 provides that
any increase in actual emissions which occurs (1) as a result of
a fuel switch, (2) between August 7, 1977, and the applicable
baseline date and (3) at any major stationary source would
contribute exclusively to the baseline concentration, if the
switch is not a "major modification" by virtue of Section 52.21
(b)(2)(iii). I/ Your first question is whether the agency agrees
with that interpretation.
SPA does- agree with it, on the assumption that each of the
major stationary sources you had in mind is a source whose con-
struction commenced on or before January 6, 1S75. Any increase
in actual emissions that occurs on or before the baseline date
at such a source contributes exclusively to the baseline concen-
tration, unless it results from "construction" that commences
after January 6, 1975. See 40 CFR 52. 2Kb) (13), 45 FR 52737;
45 FR 52678 (3d column) ,~5T714 (2d column), 52717 (3d column),
52719-20. Here, the fuel switch would net be "construction."
The new regulations define "construction" as "any physical
change or change in she method of operation . . • which would
IT - section 52.2l(b) (2) (iii) , which appears in the new defini-
~ tion of "major modification" at 45 FR 52735-36, excludes
certain changes at a source from the phrase "physical change
or change in the method of operation" and includes others.
-------
2-
result in a change in actual emissions." 40 CTR 52.2Kb) (8),
45 FR S2736. EPA intended Section 52.2Kb) (2)(iii) to govern
the boundaries of the phrase "physical change or change in the
method of operation" for the purposes of the definition of
"construction," as well as the definition of "major modifica-
tion," and you posited that Section 52.2Kb) (2)(iii) would
exclude the fuel switch from that phrase.
EPA would not agree entirely with your interpretation, how-
ever, if any of the major stationary sources you had in mind is
a source whose construction commenced after January 6, 1975.
Any increase in actual emissions at such a source, including
any increase before the baseline date, affects increment
consumption. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(13)(ii)U), 45 FR 52737. 2/
UUJSSTXQCI *
The new version' of 40 CFR 52.21 establishes that, in
determining whether a proposed change at a source would amount
to a "major modification," one may take into account any
contemporaneous ind otherwise creditable decreases in emissions
at the source. New Section 52.2Kb) (3Hi*), 45 FR 52736, further
provides in part that a decrease which occurs before the applic-
able baseline date is creditable only if it affects increment
Against that background, you focus in your second question
on reductions in capacity utilization which do not result from
demolition, such as an operational shutdown or derating of an
electric utility steam generating unit at a power plant. You
ask: under what conditions would a decrease in actual emissions
that occurs as a result of such a reduction and between January 6,
1975, and the applicable baseline date affect increment
Such a decrease would affect increment consumption if the
unit at which it occurs is a major stationary source or major
•"yjjf ^<**^i*7%q^ whose construction '.'Jiiimenccd after January 6,
197S. Any decrease in actual emissions which occurs at such a
unit, as well as any increase, counts towards increment consump-
tion. See 40 CTR 52.21 tb) (13) (ii) (a), 45 FR 52737.
2/ In footnote 6 of your letter, you state that SPA at
~ 45 ?R 52714 (1st column) "indicates that only post-
baseline date voluntary fuel conversion emission
increases are excluded from baseline concentration."
In that passage of the preamble, however, SPA focused
solely on such post-baseline increases; it said nothing
explicitly or implicitly about ore-easeline increases.
-------
-3-
Even if such a decrease in emissions occurs at a major
stationary source whose construction commenced on or before
January 6, 1975, the decrease would still affect increment
consumption, if the "short-of-demolition" reduction in
capacity utilization from which it results amounts itself to
•construction." Any decrease in actual emissions which results
from "construction" that ccemences after January 6, 1975, and
on or before the applicable baseline date at any major station-
ary source affects increment consumption. See 40 CFR 52.2Kb)
(13)(ii)(a), 45 PR 52737; 45 PR 52719-20.
In EFA's view, the regulations offer only two conditions
under which a "short-of-demolition" reduction in capacity utiliza-
tion would amount to "construction." One condition is that it
became federally enforceable under a construction permit condi-
tion established under a permit program contained in the state
Implementation plan (SIP). Section 52.2Kb) (2) (iii) provides
for the purposes of the definition of "construction," as well
as the definition of "major modification,* that the phrase
"physical change or change in the method of operation" in both
of those definitions includes any increase in hours of operation
or production rate that would require a relaxation of "any
federally enforceable petait condition which was established
after January 6, 1975, pursuant to 40 CPU 52*21 or under regula-
tions approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24." 40
CPU 52.2Kb) (2) f iii) (£), 45 PR- 52736. It follows that the phrase
also includes the inverse of such aa increase, namely, any
decrease in hours of operation or production rate which became
federally enforceable under any such permit condition. See
also 45 PR 52720 (1st and 2d columns).
The other and alternative condition is permanency. Under
a standing interpretation of 40 CFR 52.21, a reduction in
capacity utilization would constitute a "physical change or
change in the method of operation" for PSD purposes if it was
permanent. V See Memorandum, September 6, 1978, Reich to
DvorJcin (copy attached). Whether"a reduction was permanent
depends upon the intention of the owner or operator at the
time of the reduction as determined from all of the facts and
circumstances. la particular, a reduction was peraanent if
the owner or operator intended to abandon the productive
capacity in question, that is, to withdraw it forever from use
in the production of income, including sale, exchange, or other
disposition. SPA would presume that a reduction was peraanent
3/ A corollary or this proposition is that any ratum to the
~" level of operation that prevailed just before a permanent
reduction would be itself a "physical change or change in
the method of operation," and therefore a candidate for
PSD review.
-------
upon any strong indication of such an intention, for example:
establishment of any federally enforceable limitation that would
prohibit any return to the previous level of operation; passage
of two years or more without any return to that level; -or removal
of the productive capacity from the emissions inventory of the
state.
QUgSTION 3
The new definition of "major modification" excludes from
that tera any voluntary fuel switch that meets certain condi-
tions. One of those conditions is that the source was "capable
of accommodating" the fuel before January 6, 1975. See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)(*»<»*» you have in mind* To deal at
the outset with cases that are both concrete and important to
you should prove more efficient than for the agency to hypothe-
size a range of possibilities.
Zf you are willing to provide those eases, please send them
to Michael Trutna, Chief, Hew Source 'Review Section/ OAQPS, Mutual
Building, Durham. Scrth Carolina (919-541-5292). Ee will have
the lead for developing the guidance. Zn your communications to
him, please point out any fact pattern which reflects a ease on
which the agency has already spoken and indicate which SPA office
made the determination •
The first part of the definition of the tera "significant"
in the new regulations q^r^^in? a list of pollutants and speci-
fies a de »*«*«»*« emissions level for each of them. See 40 CFR
52.21(bM23Mi), 45 FR 52737. The second part then provides
that, for any pollutant "subject to regulation under the Act
that Cthe first part] does not list," the tera means any emis-
sions rate at all. Id. §52.2Kb) (23) (ii).
You ask that the agency delete the second part of the
definition. EPA agrees to do so, when it promulgates in the
near future technical and conforming amendments to the regula-
tions.
-------
4.14
-5-
Zn reassessing the second part of the definition, EPA has
concluded that it is superfluous. On the one hand, the first
part already lists each of the pollutants that were regulated
under the Act when EPA promulgated the part. On the other hand,
EPA plans to establish a de »j "*«•*• threshold for any currently
unregulated pollutant, when it regulates that pollutant.
gusanoH s
You interpret the new regulations as providing that a
•minor' addition to a "minor" source would escape PSD review
and, if it occurred before the applicable baseline date, would
contribute to the baseline concentration. Tour fifth question
is whether the agency intended the regulations to so provide.
EPA hereby confirms that it did.
QUESTX01I_6
Section 52.21UH7) of the new regulations, 45 PR 52739,
exempts any major modification which meets certain conditions
from the ?j.r quality assessments relating to Class ZZ areas.
Zn your last question, you asJc EPA to confirm that it did not
intend to limit a source to just one such exemption. EPA here-
by confirms that it did not.
Thank you for seeking clarification of new regulations in
advance of litigation. We hope that the answers here are
responsive to your questions. Because of the importance of
these answers, we plan to incorporate them into the preamble to
technical *"«* conforming frTBH"
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL SRCTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON 2 C 20460
JAN 1 9 881
THE ADMINISTRATOR
Robert T. Connery, Esquire
Holland & Hart
P. 0. Box 3749
Denver, Colorado 80201
Dear Mr. Connery:
Under a letter dated December 1, 1980, you submitted on
behalf of the American Mining Congress and several other
mining companies (collectively, "AMC") a petition for recon-
sideration of the treatment of fugitive emissions in the
August 1980 PSD regulations. I/ EPA hereby grants Part I of
the petition and will respond to the balance as soon as
possible.
On their face, the new Part 52 PSD regulations 2/ re-
quire that, in calculating whether any source is or would be
•major," one must take its quantifiable fugitive emissions
into account, as well as its non-fugitive emissions. See 40
CTS 52.21(b)(l)(i), 45 FS 52735; id. 52.21(b){4), 45 FS~~
52736. They add, with respect to a modification, that one
must take into account not only its quantifiable fugitive
emissions, but also any increases and decreases in fugitive
emissions at the source that are quantifiable, contempo-
raneous with the modification and otherwise creditable. See
40 CFS 52.21(b)(2)U), 45 FS 52735? id. 52.21(b)(3), 45 FS~~~
52736; and id. 52.21(b)(2), 45 FS 527T7. The regulations,
however, then exempt from the PSD permit requirements any
source or modification which would be major only if fugitive
emissions were taken into account and which would fall out-
side the categories on a specific list. See 40 CFS 52.21(1)
(4)(vii), 45 FS 52739.
In Part I of the petition, AMC identified three ways in
which those rules, if taken at face value, would affect"AMC.
First, any mining operation in a particular class of mining
1740 C?R al.24, 45 FS 52729-35 (August 7, 1980); 40 CTS
52.21, 45 FS 52735-41.
2/ la the interest cf brevity, we focus hers only on the
" relevant Part 52 rules. The relevant Part 51 rule's
parallel them.
-------
-2-
operationsr 3/ would consume increment even before the base-
line date, i? construction on it commenced after January 6,
1975. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(13J(ii) (a), 45 PS S2737. Second,
if a company filed a complete application for a PSD permit
for a mining operation in that class under the 1978 PSD
regulations 4/ and the application was the first one for the
area in question, the filing would trigger the baseline
date, even though the operation would not have to have a PSD
permit under the 1980 PSD- regulations. See 40 CFR 52.21(b)
(14)(i), 45 PR 52737. Finally, if an addition to a mining
operation in the particular class would have significant
non-fugitive emissions, .it could have to have a PSD permit,
because of the 'major" status of the operation. See 40 CFR
52.21(b){2), 45 PR 52735.
AMC pointed oat that the preamble to the 1980 regulations
indicates strongly that the agency did not intend the regulations
ta have those consequences. See, e.g., 45 PR 52680, 52689
and 52690-93. AMC therefore as£ed EPA to clarify whether it
intended those consequences and, if the agency did not, to
amend the regulations to conform them to its original intention.
EPA hereby confirms that it intended to establish that
any source which would be 'major* only if fugitive emissions
were taken into account is not to be considered 'major* for
any PSD purpose, unless the source belongs to one of the
categories on the list which now appears in Section 52.21(1)
(4)(vii). Similarly, EPA intended to establish that any modi-
fication that would be "major* only if fugitive emissions
were taken into account is not to be considered "major* for
any PSD purpose, unless the source at which the modification
would occur belongs to one of the categories -on that list.
SPA will amend the regulations as soon as passible to conform
them to that intention. 5/ The agency, however, does not
plan to, use the language~"AMC suggested on page 9 of the
petition.
In granting Part I of the petition, E?A does not intend
to express any view on the merits of AMC's statements about
the relevant portions of the opinion in Alabama Power or about
the nature and significance of parti colate matter zrom mining
operations.
3V I.e., those which (1) would emit particulate matter in
*major* amounts, (2) would emit it through no stack or
other functionally equivalent opening and (3) would
emit no other pollutant in a significant amount.
£/ 40 CPR 52.21 (1980).
S/ EPA also agrees to promulgate parallel amendments to
~~ .the Part 51 regulations.
-------
4.14
-3-
Tnank you for seeking clarification of the new regulations
in advance of litigation. If you have any questions about
this response, please contact Peter Wydcoff (202/755-0766) in
the Office of General Counsel.
rely yours-
Qostle"*
cc: All counsel of record in litigation
on 45 ?H 52676 (August 1, 1980).
Patrick Cafferty, Esq., Dept. of Justice
Elizabeth Stein, Esq., Dept. of Justice.
-------
UNITED STATE; ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
1 " '*^lcs °* *1r Juai]ty Plcnmnc ana Stancaras
i '
Tnangie Park) NortnCarolina 27711
3aseiine gate in Oeternnmng Net Emissions Increases
FBOM Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Division (flD-15)
T° Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region VI
We have reviewed your January 28, 1981 memorandum in which you
request guidance regarding the relevance of baseline date to the
determination of creditable contemporaneous increases and decreases
under the PSD regulations. Our response is as follows.
As you noted, emissions changes can be considered "contemporaneous"
only if they occur no more than 5 years before the commencement of
construction of the particular changes being considered. 40 CFR 51.21
(b)(3)(ii). There is, however, a limitation on this 5 year period: 40
CFR 52.21(b)(3)(iv) makes any increase or decrease in emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO-) or particulate matter (PM) creditable in this
netting process only if it is required to be considered in computing the
amount of increment available. This means that no changes in emissions
of SO- or PM commencing prior to January 6, 1975 would be considered
in determining net emissions increases.
Your question also addresses the treatment of carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions changes in determining net emissions increases. The answer
is that criteria pollutants other than SO- and PM, such as CO, are not
subject to the limitation contained in S5Z.21(b)(3)(iv); thus, one looks
only to the 5 year period proceeding the commencement of construction of the
modification triggering netting in determining wnich emissions changes
will be netted. It is possible that the PSD Set II program will develop
increments for these pollutants and extend the limitations contained in
S52.21(b)(3)(iv) to them. Until such time, however, no such limitation
exists for CO emissions reductions.
I trust that this has been responsive to your request. Please contact
Mike Trutna of my staff at 629-5292 if you have any further questions on
this matter.
cc: W. Barber
E. Reich
8. Diamond
SPA F«tr» 13204 (St.. ]-76)
-------
4.16
4.16
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard to
PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de minimus
in order to be subject to PSD (see PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to represent
actual emissions for new sources and, therefore,
an increase in production at the PSD source is
not an increase in actual emissions. (Also see
PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An iron foundry is considered to be one of the
28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary metal
production plant) if it uses scrap metal to
produce Iron, even 1f the metal is poured into
molds.
6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
increases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be one
of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a chemical
process plant. A chemical process plant is any
establishment in Major Group 28 of the SIC Code.
Beverage distilleries are in Major Group 20.
8) A proposed increase in emissions is not subject
to PSD unless the triggering increase is of.the
same pollutant as the one for which a significant
increase results. (Also see PSD/120).
9) The SO ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(1)(7) Is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforceable;
however, the State can impart Federally enforceable
conditions to a construction permit issued for
the source in accordance with the New Source Review
procedures of the SIP at the time of issuance.
3.16 [Hard Copy]; 2.15; 5.9; 10.22; 12.9; 13.5
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4'17
£ WASHINGTON DC 20460
JUN24B8!
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
Mr. Amasjit S. Gill
General Electric - Gas Turbine Division
One River Road
Schenectady, New York 12345
Dear Mr. Gill:
This is to respond to your letter of May 19, 1981,
requesting a determination of the applicability of NSPS and PSD.
to stationary gas turbines converting front middle distillates
to natural gas.
The information presented in your letter indicated that
NOX and S02 emissions will decrease after the conversion to
natural gas and hydrocarbons, CO and particulate emissions will
either remain the same or decrease. As you correctly pointed
out in your letter, the NSPS would only apply if there is an
increase in emissions of a pollutant to which the standard
applies. The NSPS for gas turbines applies only to NOv and
SO? emissions. Since the conversion from middle distillate
fuel to natural gas for the turbines in question will cause a
decrease in NOX and SO? emissions, it is not considered a
modification as defined in 40 CFR 60.14(a). The turbines
however, could be subject to the NSPS if the co.nversion falls
under the definition of reconstruction (See 40 CFR 60.15).
PSD review would apply to "a proposed modification at an
existing major stationary source if it would cause a
significant net increase in actual emissions of any regulated
pollutant. Zn the case of the gas turbine conversions outlined
in your letter, PSD applicability is determined by evaluating
any change in emissions rates caused by the conversions. The
data contained in your letter indicate that the emission rates
after the conversion will either remain constant or decrease.
Actual emissions could increase only if (here is an increase in
the production rate or hours of operation, both of which are
specifically exempt from PSD review. (See 40 CFR
5221(b)(2)(iii)(f)). Therefore, since there will not be any
increase in emission rates or any creditable increases in
actual emissions, the conversion of the gas turbines will not
be subject to PSD review.
-------
If you have any questions concerning this determination
please contact Janet Farella of my staff at 202-755-2564.
Sincerely yours,
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement
cc: Peter Wyckoff
Mike Trutna
-------
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY ONE RIVER ROAD SCHENECTAOY NEW YORK 12345
Teleonone
(518) 385-4131
4.17
GAS TURBINE
DIVISION
OPERATIONAL PLANNING
May 19, 1981
Mr. Edward Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Copy: Don R. Gooowin, EPA- —
Research Tnangle Park,
NC 27711
Dear Mr. Reich:
Stationary Gas Turbines
Converting from Distillate to Natural Gas
The Economic Regulatory Administration of the Department of Energy grants
temporary public interest exemptions, from the prohibitions of the Fuel Use
Act of 1978, to burn natural gas where such use displaces the use of middle
distillates, thereby decreasing our reliance on imported oil.
^Existing gas turbines/">hirh 4Q.nnt have built-in dual-fual-capahiJlly, ^L
nuJU I Us call new combustion hardwarexstTthat they can purn natural gas'-
instead of middle distillates. The ctnii.ii n m IJ>BJ» uuiuiumr !>uui d conversion
would be calssified a "modification" or "major modification" and, therefore,
subject the gas turbine to the New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) or a
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) review.
MODIFIED
The definition of modification is 'provided in 40 CFR 50 as:
60.14 (a) "Except as provided under paragraphs (e) and (f) of this
section, any physical or operational change to any
existing facility which results in an increase in the
emission rats to the atmosphere of any pollutant to
which a standard applies shall be considered a modifi-
cation within the meaning of Section III of the Act..."
60.2
"Standard* means a standard of performance proposed or
promulgated under this part."
-------
GENERAL £' ELECTRIC Page 2
NEW SOURCE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS (NSPS)
Hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide and participates are specifically excluded
from the NSPS promulgated on Sept. 10, 1979. Justification for the exclusion
was provided in the Oct 3, 1977 Federal Register on page 53783.
"HC and CO emissions from stationary gas turbines operating at peak load
are relatively low because the higher the percentage of peak load at
which a turbine operates, the more efficient the combustion of the fuel.
Gas turbines normally operate at 80 to 100 percent of peak load with HC
emissions averaging less than 50 ppm and CO emissions averaging less than
500 ppm at 15 percent oxygen. HC and CO emissions from stationary gas
turbines, therefore, were not selected for control by standards of per-
formance ."
"Particulate emissions from stationary gas turbines depend on the ash
content of the fuel and are minimal. Consequently, particulate emissions
from stationary gas turbines were not selected for control by standards
of performance."
Since there is no standard for CO, unburned hydrocarbons and particulates
under NSPS for stationary gas turbines, NSPS would not apply even if there
was an increase in the emission rate of these three pollutants. As shown
in the attached four tables, NOx and S02 decrease, and CO, unburned hydro-
carbons and particulates remain unchanged or decrease.
PREVENTION OF SIGNIFICANT DETERIORATION (PSD)
PSD review would apply if the emissions increase by amounts greater than
de minimis levels. Oe minimis levels, shown on page 52709 in the August 7,
1980 Federal Register, are:
Equivalent Ibs/hour
Tons/Year (8760 hours/year)
Carbon Monoxide 100 22.83
Nitrogen Oxides 40 9.13
Sulfur Dioxide 40 9.13
Particulates 25 5.70
Volatile Organic Compounds 40 9.13
For those machines which are not restricted to a specific number of hours of
operation per year by an enforceable permit condition, allowable emissions
would be the hourly emission rate multiplied by 8760 hours per year. Then,
for PSD review purposes, net emissions increases should be evaluated against
these allowable emissions to see if de minimis levels are exceeded.
-------
4.17
GENERAL ££ ELECTRIC Page 3
PSD (cont'd)
As can be seen from the attached four tables which provide uncontrolled
emission rates for four GE gas turbines, the hourly emissions rates de-
crease for NOx and SO? and remain unchanged or decrease for CO, unburned
hydrocarbons and particulates when the fuel is switched from distillate
to natural gas.
Therefore, these four gas turbine models would not require a PSD review
when the capability to burn natural gas is added and the fuel is switched
from distillate to natural gas, and "allowable" emissions, as opposed to~-
actual emissions, are not exceeded on an annual basis.
Your official concurrence with our interpretation is requested at your
earliest convenience.
Sincerely,
A.S'. Gill, Environmental/Regulatory Planner
/eb
Attach.
-------
GENERALS ELECTRIC
4.17
P G 7 1 0 1 E
FUEL -
LOAD *
Output , kW
Heat Rate(LHV), Btu/kWh
Fuel Consump. (LHV)IO6 Btu/hr
NOx as N02, Ibs/hr
*SOx as SO 2, Ibs/hr
Particulates, Ibs/hr
Hydrocarbons , Ibs /hr
(as CH4) ,
CO, Ibs/hr
NATURAL GAS
BASE PEAK
74,400 80,500
10,690 10,640
795.3 856.5
450 535
0 0
<28 <30
<12 < 12
< 21 <21
DISTILLATE
i
BASE PEAK
72,900 78,800
10,790 10,750
786.6 847.1
790 970
254 275
28 30
12 12
21 21
•Distillate Fuel with 0.3% Sulfur by Weight,
Natural Gas Fuel Containing no Sulfur.
The results are based on field and combustion laboratory test data from the
same or similar machines and combustion systems, correlated to provide a
coherent oody of emissions data. The data presented are for operation at
ISO conditions.
-------
GENERAL £" ELSCTRIC
P G 7 8 5 1
FUEL .
LOAD
Output ,
Heat Rate (LHV) ,
Fuel Consump. (LHV)
NOx as HO 2,
*SOx as S02,
Particulates ,
Hydrocarbons ,
(as CH4)
CO,
kW
Btu/kWh
106 Btu/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
NATURAL GAS
BASE PEAK
61,300 67,700
11,000 10,920
674.3 7-39.3
325 405
0 0
<24 <26
<11 <11
<19 <»
DISTILLATE
BASE PEAK
60,000 66,300
11,130 11,030
667.8 731.3
510 640
216 237
24 26
11 11
19 19
•Distillate Fuel with 0.3% Sulfur by Weight.
Natural Gas Fuel Containing no Sulfur.
The results are based on field and combustion laboratory test data from the
same or similar machines and combustion systems* correlated to provide a
coherent body of emissions data. The data presented are for operation at
ISO conditions.
-------
GENERAL £2 ELECTRIC
P G 5 3 4 1 P
FUEL . •
LOAD •
Output, kW
Heat Rate (LHV) , Btu/kWh
Fuel ConsumpILHV) ,106 Btu/hr
NOx as NO 2, Ibs/hr
•SOx as S02, Ibs/hr
Particulates, Ibs/hr
Hydrocarbons, Ibs/hr
(as CH4) ,
CO, Ibs/hr
NATURAL GAS
BASE PEAK
24,620 26,600
12,300 12,200
302.8 324.5
140 155
0 0
< 11 <11
< 5 <5
< 10 < 10
DISTILLATE
BASE PEAK
24,110 26,050
12,450 12,340
300.2 321.5
200 225
97 104
11 11
5 5
10 10
I
•Distillate Fuel with 0.3% Sulfur by Weight ,
Natural Gas Fuel Containing no Sulfur.
The results are based on field and comoustion laboratory test data from the
same or similar machines and comoustion systems, correlated to provide a
coherent body of emissions data. The data presented are for operation at
ISC conditions.
-------
GENERAL £> ETfCTRIC
4.17
P G 6 4 4 1 A
FUEL •
LOAD •
Output ,
Beat Rate. (LHV) ,
Fuel Consump (LBV)
NOx as N02,
•SOx as S02,
Partieulates ,
Hydrocarbons ,
CO,
kW
Btu/kWh
,106 Btu/hl
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
Ibs/hr
NATURAL GAS
BASE PEAK
31,750 34,750
11,280 11,210
358.1 389.5
185 220
0 0
< 13 < 14
< 6 <6
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4.18
JUL 13
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability for Ashland Chemical's
Anhydride Plant in Neal, West Virginia
FECK: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TC: \'» Fey Cunningham, Chief
Air Kedie and Fnergy Branch, Pecion III
In a rcemo dated May 27, 1981, you requested a deterr.ir.rtion
fror. this Cffice regarding the applicability of PSD review fcr a
switch in feedstock reterials at Ashland Chericel's maleic
anhydride plant in Neal, Vest Virginia. Ashland proposes to
charge its feedstock fron benzene to butane, which vill
clirinate benzene emissions but will increase VOC emissions by
approximately 2500 tons per year. It is then necessary to
deterrine if this -increase in^er.issions is subject to PSD
review.
The PPD regulations (40 CFF 52.2Kb) (2) { iii) (e)) exempt
fror review fuel svitches or use of an alternate raw material if
the source wes capable of accommodating the fuel or material
before January 6, 1975. This exemption is a result of the
intent expressed by Congress that Section 169 of the Clean Air
Act (Act) adopt to the extent possible, the sane definition of
•rodification" used in Section lll(a) of the Act (43 FP 26396).
The definition of "modification" , which is included in
regulations promulgated pursuant to Section 111 of the Act,
provides an exenption for the use of an alternate fuel or raw
materiel if the facility was designed to accoisrodate the
alternate use (4C CFP 60.14(e)(4)). This section goes on to
state that: "A facility shall be considered to be deslqned to
accorrodete an alternate fuel or raw material if that use could
be accomplished under the facility's construction specifications
as amended prior to the change".
Inforcation fror Ashland Chemical indicates that the
facility was originally designed to use either benzene or
butane. Contracts for the construction of the facility, \-hich
included <«ual feedstock capability, were signed in Kay" 1574.
Thus, it appears that the facility was cspatle of acccnroriating
butene as an alternate feedstock before January 6, 1975 snrt the
---•••• • • • t;e aut ;eet te IT'
*V¥BOL r&j/-
»*NAMgW3^!'>7"'"'
j^ncjn •••,/;,,,.
DATE
EPA P.- 1326.) ((2.70)
/P"T^'''""[ T3?""m£" •f} I
OFFICIAL FILE COPY
-------
This determination was made with the concurrence of the
Office of General Counsel and the Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. If you have any questions regarding this
determination, please contact Janet Farella of my staff at
755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Peter WycJcoff, OGC
Mike Trutna, OAQPS
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4 lg
RegiocTTTl - 6th & Walnut Stj. '
Philadelphia. Pa. 19106 • ^ ~ '- ^
PSD Applicability Determination for
SUBJECT :As hi and Chemical Company . . DATE: MflY 27 1981
W. Ray Cunningham, Chief (3AH10)
FROM: Air Media and Energy Branch
Edward E. Reich, Director (EN341)
T0: Stationary Source Enforcement Division
Ashland Chemical Company notified EPA Region III on January 19,
1981 that Ashland wished to change the feedstock of its maleic
anhydride plant in Neal, West Virginia, from benzene to
butane. Ashland stated that it was aware of the PSD
requirements and believed that they did not require Ashland to
obtain a permit before changing feedstocks. The company argued
that its Neal plant was "capable of accommodating" butane
"before January 6, 1975 and that PSD, therefore, did not apply,
as specified by 40CFR 52.2Kb) (2) (iii) (e).
On April 10, 1981 Region III notified Ashland that we believed
the companv did require a PSD permit. Region III stated tnat
our view was that under the PSD regulations a source could be
considered "capable of accommodating" an alternative fuel as of
January 6, 1975 only if construction of the source had
•commenced" as of that date. We pointed out that Ashland could
not be considered to have "commenced" construction as of
January 6, 1975 since Ashland had not obtained a State
construction permit as of that date.
In a meeting with us on April 27, 1981 and in letters dated
April 13 and 28, 1981, Ashland objected to our determination.
Ashland claimed that the definition of "capable of
accommodating" had not been specified by EPA, but that it
should certainly not be as stringent as the definition of
"commence construction." Ashland pointed out that it had
signed a contract for construction of the Neal plant on May 1,
1974 and that this contract called for a dual feedstock
capability. Accordingly, Ashland argued that its Neal plant
should be considered to have had the "capability of
accommodating" butane since that time.
-------
-2-
Ashland also raised several additional issues. Ashland claimed
that EPA should not consider Ashland's change to the use of
butane a "modification" since its Neal plant was designed with
a dual feedstock capability. Ashland also claimed that 40CFR
52.21(i)(4)(i) exempted its Neal plant from PSD review.
Ashland reasoned that 40CFR 52.21(1)(4)(i) provides that its
Neal plant is subject to the PSD regulations as they existed
prior to August*7, 1977, and that, since the Neal plant was
exempt from PSD prior to August 7, 1977, there is no basis for
imposing PSD requirements at this time.
Z would appreciate your opinion of whether Ashland is subject
to PSD. Ashland has informed us that it must have our answer
to this question soon. The company has indicated that it will
be required to replace the Neal plant's existing catalyst soon
and that it must decide whether to order a butane or benzene
catalyst. Therefore, please provide us with your opinion by
June 10, 1981.
Z have enclosed copies of all correspondence relevant to this
case for your use. Zf you have any questions or desire any
additional information, please contact Ray Chalmers of my staff
at 215/597-8309.
Enclosures
-------
4.19
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
J.19
July 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see PSD/117)
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, therefore,
not a VOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattainment
area projected to be attainment (based on the
approved Part D SIP) before startup, is not
subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
obtained may still be deemed pertinent and useful
under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD area
and impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger baseline
and consume increment within each of the areas
under certain conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission point
could not escape PSD by considering previous
decreases which cause the net increase to be
less than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable 1imi tati on.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase of
each•pollutanT~is less than 50 tons per year.
10) The air quality de minimus level for N02 is
14- g/m^ annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 5.10; 6.11; 7.5; 10.23
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
E OF
AIR. NOISE. AND RADIATION
Mr. Stephen A. Goldberg _ ' '
Mr. Patrick M. Raher ,..-':
Hogan & Hartson ' '" " ":
815 Connecticut Avenue
Washington, D.C. 20006
Dear Sirs:
This is in reply to your letter of July 23, 1981, in which
you posed several questions regarding the applicability of PSD
and/or NSPS to certain changes proposed for a petroleum storage
facility. Your letter presented an outline of various physical
and product storage changes which will result in changes in
emission levels, and then asked several questions based on that
scenario. I would like to preface our responses to your
questions by stating that they will be based on the facts stated
in your letter and the following assumptions: first, that no
physical changes are being made to the storage tanks themselves,
other than the addition of mixers, and second, that the tanks
were capable of accommodating the new product prior to June 11,
1973. I would like to address*your questions in the order in
which they were raised.
A. General
Under PSD, the measure of the emission change would be the
difference between the actual emissions at the time of the
proposed change and the emissions occurring as a result of the
proposed product change. Actual emissions are defined in
general, as the average emission rate of a source during a two
year period before the proposed modification (See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(21)).
Measuring the emission rate for NSPS purposes varies from
PSD only to the extent that the actual emission rate of a source
is determined at the time of the proposed change rather than
determined by averaging emissions from the previous two years.
Also the emission rate, for NSPS purposes, is determined on a
kg/hr basis rather than on a tons/year basis.
B. PSD
1. Under the PSD regulations, a source is considered as
all the pollutant emitting activities, under common control or
ownership, at contiguous or adjacent sites, and under the same
r.ajor SIC industrial grouping. In the situation outlined
-------
in your letter, the source would be considered an oil refinery
and the storage tanks would be considered as emission units
within the refinery. Based on the previous mentioned
assumptions, the product storage change, itself, is not
considered a physical change or change in the method of
operation (See 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (2) K If, then, the new.piping,
pumps, and mixers are not built, the product storage change
wtfuld not be subject to PSD review.
The addition of the piping, pumps, and mixers is considered
a physical change. PSD applicability would be based on a
significant increase in emissions resulting from these changes
and any other creditable contemporaneous emission increases or
decreases (See 40 CFR 52.21(b)(3)). If the emission increases
resulting from the addition of the piping, mixers, or pumps (or
any combination of these items) are greater than de minimus and
there are not sufficient creditable decreases to offset these
emissionsf the changes would be subject to PSD review. The
emission increase from the product storage change would be
considered a contemporaneous increase, and included in the air
quality analysis. The increase in emissions at the tanks,
however, would be exempt from the BACT requirements (See 40 CFR
52.2KJH3)).
2.(a) The multiple tank stdrage change in your example would
be considered a single project, under PSD. The emission change
would be the net total of non-exempt changes, and if this number
is greater than de minimus, any other creditable contemporaneous
emission increases or decreases. Thus, if none of the four
product storage changes were exempt the emission increase would
be 75 tons/year.
(b) If the changes at Tanks 3 and 4 are exempt, the
emission change for PSD purposes would still be 75 TPY.
However, the increases at Tanks 3 and 4 would be a
contemporaneous emissions increase and would only be used for
applicability purposes, if the increases at Tanks 1 and 2 are
greater than de minimus. Since the changes at Tanks 1 and 2
would result in a net increase of only 20 tons per year, less
than de minimus, the project would be exempt from PSD review.
(c) The emission increase associated with the non-exempt
physical changes must be greater than de minimus before the
contemporaneous time period is triggered. Using the emission
figures in your example, the contemporaneous time period would
be triggered if none of the proposed changes are exempt and
would not be triggered if the changes at Tanks 3 and 4 are
exempt.
C. NSPS
The product storage changes associated with installation of
pining and/or pu-i?« alone (Tanks 1 and 2 in tho Se-?le
-------
situation) would be exempt from NSPS under 40 C.F.R. §60.14(e).
Section 60.14(e)(4) provides that the use of an alternative
fuel or raw material will not by itself be considered a
modification if the existing facility was designed to
accommodate that use. Under 40 C.F.R. 60.2, the existing
facility is defined as 'any apparatus of the type for which a
standard is promulgated in this part, and the construction or
modification of wnich was commenced before the date of proposal
of that standard. . . ." Under Subpart Ka of 40 C.F.R. Part 60,
the "affected facility" (the facility for which the petroleum
storage standards were promulgated) does not include piping and
pumps external to the storage tank. As a result, even though an
emissions increase would result from the product storage changes
for which installation of piping and pumps is necessary, under
60.14(e)(4) the increase would not subject the tanks to the NSPS,
because the existing facility itself was capable of accommodating
the new materials.
Section 60.14(e) would not exempt the product storage
changes associated with installation of a mixer (Tanks 3 and 4).
Since the mixer would be considered part of the affected
facility under Subpart Ka, and since these tanks apparently
cannot accommodate the new non-homogeneous materials without a
mixer, installation of a mixer and a subsequent product storage
change resulting in increased emissions would constitute a
modification of these storage tanks and subject them.to the
NSPS.
Based upon this discussion, the answers to your specific
questions are as follows:
l.(a) The product storage changes are exempt from NSPS review
if the piping, pumps, and mixers are not built.
(b) The product storage changes are exempt if only the new
piping and pumps are built.
(c) The product storage changes at tanks where mixers are
built would subject those tanks (Tanks 3 and 4) to the NSPS.
(d) If the piping, pumps, and mixers are all built, the
product storage changes at tanks where mixers are built (Tanks 3
and 4 only) would subject only those tanks to the NSPS. Again,
Tanks 1 and 2 would be exempt.
2. Each of the storage tanks is considered a separate
facility and the applicability of NSPS is examined separately
for each tank. If one were to assume that none of the tanks in
the sample situation were exempt under §60.14(e)(4), Tank 2
would not be subject to NSPS review because there is no increase
in emissions at that tank. The interconnecting of the storage
tanks by a pipe network would not affect this situation.
-------
3. There is no de minimus increase threshold below which
the NSPS would not apply to a non-exempt storage change.
Normally, an increase in the emission rate would be clearly
demonstrated by manual emission tests or continuous monitoring
as specified in 40 CFR 60, Appendix C. However, in the case of
•storage tanks, emission factors must be used to approximate the
increase in emissions. Emission factors do not provide the
necessary precision for measuring storage emissions to enable
the Agency to discern whether there was an increase of one ton
per year. As discussed earlier, increases are determined on a
kg/hr basis, so that a one ton/year increase would result in an
emissions difference which could not practically be approximated
on an hourly basis.
One further point should be made to clarify the impact of
NSPS review on your example. The piping and pump installations
may be subject to the NSPS for Petroleum Refinery Fugitives
depending upon the construction date and the regulation's
effective date. This equipment is specifically listed as an
affected facility in drafts for this future NSPS.
If you have further questions concerning this PSD and NSPS
applicability determination, please contact .Janet Fare1la or
Ann Easthan of my staff at 755-2564.
Sincerely yours.
Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement (EN-341)
cc: Peter Wyckoff - OGC
Hike Trutna - OAQPS
Rich Ossias - OGC
Linda Chaput - OAQPS
Dick Burr - OAQPS
-------
4.20
HO CAN a HARTS ON
M4MAC OUIIR
«nu»
t > c»««tu> t
MCUO»
•MIL e natn
C
«ONC V UMUt
eun L. o*tiTt«U»
MI oil" ooa
1TWVT •>
«OU*C J
•mi • moo
1
c uu
r •auiMLOt
lt«T J tUJOTT
U*«.«Hi OCTtHU*
jO!I-> • MUCH
•MC" c -WMMMJ* xenc • — raj«
wet cmM*nrr iimn r i
etna w
. o c. 3OOOt>
TCLCPHONC >'ZO2' 331-^SOO
CABkC "MOGANOCB WASHINGTON '
TELEX as-27sr IN-L 6*353
TELECOPIER1 331--77O. 331-2637. 331-4769
WRITERS DIRECT DIAL
(202) 331-4682
July 23, 1981
Mr. Edward Reich
Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Mail Code: EN341
Room 3202-M
Washington, D.C. 20460
Re: Request for PSD and *:SPS
Applicability Deterrinations
Dear Mr. Reich:
This request for PSD and NSPS applicability deter-
minations is being made on behalf of the owner of several petroleun
refineries located in several different Regions. The owner
anticipates common, recurring IISPS and PSD questions concerning
the petroleum storage tanks at these refineries, and this
request is therefore directed to your office for a single response,
-------
HOGA.V & HARTS ON
Mr. Edward Reich
July 23, 1981
Page Two
rather than to each of the Regions. The relevant facts and specific
determinations requested are set forth below:
I. FACTS
Due to various causes (e.g., tank retirenent, new pro-
duction schedules, etc.), it is desireable from time to time to
change the product storage pattern at a refinery's petroleum
storage tanks. In all cases, the affected tanks are and always
have been physically capable of storing the products they would
store after a pattern change. V
All of the tanks which might be affected were constructed
prior- to June 11, 1973, and none has ever been the subject of a
modification within the meaning of the PSD and NSPS regulations.
The capacity of each tank exceeds 40,000 gallons.
The potentially-affected tanks are presently loaded and
unloaded by pipeline. Generally speaking, storage changes could not
be accomplished using existing pipelines, but could be accomplished
by other means, such as by truck, and the various sites are and
always have been physically capable of loading and unloading by
truck. However, as a matter of convenience and practicality, it
would be desireable to build new piping for these purposes. Any
new piping would be external to the tanks and would consist essentially
of changing the tank "feed" and "exit" lines to connect with different
existing main product lines. Several new pumps, also external to
the tanks, would be required in conjunction with the pipeline changes.
In some instances, storage pattern changes would result
in the use for blending purposes of tanks not previously used for
such purposes. Mixing devices, internal to the tanks, would be
added to these tanks to facilitate the blending process. The mixers
would not affect the storage capabilities of the tanks.
t/ The refineries also are and always have been physically capable
of accepting any products which are or might be stored.
-------
OGAN&HARTSON
Mr. Edward Reich
July 23, 1981
Page Three
The piping, pump, and mixer changes would not them-
selves result in any emissions increases or decreases. The only
emissions changes would be those associated with the new product
storage patterns. At any given tank the new storage patterns
might result in no change in emissions/ an increase in emissions,
or a decrease in emissions. Neither the physical changes (piping,
pumps, and mixers), nor the storage changes are proscribed by
any applicable permits.
A sample situation is attached hereto. The four storage
changes in the example are interdependent and constitute a single,
integrated project. It is requested that the specific questions
posed in Sections II.B. and II.C. below be answered for the sample
situation. (The emission changes in the example should be assumed
to reprerent the correct computation as per your response to the
questions posed in Section II.A.)
II. QUESTIONS
A. General
1. Is the proper measure of the emissions change associated
with a given tank the difference between its emissions with the actual
product stored during the two years preceding the change and (a)
its emissions with the proposed product, or (b) its emissions with
the "worst case" product that could be stored? Why?
2. Does the answer to the preceding question differ for
PSD and NSPS purposes?
B. PSD
1. Are the product storage changes in the example exempt
from PSD review under 40 C.F.R. §52.21(b) (2)(e): V
(a) if the new piping, pumps, and mixers are
not built?
V If the answers differ among the tanks, please indicate the
answer for each tank.
-------
HOGANS HARTS ON
Mr. Edward Reich
July 23,1981
Page Four
(b) if only the new piping and pumps are built?
(c) if only the mixers are built?
(d) if the piping, pumps, and mixers are all built?
2. Is the multiple tank storage change in the example
a single project from a PSD perspective, such that if it constitutes
a modification, it is a single modification and the emissions
change associated with the project is the net total of the non-
exempt storage changes? Thus,
(a) if none of the four product storage changes
were exempt from PSD review, would the
emissions increase associated with the
project be 75 tons per year?
(b) if for some reason the changes at tanks 3 and 4
were exempt under 40 C.F.R. §52.21(b)(2)(e),
but the changes at 1 and 2 were not, would
the emissions change for PSD purposes be a
-20 ton per year increase? *•'-"
(c) is the net total of the non-exempt storage
changes the proper figure to use in determining
whether a computation of the contemporaneous,
creditable increases and decreases for the
past five years is necessary under PSD Ruling
120? For example, would the five-year com-
putation be required under subpart (a) of this
question, but not under subpart (b)?
B. NSPS
1. Are the product storage changes exempt fron NSPS review
under 40 C.F.R. §60.14(e): V
(a) if the new piping, pumps, and mixers are not
built? /
V If the answers differ among the tanks, please indicate the
answer for each tank.
-------
a.'O
H O CAN & HART SON
Mr. Edward Reich
July 23, 1981
Page Five
(b) if only the new piping and pumps are built?
(c) if only the mixers are built?
(d) if the piping, pumps, and mixers are all built?
2. Are each of the storage tanks a separate facility,
such that the applicability of NSPS should be examined separately
for each? Thus", assuming none of the tanks in the example were- -•
exempt under 40 C.F.R. §60.14(e), would NSPS apply to tanks 1, 3,
and 4, but not to 2? ' Does the existence of an interconnecting
pipe network affect this result?
3. Is there any de minimis increase threshold (e.g., 1 tpy)
below which NSPS would not apply to a non-exempt storage change?
III. CONCLUSION
If further information is necessary to process these re-
quests, kindly contact either of the undersigned, at (202) 331-4682,
or (202) 331-5783, respectively.
Sincerely,
*/_.
Patrick M. Raher
tephen A. Goldberg
Attachment
-------
TANK NO.
1
2
PHYSICAL CHANGE */
piping only
piping and pump
piping and mixer
mixer only
PRODUCT
STORAGE CHANGE
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yea
I:X/\MPLIS
VOC EMISSIONS CIIANC.C */
+50 tpy
-30 tpy
+10 tpy
+45 tpy
NET = +75 tpy
V No associated emisuions change.
**/ Results solely from product storage change.
ro
o
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JAN
/223
SUBJECTi Accumulations of Emissions
FPOMt Chief, Regulations Analysis Section
Stationary Source Corp 1lance Division
TOt Michael Johnston, Chief
Air Operations Section, Region X, M-3202
This is in response to your memo dated December 21, 19P2,
concerning the application of the PSD regulations to accumu-
lated emission increases. Accumulated emission increases
are those increases occurring at major stationary sources
which are not individually significant but when totalled
over * period of time do exceed the significance levels.
As your memo correctly points out* this office did
send out a memorandum on January 22, 1981 which interpreted
th«s PSD regulations BO as to exclude any modification from
applicability that did not in and of itself result in a
significant emission increase. Thus, this would have the
effect of eliminating from consideration those changes which
occurred over time and whose emissions when reviewed as
distinct entities are not significant, but when combined
would sfftiftfy the criteria for a significant emissions
increase.
While it is true that the preamble language that you
cite might he a clear indication that the Agency intended to
accumulate these de minimus change* at a stationary source,
there was nothing in the regulations themselves which clearly
indicated that this vap in fact the case. In fact, that very
language you cite could also refer to the requirements for
looking at contemporaneous emission increases and decreases
when reviewing PSD applicability. Only after much discussion
among members of the Control Programs Development Division
and the Office of General Counsel van it decided to interpret
the regulatory language in the manner in which wo did. The
policy considerations which went into that decision were
' • 1 *"'&*„-
^^GSScl.
ATB N'/£7«
COMCURREHC
ES
i 1320.1 Q2-70)
OFFICIAL File COPY
-------
-2-
that (1) the permitting requirements and the resources they
entail both en the part of the Agency and industry should
not be directed towards these "small* changes and (2) apply-
ing BACT to the last piece which triggered the review cnuld
prove to be a rather wasteful exercise. (It was agreed to
early in the deliberations that under no circumstance would
EPA require retroactive application of BACT to the earlier
changes.) It was also felt that it was unreasonable for a
source such as a refinery to have to keep records of these
de minimup emission increases with the sole purpose of
possibly applying the PSD requirements sometime in the future.
This would irean that another de minimus change, for little
environmental gain, would have to apply BACT to this latest
piece of the accumulation puzzle.
At the same time this decision was being rade to exclude
accumulation from consideration, it was noted that we were
maintaining the goals of the program by recognizing that
although these de minimus increases were not reviewahle, they
did consune increment and they would be included when considering
contenporaneous emission increases and decreases.
It is also important to note that at the tire this
interpretation was made we recognized that the regulation
was not clear and that a conforming amendment to the
regulations would be made. By copy of this memo I am urging
the Control Program Development Division to initiate this
rulemaking if they haven*t already done so. I would hope that
such a change could he published shortly.
If I can be of any further assistance or if you wish to
discuss this further, please give me A call at 382-2831.
Richard Biondi
eci Mike Trutna
Peter Wyckoff
EN-341:R.Biondi:kw:Draft 12-30-82:382-2831
Final: 1/4/8 2 :amd
Disk:RPS*2:Accumulations of Emissions
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
»re DEC 2 1 1982
JECT Accumulations of Emissions
™OM Michael Johfefon, Chief
Air Operation^ Section, M/S 532
T0 Richard Biondi,
Stationary Source Compliance Division, M-3202
Texaco requested that EPA issue a PSO applicability determination to
construct a delayed coking unit at their Anacortes, Washington facility.
In a letter dated November 11, 1982, the Company contends that PSO is
triggered only if the net emission increase from a specific project alone
exceeds the threshold levels. The Company indicated that the source~oT
their information was EPA headquarters staff. We contacted Janet
Parrel la who agreed with the Company's position and informed us that
accumulated emissions will not be taken into account unless a
modification itself triggers PSO. Janet sent us a copy of a January 22,
1981 memo (Reich to Whitmore) to substantiate this position.
The guidance document offered by Janet appears to be inconsistent with
the preamble to the PSO regulations:
•a series of individual de minimus changes at a stationary source
would be accumulated within a contemporaneous time frame to see if a
review would be required."
A source, particularly a complex one such as a petroleum refinery or pulp
mill could make a series of de minimus changes without becoming subject
to PSD if emissions did not accumulate for PSO applicability purposes.
Because such sources are capable of making phased approach modifications,
the sum of which could deteriorate air quality significantly, the
accumulation of minor modifications should at least trigger a review, the
result of which would be an accounting of emissions and their impacts.
The practicality of planning phased modifications for purposes of
avoiding PSD review is probably very limited. However, we have seen
instances where review occurred on projects to be completed in increments
that might have been avoided if emissions did not accumulate.
Definite guidance is needed on the subject of accumulation of emissions
for purposes of PSO applicability.
EPA f~m 13304 (B... 3-741
-------
UNITED STATEi ENVIRONMENTAL F5CT5CTION AGENCY
4.23
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Determination-Southwestern Public
Service Company
FROM:
TO:
Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Acting Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division
Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air and .Waste Management Division, Region VZ
Paul Seals
Regional Counsel, Region VI
This is in response to your memorandum dated February 18,
1983 concerning the applicability of PSD to the Southwestern
Public Service Company's (SPS) steam electric generating station
in AmarillOr Texas. SPS operates a coal-fired steaxr. generating
unit subject to the NSPS requirements of 40 CFP 60 Subpart D.
SPS is proposing to modify. its existing air pollution control
system which consists of two electrostatic precipitators (ESP)
with 95 percent control efficiency of particulate natter followed
by six wet scrubbers which remove enough of the remaining parti-
culate matter to conply with the particulate natter emission
standard of the HSPS. The scrubbers also provide a significant
effect on the S02 erissions by reducing their amounts by approxi-
mately 40 percent. These scrubbers, however, are not necessary
in order for SPS to comply with the S02 requirements of the
NSPS. The control alternative SPS has selected for this purpose
is low sulfur coal.
The modification that SPS is proposing is the removal of
the scrubbers and an upgrading of their ESP which will maintain
their present level of compliance with the particulate matter
NSPS. However, reroval of these scrubbers will result in an
approximate increase of 4400 tons per year of SO2* The question
vou raise then is, noes this modification of the control sytem
onstitute a rajor
Fern I3JC-J 03-70)
-------
previously it has been c?ete mined that this change would
not constitute a i-odification under the NSPF prcgrar.. The NSPS
regulations at 40 CFS t>0.l4(e) contain a list which exempts
certain changes fron consideration as notifications. Included in
this list is the provision at 40 CFR 60.14(e)(5) which states:
•The addition or use of any system or
device whose primary function is the
reduction of air pollutants except
when an emission control system is
removed or is replaced by a system
which the Administrator determines to
be less environmentally beneficial.*
Under this provision it was determined that SPS1 proposed
modification would not be less environmentally beneficial for
NSPS purposes since the change contemplated by SPS would still
result in compliance with the NSPS for both particulate matter
and SC»2.
The separate question of PSD applicability arises because
the PSD modification provisions do not specifically contain an
exemption such a? that at S60.14(e) (5). After consultation with
the Office of General Counsel, we both agree with the rationale
presented by the Texas Air Control Board (TACB) in their January
21, 1983 letter to Dick Khittington. TACK believes that since
the NSPS regulations provide en exemption froc the modification
provisions for replacement of control equipnent, the PSD regula-
tions must provide this exertion as well. This is because the
Clean Air Act provides in Section 169 (1) (c) that for PSD
purposes the tern modification shell be defined as that tern ie
defined in Section 111 (a) of the Act relating to KSPS. EPA has
interpreted this to mean that for PSD purposes Congress intended
the tern modification to include all exemptions included in the
KSPS regulations promulgated under Section 111 of the Act prior
to the date of enactment of Section 1*69. See 43 FR 2639fi. The
control equipnent exemption was promulgatea prior to Section
169. Therefore, the term modification in the PSD regulations
inherently encompasses the control equipment exemption.
X wish to add, however, that just because it was determined
that the change was not less environmentally beneficial under the
NSPS program does not mean the same conclusion must be crawn
with regard to PSD. Under the PSD prograir the concern is not
solely the application of best technology, but also impacts on
air quality fror industrial growth. The Region end State irust
evaluate this situation to ensure there will be no adverse air
quality impact before concluding that the control equipnent
replacement will not "be less environmentally beneficial. If this
determination can be made, the SPS generating station in Amarillo
nay be exempted fron PSD as a major modification.
-------
4.22
If you have any additional questions or consents concerning
this response, please contact Fich Biondi of SSCD at 382-2831 or
Sara Schneeberg of OGC at 382-7730.
Ecward E. Reich Killian F. Peterson
cc: Peter Wyckoff
hike Trutna
Torn Diggs
EN-341:R.biondi:kw:nraft 4-2-83:Final <-7-83
Disk RAS *3 Rich
-------
4.23
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'ebruary 18, 1983
3SD Applicability Determination: Southwestern Public Service Company
_ _
Allyn M. Davis, Director TTBu&Afl ?auV Sfeals, Director
Air and Waste Management, Region 6 Regional Counsel, Region 6
Ed Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division (EN-341)
Bill Pedersen, Acting Associate General Counsel
Air, Noise and Radiation Division (A-133)
Southwestern Public Service Company (SPS) owns and operates a coal -fired
steam electric generating station in Amarillo, Texas known as the Harrington
Station which is subject to 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart D. SPS is proposing
to modify its existing air pollution control system on its Unit 1, which
consists of two electrostatic precipitators (ESP) with 95 percent control
efficiency of parti cul ate followed by six wet scrubbers which function as
particulate control devices. The scrubbers also eliminate approximately
40 percent of the SO 3 from the stack gases. This is the same unit which
was given an alternate visible emissions limit by EPA at 40 CFR 60.42
In an effort to reduce opacity from Unit 1, SPS wants to remove its six
wet scrubbers and improve the efficiency of its two ESP's. By letter dated
December 17, 1981, EPA Region 6 (with Headquarters verbal concurrence)
agreed with the Texas Air Control Board that the removal of the scrubbers
would not constitute a modification under NSPS 'based on 40 CFR 60.14(e)(5).
The Texas Air Control Board, by letter dated January 21, 1983 (See Attachment
1), is now asking EPA to agree that the removal of the scrubbers does not
constitute a modification under PSD since it did not constitute a modification
under NSPS.
The PSD regulations, as amended on August 7, 1980, (40 CFR 52.21) do not
contain a provision similar to the exemption found at 40 CFR 60.14(e)(5),
and therefore, it appears the increase in SO 2 emissions by an estimated
4406 tons/year due to the proposed changes of SPS would be* subject to PSD
review.
The State, however, argues that the Clean Air Act requires that the same
definition of moot fi cation be used in both the PSD and NSPS programs and
that, therefore, EPA should interpret the PSD requirements consistently
witn the NSPS requirements and exempt the SPS modification from PSD review.
To assure a uniform national application of the "modification" definition,
we are requesting guidance from your offices on whether an exemption such
as found at 40 CFR 60.14(e)(5) would also apply for PSD. We would appreciate
a response from your offices by March 15, 1983, so we can provide timely
guidance to the State and SPS.
'6.
-------
4.23
TEXAS AIR CONTROL BOARD"//?'
JOHN' L ELAIR
Chairm«n
CHAFiLES R. JAYNES
Vici Cruirmtn
Bll.l STEWART. P. L.
l.xervtivc Director
B330 HWY 290 EAST
AUSTIN. TEXAS 78723
512/451-5711
VITTORIO K. ARCEMTO. P. E.
BOB G. BAILEY
FRED HARTMAN
D. JACK KILIAN. >.'.. 0.
OTTO R. KUNZE. Ph. D.. P. E.
FRANK H. LEWIS
R. HAL MOORMAN
January 21, 1983
Mr. Dick Whittington, P.E.
Regional Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
Region VI
1201 Elm Street
Dallas, Texas 75270
Dear
it ting ton:
On December 28, 1982. this Agency was delegated revised
responsibilities for implementing the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) program in Texas. In
accepting the delegation of that program, this Agency agreed
to consult with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region VI on questions of interpretation of those standards
and to send you a copy of each interpretation made by the
Agency.
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of our conclusion
that proposed changes to be made by Southwestern Public
Service Company (SPS) to the existing air quality control
system on Unit 1 at Harrington Station near Amarillo, Texas,
would not constitute a modification of the existing facility,
subjecting it to PSD review. The reasons for our opinion
follow.
Harrington Unit 1 was constructed pursuant to Texas Air
Control Board (TACB) Permit C-1388, which was issued on
August 28, 1971. The permit limited particulate and sulfur
dioxide (SC>2) emissions from Unit 1 to the New Source
Performance Standards (NSPS) promulgated--on December 23,
1971. SPS elected to control particulate emissions by using
two electrostatic precipitators (ESP) with 95% control
efficiency followed by six wet scrubbers which function
particulate control devices. Low sulfur coal was use
control S02 emissions.
RECEIVED
-JT JAN 2 7 1SS3
-------
Mr. Dick Whittington -2- January 21, 1983
Unit 1 has not been able to consistently meet 20% opacity.
SPS has advised this Agency that it believes a significant
number of the opacity excursions can be directly correlated
to the operation of the scrubbers (copy of S?S' letter dated
September 21, 1981 enclosed). In an effort to reduce opacity
from Unit 1, SPS has requested permission from this Agency to
remove the scrub'bers and/ concurrently, improve the
efficiency of the ESP.
Although the scrubbers' function is to control particulate
emissions, they also eliminate approximately 40% of the SC>2
from the stack gases. Consequently, their removal would
increase S02 emissions from 6,209 to 10,615 tons per year,
although the increased level would still meet the 1971 NSPS
'S02 limitation. Operation of Unit ^ without the scrubbers
would not cause any change in the total emissions of
suspended particulate but should result in significantly
lower opacity. The reduction in opacity would occur -as a
result of a decrease in emissions of fine particulates, which
are of special concern to many environmental health experts
because they penetrate farther into the lungs and are there-
fore much more difficult to remove.
By letter dated December 17, 1981, Dr. Allyn M. Davis,
Director of the Air and Waste Management Division of EPA,
advised this Agency that the removal of the scrubbers would
not constitute a modification under the NSPS program. The
remaining question is whether the removal of the scrubbers
constitutes a modification for PSD purposes notwithstanding
the inapplicability of NSPS.
Part C of the Clean Air Act Jthe Act) requires that major
emitting facilities on which construction is commenced after
August 7, 1977, must have permits. "Construction" is defined
in Section 169(2)(C) of the Act as follows:
Section 169. "For purposes of this part -
. . . (c) The term 'construction1 when used in
connection with any source or facility, includes
the modification [as defined i£ Section lll(a}]
of any source or facility." (emphasis added)
"Modification" is defined in Section 111(a) as "any physical
change in, or change in the method of operation of, a
stationary source which increases the amount of any air
pollutant emitted by such source or which results in the
emission of any air pollutant not previously emitted."
-------
Kr . Dick Whittir.gton -3- January 21, 1983
Although the statute clearly requires that the same defini-
tion of modification be used ir. both the PSD and NSPS
programs, EPA has adopted regulations defining the tern
differently for each program. The NSPS definition in 40 CFR
60.14(a) essentially, restates the statutory definition;
paragraph (e) then enumerates several transactions that are
notr by themselves, considered modifications. EPA determined
that the SPS proposal fell within the terms of 40 CFR
60.14(e)(5) which refers to the removal or replacement of
emission control- systems. The PSD rules on modification .in
40 CFR 52.21(b)(2) vary from 40 CFR 60.14 in that there is no
specific provision similar to 40 CFR 60.14(e)(5).
Ordinarily, we would conclude that the absence of a provision
such as Section 60.14(e)(5) from the PSD regulations requires
that PSD new source review apply even though NSPS does not.
In the present case, however, applying PSD, but not NSPS,
directly contradicts the Act's provision that the same
definition apply in both programs.
It is significant that "modification" was specifically
defined in the NSPS provisions of the Act, which was enacted
prior to the PSD program. In setting up the procedures and
criteria to be used in making the determination of NSPS
applicability, EPA promulgated Section 60.14(e)(5) on
December 16, 1975. 40 Fed. Reg. 58420. In 1977, Congress
enacted the PSD portion of the Act, providing that the
definition of "modification" be the same as the NSPS
definition.'
It is a well established principle of statutory construction
that a legislative body in enacting statutory provisions is
cognizant of previous judicial and administrative
constructions concerning existing law, and does so with great
care for the precise language which must be used to achieve
the desired result. Congress, then, was knowledgeable of
Section 60.14(e)(5) when it enacted the PSD portion of the
Act and clearly intended the PSD definition of "modification"
to be the same as the interpretation given modification in
the NSPS regulations. Therefore, EPA should interpret its
PSD regulations consistently with its interpretation of its
NSPS regulations and conclude that the above transaction does
not constitute a "modification" for purposes.of the PSD
program.
Consequently, it is the opinion of this Agency that the
elimination of the scrubbers would not constitute a
-------
Mr. Dick Whittington -4- January 21, 1983
modification of the existing facility and would not subject
Unit 1 to PSD review. Please advise us by February 15, 19B3.
if you do not concur with this interpretation.
Sincerely,
fi
Stewart, P.E.
Executive Director
;
Enclosure
cc: Mr. John L. Blair, Chairman
-------
4.23
P.O. 30X1251 • AMA31LLC. TEXAS 79170 • 305378-2".2l
Certified Mail #796609 SeptMMr ,u 1M'f
Mr. Bill Stewart
Executive Director
Texas Air Control Board
6230 Hwy. 290 East
Austin,'iX 78723
Re: Harrington Station Unit One
Letter from ladd to Stevart 4/1-1/51
Letter fron Bell to Ladd 8/19/S1
Dear Mr. Stewart:
Please find attached documentation submitted for the consideration of the
Texas Air Control Board in making a determination that removal of the scrubber,
coupled with sufficient ether improvements at Harrington Unit 1, will not be
less environmentally beneficial than the existing control system.
Southwestern requests the TAC3 to cake a determination that the chanses
in the air quality control system (AQCS) if successful, will not constitute a
modification as defined in 40 CTR 60.14 (e)(5) under the New Source Performance
Standards and the Prevention of Significant Deterioration Regulations and to
so advise the Environmental Projection Agency .
In the event that these determinations are made by the TAGS and E?A and
the changes in AQCS are successful, then Southwestern intends to request fr=m
the TAC2 issuance of an operating permit which will allow operation of Sarnnrto:
Unit 1 vithout the scrubber.
Please feel free to call Olon Plunk at S06-37S-2194 if you have any
questions.
Cordially;
Kenneth L. Ladd
Manager, Licensing and
Environmental Affairs
XLL:el
Attachment
cc: '-. T. Seitr
u?3t Finn Volker
£. T. Manning
RECEIVED
r
i
f
•*""*_! - ** •
J _ •• ' *~<- •
LEGA
DIVISION
-------
-.22
SPS REQUEST TO TAGS
FOR
ADMINISTRATOR DETERMINATION Or RE?»10VAL
OF
SCRUBBER AT HARRINGTON UNIT 1
SE3 i H:-"5 E^ . "SS"
-------
INTRODUCTION' AND BACKGROUND
Harrington Station, locstec near Amarilio, Texas, is Soutnwesterr.
Public Service Company's (SPS) first caal-fired facility. The Texas Air
Csntrol Board (TAGS) issued construction Permit tC-1388 on August 2S.
1S73. Unit 1, wnicn is a 350 Mw unit, began operation in 1S76 and was
the first steam electric power plant in Texas to burn Western coal.
During the design stages a few power plants In other states were
burning Western coal and problems were developing in controlling mass
emissions of particulate from these sources. The best available control
technology for particulate at the time of initial construction for coal-fired
plants was generally accepted to be electrostatic precipitators. Ccal frcm
the western states generally has a very loxv sulfur content. This low
sulfur content allows the coal to be combusted without significant degrada-
tion of air quality by sulfur dioxide. Unfortunately, this low-sulfur
content characteristic has an adverse effect on collection of fly ash oy
eiectrcst-tic precipitstor.
SPS became aware of these particulate collection problems through
contacts with other utilities and as a result, studied some of the plants
that were experiencing difficulties, in an effort to solve the orobiem of
fly ash collection, SPS selected an air quality control system (AQCS) that
consisted of two 95% efficient Research-Cottrell electrostatic precipitatcrs
(E5?) for primary fly ash removal and a final .removal system consisting
of six wet particulate scrubbers supplied by Combustion Engineering
Ccmpany. inc.
.1.
-------
OP£3A-!3N Cf ACCS
The cpersion of the AQC£ syrisrr. is bes: explamec by referring is
a flow aiacram '.see Figure I). The c=al is g.-sunc to a oo«.\der before
being blown into the ooiler. As th= surninc coal releases its chemical
energy, ash is formed. The asr, iskas two farms: cne is called "bcttom
ash" which, as it is formed, drcps ts the bottom of the boiler furnace.
It is estimated that about 20% of the tctal ash in the coal will take the
fo~rm of bottom ash and be collectec as rocks which are brsksn-up and
flushed with water to a disposal area. The second form of ash is a
material of face powder consistency snd is called "fly ash". About 305, of
the total ash will be fly esn. The flv asr is easily t!3«vn out sf the
boiler furnace sv the flow sf f!ue cas.
An electrostatic prscipitator removes the fine psrticulate from the
boiler flue gas by passing all the particulste lacen gases thrsucn a sirrng
electromagnetic field (refer to Figurs 1). The dust or particulate becomes
a charged particle and is attracted to a collection surfacs that has the
opposite charge. The collection surface is periodically clesnea by 3 "rio"
operation whereby the particles are dropped into hoppers beneath the ESP
unit. This operation may appear simple, but.Xhe mechanism is very
complex ar.d all the exact forces mvoivec are net yet defined. The
design grain (ceding is 2.0 grain/SC? at '.he inlet and spcrcsimat=K 0."
grsm.SC? ai '..Ke outlet. The two ur.'ts csntsir 9.-7Z discr.ar^e eiec-
trsdes sr.c l."1?- collector slates. ==sec uccn :r.e acv-a: =ss -''cx\ :r.a
-------
4.23
specific ccllec'.inc ares (SCA) is approximately 250 ftVJCCO f:~ oer nninute.
The scrubcer system is a aifficull system to design snc keep ooerst-
ing. II is, in reaiity, a chemical p ar.t insice the power piaru. When the
flue gases with seme fly ash are exscsed tc spraying water, the whole
atmosphere inside the scrubber bscsmss csrrosive, mudcy and subject to
the formation of scaie deposits as rard as concrete. The prcper opera-
tion of this "chemical plant" requires careful control of many chemical
reactions.
SCRUBBER
The operation of a wet scrubber may best be understood by "follow-
ing" :he path sf a. parcel of flue gas thrcucn :i-.e scrubier. The 350°F
gases and fly ash are cooled to about ZSO°F by heat extractors and the
heat is saved for later use. As the parcel of flue gas enters the scrub-
ber, it is hit by an initial spray of scrubber spray water jus: under the
marbie bed. T.-ns further drops the temperature to about 140°F. Some
of the fly ash drops into the large tank under the scrucber. The parcel
moves up through a turbulent marble bed and at the same time is spraved
with thousands of gallons per minute of scrubber spray water. Carbon
dioxide and sulfur dioxide gases are dissolved into the spray water. In
the marble bed the particles of fly ash are contacted by the spray water.
The f:y ash and sprsy water fall into the larg* tanks under the scrusber.
The wet flue gas continues up the scrubber where it moves througn the
mist eliminators where the remaining solids snc moisture crcsie:s are
removed. The next steo m the process rene=:s the gas acc\5 the ce*
cc:r.t :c accut 2CC°C \z srsvsnt ccncensaticn "-zrr, •"orrr.ing ..". '-"e cuds.
-3-
-------
fans anc :he 230-foot slack. The hesi recuirsc tc cry :ne carc=i or' flue
gas tha; was ccllected and saves in ire firs; s;=ce is new usec to hea:
the xvet exiting flue gas. The result snould be a clean, dry gas raacy
for the stmesohere.
r-N UNIT 1
The AQCS for Harrington Unit " has been quite successful in meet-
ing mass emissions of participate. A New Source Performance Test
(NSPS) conducted on JuJy 19, 1977 by SPS revealed the following: .045
lbs/10 Btu input and .054 lbs/10 Btu input. However, the unit has had
problems meeting the opacity standard (20%). The U. S. Environmental
Prelection Agency (EPA) reccgniied these prtaiems and set the NSPS for
opacity at 35% with one 6-minute average per hour of 42% allowed for this
unit as provided for under 40 CFR 50.11(e).
SPS petitioned the T*Y=S Air Control Beard (TAC3) for an alternate
stancard; however, prior to granting the alternate standard, the TAGS
requested furtner testing. Eased upon past experience and recent critics!
examination SPS believes that 'a significant number of opacity excursions
can be cirectly correlated with scrubber operation. Because of opacity
prsniems associated with the scrubber ana the significant cost savings to
SPS ratepayers, SPS's goal is to improve precipitator operation to the
pc-.nt that all environmental standards can be jiiet without operation of the
scruocer.
SPS believes that advances m the electronics ir.dus:.-'./ and the
electrostatic =rsc:oita:sr meustr. rr.s\ ailoxv :mcrcve'nen:s to the exis::rc
oracrciratsr sc that cr.r.siiar.ca .vnn :r.e NSPS arc :ie TAC5 ZC'l ccac.v.
-------
4.23
star.isrd msy be achieved. Before S2S- can pursue the possibility of
ciscsniinuing the operation of tne scrucber £t ^arrinctcn Una 1, it is
necessary to cemonstrste that the additional paniculate control acmevec
by the electrostatic precipirstor is ~.ct less environmentally beneficial than
continued operation of the scruboer. This is requirea to avoid :he
possibility of the sourca being cefir.ee =s a mccificaticn as defined in JO
CFR 60.14(e)(5) with respect to New Source Performance Stancarcs and
Prevention of Significant Deterioration.
IMPROVED ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
SPS believes there are three factors which cculd contribute to im-
proved environmental quality ir. the event that the scr-jbor- is shut
down.
First, discontinued use of the scrubber, even with the use of lov.--
sulfur caal, will probably result in increased S09 emissions. Even ther,
however, higner ambient concentrations of SO. will not be continuous
because of an increase in stack ess temperatures from approximately
180°F to 250°,because higher stack gas temperatures result in increased
plume buoyancy affecting the overall plume rise. The increased plume
rise ultimately contributes to lower ancient concentrations of SO, for
4.
worst case meteorological conditions. See "Methodology", below.
The second factor which could contribute ;o improved environmental
quality is the elimination of approximately 17 tens, cay of scrucoer slucce.
Annual quantities prcducac by Unit 1 are presented in Tacle 1.
-------
1
vear Tans of slude* srs
197S -.0.3T,
1979 6,534
19SO 5,170
These quantities are represented on a dry ossis; actual tonnages are
approximately J0% higher due to water content. This is a significant
quantity of slucce each day and it is presently being lancfilled en site.
The slucce material is actually a low grade gypsum (calcium sulfate). Its
msrkataoility is poor and as a resu't, SPS has not been as successful in
developing any market for this sludge. In the event that the scrubber
can successfully be shutdown this significant amount of scrubber sludge
will not be produced.
The thirc factor which could improve envircnmental quality is the
pcSiiciiity of i—proved opacity. As previously discussec, -acs.nt critical
examination of operations at Harrington Unit 1 revests a correlation betueen
a significant numoer of opacity excursions and scrubber operation.
These are primarily due to low flue gas temperatures resulting from the
scrubser operations and sootblcwing of the heat extractor and scr-_-=oer
reheaters (see Figure 1). Discontinuing use of the scrubber may he!p
achieve lower opacity.
it is suomitied that the combination of these three factors sstisf'es
the "not less environmentally beneficial criteria."
METHODOLOGY
SPS pe-fcrmsc computer dispersion moceling for Har-irgton S:3::rr-.
Sur-r.g :r.e ear'ier 2e»-Tii:t:nc process for the facility. Th:s mcce-ir.c i\=s
-5-
-------
performed wiih :he EFA CRSTI?. rnoc=i and a cscy :' the fnccs me
previously suomitted :o the TACH. C3STER Model is 6 smcis source
computer program designec to simulate atmcsshenc dispersion s-ccssses
far the purpose of calculating smsicit cancentrsticn levels of atmosphere
contaminants. CRSTc'a has the cscaoiiity of precicting both short-term
and long-term concentrations, v.e understand thst the TAGS a.xecjtae an
expanded version of TEM-3 modeling, utilizing a full year of Aharillo
meteorology. TEM-8 (Texas Episodic Model Version 8) is a Fortran com-
puter program developed by the TAC3 designated to predict ground
level, short-term concentrations of atmospheric pollutants.
A review of the modeling, with the EPA's CRSTER model, indicates
that day 309 exhibits the meteorology whicn creates the hignest ambient
ccncentrsticns of SO? fcr :he 2-:-hour sversging time, nssj-'ti sf TAC5
moaeling also indicate day 309 is the day that meteorology causes the
highest ambient concentrations. In addition, the expanded version of
TEM-8 predicts that cay 324 results in the hignest 3-hour a\.er=ce conce"'
tration of SO. with the existing ooeration.
Based upon the previous S?S results with the CRSTE3 p-rgrsm snc
the TACB expanded TEM-S model, S?S performed additional modeling
using the TEM-S mocel with metsoroicgical data fr;rn day 30S snc dav 33-1
of the 195-t Amarillo weather data. This modeling \>as determined for :\\o
cases, first with the scruboer in service and second, with the scrubber
net in service. The highest concentrations predicted by the modeling is
presented in Table 2.
-------
Averaging Time
3 hr.
24 hr.
Annual
Table
W/O Scruccsr
ug.'-n3
58.4
21.0
0.47
2
W/Scru5ber
ug/m"
64.1
13.1
0.53
NAACS
ug/m"*
1300
365
80
Under these worst case conditions for the existing scrubber opera-
tion, and based upon the 3-hour averaging tir.s, ambient concentrations
of SO. are actually less with the scrubber off than with continued scrub-
ber operation. These concentrations are approximately 5% of the second-
ary ambient air quality standard. However, for the worst case 24-hour
averaging time, the operation without the scrubber is higher than with
scr-jbcer operation. These ar-bient czncsntravsns of SO. ara cr.'y 5.S°
of the primary ambient air quality stancard.
The 24-hour worst case does net cppear to be a significant represen-
tation of the average ambient air quality because of the annual average
results. The annual average concentration has been preaicted b\ using
the Texas Air Control Board TCM-2 model. TCM-2 (Texas Climatcicgicfil
Model Version 2) is a Fortran computer program developed by the TACB
designed to predict ground level, long-term concentrations of atmospheric
pollutants.This mccel also predicts a smaller highest concsntration without
the scrubber than with the scrubber. This is due to the fact that under
rr.cst meteorological conditions the additional pXjme rise will cause the
ambient csncsntrstion to be less, even though the emission rste rr.3> be
higher. These concentrations are 0.6^, of the annual standsrc -.vii^cu; the
scruzser and 0.7°0 with the scrubcer.
-8-
-------
1 "1
Operation of Harrington Unit 1 xvithout the scruocer will have no
significant adverse impact upon ambient air qualitv- 'n 'set, annual
average and worst case 3-nour average ccncentrations of SC- are pre-
dic'.sd to be less. Discontinued us* s~' the scrubbers at Harrington
Unit 1 will also result in the reduction of approximately 17 tons/'day of
scrubber sludge, making land resources available for other uses.
-------
HARRINGTON UNIT NO. i
Air Quality Control System Schematic Flow Diagram
r
WET SCniJdOEn
Meal
Extractor
iwder
-*"
BOILER
Electrostatic
Preclpllalor
Electrostatic
Preclpllalor
Vllocil
Exlroclor
. J
Figure
1.
-------
UNITED STATE? ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY a. .24
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Nee Ealsston Increase Under PSD
FROM: Sheldon Meyers, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
70: David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division - Region IX
This is in response co your nemo dated-May 3, 1983 to
Kathleen M. Bennett concerning net ecission increases under PSD.
I have looked into the question of inconsistency in interpretation
of che de mininus provisions of the PSD regulations as raised in
vour memorandum, and have concluded that the interpretation made
by che Stationary Source Compliance Division is the most practical.
The issue, as I understand it, is whether sources and control
agencies need to aggregate small changes (i.e., those below de
minimus levels) which occur over time so that once the cumulative
effect of the changes exceeds de minimus levels, PSD is triggered.
The preamble to the PSD regulations implied that this aggregation
would be required. However, the Agency has maintained since 1981
that no such aggregation is required. This interpretation was
first articulated in a memo from SSCD (then DSSE) to Region VII
dated January 22, 1981, and has beeo reiterated in memoranda
to Region XX and X since then. The SSCD interpretation was
concurred in by the Office of General Counsel (Peter Wyckoff) as
legally supportable since the regulations themselves are not clear.
The policy considerations leading to this interpretation were:
(a) aggregation could impose a significant resource
burden on sources which might never become subject
to PSD.
(b) aggregation would only require installation of BACT
level controls on the last piece of equipment which
triggered the review, with a ciniaus air quality
benefit, and
(e) air quality wou-ld be protected since these changes
would consume increment in any event.
ajflMAue}
DATE ^
t^ ~. ' " i /V • 1 J^^
mf*~ *&^*j£t. 1 / - • Jf ! f^_ft—t f*
6-z-ai \t - is 1 //i/<
i
r
<
R3 i
CONCURRENCES
_j 1 ] [
i
f : T T
SPA Fwm 132M 02«7«) OFFICIAL F1L£ COPY
-------
In conclusion. I fetl t^t the inerrr:. cation race
cv SSCD tc be the most reasonable. ncvev<_r, I recoer.ize
that a clarifying amendment tc the PCT reflation is advisable
ar.d will include it as part cf the next set of proposed changes
co che PSD regulations.' If you would like to discuss this
further, please contact me.
cc: Darryl Tyler
Ed Reich
Peter Wyckoff
En-341:R.Biondi:kw:Draft 5-31-83 382-2831 Rm. 3202 Final 6-2-83
Disk RAS #3 Rich
-------
d.25
w/
/
Kr. Rlcaard E. Grwnlck
Director, Air Prognw
AlabiMa DprflrtPV'fit of tnvli
Maaagonent
StatA Capitol
Mont^oiserr, Alabama 30130
Dear Mr. Grasnlcx:
This is to iefore fwi of A^loc IT policy caucuraias aivlicaoillty ol
to RPA KD'
fuel nj.vyr.icns, la ganenl. are eeanai.ienrf o&icr nsniimtion& for purr.
of PSD rcvl*1* proviainji etlnsion iacrcaa** are si,:ni;icanc. IV>^*VI
Srction 5tt.2lfb)(2)(iil)(«) proviites aa exntfiCion :or orruin ivx-1
ftnn ttw» iaa.1or mMifleatien definition. Specitic?uly. tais *rctio
a fuel eonwarsiea froc PSU r**vi?« if e>» aoureu ins CR^Aclt1 ol «cewrar>ii lint
th* alt»»rBat* fi»l bpron* Janary *», ItfTS amf f*uer.
oy any enforee&olw pprmii ocoJltiocs.
The qumtlen cuen, i« «igtfc««r tttf aonrc*, i.e., tne
of acermueatins coal beiore Jnmar? 6, 19?b. For j*nirpnses ol coitv^rtirv, cr.i
or tram, iwt t»t all of o*» boilers. »» interpret Ciis j^oviaion at rcq-jirtr.*.
tisat tfw plant bi? eapaol« of rvcernag. transfemz^. am: pn.-;«nuii coal, *r..-
tten tnuwfrrrirsg enal and ccmoustlns coal in tt*.- units b:in^ cocv,-ri'-t , &.-.•
of tte as*i. It is not nrcnseary for th** nlaac tu br o^»c,iv />•
oat ali thrwe onenticne for p^rery cntt at cnv scuirc", »••;•.: c-,i" i«-r
for tt«*»p bPlns conwrt&o. On the- ottie>r twn'i, li tfti* r-l^ut i- oiv-.i- r-
r^c^vlnB onal aac transremini aod corNisting it ora« in errs- ut:.-r unit
at t&t? plant, cut ooc uv on»> brinv: conv«rt^i, ttv-
capable of accoaaoRstl^ coal fur purpo«e«> ot u«ai.
Jf» orttt-r ftsr a plant to OP eapablP of acsoenotiaui:^ ccul. u.»- ccRttny r».».t
not only tnat the ocsign (i«' a ssi.-,cr srvjificstin
tftc pKrsca'Js of t^o rpvis»w if tap rwsultins spt miissicr incrf~!«' > *r
si^n 11 leant, fcij appiicaoiiity w>jla or tAsoa on ail naission inert-':*-- -.
Jrca* tiw ccnvrrsicn, inclucinr. esiasion ificrcns*^ rm«» tn" cn»l <»'vj »#-i
hiincLin,; ami «tom^» faclliti»-i AS «^11 as freer uu? hc>il»-r^, sines- r.li t.-.c
are causiTn by tne conversion tc coti.
-------
-2-
Qnce PSD applicability has been established, It is the« necessary to
undertake a BACT analysis as required under 52.21(J). That section, under
paragraph 3 ..requires that a major acidification apply "best available
control technology lor each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act
for which it would result in a significant net emissions increase at the
source. This requirement applies to each proposed emissions unit at which
a net o«in|gg'i«ns Increase in the pollutant would occur as a result of a
physical change or change in the method of operation in the unit." This
section clearly intends that technology review be assessed on an emissions
unit rather than on a plant-wide basis.
In the sifytl0" where the individual boiler *»•«"£ converted is capable
of firing coal with ""TI-»"»I physical changes (for example, change of
burners only) , BACT analysis would apply to the coal handling and storage
equipment as well as any other necessary new equipment. BACT analysis
would not apply to the boilers since individually they were designed to
acccmnodate coal and therefore will not be undergoing a physical change or
change in the method of operation*
In addition to the BACT analysis, requirements for a source impart analysis
(52.210O). air quality analysis C52.21(m)), additional impact analyses
(52.21(0)), and Class I analysis (52.21(p)) most be satisfied.
the source has satisfied these requirements and tee notice and public
ccoment provisions, permit approval may proceed.
Region 17 is aware that guidance on **tt? question has been somewhat vague,
and possibly conflicting, in the past. Therefore, we do not ty***** for
tM*$ policy to be applied retroactively where it was not adhered to. Bow-
ever, we do expect °*"*ti Rpgjnn 17 state to iomediately implement this
policy for «T* future ^ppn «•«>*< n-ty determinations.
Sincerely yours,
James T. Wilburn, Chief
Air & Waste Management Division
cc: Ed Reich
Darryl Tyler
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PRGTE";:-N AC- = S
1.25
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Request by the Hawaiian Electric Co. to Bum 2.07
Sulfur Fuel Oil at their Kahe Units 01-5
FRO!!: Sheldon Meyers. Director^/
Office of Air Oualilty Planning and Standards
JO: David P. F.owekamp, Director
Air Management Division. Region IX
This is in response to your memorandum to me concerning the
impact of the FSD regulations on Hawaiian Electric Co.'s (HECO's)
desire to switch to 2.0* sulfur fuel oil at Kahe Units #1-5. In
January 1979, your Region issued a PSD permit to HECO for the
construction of Unit #6 at their Kahe Generating Station. As a
condition of that perait, HECO agreed to lip it the sulfur in fuel
combusted at Units #1-5 to 0.5*. This licit was deemed necessary
in order to prevent predicted violations of the S02 NAAOS.
Prior to the actual startuo of Unit #6, existing Units 41-5
actually burned somewhat less than the 2.01 sulfur oil. Since
the startup of Unit 16, these existing units have complied with
the Q.5S sulfur oil requirements. Over the past year. HECO has
gathered actual air quality data which they contend shows.that
the sulfur in fuel limit for Units'41-5 could he raised to 2.02
without violating the HAAQS for S02. As a result of this new
data. HECO has reauested Region IX to amend thef0.5S sulfur in fuel
conditions to 2.OS. The Agency has determined that such a change
in a FSD permitted limit would constitute a major modification
and require the source to undergo PSD review.
Since that response has been transmitted to HECO, an additional
question of applicability has arisen. That question is whether
the 0.5" limit can be amended to a level which would provide for
no significant net contemporaneous increase over the source's
actual S02 emissions prior to burning 0.5" sulfur oil in a manner
to avoid triggering a full PSD review.
CONCURRENCES
1
IJc"
*
I
Fo«» 1320-J112-70)
OFFICIAL FIL£ CCi
-------
A review or che PSD renila-iors reveals that a major
modification will occur as a result of ". . ..any physical change
in or ehanre in t^e method of operation of a major stationary
source that would result in a significant net emissions increase
of any pollutant regulated under"the Act." It has previously
been determined that the proposed switch in permitted levels will
Qualify as a chanee in the method of operation. The next ouestion
is whether it will result in a significant net eminsicrs increase.
Net emissions increase p-eans,
"the amount by which the sur of the following
exceeds zero:
(a) Any increase in actual emissions free a
particular physical change or chance in method
of operation at a stationary source; arc
(b) Any other increases and decreases in actual
emissions at the source that are contemporaneous
with the particular change and are otherwise
creditable."
Contemporaneous is defined as,
"... occur(ing) between:
(a) The date five yeare before construction
on the particular chance coonences; and
(b) The date that the increase fror the
particular change occurs."
An increase or decrease in actual emissions is creditable
"... only if the Administrator has not
relied on it in issuing a permit for the
source under this section, which permit is
in effect when the increase in actual emissions
free the particular change occurs.*
Since the proposed increase, that is the change from G.5? to
some higher level, will occur within five years of the time when
Units *1-5 switched to 0.55, such decrease can be considered
contemporaneous for PSD purposes. In order for ouch a decrease
to be acceptable, it must also be creditable. Since the issuance
of the original PSD permit to HECO was conditioned on Units #1-5
agreeing to burn 0.5* sulfur fuel, it must be.concluded that EPA
relied on this decrease in issuing the original permit. The
preamble to the August 7, 1980 regulations states at page 527C1 :
"... a reviewing authority 'relies1 on an
increase or decrease when, after taking the
increase or decrease into account, it concludes
that the proposed project would not cause or
contribute to a violation of an increment or
arcbient standard."
-------
4.26
The facts In this case, as described in your
"lesrly state that the reouirecent to burn 0.5« sulfur fuel ir
Units *1-5 was considered necessary to prevent predicted violations
of the SO UAAOS. Further, additional sources have been or
are beinp permitted also in reliance on HECC's continued cor.T>liance
with the 0.5* sulfur fuel oil renuireaent of the existinr rerrit.
Therefore, any atterrpt on the part of HECO to increase their
sulfur in fuel Levels such that there will be a significant
increase in SC2 emissions will reouire a PSD percit.
This response has been coordinated with the Office of General
Counsel and they concur in its findings.' Should you choose to
discuss this matter further, please contact me.
cc: Darryl Tyler
Bill Pederson
Mike Trutna
Peter Wyckoff
David Rochlin
EN-3AT:RBIONDI:aind:Draft:5/25/83:ftn3202:382-2831 Final:kaw:6-7-83
Lexitron:RAS#2:Item 12
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL S9OTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON 0 C 20460
JUL 28 -S3
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability Pulp and Paper Mill
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Michael M. Johnston, Chief
Air Operations Section - Region X
Your request dated July 6, 1983, to Mike Trutna concerning
a PSD applicability issue has been forwarded to my office for
response. Your request concerns a pulp and paper company
that is proposing to install a bleaching plant and a larger
digester. While the construction of these units does not by
itself cause increased emissions, emissions from the
recovery boiler as a result of this construction activity
will increase above the significance levels, but remain below
the maximum design permit levels. Your question, is whether
this a major modification under the PSD requirements.
The PSD rules at 40 CFR 52. 21 (b) (2) define major
modifications as "any physical change in or change in the
method of operation of a major stationary source that would
result in a significant net emissions increase of any pollutant
subject to regulation under the Act." Net emissions increase
is defined as:
"the amount by which the sum of the
following exceeds zero: Any increase
in actual emissions from a particular
physicial change or change in method
of operation at a stationary source; and
Any other increases and decreases in
actual emissions at the source that are
contemporaneous with the particular
change and are otherwise creditaole."
Major modifications are, therefore, determined by examining
changes in actual emission levels. Actual emissions are
defined as:
-------
-2-
"the actual rate of emissions of a
pollutant from an emissions unit, as
determined in accordance with sub-
paragraph (ii)-(iv) below
(ii) In general, actual emissions as of a
particular date shall equal the average
rate, in tons per year, at which the unit
actually emitted the pollutant during a
two-year period which precedes the
particular date and which is representa-
tive of normal source operation. The
Administrator shall 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 units actual
operating hours, production rates and types
of materials processed, stored, or combusted
during the selected time period.
(iii) The Administrator may presume that source
specific allowable emissions for the unit
are equivalent to the actual emissions of
the unit.
(iv) For 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 date."
Since this source has been in operation for some time,
subparagraph (iv) does not apply. " Your memo indicates that
the recovery boiler is subject to a permit limit. Ray Nye of
your staff has informed my staff that this permit limit binds
the recovery boiler to a level of 0.1 gr/dscf,'but does not
provide any discussion on the unit's operating rate. The
recovery boiler has operated in the past at a rate of
450 tons/day, consistent with existing digester capacity.
Although the regulations provide a presumption for the use of
allowable emissions when source specific limits are established,
the preamble at 45 FR 52718 (August 7, 19800 states that:
"The presumption that Federally enforceable
source specific requirements correctly
reflect actual operating conditions should
be rejected by EPA or a State, if reliable
evidence is available which shows that actual
emissions differ from the level established
in the SIP or permit.1*
-------
-3-
Therefore, since the recovery boiler could not have operated
at a level higher than that provided by the existing digester
capacity, any increase in actual emissions at the recovery
boiler which will result from the increased capacity providded
by the larger digester oust be considered for the purposes of
PSD applicability.
•
Once it is determined whether there is a significant net
emissions increase (summing the emission increases from the
larger digester, new bleaching plant and the increased
operation of the recovery boiler) in conjunction with any
contemporaneous emission increases and decreases, the PS-D
requirements should be applied, including BACT and air quality
analyses. The regulations at 40 CFR 52.21(j)(3) require that:
"A major modification shall apply best
available control technology for each
pollutant subject to regulation under
the Act for which it would result in a
significant net emissions increase at
the source. This requirement applies
to each proposed emissions unit at
which a net emissions increase in the
pollutant would occur as a result of
a physical change or change in the
method of operation in the unit."
Since the recovery boiler itself will not be undergoing a
physical change or change in the method of operation, it will
not have to apply BACT. However, all emissions increases
must undergo air quality analysis and will consume applicable
air quality increments.
This response has been prepared with the concurrence of
06C and CFDD. Should you have any questions concerning it,
please contact Rich Biondi at 382-2831.
Edward £. Reich
cc: Mike Trutna
Peter Wyckoff
Dave Rochlin
-------
—.-^SuED STATES ENV'RC^ENTAL PROTECTION A
II- ' •' Region 10, Seattle, Washington 9B101
0* "6
4.27
SU8J5.C- ?SD Applicability
Michael M. Johnston, Chief
Air Operations Section
TO Mike Trutna, Chief
New Source Review Office
A pulp and paper company is in the process of transferring the mill to a
new owner. The new owner is proposing to install a bleaching plant and a
larger digester to accommodate market demand for bleached pulp. While
the construction of these units do not by itself cause increased
emissions, emission from the recovery boiler as a result of this
construction activity will Increase above the significant levels, but
remain below the maximum design permit limits. 17*6 company contends that
PSD is triggered only if the net emissions increase from the specific
modifications alone exceeds the threshold levels, thereby releasing the'
.project from Psu review. .
Region 10 has interpreted the term "net emissions Increase" as any
significant increase in actual emissions from a physical change or change
in the method of operation at a stationary source. In this case, do we
look at emissions from the specific modifications themselves or do we
look.at the overall change in actual emissions from the entire facility?
The recovery boiler throughput was limited due to the size of the
'digester. Although the recovery boiler can accommodate the larger
digester, we feel that the physical change and change in method of
operation constitutes a modification.
If you have any questions please feel free to contact me or Ray Nye of my
staff at (FTS) 399-7154.
-------
*'•
•JNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 4 2S
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JUL 28 IS33 OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
SUBJECT: Bridgeport Harbor Coal Conversion
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Barley Laing, Director
Air Management Division, Region I
This is in response to your June 8, 1983 request for an
applicability determination concerning the conversion to coal
of Bridgeport Harbor Unit #3. Your opinion is that the conver-
sion should not be subject to either PSD or NSPS requirements
because you feel the boiler was originally designed to burn
coal, and as such is exempt under §60.14
-------
-2-
The NSPS for electric utility steam generating units,
40 CFR 60, Subpart Da, provides an exemption from coverage
for conversion from oil to coal. See §60.40a(d):
Any changes to an existing steam generating
unit originally designed to fire gaseous or
liquid fossil fuels to accommodate the use
of any other fuel (fossil or nonfossil) shall
not bring that unit under the applicability
of this subpart.
A less inclusive provision exempts coal conversions from
Subpart D NSPS applicability if the existing facility was designed
to.accommodate coal before August 18, 1971. See §60.14(e)(4),
which exempts from the modification provisions:
Use of an alternative fuel or raw material if,
prior to the date any standard under this part
becomes applicable to that source type, the
existing facility was designed to accommodate
that alternative use. A facility shall be
considered to be designed to accommodate
an alternative fuel or raw material if that use
could be accomplished under the facility's
construction specifications as amended prior to
the change.
Bridgeport Harbor Unit 93 is exempt from Subpart Da coverage
because of the provision ac §60.40a(d). My staff has examined
the conversion as related to Subpart D applicability, and discussed
it with EFA's Emission Standards and Engineering Division (ESED).
The construction specifications for jinit #.3 outlined in your
memorandum clearly indicate that the unit was designed to
accommodate coal prior to the Subpart D applicability date,
even though coal was never burned. Also, the approximately 5
million dollars which UI muse spend on the affected facility, the
steam generating unit, to enable it to actually burn coal, is
minimal compared to the costs of a coal conversion, and represents
only minor adjustments to equipment already in place. For these
reasons, both SSCD and ESED concur with your conclusion that Unit
92 is exempt from coverage under Subpart D as.- well as Subpart Da.
The question of PSD applicability is more difficult because
it is necessary to determine if the entire plant, rather than
simply the boiler, was capable of accommodating coal before the
January 6, 1975 applicability date. In a telephone conversation
on July 19. 1983 between Robert Myers of my staff and John Courcier
-------
of your office, John related to Bob the extent to which UI has
incorporated coal capability at their Bridgeport Harbor Station.
Apparently UI has already put in place, prior to January 6, 1975,
all of the coal handling and support facilities necessary for
the combustion of coal. This equipment continues to be available and
only requires some minor adjustment in order to accommodate coal
at Unit #3. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that
UI's Bridgeport* Harbor Station was capable of accommodating the
alternative fuel prior to January 6, 1975, and is exempt
from the PSD permitting requirements pursuant to §52. 21 (b) (2)
This response has received the concurrence of both OAQPS
and the Office of General Counsel. Please contact Robert
Myers at FTS 382-2875 if you have additional concerns.
Edvard E. Reich
cc: Jack Farmer
Walt Stevenson
Earl Salo
Dave Rochlin
Mike Trutna
Peter Wyckoff
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
:..s J.r.e 3. 15S2
-.23
T PSD Applicability for Bridgeport Haroor Coal Conversion
PSOM Barley F. Laing, Director'
Air Management Division Region I
TO Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
Issue
Region I requests your concurrence in our determination that
the Bridgeport Harbor Unit #3 is not subject to either PSD or
NSPS requirements. It is our belief that the boiler was origi-
nally designed to burn coal and the changes that are being under-
taken at UI's Bridgeport Harbor station do not constitute a major
modification as defined under PSD and NSPS, and therefore, should
be exempt from these reviews.
Background
The United Illuminating Company (UI) has filed an application with
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CT DEP) to
burn coal in Unit #3 (BBS 3) at UI's Bridgeport Harbor Station.
The CT DEP issued UI an operating .permit for BHS 3, and has since
requested that Region I determine whether or not the coal conversion
at BHS 3 (which was originally designed to burn coal) should be
considered a modification and therefore subject to the PSD and/or
the NSPS regulations (40 CFR Part" 60, Subparts D and Da).
UI contends that BHS 3 was originally designed to accommodate coal.
In fact, they have supplied the CT DEP with copies of the original
proposal, contract, and designs which indicate that coal was indeed
intended to be the primary fuel. During the latter stages of the
construction in 1967-1968, a decision was made to use oil as the
primary fuel and coal as a secondary fuel. However, no coal
firing equipment was deleted from the contract and all coal firing
equipment contracted for was installed. In addition, all of the
other systems and equipment required for pulverized coal firing of
the unit, including coal handling facilities, pulverizers and ash
and slag handling equipment, were similarly specified by UI and
installed by UI's contractor.
At a state investigative hearing on the coal conversion, certain
additional facts were revealed. Although UI showed that the boiler
was originally designed and built to burn either coal or oil,
significant heat exchange surface alterations were made to allow
for continuous, long-term oil burning. Coal has never been burned
in the BHS 3. Some modifications to BHS 3 are now necessary in
order to allow for continuous, reliable coal burning at partial
SPA fmm 13204
-------
load or oil at full load, including modifications to tubing within
the boiler, as well as to some of the auxiliary equipment. Other
changes to the unit include the addition of flame scanners, burners
and igniters, and additional relays. Certain piping and wiring to
allow the bottom ash removal system, certain coal handling equipment
and the pulverizers to be functional is also necessary. Additional
equipment mod if icatitsn would have been necessary in 1968 to burn
coal, but because oil was to be used as fuel, such modifications
were never fully completed. Although the state hearing officer
concluded that extensive "physical changes and additions" to the
BHS 3 totalling some S35 million constitute a modification to a
stationary source, the CT DEP did not require UI to obtain a mod-
ified source permit for BHS 3. The state did, however•require UI
to obtain an operating permit to .convert to coal.
Rationale
NSPS (Subpart D): 40CFR 60.14{e)(4) exempts a change to a facility
(in this case, a boiler) from consideration as a modification if the
emissions increase from such change results from use of an alterna-
tive fuel, provided the use of the alternative fuel could be accom-
modate under the facility's construction specifications as amended
prior to the change. UI's designs for BHS 3, as well as their
contract, specified all equipment necessary for burning coal as the
primary fuel.
All major equipment was installed.. It is Region I's opinion that
the alterations to the boiler necessary to burn coal presently re-
sult from the 1968 alterations to the boiler that were made to
enable the boiler to burn oil, and as such do not constitute a
modification.
NSPS (Subpart Da): 40 CFR 60.40a(d) exempts an oil burning unit from
the provisions of Subpart Da if such unit is modified to burn coal.
PSD: 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e)(1) exempts a change to a source (in
this case, the generating station) from consideration as a major
modification if such change results from the use of an alternative
fuel, provided the source could accommodate the alternative fuel
prior to January 6, 1975. BHS 3 was built before this date and was
designed to burn coal, and is therefore exempt from PSD. If your
office concurs with Region I's determination, please advise
us by June 24, 1983. If your office does not/concur, please forward
your determination by July 8, 1983.
Since several parties are anxiously awaiting this determination we
would appreciate your response by the dates indicated above.
If you should have any questions, or should need additional inform-
ation, please contact John Courcier (FTS 223-5137) of my staff.
cc: Rich Biondi, DSSE
Marcus McCraven, 01
Leonard Bruckman, CT DE?
Mike Trutna, QAQPS
-------
Mr. C. H. Fancy, P. E., Deputy Chief
Bureau of Air Quality Management
Department of Environmental Regulation
Twin Towfers Office Building
2*00 Blair Stone Rcao
Florida 32301-8241
Dear Mr. Fancy:
This is in response to your letter of July 12, 1<»85, regarcinu
proposed construction at Buckeye Celluose Corporation. On
August f>, Roger Pfaft discussed th«=- answer* to your questions
with Bruce Mitchell by telephone. Tni« letter will- document the-
guidance transmitted in that conversation.
Regarding banking of emissions not used up during a PST? review,
•missions of pollutants which were subject to PSP review cannot
be banked. For example, suppose that, in l«en, th«- source srut
down a boiler with actual emissions of 200 tons per year (TPY)
SO2 and *° TPY particulate matter. In 1982, the source obtain*, r
a PSD permit for a new boiler emitting 250 TPY SO2 and 30 TFY
particulate matter. That construction was subject to ?SD onl>
for SO2» since the net increase in particulate matter was de
minimis. In 3985. the source applies for a permit for another
boiler which emits 100 TPY S(»2 and 30 TPY particulate. This
boiler would be subject to PSD for S02 , but net particular* .
That is because, after a PSP permit is issued for a particular
pollutant (P02 in 1982), none of the increases or decreases at
or before that time can ever be used again In the netting cal-
culation. However, if a PSP permit has not been issued, all
increases end decreases in the contemporaneous time frame ma^
be used. Thus, for S<>2 , the increase in emissions of the ne*
boiler is 100 TPY, and for particulate the increap** is 20 TPY
(-40 ••• 30 + 30).
In answer to the second question, the actual pollutant decrease?
from unpermit ted -sources may be used for creditable decreases
if the decreases are made federally enforceable.
The decreases in TRS, which you described in the third question,
are not creditable beyond those allowed by the TRS rule. The
PSP regulations allow credit for decreases in the actual or
allowable emissions, whichever is lower. The definition of
allowable emissions includes SIP limitations with a future
compliance date. Therefore, if the Florida SIP contains a TPF
rule with a future compliance date, no credit can be given for
emissions exceeding that rule.
-------
If you or your ttafi d«-*ir» flirrtmr clarifications on thes«
pl«?a«e vrite »c or call Nr/ Dcger Pfe?! «t 404/861-4253
yourc
Bruce p. Killer, Acting Chief
Air Programs Branch
-------
STATE OF rLORl )A v k/—'
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
BOB GRAHAM
TW.NTOWERSOFF.CEBU.LO.NC ±3l2V GOVERNOR
2600 BLAIR STONE ROAD iftM/TI ., B uiornaiA j
TALLAHASSEE. FLOR.DA 32301-8241 ' V.CTOR.A J
July 12, 1985
Mr. James T. Wilburn, Chief
Air Engineering Branch
U.S. EPA - Region IV
345 Courtland street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
Dear Mr. Wilburn:
Re: PSD Review Policy Applicable to New Source Construction
During a preappli cation meeting on June 13, 1985, with Buckeye
Cellulose Corporation, whose mill is located in Perry, Florida
(Taylor County), they requested that three issues be presented to
you for policy interpretation under PSD review as it pertains to
new source (federal facility) construction. f Mr. Roger Pfaff has
already had some discussions with Mi . Bruce Mitchell, who is a
review engineer in our Central Air Permitting section. These
issues are:
o Would the mill be allowed to bank any pollutant emissions not
used up during- a PSD review for any future projects?
o If quantifiable, can the actual pollutant emissions from
existing unpermitted sources be utilized for creditable
decreases if they are going to be shut-down and dismantled?
o Since the State of Florida has a TRS rule, which became
effective April 10, 1985, the mill is proposing to comply
with the maximum allowable emissions standard earlier than
the rule's compliance date. Can any creditable decrease in
TRS be allowed under a PSD review?
Comments from the bureau; It is the bureau's contention and
policy that no credit should be granted to any project
requiring PSD review when the pollutant reductions are made
by operational procedures or installation of mechanical
control systems, or both, to meet the maximum allowable
emissions standard set forth in a rule. However, if the
source's emissions are reduced below the rule's standard,
then credit would be appropriate from the rule's maximum
allowable emission standard to the emission level below the
rule's standard.
-------
Mr. James T. Wilburn
Page Two
July 12, 1985
If there are any questions, please call Bruce Mitchell at
(904)488-1344 or write to me at the above address. Your prompt
attention to these matters is very much appreciated.
Sincerely,
C. H. Falveyf P.E.
Deputy Chief
Bureau of Air Quality
Management
CHP/BM/s
-------
: \ xT^7 ; UNITED STATES EN'. iSONMENTAL PROTECTION A<3E\CY
*. •^hu^i^ ••
'». .o W^SnlNGTON OC 204cC
« «£!»'
JAM 1 9 198T
TM6 AOMINIST9ATCP
Andrea S. Bear, Esquire
Hunton & Wil llama
1919 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.W.
P.O. Box 19230
Washington, D.C. 20036
Dear Ms. Bear:
This is EPA1s response to your letter of October 31, 1980,
in which you asked for clarification of some of the recent
amendments to 40 CFR 52.21 (1980), the PSD regulations govern-
ing new source review in most states. The amendments appear
at 45 PR 52676 (August 7, 1980).
QUESTION 1
In your view, the new version of 40 CFR 52.21 provides that
any increase in actual emissions which occurs (1) as a result of
a fuel switch. (2) between August 1, 1977, and the applicable
baseline data and (3) at any major stationary source would
contribute exclusively to the baseline concentration, if the
switch is not a "major modification" by virtue of Section 52.21
(b)(2)(iii). I/ Your first question is whether the agency agrees
with that interpretation.
EPA does agree with it, on the assumption that each of the
major stationary sources you had in mind is a source whose con-
struction commenced on or before January 6, 1975. Any increase
in actual emissions that occurs on or before the baseline date
at such a so'urce contributes exclusively to the baseline concen-
tration, unless it results from "construction" that commences
after January 6, 1975. See 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (13), 45 PR 52737;
45 PR 52678 (3d column), 52714 (2d column), 52717 (3d column),
52719-20. Here, the fuel switch would not be "construction."
The new regulations define "construction" as "any physical
change* or change in the method of operation . . . which would
ITSection *2.2l(b)(2)(iii), which appears in the new defini-
~ tion of "major modification" at 45 FR 52735-36, excludes
certain changes at a source from the phrase "physical change
or change in the method of operation" and includes others.
-------
4.20
2-
result in a Change in actual emissions." 40 CFR 52..2Kb) (8),
45 ?R 52736. EPA intended Section 52.2Kb) (2) (iii) to govern
the boundaries of the-phrase "physical change or change in the
method of operation" for the purposes of the definition of
"construction," as well as the definition of "major modifica-
tion," and you posited that Section 52.2Kb) (2) (iii) would'
exclude the fuel switch from that phrase.
EPA would not agree entirely with your interpretation, how-
ever, if any of the major stationary sources you had in mind is
a source whose construction commenced after January 6, 1975.
Any increase1 in actual emissions at such a source, including
any increase before the baseline date, affects increment
consumption. See 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (13) (ii) (a), 45 FR 52737. 2/
QUESTION 2
The new version of 40. CFR 52.21 establishes that, in
determining whether a proposed change at a source would amount
to a "major modification," one may take into account any
contemporaneous and otherwise creditable decreases in emissions
at the source. Hew Section 52.2Kb)(3)(iv), 45 FR 52736, further
provides in part that a decrease which occurs before the applic-
able baseline date is creditable only if it affects increment
consumption.
Against that background, you focus in your second question*
on reductions in capacity utilization which do not result from
demolition, such as an operational shutdown or derating of an
electric utility steam generating unit at a power plant. You
ask: under what conditions would a decrease in actual emissions
that occurs as a result of such a reduction and between January 6,
1975, aad the applicable baseline date affect increment
consumption?
Such a decrease would affect increment consumption • if the
unit at which it occurs is a major stationary source or major
modification whose construction commenced after January 6,
1975. Any decrease in actual emissions which occurs at such a
unit* as well as any increase, counts towards increment consump-
tion. See 40 CFR 52.2Kb) (13)(ii) (a), 45 FR 52737.
27 in footnote 6 at your letter, you state that EPA at
45 FR 52714 (1st column) "indicates that only post-
baseline date voluntary fuel conversion emission
increases are excluded from baseline concentration."
In that passage of the preamble, however, EPA focused
solely on such post-baseline increases; it said nothing
explicitly or implicitly about prerbaseline increases.
-------
4.30
-3-
Even if such a decrease in emissions occurs at a major
stationary source whose construction commenced on or before
January 6, 1975, the decrease would still affect increment
consumption, if the "short-cf-demolition" reduction in
capacity utilization from which it results amounts itself to
"construction." Any decrease in actual emissions which results
from "construction"that commences after January 6, 1975/ and
on or before the applicable baseline date at any major station-
ary source affects increment consumption. See 40 CFR 52.2Kb)
<13)(ii)(a), 45 PR 52737; 45 PR 52719-20.
Xn EPA1s view, the regulations offer only two conditions
under which a "short-of-demolition" reduction in capacity utiliza-
tion would amount to "construction." One condition is that it
became federally enforceable under a construction permit condi-
tion established under a permit program contained In the state
implementation plan (SIP). Section 52.2Kb)(2) (iii) provides
for the purposes of the definition of "construction," as well
as the definition of "major modification," that the phrase
"physical change or change in the method of operation" in both
of those definitions includes any increase in hours of operation
or production rate that would require a relaxation of "any
federally enforceable permit condition which was established
after January 6, 1975, pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21 or under regula-
tions approved pursuant to 40 CFR 51.18 or 40 CFR 51.24." 40
CFR 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(f), 45 PR 52736. It follows that the phrase
also includes the inverse of such an increase, namely, any
decrease in hours of operation or production rate which became
federally enforceable under any such permit condition. -See
also 45 PR 52720 (1st and 2d columns).
The other and alternative condition is permanency. Under
a standing interpretation of 40 CFR 52.21, a reduction in
capacity utilization would constitute a "physical change or
change in the method of operation" for PSD purposes if it was
permanent. 3/ Sae Memorandum, September 6, 1978, Reich to
Dvorkin (copy attached). Whether a reduction was permanent
depends upon the intention of the owner or. operator at the
time of the reduction as determined from all of the facts and
circumstances. In particular, a reduction was permanent if
the owner or operator intended to abandon the productive
capacity in question, that is, to withdraw it forever from use
in the production of income, including sale, exchange, or other
disposition. EPA would presume that a reduction was permanent
3/ A corollary o4 this proposition is that 'any" return to the
~" level of operation that prevailed just before a permanent
reduction would be itself a "physical change or change in
the method of operation," and therefore a candidate for
PSD review.
-------
•1.20
-4-
upon any strong indication of such an intention, for example:
establishment of any federally enforceable limitation that would
prohibit any return to the previous level of operation; passage
of two years or more without any return to that level; or removal
of the productive capacity from the emissions inventory of the
state.
QUESTION 3
The new definition of "major modification" excludes from
that term any voluntary fuel switch that meets certain condi-
tions. One of those conditions is that the source was "capable
of accommodating" the fuel before January 6, 1975. See 40 CFR
52.21(b)(2)(ill)(•)(£). 45 PR 52735-36..
In your letter* you asked EPA to issue guidance on the
meaning of the term "capable of accommodating." You indicated
that a memorandum which drew the distinction between a "capable"
and an "incapable" source by using case examples would suffice.
In addition, you offered to provide information that would help
draw the distinction.
EPA is willing to provide the' guidance you seek, but only
if you first provide the specific fact patterns that would form
the foundation for the memorandum you have in mind. To deal at
the outset with eases that are both concrete and important to
you should prove more efficient than for the agency to hypothe-
size a range of possibilities.
If you are willing to provide those cases, please send them
to Michael Trutna, Chief, New Source Review Section, OAQPS, Mutual
Building, Durham, North Carolina (919-541-5292). He will have
the lead for developing the guidance. In your communications to
him, please point out any fact pattern which reflects a case on
which the agency has already spoken and indicate which EPA office
made the determination.
gu&STION 4
The first part of the definition of the term "significant"
in the new regulations contains a .list of pollutants and speci-
fies a de min^is emissions level for each of them. See 40 CFR
52.2Kb) (23) (i), 45 PR 52737. The second part then provides
that* for any pollutant "subject to regulation under the Act
that [the first part] does not list*" the term means any emis-
sions rate at all. Id* §52.2Kb) (22) (ii).
You ask that the agency delete the second part of the
definition. EPA agrees to do so, when it promulgates in the
near, future technical and conforming amendments to the regula-
tions.
-------
4.30
-5-
Zn reassessing the second part of the definition, EPA has
concluded that it is superflaous. On the one hand, the first
part already lists each of the pollutants that were regulated
under the Act When EPA promulgated the part. On the other hand,
EPA plans to establish a de aimimis threshold for any currently
unregulated pollutant, when it regulates that pollutant.
QUESTION 5
You interpret the new regulations as providing that a
"minor" addition to a "minor" 'source would escape PSD review
and, if it occurred before the applicable baseline date, would
contribute to the baseline concentration. Your fifth question
is whether the agency intended the regulations to so provide.
EPA hereby confirms that it did.
QUESTION 6
Section 52.21(1)(7) of the new regulations, 45 FR 52739,
exempts any major modification which meets certain conditions
from the air quality assessments relating to Class II areas.
In your last question, you ask EPA to confirm that it did not
intend to limit a source to just one such exemption. SPA here-
by confirms, that it did not.
Thank you for seeking clarification of new regulations in
advance of litigation*. We hope that the answers here are
responsive to your questions. Because of the importance of
those answers, we plan to incorporate them into the preamble to
technical and conforming amendments that we are preparing. If
you have any questions about this response, please contact
Lydia Wegman (755-0788) or Peter Wyckoff (755-0766) in the
Office of General Counsel
cct All counsel of record in litigation on 45 FR 52676
(August 7, 1980)
Patrick Cafferty, Esquire, Department of Justice
Elizabeth Stein, Esquire, Departaant of Justice
-------
7 I
y
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
APR
OFFICE OF
AIR. NOISE AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability to Coal Conversions
FROM: Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
TO: Air Management Division Directors
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Air and Waste Management Division Directors
Regions II, VI-VIII, and X
The attached letter from Region IV to the State of Florida
recites our draft policy on the applicability of PSD to coal
conversions. This policy has been in effect in Region IV, and
has also been sent to certain other Regions as a guide in
developing their applicability determinations.
When finalized, this policy will help ensure national
consistency on this issue. Please read the draft policy and
send any comments you may have .to Doreen Cantor at FTS 382-2874
by Mayj^^^jg^. The policy will then be finalized based on
yourcommentsT^
Edward E. Reich
Attachment
cc: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Waste Management Divison, Region IV
Darryl Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Division
Peter Wyckoff
Office of General Counsel
-------
•i
.- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
JIM '/ 1883 345 COUHTLAMO STMCCT
** ATLANTA. eCORSlA 30365
4A«-AM
Mr. Steve anallwood, Cnlei
Bureau ol Air Quality Management
Twin Towers Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Road
Tallahassee, Florida 32301
Dear Mr. Saallwood:
This is to inform you of Region IV policy concerning applicability of coal
conversions to EPA PSD regulations.
Fuel conversions, in general, are considered major modifications tor purpose
of PSD review providing emission increases are significant. However,
Section S2.21(o)(2)(lil)(e) provides an exemption for certain fuel conversic
from the major modification definition. Specifically, this section exwr-pts
4 fuel conversion from PSD review if the source was capanle of acconnodating
the alternate fuel before January 6, 1975 and sues a change is not prouibite
by any enforceable permit conditions*
The question then, is whether the source, i.e., the entire plant, was capaol
of accommodating coal before January 6, Utfa. For purposes of converting on
or more, but not all of the boilers, we Interpret this provision as requiria
that the plant be capable of. receiving, transierring, and preparing coal, ar.
then transferring CM! and combusting coal in the units being converted, anc
disposing of the ash. It is not necessary for the plant to be capable of
carrying out an thos* operations for every unit at the source, but only for
for those being converted. On the other hand, if the plant is capable ox
receiving cml and transferring and combusting it only in son* other unit
at the- plant, but not the one being converted, the plant would not be
deemed capable of acconnodating coal for purposes of that project.
In order for a plant to be capable of agmmixiating cool, the company must
snow not cnay that the design (i.e., construction specifications) for tae
source contesplated the equipment, but also that the equipment actually
was installed and still remains in existence* Otherwise, it cannot reason-
ably be concluded tnat the use of coal was "designed into the* source.11
Thus, a source that had used coal at a particular unit at an earlier tine,
but later switched to another fuel, would be capable of accuraodatinft coal
as long as the ir*l handling equipment still existed. If coal handling
equipment bad been removed or was never installed, the source would not be
ir*»l acconrodativc. If a proposed conversion is not eligible for the
exemption under 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e). it is considered a major modification
for the purposes of PSD review if the resulting net emission increases are
significant. PSD applicability would be based on all emission increases
from the conversion, inclurting emission incmscs from the coal and isn
handling and storage facilities as veil aa from the.boilers, since all
Increases are «••"?*** by the conversion to coal.
-------
.31
-2-
PSD applicability has been established, it is then necessary to
undertake a BACT analysis as required under 52.2KJ). That section, under
paragraph 3, requires tbat a major modification apply "best available
control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act
for which it would result in a significant net emissions increase at the
source. This requirement applies to each proposed emissions unit at which
a net CTJgsions increase in the pollutant would occur as a result of a
physical change or change in the method of operation in the unit." This
section clearly intends that technology review be assessed on an emissions
unit rather than on a plant-vide basis. . /J.LM
/••* I
In the situation where the individual boiler being converted is capable
of firing ff»l with »ri»v*l>'t physical changes Cior example, change of
only), BAG?'analysis would apply to the coal handling and storage
equipment as well as any other necessary new'equipment. BACT analysis
would not apply to the boilers sine* individually they were designed to
ayxmii-iJate *™»^ »gd therefore will not"5e^53e?going a physical change or
c lange IT* ^**? ^p^^od of v/iy ration *
In addition to the BACT analysis, requirements for a source impact analysis
(52.210O), air quality analysis (52.21(m)), additional impact analyses
(52.21(0)), and Class I analysis (52.21(p)) must be satisfied.
Coce the source has satisfied these requirements and the notice and public
oomnent provisions, permit approval may proceed.
Region IV is aware that guidance on ****« question has been somewhat vague,
and possibly mnflic^ng. in the past. Therefore, we do not intend for
ttri9 policy to be applied retroactively where it was not adhered to. Bow-
ever, we do expect each Region 17 state to immediately implement this
policy for *T1 future applicability determinations.
Sincerely yours,
James T. Tilburn, Chief
Air ft Waste Management Division
ec: Ed Reich
Darryl Tyler
-------
»
«
„.«<>"«/, 4.31
•* —.. *
»
ITED 5TA-E3 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'%-0<««''" REGION IV
JIN / 1383 349 COURTLAMO STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 303CS
4AV-AM
tt>. Steve Smllwccd, Cniei
Bureau of Air Quality l&nage&ent
Twin Toners Office Building
2600 Blair Stone Read
Tallahassee, Florida. 32301
Dear Kr. Saallwod:
This is to inform you of Region IV policy concerning applicability of coal
conversions to EPA PSD regulations.
Fuel conversions, in general, are considered mjor modirications tor purposes
of PSD review providing .emission increases are significant. However,
Section S2.21(o)(2)(iii)(e) provides an exen^tion for certain fuel conversion
from the aaajor modification definition. Specifically, this section ex«nr>T,s
a fuel conversion froct PSD review if the source was capanle of acccnnodating
the alternate fuel before January 6, 1975 and ouch a change is cot prouiDited
by any enforceable permit conditions.
The question then, is whether the source, i.e., the entire plant, was capable
of accoarcdating coal before January 6, Iif7b. For purposes: of converting one
or more, but not all of the boilers, we interpret this provision as requiring
that tee plant be capable of receiving, transierring, and preparing coal, ani
then transferring coal and combusting coal in the units being converted, anc
disposing of the ash. It is not necessary for the plant to be capable of
carrying out all those operations for every unit at the source, but only for
for those being converted. On the other hand, if tiie plant is capable 02
receiving coal and transferring and combusting it only in sec* other unit
at the- plant, but not the one being converted, the plant would not be
decneri capable of accumulating coal for purposes of that project.
In order for a plant to be capable of acocRnDdating coal, the cen^ony sx:st
she* not only that the design (i.e.. construction specifications) for the
source eontecplated the equiprasnt, but also that the equipment actually
was installed and still remains in existence. Otherwise, it cannot reason-
ably be concluded that the use of coal was "designed into the source."
Thus, a source that had used coal at a particular unit at an earlier tine,
but later switched to another fuel, would be capaole of accurodatinj? coal
as long as the coal handling equipment still existed. If coal handling
equipment had been renewed or was never installed, the aourc* would not b*»
coal acconnodativc. If • proposed conversion is not eligible for the
exerrption under 52.21(b)(2)(iii)(e), it is considered a m.lor nrdification
for the purposes of PSD review if the resulting net emission increases
significant. PSD applicability would be based on all emission increases
fron the conversion, including emission increases from the coal and asn
handling and storage facilities as well as from the boilers, since all t£
increases are caused by the conversion to coal.
-------
4.31
-2-
Cnce PSD applicability has been established, it is then necessary to
undertake a BAG! analysis as required under 52.21(j). That section, under
paragraph 3, requires that a major modification apply "best available
control technology for each pollutant subject to regulation under the Act
for which it would result in a significant net emissions increase at the
This requireaoent applies to each proposed emissions unit at which
a net emissions increase in the pollutant would occur as a result of a.
physical change or change in the method of operation in the unit." This
section clearly intends that technology review be assessed on an emissions
unit rather than on a plant-vide basis.
In the situation where the individual boiler being converted is capable
of firing coal with "^"•<"*1 physical changes (for example, change of
burners only), BAG! analysis would apply to the coal handling and storage
equipment as well as any other necessary new equipment. BACI analysis
would not apply to the boilers since individually they were designed to
sdate conl and therefore trill not be undergoing a physical change or
change in the method of operation.
In addition to the BACT analysis, requirements for a source impact analysis
(52.210O), air quality analysis (52.21(m)), additional impact analyses
(52.21(o))t and Class I analysis (52.21(p)) must be satisfied.
Coce the source has satisfied these requirements and the notice and public
cement provisions, permit approval may proceed.
Region IV is aware that guidance on this question has been somewhat vague,
and possibly conflicting, in the past. Therefore, we do not intend for
«iic policy to be applied retroactively where it was not adhered to. How-
ever, we do expect each Region 17 state to immediately implement this
policy for all future applicability determinations.
Sincerely yours,
James T. Tilburn, Chief
Air Management Branch
Air ft Waste Management Division
ce: Ed Reich
Darryl Tyler
-------
4 .32
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
0"ics of Air Quality Planning and Standards^
^essarcn Triangle Par* Monn Carolina 2771"
7 JUL 1935
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Definition of "Modification"
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Directj_
Office of Air Quality Planning anoTtandards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I. Ill, V. and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, and X
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has recently
received an inquiry regarding the applicability of PSD review to two
facilities which would replace wet scrubbers with baghouses. The baghouses
would improve control of particulate matter but allow a significant net
ncrease of sulfur dioxide (SOj) emissions. The question is whether tne
proposed change would be subject to ?SO review under the Federal PSD regu-
lations as a major modification. For the reasons discussed below, I have
concluded that this change would constitute a major modification. The
Office of General Counsel" (OGC) has concurred in the conclusions of this
memorandum.
The PSD review applies to new major-stationary sources and to major
modifications.1 Subject to certain qualifications and exemptions, a
•'iKtjor modification" is a "physical change in or change in the method of
operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant
net airsssio.ns increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act" [40 CFR 51.24{b)(2) and 52.2l(b)(2)]. There is general agreement
1 Note that, although the subject cases involve PSD review, the same
issue exists with respect to major source nonattainment new source review
(NSR) permitting pursuant to Part D of the Clean Air Act (Act). Because
these cases involve PSD, and because nonattainment NSR has basic program
requirements that make this issue less likely to arise in that area, this
memorandum focuses on PSD. The conclusions of this memorandum apply
equally to nonattainment NSR, however.
-------
4.32
that the proposed change constitutes a major modification within the
express terms of the PSD regulations.2 For purposes of brevity, I am
omitting the specific details of that analysis.
The true area of controversy, and the focus of this memorandum, is
the relevance of an exemption from review under the new source performance
standards (NSPS). Specifically, the NSPS regulations provide that the
following shall not be considered a modification:
The addition or use of any system or device whose
primary function is the reduction of air pollutants,
except where an emission control system is removed
or replaced by a system which the Administrator
determines to be less environmentally beneficial
[40 CFR 60.14(e)(5)3.
The statutory definition of modification for both PSD and NSPS purposes
is presented in section 111 of the Act. It has been stated that, for
this reason, the subject exemption automatically applies to PSD even if
it is not expressly part of the PSD regulations (memorandum from Edward
E. Reich, Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, OAQPS, and
William F. Pedersen, Acting Associate Seneral Counsel, OGC, to Allyn M.
Davis and Paul Seals of EPA Region VI, dated April 21, 1983).
The better approach, which I am setting forth today, is that the
subject exemption does not automatically affix itself to the PSD regulations.
Rather, any such exemptions may be made applicable to PSD only by express
"-lemaking.
There are several reasons for concluding that EPA did not intend to
make the exemption in question here part of the PSD system, beyond the
obvious lack of language including it in the regulations. First, the
program is oriented toward ambient air quality as well as technology
based controls, in contrast to the NSPS program which addresses only tne
latter. The PSD review is a tool for air quality management and comprehen-
sive consideration of increases of any pollutant regulated under the Act.
The NSPS exemption is inconsistent with this approach. In addition, it
seems very unlikely that EPA would have imported the "environmentally
beneficial" test into the PSD applicability calculus, inasmuch as that
calculus is strongly quantitative and objective in its orientation, yet
the NSPS test is highly qualitative and judgmental. In any event, the
overall PSD calculus is simply different from the NSPS approach, and
hence one would have expected EPA to give express indication of an intention
to bring the NSPS exemption into the PSD calculus if indeed it nad had that
intention.
2 The owner of the facilities has argued that this activity constitutes
routine maintenance, reoair, or reolacement, thus allowing i- to rsly an an
Demotion from r»view C40 CrR 51.2*(b) (2)(iii)U) and 52.2Kb; (2} (;-^ ' (a);.
\ conclude, however, that this situation does not fall within :nat exemption.
-------
The fact that both programs use the definition of modification
contained in section 111.of the Act is not, in1 itself, sufficient to
prove that Congress intended that NSPS exemptions then in effect would
automatically be incorporated into PSD. Congress has, of course, occa-
sionally ratified existing regulatory programs or approaches (e.g..
40 CFR 51, Appendix S and uncertified section 129 of Public Law 95-95),
but such is generally done with an express indication of that intent. I
have found Jio such indication in this case. Apparently the only legisla-
tive history on this subject is the remark that Congress intended to
conform the meaning of "modification" for PSD purposes to "usage in other
parts of the'Act" [123 Cong. Rec. H11957 {November 1, 1977)]. Given the
distinct differences between the NSR regul-atory processes promulgated in
response to the 1977 amendments and the preexisting NSPS regulations
defining "modification," it seems clear that Congress desired to conform
the usage of that term in only a broad sense.
Finally, I believe that the Federal Register preamble segment cited
in the April 21, 1983, memorandum (43 FR Z63~80, 26396, June 19, 1978)
should not be read broadly in support of automatic incorporation of NSPS
provisions. That preamble, involving review of fuel switches, addressed a
regulatory reaffirmation of an exemption which had already been promulgated
into the original 1974 PSO regulations.
For these reasons, the subject exemption does not apply to PSD and
the earlier memorandum cited on this topic is withdrawn.
cc: R. Bauman
A. EcJcert
T. Helms
I. Reich
D. Tyler
P. Wyckoff
-------
4.32
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Researcn Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
7 JUL 1936
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
Definition of "Modification"
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Directj_
Office of Air Quality PTanriing anoTtandards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division
Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division
Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxic Management Division
Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division
Regions VII, VIII, and X
The Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) has recently
received an Inquiry regarding the applicability of PSD review to two
facilities which would replace wet scrubbers with baghduses. The baghouses
would improve control of paniculate matter but allow a significant net
increase of sulfur dioxide (S0£) emissions. The question is whether the
proposed change would be subject to PSD review under the Federal PSD regu-
lations as a major modification. For the reasons discussed below, I have
concluded that this change would constitute a major modification. The
Office of General Counsel (OGC) has concurred in the conclusions of this
memorandum.
The PSD review applies to new major stationary sources and to major
modifications.1 Subject to certain qualifications and exemptions, a
"major modification" is a "physical change in or change in the method of
operation of a major stationary source that would result in a significant
net enrissions Increase of any pollutant subject to regulation under the
Act" [40 CFR 51.24(b)(2) and 52.21(b)(2)]. There is general agreement
1 Note that, although the subject cases involve PSD review, the same
issue exists with respect to major source nonattainment new source review
(NSR) permitting pursuant to Part D of the Clean Air Act (Act). Because
these cases involve PSD, and because nonattainment NSR has basic program
requirements that make this issue less likely to arise in that area, this
memorandum focuses on PSD. The conclusions of this memorandum apply
equally to nonattainment NSR, however.
-------
4.32
that the proposed change constitutes a major modification within the
express terms of the PSO regulations.2 For purposes of brevity, I am
omitting the specific details of that analysis.
The true area of controversy, and the focus of this memorandum, is
the relevance of an exemption from review under the new source performance
standards (NSPS). Specifically, the NSPS regulations provide that the
following shall not be considered a modification:
The addition or use of any system or device whose
primary function 1s the reduction of air pollutants,
except where an emission control system is removed
or replaced by a system which the Administrator
determines to be less environmentally beneficial
[40 CFR 6Q.14(e)(5)J.
The statutory definition of modification for both PSD and NSPS purposes
Is presented 1n section-111 of the Act. It has been stated that, for
this reason, the subject exemption automatically applies to PSD even 1f
it 1s not expressly part of the PSD regulations (memorandum from Edward
E. Reich, Director, Stationary Source Compliance Division, OAQPS, and
William F. Pedersen, Acting Associate General Counsel, OGC. to Allyn M.
Davis and Paul Seals of EPA Region VI, dated April 21, 1983).
The better approach, which I am setting forth today, 1s that the
subject exemption does not automatically affix itself to the PSD regulations.
Rather, any such exemptions may be made applicable to PSD only by express
rulemaking.
There are several' reasons for concluding that EPA did not intend to
make the exemption in question here pan of the PSD system, beyond the
obvious lack of language including it in the regulations. First, the
program is oriented toward ambient air quality as well as technology
based controls, 1n contrast to the NSPS program which addresses only the
latter. The PSD review is a tool for air quality management and comprehen-
sive consideration of increases of any pollutant regulated under the Act.
The NSPS exemption is Inconsistent with this approach. In addition, it
seems very unlikely that EPA would have imported the "environmentally
beneficial" test into the PSD applicability calculus, inasmuch as that
calculus is strongly quantitative and objective in its orientation, yet
the NSPS test is highly qualitative and judgmental. In any event, the
overall PSD calculus is simply different from the NSPS approach, and
hence one would have expected EPA to give express indication of an intention
to bring the NSPS exemption into the PSD calculus If indeed it had had that
intention.
2 The owner of the facilities has argued that this activity constitutes
routine maintenance, repair, or replacement, thus allowing it to rely on an
exemption from review [*0 CF3 5l.24(b)(2)(111)(a) and 52.21(b){2HH1)(a)].
1 conclude, however, that this situation does not fall within that exemption.
-------
4.32
The fact that both programs use the definition of modification
contained in section 111 of the Act is not, in- itself, sufficient to
prove that Congress intended that NSPS exemptions then 1n effect would
automatically be incorporated into PSD. Congress has, of course, occa-
sionally ratified existing regulatory programs or approaches (e.g.,
40 CFR 51, Appendix S and uncodified section 129 of Public Law~§P95),
but such is generally done with an express indication of that intent. I
have found no such indication in this case. Apparently the only legisla-
tive history on this subject is the remark that Congress intended to
conform the meaning of "modification" for PSD purposes to "usage in other
parts of the Act" [123 Cong. Rec. H11957 (November 1, 1977)]. Given the
distinct differences between the NSR regulatory processes promulgated in
response to the 1977 amendments and the preexisting NSPS regulations
defining "modification," it seems clear that Congress desired to conform
the usage of that term in only a broad sense.
Finally, I believe that the Federal Register preamble segment cited
1n the April 21, 1983, memorandum (43 FR 26380, 26396, June 19, 1978)
should not be read broadly in support of automatic incorporation of NSPS
provisions. That preamble. Involving review of fuel switches, addressed a
regulatory reaffination of an exemption which had already been promulgated
into the original 1974 PSD regulations.
For these reasons, the subject exemption does not apply to PSD and
the earlier memorandum cited on this topic is withdrawn.
cc: R. Bauman
A. Eckert
T. Helms
E. Reich
D. Tyler
P. WycJcoff
-------
4.33
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standaras
^esearcn Triangle Park, Nortn Carolina 27711
OCT i i 1386
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD to Portyxijs of a Pi ap^ Constructed
In Phases Without Permits
FROM: Qarryl 0. Tyler, Director .
Control Programs Developmenf/uivis/on (MD-15)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region v (5AR-26)
This is in response to your correspondence, dated September 30, 1986,
-aga.-ding the applicability of prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) review to a minor source that becomes major through a series of
modifications.
Your memo describes a series of modifications to an initial minor
source. With the first modification (A), the original source maintains
its minor status. The second modification (B) puts the source over the
-a:sr source threshold, and the third modification (C) results in an emissions
increase greater than the PSD significance levels. To complicate matters,
;he original source was not required to obtain a permit under the State
implementation plan-(SIP) and all subsequent modifications were constructed
without SIP permits. The source is then discovered at the point modification
(C) is made.
You present two schools of thought with respect to the applicability
af PSD review to the source.
1) PSD review is applicable only to modification (C) or,
2) the State should view the plant as it first appeared to them, i.e.,
as a major source without a PSD permit. This option would requi-e
that best available control technology (BACT) be applied to the
total plant.
In general, the first determination is correct. The fact that the
Initial minor source and subsequent modification were not subject to,
or failed to receive, a SIP permit has no bearing on applying the rules
of PSD applicability. Except under the provisions of 40 CFR 52.21(r)(4),
tne "SO "egulations do not contemplate the retroactive aoplication of ?SD
-------
* to o^eviousiy minor sources. A 3ACT -sview applies only to the
emissions units wnicii define a major modification to an existing major
source or a new major source. However, the ai" quality iiroact portion of
a PSD -eview must consider, as either baseline or increment consuming,
the emissions from all emissions units at the source.
I" tne extreme case where the source has -^aae a SB": i Derate effort to
circumvent PSD "eview (by the systematic construction of carefully sized
emissions units which only in the aggregate would triage" -eview) a
permitting agency may, however, make a finding tnat PSD applies to the
total plar.t. Such a finding would have to be aaseo on clear evidence
that t*te source aaae a conscious effort to escape -avlew 3y knowingly
aiis-epresenting the intended source size tnrougn tne calculated juggling
of actje" a^a scheduled construction of emission units. Fo- such evidence,
the permitting agency may require that the source pnjviae detailed information
"egarding original construction plans, timing and construction contracts,
emission unit purchase orders, and project financing. The source should
be compared to similar facilities to determine the industrial norm regarding
final sou-ce size and configuration and consfuction scheduling.
If you nave any questions regarding this matte", please have your staff
contact David Solomon of the New Source Review Section at 3-629-5591.
-------
Loufs N. C
m vision oi1 *1r Quality
•J1r»ne«50ta Pollution Control Agency
1035 u»,t County Boa« 8-Z
Oear *r. Chaneerlaln:
nils Is fn ri»spoase to your August 29. 1°»S l»tti«r to to*4)(f van
of sy staff wnich inquire about ths n-w source revii«w rules which apply to
t*w» conv»rs1«w to coal at the Hlhbard Station Units 3 and 4.
W» concur with t*£ conclusion that the change 1rr Units ? and 4 to bum coal
1s ex«Bpt«d from the new source performance standards (*SP5) 40 TFS ?art
Subnart Ha. w» <»g not «9n»«t ftow-Y«r, »1ti» all of
tf»i» NSPS •xenpt-lon in tn« attac?aw«»t to your letter.
It does appear, however, that tf» coitverHo" to coal of t.'nlts 1 antf
cans* the plant to *• subject to th*> pn»¥»nt1w of significant deterioration
(PSD) rey if the source
wuul.4 have •continuously* hart the capability of 4Cco*B0atitta, coal as a fu»1
since **for» Jannnry fi, 1975. *< you can sen fro« the rule, a source 1$
.Hsqu*l1flAO ?ro» using the exeiwtlon 1f a cftanoe to coal is orohiMted under
a r^ierally enforceable perartt condition w»»1ch xas established after January *.
197*, oursuant to 40 CFR 5?.21 fti»» fed>rtlTy ?rowilqat9tr aoDroved SIP rules for PSD).
'•Hen resnect to fuel switching. th«r* are only two cases that could arise for
units wnfcn fired coal before January S, 117S: first, sources whlcft hw« a
continuous coa» firing caoabMlty since hefnre January fit 1°7S, and second.
sources wnlcn have l
-------
-.->? .
c-)«» -
s of
(i.*.. contraction «sr«ci Demons) far
«nr.
'•» T-*'' 'fr
v-.v, ">r '»"!"
c->n«>0"*i »«• '--•'* t"is
.»cr.,jAi?v
r«»«;jna-iiy
t.K«»
into ?
- S.lsirc-J.
1s
sou re* could not -••
ia'
frtai t>*«! PS
c>!<«l
f
in W
'J7T. «t '•^^ -">t
t' ror :n-
or a wjor -^aqlf 1c3t TPT, f?> tn* nnuret; is in *n «r«
for ?articuUt*s, (7) th- Srats 20?? *ot »»«VP ar»
new *nurc«? n»wl«» nil*, ind (A] t-t*
secondary mt t«tg
^•jst "se rrfi<4*»«!*t in .iccordan^ with the "S
Si. I*. .Mow»»»rt It <» total oflt*«t1al a*rtss1«*»» of Units 3 »n«i I ^*'OP« »i* aodi«car-ly yours.
-sir and Padlatlon Unmet
T. Ke«
S. ^othhlatt
L. Xertc*5«»r
J: Paisle
R. i
*. Van
L. Castanares
R. Sry-r
s*ry ncCutcner, CPDO
1*1
-------
Vj- UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
; Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
DEC 1 1386
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Need for Emission Cap on Complex/Netting/S'ources
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs OevelopmenVl5ivi>^on (MO-15)
TO: David Kee, Director
Air Management Division, Region V (BAR-26)
This is in response to your correspondence dated November 4, 1986,
concerning a request from a State to provide further guidance on: (1)
the appropriate context for defining an emissions decrease for prevention
of significant deterioration (PSD), and (2} the level of administrative
effort appropriate to make an emissions decrease permanent and enforceable.
Your example involves an applicant proposing to modify a source and wanting
to net out of PSD review by taking federally enforceable restrictions
or existing units.
The PSD rules at 40 CFR 52.21(b)(2)(i) define a major modification as
... any physical change in or change in the method
of operation of a najor stationary source that
would result in a significant net emissions increase
of any pollutant subject to regulation under the Act.
Net emissions increase is defined as:
. . . the amount by which the sum of the following
exceeds zero: (a) Any increase in actual emissions
from a particular physical change or change in
method of operation at a stationary source; and
(b) Any other increases and decreases 1n actual
emissions at the source that are contemporaneous
with the particular change and are otherwise
creditable.
Major modifications are, therefore, determined by examining changes in
actual emission levels at the source. Actual emissions are defined as:
. . . the actual rate of emissions of a pollutant
from an emissions unit, as determined in accordance
?aragraons(b)(21)(ii) through (iv) . . .
-------
(ii) In general, actual •emissions as of a particular
date shall equal the average rate, in tons per
year, at which the unit actually emitted the pollutant
during a two-year period which precedes the particular
date and which is representative of normal source
operation. The Administrator shall allow the use
of a different time 'period upon a determination that
it is more representative of normal source operation.
Actjal emissions shall be calculated using the
unit's actual operating hours, production rates, and
types of materials processed, stored or combusted
during the selected time period.
(iii) The Administrator may presume that source-
specific allowable emissions for the unit are
equivalent to the actual emissions of the unit.
(iv) For any emissions unit which has not begun
normal operations on the particular date, actual
emissions shall equal the potential to emit of
the jnit on that date.
From SJbparagraph (iv)t it is clear that a new unit's actual rate o
emissions is equal to its potential to emit. Any federally enforceable
physical and operational limitations which an applicant is milling to
accapt on the new emissions unit is considered in evaluating tte new
u^t's potential :: enit.
To ietamina the actual emissions decrease from the shutdown emissions
unit, the reviewing agency applies the method defined in subparajraoh (ii).
Speei'ically, the average rate, in tons per year, at which the unit
actually emitted djring a 2-year period prior to shutdown. Furthermore,
for t'ne emissions decrease from the shutdown to be creditable, the
reqjirement to shut down must be nade federally enforceable.
Sifter the new unit's potential to emit and the creditable emissions
decrease have been quantified, the reviewing agency should then evaluate
the extent to which the modification to the source will affect changes
to actual emissions levels at other emissions units. Of particular
concern (as you have pointed out in your example) is where existing
emissions units, historically operated at less than their full capacity
or allowable level, will increase operational levels for the sole purpose
of compensating for the shutdown unit. If the emissions units in question
do not have source-specific allowable emissions, actual emissions are
determined as set forth in subparagraph (11). If the. reviewing agency
detenti nes that an increase in actual emissions at the existing emissions
units will be directly attributable to the startup of the new unit, then
the agency can act (via an emissions cap) to limit the increase so as to
ensure no net emissions increase at the source.
-------
Suppose, however, as specified In subparagraph (ill), actual emissions
(for the purpose of performing a "net emissions increase" calculation)
are presumed to be source-specific allowable emissions for these units;
in such a case, there is probably no increase in "actual" emissions.
This results from the fact that, though in reality emissions may increase
at these units, their actual emissions have been presumed to be equiva-
lent to their allowable emissions and their allowable emissions have not
changed. In such a case, after the modification, the atmosphere may in
reality experience an increase in emissions. For example, emissions at
the source after modification could equal the source's previous emissions
level (three units operating at 67 percent rather than four units at 50
percent) plus the additional emissions from the new emissions unit. In
effect, a significant emissions increase occurs at the source without PSD
review.
Although the regulations provide a presumption for the use of allowable
emissions when source-specific limits are established, the preanble at 45
PR 52713 (August 7, 1980) states that:
The presumption that federally enforceable source-
specific requirements correctly reflect actual operating
conditions should be rejected by EPA or a state, if
reliable evidence is available which shows that actual
emissions differ from the level established in the SIP
or the pernit.
Further along that section of the preamble states that:
EPA, a state, or source remains free to rebut
the presumption by demonstrating that the source-
specific requirement is not representative of
actual emissions. If this occurs, however, EPA
would encourage states to revise the permits or
the SIP to reflect actual source emissions.
Therefore, a State may act to revise source-specific requirements if
such a revision in the State's view is needed to establish allowable
emissions limits consistent with historical actual emissions. Accordingly,
in the modification scenerio you describe, a State may act to place a
federally enforceable emissions cap, based on historical actual emissions,
on the source. It can do this on the knowledge (or presumption) that the
three remaining boilers will (or would logically be expected to) operate
at a higher capacity in the future to make up for the shutdown unit.
Simply shifting the load like this should not result in a "credit" that
can be used to net a new emissions unit out of review. The emissions cap
would prevent such an occurrence.
-------
-4-
If the modification is a direct replacement, then an emissions cap
is required on the new.unit's production capacity to ensure that its
potential to emu, when balanced against the shutdown credit, does not
result in a significant emissions increase. Depending on the available
shutdown credit, this may result in a limit in production capacity at the
source.
For a major source to net out of PSD review, a permit agency must
take all administrative measures necessary to ensure that the requirements
to decrease emissions are explicit and meet the criteria for being
considered "federally enforceable." The credits may come from any emissions
unit within the source as long as the emissions unit meets the criteria
for being a part of that "major source."
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please nave your
staff contact David Solomon of the New Source Review Section at 629-5697.
-------
5. PSD
Geographic/Pollutant Applicability
en
-------
5.2
5.2 DHE: October 23, 1979
SUBJECT: B. F. Goodrich - PSD Modification
FRCM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Stationary Source Compliance Division
TO: Stephen A. Dvorkin, Chief
General Enfcroanent Branch, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/94
CR: 12.6 [Bard Copy]
-------
5.6
MY 2 7 1380
'•rw Sourcn fcvlcw R.r-quircii:ent.s in /'rcas Unclassified
for done
Richard G. P heads, Director
Control Pronrans i?evelon«-cnt division (Mn-15)
i-.llyn !'.. Davis, Pirector
ftir and Hazardous f'nterlals Division, Region VI
.".ny perscn who desires to cnrstrsct 3 no*-/ raior source cf volatile
r.rnanic compounds In a rural area t'c-si mated -is ''inclasslflaMe" 'or
o?rr.e has three basic options as follows:
1. Agree to apply best available control technology; conduct an
ambient monitoring program under the PSD regulations; and submit, as
part of their permit application, proof that the area' is attainment for
ozone. (Such ambient data rust be submitted before the pemit
application can be considered
2. Anree to meet the lowest achievable emission rate and obtain
adequate emission offsets. [LAER nnd the offsets rust be enforceable
at the tine cf perait Issuance, and the offsets trust (in nost cases)
be achieved prior to Initial operation of the new source.]
3. Agree to r*cet the lowest achievable emission rate, and EPA
nust have approved regulations that require application of reasonably
available control technolony on all existing 100-ton or qreater sources
for which control technique onl
-------
5.6
The at-ove requlrcr-fjp.ts ar* s; reified in the PSS regulations, the
?ffset rullnq, and tiw •Vi.-inistrztor's r.-bniary :•', 1C-7*: -r-srorandun.
IIT addition, I am attaching spv«»ral r-anos which provide further details
of these requirements.
Mttachcents
cc: Oaci- livita
TCP I'olirs
Darryl Tylor
bcc: E. Tuerk
D. Corchers
r,. Fast
S. Kuhrtz
I. Artico
A. Hoffer
B. Steiqerwald
R. Campbell
CPOO:D.R»K»nS:ww:ftn520HU: (TW-lJ»):x5251 :5/23/CO
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JUfl 9 1930
ME*:ORA::DUK
SUBJECT: PSD Applicability: Asphalt Concrete Plants
FP.OK:
TO:
Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
F.W. Giaccone, Chief
Air Facilities Branch, Region II
This is in response to your r.en» of May 8, 19SC," regarding the
inclusion of fugitive emissions in PSD applicability determina-
tions under the 1978 regulations as-stayed. Specifically, ycu
asked if fugitive emissions are to be included, for purposes of the
stay, in caees where the NSPS and NESKAPs regulations Tor a
particular source category do not regulate fugitive emissions.
The September 5, 1979 proposed PSD regulations provide for the
accounting of fugitive emissions in determining a source's poten-
tial to eir.it if the source is regulated ur.cer section 111 or 112 cf
the Clean Air Act or is airong the source categories listed in the
definition of "major stationary source". Fugitive emissions are to
be counted, for all these sources, regardless of whether the
appropriate KSFS or HESKAP specifically regulates fugitive
emissions.
The discussion in the preamble of the September 5 proposal
concerning fugitive emissions states that:
"EPA believes that there is no reason why a source cf a
particular pollutant regulated under the Act should
escape review because the emissions of the pollutant are
fugitive, when a source of the sane pollutant has to get
a permit if the emissions are not fugitive. In both
cases the emissions would deteriorate^ir quality
regardless of how they emanate. Thus, it serves the
purposes of biSR tc scrutinize the one as well as the
other."
CONCUSKMCSJ
""•
DATE
EP* font 1320.1 112.JO)
&Mh
1
OFFICIAL FILE C3PT
-------
Under the proposed FSD regulations source is defined as any
facility under KSFS and is intended to er.ccmcass all che pollutant
er.-itting facilities located at one site and under conxucn control.
Since the source renticned in your meno is an asphalt plcnt,
subject to SJSPS under 40 C"R 60.90, fugitive emissions, frcr. all
activities at the site, should: be included in deterrcinincj FSD
acr-licability under the 1S7B regulations as stayed. This would
include fugitive emissions from cold aggregate storage piles.
If you have ar.y further questions regarding this
determination, please contact Janet Little John of ny staff at
755-2564.
Edward C. Reich
cc: Peter Vyckoff (CGC)
Jin Kcigold (CACPS)
-------
TATES ENVIRONMENTAL DROTECT!ON AGENC*
^, 19SO
Interpretation of cronosed "SD Regulations
FROM F. W. Giaccone, Chief
Air Facilities Branch
TO Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
The prooosed PSD regulations provide that fucitive emissions
should not be included in an applicability determination ex-
cept in the case of 26 specific industrial cateoories, and any
other stationarv "source cateaorv. . .recul a ted under §111 or
§112 of the Act""
My ouestion is: In the case o* an asohalt Plant subiect to
Suboart I, can fugitive emissions *rom ancrrearate stockpiles
be included in an aonlicability deterrinatinn even thourh Sub-
oart I does not regulate these emissions, i.e. can fugitive
emissions be included in cases where the N?"S or NESHA°S reg-
ulations for a particular source cateaorv does not regulate
such emissions. It should be noted that cold acgrenate storaoe
piles are not included in the designation of affected facility
at §60. 90 (a), although common practice generally dictates
the stockpiling of cold aggregate at the nlant site, and that
stockpiles are not considered cart of an affected facility in
the proposed F5PS for the non-metallic minina industry.
This branch is in the orocess of reviewinn a ootential '?£ can-
didate asphalt plant, and an expedited resnonse woul^ be creatlv
appreciated.
cc: R. Ogg
K. Eno
P . Kahn
R. Stein
EP4 Font 1310-4 (Rt«. J.74)
-------
5.3
•.VAS-MNC-~ON DC 20*6:
OFPlCt Of
AIR. NOISE. *NO RADIATION
SUBJECT: PSD Evaluation of Secondary Emissions for Houston Lighting
and Power
FROM: Edward F. Tuerk, Acting Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise and Radiation (-ANR-443)
TO: Allyn M. Davis, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division (6AAK)
This is to convey the final response to your memo of March 13,' 1981
to Darryl Tyler, Acting Director of Control Programs Development Division
(CPDD), in which you asked for assistance in the PSD review of a mine-
mouth power plant application from Houston Lighting and Power (HL&P).
In particular, you were interested in how the emissions of the nearby
mine under different ownership must be taken into account by HL&P,
recognizing that such emissions can often have significant ambient impacts.
This memo also serves tc document CPDD's involvement to date in developing
this response.
As you know, issues associated with the HL&P application are closely
related to those raised by the American Mining Congress (AMC) in their
petition for review of the PSD regulations to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. For example, in their petition, AMC
has asked that an exemption be reinstated which again would allow sources
to ignore the ambient impacts of certain fugitive particulate matter
emissions. ' Because of this linkage, we agreed to explore how the HL&P
and AMC issues might jointly be resolved while Region VI continued to
work with HL&P to develop an otherwise complete application.
We further agreed that the joint AMC/HL&P resolution would no longer
be pursued if it would begin to jeopardize unduly the company's plans for
construction. HL&P had informed us that it must commence construction by
October 1, 1981. On May 1, 1981 Jack Divita of your staff informed us that
the company's PSD application was nearly complete except for an analysis
that might be required for secondary emissions. Since a joint resolution
of the AMC/HL&P issues was not yet possible, we agreed to explore otner
independent ways to resolve the secondary emissions issue arisina from
HL&P's PSD application.
The Clean Air Act requires that PSD review include a detailed and
extensive air quality impact assessment of the effects of a proposed source.
This includes evaluation of the source's secondary emissions. See Si65(a)(3).
(B) and 40 CFR 52.21{k). Secondary emissions are defined by the regulations
es those which would result from the construction or operation of a major
-------
stationary source or major modification but do not come from tnat source
or modification. 40 C.-R 52.21(b)(18). This definition sets out four
tests to be used in determining whether such emissions are to be included
in air quality impact assessments for PSD purposes: the emissions must
be specific, well defined, quantifiable, and impact the same general
area. The mine's emissions appear to meet the first three tests, but
for reasons discussed below, they fail to meet the fourth test.
The term "impact the same general area" embodied in the fourth
test to determine reviewability of secondary emissions is not precisely
oefined. However, tne scope of any required analysis has to be limited
to those areas where both secondary and primary emissions are known to
conraonly impact. Based on recent conversations with CGC, we have determined
that the most useful quantification of this concept for use in Class II
and III areas is that of the area of significant impact, as set forth
in the Emission Offset Interpretative Ruling (40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
S, III.A.) and tne preamble to the 1978 PSD regulations (43 FR 26398,
June 19, 1978). Pursuant to this approach, the significant impact area
for total suspended particulate natter (TSP) or SO. would be all those
areas in which the source's emissions would produce an ambient impact
equal to or exceeding a concentration of 1 ug/m on an annual basis or 5
ug/m on a 24-hour basis.
Modeling analysis reveals that HL&P will not cause a significant
ambient concentration of TSP at any location. Therefore, my-recommendation
is that Recion VI not consider the emissions from the mine as secondary
emissions in evaluating HL&P's impact on ambient TSP increments and
standards. I believe that the mine's emissions do not meet the definitional
test for secondary emissions since they do not impact any area of significant
impact which would be created by the direct emissions of HL&P. Thus,
HL&P's application can be processed without regard to any air quality
•impacts from the nearby mine.
I trust that this response will be useful to you in your efforts to
process HL&P's PSD application. Let me know if we can be of further
assistance.
cc: R. Campbell
£. Reich
D. Menotti
L. Wegman
0. Tyler
-------
UNITED STi"5 ENVIRONMENTAL SRCTECT!0^ AGENCY 5.8
r'-t Harcn :i, ;9B1 ~~
-j£c- Evaluation of Secondary E.-i'ssions in PSD Review
a* Allyn K. Davis, Director * ^ ^ «
Air and Hazardous Materials Division (6AAH) •£. -
-------
Another possible consideration is whether or not the source causing the
secondary emissions has an impact area. If a source has no impact area,
could we exempt secondary emissions on that basis? Also, what effect does
separate owners of the power plant and mine have on the secondary emissions
issue?
I ask that you provide guidance regarding the above questions. Due to the
critical timing of these applications, I ask that you respond by March 30,
1981. If you have any questions, please contact Bill Taylor at FTS 729-1594.
-------
= 3
5.9
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
March 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from November 13, 1980 to January 12, 1981:
1) Treatment of fugitive emissions with regard to
PSD applicability.
2) A proposed physical change must, by itself,
result in a net increase greater than de minimus
in order to be subject to PSD (see PSD/120).
3) Allowable emissions can be presumed to represent
actual emissions for new sources and, therefore,
an increase in production at the PSD source is
not an increase in actual emissions. (Also see
PSD/120).
4) Example 3 above occurs at an existing source
which did not have a new source construction
permit under the SIP (see PSD/120).
5) An Iron foundry is considered to be one of the
28 PSD categories (i.e., a secondary metal
production plant) if it uses scrap metal to
produce iron, even if the metal is poured into
molds.
. 6) Applicability of offset requirements from new
source with a SIP construction permit whose
permit conditions did not prohibit subsequent
i ncreases.
7) A whiskey distillery is not considered to be one
of the 28 PSD categories, specifically a chemical
process plant. A chemical process plant is any
establishment in Major Group 28 of the SIC Code.
Beverage distilleries are in Major Group 20.
8) A proposed Increase in emissions is not subject
to PSD unless the triggering increase is of the
same pollutant as the one for which a significant
increase results. (Also see PSD/120).
9) The 50 ton per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(1)(7) is pollutant specific.
10) Operating permits are not Federally enforceable;
however, the State can impart Federally enforceable
conditions to a construction permit issued for
the source in accordance with the New Source Review
procedures of the SIP at the time of issuance.
3.16 [Hard Copy]; 2.15; 4.16; 10.22; 12.9; 13.5
-------
5.10
5.10
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
July 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas W. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see PSD/117)
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, therefore,
not a YOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattainment
area projected to be attainment (based on the
approved Part D SIP) before startup, is not
subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
obtained may still be deemed pertinent and useful
under certain conditions.
6} A minor source which locates within a PSD area
and impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger baseline
and consume increment within each of the.areas
under certain conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission point
could not escape PSD by considering previous
decreases which cause the net increase to be
Jess than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(i)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any_ pollutant unless the increase of
each pollutant is less than 50 tons per year.
10) ThT~air quality de minimus level for M02 is
14 g/n»3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 4.19; 6.11; 7.5; 10.23
-------
3 . ii
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
>ATE 2 9 JUN S83
JECT Exclusion of Exempt Solvents
From VOC Calculations
6. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch (KD-15)
TO Chief. Air Branch, Regions 1-X
It has been brought to ay attention that there has been some
misunderstanding by various parties concerning the proper method of
excluding exempt solvents from VOC calculations.
This memorandum is to clarify that exempt solvents should be subtracted
out from coatings just like water, with the ultimate value of interest
being the mass of VOC per unit volume of coating less exempt solvent and
water.
Attached is. a- memorandum dated February 26. 1981, from David Salman,
Chemical Applications Section, Chemical Petroleum Branch, to James Berry,
Chief, Chemical Applications Section, Chemical Petroleum Branch. Emission
Standards and Engineering Division. This document includes a discussion
and examples of calculations related to the VOC content of coatings with
exempt solvents.
Should you have any questions, please contact the Technical Guidance
Section (Brock Nicholson or Bill Polglase, FTS 629-5516).
Attachment
-------
5.11
DOW CHEMICAL U.S.A.
Hey 13, 1983 •AWTOW tuumc
am DOW CENTER
Mr. Tom Holms
Chief of Control Programs, 0 pent I ens Branch
Hall Drop 15
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
CALCULATION OF VOC CONTENT OF GRAPHIC ARTS INKS CONTAINING COSOLVENT BLENDS WITH
NON-VOC SOLVENTS
Dear Mr. Helms:
Vo are writing you In accordance with a recommendation by David Salman In the
Che*lea Is 4 Petroleum Branch of the U.S. EPA. It la oar hope that you can clar-
ify differing Interpretations on the calculation of VOC from graphic arts Inks
containing the non-VOC solvents 1.1,1-trlehloroethane and mothytene chloride.
As you are aware, the Federal SPA has exempted these t«o solvents from the defi-
nition of VOC. Federal Register references on that exemption are:
42 FR 35314 of July 8. 1977
42 FR 3274 of January 16. 1*79
44 FR 32042 of June 4. 1979
49 FR 32424 of Hay 16. 1980
45 FR 48941 of July 22. 1980
To date. 92S of the states with SIP'S on VOC's have exempted 1'. 1, t-tr leh lore-
ethane from the defInItlon'of VOC and from subsequent control of VOC In surface
coatings and graphic arts. About B8f of these states have similarly exempted
methyl one chloride.
In the state of Tennessee, a graphic arts company, which has been working closely
•Ith fr» local EPA representative. Is ready to use this option to meet VOC emis-
sion limitations. However, a question has arisen on hov to treat the non-VOC
aolvent In determination of VOC content from their gravure Inks. Specifically.
one materials supplier believes that the eay the regulations are written preclude
1,1,1-tr I eftloroethane and meThy I ene chloride being blended with VOC eoselvenrc.
In their opinion. It Is an "all or nothing" situation. The verlous states SIP*s
road:
•The volatile fraction of the Ink, as applied to the substrate, contains
25.0 percent by volume or less of organic solvent end 75.0 percent by
volume or more of eater;'
Since 1,I,1-trlehloroethene and eettiylene chloride are neither (volatile) organic
compounds nor water, the supplier Interprets the above to mean that «HY Ink vfing
a blend of 1,1,1-trIchloroethane and/or metnylene chloride vlth other organic
solvents vfll always calculate TO 1001 organic solvent.
.•HMO UNIT O* TH« OOW CHEMICAL COMPANY
-------
3.11
UNITfD STATES -.WIRONMcNTAL PROTECTION SMCY
Of TICS of Air Quality Planning and Standaros
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
BATS: FES 2 S 1981
VOC Ccntent of Coatings with Exempt Solvents
FROM: Dave Salman
-Chemical. Applications Section, CPB (MD-13)
Oases Berry, Chief
Chemical Applications. Section, CPB (MD-13)
Many States have exempted certain volatile organic compounds of
negligible photochemical reactivity, such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane and
methylene chloride from their VOC rules. Recently I was asked by a
representative of a major supplier of such solvents how to calculate the
reactive* VOC content- of a coating that. contained both VOC and exempt
solvents2. 1 suggested that exempt solvents should be subtracted out
from coatings just like water with the ultimate value of Interest being
the mass of VOC per unit volume of coating less exempt solvent and
vatsr*. X provided several sample calculations. These examples are
attached.
A
The word reactive has been dropped after this point. All subsequent
references to voc 3n this memo and attachments mean reactive VOC.
The' tsrm exesst solvent as used in this memo and attachments means those
compounds or negngicie photochemical reactivity that States are not
required to control in their ozone SIPs. These compounds are listed in
Attachment III.
Since coatings that contain exempt solvents such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane and
methylene chloride are not likely to also contain water as a solvent,
the..lass water tera has been dropped from the attached examples.
Attachments (3)
-------
5.11
ATTACHMENT I
. "Given the mass of VOC and mass of exempt solvent per unit volume of
coating, determine the mass .of YOC per unit volume of coating less exempt
solvent.
Let x • mass of exempt solvent per unit volume of coating
y • mass of YOC per unit volume of coating
d • density of exempt solvent
z • -mars .of VOC per unit -volume of coating less -exeapt solvent
Then z •
Example 1 - Each gallon of coating contains 3 pounds of VOC and 2 pound:
of exempt solvent. The density of the exempt solvent is 11 pounds per gallon.
JL. - 2 • —^-r -3.7 pounds of VOC per gallon of coating
/.'*'.';*•' ••TT less exempt solvent
' ' a t • ' '
Example 2 - Each liter of coating contains 0.2 kg of VOC and 0;4kg
of exempt solvent. The density of the exempt solvent is 1.3 leg per liter.
°'p . - 0.3 kg of YOC per liter of coating less
exempt solvent
Note: The tera VOC as used above means reactive VOC only.
-------
ATTACHMENT -II
A paint f omul a tor wants to 'add both VOC and exempt solvent to
0.25 gallon's of coating solids to make 1 gallon of coating. The coating
must meet an emission liait of 3 pounds of VOC per gallon less exempt
solvent. What is the maximum amount of VOC that can be added? fow much
exempt solvent should be added to make 1 gallon of coating?
The answer to this problem depends on the density of the VOC and
exempt solvent. If we assume that the VOC density is 7.2 pounds per gallon,
the exempt solvent density is 11 pounds per gallon, and let:
Then:
x • maximum pounds ef VOC that can be added
x • .75 + -
.58x • .75
x • 1.3 pounds VOC
Since the VOC has density 7.2 pounds per gallon, this is equivalent to:
» .18 gallons VOC
Finally, to make a full gallon of coating the forsulater must still add:.
1- .25 - .18 - V—.43 • .57 gallon exempt solvent
or
.57 x 11 • 6.3 pounds exempt solvent
If VOC or exempt solvent with different densities were used the results
would differ. The same calculation can be "done using the appropriate solvent
densities.
Note: -The term VOC as used above means reactive VOC only.
-------
ATTACHMENT III
Compounds of negligible photochemical reactivity that States are not
required to control in their ozone SIPs as of February 1981:
methane
ethane
1,1,1-trichloroethane (methyl chloroform)
tri chlorotrifluoroethane
methyl en e chloride
trichlorofluoroaethane
dichlorodi fl uoromethane
chlorodi fluoromethane
'tri fl uoromethane
di chlorotetrafluoroethane
chloropentafluoroethane
Federal Register References:
42FR35314 - July -8. 1977
44FR32042 • June 4, 1979
45FR32424 • May 16. 1980
45FR48941 - July 22. 1980
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office cf Air G'jalcy Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, Nortn Carolina 27711
UAY 3 1385
isoranaun =1: TS? ?S3_IrLcreaesi ^ans.m^£Tc^ in
North Carolina
FR3M: Gary McCutchafi,' Senior Engineer
Maw Source Review Sect; on, SIB, C?OD (MO-15J
r:i*a Trjtrsc,
v.' Sscfion
I" -*s::nsa tc tr. 'Dctc-ar 25, 1S34, re-uest frca Archie iee, Seg-lon IV,
:: you racircing wha:.-:*.- 3 cnanga in the Nor*.-: Carolina State implementation
:':• tc^s^ss 'ir.crirr^:. • >jva '•svi -iv;eG e Sa::5"5er 20, ;93i, Isf.ar from
r-- JCTSC-. t?::s^. iir 5::a"::y Sactisn, Kc.-tr, Carolina D:vision c: i.nvirsn-
«T.i' >'ar.s-:-s^a^:. 35 •--•;" s :-a:*r :y ^ocsrt waa:*.". a.ii a Deca-ber 21. Iso-i,
;r:£rs^ =£c:s:er rocice Csa":-".5 with tiris SI? cringe.
Tne ,05i tier, ts\*r» :,.• Narjn Csrslir.a appears to be this:
/:/ Opr.-sKrs •:•* seve---T ;ow3r aisnt bc:»ers have incicates tr.at tr.ev
i' pa-tic-lcte
i-.tir.g fr-c.7, C.LC :c C.I- ?ourc5 per million St^).
tc -reet :.-,= Stits's c.-^ini' pa-tic-lcte aass eaiission lisiits
{2: Ir. June 1??1. the'Scata c-arted a 3-yaar variance; settirc interisi
::r.::s of j.2C to ! .2: .:c-jrcs psr 7.-'nic-. £t», wit.n the requi rsmert tnat
:^e utilities ccnc-ct a series af stack tests wiicn *ou1d provice c*ta for
33tt:nc jenr^ner.t li-its.
':• T-.* Sr.i-i :-:;:ses ::.-r.5-=-:t 'is::5 c* :• .1C to 0.25 ?cu-.;s ;er
-:'::•• ^t-. ^.r.ic? -^s zs.irfa1^ iower tnar. the variance Units :jt nigner
^"t'-lT^a Stata s""ec5S t^at ?30 incrsssnt is "ot cansusec iy tr.es e
•5i.-":4r?i'-.s-t 'lisr'ts teCi-jse tnere nas seen no c.-ange in act^a'. :s-t:cj'. *te
-.2tt5r sr-. ssisr.s fr:.- t'lsss j*i:s. Xartn Carsli"2 basei tn:s sta:s-e.'.t
ST.S as
-------
no action on the annual linits 1" the December 21, I9S&.. Federal Register
because such limits do not protect sncrt-term Increment.)
(c) The coal burned before and during the variance is of similar...
quality and its quality can be monitored at will.
(d) The new limits are set at levels appropriate to what the
control equipment can meet on' a continuous compliance basis if properly
and maintained.
"crth Carolina submitted trie Woctsn paper to support that there has been
(an-i would be; no increase in actual emissions froa these utilities -as
a result of the new limits.
It is tPA's position tna't a ?SO increment-consuming emissions increase
would result from the new emissions- limits and that the acceptability of
tr-:s increment ccnsump &i an nust be determined before the new limits could
ae approved. This position is presented in the attached February 25r 1985,.
n front Sorof ani Scnnaecarj to Archie Lee.
There are several aicit'or.a'! issues raised iy :ne State's proposal.
"i-st. trre State eviaer.tiy con-ci-iias that tnese ut: lilies cannor meet tne
t-'rirsl limits. Hcwavar, as Wocren points out on page 12 of his paper
'i""rrsu7?r in- s. nacativa zy.&] , these unrts at one time emitted ar races law
*~::ir. to. srovice suraa.-r far an "S?S of O.G3 pou.-.cs par mfllior Stu. Tnare
:s "z evisance giver ir: tna Woctar papar that a^j- effcrt was made ta isiprave
c=2-iti3r cr -ratrrtarcTce s* tr*.$ cc^trol aquip~eTr :o attas^t to st least
-.re: n* origfnaT ssisiicns iisits, mucl less the ?<37S levels. Acceptance
:f l-= currefft central Isve's shc-Jd nat have occurred without a carafuT
s^c cetiilea study af tne reasons for tne aecrease in efficiency, parrrcularly
tha possibility of impTOvac sraintanancs.
Second, t»ra concept of ccntinuous (opacity) versus intermittent (staclc
:sst) compliance is « good one, but much more extensive attempts than North
Carol lift's have failed to find a ^rxable mass-to-opacity correlation. The
State has not Indicated in the Wooten paper: .
(1) Whac :^e csntinuous..:^^: :y. lisrit would :e,
(2) How fis'cpiciv -'-it i^uld di'fer frcsi r1:? usual opacity limfrs
:" iC*C on Ucil a.-s,
(3) Hew rt would prctect Che short-tarsi incramants, since :t appears
"tr 3a Intended: for use «i-- me State's. annual emissions limits.
(i) How tie opacity ':rr:ts wer's derived frcr t.na ,-=55 emissi;ns tasts.
Thirt, tha Wocta- ^ac*- pr»sants 5 "e-jt.Ty j:=ti5ticil app-ciin f;r
»" ' ;• t-a tasT csti !i-"I-.i"-: -asu^ is ..."ic" 2vC5-s::ri avs
r :=r:. •T*" 'c" :••; f.a -=•• ''~i:. ^ :=s :, t":s is ar,
-------
Finally, the State contends that actual emissions would not increase
because:
(1) The control equipment is the same. Operators, of course, -could'. do
rs.ny things that' would decrease the control equipment effectiveness, .including
turning the equipment off.
(Z) Day-to-day compliance would be encouraged by the opacity limits
S"ince there are usually opacity limits on bailers anyway, tni-s argument
doesn't seen appropriate. In addition, the opacity limits referred to are
far an annual limit rather than tne short-term limits.
(3) The coa.1 burned is (and presumably will be) of similar quality.
"irst, the Wooten paper compares a factor alpha, which is pounds sulfur per-'
million 3tu divided by the percent ash. /According to the paper, a higher
a'pha should improve precipitator performance, all else being equal. Wooten
excludes tnat there has been "little practical change" in alpha over the
;--£ars; I disagree. Roxborc's alpha, decreasea over 25 percent, from 0.072. to.
G.353.--Tna H.?. Zae aip'-a. increased 30 percent from 0.059 to 0.077. Changes-
•-• a'pna ficvs, tharefcrs, cccurrac. In addition, tne State indicates that
: ' -if. rsonitar coal quality at will, but implies that it is not doing so.
fcre, csa.1 quality could change (and has changed) greatly.
(-> The new grrssisrs limits ara care appropriate to what the control
*:-:r??5-Tr ca.T ss*t 3t «. c^rrauo-as compliance,- oasis- I can understand
-••„.• trris is coffstiaraa a -aascn fcr-bsTiavin-g iist actual sraissions ^tes
*i'-e r,;- irrcr=is»c, at leist wfrerr comparing sraissions under the new limits
tr e^issTans uacer tn* valence, but tnis nas little to do- w-ftr. whether
fs ca^su-rec if s!Tawa5l5, rawer thsrr sityal, snissicns limits
'or PSD increaerrt' consumption calculations. Of course, as stated
there is actnirrg in ti:a Waoten paper which supports the underlying
tnat eh* test ic^ presented by tn* State represent the best
central tnet can ie acnievec by the units tested.
Despite the abave-r-errtionsd quirics in the State's submission, EPA has
e'*:tad to accspt ths SI? revision providing North CaroVina conducts, an
:-;.-3fflent caTSu.'rp-ion darrc^strition in accordance: wi th the reorjary 2S
siio/./Scnnesoftrj Teno. :-«cv ***-, tslephone conversations witn Rogsr Pfaff,
a*5*5n IV, or Ap^rl L» L5w. ys. L?e Dan-Tel , ,'tartn Carolina, on April 2f
i'li-zitsi; "at tr=-r .<5*^ szi'. '. S2^* isi«es on trifs. A seating wit" Soggr
i-: \if '.ioocsrc *-4? 5:*»r-".*-: *ar Apri'i a, ISta, to resolve we issues.
At me r.?ril aiaesti-TS, t^re* issues, were identifies *nc re
(1) Annual Average I^crs-ysnt Cbffsaapticn. In- caTcu'at:^ "futun"
(::st-£I? rev:sor; era: ss: ess, snou'.d actaa; or allowable capacity anc operating
^c." values b* -iS»dT S:nc* tnese are existir; sources wit-T ista on c;=ra:1ng
"t.-i a*i Ci^iz^":/ -j.f'lt22l-in (bta per hsur) *-.?. since tner* ;.-£ r: -iranges
2- -•:•:- fi caf' arn *:;-«ts.-;"s:r: :y tn-rs SI? rgvis:;^ wnics «.3uli =:fe;: ;r
-.-:- :-r =i-c ::4*;-.->i ;•-:=" s «-:uM :cc.- in :-r :.::..-;.
-------
Although agreeing with the above, we concluded as a group to require
calculation of allowable levels, not actual levels, of emissions. The
definition of actual emissions states that when actual emissions cannot be
determined (and h.ow can we determine actual 1985, 1987, etc., emissions?)',
men allowable emissions are to be used. Allowable emissions, of course,
would use maximum (100?) capacity and 8750 hours per year unless there were-
2--.forca-5ble const faints' on me source. Therefore, we concluded that for
annual emissions (and annual TS? increment consumption), future emissions
would-be represented by allowable emissions. It should be noted that this
does represent a departure f ron: the previous Region IV thinking of using
maximum actual operating hours and rates instead of allowable.
Actual emissions would be calculated using the average of all valid
test results. Capacity would oe based, on the average btu per hour for each
boiler, calculated by ta'-!l sfctaln if *s sisip^
avers-*-; r-^e tpy for twa rep-aseitsffve- ^ssrs. Hcwever, by cSta'ting arr
averara r«r 'rsur "act^sl" a^S5*ons ?^rer we Mve y eslss'cis ^zts "Tat car
:e f-^ut into, the nods', since «e "^ave rescTved tne question of w.-..it "hours
per yes-" to use.
Tne approac"- cut": reel asove provides the maximum amount of ?SO incrgment
corsjrpt'cT caiTS,* itaTt witt trre recaral resulations and confoms-with tne
intert cf the -.-jjjst 7, 1532, preamble to che ?SD rales. Of course, a
scu.-ce wrrich meets tnis-flexisaw test af incre«ienc consumption is evaluates
an the basis af actual emissions when the next PSO source applies for a peRR.1t..
so the use of the .-ncre ccnse^ative maxinu-n increcent consusspticn approach '
lass ~ct i- tire -long rjn arv'ficiaTTy lisrit grswth i.i an area.
-^t ta the ^-est'cn of errissions c=lculct:cns
*s t^e ps'ic.- o* ieT2rsri"i-i.- irral is-^ce wi-n lcT-;-ta.-s: {annual) '.acis-.a!
-aw«var, t:tat tne "tnree year" concept can be affected by ecano^-:c cor,aitionsr
rates snoulr "trj'y reflect the rates that can as sx;ectac
iirln- zao-i eCc.TOisic ti-«s." This policy was cor.firrsec in a Mar en 25,
IrSs, -*-!2-and-r; fry. 3. T. Hft!.rs t: »7r:sco.t A. Smitrs, witn aclTtiSflil
-------
5.19
we snoula ~c<* aa/ta:n mat New Source Rev-lew personnel remain
aware of these, differences and that tne correct approach is used.
(2) 24-Hour I ncra^ert Consumption Calculations. The February 25-
Sozcf/Scnneeoerg memo specifies tnat tne oase'nne 24-hour boiler emissions
are calculated using actual emissions and "assuming maximum actual operation
over any typical '24-hour period during the two years prior to baseline
triggering or other representative figure." As detailed as this instruction.
seems, it still leaves rocn for several interpretations because of .tne use:'
of "typical." Suppose,- fcr example, that the source actually operated at.
100* capacity curing one 2±-frcur period over a two-year time span. This
constitutes tne naxio;n actual operation level, but certainly isn't typical.
The problesr, of course, is at what frequency ioes the maximum actual operating
rate become typical? Would five 24-hour periods at IQQi capacity be* acceptable
as typical? If not, would 10 or 50' or even 100, or would it take operation*
at a certain level at least 5Q« of the tine to-be called typical?
We tentatively decided- at the April 9 meeting to use the maximum actual
operating rate unless that rate was so unusual as to constitute the equivalent
of cirsuaventist. As a rule of thumb, one would expect to see such maximum*.
occur »r least 5 percent of the total 24-h3:»r operating time periods (which
• ^"ifti.ts -rsnsperat-ng tia* aeriocs don't count in- ntaicing tnis determination) .
/^TJris cg^far^s witn afi-earliar Region IV calicy determination -C2?y sttacnes -
>e use :f trg 5% ;-j- tt 1 : •*• is interried cn'y tc rale out. the psssisility
tnat =. lourcc coulc c*l::»ri»Iy aparste z^'.j a *ew tines at very ni^h
ratss :r. orrsr re csc^ss* ircresssftu consu~t:rr at some fatura li^-s. Zf
course tris affects tr* ar^unt of irrcrsnent ccnsuassd. Tne higner tne
"sctus.!" cpsratrnc; rats *s«-s, r!ie less T.-rc-errsnt consunes in cc~*r:son to
:re aTTc«aaTs- (^uture). stinting' «t«. Since we would not ae accepting tne
Riches': sct^l rat* wit-cj.t question, our Interpretation is at Teast as -
stringsnt. as p.rior
(3) Lisa cf Test Dcts. The State of "ort.n Carolina has incicated tnat
•he actual sstsaton ra.ts s-T5ulc be based on, the highest of the test results
2va:l«3l«. Rsigan IV r»s rrjistsa t-'Tct t-s 3€5t estimate of ernissiais
fates :s trra avsrass cf all vsTid test results. The best ratio.-rs'ia :-!crtJr
Carol: ti csuls isv^la? --as :iat t^e nrgr va-u5 -xas "likely" to occur (zr to
nave ccc^rrea) curing at *6=st sc=-£ penoas cf tirre*
~* *5*r trit ~T c-"..- -it^^i'e for Ma= c* n:;n values wsu*. : -.5.-* to
:? Sdssi 31 2 ?c.-=:^*i .-.: tr '"* use of a ^.xii^n cperatiny rata. nswever,
tie acr^il *-:ssio.T r»'ti T5t:-3a,te its-si f C3*a tot appear to ng-/* 0551
^ts^laS tr 2s t-2 r:5.-sSt .'sTue- fcu.-c -«r*r * :t»c:< is tastec, b-jr to
consist cf s. value as c"cs« as possis1* co a-ir-a! emissions. Trse cast
astisits a* sit^sT wissic."* is', a*" course, ar ivarags value, sa we cscided
to ccnti^a ts- insist ST -s» 5? tf* avsrag* j? s = i valid test ras.lts. The
"* on:
-------
6
(L) An emission factor baseo on the average of all valid test results.
(2) Maximum 24-hour heat input rates for the 24-hour increment consumption
calculation,
(3) Average 2-year heat input rate (in btu per hour) for the annual
increment consumption rate.
Attachments
cc: "S3 Network
S.
T. X«?
-------
9N
"3
Cfl
D
6. PSD
Baseline/Increment Consumption/Impact Analysis
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD Increments over DAT^ 3 MA^l ^377
Company Property
I /-> ,1 no
FROM: /Walter C. Barber, W rectorCA-v^LLkX-
/iOffice of Air Quality Planning and Standards, MD-10
TO: Gordon M. Rapier, Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region III, 3AKOO
This is in response to your May 9, 1977, memo asking if PSD increments
apply over property owned by a new source" if the general public is ~g
effectively precluded from access to that property. The answer is **v.
This issue has been addressed with respect to the NAAQS in QAQPS Guideline
1.2 - 046, "Guidelines for Implementation of a Regional New Source
Review Program for Stationary Sources" (a copy of the pertinent page is
enclosed), and in the attached memorandum of law from OGC. We believe,
and OGC concurs, that the PSD increments should be treated the same as--
the NAAQS in this respect. Therefore, as indicated in the OGC memo, the
test for determining if public access is effectively precluded requires
some kind of physical barrier.
If you have any further questions on this matter, please contact
me.
Enclosures
cc: Richard G. Stoll, Attorney, Office of General Counsel, A-133
Edward-E. Reich, Director, Stationary Source Enforcement Division,
ENOW c*—
EPA. *•••• IIJO-4 <«•«. 4.771
-------
5.1
be allowed to construct. Instead, any source appearing to cause the NAAQS
to be exceeded during the screening process should be subjected to a more
detailed analysis which carefully considers site-specific data. If a
detailed analysis continues to demonstrate that estimated air quality levels
of stable pollutants will exceed the NAAQS, it may be necessary to pursue
additional considerations which are to be described by the special NSR
guidance currently being prepared.
Reactive pollutants (HC-0Y and NO ) are somewhat more difficult to
A «
deal with at the present time. Existing modeling techniques do not appear
to adeouately predict the reactive pollutant impact of specific point
sources. Since no acceptable modeling is presently possible, the air qual-
ity portion of the NSR need not apply if there is no' SIP control strategy
demonstration for the area. No permit should be issued, however, until
it 1s carefully determined that all applicable emission requirements are
met (see page 31}. In many cases it will probably be necessary for the
reviewer to refer to the special NSP guidance for non-attainment areas in
order to adequately review major sources of KC-0X and/or NOX.
Air quality concentrations should be estimated in accordance with
the definition of "ambient air." (40 CFR, §50.1(e)}. The term "ambient air"
1s defined as that portion of the atmosphere, extemal'to buildings, to
which the general public has access. It will be the resconsibility of the
applicant seeking to have private land excluded from review to provide suf-
ficient assurance (e.g., written statement, photographs, etc.} to EPA that
the general public is completely and effectively prohibited from such land.
Where such assurance is acceptable, air quality standards should be
estimated at and bevond the "fence!ine" which divides privately-owned space
from space considered to be public (accessible to the general public).
38
-------
5.1
ENVIRONMENTAL FRSTSCTSON AG'NCY
orrics or i'zi! GZ.:I^AI"COV::£II
A;a. Septeaber 28, 19J^rT~
iji> Michael A. Jar.es, .Attorney
.<;:ie/. Air duality and r.zdiarier. Division
.f.>-«-«: Ariient Air Quality Monitoring by E?A
TV Jack R. Farr.sr, Chief
Plans Manager.int Branch, SDID
.«-;EMORA::DLT:I OF LA:-?
FACTS
Your Fisr.orar.cun of Septerier 12, 1972 inforr.s us that
the Standards Development and Ir.ple~er.ts.ticn Division is
initiating an air quality sar.plinc procrt~ =.rci^id a asrrer
of smelters for f.:hich enissicn reculations •.-.•-re prcposc-c cy
EPA on July 27, 1972. Poter.tiai sites fcr locatlnr'-sniztr-
ing equipr.snc v:ere based on diffusion zaodel prediriicns.
Some of these sires are on lar*a owned by the snelters, e.g.,
•,*• V«»».« —*fc ^--__-l- r*^.-_ /-__•>*.__ —».". -^ • *
ment at each of the sites would be operated by EPA persc.ir.el.
QUEST:o:: si
What is the meaning of the phrase "to which the gensral
public has access" in ZPA's definition of "eriier.t air"?
v?c boliave that the quoted phrase is ::.ost reissnablv
ir.r-jrprttes as rsekninr u,rcper-cy whicn r.er.=ers cf che ccr.-
r.-jr.ity at larre are not physicailv barred in scne wav frcr.
cnterinn.
QUZSTI077 52
Should a different definition ef "ariier.u air" be r.sda
Tor primary versus secsndarv standards since seccndarv s^i.--
dards involve welfare and not the health of serscns?
-------
ZPA's regulation defining "-rrujicnt air" ir.akes no such
distinctic- , sr.d vs find r.c su^gastior. in the <~-.ct that
Congress intended such a distinction.
What tvre of approval fro- sr.eltsr officials is neces
sary in order to operate sar.pling equipment or. sr.slter
property?
Informal, oral permission is acceptable.
DISCUSSION
1. EPA's regulations prescribing national prir.ary and
secondary ar.sient air quality standards dcfir.e "ariiar.z air"
to nean "thaz portion of tha a^r.osphere , exterr.=i to buildir.gs,
to which ths general public his access." 40 C??. _50 ,l(s) .
•«v« ->«. «aMjj^j_4 *•-. ^ • *% «»•! o'-' liiwn^c ^Xa c*a«««s T-O c1 ar^«^"'<"a —
bility to the a— osphere outside the fence lir.s, since "=ccess"
is the ability to enter.* In other v:crds, areas of privs-e
property to which the ovner cr lessee has not restric-2d
access by physical ~eans such as a fence, wall, or other
barrier can be trespassed upon by ner-bers of the ccrr-.uni-v
at large. Such persons, wh'ethsr" they era kr.cvirvr or i.-_-.r=sr.t
trespassers , will be exposed to and breathe the air above
the proper-y.
2. In our telechcne conversations, you have pointed cut
thit this conclusion cr-ablss the -property cv-ner to deter-.ine
what constitutes "sriient air-' since he nay fence his property
and tJ'erebv srecl'-ds *^ublir ?""°ss. This result nay indicate
that a orcrsrty line boundary rather than a fence line bour.dary
for arjjlsr.t air -&>:es better" sense. Two factors dictate tr.st
this interpretation not be adopted: 1) the ordinary r.e=.nir.g
cf "access" includes the right or tha ability t= enter (see
U'ebstsr's Third Kew Intsrr.aticnal Dictionary (1955)
defines "access" to r.ear. "remission, liberty, or
abilitv to enter".
-------
6.1
- 3 -
footnote, abcve) ; 2) cry definition which lir.its the scope
of applicability of ar.bic.-it air quality standards r.ust be
exarr.ined ir. the" light cf CIO" of t.«s; Clesr. Air Act. That
section provides rr.*t "Izcr. St^zo shall l-.;ve the prir.zry
responsibility fcr assunr.g air cr-ili-.y -..'ithin tha ar.r.ire
r?.r':.ic .rsa jcrtrc~.irir.r £•.:::: .'t~.t&. . . " i
-------
6.1
Applicability of PSD Increments Over
Sew Source's Property
Cordon K. Rapier, Director
Air & Hazardous Materials Division, 3AHOO
Walt Barber, Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, (MD-10)
In implementing the PSD program we have encountered a number of
questions concerning the applicability of the PSD increments over the
property area owned by the new source. In other words, are those emissions
from the new source which impact within the property boundaries of that
new source subject to the PSD increment constraints if the general
public is effectively precluded froa access to that property?
If it is agency policy to exempt the requirements of the PSD increments
over the source's property, then what types of restraints (e.g. fences,
no-trespassing signs, etc.) are considered necessary to effectively
prevent public access to that property?
Ve currently have a number of PSD source applications under review
which will be directly affected by the agency's position on this issue.
Therefore, aa early response from you on this matter will be greatly
appreciated. If you have any questions on specific PSD projects, please
contact me at 215/597-8131 or Mr. Jla Sydnor of ay staff at 215/597-
8181.
ec: Edward E. Belch (ES-341) *
Director, DSSE
/•
i
-------
UNITED STATES Ef4V|RONM£NTAL PROTECTION AGEKC
APR 2 9 I960
Office of
Enforcement
HEKORANDCX
SUBJECT: PSD Analysis for SIP Relaxation in Metropolitan Boston
Air Pollution Control District - Eastman*Gelatin
FRCM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Linda Murphy, Chief
Stationary Source Section - Region I
This is in response to your nemo of April 2, 1980, in which
you asked Rich Eiondi whether a SIP relaxation, allowing Eastman
Gelatin to burn 2.2% sulfur fuel oil, would consume PSD increment.
My understanding* of the facts in the case is that the SIP revisior
would relax only the SC2 standard. The TSP standard which
applies to Eastiran Gelatin is already lax enough to allow the
switch to the higher sulfur content fuel.
According to 552.2Kb) (11), any SIP relaxation which is
submitted to EPA after the applicable baseline date consumes
increment. The SIP relaxation consumes increment for all pollu-
tants which, as a result of the relaxation, increase above
baseline levels. The tern "fiaseline levels" is defined in
§52.21(b)(11) and generally neans actual emissions. As a part of
the SIP revision process, the State must analyze the impact of the
relaxation on the applicable increments. ' If the analysis projects
an increment violation, EPA must disapprove the SIP revision.
In the case at hand, the SIP revision must include a projec-
tion of the impact on the applicable S02 and TSP increments,
assuring that the baseline has been triggered. If the SIF relaxa-
tion is to be approved before promulgation of the September 5,
1975, PSC proposal, the baseline date is August 7, 1577. If the
relaxation is approved after promulgation cf the final ar.endr.ents,
the definition of "baseline" will have changed and it will be
necessary to determine whether there have been any applications
for PSD permits for sources in the area where Eastsan Gelatin is
located. See definitions of "baseline" in 40 CFR 52.21(b)(ll)
OFFICIAL FILE C
-------
Region 4 recently reviewed' a SIP revision for Florica Fewer
and Light (FP&L) which was similar tc your case involving Eastsan
Gelatin. Florida proposed to relax its participate star.dsrds for
FF&L so as to allow the burning ct higher sulfur oil. The SC: _
standard did not need to be relaxed. In that case, EFA recuirec
an increrent analysis for both TS? and SC2- The final notice c.
partial approval/partial disapproval or. FP«L is attachec.
Chouid you wish to discuss this issue in r.cre detail, please
contact Rich Biondi at 755-2564.
Edward E. Reich
"cc: Lydia Wegroan, OGC
Jin Weigold, OAQPS
-------
6.2.
±
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ATS A'pril 2, 1980
SUBJECT Question - Does a SIP Relaxation for SO2 Consume Increment?
"OM Linda Murphy '^^ .
Stationary Source 'Section
T0 Richard Biondi, DSSE
A question regarding increment consumption has arisen which I am referring to
you for clarification.
On August 22, 1977 the Metropolitan Boston Air Pollution Control District
was approved by EPA to bum 2.2% sulfur fuel oil. At this time the MBAPCD
was classified non-attainment for TSP. Eastman Gelatin, Peabody, Mass, was
disapproved to burn the higher sulfur fuel for TSP concerns and is presently burning
1% sulfur fuel. Subsequently, the MBAPCD was reclassified to attainment
for TSP.
I am requesting a determination on whether or not a SIP relaxation for SO2 for
allowing Eastman Gelatin to burn 2.2% sulfur fuel oil would consume increment
according to the definition of "baseline concentration" In Section 52.21 (#(11).
I would appreciate a response within two weeks of receipt of this memo. A tele-
phone call to Margaret McDonough (FTS 223-4448) of my staff would be sufficient.
EPA Pw» 1320-4 (R*«. 1.76)
-------
oi. 45. No. 42 / Fndav. Februar/ 29. 1980 / Rules and Sssulations
13455
'31 CFS'Part 1
'seiosure of Records; Exempt '
stem ' - ••
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Sen-ice.
Department of :ne Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule. - " '" .-:'—•'•• .
SUMMARY: Tne Internal Revenue Service
system of records entitled "File of
Persons Making Threats of Force or i* /
Forcible Assaults" (26.005) is deleted
frocv the exempt system listing in 31 • •
CFF. 1.36. This system has been ;-., .' *
eliminated since it is being incorporated
into an existing automated system for
increased efficiency. (See 44 FR 52913.
September 11.1979.) '•"'•;• "-=•••••• -~
EFFECTIVE OATS February 29. I960.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. William E. Mulroy. Director. Internal
Security Division, Office of Assistant^ jj •
Commissioner (Inspection). Internal =ii.-".
Revenue Service. Washington. DC 20224*
(202) 566-1564. "'.TTtwsi V j?I-s'v "4**^"-?
SUPPLCMEHTARY INFORMATION: The** ' f'-';
canuneat period expired on October U.. *
1979. No comments were received. In "2
addition, approval has been obtained "' .
from the Office of Management and "—.>:
Budget. Accordingly, the rule is effective
February29.1980: - .-L"."-•.:._ ";.
Oated: February 20.1980. ."• i -T !s;'~«/'O __
25.1979 until July 23,1981. whigb had <•>' may be applied by the State to all > tits:
been adopted by the Environmental '•;*•'.- (i) b.3 Ibs per MM BTU. or (2) 02 Ilia, per
Regulation Commission. This variance
allows .the Flonda Power and Light
Company (FP&L) to continue cenain
operations during the current low-sulfur
'oil '*""*-fp-*"i-i r?*"""'k*'
nutt« "Pnoosal notice and is approving the - j „
obtain a suffiaent supply of low-sulfur ^-_revisioo exapH'orjhe following areas: '.;
fuel oU due in part to the* decreased ••'" ' '•' The TSP lisuts for the Turkey Point and •'.:''•
availability of crude and the " •• -TT". .7* Pan Everglade* plant* would allow FP&L to '"
disappearance of "spot market'' low- ~'-'- "• burn ht^ier *ulhir hieL thereby violating the
- ^— "-sulfur dioxide CU*» I increnents in the ' *~~
aritia: Variance for Partlcuiates. SO*
siaie Emissions anc- Excess
-:ii:ons lor FlcriCa Power & Licnt
ncratmg Plants
• •
CNCV: cr.viror.mer.ul Protection
mcy. -• ' „.• ^'
•IOK: Final rule. .'•-•*•• •••-
T: On August 31. 1979. the State
•r.sa suammed to EPA. as a SIP
;r.. a temporary variance from Julv
sulfur oil supplies. Consequently.TP&L
• petitioned and received emergency.relief
under Section llO(f) of the Qean Air Act
(CAA). The relief granted under Section '
110(f) is limited in time and therefore the
need for a longer period of relief has •
arisen. On August 28.1979. the Flonda
Department of Environmental -' "
Regulation issued a variance which -:'.
relaxes the current oaniculai-Jimits of
0.1 Ibs per MM d ru anc ^i^ opacity.
Under the variance Cape Canaveral i &
2. For; Myers 1 & 2. Manatee 1 & 1 and
Sanford 3.4. and 5 may emit 0.3 Ibs. per
MM BTU. and Port Eversiades L 2.3.
and 4. Riviera 3 & 4. and Turkey Point \
& 2 may emit 0.4 Ibs. per MM BTU. fS*
Opaaty limits for all units are relaxed to
405. Additionally, the variance
stipulates that if fuel oil with asphaltene*.
content of less than or equal to 9% by
weight is burned, the following limits '
Everglades National Park. fThe alternate [~ '*
Qasi I PSD tnerenents for suUur dioxide n ~.J
were used in the control strategy to « ' \.
•ecoauaodaie emuiions from the Turkey Ij " -'
Point and Port Everglades plants.) ._•;-._"
' EPA received comments from four "~ -
commenten on the proposal notice. ••-•
Taree of the commenien supported *.l
EPA's position to disapprove the "."y,
vananceJta it applied to the Turkey '; ~
Point and Port Everglades plants. The
fourth coruiemer fa law first stb^.-.'.ur.;
comments in behalf of the:: client FPiLj
urged EPA to reconsider its proposed .
action and approve the SIP revision as
submitted. The cammenis of that fira.
are stated as those of FP&L and are as
follows: " . "'." ' •
FP&L stated that low sulfur oil has
became more scarce and there is little
prosoeci of sufficient Ions-tern suoaiy
oeconung avaiiaoie. Next. FF&L coes
-------
13433 Feaerai Register / Voi. 45. No. 42 / Friday. Fssruary 19. 1950 / Rules and Regulator.;
not contest modelling results showing '•-
thai the variance would allow the Class
I PSD increments for sulfur dioxide to be
exceeded m the Everglades National •-
Park area. However. FP&L contends that
under Section IGS(d) of the Clean Air -
Act and 40 CFR 52Jl(q). EPA may (and
should] grant the alternative QMS I .'• "
increments if the Federal Land Manager
certifies essentially that air quality • '.
related values in the Everglades would
not be affected. FP&L asserts thai - «'
Section 16S(d) potentially applies ' * ••>
because a fuel switch (to a higher sulfur
content oil) is a "modification" even •- -•
though it is exempt from being a "major
modification" under EPA regulations. .•-
FP&L argues that since Alabama Power
v. Costle. F. 2d . (O.C. Or. No.
7&-1006. dec December 14.1979) held ' •
that the PSD baseline should be set from
the gate of the first PSD permit • ICJT**I?
application in the area. EPA should wait
until Florida establishes the areas for '-.
Alabama Power. EPA should wait until
Florida establishes the "area" for setting
baselines, since the two FP&L plants are
not within the "area of significant .'. :
impact" of a nearby source which has •••
already filed for (and received) its PSD
permit. The Alabama Power case did .
' not mention this "area of significant ..:>
impact" test for setting the baseline, .»j
Since such a test is not mandated by .-.j
that case and is not in present EPA • -ij -
regulations or guidance, this argument is
rejected. ~f.^ .*'- •<•-..•-.•»>• asr.^-.v.-*.
.•. The final assertion of this comnienter ^
is that EPA should obtain more sulfur V
"Part 52 of Chapter!
Federal Regulations, is amended as "^ ^.':
follows: • • ;'• -'•"""—''"' •'-^;--i ;-'"^*-A'.
Subpart K—Florida "f'.V.jCr.V"4''!''?^!.'!1? ~
..1. In § 51510. paragraph (cj is ?.-.<;-•*-. •;
amended by adding subparagraph (19) • •'
as follows: ;:_.aa.=s:2-;«T;."3.tj.-::_'f'*:3-.'--.7
}S3JS33 Identification ol plan. ','-'t^.:J^7
: (c) The plan revisions listed below' j|:'--'*
..were submitted on the dates specified. ^.:'
i (19)"August 31.'i979, submitul of'. V .''^
variance granted to FP&L f
emissions of particulates." i
, and visible emissions. This '
dioxide ambient air monitoring data for ^
this area before deciding whether to - •- •
r '-.i- disapprove the variance for'the two '?-:^?**™">" ?"?*?l°?-'~ vaT!
setting baselines. 'i-r'is.-r.-K^esop.-r. named FP&L plants. This is because "of'" >*9 eflectfiromJuly 25.1979. to Jul
.' This is because FP&l'contends that * 7. .imperfect predictive modelling and '. ;>\**19"l™_. y"*066 ™f T"*-, - -^_.
the Port Everglades and Turkey Point --i imperfect correlation of sulfur dioxide ' * and PortEvergiades are disapproved ,,.
plants are not within the "area of • -V.s ' and particulate emissions from use of a "wnUe renaming portions areapprov«:.? ^.
significant impact" from a nearby source higher sulfur content fuel Since FP&L •— I™ "•* •••««•* *^»«*« "«L,' ' " "•
for which a PSD application has ".'• •!. " has no objection to the quality of •. ~- r •
previously been filed. Finally. FP&L"''r*f-j predictive modelling for those plants ! >'
asserts that predictive modelling is : -" where the results an favorable to FP&L
imperfect and there is not a perfect -"v-^ EPA sees no reason for FP&L.'s concern o
correlation between increased sulfur;-*^. on the same modelling-which produced.
dioxide emissions and increased :=>-*•- " 'unfavorable results (Port Everglades an'd
particulate emissions from use of a".--"" ". Turkey Point). Second, if there were an
higher sulfur content oiL Therefore.' -";?"•:.-" insufficient correlation (in FP&L's view)
FP&L urges EPA to require additional*'"-* -. between sulfur dioxide and particulate n ' •Archaeological Resources —'
monitoring of ambient air sulfur dioxide^ •• emissions from higher sulfur oil* there ' '-^- &y_. -^.-,-.-—..-.- r . "*"*'
DEPAR17JIENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of the Secretary ••rr^ii'-'rh:^
supply of such oil for the Port •* U':'--F"' £ [SIP revision does not involve the .-.-{•.•It'J • :correg.page attmoer. ff-^rjgr^ta^lf
Everglades and Turkey Point plants and ""permitting of a major new-source orT:..TT!'''«iuji«6 COOI'UIMI-M '^-~~^-£r*i&£rii~!£s
all other plants in its system if the ' ". 'major modification, the alternative -:~;- ' -^^^^-^^-^^^^^^ "' "—""•"
vanance is disapproved for only the two Class I increments cannot be used. .,^.w..r' . •• .- • _•••--.-:•-!
named nlanta. Second, it n EPA's_ ', Therefore the air quality impact of the .. 'FEDERAL EMERGENCY ^=s
position th
proposed motor emitting lacuiTTrSee
both the Port Everglades and Turkey
Point plant are already in existence and
the only change contemplated is a
switch in the sulfur content of fuel used.
they are not "proposed" facilities. '
Additionally, the fuel switch is neither a
"modification" nor a "major '" "
modification". This is because the only
arguable manner in which it could "'
qualify as a "modification" is as a
"change in the method of operation".
See C«an Air Act Sec. :il(al(-»!.
However, since FPSL has asserted that
pr.or to :srz. both plants were capaoie
SIP revision must not violate the
standard Class 1 increments. Since the -
limits on allowable sulfur dioxide
emissions for the Turkey Point and Port •
^Everglades plants would not be violated
even by the higher sulfur oil projected in
the vanance, it is evident that the
current SO, emission limits applicable to
these plants are not adeouate to protect
the Cass I increments. Therefore, the -.
Slate rausl initiate action to revise the
SOi emission limits for these two plants
to protect the Class I increments and .
submit the new limits as a SIP revisions.
EPA is aoprovmg the Florida revision
exccst for the portions affected by the "^
deficiencies lust described: the latter
portions are disapproved. ;. i
•MANAGEMENT AGENCY .. i :i -^ , j
S". -..••»»• i -^, .';..;•...;?.. »r
Federal Insurance Administration "--^-i
44 CFR Part 55 /
- ""'**•
Statewide "FAIR Plans" '
"
C*-.:r;
•'•*-""-
^
"
AGENCY: Federal Insurance
Administration. Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMAJ.
_. . , . - '
ACTION; Final ruie. •
_
i. a i3/ii*
SUMMARY: The purpose of this " .. *^.-| '
amendment is to revise the Regulatiorj ."
concerning operation ::' Statewide F>J?
Plans under the Urban Prooerty . -:ji~
Pratecnon and Reinsurance Ac: of 1968.-
On Novemoer 6. 1973. me Feaerai
-------
6.7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON DC 20460
t.',AR 5 1S50
Office of
Enforcement
Mr. Robert L. Davies
Assistant Administrator
Office of Fuels Conversion
Economic Regulatory Administration
Department of Energy
Washington, D.C. 20461
Dear Mr. Davies:
Jeffrey Miller has asked that I respond to your letter of
December 10, 1979, in which you requested an advisory opinion
regarding the applicability of the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) regulations to the Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company's (BG&E) Brandon Shores Station. In this letter I will
discuss the general applicability of the existing PSD regulations,
promulgated June 19, 1978 (40 CFR 52.21 (1978)), and the amend-
ments proposed September 5, 1979 (44 Federal Register 51924). In
addition, I will address the three specific questions raised in
your December 10 letter.
Background - On May 16, 1973, the Maryland Public Service
Commission (PSC) issued BG&E a Certificate of Public Convenience
and Necessity to construct two 600 MW generating units at Brandon
Shores in Ann Arundel County, Maryland. Construction on the units
commenced prior to issuance of the' original PSD regulations
(December 5, 1974). Although BG&E had originally planned to fire
oil in the two units, DOE is contemplating issuance of a
Prohibition Order which would require BG&E to burn coal. The two
Brandon Shores Units were originally scheduled to begin operation
in 1977 and 1978 but a change in load requirements has now caused
BG&E to delay that schedule. Startup is currently projected for
1984 and 1988.
General Applicability of PSD
Because construction coranenced prior to issuance of the
December 5, 1974 PSD regulations, both units were "grandfathered"
from PSD preconstruction review. In order to maintain this
grandfather status, construction of both units must proceed in a
continuous fashion, and construction must be completed within a
-------
2.
reasonable time. "Continuous construction" has been determined by
EPA to mean a construction operation in which no breaks of greater
than 18 months occur. At this point, Mr. Bernard Turlinski, the
Regional Energy Coordinator for EPA Region 3, has determined that
construction at Brandon Shores has proceeded continuously.
However, with BG&E's delayed startup date, I am concerned that
construction may not proceed continuously for the next 4 to 8
years, and that .construction may not be completed within a
reasonable time. I would like to make it clear that failure of
BG&E to complete a continuous program of construction within a
reasonable time may subject the Brandon Shores Units to PSD
review.
In your memo you raised three specific questions which I will
address below. As requested, I have evaluated each question under
the June 19, 1978 regulations which are in effect at this time,
•and under the September 5, 1979 proposal which will be finalized-
in the near future.
(1) Q. - Has the PSD baseline been "triggered" in the air-
shed in which the Brandon Shores Generating Station is situated?
A. Under the existing PSD regulations, August 7, 1977
is the uniform baseline date for all PSD areas. Therefore, the
baseline has been triggered for. the Baltimore area and the Brandon
Shores Generating Station's increase in allowable emissions is
counted in the area's increment consumption.
Under the proposed regulations, the baseline is established
in a clean air area designated under CAA Section 107(a)(l)(d) or
(e) as of the date, after August 7, 1977, that the first permit
application by a proposed major source or modification (as defined
in the proposed regulations) is filed. In the PSD area in which
Brandon Shores is situated, a permit application for a major
source has been filed. Therefore,1* the baseline has been triggered
and the Brandon Shores Generating Station's emissions increase
will be counted as increment consumption.
(2) Q. - To what extent do the S02 emissions resulting
from burning coal at Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2 count towards
consumption of the applicable PSD increments?
A. - Hy response to this question ^.assumes that BG&E's
grandfather status is not invalidated by a /failure to complete a
continuous construction program within a reasonable time-frame.
Under both the existing regulations (June 19, 1978) and the
proposed regulations (September 5, 1979), the fuel switch will
consume the amount of increment modelled as the difference between
the maximum air quality impact allowed under the SIP on the
-------
3.
5.7
baseline date and the maximum air quality impact allowed under the
SI? at the time the units begin operation. The rule for determin-
ing the amount of increment consumed by a source is outlined on
page 26400 of the June 19, 1978, Federal Register. This rule was
r.cz amended in the September 5, 1979 proposal.
We have determined that BG&E's State permit allowed Brandon
Shores to burn coal on the baseline date under both the new and
the proposed regulations. This determination is based on/' 1) a
literal reading of the State permit which does not expressly limit
fuel use, even though BG&E's permit application indicated the
intent to burr, only oil, and 2) the absence of any claim by the
Maryland Public Service Commission that the permit intended to
limit Brandon Shores to oil usage by specifying an exit gas
temperature. Brandon Shores' allowable emissions limit as of the
baseline date should be calculated based on the burning of coal,
in compliance with the applicable NSPS, with a 700 foot high stack"
and an exit gas temperature of 600°F. The stack height and exit
gas temperature are requirements under the State permit.
It is my understanding that BG&E plans to obtain an amended
State-permit which will allow them to emit gases at a temperature
somewhat lower than 600°F. Such a change will lower the effective
stack height and will increase .the air quality impact, as well as
alter its point of maximum concentration. That change in air
quality impact, the difference .between burning coal with a 600°F
exit temperature, and burning .coal with a lower exit temperature
will consume the PSD increment.
(3) Q. - Since it does not appear that EPA has the responsi-
bility, in this instance, to conduct a preconstruction review,
what is the regulatory framework (Federal and/or State) for
•assessing the extent of PSD increment consumption?
A. - The answer to this question is the same, regardless
of whether we are operating under the existing or the proposed PSD
regulations.
The extent of Brandon Shores' increment impact will be
assessed by the next PSD applicant in the area unless the permit-
ting authority (currently EPA) conducts a periodic increment
assessment first. As part of its permit application, each PSD
source must demonstrate that it will not cause or contribute to
any increment violations. In order to do so, it must determine 1)
whether the baseline has been triggered, 2) how much increment was
consumed by major source growth before the baseline date, and 3]
how much increment has been consumed by major, minor, and area
source growth since the baseline date.
-------
N5?S
Based on the assumption that construction will be completed
within a reasonable tine, the Brandon Shores Units are subject
under Subpart D of 40 CFR, Part 60. However,'if BG&E fails to
complete construction within a reasonable time, the units may
become subject to the new Subpart Da (Standards of Performance for
Electric Utility Steam Generating Units). As in PSD, a NSPS
source can maintain its "commenced construction date" only if
construction is completed within a reasonable time.
In your letter you mentioned that BG&E plans to burn 1%
sulfur coal at Brandon Shores. If BG&E burns 1% coal without
using any emissions control equipment, it is certain that they
will not meet the NSPS SO? standard of 1.2 Ibs./mm Btu. (See 40
CFR Part 60, Subpart D (1978).) In fact, unless BG&E can obtain
coal with a sulfur content of .7% or less, they will probably need"
emission controls to meet Subpart D.
If you would like to discuss this further, feel free to call
me at 755-2977.
Sincerely yours,
0. Wilson
Deputy Assistant Administrator
for General Enforcement
cc: Bernie Turlinski, Region III
Steve Fergusen, DOE
Randy Roig, Hd. DEP
-------
6.7
Department of Energy
Washing. D.C. 20,6, DEC 1 0 1979
Mr. Jeffrey Miller
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Hail Stop EH 329
Room 1100
West Tower
Waterside Hall
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington! D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Miller,
.Pursuant to Section 301 (b) of the Powerplant and Industrial
Fuel Ose Act of 1978 (FDA), the Department of Energy's Economic
Regulatory Administration (ERA) issued a proposed Prohibition
Order on October 9, 1979, to prohibit Baltimore Gas and Electric
Company's (B3&C) Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2 from burning
petroleum or natural gas as their primary energy source. The
issuance of the proposed Prohibition Order was based on the
finding by ERA that these two units have or previously had
the technical capability to use an alternate fuel (coal) as
a primary energy source. ERA had previously determined that
the two units are existing pursuant to ERA'S Revised Interim
Rule to Permit Classification of Certain powerplants and
Installations as Existing Facilities.
Before issuing a final Prohibition Order, ERA must make the
findings (1) that these units have the technical capability
to use coal or another alternate fuel as a primary energy
source, or they could have such capability without (a) sub-
stantial physical modification of the units, (b) substantial
reduction in the rated capacity of the units; and (2) that it
is financially feasible for BG&E to use coal or another alternate
fuel as a primary energy source in these units. In addition,
to fulfill its requirements under the National Environmental
Policy Act, ERA will be preparing an Environmental Impact State-
ment (EIS) to analyze the environmental consequences of finalizing
the Prohibition Order as well as identify mitigative measures.
An important factor in ERA'S analyses is the applicability of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) regulations to
BGiE's Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2. The situation is clouded by
the uncertainty as to whether the proposed rules to amend tr.e PSD
regulations (44 F.R. 51924) apply in this particular case.
-------
- 2 -
By this letter, ERA is seeking an advisory opinion froir EPA
on the following questions:
(1) Has the PSD baseline been "triggered" in the airshed
in which the Brandon Shores Generating Station is situated'
To what extentrdo-j'tne S02 emissions resulting
from burning (IJ^ercent sulfur coal at Brandon
Shores Units land 2 count towards consumption of
the applicable PSD increments?
(3) Since it does not appear that EPA has the respons'i-.
bility, in this instance, to conduct a preconstruction
review, what is the regulatory framework (Federal and/or
State) for assessing the extent of PSD increment con-
sumption?
Your responses to each of these questions should be in two parts:
(1) assuming the existing PSD regulations apply, and (2) assuming
the September 5, 1979 proposed rules apply.
The following is a summary of pertinent background information
for your review and analysis.
On May 16, 1973 the Maryland Public Service Commission (PSC)
issued to BG&E a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity to construct a fossil-fueled steam-electric generating
station, consisting of two 600 MW (nominal) units, at Brandon
Shores near Hawkins Point in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
In its application to the PS6, BG&E stated that "...the plant
will consist of two oil-fired boilers which will supply steam
to two turbine driven electric generators."
The following passage also appears in BG&E's application: "The
plant will burn residual oil having a sulfur content which
will comply with the regulations of the State Department of
Health and Mental Hygiene. The plant will be designed, and
provisions will be made in the arrangement of the ecuipment,
so that adequate facilities for burning coal in the boilers
could be provided in the future. It 'is not planned to install
any facilities for handling, storing, or burning coal at this
time."
Clearing at the site began in June of 1973. Excavation for
Units 1 and 2 commenced in October and November of 1973,
respectively. Work on the foundations began in February and
April of 1974 for the two units. Boilers for Units 1 and 2
-------
o./
- 3 -
were delivered on-site in December, 1974 end February, 1975
respectively. The units were originally scheduled to be in
service in. 1977 and 1978. The latest indications are that
the two units will begin operation, on coal, in 1984 and 1988,
respectively.
The pollutant at issue is sulfur dioxide (£02). when the
powerplants were originally certified by the Maryland PSC,
New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) for oil-fired units
restricted SO2 emissions to 0.8 pounds per million ETU heat
input. At that time, tfie State of Maryland limited the
sulfur concent of fuel oil for powerplants in the Baltimore
Metropolitan Area to 0.5 percent by weight. The current • -•
sulfur-in-fuel limit for both oil and coal-fired powerplants
in the Baltimore area is 1.0 percent by weight. On and after
July 1, 1980, the sulfur content of residual fuel oil will be
limited to 0.5 percent by weight.
The Brandon Shores units have been classified as existing
under FDA. Subsequently they were issued a proposed prohibition
order which if finalized would prohibit the burning of oil and
gas as a primary source of energy. For that reason, they are
not subject to a preconstruction review under PSD/5ACT provision:
of the Clean Air Act, since use of an alternate fuel resulting
from a Prohibition Order under FUA is not considered to be a
•major modification" (40 C.F.R. 51.24 (b) (2) (iii) (a)}. Mr.
Bernard Turlinski, Regional Energy Coordinator for EFA Region
•III, has indicated that there has been a state of continuous
construction at the Brandon Shores site. Thus the most recent
NSPS, which mandates the installation of Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) to limit Sulfur dioxide emissions from fossil-
fuel steam electric generating stations (40 C.F.R. 52.21 (b)
(17)), does not apply.
What is not clear is whether the SO2 emissions when the two
units are burning coal are to be included in the baseline,
as defined in the PSD regulations, or count against the
consumption of PSD increments. BG&E contends that because
a proposed Prohibition Order has been issued, the emissions
when burning rn»] *r* aii*-«ma»i^ai iy -included in tfte baseline.
Members of your staff have indicated to us that the "allowable"
emissions at the time the baseline has been "triggered" are
included in the baseline and any emissions above and bevond
this count towards increment consumption. Your staff also
indicated that EPA would not be directly involved in any other
form of review of the facility, since the switch to coal can
be accomplished under the existing State Implementation Plan.
-------
- 4 -
Preliminary results from an air dispersion modeling analysis
conducted by the Maryland Power Plant Siting Program indicate
that the fntire' three-hour S02 PSD increment may be consumed
if the emissions from Brandon Shores Units 1 and 2, when ourning
1 percent sulfur coal, are not included in the baseline. The
situation would be exacerbated if additional powerplants at
other BG&E electric generating stations in the Baltimore area
are required to convert to coal as a result of Prohibition
Orders previously issued under the Energy Supply and Environmental
Coordination Act (ESECA). Two such powerplants, Units 1 and 2
of the Wagner Generating Station, are located less than one
mile from the Brandon Shores Generating Station. Thus the issue
of whether the emissions when Brandon Shores operates on coal
are part of the baseline or consume increment is relevant to
the question of whether flue gas desulfurization (FGD) may be
necessary to preserve the S02 increment if Brandon Shores Units
1 and 2 are required to convert to coal as a result of a perfected
FOA Prohibition Order.
DOE/ERA requests that EPA issue an advisory.'Opinion on the
foregoing inquiries. Your prompt attention" and-'*response is
requested in order that we may proceed on the correct course
with our regulatory analysis and EIS preparation. , . ^
Sincerely, .'X?
:: IH\ Pr<
L. Davies
Assistant.Administrator
Office of Fuels Conversion
Economic Regulatory Administration
cc: \Jf. Prothro - EPA, Enforcement
B. Turlinski - EPA, Region III
R. Roig - Maryland Department of Natural Resources
-------
'••v-u -J i ' > i . y, v* U i . wjr . . •„ . 1 1 i 1 1 1| u 1 1« .'.MiiwUlx.
Research Triangle Park, North' Caro1 ina 27/11
OATS ;.!AR • J •':-•: ^ 6 3
S-JOJECT Q'jpsticn from Otto Pearson (South Carolina
State Agency)
TO
Bill Beal ^
Plans Analysis Section
Files
On February 29, Otto Pearson called Tom Helms to ask a question
dealing with PSO baseline:
If a source burning 2.1 percent sulfur fuel in 1977 now switches to
3.5 percent sulfur fuel (the legal emission rate under the SIP), will
the increase in SO, emissions consume increment to be included in the
baseline? The source was constructed prior to 1975.
Warren Petars and I called him on March 6. Warren told him that
the increase would consume increment under the existing regulations.
(See 43 FR 26400 Par. 6.)
Under the proposed regulations (September 5, 1979), Warren told
Mr. Pearson that there would be no_ increment consumption if the change
was made before the baseline date had been established. If the fuel
switch occurred after the baseline date, however, there would be
increment consumption. (See 44 FR 51942.)
I also told Mr. Pearson that this was a preliminary Headquarters
opinion based on general information Mr. Pearson supplied. Any
specific situation should be referred to the Region IV office before we
would maka any final -decision.
"arm 1J20.4 IRtv. 3-?*)
-------
5.3
6.9 DATE: April 11. 1980
SUBJECT: Exemptions from PSD Permit Requirements for Coal
Conversions Resulting from DOE Prohibition Orders
FROM: Edwar? E< Rei'cni Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Howard R. Heim, Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD 104
CR: 4.12 [Hard Copy]; 13.3
-------
6.10
6.10
DATE:
SUBJECT':
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
2)
3)
CR:
February 9, 1981
Petitions for Review of PSD Regulations
Michael Trutna, Chief
New Source Review Section
All Regional New Source Review Contacts
Petitions for review of PSD regulations.
- Utility Air Regulatory Group Petition
1) Consideration is given to the increase in
actual emissions resulting from a fuel
switch and the resulting impact on increment
consumption.
The term "demolition" as applied to reduction
in capacity utilization and the corresponding
effect on increment consumption.
The definition of major modification
excludes any voluntary fuel switch at a
source deemed "capable of accommodating"
and compliance with certain other conditions.
4) Definition of term "significant" as
applied to de minimus emission levels
both for pollutants listed and those not listed.
5) A "minor" addition to a "minor" source
would contribute to the baseline
concentration if it occurred before the
applicable baseline date; however, it
would not trigger PSD review.
6) Section 52.21HH7) exempts any major
modification, which meets certain
conditions, from the air quality assessments
relating to Class II areas. A source may
claim more than one such exemption.
- America Petroleum Institute (API) Petition.
See (2) and (4) above.
- American Mining Congress (AMC) Petition
1) The treatment of fugitive emissions, with
regard to a source's designation as
"major" for PSD purposes, is further clarified.
4.14 [Hard Copy]; 13.4
-------
6.11
6.11
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
July 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Determinations
Thomas U. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see PSD/117).
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, therefore,
not a VOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattainment
area projected to be attainment (based on the
approved Part D SIP) before startup, is not
subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
obtained may still be deemed pertinent and useful
under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD area
and impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger baseline
and consume increment within each of the areas
under certain conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission point
could not escape PSD by considering previous
decreases which cause the net increase to be
less than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(1)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
increase of any pollutant unless the increase of
each pollutant~is less than 50 tons per year.
10) TnT"air quality de minimus level for MOe is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated in the
published version of the regulation.
2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 4.19; 5.10; 7.5; 10.23
-------
6.12
1 1182
KS. s. Kay
Shell Oil Coipany
QM Shall Plaza
P.O. BMC 240
Houston. Tens 77001
tear Us. nrtlllps:
la regard to your letter .of March 24, 1982* I hare reviewed the stack
"bright regulations and aceaopaioring preaanle language aad I have consulted
with oar Offles of General Counsel. ye concluded that the flares,
of the type you describe, are jut to be considered stacks under the
regulations. The word •Intermittent* 1n the preamble of the regulations
refers to the Intermittent release nature of flares due to process rate
fluctatlons and sot whether the flare nay be on line lateral ttaotly or
constantly.' Be agree that flares are designed primarily for the safe
release of potential beat 1n the exit gases and are not conduits for a
cofltrastloa process such as a boiler. Therefor*, any agftlent air quality
aodellng of criteria pollutants cowing froa a flare would be nodeled at
the actual release height.
X hope this letter clarifies oar position with regard to flares and
the definition of a stack. 1 hare notified, by copy of this letter, our
legions! Offices of ttois policy.
Sincerely yours.
Darryl B. Tyler
Acting Director
Control Program Oevelopaent 01rls1<
cc: CWef, A1r Branch, Regions I-Z (w/lncoerfog)
bee: T. Helms (w/1ncoBing)
i •
CPOO^ZB:PDS:BFolkoKsky:lo:I5540:rn510NauOurnan:(HD-15):V1/82
-------
6.13
6.13 DATE: May 5, 1982
SUBJECT: A.I. DuPont Institute PSD Permit
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: U. Ray Cunningham, Chief
Air Programs & Energy Branch, Region III
DISCUSSION: See PSD/135
CR: 11.5 [Hard Copy]; 10.25
-------
6.14
6.14 DATE: July 9, 1982
SUBJECT: Reactivation of Amerada Hess Corporation's Port
Reading Facility and PSD Review
FROM: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Conrad Simon, Director
Air & Waste Management Division, Region II
DISCUSSION: See PSD/136
CR: 3.21 [Hard Copy]
-------
•JNITSL .:ATES ENVIRONMENTAL .3C?CT=C". -/N AGENCY
DATE AIAY 3 1983 Region 10, Seattle, Wasnington
".CT Determination of A1r Quality Degradation /—. _
*
Alexandra 8. Sa1th, Director *-v «— ««- - f. •
Air and Waste Management Division, M/S 532 \
70 Sheldon Meyers, Director "'"""'•^-
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, ANR-443
In your February 17, 1983 memorandum concerning clarifications of the
Emissions Trading Policy, we were pleased to read a firm statement on the
policy for determining the amount of degradation of air quality for
source specific applications. UhJle you were speaking 1n the context of
the amount of degradation of air quality due to an emissions trade at a
source for comparison with significance levels, we noted that this 1s
directly applicable to determining PSD increment consumption. You said
that the method of finding maximum changes In air quality Impact must be
determined on both a spatially and temporally consistent basis. We
agree. The maximum amount of PSD Increment consumed must be determined
by modeling the net changes 1n emissions (between the baseline and future
cases) sequentially for each time period with at least a full year of
meteorological data. The resulting maximum Impacts of this type of
analysts specify the maximum amount of Increment consumption at each
receptor. This 1s the way we have performed Increment analysis In the
past and the way we will continue to perform 1t 1n the future.
We have been told by PSO sources 1n the past that this 1s not the proper
method of assessing the amount of Increment consumed. Instead they
suggest that the proper way 1s to first model the baseline emissions, and
determine the maximum baseline Impact at each receptor. The maximum
Increment consumption 1s then the difference between the maximum baseline
and the maximum future Impact at a given receptor, disregarding the fact
that these maximum Impacts may have occurred during different time
periods of the modeled year. This approach 1s spatially consistent, but
1t 1s not temporally consistent. Thus, 1t will not produce a true
measure of air quality degradation.
Although we have disagreed with applicants on this approach in the past,
we have not until now been able to point to clarifying guidance on the
Issues your memorandum of February 17 provides this guidance and will be
very helpful in future discussions on the Issue.
cc: Modeling Contacts (Regions 1-9)
Joe Tlkvart, QAQPS
ooe n xv arc, UAQPS
Director, A1r & Waste Management Division, Region 2-4, 6-3
Director, Air Management Division, Regions 1, 5, 9
EPA Fw» !!2»4 («••. ]>7ft)
-------
CIS
0. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA, GEORGIA
DATE: May 13, 1983
SUBJECT: PSD Increment Consumption Guidance
FROM: Chief, Air Management Branch
TO: Winston Smith
Dick Schutt
L/Oick DuBose
Roger Pfaff
Attached is a memo from the Region X A4JFMD Division Director to
Sheldon Meyers relating to a guidance document issued by Sheldon
oa February 17, 1983, and apparently relating to the manner in
wbch we determine PSD increment consumption. I am not sure I
fully understand the comments made by Alexandria Smith, but they
do appear to impact on questions which the states have been
raising in our region. I would appreciate your scheduling a
briefing to bring me up-to-date on this matter.
s T. Wilbura
Attachment
-------
' UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY a.\>
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JAK 2 0 224
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: PSD Increment Consumption Calculations
FROM: John R. O'Connor, Acting Director
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Thomas W. Devine, Director
Air and Waste Management Division, Region IV
Your November 13, 1983, memorandum proposes that spatial and temporal
calculation of PSD Increment consumption Is the appropriate methodology
to be used In the ambient analysis for the Alumax PSD permit. This
methodology Is used by Region IV as well as all States within Region IV
We also understand (memorandum from A. Smith to S. Meyers, dated May 3,
1983} that Region X is now implementing this method for all of their
PSD permit processing.
We agree that the spatial and temporal calculation of PSD increments
is appropriate not only for Alumax but for all cases where PSD increment
consumption calculations need to be made. This methodology is consistent
with the manner in which the total concentration is calculated for
comparison with ambient standards and is consistent with the method used
to calculate incremental concentrations for Level II emission trades
(memorandum from Sheldon Meyers to the Director, AWMD/AMD, Regions I-X,
dated February 17, 1983). This methodology is also consistent with our
interpretation of the Clean Air Act and definition of increment and
baseline concentrations in the PSD regulation.
If you have any questions concerning the use of this method for
tracking the use of PSD .increments or you are aware of any situations
where it results in a significant impact on a past decision, please
contact me or Dean Wilson of my staff.
Attachment
cc: Director, Air 4 Waste Management Division, Regions II, III, VI-YIII, X
Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, V, IX
Chief, Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X
Richard Rhoads
Sara Schneeberg
Mike Trutna
Darryl Tyler
bcc: Regional Modeling Contact, Regions I-X
B. Hogarth
-------
5.17
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV - ATLANTA, GEORGIA
DATE:
SUBJECT: Spatial and Temporal Calculation of Air Quality
Concentrations
FROM: Director, Air and Waste Management Division
TO: Dr. Bernie Steigervald, Director (KD-10)
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Environmental Protection Agency
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
SUMMARY
The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control has asked Region IV to provide additional guidance on
the calculation of PSD increment consumption. Alumax Corporation,
a large industrial source located near Charleston, South Carolina,
is concerned that the state is using a procedure for calculating
PSD increment that is not consistent with the procedure used by
other states.
The procedure used by Region IV, as well as all states within
Region IV, has been to calculate the increment on a spatially
and temporally consistent basis. This approval is supported by
guidance from Sheldon Meyers in a February 17, 1983, memorandum
to all regions regarding calculation of increment consumption in
the 'Emissions Trading Policy." It is also supported by EPA's
conditional approval of Florida's PSD rules now undergoing
final review by Headquarters.
Alumax believes that the increment need only be calculated on a
spatial basis and has pointed to a 1981 PSD permit for Alcoa
(now ARGO metals) granted by Region X. However, since tne
issuance of that permit, Region X has followed the spatial and
temporal-concept of increment consumption. Region X also has
written to OAQPS confirming that Region X will implement the
spatial and temporal procedure for PSD sources (May 3, 1983,
letter from Alexandra Smith to Sheldon Meyers).
-------
-2-
ACTION
Region IV will continue to insist that all increment consumption
be done on the basis of a spatially and temporally consistent
basis. Since South. Carolina has asked that EPA provide written
guidance in this area, we believe it is now necessary for OAQPS
to provide the regional offices with a confirmation that the
spatial and temporal calculation of air quality impact applies
not only to the 'Emissions Trading Policy,' but also to PSD
as well as any other air quality related modeling permitting.
BACKGROUND
Telephone call from the South Carolina Bureau of Air Quality
Control, October 11, 1983.
A./^«4
J«. Devine
' Enclosures (3)
cc: Dean Wilson (MD-14)
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Rob Wilson
Region X, Air Programs
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 2W60
JEStf SB*
om« or
Alt AND RADIATION
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Applicability of PSD Increments to Building
Rooftops
PROM: Jd|lt{$*A. Cannoi
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation
TO: Charles R. Jeter
Regional Administrator, Region 17
The following is in response to your letter of November 10,
1983, concerning issues which you felt required review for national
consistency relating to a new source review for an Alabama Power
facility in downtown Birmingham, Alabama.
On September 29; 1983, your office informed the State of
Alabama that~a new source's compliance with the PSD increments
must be measured on the tops of buildings, as well as at ground
level. Since then we have discussed the question extensively
among ourselves and with representatives of the State of Alabama
and the company. For the reasons that follow, I do not believe
we are in a position to definitively assert that. PSD increments
apply to rooftops without further information as to the conse-
quences for the PSD system as a whole. Accordingly, I recommend
that we inform Alabama that we do not now require that compliance
with PSD increments be measured at the tops of buildings. A
State may, of course, adopt such an approach if it so desires.
Between 1970 and 1983, it appears to have been general EPA
practice to determine compliance with both NAAQS and PSD increments
at ground level, not at roof level. On March 18, 1983, however,
Kathleen Bennett, in a letter to the State of New YorJc, determined
that the "national ambient air quality standards are designed to
protect the public health and welfare and apply to all ambient
air which does include the rooftops and balconies of buildings
accessible by the public.*
Z believe this conclusion was correct. Apartment balconies,
rooftop restaurants, and the like present a potential for human
exposure that the primary ambient air quality standards should be
interpreted to address.
-------
6.18
-2-
Given this conclusion, one could argue, based on the text
of the relevant regulations and the Clean Air Act, that the PSD
increments apply wherever the NAAOS apply, and that both must
apply throughout the "ambient air." However, the PSD system,
unlike the NAAOS system, does not aim at achieving one single
goal. Rather it represents a balance struck first by Congress
between a given level of protection against degradation and a
given potential for economic growth. It appears that the
calculations on which that balancing judgment was based all
assumed that PSD increments would be measured at ground level.
A number of state officials who are now administering PSD
have argued to me that by measuring PSD increments on rooftops
as well as at ground level, EPA would aaka the PSD system
appreciably more stringent than Congress contemplated. Although
major urban areas are all Class IX areas, this approach, it is
argued, could result in constraints on growth comparable to
those that apply in Class Z areas - national parks and wilderness
areas. Such an outcome would not, it is argued, be consistent
'with.-Congressional intent*.
Zn these circumstancesr Z think that preserving the status
quo is particularly advisable because?
• It is likely that Alabama did not contemplate adopting a
•rooftops* approach to PSD when it took over the PSD program.
That expectation-! though not decisive, "toes provide some reason
not to change the situation without formal rulemaking.
• The consequences of an erroneous decision to consider
increment consumption on rooftops will be more severe than those
of an erroneous decision not to consider them. The adoption of
such an approach will present at least £ procedural, and, probably
a substantive obstacle to development in urban areas, while in
its absence air quality will still be protected by the_NAAOS, by
the PSD increments applied at ground level, and by the~ot£e*r
aspects of PSD review such as Best Available Control Technology.
Therefore, Z have concluded that since the State of Alabama
has authority under an approved implementation plan for adminis-
tering the PSD program within Alabama, it is their responsibility
to apply this principle of maintaining the status quo to this
case, taking all the relevant facts into account.
Please advise the State of Alabama of the Agency's position
on these points as our response to the issues which they raised
in meetings with both of us*
-------
jc: A. Aim
P. Angell
T. Devine
G. Emison
w. pedersen
P. Wyckoff
S. Neiburg
-------
6.20
'= UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGc.MCY
x ^S^l J Office of ' ir Quality Planning and Standards
'-•-. „/ Research! .angle Park, North'Carolina 27711
JAN 2 9 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of the RevlsedJElodeling Guideline for Prevention of
Significant Deterioration
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler, Director
Control Programs Development Qlyfsion (MD-15)
TO: Director
A1r Division, Regions I-X
Section 165(e)(3)(D) of the Clean A1r Act (Act) requires the Administrator
to adopt regulations specifying with reasonable particularity models to be
used to comply with the Act's PSD requirements. To carry out these requirements,
the 1978 "Guideline on A1r Quality Models" was Incorporated by reference in
40 CFR 51.24 (now renumbered 51.166) and 40 CFR 52.21. Many States have
adopted this guideline In their PSD regulations.
On September 9. 1986 (51 FR 32176), EPA promulgated amendments to
40 CFR 51.24 (now renumbered 51.166) and 52.21 to substitute by reference the
"Guideline on A1r Quality Model.-. (Revised).* EPA 450/2-78-027R, in these
regulations. This change became effective October 9, 1986. This means that
•all Modeling done pursuant to the PSD requirements must either comply with
the 1986 version of the modeling guideline or be specifically approved by EPA;
modeling done pursuant to the 1978 guidance may no longer be accepted.
The PSD permits are reviewed by EPA, State, or local agency personnel
depending on whether and to whom EPA has transferred the PSD program. This
program transfer could take the form of: (1) a delegation where the State or
local authority agrees to act In the Administrator's place to apply the
requirements of 40 CFR 52.21 regulations to sources, or (2) a State implementa-
tion plan (SIP) where States have adopted their own PSD regulations which
comply wlth-40 CFR 51.166 (formerly 40 CFR 51.24). For the few areas of the
country where EPA has not transferred the PSD program, EPA applies 40 CFR
52.21 regulations to permit PSD sources. The mechanism of Implementing the
revised modeling guideline 1s different for each of these situations.
-------
5.20
Areas where EPA Has PSD Permitting Authority
(1) As of October 9, 1986, EPA should not Issue a PSD permit when a
model other than that contained In the revised guideline is used to comply
with the air quality Impact analysis. An exception is If EPA approval
was obtained for a specific case. The regional meteorologist should
carefully review all pending PSD permit applications to insure that
current modeling guidance has been used.
States with PSD Permitting Authority by Delegation
For both full and partial delegations, Regional Offices should
Initiate updating of the delegation by informing the relevant reviewing
authority that the revised modeling guideline has been promulgated in
40 CFR 52.21. The Region should then determine which type of delegation
agreement exists for each State and take one of the following actions:
(2) For State and local agencies which have a delegation agreement
that specifies exactly which version of 40 CFR 52.21 (e.g., January 1, 1986)
is to be used when processing PSD permits, the delegation agreement must
be amended to include the revised modeling guideline (e.g., as of October 9,
1986).
(3) For State and local agencies which have a delegation agreement
that requires incorporating all revisions to 40 CFR 52.21 into their PSD
permitting process, EPA should notify the State or local agencies that all
modeling done pursuant to the PSD regulations must comply with the revised
modeling guideline or must receive prior approval from EPA.
Regional Offices should publish a Federal Register notice announcing
which States have modified their delegation agreements to incorporate the
revised modeling guideline and which States have incorporated the revised
modeling guideline Into their PSO permitting process.
States-with PSD Permitting Authority by SIP
For States that have PSO permitting authority by SIP's, the Regions
should review the State and local regulations to determine whether the
existing regulations preclude the use of the revised modeling guideline
(e.g., rules which reference the 1978 guideline explicitly or incorporate
40 CFR 52.21 by reference *s of a date prior to September 9, 1986) or do
not explicitly preclude the use of the revised modeling guideline (e.g.,
a~general statement that restricts air quality modeling to EPA-approved
models). The State or local agency must then take one of the following
actions:
(4) State or local agencies with SIP's which preclude the use of the
revised guideline must revise their SIP to remove the reference to the
old modeling guideline and replace It with a reference to the revised
modeling guideline.
-------
6.20
(5) State and local agencies that do not explicitly preclude the use of
the revised modeling guideline can either revise their PSD regulation to
explicitly Include the revised modeling guideline or submit an enforceable
letter of commitment In lieu of a regulatory revision. This commitment
letter must mention that the generalized language now means that all PSD
permit applicants must use the revised guideline models or models otherwise
approved by EPA.
Obviously, all SIP revisions must be accomplished through the regular
Federal Register process. All letters of commitment must also be incorporated
by reference into the SIP. To conserve resources, Regional Offices can
process as direct final action SIP packages that contain only revisions aimed
at Implementing the revised modeling guideline.
Current SIP Processing
Even though EPA stated In the September 9, 1986, Federal Register that
the revised modeling guideline would become effective on October 9, 1986, the
Act gives States 9 months (until July 9, 1987) to make the necessary changes
1n their programs. To avoid disapproving the SIP revision, EPA should condi-
tionally approve SIP actions where the State has committed to: (a) revise
their regulations 1rt a timely manner, and (b) limit PSD modeling to analyses
which comply with the revised modeling guideline or models otherwise approved
for use by EPA. No PSD SIP will be approved unless It Incorporates the
revised modeling guideline.
Follow-up
If a State refuses to make the necessary regulatory changes or commitments,
EPA will withdraw permitting authority from the State for any source using a
nonguldellne model without prior EPA approval. The EPA will then promulgate
40 CFR 52.21 Into the SIP for such permits so that EPA retains permitting
authority for those permits. This, of course, requires full rulemaking
action 1n the Federal Register.
By the end of February 1987, please let Nancy Mayer know: (a) which
category (1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 above) applies to each of your States; (b) what
actions are planned to incorporate the new guideline into each State's PSD
programs; and (c) a schedule of when these actions will occur. Ms. Mayer may
be reached at:
FTS 629-5591
Mall Drop 15
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
-------
6.20
cc: NSR Contacts, Regions I-X
Chief, State Air Programs Branch
Region I
Chief, Technical Support Branch
Region I
Chief, Air Programs Branch
Regions II, III, IV, VI, VIII, IX, and X
Chief, Air and Radiation Branch
Region V
Chief, Air Branch
Region VII
N. Mayer
-------
6.20
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105
Ms. Betty-Jane Kirwan 10 JUL 1987
McLintock, Kirvan/ Benshoof, uuu
Rochefort 5 Weston
611 West Sixth Street
Suite 2100
Los Angeles/ California 90017
Dear Ms. Kirwan:
This is to confirm your discussions with EPA and respond
to your letter of April €, 1997 to Nancy Barney regarding ths
issues of speciation and permanence as they pertain to the
ARCO Seep emissions.
Federal regulations do not require speeiation beyond
the prohibition on the use of nonreaetive hydrocarbons as
credits for netting or offsetting reactive hydrocarbons.
However/ EPA regulations (40 CFR 51.165(a)(l)(vi)(E)(4) and
51.165(a)(3)(ii)(D)) do require reactivity and health and
welfare equivalency tests (an indirect form of speciation)
and it is the District's responsibility to weigh these issues
in their analysis.
EPA has received no evidence of ARCO's intent to ever
dismantle the containment device/ therefore/ we believe the
emission reductions achieved would be permanent. If/ however/
the containment device were dismantled or the effective
capture of the seep emissions reduced/ ARCO would have to
obtain additional reductions as may be required. As for the
question of ARCO's offset responsibilities if the seep naturally
stops emitting/ EPA reserves judgement at this time. Any
decision in this area would require consultation with EPA
Headquarters1 policy and legal staff.
As you are aware/ there are other issues regarding the
seop as well as other potential ARCO offsets which have not
yet been resolved. Nonetheless, I hope this information is
of use to you.
Sincerely/
Source Section
ce: Brian Shafritz, SBAPCD
Richard Grow, SLS
Gary McCutchen, OAQPS (MD-15)
-------
6.20
IN REPL* A-3-1
REFER TO NSO 2
Mr. William J. Dennison
Acting Director of Engineering
South Coast Air Quality Management District
9150 Flair Drive
El Monte, Ca. 91731
Dear Mr. Dennison:
EPA appreciates the opportunity to comment on the District's
draft Permit To Construct for the 1000 ton/day municipal waste
facility proposed by the Los Angeles County Sanitation District
at 4125 West Valley Boulevard, Pomona, California (Spadra
landfill).
EPA commends the applicant and the South Coast Air Quality
Management District for incorporating the following controls
and emission limits on this project:
* Thermal DeNOz technology and Selective Catalytic Reduc-
tion (SCR) for NOX
Dry scrubbing for SO2
Baghouse with Gore-Tex membrane bags for TSP
Catalytic oxidation for CO
Enclosed ash conveying and loadout system
Emission limits of 22ppmv HOX, 23 ppmv S02r 12 ppmv CO
(all at 3% 02 dry); PM less than 0.006 grain per set
(0.011 gr/dscf @ 3% 02* dry, incl. condensibles)
If you have additional information or wish to communicate
further with EPA on this project, please contact me or nave your
staff contact Janet Stromberg of our New Source Section at
(415) 974-8213.
Sincerely,
Wayne A. Blacfcard Chief
New Source Section
Air Management Division
cc: tttkir Resources Board Attn: Ray Menebroker
be: /EPA, OAQPS, MD-15 Attn: Gary McCutchen
i-2-2
A-3-3
-------
-~ o.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, Noah Carolina 27711
May 29, 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: yjlAMAP 6 DispeesionJIodeling with Building Wake Effects
FROM: bseph A. Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch (MO-14)
TO: Bruce P. Miller. Chief
Air Programs Branch, Region IV
In response to your request, the Model Clearinghouse has reviewed
Region IV s position with respect to modeling down wash for primary and
background sources. We also discussed this issue as part of the broader
problea of modeling background sources at the Regional /State Modelers
Workshop, May 12-15, 1987. The position of the Regional /State Modelers
was that all sources which are explicitly modeled should be modeled
according to current guidance, e.g. model for down wash if the stack is
lower than GEP. The Clearinghouse concurs with this consensus.
Considerable discussion took place at the Workshop on how to decide
which background (off-site) sources should be explicitly modeled in a
regulatory analysis. We found that it was difficult to establish any
more specific criteria for deciding which sources to model beyond those
general criteria already In the Guideline on Air Quality Models. The
Guideline (Section 9.2.3) essentially recommends limiting the number of
explicitly nodeled background sources to those sources expected to cause
a "significant concentration gradient" in the vicinity of the primary
source
-------
2
Specific answers to your four questions are as follows:
1. Should all such sources which may experience downwash be modeled
utilizing the downwash algorithm?
We agree with your position that primary sources should be modeled
for downwash if their stack(s) are below GEP.
2. Is it necessary to perform downwash analyses on off-site
sources when evaluating the impact of another source?
Based on the Workshop discussion we also agree with your position
that off-site sources, selected for modeling based on Regional Office
judgment, should be modeled for downwash. However, if an off-site source
is located outside of the receptor area selected by Regional Office
judgment for consideration, then only concentrations for the receptor
area need to be calculated.
3. If downwash is required, how should the States address the
expected region-wide impact?
It is our position, for SIP analyses, that all "incidental" problems
should be corrected as part of the SIP or SIP revision. This is because
the SIP is the basic tool defined by the Clean Air Act for ensuring that
standards/PSD increments are attained/maintained everywhere. The "region-
wide" problem you speak of may not be as serious as you envision if the
modeling guideline is followed in selecting the background sources and
the receptor area, as discussed above.
4. What experience with this problem has been noted by EPA during
PSD reviews?
Although we have not been made aware of any specific cases, we
understand that Region V has had some issues where incidental problems
from background sources were uncovered during a PSD analysis. Given the
PSD regulations and requirements we see no other alternative than to deal
with these problems when they come up. When an incidental problem Is
uncovered during the analysis to which the PSD source contributes
significantly, the problem should be corrected before the permit is
i ssued.
If you have any questions please contact me. If further discussion
is needed on Questions 3 or 4 it is best that you contact the Control
Programs Operation Branch (Tom Helms or Sharon Reinders).
cc: T. Helms
G. McCutchen
S. Reinders
R. Rhoads
0. Tyler
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
34S COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 303S3
MEMORANDUM
DXTE: £P» ? °.
SUBJECT: UNAMAP VI Dispersion Modeling With Building Wake Effects
FRCM: Bruce P. Miller, Oiief ^^^ f.
Air Programs Branch
TO: Joseph Tikvart, Chief
Source Receptor Analysis Branch
SDMMABY
The North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Connunity Development,
Division of Environmental Management (DEM), has provided us with an analysis
that shows that the ONAMAP VI version of the Industrial Source Complex
Model when used with the building wake effects option calculates exceedances
of the NAAQS for most small sources. The problem is compounded because
UNAMAP VI models now allow for source to receptor combinations of less than
100 meters.
The North Carolina DEM has asked that we respond to four questions dealing
with EPA modeling requirements. These questions are:
1. Should all such sources which may experience downwash be modeled utilizing
the downwash algorithm?
2. Is it necessary to perform downwash analysis on off-site sources
when evaluating the impact of another source?
3. If downwash is required, how should the states address the expected
region-wide impact?
4. What experience with this problem has been noted by EPA during PSD reviews?
The Region 17 position to question No. 1 is that any source with a stack less
than GEP is required to utilize the downwash algorithm if it is the primary
source undergoing review. Our position on question No. 2 is that those off-
site sources should also be modeled with the downwash algorithm if their
stacks are less than GEP and ftiesp sources are included in the refined
analysis* Our position on question No. 3 has been that when these off-site
sources are modeled with or without downwash and an exceedance of the NAAQS
is found, then the permitting agency must revise the SIP to bring those
sources into compliance. If the primary source is a PSD source and the
-------
-2-
impact at the receptor with the modeled exceedance is less than the signifi-
cant impact value, then the primary source can still be permitted and the
SIP revised independently of the permitting action. In the case where the
primary source is a SIP source, the SIP revision is placed on hold until
the modeled exceedance(s) are corrected.
In regard to question No. 4, we have not noted any problems to date in
Region IV where the PSD permit has been held up due to the impact of the
other sources with respect to the NAAQS. However, we expect that there
will be numerous problems with respect to both the NAAQS portion of the PSD
process and with the SIP review process if we routinely require a downwash
analysis for all off-site sources. The problem as we see it is twofold.
One, these smaller sources have never been modeled in the past; and two,
the modeling must be done at maximum allowable rates.
Host of these smaller sources operate at only 30-50 percent of the SIP
allowables, and in some cases the state permit is more stringent than the
SIP allowables. However, the permitting procedures to make the necessary
change in the SIP allowable emission rate can take up to two years to change,
thus placing an economic burden on the source requesting the SIP change.
As you can see, we are faced with some serious problems that cannot be
resolved without a fundamental change in our modeling and permitting pro-
cedures. Please provide us with your responses to our positions on the
four North Carolina questions and your recommendation on how to proceed
with a SIP approval where the source requesting the SIP change has little
or no impart on modeled exceedances created by other sources.
We understand that the issue of off-site sources will be addressed at the
Kay Regional Meteorologist meeting. However, we need to resolve as soon as
possible the issue of how to process a SIP change which uncovers modeled
violations unrelated to but within the impact area of sources whose emission
Imitations would be relaxed by the SZP change.
Please provide us with a response to the modeling issues identified by May 22,
1987, if possible.
Enclosures: North Carolina letter and modeling printout
cc: .Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-HI and V-X, w/letter
-------
7. PSD
Ambient Monitoring/Analysis
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 7'2
i'.e;-.iun IV, ijurvcill.incu .iiul Analysis Division, College Station Rd. , Athens, T»i.*/ J0f>05
"
.
/*•.•
OAre 4UL-6I979
CT Environmental Protection Agency Quality Assurance Policy Statement
FHOM James H. Finger, Director ^ ^y.i-t;x,'i:
Surveillance and Analysis Division
TO Division Directors and Office Chia£s\
UAJ \v- : •;
THRU: John C. White, Regional Administrator l •-., • ••
Region IV * li' H'" ' ' i u
y Uii* —.. 7 it
SUMMARY VC'~
Responsibility for the Regional Quality Assurance Programs is within the
Surveillance and Analysis Division where it has been for several years.
A lot has been accomplished in select areas, but many areas are sadly
lacking at present. Mr. Costle recognizes the need for uniform quality
assurance activities, agency-wide, in all monitoring activities which
he has expressed in the attached EPA Quality Assurance Policy Statement.
Of particular interest, the policy statement has defined monitoring "as
all environmentally related measurements which are funded by the EPA or
which generate data mandated by the EPA." This includes not only the
activities performed by EPA personnel, Federally funded State and local
agencies, and private industries, but also their contractors.
tie recognize this is a monumental task and there are a lot of obstacles
to be overcome, but most of what we have already accomplished has been
done.with limited or no guidance or regulations. Mr. Costle is very
serious about this policy being implemented agency-wide. We are very
serious about fulfilling our responsibilities within Region IV to ensure
that any decisions made or enforcement actions taken are based on scien-
tifically valid and defensible data of known accuracy and precision.
Because of the way Region IV is organized, your full cooperation is
essential to the effective implementation of the agency's quality assur-
ance policy.
Wade Knight has been designated as the Regional Analytical Quality Con-
trol Coordinator for water. Doyle I. Brittain has been designated as
the Regional Analytical Quality Control Coordinator for air. From time
to time these persons will need to work witli you or members of your
staff concerning quality assurance.
In the future all- grants and contracts and EPA mandated industry monitor-
ing will have to contain standard language on quality assurance. To
ensure effective implementation of a region-wide quality assurance pro-
gram ve request that:
1170-4 («••- J-7
-------
-2-
you notify us in advance of all meetings which will result,,
In monitc
provide copies of all draft monitoring project proposals,
id contract applications to us for rei
' '
• you provide copies of all draft monitoring reports to us for
review.
ACTION
I request that you notify members of your staff of this new policy and
that you provide us with your full support.
BACKGROUND
May 30, 1979 memo from Douglas M. Costle to Regional Administrators.
Subject: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Quality Assurance
Policy Statement
James H. Finger
Attachment
ee: Jin Wilburn
Tommle Gibbs
Winston Smith
Doyle T. Brit tain
Jim SUva
Bobby Carroll
Wade Knight
Mike Carter
Lee Tcbo
John Hasan
John Marlar
Jim Patrick
Jim Scarborough
Roy Clarice
Ralph Jennings
Lee Tebo
Gary Hutchinson
George Uarlow
-------
QUALITY ASSURANCE POLICY STATEMENT ?'2
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
JANUARY 24, 1979
PREFACE
Under present Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) order the Office
of Research and Development (ORO) 1s responsible for the development of
Agency-wide quality assurance programs. Current activities Include:
Evaluation and standardization of total measurement systems — sampling,
analysis, data collection and presentation; preparation of quality assurance
criteria, guidelines and manuals; preparation and distribution of reference
samples and materials; interlaboratory testing of systems' and operator
performance; on-site inspection of laboratories and performance audits;
data audits and development of statistical methodology; and quality
assurance assistance and participation in training programs. These
activities comprise the current quality assurance effort which, on a
voluntary basis, support EPA, State, and other monitoring programs.
Agency policy will now require participation in an Agency-wide
quality assurance program by alj. Regional Offices, Program Offices,
EPA Laboratories, and those monitoring and measurement efforts supported
or mandated through contracts, regulation or other formalized agreements.
This requirement includes quality assurance programs for the States which
will be cooperatively developed with them and implemented through the
Regional Offices. The ORD is delegated primary responsibility for
developing the national quality assurance program and directing and
coordinating its Implementation.
-------
Introduction
The EPA operates under the legislative authority of various
Congressional Acts which mandate the responsibilities the Agency
must fulfill in order to protect and enhance the Nation's environment.
In accordance with this mission, the Agency establishes and
oversees the attainment of standards for environmental quality
which protect public health and welfare. This effort requires
extensive research and monitoring for the systematic collection
and evaluation of physical, chemical, biological, and other data
related to pollution effects, sources, transport, and control.
These data must be scientifically valid, defensible, and of known
precision and accuracy -- this is. the goal of the Agency's quality
assurance program.
This document presents the basic management requirements and
a bn'ef description of organizational responsibilities.
-------
7.2
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
"• _,tix" WASHINGTON. D.C. 2CU60
HAY 3 01979 ^"
THE
MEMORANDUM
70: Deputy Administrator
Director, Science Advisory Board
Director, Office of Regional and Intergovernmental Operations
Regional Administrators
Assistant Administrators
General Counsel
SUBJECT: Environmental Protection Agency {EPA} Quality Assurance
Policy Statement
The EPA must have a comprehensive quality assurance effort to
provide for the generation, storage, and use of environmental data which
are of known quality. Reliable data must be available to answer
questions concerning environmental quality and pollution abatement
and control measures. This can be done only through rigorous -
adherence to established quality assurance techniques and practices.
Therefore, I am making participation in the quality assurance effort
mandatory for all EPA supported or required monitoring activities..
An Agency quality assurance policy statement is attached which
gives general descriptions of program responsibilities and basic
management requirements. Far the purpose of this policy statement,
monitoring is defined as all environmentally related measurements
which are funded by the EPTor which generate data mandated by the EPA.
A detailed implementation plan for a total Agency quality
assurance program is being developed for issuance at a later date.
A Select Committee for Monitoring, chaired by Dr. Richard Dowd, is
coordinating this effort, and he will be contacting you directly
for your participation and support. I know that eacb^of you shares
my concern about the need to improve our monitorjftg programs and/
data; therefore, I know that you will take the/necessar* actions/ ^**
that will ensure the success of this effort./ ' * ' r
p %i^» »^^^^%
Jas ^ Castle
Attachment
-------
7.2
Management Requirements and
Organizational Responsibilities
T'-v? quality assurance program will be centrally directed and
wi r ':» -:--y:.i7anted by the organizational elements that it encompasses.
The " 7. li-jr. Cation of the quality assurance program has two primary
rec::isi£?s. First, the program must be given direct attention by top
mar.:..;--".-,-,t so that it is implemented as policy on an Agency-wide basis.
Sec:-•••*, tJ:e program must have sufficient resources and authority to
support \ national program effort.
."inacament Requirements. The quality assurance program will
be ccrcpulscry for all Agency-supported or required environmentally
reU?*J monitoring and measurements which generate data for EPA use.
Each T.cnitoring effort initiated by any office must have as part
of-its program acceptable quality assurance. Its acceptability will
be -!.-torsi .i*d by consistency with specific criteria developed by
a c«-rr377y planned, directed, and coordinated quality assurance
progr.im. Program implementation will make optimum use of existing
Agency resources and expertise, and provide for the least disruption
of c.'ijoing activities. The program will extend outside the EPA,
bof- -:-i its structure and in its responsibility to provide services.
Organizational Responsibilities. A brief description of organizational
res; edibilities is given below. A more detailed explanation of
fun.-v>.nS -ivJ responsibilities will be included in an Agency-wide
implswentation plan.
3
-------
Office of Research ana Development 'PRO). The ORC .till
be the focal point for quality assurance policy and will be
responsible for: The development of guidelines and criteria;
the coordination and direction of the implementation of the
Agency program; review, evaluation, and approval of program
quality assurance plans and activities, including those stipulated
in regulations; and annual, or more frequent, reports to the
Administrator on the program progress and efficacy.
Program Offices. The Program Offices will be responsible
for implementing the quality assurance plans covering all monitoring
and measurement activities within their purview and for ensuring
that intra and extramural monitoring programs are consistent
with Agency policies and guidelines. For the purpose of this
policy, the ORO is considered a Program Office and this responsibility
includes the monitoring and measurement efforts of the ORD research
laboratones and their contractors,
Regional Offices. Regional Administrators will be responsible
for the implementation and coordination of the mandatory quality
assurance activities within their regions. This responsibility
also includes external monitoring and measurement activities
of States, local agencies, and others covered by the Agency
quality assurance plan.
Quality Assurance Advisory Committee. As soon as practicable
an advisory committee will be formed to ensure proper coordination
-------
7.2
of the national quality assurance effort. The committee will
have representatives from the Program Offices, staff offices,
Regional offices, and the States and will serve as an advisory
group for the development of quality assurance policy. This
committee will be chaired and administratively supported by the ORO.
Mechanism for Appealing Quality Assurance Decisions. • Responsibility
for the resolution of issues pertaining to the approval of quality
assurance plans of activities will be at the lowest level of authority
consistent with the scope of the monitoring or measurement effort.
The ORO unit with responsibility for quality assurance will refer
national, Interprcgram, unacceptable plans and other unresolved issues
to the Assistant Administrator for Research and Development for
decision after consultation with the appropriate Assistant Administrator
or Regional Administrator.
-------
Ms. Slum (A-*01)
Mr. Hausshardt (A-101)
Dr. Oowd (A-101)
Mr. Roush (A-101)
Ms. Bernstein (A-130)
Mr. Drayton, Jr. (PM-208)
Mr. Duming (EM-329)
Mr. Jorling (WH-556)
Mr. Hawkins (AW-443)
Or. Gage (RD-672)
Mr. Trakowski (RD-680)
Mr. Jellinek (TS-788)
Regions I-X
Work Group:
C. Brunot (RD-680)
J. Clements (EMSL-RTP)
U. Cox (OANR/OAQPS)
B. Fair!ess (Region VII)
C. Hendricks (UK-550)
S. Hiemstra (PM-222)
A. Jarvis (EMSL-LV)
J. Melone (PM-223)
B. Nussbaum (EN-340)
W. Oldaker (Region I)
0. Olson (EM-338)
J. Pawlow (WH-553)
J. Rasnic (EN-341)
C. Ross (Region V)
T. Stanley (RO-680)
S. Wastler (TS-793)
J. Winter (EMSL-CI)
Steering Committee:
J. Finger (Region IV)
M. Halper (TS-793)
F. Leutner (WH-553)
D. Lyons (EN-338)
M.'Mlay (PM-222)
W. Sayers (RO-682)
R. Smith (AfJR-443)
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 7.4
jf-:ca of Air Qua!:*/ Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
PSD Significance Levels for Monitori
Darryl D. Tyler, Acting Director
Control Programs Development Division j>fl3-15)
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Regions I - X
The August 7, 1980, PSD promulgation introduced significance levels
of projected ambient impacts for the purpose of determining whether
a proposed source or modification would be eligible for an exemption
from the requirement for ambient monitoring. 40 CFR 51.24(i)(8) and
52.21(i)(3). Typographical errors and miscalculations caused the numbers
for either concentration or averaging time printed in the August 7,
1980, document to be incorrect for four pollutants. Those nollutants
are nitrogen dioxide, lead, beryllium, and hydrogen sulfitie.
Attached is a copy of Table A-2 from Amoient Monitorino Guide-lines
for Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) (EPA-45074-80-012.
Nov. 1980, revised Feb. 1981).In case tnese revisions have not yet
come to your attention, please note that the table contains the correct
values and suoersedes earlier documents. We expect these values to be
the subject of future technical and conforming amendments, to appear in
the Federal Register. Should you have any further questions on this
topic, you may contact Michael Trutna at FTS 629-5591.
Attacnment
-.ft. tmm i:jO-* (ft
-------
7.4
TABLE A-2. SIGNIFICANT MONITORING CONCENTRATIONS
Pol1utant
Air Quality Concentration (ug/m3}
and Averaging Time
Carbon monoxide
Nitrogen dioxide
Sulfur dioxide
Total suspended participates
Ozone
Lead
Asbestos
Beryllium
Mercury
i Vinyl chloride
i
Fluorides
Sulfuric acid mist
Total reduced sulfur (including
Reduced sulfur (including
i
Hydrogen sulfide
575 (8-hour)
14 (annual)d
13 (24-hour)
10 (2^-hour)
a
0.1 (3-monthJd
b
0.001 (24-hour)e
0.25 (24-hour)
15 (24-hour)
0.25 (24-hour)
b
c
c
0.2 (l-hour)e
aNo specific air quality concantration for ozone is prescribe*]. Exemptions
are granted wnen a source's VOC emissions are <100 tons/year.
No acceptable monitoring techniques available at this time. Therefore,
monitoring is not required until acceptable techniques are available.
cNo acceptable monitoring techniques available at this time. However,
techniques are expected to be available shortly.
Th'e averaging times are corrected to be consistent with the averaging time
of the standard.
C7hese concentrations are corrected from the arevious srintins inc are
• approximately-five nmes the minimum detectable concentrations. T.nese
concentrations are consistent wit.u. r.t.u.er values '." tr.-.s tss'e.
i-6
-------
7.5
7.5
DATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
DISCUSSION:
CR:
July 31, 1981
Summary of PSD Policy Detenninations
Thomas VI. Devine
Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Region IV
All State/Local Directors
Region IV
Summary of PSD policy determinations during the period
from February 5, 1981 to July 15, 1981:
1) Is a source reactivation subject to PSD (see PSD/117)
2) The complete list of organic compounds not
considered photochemically reactive and, therefore,
not a VOC for purposes of PSD is detailed.
3) Construction of a major source in a nonattainment
area projected to be attainment (based on the
approved Part D SIP) before startup, is not
subject to PSD or Part D requirements.
4) . Determination of modeling baseline air quality
levels for 3-hour and 24-hour averages is discussed.
5) If an ambient monitor has been shut down, data
obtained may still be deemed pertinent and useful
under certain conditions.
6) A minor source which locates within a PSD area
.and Impacts a nearby PSD area may trigger baseline
and consume Increment within each of the areas
under certain conditions.
7) A minor source which adds a major emission point
could not escape PSD by considering previous
decreases which cause the net increase to be
less than the major source threshold.
8) An existing source may change its designation
from major to minor by accepting a Federally
enforceable limitation.
9) The 50 tons per year exemption under 40 CFR
52.21(1)(7) cannot be claimed for an emission
Increase of any pollutant unless the increase of
each pol1utant"is less than 50 tons per year.
10) TnT~air quality de minimus level for MOe is
14 g/m3 annual average, as stated i n the
published version of the regulation.
2.18 [Hard Copy]; 3.19; 4.19; 5.10; 6.11; 10.23
-------
7.6
'-, i*. Ai, 5
7 UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
iv.
Jft»,
J43 COUHTkANO S
REF: 4AW-AM ~ N 19 1984
Mr. W. Pin Johnson, Chief ,
Air Quality Section AIR QUAL17*
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Oept. of Natural Resources &
Community Development
P.O. Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Johnson:
During February 29 - March 1, 1984, this office conducted a PSD
Workshop for all Region IV states. During the workshop, a
question arose concerning the use of the significance levels for
air quality impact as outlined in Section -III .A. of 40 CFR 51,
Appendix S. The point was made that the significance levels could
be used in determining whether a new source impacts an existing
National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) or increment viola-
tion, but seemingly could not be used in cases where the impact
of the new source is the first incremental impact which carries
the total air quality above the increment or standard.
After a thorough review of the PSD and new source review regula-
tions, we have concluded that the significance levels apply to
all situations, even if the source under review is the one source
which causes the air quality to exceed the standard or increment.
On May 13, 1980, EPA promulgated requirements for new source
review of sources located in attainment or unclassif iable areas
but causing or contributing to NAAQS violations (40 CFR 51.18(kJ).
That regulation clearly references the significance levels. The
Preamble to the promulgation is even more clear, stating that
the required program applies "to all sources causing or contri-
buting to a violation of a standard, under the criteria used by
Section III .A. of the Offset Ruling.-
Thus, a proposed source which causes a modelled violation of NAAQS
can be approved if the source's contribution to total air quality
levels at the site of the violation is less than the significance
levels. Put another way, the impact of the source is simply not
analyzed beyond the point of significant impact, so no violation
is considered to exist using this procedure. For example, if the
existing TSP air quality in an area is 148 ug/ra3 24-hour average,
and a proposed new source would add 3 ug/tn3, for a total of 151
ug/m3, the source may be approved.
-------
-2-
With respect to PSD increments, the Preamble to the June 18,
1978, PSD regulations (43FR26398) ties the significance levels
to PSD modelling without making a distinction between new and
existing increment exceedances. Absent any such distinction, the
significance levels should be used for PSD preconstruction review
in the same way they are used for NAAQS review, as discussed
above* The only exception, also discussed in the Preamble, is
for impact on Class I areas, for which the significance levels
are not to be used.
If you have any questions about this letter, please call Roger
Pfaff at 404/881-7654.
Sincerely yours,
\
V
• 1 V ,
'James T. Wilburn\ Chief
."Air Management Branch
/Air and Waste Management Division
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
2 7 JUL 1987
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ambient Air Issue from New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)
FROM: 6.T. rtelms, Chief
Control Programs Operations Branch
TO: William S. Baker. Chief
Air Branch. Region II
In response to your request. Me have reviewed your position with
respect to a determination of ambient air applicability in the vicinity
of the proposed EF Ken 11 worth, Inc. (EFKI) cogeneration unit in Union
County. New Jersey. As we understand it. EFKI will build and operate the
plant on property leased (long-term lease) from Sobering Corporation. As
we see it the EFKI operator will be completely separate from the Sobering
operation and except for the land owned and operated by a different
Company. The fact that EFKI has entered into a contract to supply
electricity/ steam to Schering is not really relevant to the ambient air
issue.
He agree with your position that all property outside of the property
leased and controlled by EFKI would be considered ambient air. The word
"controlled" is emphasized since nothing 1s said in either your memoranduns
or New Jersey's letter to Region II about what, if any. fence or other
physical barrier would be installed to prevent public access to the EFKI
leased property. If such physical barrier is not erected, then all land
including- the leased site would have to be considered as ambient air.
If you. have any questions, please contact Sharon Reinders.
at 629-5255.
cc: D.- Tyler
J. Tikvart
D. Wilson
G. NcCutchen
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
DATE: JUN 1 9 19*'
JBJECT: Ambient Air Issue from New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
FROM: William S. Baker,
Air Programs Branca.
TO:
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch (MD-15)
Attached is a copy of a letter directed to us by the State of New
Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection. It requests an
EPA determination on what constitutes "ambient air" for a partic-
ular air permit application. Kevin Doering explained this issue
to Dean Wilson of the Modeling Clearinghouse on June 2 and provided
him with our preliminary determination. He believe that, because
the cogeneration facility could operate independently and will
provide power to other sources outside of the Schering Corporation,
property outside of its property line should be reviewed for
ambient impact.
We would appreciate your review and concurrence or comment. He
would like to be able to respond to Dr. Berkowitz within two
weeks if possible. Thank you for your help.
Attachment
RESIGN II FORM 132O-1 (B/8S)
-------
of Sfrm Srrsnj
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
BfVieiQN Of ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
CNOZ7.THENTON.WJl 0808
*..~~. May 29' 198~ WWJMMMJ
Dt HECTOR
Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
USEPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
Kew York, SY 10278
Dear Mr. Simon:
We are reviewing an air pollution control permit application for the
proposed EF Kenilworth, Inc. (EFKI) cogeneration system at the Schering
Corporation facility in Kenilworth, Union County. Schering has entered into ' an
agreement with EFKI to have EFKI supply the electrical energy and process steam
for Schering*s* manufacturing plant through a cogeneration system to • be
constructed on property leased by EFKI from Schering (see attached). The leased
property is within the property line of Schering's Kenilworth facility. The
cogeneration system is to be built, owned and operated by EFKI.
We request EPA's interpretation of "ambient air" (40 CFR 50.1(e)) with
regard to the portion of the Schering property that is not leased to EFKI. In
our air quality modeling analyses of the emissions from the EFKI facility,
should we consider the property line to be the boundary of the leased property
or the boundary of the Schering plant?
.Please have EPA's determination forwarded in writing to William O1Sullivan
(609-984-6721) at your earliest convenience. The resolution of this issue will
remove a major question in the review of this application.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
>
'(f^
JHB/TJ/df
Attachment
c: H. Kortreich
V. O'Sullivan
J. Elston
R. Dyba
R. Craig
-------
7.7-
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
160 ClUiMAttnM.LvndhurtLNJ 07071 (201)460-1900
Air Quality Evaluation
Approach and Modelling Protocol
For The Kenilworth Cogeneration Facility
The following discussion presents an approach to the air quality evaluation
of a proposed cogeneration facility (the "Facility") to be built, owned and
operated in Kenilworth, Hew Jersey by EF Kenilworth, Inc. ("EFKI"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Energy Factors, Incorporated ("EFI"), a California corporation
engaged In the business of developing, owning and operating electric and thermal
energy production facilities throughout 'the United States.
The Facility is to be constructed on a site (the "Site") which has been leased
by EFKI from Schering Corporation.("Schering"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Schering-Plough Corporation ("Schering-Plough") for a term of fourteen years
(plus two renewal terms of ten years each) pursuant to a Site Lease between
Schering and EFKI dated as of December 10, 1985.
EFKI has entered into a Turnkey Construction Contract with Ebasco Constructors
Inc., dated as of July 29, 1986,for the construction of the Facility,
which is projected to be completed on or prior to June 1988.
The Facility will produce electrical energy and process steam. EFKI has entered
Into a power purchase agreement (the nPPAn)with Jersey Central Power and Light
Company ("JCPiL") dated as of May 20, 1986, for the sale by EFKI of electrical
energy from the Facility to JCP&L, which energy would be wheeled from the Site
to JCP&L by Public Service Electric 6 Gas Company ("PSE&G"). EFKI has also
entered into an Energy Services Agreement (the "ISA") with Schering dated as of December
10, 1985, pursuant to which EFKI will supply Schering with Schering's electrical
energy and process steam requirements at its pharmaceutical manufacturing plant
located adjacent to the Facility Site.
-------
7.7
pue to the favorable economies and energy conservation aspects of the cogeneration
process, EFXX win be able to sell electrical and thermal energy to Sobering
at prices which should enable Scherlag to realize significant savings in its
aggregate energy expenditures. In addition, because Sobering will rely on EFKI
for its principal steam supply,Sobering will cease routine operation of its
boilers 3, 4 and S (the "Boilers"). (It is anticipated that the air emissions
resulting froa the operation of the Facility will be significantly lower than
those for which the Boilers are currently permitted.) The Boilers will be
maintained in a standby status to provide standby or supplemental process steam
to Sobering if required.
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. General
The Facility will-produce 25,068 We (net) vben supplying
40,000 Ibs/hr of 135 PSIG steam. The natural gas fired
combined cycle cogeneration plant has backup capability
to operate on number 2 distillate fuel oil during natural
gas supply curtailment. The Gas Turbine Generator (CTC)
package will be powered by a GE Model IM2500-33 turbine,
that is water injected for HOx control. The Beat Recovery
Steam Generator (HRSG) is a non-fired 3 pressure level unit
capable of a maximum generation of approximately 70,000
Ib/hr of steam. Steam from the HRSG will operate a Steam
Turbine Generator (STG). The STC will be a single pressure,
multi-value, multi-stage, automatic extraction condensing
unit, providing a minimum process extraction of approximately
17,000 Ib/hr. Both the GTG and the STG will be equipped with
13.8 K7 generators.
The Facility has a nameplate rating of 29,500 kK while
extracting a minimum flow of 17,000 Ib/hr of steam.
-2-
-------
7 -r
nATE:
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION II
JUN t 9 19*'
Ambient Air Issue from New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
William S. Baker,
Air Programs Branch
G. T. Helms, Chief
Control Programs Operation Branch (MD-15)
Attached is a copy of a letter directed to us by the State of New
Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection. It requests an
EPA determination on what constitutes "ambient air" for a partic-
ular air permit application. Kevin Doering explained this issue
to Dean Wilson of the Modeling Clearinghouse on June 2 and provided
him with our preliminary determination. We believe that, because
the cogeneration facility could operate independently and will
provide power to other sources outside of the Sobering Corporation,
property outside of its property line should be reviewed for
ambient impact.
We. would appreciate your review and concurrence or comment, we
would like to be able to respond to Dr. Berkowitz within two
weeks if possible. Thank you for your help.
Attachment
RGQION II FORM 132O-1 (9/88)
-------
#, z^ r UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
I r
-------
y/^
of 2
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
DIVISION Of ENVINONMINTAL QUALITY
7.TMCNT
«»""jnTZ.p«.a May 29, 1987 («oi, SM.SMJ
DIRECTOR
Conrad Simon, Director
Air and Waste Management Division
USEPA Region II
26 Federal Plaza
New York, NT 10278
Dear Mr. Simon:
We are reviewing an air pollution control permit application for the
proposed EF Kenilworth, Inc. (EFKI) cogeneration system at the Schering
Corporation facility in Kenilworth, Union County. Schering has entered into ' an
agreement with EFKI to have EFKI supply the electrical energy and process steam
for Schering'» manufacturing plant through a cogeneration system to be
constructed on property leased by EFKI from Schering (see attached). The leased
property is within the property line of Schering's Kenilworth facility. The
cogeneration system is to be built, owned and operated by EFKI.
We request EPA's interpretation of "ambient air" (40 CFR 50.He)) with
regard to the portion of the Schering property that is not leased to EFKI. In
our air quality modeling analyses of the emissions from tr.e EFKI facility,
should we consider the property line to be the boundary of the leased property
or the boundary of the Schering plant?
Please have EPA's determination forwarded in writing to William 0'Sullivan
(609-984-6721) at your earliest convenience. The resolution of this issue will
remove a major question in the review of this application.
Thank you.
Sincerely yours,
i. Berkowitz, Ph.D.
Director
JHB/TJ/df
Attachment
c: H. Vortreich
W. O'Sullivan
J. Elston
R. Dyba .... •*.•,. ... ..
8. Craig
-------
7.7
EBASCO SERVICES INCORPORATED
mCAuMAvwiuo.Lynenunt.NJ 07071 (201)460-1900
Air Quality Evaluation
Approach and Modelling Protocol
For The Kenilwerth Cogeneration Facility
The following discussion presents an approach to the air quality evaluation
of a proposed cogeneration facility (the "Facility") to be built, ouned and
operated la Xenilworth, Rev Jersey by EF Kenilworth, Inc. ("Em"), a wholly
owned subsidiary of Energy Factors, Incorporated ("EFX"), a California, corporation
engaged in the business of developing, owning and operating electric and thermal
•nergy production facilities throughout the United States.
The Facility is to be constructed on a site (the "Site") which has been leased
by EFKE from Schering Corporation.("Sobering"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of •
Schering-Plough Corporation ("Schering-Plough") for a tea of fourteen years
(plus two renewal tens of tea years each) pursuant to a Site Lease between
Schering and EFSZ dated as of December 10, 1985.
EFKX has entered into a Turnkey Construction Contract with Ebasco Constructors
Inc., dated as of July 29, 1986.for the construction of the Facility,
which is projected to be completed on or prior to June 1988.
The Facility will produce electrical energy and process stem. EFQ has entered
Into a powez purchase agreement (the "PPAn)with Jersey Central Power and Light
Company ("JCP&L") dated as of May 20, 1986, for the sale by EFKZ of electrical
energy from the Facility to JCP&L, which energy would be wheeled from the Site
to JCP&L by Public Service Electric & Gas Company ("PSE&G"). EFKX has also
entered into an Energy Services Agreement (the "ISA") with Schering dated as of December
10, 1985, pursuant to which EFSX will supply Schering with Schering's electrical
energy and process steam requirements at its pharmaceutical manufacturing plant
located adjacent to the Facility Site.
-------
7.7
pue co Che favorable economics and energy conservation aspects of the cogeneracion
process, EFKX will be able to sell electrical and thermal energy to Schering
at prices which should enable Schering to realize significant savings in its
aggregate energy expenditures. In addition, because Schering will rely on EFK1
for its principal steam supply,Schering will cease routine operation of its
boilers 3, 4 and 5 (the "Boilers"). (It is anticipated that Che air emissions
resulting from Che operation of the Facility will be significantly lower than
those for which the Boilers are* currently permitted.) The Boilers will be
maintained in a standby status to provide standby or supplemental process steam
to Schering if required.
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. General
The Facility will-produce 25,063 kWe (net) when supplying
60,000 Ibs/hr of 135 FSZC steam. The natural gas fired
combined cycle cogeneration plant has backup capability
to operate on number 2 distillate fuel oil during natural
gas supply curtailment. The Gas Turbine Generator (GTG)
package will be powered by a GE Model U12500-33 turbine,
that is water injected for NOx control. The Beat Recovery
Steam Generator (BRSG) is a non-fired 3 pressure level unit
capable of a maximum generation of approximately 70,000
Ib/hr of steam. Steam from the HRSG will operate a Steam
Turbine Generator (STG). The STG will be a single pressure,
multi-value, multi-stage, automatic extraction condensing
unit, providing a minimum process extraction of approximately
17,000 Ib/hr. Both the GTG and the STG will be equipped with
13.S K7 generators.
The Facility has a nameplate rating of 29,500 kK while
extracting a «^nl*«" flow of 17,000 Ib/hr of steam.
-2-
-------
8. PSD
BACT
09
C0
O
-------
„
'\
J UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
C}
8.2
OFFICE OF ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Contingency Plan for FGD Systems During Downtime
as a Function of PSD
FROM: Director, Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: G.T. Helms, P.E. Deputy Director
Air and Hazardous Materials Division
.This is in response to your request dated November 9, 1977,
asking whether PSD approvals for new sources using FGD
systems can be .conditioned to require a contingency plan for
periods when the FGD system is not functioning.
PSD and SIP regulations require the establishment of
emission limitations which will be sufficient to ensure non-
degradation of air quality and attainment and maintenance of
NAAQS, respectively. In order to assure this at all times
it is necessary for the source owner or operator to be in
compliance with all emission limitations at all times. For
this reason, the Agency in the April 27, 1977 F.R. (42 FR
21472) promulgated a requirement outlining our position on
SIP malfunctions. In the preamble to those requirements it
is stated, '...the Administrator has determined that the
automatic granting of a regulatory exemption (permit in this
case) for these periods of excess emissions is not a suitable
renedy." From this language, therefore, it would not be
wise to include within the PSD permit a specific exemption
froa the requirements during periods of "upset" or "malfunction.,
We do, however recognize that some relief should be
afforded during certain upset situations. If the source
were allowed an automatic exemption it would encourage the
source to claim, after every period of excess emissions,
that an exemption is warranted. Therefore, the only enforceable
means available to the Agency in dealing with all emission
excursions-be they potentially due to malfunctions or otherwise-
is to issue notices of violations with the source being
given an opportunity to prove that the violation was due to
an unavoidable situation of upset or malfunction.
-------
In response to the particular items raised in your
I would not recommend specifically addressing the
system by-pass. That is, if a source elected to have a by-
pass capability it could do so, however it would in no way
limit our abilities to enforce the emission limits during
those periods when the emissions were not routed through the
control device. We would then exercise our enforcement
options to address the sources failure to satisfy the prescribed
emission limit.
While I would not recommend requiring a malfunction
contingency plan, I would alert the'source that any inability
on their part to maintain their emissions consistent with
the applicable regulation may result in an enforcement
action initiated by EPA. This would apply to requirements
necessary to attain and maintain the NAACS as well as PSD.
To facilitate this enforcement approach it will require
the issuance of a Notice of Violation (NOV), although this
will not be necessary for NSPS or NESHAPS, for every period
of excess emission ascertained by your Office. After issuance
of the NOV the Region should consider any information developed
by the source which more fully explains the circumstances of
the violation and any good faith efforts of the owner or
operator of the source to comply and in determining whether
further. Agency action is appropriate.
If you have any further questions or comments, please
contact Rich Biondi (755-2564) of my staff.
Edward E. Reich
cc: Dick Rhoads, CPDO
Hixe Trutna, CPDO
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
4
/ y t
JUM 22
.'.:.-n a A HO UM
SV5JSCT: IPALCO's Prooosed Patriot, Indiana Generating
Station
FROM: Director
Division, of Stationary Source Enforcersent
TO: Dale S. Sryson, Acting Director
Enforcement. Division
Region V
This 1s in response to your .-:ar:o of June 1, 1973,
concerning issuance of a final PSD permit to the
Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IFALCO) for the
proposed Patriot Generating Station.
As a new fossil-fuel fired steasi electric plant with
potential emissions greater than ICC tons/year and allow-
sbls emissions of greater than 53 tons/year, thi Patriot
Station will be subject to bot:i first- and second-tier
PS2 ruvirjs including application jf SACT.
Included in IP.'.LCO's PSD permit application nast
be « ^ancnstration that enissions from the Patriot Statian
viill be controllad to a level which raflscts application of
."ACT and which will not causa the applicable :;AAQS or PSD
irtcrenents to be exceeded. Fundamental to such a demon-
stration ara plans and specifications for control equip-
r*nt. ."anufactyrers' claims of control efficiency should
12 suppcrt-ed by design specif 1 catior.3.
Specific questions raised by your Reno ara addrass3d
bela*.<.
1. •; - Can U.S. EPA approve !?ALCL*3 ^-2lication
•".-.-,- approval to ccnstrjct conditionally in s.icj-, ;» nannar
t: -2* construction could not coar^nca until c«2si;jn specifi-
cctians becase available for the 01" efficiency scrubber
anri y.s. EPA reviewed and approved the scrubs-jr systes?
This position was taken for the preliminary approval.
A - EPA's final approval to construct should
CONCURRENCES
••A roAM '=as-:
-------
net be issued until IPALCO has suormted design specifi-
cations for tfca proposed scrubbers. Final approval
ccnriitioned en submittal of specifications is net apprcpri-
cta in this case. OSSE is confident that design specifi-
cations for high efficiency scrubbers are. avaiTable at
this tine.
2. Q - To what extent must IPALCO demonstrate
thst the necessary scrubber systars will be available
before U.S. EPA can issue a conditional approval
as expressed in 1. above?
A - See answer to question ?1, above.
3. Q - Can U.S. EPA reject the scrubber system
IPALCO proposes and in fact require a dlfferant system
in a final approval? Or, must the application be
rejected and approval denied?
A - The responsibility for developing an
a-Jcouate control strategy lies with IPALCC. EPA should
iiisapprove the permit application if it is detrained
that the proposed scrubber system is not adequate to
ensure protection of -JAAQS or the PSD increasnts or
does not represent SACT. A new application pro-
posing an alternative control system could, of course,
be submitted by IPALCO subsequent to any EPA permit
disapproval.
The preamble to the new PSD. regulations specifically
addresses issuance of permits in' situations wh^re sources are
constructed in phases. If each phase can be operated
independently of other phasas, es would be tiia case in this
instance, a PSD parsiit may be issued for rh«» artire source,
provided the following conditions arc specif ioi?: 1} tr.s
csnstruction of the first phase nust "cbmnencti" vnthin
1- aonths of persit issuance, 2} construction of aach
additional phase nust commence within 18 mo-.iths of the date
acs.-oved 1n the persit, 3). breaks in construction of
greater than 1C months mist not occur in any phase of the
project, and 4) BACT for the later phases of the project
~cy be reassessed up until ths tiss it is no longer econo-
mically feasible for the source to change its control
strategy. At the time the original peroit is issued, the
T:ACT determinations which are subject to ra-evaluation
should be specified.
Your ,-nejr.o points out I?f\LCTs failure r.o -rovidc for
:"ir-2 scrubbing capacity to be -j:L-d in t!-e ava-: cf a
-------
S.3
scrubber s«2l funct i on or partial shutdown for routine nsair.-
tenanca work. Although the SIP regulations do not allow
for excess emissions, aven duriny zariods of ralfunction,
the PSO permit cannot be disapproved on the basis that
baclcuo controls are. not planned. It is the source's option
to prevent excess emissions using control techniques
other than backup equipment (i.e., shutdown, decreased
production rate, etc.). Periods during which excess
emissions occur will, of course, bs considered violations
of the applicable SI? and grounds for enforcement action
including penalty assessment .
I would TUe to point out that, according to the ne*
PSD regulations, the Governor of any affected State should
be notified prior ta any action by EPA regarding a source
which is expected to consume the entire remaining increment.
If you have any questions on this natter, please
contact Libby Scopino at 755-2564.
Edward £. Saich
cc: riiks Trutna
Petsr Wyckoff
EN-341:L5copino:nb:Rm3202:X525S4
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
•-«« jj;, 11978
sen IPALCG's Proposed Patriot, Indiana Gsnarating Station
Dale S. Sryson, Acting Director
Enforcement Division
TO: Edward E. Reich, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (EN-341)
I request your assistance in making a final determination regarding tie
PSD application submitted by Indianapolis Power and Light Company (IPALCO)
for the proposed Patriot (Mexico Bottom) Generating Station. The primary
issue Is the use of a high efficiency scrubber system. The approval or
disapproval of this system should be considered In light of the Agency's
position on scrubbers, and requires examination for national policy
Impacts.
Background
IPALCO has applied to P^gion V for approval to construct the Patriot
Saner at ing Station. This power plant would consist of three 650 M!1 units
scheduled to go on-line In 1985, 1937 and 1989. Preliminary approval was
granted In February, 1973, and a public hearing- was held on April 20, 1973.
dasad upon the air quality analysis submitted by IPALCO, it has been deter-
mined that, for the proposed power plant to meet the limit of the 24-hour
sulfur dioxide Class II increment, the sulfur dioxide emission limit for
the plant must be 0.552 Ibs/miilion 3TU heat Input. To meet this emission
limit, IPALCO has proposed using a Iime/limestone scrubber with a 9\% re-
moval efficiency. IPALCO claims that this type of scrubber will be avail-
able for Installation by the mid-1980's. Coal with a sulfur contsnt as
high as 3.47? will be burned at the Patriot plant with no plans by IPALCO
to treat the coal prior to combustion to reduce the sulfur content. IPALCO
has not offered to blend low sulfur coal with the regular fuel mixture in
order to reduce sulfur dioxide emissions. Additionally, IPALCO has no plans
to install spare scrubber modules and had planned to install a scrubber by-
pass (tha bypass was pYohiSitad In the preliminary approval). Support data
for the scrubber efficiency consists solely of letters from scrubber manu-
facturers attesting to but not guaranteeing that a 9iJ efficiency will be
available In the 1930's. IPALCO has also used U.S. EPA documents supporting
scrubber technology as evidence to support their application.
-------
-2-
1ssues
I. Can U.S. EPA approve IPALCO's application for approval to con-
struct conditionally In such a manner that construction could
not cofltnence until design specifications becane available far
the 9IJ efficiency scrubber and U.S. EPA reviewed and approved
the scrubber system? This position was taken for the preliminary
approval.
2. To what extent must IPALCO demonstrate that the necessary scrui&er
system will be available before U.S. EPA can issue a conditional
approval as expressed In I. above?
3. Can U.S. EPA reject the scrubber system IPALCO proposes and In
fact require a different system in a final approval? Or, must
the application be rejected and approval denied?
It should be pointed out that, white U.S. EPA has been strongly com-
mitted to the use of scrubbers for many years, the availability of,
and U.S. EPA commitment to, high-efficiency scrubbers is very recant.
Furthermore, nigh efficiency Iime/limestone scrubbing may not be
commercially demonstrated In the United States. Region V is concerned
that sulfur dioxide control at the Patriot Station Mill be Inadequate to
prevent violations of the 24-hour sulfur dioxide Class II Increment in
the vicinity of the station.
If you have any need for further 'information on this matter, pleass
contact i*-. Bruce V-rnar at E3I2) 353-2035.
Me would appreciate your consideration of these issues as expeditiously
as possible. Region V must make a final PSO determination by July (, 1978.
Dale S. Bryson
-------
*>•••• *!-
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
f WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
OFFICE OP ENFORCEMENT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Conditional PSD Permits
FROM: Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement
TO: Darryl Tyler, Chief
Standards Implementation Branch
Control Programs Development Division
My staff has been in contact with a number of the
Regional Offices regarding the issuance of conditional
PSD permits and has found little consistency among
the Regions on the amount and detail of information on
control equipment which must be submitted by a source
before a PSD permit can be issued. The purpose of this
memorandum is to bring to your attention the need for
guidance on whether and under what conditions, conditional
permits may be issued.
DSSE became involved with this issue when Region V
requested, in a memo dated June 1, 1978, (copy attached)
a determination as to whether a new power generating unit
could be issued a PSD permit conditioned on the submit tal
of design specifications for the scrubber which would be
used to control SO- emissions. The permit application
contained only a manufacturer's guarantee as to the control
efficiency which would be achieved. Ninety-one percent
efficiency, in this case, would be necessary in order to
ensure protection of the applicable SO. increment and would
reflect 3ACT. We responded to the Regional Office on
June 22, 1978, {copy attached) stating that scrubber de-
sign specifications should be submitted by the source prior
to issuance of any PSD approval.
-------
Subsequent to the Region V determination, we were
informed that the Region IV Office has, in the past, issued
conditional permits to power generating units based solely
on manufacturer's guarantees of control efficiency. On
September 4, 1978, a conference call with Regions IV, V,
and DSSE was held to discuss the approach each Regional
Office has been taking with respect to issuance of con-
ditional permits and to attempt to establish some uniformity
in the type of control device specifications required until
such time as headquarters guidance is issued. We found that
the policy in Region IV has been to issue PSD permits based
on manufacturer's guarantees of efficiency and a commitment
by the source that BACT emission limitations will be met.
The permits are conditioned on the submittal of more
detailed information prior to commencement of construction
of the control equipment. Region V generally has required
more detailed information including such items as the type
of system, manufacturer's guarantee of efficiency, gas
flow, pressure drop, reliability and stoichiometry as a
minimum before a permit can be issued.
This office is of the opinion that conditional permits
may be appropriate in certain instances where final design
specifications cannot be obtained by a source at the time
of permit application but that enough information should
be submitted to allow the reviewing authority and the
public to determine that the proposed control equipment will
adequately reflect BACT. Such permits should be conditioned
on submittal of detailed design specifications prior to
commencement of construction. Allowing sources to obtain
permits based solely on a manufacturer's guarantee of
efficiency and a commitment to meet BACT levels would
defeat the purpose of preconstraction review.
The New Source Review Task Force has prepared a paper
discussing the merits of conditional permits and the detail
of information upon which issuance of conditional permits
should be based. We suggest that since this is a BACT
related issue, OAQPS should take the lead in developing
guidance with input from the Regional Offices on the NSR
Task Force's suggestions. DSSE will be happy to assist
in any way possible. I would like to stress the need for
uniform guidance and the urgency of this need.
-------
Please contact Libby Scopino (755-2564) of my staff
if we can be of any assistance in expediting the develop-
ment and issuance of this guidance.
Edward Reich
Attachments
cc:
Cheryl Wasserraan, OPS
Bill Burch, OAQPS
Linda Murphy, Region I
Ken Eng, Region II
Glenn Hansen, Region III
Winston Smith, Region IV
Steve Rothblatti Region V
Don Harvey, Region VI
Bob Chanslor, Region VII
Dave Joseph, Region VIII
Bill Wide/ Region IX
Hike Johnston, Region X
-------
IX
ECT
bACT Ssseline for Louisa Ganera ting Station
8.5
Michael A.
licy Development Section, SIB, CPOO
Gale A. Wright, P.E.
TO: Chief, Technology Analysis Section, Ragion VII
In your aieno of October 13, 1973, (enclosed) you asked for assistance
in determining the BACT baseline for the proposed construction at tr.e Leu-'52
Generating Station of the Illinois G&s and Electric Cor.pany (IIGi). Spcd-
will not apply (i.e., the boiler was ordered in the spring of 1978,.
.Since you have otter-rained that a corrplete aoplicalon .as rot received
until fay 31, 137|, I tgres with your statement thai the ne\v PED regula-
tions activating S&cticn 165 of trie recant Act Amencrant: till apply.
As you know, under the nev/ PSD requirements, applicable sources rnL'st
apply BACT. The resulting EACT determination sust ca msia on a cass-iy-
case basis taking into account several considerations inducing scc:o-
econor.ic costs and the anticioatad environrr.anza'i ar.d energy iTOacts. In
no event v.-m EACT resresent less control than providea by the aps'i-icab'.c
NSPS. Thus, as a mir.i-.um, the Louisa Station must at 'least rceet the old
NSPS as provided under the previous PSD regulations.
More importantly, case-by-case 2ACT say well require su3Sta.it*illy
re control than the old ,'!SFS. Ths accsptsd practice withir, £?A is to
make the initial presumption that all power plant asolicants sublet to
the new PSD regulations can accomplish 6,-m'ssion recucticns at least
equivalent to those required linear the proposed NSPS revisions. Th-'s
generally means that such sources will bs expected to install a continu-
ous sulfur rencvcl systar, in t.ns case of SO., control. Although tha
source may have filed a complete application oefore tns date of :.S?S
proposal, information from well controlled sources that forred tha casis
for the MSPS revisior, was available v.ell before IIGE's a;ol;cation vras
filed. Therefore, it is reasonable to expect that tha Louisa Gsna.-atirg
Station should plan to install a sulfur re-oval syster v.-.nich cpsratss
at 85i or higher control efficier.cy on a 2^-hsur basis unless thsy can
present evidence of unusual circumstances vihich justify less control.
If I can be on any further assistance on the natter, pleasa feel
free to call on me.
Enclosure
cc: R. Rhoads
D. Tyler
0. Dunbar
R. Biondi
NSR Contacts, Regions I-X
• {8...
-------
;ECT. -Ceit Availaole Zor.rr-zl ~echno:oqy '£AC:'; 'Jetersi nation 3.5
Gale Ar-T, P.E.
FROM. Chief, Tcchrology Analysis Section, Air Suoport Branch
Air and KazareoLS "aerials Oi vis ion
T0« Michael Trutna
CPDD, (KO-15J
Environrsntal Protection Agency
Region VII has in process a prevention of significant deter: or at: en (PSD)
perir.it application frcm the Icv/a-r.linois (Us and Electric Cc~5r.y,
Davenport, Ia.
-------
PRELIMINARY BACT INFORMATION*
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
l.a. Name of Power Plant and Parent Company
b. Name, address, phone no. of company contact
2. Location of Source
a. City b. State
B. STEAM GENERATOR DATA
1. Type of boiler (manufacturer,fiif known)
2. Size of boiler (heat input 10° Btu/hr)
C. FUEL DATA
Provide long term averages and ranges for specified short term and
long term averaging periods for the following (1-6):
1. Primary fuel (coal or oil)
2. Start up fuel
3. Alternate fuels
4. Brief description of what fuels will be fired including
estimated percentage heat input
5. Solid fuel data (all solid fuels to be fired)
a. Ultimate analysis (as burned) % by weight sulfur
also include chlorine, ash, moisture and gross heating
value (Btu/lb)
b. Estimated resistivity of particulate as a function of gas
temperature (if known)
c. Estimated ash analysis (X by weight - dry)
6. Particle size analysis for ash
7. Liquid fuel'data (all liquid fuels)
a. Type and grade
b. Density (Ib/gaTlon)
c. Gross heating value (Btu/gallon)
d. Ash content (percent by weight)
e. Sulfur content (percent by weight)
f. Nitrogen content (percent by weight)
g. Moisture (percent by weight)
h. Will additives by used? If so, furnish data on chemical
composition and approximate quantitites (percentage of
total fuel to be used).
8. Is a contract signed for the coal? If no contract is signed,
we would need the information for questions 1-6 for all coals
that are being contemplated for usage and percentage usage where
coals are to be blended.
*Motc that not all information may be available in all cases. Information
requirements should be adjusted as aporopriate to fit the circumstances
of the aoplicant at time of permit application.
-------
D. PRECIPITATOR DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ibs/mBTU) for participate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Total gas flow from steam generator at full load and at ESP
operating temperature (ACFM)
3. ESP operating temperature (±F) range
4. 'Number of separate ESP modules under consideration
5. Approximate specific collection area (SPA)
6. Number of separate electrical sections for each module under
consideration.
7. Type of power control and instrumentation
8. Estimated linear velocity of gas through each module at full
load (actual feet/sec) or range of acceptable velocities
9. Briefly describe techniques used to ensure uniform linear
velocity within ESP.
10. Nature and-terms of performance guarantee
11. Briefly describe system used to remove and convey collected
ash to final disposal.
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the precipitator
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the
major elements of'the ESP for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the major elements have
been designed and detailed specification are available.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OATE0£C 2-2 1378
SUBJECT: BACT Information for Coal-fired
Hi
Walter C. Barber, Director II fr\«r \ &V "'
Office of Air Quality PlannWg^aVd1 Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Currently, there seems to be some confusion regarding how much
infortstion is required in order to make BACT dsterminations for power
plants. Such confusion has created situations where one Region may have
conditionally approved a power plant's construction plans while another
would not. This "nemo is intended to orovide an exanpla of the type and
amount of information required from power plant applicants in oroer to
determine whether the source is applying BACT.
Under the new PSD regulations, BACT is necessarily decided on a
case-by-case basis after weighing relevant socio-economic costs and
environmental impacts. Consequently, information must now be subr.itted
by a PSD source describing its plans for control equiDnent in sufficient
detail so as to define the plant-specific 3ACT limit. As indicated in
separate guidance for making case-by-case BACT determinations, the
utility is also required to demonstrate that the proposed controls are
not less stringent than the applicable NSPS and that rare stringent
control alternatives are not appropriate.
more detai
relieve the source from its rcsponsioility to demonstrate to ths Agency
that it is applying BACT, it does act to streamlins the review process
and minimize the delays incurred by power plants which carr.ot supply
ultimate equipment designs and blueprints at the tints that a permit to
construct is secured. This system will also provide the utility with
sufficient flexibility to take advantage of expected improvements in
control technology.
The key question then becomes how nuchjnforration is necessary tc
establish the BACT Timit during the initiaf'precoRscructigr. review. In
glneraTjjhe ™fon«tion_shoind inc 1 ude tiie prsTimir.a~ry~"engin2-:r;ng and
'plant design critefiL"whjch,»/ill_cgn'st'itut'e the basis for soliciting anj2
reviewing vender proposals for control ecuipmant. In addition, an
'example shouTefoe "Included which speciTias how the preliminary design
criteria would be aoplied to the particular plant in question or to a
similar facility where the design has been completed and the exact
detailed specifications are available. Where a utility has not settled
on a single control system, it may submit alternatives for review.
CPA ronw i3io-» mev. *7ti
-------
Attachment A is provided as an example of the type of information
which can be used both to define a specific BACT emission limit and to
assess whether the plant can be reasonably expected to meet this limit.
jower plants can be permitted when this initial information confirms
BACT win be employed and that the' applicable 'a'jfib1eni"onstrain'ts
will be met. This approacn must be condi ti oned. on the__companyls_J aigr_
submission of final detailed engineering design specifications, prior to
commencement ofc'o'hscructT on or the control equl'tbant. While the final
engineering design "and vencor specifications will vary frc" ths preliminary
information, the utility must show it to be equivalent in performance
and reliability established as BACT in the initial determination. These
variations may include basic chances in equipment design such as a shift
from an ESP to a baghouse, a change from a lime/limestone scrubber to a
regenerable scrubbing system or a cnange in the design approach to
insuring reliability.
All of the information outlined in Attachment A may not be available
and is not required in all instances. The reviewing authority should
seek only those data elements which are necessary to support air engineering
judgment' that""fRe~piF5pbse"d""system wl il l perform reliably at the specified
emission rates^
Since the submission of the final engineering design specifications
is a condition of the permit, this would not constitute a reopening of
the permit process, and I do not see the need for an opportunity for
public coraent on this material. However, I do recorrgjgnjLtha t^tbe
approval notice contain the location. and_ approximate .time period in'
which this final design information woufd be available'."'
The above guidance represents some change for several Regions.
Therefore, I am recuesting that during 1979 you submit to OAQPS your
BACT determinations for SO? from coai-fireo pov.-er pTch'trTtogsth'ef'with
the applicable BACT i nf ormation" ident'if ie'd"in' Att'kcnmgn"t"A) for review
pric'P"to your preTTminary detenm natTofT I? some of your States are"
"making these SACT determinations, I asjfthat you send us the appropriate
BACT information before they make their final determination. The above
information should be sent to Kike Trurna (529-5497 j who will ccora-ina-s
OAQPS 's aetiviti e s_rega rd i nq crtese oetermlnanons in 'the nc-ar future.
Suggestions on additions or modifications to" this guidance also should
be addressed to Mr. Trutna.
Attachments
cc: Director. Enforcement Divisions, Region I-X
D. Hawkins
R. Rhoads
H. Janes
E. Reich
E. Tucrk
-------
8.7
E. BAGHOUSE DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ib/mmBtu) for participate matter (before
and after proposed controls)
2. Estimated total gas flow from steam generator at full load and
at baghouse operation temperature (ACFM)
3. Baghouse operation temperature (±F) range
4. Number of separate baghouses
5. Number of isolated compartments per baghouse
6. Design criteria for air to cloth ratio or range of acceptable
ratios (Cloth area divided by total ACFM)
7. Cloth description
8. Type of bag cleaning under consideration and subsequent cleaning
controls
9. Strategy for detecting and replacing faulty bags
10. Description of ash handling and disposal system
11. Nature and terms of performance guarantee
-------
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram for the baghouse
2. Provide design criteria or preliminary engineering data for the.
major elements of the baghouse for the particular plant under
consideration or a similar plant where the above elements have
been designed and detailed specifications are available.
F. SULFUR DIOXIDE SCRUBBER DATA
Part I - Preliminary design or design criteria
1. Design emission rate (Ib/mm Btu) of SO- (before and after
proposed controls)
2. Design data or criteria for the scrubber modules to include:
- scrubber type (TCS, spray tower, etc.)
- absorbent type
- possible scrubber liquor additives (e.g., mg)
- prescrubber design criteria, or acceptable ranges for 1/g,
inlet and outlet chloride, etc.
• design criteria for acceptable ranges for inlet and oulet
gas flow and temperature and volume percent H^O, 02, and SO*
- specific design criteria or acceptable ranges for fiquid/gas
ratio
- estimated scrubber gas velocity
• design criteria or acceptable range for scrubber inlet and
outlet pH
- design criteria or acceptable range of pressure drop across
the scrubber (inches of H«0)
3. For turbulent contact absorber (TCA) also supply:
• design criteria or acceptable ranges for diameter of spheres
- design criteria or acceptable ranges for the height of
sphere in TCA
• design criteria or acceptable ranges for number of grids or
screens in TCA
4. Indicate total number of scrubber modules and number of spare
modules during maximum boiler loading.
5. What special precautions will be taken with module internals
and other components (pumps, mist eliminators, fans, etc.) to
ensure that corrosion, scaling, and plugging does not cause failure
of the systemv
6. What special precautions will be taken with the control
systems, e.g., spare probes, probe site location, probe sheaths,
backup instrumentation, to ensure that failure will not lead to
'excess emissions or fouling ov components via scaling?
-------
3.7
7. How will other key variables, such as process stochiometry,
liquid to gas ratios (1/g), etc.,.be monitored to ensure
good operations?
8. Indicate which key components of the scrubber will be spared,
e.g., pumps, fans, nozzles, etc.
9. Location and mechanism of reheat, auxiliary fuel requirements,
and percentage of exhaust gas reheated. If reheat will not be
performed, indicate what measures are being taken to eliminate
stack corrosion or provide data to verify that stack corrosion
will not be a problem area.
10. Outline routine maintenance and inspection procedures for the
scrubber system hardware to ensure continuvus and reliable
scrubber performance.
11. Describe the general design standard for the material to be used
and type of mist eliminator system and describe the techniques
under consideration to guarantee uniform gas distribution across
the mist eliminator and to the scrubber modules.
12. Nature and terms of performance guarantees
Part II - Reference plant example
1. General flow diagram of the scrubber system including mix tanks
prequench section, scrubber modules, mist eliminator and reheat.
General design standards for materials to be used to construct
above elements.
2. Provide design criteria for the najor scrubber and system
components (e.g., pumps, tanks, alkali handling systems, etc.)
for the particular plant under consideration or a similar
plant where the above items have been already designed end
detailed specifications are available.
G. Other Sulfur control methods*
I. Description of control method
II. Amount of sulfur removal credit
*These "other sulfur control methods" are those designed to augment S02
scrubbers in order to achieve a given rate of S02 removal. An example
of such a method would be coal cleaning.
-------
8.8
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON. O.C. 20460
JAN 4 1379
OFFICE or
AIR AND WASTE MANAGEMENT
SUBJECT: Guidance for Determining BACT Under PSD
PROM: David G. Hawkins, Assistant Administrator
for Air, Noise, and Radiation
TO: Regional Administrators, I-X
The 1977 Clean Air Act amendments pertaining to the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) require that the determination of best
available control technology (BACT) be performed on a case-by-case basis
considering energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs.
The enclosed document provides guidance to assist you in determining
BACT in the PSD review. This document has been circulated in draft
form and reviewed by your staff.
The purpose of the guideline is to provide the framework for a
consistent approach in determining BACT. The guidance is rather general,
focusing on the parameters which should be considered in the analysis
supporting -the proposed control system. Unfortunately, no specific
criteria can be developed a priori, nor can quantitative factors relating
to the weighting and evaluation of energy, environmental, and economic
consideration be prescribed. However, consideration of the same set of
parameters should contribute to'more consistent decisions among the
Regions.
I recognize that the case-by-case BACT determination Is a difficult
task and one which may be resource Intensive. To minimize the resource
requirements, the primary responsiblity for defending the proposed con-
trol system must be placed on the source. The guidelines suggest a
significant effort by the source to provide data and analysis to support
a permit application. My office will continue to provide assistance for
the engineering aspects of control technology selection through operation
of the OAQPS new source review clearinghouse.
Enclosure
cc: Assistant Administrators and Office Directors
Director, Air and Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
Director, Facilities Technology Division, Region II
Director, Enforcement Division, Regions I-X
MAR 0 7 1979
Zr'-ECICB 17
-------
8.8
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING
BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
DECEMBER 1978
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
3.3
GUIDELINES FOR DETERMINING BEST AVAILABLE
CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
INTRODUCTION
The 1977 Clean A1r Act Amendments establish more restrictive
conditions for the approval of pre-construction permit applications under
the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program. One of the
new requirements is for best available control technology (BACT) to be
installed for all pollutants regulated under the Act.* Under the revised
Act, BACT Is to be determined on a case-by-case basis rather than auto-
matically applying an applicable Federal New Source Performance Standard
(NSPS), as was the case under the previous regulation. Concern has been
expressed that these determinations should be consistent from area to
area. In the context of case-by-case BACT, consistency does not ne-
cessarily mean that a new facility in one area will have an identical
mission limit as the same type of facility 1n another area. Consis-
tency means that a consistent approach 1s used in determining BACT and
that the Impacts of alternative emission control systems are measured by
the same set of parameters, although evaluation of specific parameters
is done on a case-by-case basis.
PURPOSE
This guideline is Intended for use by (1) EPA Regional Offices in
determining BACT during the interim period before the States adopt
•Pollutants subject to National Ambient A1r Quality Standards, Standards
of Performance for New Stationary Sources, National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, and Emission Standards for Moving Sources.
-------
2
State Implementation Plan (SIP) provisions for Implementing the PSD
program, (2) by States 1n writing PSD regulations or determining BACT
and (3) by Individual -sources in preparing PSD permit applications.
The purpose of the guideline is to provide the framework for a con-
sistent approach to determining BACT. The emphasis is on the types
of data which should be required in a pre-construction permit applica-
tion and how the data should be used in order to determine BACT. The
guideline addresses the technological question of whether the emission
control system proposed In the permit application represents BACT or
whether a more stringent level of emission control 1s appropriate
considering available technology and economic, energy, and environmen-
tal Impacts. The guideline assumes accomplishment of all other air
quality review requirements including, for example, the requirement
that air quality standards and appropriate PSD increments are met,
stack heights are appropriate, and siting 1s acceptable.
In accomplishing this purpose, the guideline lists a number of
factors which can be considered in assessing energy, environmental, and
economic impacts. While the full list represents the magnitude of the
analysis that could be required for a very large and complex source, many
of these factors will not be relevant to the typical BACT review. The
inclusion of any factor should be based on its relative merit consid-
ering such Influences as source size, nature of the process and control
options, and local conditions. It is the clear intent of EPA not to
require an analysis of the full proportion described herein for small
sources or for the use of conventional control equipment whose impacts
-------
S.8
3
are well established. In short, the BACT analysis should be held to a
minimum with the depth of analysis being dependent on the difficulty of
the decision.
PHILOSOPHY OF BACT
The primary purpose of BACT 1s to optimize consumption of PSD air
quality increments thereby enlarging the potential for future economic
growth without significantly degrading air quality. The Act places the
responsibility of determining BACT with the State once a PSD SIP revision
is approved. The BACT decision is to take into account energy, environ-
mental, and economic Impacts and other costs associated with application
of alternative control systems. This case-by-case approach allows
adoption of Improvements in emission control technology to become widespread
more rapidly than would occur through the uniform Federal new source or
hazardous emission standards. In setting the NSPS. for example, emission
limits are selected which can reasonably be met by all new or modified
sources in an industrial category, even though some individual sources
are capable of lower emissions. Additionally, because of resource
limitations in EPA, revision of new source standards must lag somewhat
behind the evolution of new or Improved technology. Accordingly, new or
modified facilities in some source categories may be capable of achieving
lower emission levels that NSPS without substantial economic impacts.
The case-by-case BACT approach provides a mechanism for determining and
applying the best technology in each individual situation. Hence, NSPS
and NESHAPS are Federal guidelines for BACT determinations and establish
minimum acceptable control requirements for a BACT determination.
-------
4
Where Federal standards do not exist, guidance on well-control!ed sources
is available through the QAQPS clearinghouse (discussed later).
A critical decision In the BACT analysis is the relative weight
ass-igned to the energy, environmental, and economic Impacts. Congress
implied that this decision should be made by the State, thus allowing
some flexibility in emission control requirements depending on local
energy, environmental, and economic conditions and local preferences.
For example, in an area with unusually high unemployment, the economic
impacts may be weighted more heavily If the application of a strict BACT
emission requirement would reduce production or jobs. On the other
hand, if visibility protection 1s a major value of the area, then
environmental impacts could be weighted more heavily. This flexible
approach allows the permitting authority to consider a number of local
factors (for example the size of the plant, the amount of the air
quality Increment that would be consumed, and desired economic growth
in the area) in deciding on a weighting scheme. State judgment and
the Federal emission standards are the foundations for the BACT deter-
mination. Accordingly, EPA does not consider it appropriate to assign
nationally applicable weighting factors in this guideline.
GENERAL GUIDELINES
The recommended approach to determining BACT 1s to place on the
applicant the responsibility for presenting and defending the technology
selection.* This approach recognizes that the applicant is best
suited for assessing the costs, environmental residuals, and energy
•Preliminary meetings between the applicant and the permitting authority
are encouraged as a means of promoting efficiency in the review process.
-------
8.8
penalties associated with alternative control options as they apply
to his processes. The permit application should contain the following
elements relative to BACT:
(1) Proposal of a control system representing BACT. BACT should
address control of each emission point at a facility, including fugi-
tive process, fugitive dust, and stack emissions. Technology selection
should consider application of flue gas treatment, fuel treatment, and
processes or techniques which are inherently low-polluting. In no
circumstance should a system be proposed for any emission point unless
it is at least as stringent as the applicable SIP or Federal emission
requirement (whichever 1s more stringent). In cases where technolog-
ical or economic limitations on the application of measurement techniques
would make the Imposition of an emission standard infeasible, a design,
operating, or equipment standard may be established.
(2) Presentation of alternative systems that could achieve a
higher degree of emission control. For each pollutant, the BACT permit
application should present control alternatives which have greater control
capabilities than the system proposed as BACT and which have been used or
proposed for the same or similar applications. In some cases, the BACT
decision may require a trade-off of control among pollutants. That is,
a technology may do slightly worse in controlling one pollutant, but do
significantly better in controlling another air, water, or solid waste
residual. Such alternatives should not be excluded from consideration.
but in justifying BACT for a given pollutant only those alternatives
which have greater control capabilities for that pollutant need be
presented in the permit application.
-------
6
If no better control technology is available for an emission point,
then such finding should be stated and supported, and no further analysis
is required. Other equipment with similar control capabilities need not
be presented (e.g., a baghouse versus an equivalent ESP at a participate
emitter). Unrealistic alternatives need not be presentee such as placi.-.g
in series control equipment which is normally used alone (e.g., an ESP
followed by a baghouse). In some cases, a better control technology rray
be available for a general type of operation, but unique processing
equipment or procedures may create a valid technical reason which would
preclude its selection as BACT. Such situations should be fully suoporte
-------
8.8
specific energy, environmental, and economic impacts which may be addressed
in this impact analysis and explains the data requirements for documenting
an adverse impact. Each of the factors discussed below need not be
addressed in every permit application. Rather this guideline presents a
set of potential impacts any number of which may be addressed in a
permit application depending on the individual situation. For example,
even though a control system may produce solid waste by-products, such
impacts need not be presented in the PSD permit application unless the
applicant wishes to use solid waste impact as an argument against selection
of a particular control alternative as BACT.
In general, the BACT analysis should focus on the direct (on-site)
impacts of alternative control systems. Indirect.energy or environmental
impacts are not required but may be considered where such impacts are found
to be significant and well quantified. Indirect energy impacts include
such impacts as energy to produce raw materials for construction of
control equipment, increased use of foreign oil, or increased oil use in
4"
the utility grid. Indirect environmental impacts include such consider-
ations as pollution at an off-site manufacturing facility which produces
materials needed to construct or operate a proposed control system.
Indirect impacts will generally not be considered, in the BACT review,
since the complexity of consumption patterns in the economy makes those
impacts difficult to quantify. For example, since manufacturers purchase
capital equipment and supplies from many suppliers, who in turn purchase
goods from the other suppliers, accurate tracing of indirect impacts may not
-------
8
be possible. Raw materials may be needed to operate cor,*.-c! equipment,
and suppliers of these resources may change over time. *•>••;! arly, it
generally will not be possible to determine specific povir «*ations and
fuel sources which would be used to satisfy electrical J.: '.= r.? over the
lifetime of a control device.
Ouplicative analyses will not be required in prepcri..g tre BACT
permit application. Any studies previously performed for ip.ironraental
Impact Statements, water pollution permits, State New Sc..-'.= Review, or
other programs may be used when appropriate to demonstrate zr, aoverse
energy, environmental, or economic impact.
These guidelines are applicable to both new and modi*">5 sources.
Where appropriate, however, the review may consider any sj-c-ia1. ec.onoir.ic
or physical constraints which might limit the application of
certain control techniques to a. modification project. ".a*, is, the level
of control required for a process undergoing modification :r • construction
may not be as stringent as that which would be required i- vs sare pro-
cess were being constructed at a grass-roots facility. :,;' findings,
however, must be made on a case-by-case basis by the pe^-itt:i.; autnonty
considering the relevant economic and environmental impact.
The following discussion, under.each of three headi^s of ere-sy,
environmental, and economic impacts, lists and briefly dn:*'!:es a numSs~
of factors which may be addressed in the respective imsa.--. 3r.:!,.'sss. "-sss
factors are guidelines only and are not intended as an e-:"•,:• ive l?s*. c*
considerations for BACT. Some of these factors may not ': a^u
-------
8.8
9
in all cases, while, in other instances, factors which are not included
here may be relevant to the BACT determination. The guideline does not
address the evaluation of each factor nor the weighting of any factor
relative to another. Such determinations should be made on a case-by-
case basis by the permitting authority. For purposes of this discussion,
terms such as "emission control system" or "BACT system" refer to design,
equipment, or operating standards and non-polluting processes as well as
flue gas control equipment.
I. Energy Impact
Energy impacts should address energy use associated with a control
system and the direct effects of such energy use on the facility and the
community. As noted earlier, indirect energy impacts (such as energy to
produce raw materials for construction of control equipment) are not
required but may be considered 1f the permitting authority determines, based
on a showing by the applicant, that the impact is significant and that
the impact can be well quantified. Some specific considerations for
energy impacts are presented below.
A. Energy Consumption
The amount, type (e.g., electric, coal, natural gas), and source
of energy required by each alternative emission control system should
be identified and compared to the quantities and types of energy re-
quired by the proposed BACT system. In analyzing for energy consumption,
various alternatives can be compared in terms of a) energy consumption
per unit of pollution removed (for example, Btu/ton hydrocarbon removed)
-------
10
and b) energy consumption versus the portion of the remaining PSD
increment which is preserved for future growth. If such comparisons are
made, they should be computed on both an overall and an incremental basis.
B. Impact on Scarce Fuels
The type and amount of scarce fuels (e.g., natural gas, distillate
oil) which are required to comply with each alternative control require-
ment should be identified and compared with the BACT requirement. The
designation of a scarce fuel may vary from area to area, but in general
a scarce fuel is one which is in short supply locally and can better be
used for alternative purposes, or one which may not be reasonably
available to the source either at present or in the future.
C. Impact on Locally Available Coal
Alternatives which require the use of a fuel other than locally or
regionally available coal should be discouraged if such a requirement
causes significant local economic disruption or unemployment.
0. Energy Production Impacts (electric utilities)
The 1977 Act Amendments imposed more stringent BACT requirements,
and may affect electric utility units that were well along in the
planning process prior to adoption of EPA regulations in June 1978.
Where the start-up of the more stringent PSD program would result in
construction delays for these units, the BACT determination may consider
such impacts. The impact of delay plant operation should be assessed
in terms of reserve capacities, system reliability, and additional costs
implied by such delays.
-------
8.8
II. Environmental Impact
The net environmental impact associated with each alternative
emission control system should be determined. Both beneficial impacts
(e.g., reduced emissions attributed to a control system) and adverse
impacts (e.g., exacerbation of another pollution problem through use of
a control system) should be discussed and quantified. As pointed out
above, indirect environmental impacts (such as pollution impacts at an
off-site plant which manufacturers chemicals for use in pollution control
equipment) normally need not be considered. The analysis should be
•
presented in the form of the incremental impact of alternative control
systems relative to the system proposed as BACT in the permit application.
Some specific considerations are presented below;
A. Air Pollution Impact
The impact of air pollutants emitted from a gas stream or a
fugitive emission source can be assessed terms of either quanity of
emissions, modeled effects on air quality, or both. If application of a
control system directly removes or releases other air pollutants (or
precursors to other air pollutants), then the pollutants affected and
the impact of these emission changes should be identified. The analysis
can consider any pollutant affecting local air quality including pollutants
which are not currently regulated under the Act, but which may be of
special concern locally.
In the absence of a more systematic technique (e.g., market-type
systems, etc.) for allocating PSD increments, BACT determinations are
important for executing such allocations. PSD programs which depend on BACT
determinations to implement the allocation of increments should project
-------
12
desired levels of growth In an area so that BACT determinations for
each source will serve to insure that the total air impacts of future
growth are no greater than the available Increments. Since in the first
years of the PSD program many areas may have neither a functioning market
system for allocating increments no accurate projects of desired growth,
it is important that such areas use the BACT determinations during this
initial period to conserve the remaining increments as much as possible
until more systematic allocation mechanisms are put In place.
B. Water Impact
Relative quantities of water used and water pollutants produced
and discharged as a result of use of each alternative emission control
system should be identified. Where possible, the analysis should assess
their effect on such local surface water quality parameters as pH,
turbidity, dissolved oxygen, salinity, toxic chemical levels and any
other important considerations, as well as on groundwater. The analysis
should consider whether applicable water quality standards are met and
the availability and effectiveness of various techniques to reduce
potential adverse effects.
C. Solid Waste Disposal Impact
The quality and quantity of solid waste (e.g., sludges, solids) that
must be stored and disposed of or recycled as the result of the applica-
tion of each alternative emission control system should be compared
with the quality and quantity of wastes created if the emission control
system proposed as BACT is used. The composition and various other
characteristics of the solid waste (such as permeability, water retention,
rewatering of dried material, compression strength, Teachability of
dissolved ions, bulk density, ability to support vegetation growth and
-------
8.8
13
hazardous characteristics) which are significant with regard to potential
surface water pollution or transport into and contamination of sub-
surface waters or aquifers should be considered. The relative effec-
tiveness, hazard and opportunity for solid waste management options,
such as sanitary landfill, incineration, and recycling, should be
identified and discussed.
0. Irreversible or Irretrievable Commitment of Resources
The BACT decision may consider the extent to which the alternative
emission control systems may involve a trade-off between short-term
environmental gains at the expense of long-term environmental losses
and the extent to which the alternative systems may result in irrever-
sible or irretrievable commitment of resources (for example, use of
scarce water resources).
E. Other Environmental Impacts
Incremental differences in noise levels, radiant heat, or dis-
sipated static electrical energy should be considered where appropriate.
III. Economic Impact
This analysis should address the economic impacts associated with
the incremental costs of installing and operating alternative control
systems above the economic impact associated with* the system proposed
as BACT. The review should include a complete explanation of pro-
cedures for assessing economic impacts and any supporting data. As
outlined below, economic considerations can address direct economic
impacts on the firm and impacts on local economic growth.
A. Direct Economic Impacts on the Plant
Direct economic impacts on the plant should be examined through
evaluation of the following:
-------
14
1. Direct Costs
The direct cost for each control alternative should be presented
both on an incremental and on an overall basis. Investment costs,
operations and maintenance costs and annualized costs should be presented
separately. Annualized costs are operations and maintenance costs plus
depreciation and interest charges on the investment. Costs should be
itemized and explained. Credit for tax incentives should be included
along with credits for product recovery costs and by-product sales
generated from the use of control systems. The lifetime of the invest-
ment should be stated. Where possible, costs should be broken down
into process change costs (costs of less polluting production process)
and direct pollution abatement costs (cost of pollution control equipment).
The costs of air treatment, water treatment and solid waste disposal
should be presented separately. The analysis should also include the
total investment cost of tne new facility.
As a guide in determining when control costs become excessive,
alternative control systems can be compared in terms of certain cost
effectiveness ratios. Such ratios may include the following:
0 ratio of total control costs to total investment costs.
0 cost per unit of pollution removed (for example, dollars/ton).
0 cost versus additional portion of remaining PSD increment
preserved for future growth.
0 unit production costs (for example, GrW/kwnr, dollars/ton
of steel).
In some cases, the unit of production output may be difficult to determine,
as in the case of a plant producing many different products. In such
cases, unit production costs can be expressed as cost per dollar of
total sales.
-------
3.3
15
2. Capital Availability
Capital availability addresses the difficulty that some sources
may face in financing alternative control systems. Proof of such
claims should be fully documented.
B. Local Economic Impacts
Local economic impacts address the economic feasibility of al-
ternative BACT requirements and the impact of the production decisions
of the firm in response to alternative levels of control. For example,
a BACT alternative may alter the economics of a project to the point
where the decision would be made to cancel the construction or expan-
sion of a facility, to relocate a plant, to reduce the scale of opera-
tion, or to change the production mix. The local economic impacts of
such decisions should be assessed in terms of local employment effects
including number of jobs, dollars paid in.salaries, and changes in
employee skill levels required. The guideline does not imply that the
BACT decision should force new projects to the brink of cancellation.
The BACT decision must be based on sound judgment, balancing environment
benefits with energy, economic, and other impacts.
Local economic impacts also can address the effect of various BACT
alternatives on air quality increment consumption and the subsequent
impact on future growth potential in the surrounding area. The BACT
decision should reflect policy decisions to conserve the available air
quality increment for future growth.
IV. Other Costs
Other costs associated with alternative emission control systems
may be considered where appropriate.
-------
16
ASSISTANCE IN DETERMINING BACT
Assistance to the states and Regional Offices in evaluating control
technology will continue to be provided through the OAQPS new source
review clearinghouse (August 1, 1977 memo* Walter C. Barber to Regional
Offices, "OAQPS Assistance for BACT/RACT/LAER Determinations"). Through
its repository of information on past BACT/RACT/LAER decisions, the
clearinghouse provides a communication link for advising reviewing
authorities of each other's determinations, thereby promoting consistency
in BACT determinations. The degree to which the clearinghouse will be
effective as a consistency-improving tool will depend on the degree to
which the BACT determinations are reported to OAQPS. All Regional Offices
are requested to submit BACT findings to the clearinghouse. In addition
to the repository, the clearinghouse system also provides a focal point
for answering questions related to policy issues and control technology.
With respect to control technology, OAQPS can assist in establishing the
range of alternative controls for a particular process, but cannot
evaluate case-by-case energy, environmental* and economic impacts or
select BACT emission levels. In short, the clearinghouse can be an
important input to the reviewing authority's decision, but it cannot
substitute for the case-by-case analysis required to select the appropriate
control technology.
-------
.
J*T6 J/ . . i ^ .w/w
SUBJECT BACT Determinations for Power Plants S .jject to Revised NSPS
* Walter C. Barber, Director m[j\?T \~$Jt\JL
Office of Air Quality Planning and^Standafas ^
TO- Deputy Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
It has come to my attention that some confusion may exist relative
to the applicability of the proposed new source performance standard (iiSPS)
for steam electric power plants to the PSD permitting process. The PSD
program requires a determination that new power plants employ best
available control technology (BACT) which is defined on a case-by-case
basis and car, be no less stringent than the applicable NSPS. Thus, for
new power plants where the proposed NSPS identifies the aoclicable
standard, all PSD permit decisions regarding BACT and application com-
pleteness should be made to reflect at least the level of stringency.
.contained in this proposal.
At the time of proposal, Administrator Costle indicated that no
final decision had been made as to tne appropriate stringency of tne
standard and that he would base the final rule on the record developed
during the public comment period. Mr. Costle further indicated that
he was proposing the stringent alternative, in part, because it would
be easier tc design down to a less stringent promulgation than it would
be to design up to a more stringent standard. Accordingly, BACT decisions
made prior to promulgation which require control equal to that contained
in the proposal should be reviewed against the final standard to determine
if alternative (less stringent) controls would be more appropriate.
Of course, any more stringent standards required by the promulgated rule
would also establish a new technology baseline for the relevant portion
of the 3ACT determination.
cc: D. Hawkins
Director, Air & Hazardous Materials Division, Regions I-X
R. Rhoads
S. Kuhrtz
I. Artico
B. Steigerwald
H. Fast
D. Borchers
E. Tuerk
> 1320-4 (R»*. J-74)
-------
8.10
BACT i-uR FUGITIVE EMISSIONS OF HYDROCASBQIIS
As a condition of this permit, tlie applicant will develop and
cent a plan to control fugitive emissions of hydrocarbons from the proposed
facility.~A~detailed~writlen descnptioTTcT'tHe" plan'must'be nade avail-
able upon request by the Regional Administrator. Moreover, the plan must
be fully implemented within ISO days- following, initial plant startup. As
a mini mum, the plan will include- the'.fal? owing" work practice and equipment
specifications: __ - -
1. A leak detection and repair progra]rf.wit£ oe^TrnpTeinented to reduca
emissions from equipment leaks. -The following specifications,
Criteria, and requiransiits .will jfe'&um- into- the ronitaring
•pro gran: — • - ' - _
•J-hlthlirlSO days 'of initial pnnTstartup^Tl"cflmpfllientrwiTf •"
be'imnitored for-le.aks-vritn~a-VQC-.datect7oii device. "in addition,
jeripdi{Ljnonitor1ng":of. specif TeTetasponentr-srtH be-perforngd — —
.according to the following frequencies. — — -
1) monitor with a VOC detection device at- least once every
365 days:
open ended pipes which have been fitted with closure
devices in accordance with Part 4 of this section, and
process drains: (if a- leak is detected, the equipment
causing the organic discharge. to the stream will be.
Identified and repaired). __
3 ij Monitor with a VOC- detection device- af least once every
0. days ; -- ..... -- — -----
- valves in gas service,
- compressors and other components with rotating shafts
— .••
1" gas service,
reciprocating compressors "and all "other components with
reciprocating shafts in gas service,
.. safety .relief valves, in. gas service,
Liu£r safety relief valves in liquid service which are
:
shielded such that visual inspection cannot identify
r "
leaks, and
- seal oil degassing vents.
-------
iii) Monitor visually at least once every seven days:
- valves ii.-liquid servscs,
- pumps and other components with rotating shafts in
liquid service,
- reciprocating pumps and other components with
reciprocating shafts in_liquid service, and
- safety relief valves in liquid service.
b) The instrumentation and procedures used in the monitoring program
will confona to or be the equivalent of the test nathod in
Appendix B of the document, Control of Volatile Qrcam'c Compound
Leaks from Refinery Eouiprent (EPA-450/2-78-036J.
c) A leak will be defined as emission of VOC to the atmosphere as
a "result of ' *"'
1) the dripping of liquid volatile organic compounds, and/or
•n} the detee£Tori~Bf lo;000~ppm"by~valTaienaeasTired~a5~hexajTe
at"the" surface""of"Cor as close as poss'ible tol" Sh* "potential
^source with a portable VOC detection instrument..
"3). AH Jeaic vn 11. oe_repaired within nye calen"da"r7~da"ys~9,T^thX-
time they are located^ RepafFoT a coBponeht~"Ts"3efined as:"
1} Ho dripping of liquid volatile organic compounds,
and
1i) No concentration of volatile organic compounds in
excess of 1,000 ppo by volume measured as hexane within
one centimeter of the leak source with a portable VOC
detection instrument.
e) Records will be kept of each leak detected and the subsequent
maintenance performed on that leak. One v/ay to conply with
this requirement is to keep a survey log as is described in
Section 6.3.2 of the document referenced in Part (b) above.
Whatever system is used, records will contain sufficient
information to identify specific components within the plant.
Records will be maintained for a period of at least two years.
•In addition, when a leak is found an easily identifiable water-
proof tag bearing the date the leak was located will be affixed
to the components. This tag will remain until the leak is repaired.
-2-
-------
f) All components the servics of VOC within -.he ant, except flanges,
will be made readily distinguishable from components not in VOC
service. This can be accomplished with an identifiable marking of
some kind.
g) Reports on the results of the leak detection and repair program will
be submitted to the Regional Administrator within 60 days of each
anniversary of initial plant startup. As a minimum this report
will include a discussion of the total number and type of leaks
repaired and a detailed description of leaks which were not
-repaired within the five day tics lim't. The latter will include
sufficient detail to enable tracing the identity of each leak to
the plant records kept in accordance with the preceding requirement
(e). In addition to the annual reports, brief quarterly reports,
listing all leaks not repaired during the five day limit, will be
submitted to the Regional Administrator within 15 days of the end of
"of "each 90 day period following initial plant startup". Trie'fourth
quarterly report can be incorporated into the annual report.
2'. Compressors;~puops~and other-components -with rotating -shafts will be-
equipped with double mechanical seals.
3. Safety relief valves handling VOC will be fitted with rupture discs in
the lines which precede them such that the relief valves are in series
with and follow the rupture discs,
or
•safety relief valves in gas service handling VOC-will be vented to a
flare, recovery, or sons other means of control and safety relief
valves in liquid service handling VOC will be equipped with catch
basins or some other device which directs liquids discharged during
process upsets back to the process, to a control device or to disposal.
No more than ten percent by weight of the material discharged from
each safety relief valve will be emitted to the atmosphere.
4. Open ended pipes will be equipped with caps, plugs; blind flanges,
second valves or other closure devices which will be removed or
opened only while the pipe is in use.
-3-
-------
5f Cooling water in ail non-con.act uu:iumi»ur», iieu;. ttAk.nan-.ui a «"« »...•>.•
heat transfer cqu.^rant in VCC service will be maintained at a pressure
which exceeds the pressure of :he VOC in the sane ..iece of equipment oy
ten percent,
or
the total organic carbon contant of cooling water will be monitored at
the Inlet to all cooling towers at least once every 90 days:
If the organic content is found to exceed ten ppm by weight, the equip-
ment which is leaking organics to the cooling water will be identified
and repaired. Testing will be in accordance with the approved methods
for total organic carbon outlined in 40 CFR 136.
6. Sampling ports and procedures will be designed to prevent any YOC
emissions from purging sample lines and sacple vessels. Also, samples
of volatile organic chemicals will be disposed of properly following
Analysis. One way_to comply_with this requirement is to institute closed
..lflop_sarapling andjto incinerate.samples following analysis.
V
7. Haste water separtors will be equipped with sealed 'covers which totally
enclose the compartment liquid contents. These can be solid, fixed
roofs or floating roofs. .Also, any gauging devices will include a
projection into the liquid or some other device to eliminate the escape
of vapors when the gauge is not in active service. •
8. Vacuum systems trill be equipped such that non-condensibles from notuells,
-condensers, accumulators and other parts of the system are vented to a
flare, an incinerator, a fire box, a flue gas system, a recovery system
or some other means of control.
9. Pressurized process units handling VOC will be vented to a flare, or
some other means of control during depressuriration for unit maintenance.
Controlled venting will continue until the vessel's internal pressure
reaches the pressure drop across the control device or five psig,
whichever is less.
10. Any tank truck or rail car loading facility having a throughput greater
than 76,000 liters.(20,000 gallons) per day of volatile organic com-
pounds averaged over any 30-day period, will be equipped with a vapor
-4-
-------
vent gasscs to at least 3447 pascals (0.5 psia). Connections on vapor
balance systems wi be vaoor tight.
11. Storage of volatile organic compounds will comply with the provisions
of the proposed standards of performance for petroleum liquid storage
vessels dated flay 13, 1973 (proposed 40 CFR 60 Subpart Ka) with the
exception that the capacity size cut-off will be 94,635 liters (25,000
gallons) instead of 151,416 liters (40,000 gallons) and the lower limit
applicability on true vapor pressure will be 3.45 kilopascals (0.5 psia)
instead of 10.35 kilopascals (1.5 psia). Also any uninsulated tank
exterior surfaces exposed to the sun will be painted white. Furthermore,
all fixed roof tanks not controlled by a vapor recovery system will be
equipped with a conservation vent which will be inspected and maintained
yearly to insure proper operation. Finally, all storage tanks with a
capacity exceeding 3785 liters (1000 gallons), except pressure vessels
•and tanks with vapor recovery systems, will be equipped with permanent
• suboerged-ftl 1 - pi pesv
EXEMPTIONS
" I.~I".73pec"ificaT!y "excluded'from the requirements of BACT for Fugitive
Emissions of Hydrocarbons are all pieces of equipment handling commercial
natural gas.
Any component which has no potential to emit VOC to the atmosphere,
is exempt from monitoring requirements. For example, a compressor which is
totally enclosed and vented to a flare system or a safety relief valve which
discharges to a flare system does not have to be monitored with a VOC detec-
tion device.
EQUIVALENT TECHNOLOGY
Any technology shoxvn to the satisfaction of the Regional Administrator
to be the equivalent of the work practices and equipment specifications in
this section can be substituted, with the Regional Administrator's written
permission, for the requirements of Parts 1-11.
DEFINITION
For the purposes of this section the following terms are defined.
• Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) are compounds of carbon
-5-
-------
(excluding carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, carbonic acid,
metallic cars-.^.s ar carscr.stcs, anrcmuai can, its, atSane,
and nethans) that have a true vapor pressure greater tlian
130 pascals (O.Q1S8 pounds per square inch).
» A Component is any piece of equipment capable of leaking VOC
to the atmosphere which includes but is not linited to pumps,
compressors, pipeline valves, safety relief valves, seal oil
degassing vents, open ended pipes and process drains.
• Open Ended Pipes are those which are preceded by valvas or
other closure devices capable of leaking VOC to tha atmosphere.
•Exceptions are safety relief valves and bleeder valves in double
block and bleeder valve systems.
-• Commercial Natural Sas is a mixture of gaseous hydrocarbons,
chiefly methane, used as a fuel and obtained from a company
licensed to .dispense,such jgasses.
•c-Gas-Serrice-fcr-cospcnents-ls defines* ss-tha YOC-bsisg-garcc-JS
at the conditions that prevail in the facility during normal
operations. Similarly, Liquid Service for components is
"defined as the VOC being liquid at the conditions which pre-
vail during normal operations.
• A cover on a waste water separator is considered to be sealed
1f the concentration within one centimeter of the lip or the
surface of the tank does not exceed 10,000 ppm by volume mea-
sured as hexane with a VOC detection device. A fixed roof
.wm.be measured at the surfaces which join the roof to the
walls of the compartment. A floating roof tank will be
measured along the plane across the upper edge of the walls
of the compartment.
• Fugitive Emissions are emissions of VOC due to equipment leaks,
process upsets, sampling procedures, process turnarounds, and
storage and transfer of materials. Also included in the defi-
nition of Fugitive Emissions are VOC emissions from wastewater
separators and vacuum systems.
•6-
-------
8.11
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Region 17 - Atlanta, Georgia 30365
DATE: AU6 5 1983
SUBJECT: Pollution Control Technical Manual
PROM: Assistant Regional Administrator
for Policy and Management
TO: T. Devine, Director Air & Waste Management Division
P. Traina, Director, Water Management Division
J. Finger, Director, Environmental Services Division
Attached is an EPA headquarters memorandum describing the
availability and contents of a series of Pollution Control
Technical Manuals (PCTM) for the synthetic fuel industry.
Please advise your key staff of the availability of this
information*
SowarfD. Zeller
Attachment
-------
s.n
Tj UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
| WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460
26JUL1983
omcc of
AND DEVELOPMENT
SUBJECT: Pollution- Control Technical Manuals (PCTM)
FROM: '#orris Altscfaulir
Regional Services Staff
Office of Research and Development (RD-674)
TO: R&O Intra-Regional Coordinators
Attached is a description of synthetic fuel PCTMs, including
an appendix describing a wide variety of generally applicable
control technologies. The p^Trv1* describe six1 (6) synfuels
processes (three oil shale and three coal) as to process description,
waste stream characterization and associated pollution control
technologies. The appendix is essentially a stand alone document
describing air, water aM solid waste pollution control technologies
applicable to a wide variety of industrial waste streams. It
includes control, technology process descriptions, applicability,
performance, secondary waste generation, reliability and economics.
Please check with other regional and state personnel who may need
such information and rail either Greg Ondich (382-2627) or myself
(382-7667) for either complete sets or individual volumes. In the
future, these documents will only be available from NTIS.
Attachment
cc: Energy Research Committee
Regional Coordinator
Greg Ondich, RD-681
SMSBHffHKL i^ISSRTT 8
o
JUL271S52 ,
U !J=u
rr
, GA.
-------
Federal Register
3.11
48. No. 130 / Wednesday. }uiy 3. 33 / Notices
Inquiries concerning these permits .
-^ould ba directed to the persons cited
jve. It ii suggested that interested
^--jn^fr:>r3ir:'T
Syntftdfc Fuw Pollution Gon&ol . - •
Technical Manuals; Availability'..." *'„
Too Euviiunmental Protecuon Agency
process specific Synthetic Fuel Pollution
Control Technical Manuals. For the past
several years the EPA Office of
Research and Development ho been-' "
characterizing the waste stteanu n*om
' vanoui synfuel processes to detenmne *••
the applicability of pollution control.. -'r*.
^ecmuories to US synthetic far! plants.
le result of these studies is this series
. manuals that address controls for"*. •• •
waste streams from specific synfuel.- • -..-
technologies. The purpose of the . '.
discharge, and pollution control data for
use oy ffovcroxncflt pc*^uii wcxtcHij
To understand how waste streams . .
and controls are influenced by various _.
feedstocks and processes, the *•""•«•'•
cover a range of alternative fuel sources.
liquefaction by direct and indirect
shale. A single appendix volume ho
also been prepared to provide detailed
on approximately SO an*, water and solid
waste pollution control technologies. •
The specific manuals are
Pollution Control Tee&mcal Manual: TOSCO
0 Oil Shale Retorang with Underground
Mount, (ZPA-800/8-O-OOJ. NTS Oner
NO.P383-20Q212)
Pollution Control Technical Manual: Modified
la-Sita Oil Shale Retoranx Coaoinad with
Uirgi Surface Restonnsj (EPA-eOB/ft-O-
004. NTIS Order No. PBB3-200121)
PoUanoa Conffol Technical Manual: LORD 03
Shale Restoring with Ooen Pit Mining
•SPA-SOO/a-O-OOS. NTIS Order No. P3SJ-
aOM]
roUooon Control Technical Manual for Luzp
• Based Inouect Caal Uquetacaon and SNC
Street. SW, Washington. D.C. 20460 .'
(202) 382-2827. ^ "
Ericb Breeaauec. ' '! " "]
Acting Deputy Assistant Adaunuuv tor for
AeswrcA and Development.
p* Doc. aM7m RM NMK *•* «•)
... » i •
•(••VIV «MMP« ••^W^W^B • • • •
. .-. '•
organized sunilaiiy.
~r>r-
Initially, the process technology is
dcscnbtd incindi&s AUtcrieti flow
csQ^utfis* tuflo A& mvcrtory of IH^BSXV *
stream cemeesitons are presented. From
these characterized waste streams.' ~ •
several central teehnblogrexamples are
described for each medium (air. water or
solid waste) hurder to illustrate typical:'
MW,tvwl •vmltf.vMivft^^ 7cf4fHB40v ivt '
tuulrul system cost and peso
presented together with descriptions of.
discharge soeams. secondary waste *. ".
stteams. and energy requirements. A . .„
lUBQiary of the limitations in the data
boe used to develop the ***•*"••!• is
also presented ."!"
Tne buii&ol technology examples used
m the manuals an for illustrative
purposes only and on not mtttiBco to
uiuvey an EPA endorsement or .__ -~
reconttnenQatio^t ^^he selection or
specific plants is the exclusive function
- of designers and permitters who have
oje flex}oiU&7 to evaluate ann concor
__ .!._ iftftmt flir^^ffwA •
if emphasis is
tility and . £
•'*''
applicators of restncted use pesticides.^;
Notice of approval of the originakj evj^s
certification plan appeared in tht J^li__^
Federal Register of November 10. ISTZ,^,
(42 FR 58568). This original certification"'.:
plan will remain in effect pending .ala«j
approval of the revised certification ' '»
plan. Notice is hereby given of the intent,
of thft Regional Administrator, EPA * "~" '
Region VI to approve .the revised Te
certification plan. A summary of the
revised Texas plan appears below.
Interested persons are invited to ' ..'
BATE Comments should be submitted -;
on before August 5.1983. - ••" -,-^j
: Address i
identified by tbft' vnni"* number OPP
42024C to:NormanS-Dyee. "• ••
Environmental Protection Agency. -;-<.*'
Interfirst Two Building, 1201 g|"» St. >.v
Dallas. TX 75270. * -
Copies of the plan are available for. •.
review at the following locations: •
1. Library. Environmental Protection
Agency. Interfirst Two Building. 1201
Ebn St. Dallas. TX 75270. - - •>• . - •*
2. Texas Department of Agriculture.
Agricultural and Environmental - —•
Saences Division. Stephen F. Austin
State Office Building, Rm. 1042.17th and
Congress Ave_ Austin. TX 78711.
FOU PUfTTMSK IHFORUA-nOM CSKTACn
Norman E. Dyer (214-787-2734).
SUFPUMENTJM INFORUATtarC The
revised Texas certification plan was •'•
developed and submitted to EPA for
approval to reflect the changing
responsibilities enumerated in the newly-
enacted Texas pesticide laws and
regulations. Specifically, the Texas
Department of Aanculture is now
resoonsibie for cerancanon of
commercial applicators in Animal
Health and Aquanc categories.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
NCOIONIX
215 Fremont S tract
Sen Francuco. Ca. 94105
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1986
SUBJECT: North County Resource Recovery Associates
PSD
FROM:
TO:
D«
A:
Management
rector
on, Region 9
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This is in response to the June 3, 1986 remand of
Region 9's April 2, 1985 determination to issue a .Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the North
County Resource Recovery Associates for the construction
of a 1000 ton per day resource recovery facility. The
remand charged Region 9 with reconsidering the effects
of unregulated pollutants when making PSD determinations.
Region 9 has reviewed the relevant BACT decisions
and has prepared a response to the Administrator's remand,
as recommended in the July 21, 1986 guidance memo, from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Our response with supporting materials
is attached.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed
materials please contact me at 454-8201 (FTS) or have your
staff contact Wayne A. Blackard, Chief of our New Source
Section at 454-8249 (FTS).
Enclosures
-------
8.12
RESPONSE TO PSO REMAND
NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY CENTER
(PSD Appeal No. 85-2)
On April 2, 1985 the Director of the Air Management
Division, EPA Region 9, made a determination to issue a Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the North County
Resource Recovery Associates (NCRRA) for the construction and
operation of a 33 megawatt, 1000 ton per day resource recovery
facility. During the following appeal period EPA received
three petitions filed pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19 requesting the
Administrator to review Region 9's decision to issue the PSD
permit. The Office of the Administrator reviewed the petitioners'
comments and Region 9's responses to the comments and determined
that Region 9 had satisfactorily addressed all of the petitioners'
allegations with the exception of Region 9's assertion that EPA
lacked the authority to "consider* pollutants not regulated by
the Clean Air Act when making a PSD determination. The Adminis-
trator felt that Region 9's assertion was overly broad and that
when making a PSD determination, in particular a best available
control technology (BACT) decision, a permitting agency must
consider not only the environmental impact of the controlled
regulated pollutant but must also consider the environmental
impacts of any unregulated pollutants that might be affected by
the choice of control technology. For this reason the Adminis-
trator remanded the PSD determination to Region 9 for recon-
sideration and action consistent with the above interpreta-
tion of EPA authority.
In response to the above, Region 9 has reviewed the BACT
decisions made for the NCRRA PSD permit. Under the PSD regula-
tions NCRRA must apply BACT to control emissions of SO?, NO,,
lead, mercury, and fluorides from their proposed resource
recovery facility. BACT is defined in the Clean Air Act as
"...an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of
reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this
Act...on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy,
environmental and economic impacts and other costs...• Under
environmental impacts our review of the original. BACT determination
included the impacts from both regulated and affected unregulated
pollutants. The control of particulates, CO, and VOC emissions
are not directly subject to the federal PSD BACT review, but
are subject to the nonattainment permitting regulations which
are administered by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
NCRRA is proposing to use a dry scrubber with a baghouse
to control emissions of S02, acid gases, and particulate matter
from the proposed resource recovery project. The dry scrubber
consists of a spray dryer and a baghouse. The spray dryer injects
an atomized lime slurry sorbent into the flue gas stream. The
baghouse removes the dried sorbent and flyash (particulate matter)
from the flue gas. The dry scrubber will be designed for a
flue gas flow of 225,000 acfm at an inlet temperature of
-------
340 degrees P and a maximum outlet temperature of 265 degree! P.
NCRRA expects the dry scrubber system to provide 83% removal of
SO2 and 95% removal of acid gases as well as 99.5% removal of
particulatee.
Recent tests of emissions control devices for waste fired
boilers (the latest being the Quebec City Test Program) have
shown that properly designed and operated control devices can
significantly reduce emissions from resource recovery facilities.
Zn particular/ an acid gas scrubbing system operating at optimal
stoichiometric ratios, at low temperature, in tandem with a
baghouse can achieve very high removal efficiencies of particu-
lates, S02r HCl, organics, and heavy metals. The tests indicate
that the NCRRA's proposed emission control system (lime slurry
spray dryer, baghouse, low temperature flue gas) is the most
efficient for controlling the unregulated pollutants from a
resource recovery facility. While certain technologies may have
the potential for greater removal of regulated pollutants (e.g.
a wet scrubber may yield greater S02 removal), available data
suggests that greater control of unregulated pollutants will
not result. Region 9 believes that the NCRRA's proposed control
technology will have very high collection efficiencies of
dioxins, furans, and heavy metals, with collection efficiencies
of 95% for HCl, and greater than 90% for mercury. We conclude
that a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse provides the
greatest degree of control currently achievable for the relevant
air toxics concerns and therefore, emission limitations based
on the operation of a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse
and continuous emission monitors constitute BACT for the control
of S02, lead, mercury, and fluorides from the NCRRA facility.
In addition to the proposed acid gas BACT, Region 9 also
reviewed the BACT decisions made for controlling NO, emissions
from the NCRRA facility. NCRRA has proposed to control NOX
emissions with low excess air .and staged combustion. After
reviewing all of the available control technologies. Region 9
believes that the alternate HOZ control technologies currently
available for resource recovery do not offer any better control
of the affected pollutants (organics such as dioxins and furans)
than do the controls proposed for the NCRRA facility. Our
review included staged combustion, selective non-catalytic
reduction, selective catalytic reduction, wet flue gas de-
nitrification, and the different categories of source separation*.
Our review also took into account the effects of the district
permit requirements designed to reduce organic toxic pollutants
(minimum 1800• P furnace temperature and minimum 2 second
residence time in the combustion zone). We conclude that an
emission limitation based on the use of low excess air and
staged combustion and with continuous emission monitors is BACT
(considering the effect of unregulated pollutants) at this time
for the control of NOX emissions from the NCRRA facility.
As part of our BACT review of the NCRRA PSD permit, Region 9
prepared several charts listing the available S02 and NOX control
options for the SCRRA facility, ranked in order o£ control
-------
-3-
effectiveness, witth the extimated impacts of the controls on
the projects1 other air pollutants. The charts were prepared
using data from existing Region 9 PSD permits, permit applications,
district permits, emission control technology reports from the
California Air Resources Board and the Hew York City Department
of Sanitation, and from reports on the Quebec City Test Program.
The impacts on other pollutants were estimated using our best
engineering judgement based on the available data. We have
included these charts with this report for your review.
After reviewing the above facts, Region 9 has concluded
that no greater controls for the regulated pollutants can be
applied that would be more effective in reducing the emissions
of.unregulated pollutants. Therefore, the BACT proposed by NCRRA
and the BACT decisions made by Region 9 in the April 2, 1985
PSD determination are reaffirmed as BACT for controlling S02.
NOX, lead, mercury, and fluoride emissions from NCRRA's
proposed North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center.
-------
3.12
-4-
REPERENCES
1. Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities,
overy
24, IS
California Air Resources Board, May 24, 1984.
2. Clarke, Harjorie J., Enisalon Control Technologies for
Resource Recovery, New York City Department of sanitation,
March 15, 1986.
3. Ray, D.J., Plnkelsteim, A., Klicuis, R., Masentette, L.,
•The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program:
An Assessment of A) Two-Stage Incineration B) Pilot
Scale Emission Control*, Presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
June 22-27, 1986, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
-------
EPA Region 9 - New Source
BACT ANALYSIS
(Ranked in Decreasing Order of Control Effectiveness)
Project Categoryt Resource1 > v
Project Typet 1113 TO). I
Pollutants
Datei Aug 15f 1986
Project Engineer! Bob Baker
Control Optiona
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, Baghouse
Spray Dryer* Lime Slurry*
Baghouse
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, ESP
Dry Injection, Sodium
Sorbent, Baghouse
Spray Dryer, Line Slurry,
ESP
Dry Injection, Lime,
Baghouse
Mat Scrubbing, Alkaline
Dry Injection, Sodium
Sorbeht, ESP
Dry Injection, Lime, ESP
% Control
80-95
75-90
75-90
70-85
65-85
65-80
50-90*
50-75
40-70
Emission
Rates
Iba/ton
(POT) U
0.26-1.04
(9-35)
0.52-1. 30
(18-44)^
0.52-1.30
(18-44)
0.78-1.56
(26-53)
0.78-1.82
(26-62)
1.04-1.82
(35-62)
0.52-2.61
(18-88)
1.30-2.61
(44-88)
1.56-3.13
(53-106)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
53-212
106-265
106-265
159-318
159-371
212-371
106-530
265-530
318-636
Control Effectiveness on
Other Pollutants
Heavy
Metals
Exc
Exc
good
Exc
Good
Good
Poor
Pair
Pair
Dioxin
Purana
Exc
EXC
good
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Hd
Exc
Exc
EXC
EXC
EXC
EXC
EXC
Exc
Good
Hg
Good
Good
Pair
Poor
Pair
Poor
Pair
Poor
Poor
Lead
Exc
Exc
Good
Good
Good
Good
Pair
Pair.
Pair
(1 Corrected to 12% O>2, 24 hour average
no
-------
EPA Region 9 - New Source Section
BACT ANALYSIS
(Ranked in Decreasing Order of control Effectiveness)
Page 2
Control Optione
Dry injection. Limestone,
ESP
Met Scrubbing. Water
Source Separation
•
% Control
25-40
20-30
5-10
emission
Rates
IDs/ton
(nxn) (1
3.13-3.91
(106-132)
3.65-4.17
(124-141)
4.69-4.95
(159-168)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
636-795
742-848
954-1007
Project C
Project T
Pollutant
Dates
ategoryi Resource Itetv ™
yi»« 1113 Wu, HJF. is MU
« a>»
Aug IS. 198S
Project Ekigineert Bob Baker
control Effectiveness on ""
Other Pollutant^
Heavy
Metala
F*ir
Poor
Poor
t
Dloxin
Furans
Poor
Poor
Fair
Ii3
Good
Fair
Fair
" HQ
Poor
Poor
Poor
Lead
Fair
Fair
Poor
(1 Corrected to 121 O>2, 24 hour average.
CO
-------
U>A Region 9 - New Source & jn
BACT ANALYSIS
(Ranked in Decreasing Order ok Control Effectiveness)
Project; North County RRF
Project Category. Resource overy
Project Type; 1113 TPD. I 36 HH
Pollutant: NOfc '
Date: Aug 15, 1986
Project Engineer; Bob Baker
Control Options
active Catalytic
duct loo (SCR) (2
Flue Gas Denitrtfica-
on (PGDn) »2
active Non-Catalytic
duct ion (SNCR)
Exceae Air/Staged
mbustion
e Gas Recirculation
rce Separation
% Control
90-95
80-90
30-60
90-35
10-15
Minimal
Bnission
Rates
Ibs/ton
(ppn) (1
0.31-0.61
(15-30)
0.61-1.21
( 30-60)
2.43-4.25
(110-200)
3.94-4.25
(185-200)
5.16-5.46
(240-260)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
65-129
129-258
473-860
795-860
1032-1118
Control Effectiveness on
Other Pollutants
Dioxin
Furana
Uhk
None
None
Uhk
Worsen
Fair
VOC
Poor
None
None
Uhk
Nor sen
Poor
00
Poor
None
None
Unk
Worsen
Poor
Heavy
Metals
None
Poor
None
None
None
Poor
(1 Corrected to 12% O02, 24 hour average.
(2 'Nils control technology has not yet been applied to refuse combustion, and has not been considered as a
transferable technology due to as yet unresolved technological problems.
u>
•
»-•
f\J
-------
8.13
/s>
12B/
X, mat/
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
21 5 Fremont Street
Sen Francisco. C«. 94105
10, 1986
Mr. R.J. Sommerville
Air Pollution Control Officer
San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District
9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
Dear Mr. SooMrVille:
This is a follow-up to our June 27^1986 letter to you
regarding the June 3, 1986 remand of the North County Resource
Recovery Associates PSD permit in San Marcos, California.
It is the initial opinion of EPA that PSD permits should
not be issued to new sources by any permitting agency unless
the project's proposed BACT represents the greatest degree of
control currently achievable for unregulated pollutants emitted
by that category of source. EPA suggests the following:
• If the project's proposed BACT does not consider the
control of unregulated pollutants, then the PSD permit
should be placed on hold pending guidance from EPA
Headquarters on the implementation of the remand decision.
• If the project's proposed BACT considers the control
of unregulated pollutants, then permitting can proceed
provided a condition is added to the PSD permit as
suggested in the attachment. This condition may be
deleted from the affected permit at a future date when
all issues related to the remand have been addressed by
the applicant and the permitting agency.
-------
8.13
-2-
Purther guidance regarding this matter will be forthcoming,
If you have any questions, please call Wayne Blackard, Chief of
our New Source Section, at (415) 974-8249.
Sincerely,
David P. Hovekanp
Director
Air Management Division
Enclosure
-------
Suggested Permit Condition
Control of Unregulated Pollutanti
Should additional guidance relating to the June 3, 1986
PSD remand, applicable to this permitting action, be
developed, (company nane) shall provide to (agency name)
any such analysis, data or demonstration of compliance
with other requirements vithin the tine required by such
guidance.
-------
8.13
[A]
NT. Je»se X. Xkeda *Mr. Xkeda*
Deputy Director for tnvironaentel
Health
Hawaii Department of Health
Environmental Protection and
Health fervicee Division
P. O. Bos 3378
Honolulu, HX 96801
CA3
Mr. David J. Minedev "Mr. Mined***
Director
waahoe County Air Foliation
Control District
1001 B. Ninth
Reno, NV 89520
CA]
Mr. Richard B. Booth "Mr. Booth*
Air Pollution Control District
Shasta County Air Pollution
Control District
18S5 Placer Street
Redding, CA 96001
CA]
Lawrence Hart, M.D., M.F.fl. *Dr. Bart*
Air Pollution Control Officer
Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District
315 Canlno del Remedio
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
CA]
Mr. R. J. Soawervtlle "Mr. Somerville'
Air Pollution Control Officer
San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District
9130 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego, CA 92123
CA]
Mr. Donald R. Rowe *Mr. Rove"
Air Pollution Control Officer
Fresno County Air Pollution
Control District
1220 Pulton Mall
Preeno, CA 93721
-------
8.13
CA]
Nr. Js*as K. Zkeda "Mr. Xkeda'
Deputy Director for Bnvironaental
Health
Hawaii Department of Health
Bnviironaental Protection and
Health Services Division
P. 0. Box 3378
Honolulu. HZ 96801
CA]
Mr. David J. Minedew "Mr. Mlnedew*
Director
Waahoe County Air Pollution
Control District
1001 B. Ninth
Reno. MV 89520
CA]
Mr. Richard B. Booth "Mr. Booth*
Air Pollution Control District
Shasta County Air Pollution
Control District
1855 Placar Street
Radding. CA 96001
CA]
L*wr«nc« Bart* M.D.* N.P.B. 'Dr. Bart*
Air Pollution Control Officer
Santa Barbara County Air
Pollution Control District
315 Canine del Ramedio
Santa Barbara, CA 93110
CA]
Mr. JU J. SoBeaerville "Mr. Soneerville1
Air Pollution Control Officer
San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District
9150 Chesapeake Drive
San Diego. CA 92123
CA]
Mr. Donald R. Rove *Mr. Rove*
Air Pollution Control Officer
Fresno County Air Pollution
Control District
1220 Pulton Mall
Fresno, CA 93721
-------
8.13
[A]
?f * !f}ton '«ld"«in "Mr. feldetein'
Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay ATM Air Quality
Management District
939 Illle Street
San Francisco, CA 94109
CA]
Mr. Lowll Shlflay -Mr. Shlflcy"
Air Quality Officer
Nevada Department of Conservation
and natural Recoureee
01vieion of Environmental
Protection
201 South Fall Street
Caraon City, NV 89710
-------
8.13
JUN 27 686
Mr. David J. Miaedew
Director
Waahoe County Air Pollution *
Control District
1001 E. Hinth
Reno, MV 89520
Dear Mr. Minedewi
On June 3, 1986. the Administrator issued a remand of
th« North County Resource Recovery Associates PSD permit to
the Region 9 office. On June 24. all Regional offices of EPA
were notified by the Office of General Counsel that the
decision embodied in this remand should, at a minimum, be
applied to all PSD applications currently in process (i.e. at
least those> projects that have not yet received a final permit)
This requirement also applies to PSD programs delegated to
State or local agencies.
Guidance on how to Implement this decision should be
forthcoming from EPA headquarters in approximately two weeks.
Since BACT determinations for all permits are potentially
impacted, you are requested to not issue any proposed or
final permit until this guidance is provided to your agency.
Please call me if you have any questions.
Sincerely.
OIKDiAL
David P. Rowekamp
Director
Air Management Division
-------
8.13
CA3
Mr. Milton Feldstein 'Mr. Feldstein1
Air Pollution Control Officer
Bay Area Air Quality
Management District
939 Ellis Street
San Francisco* CA 94109
CA3
Mr. Lowell Shifley 'Mr. Shifley-
Air Quality Officer
Nevada Department of Conservation
and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental
Protection
201 South Fall Street
Carson City, NV 89710
-------
i UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
\ ^JZ • Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
\ / Hesearcn Triangle Park, Nortn Carolina 27711
-
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Draft Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) Guidance for
Impacts of the North County&ource Rpdovery PSD Remand
FROM: Darryl D. Tyler. Di
Control Programs DeveloprnertrDiyfsion (MD-lb)
TO: Winston A. Smith, Director . .
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
Region IV
We are writing in response to your comments on the subject draft
guidance! Inihose9 consent's, you cited concerns about the applicabi lit, r of
the remand and the need for a consistent scientific basis to use in deter-
mining negative health effects of unregulated pollutants. While we share
Jour latter concerns as a long term ^«e%we find your suggestions
difficult to address in the near term, as is discussed below.
Within the draft policy, our recommendation regarding transition is
! s
a new
1
delays and confusion beyond that typically '"
activity.
You also suggested thata consistent scientificbasisfor deter»jnin9
e« E^en ?r2e cJSldettle significant issues such as how to
thl"ealth effectl due to various pollutants and how to re ate quMt};«-
M^elv these iSacts to the BACT decision process, this guidance could no
Solace thlcStbyUase nature of the BACT requirement in the Clean Air
Art It ray well be that no one scientific basis for determining health
Sfects win emerge and that such effects will need to be evaluated on a
case-by-case basis. In the meantime, we cannot freeze the permitting
-------
a.14
process while awaiting the results of the scientific debate. Therefore,
while we agree that your suggestion warrants consideration in the development
of our long term policy, we continue to believe that the case-by-case
strategy advocated in the draft is a reasonable interim approach.
To summarize, we agree philosophically with several of your comments
but continue to believe that our suggested approach is the appropriate
one for the immediate future. We do appreciate your participation in the
development of interim policy pursuant to the remand and look forward to
receiving your input as we develop long-term policies affecting currently
unregulated pollutants. If vnu have any further..comment on this policy,
please contact Michael Trutna of my staff at" 629-~559"n
cc: G. Emison
-------
8.15
April 23, 1987
NOTE TO REGIONAL NSR CONTACTS
Many questions raised in the past regarding the appropriateness of
certain economic arguments in the best available control technology (BACT)
analysis are addressed only vaguely (if at all) in existing EPA policy
material.
Attached is a policy memorandum (and the incoming request) just issued
by this office. This policy memorandum responds to questions raised by
Region IV. Other Regions have indicated that they are faced with similar
questions. We feel that this policy memorandum provides some badly needed
guidance in this area.
To be most effective this policy memorandum should be as widely distributed
as possible to those directly involved in BACT determinations. Therefore,
if at all possible, please mail a copy of these memoranda to all of your
State and local agencies for their use.
Our response is derived in large part from the knowledge and information
provided by many of you. I would like to take this opportunity to express
my appreciation for that input.
Attachments
cc: Bob Sauman
John Crenshaw
Sally Parrel!
Greg Foote
Tom Helms
-------
S.I5
-
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 2771 1
APR -j 5 "3 7
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Huntsvllle Incinerator - Determining Best Available Control
Technology (BACT)
FROM: Gary McCutchen, Chief
New Source Review Section, CPOD (NO-IS)
TO: Bruce P. Miller, Chief
A1r Programs Branch, Region IV
•
This 1s 1n response to your March 30, 1987, memorandum regarding
the BACT determination made by the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management (AOEM) for the proposed Huntsvllle Incinerator facility.
It Is difficult to provide a detailed response to the significant and
complex questions and Issues you have raised within the relatively short
turn-cround time that you have specified. However, our initial review of
the Information submitted indicates that the Region's position (I.e., the
use T}f acM gas scrubbing as BACT for municipal waste Incinerators) is
consistent with emerging national policy and current BACT analysis for
similar facilities.
We have reviewed the arguments presented by the applicant and
ADEN. Although certain of the criteria used 1n the BACT decision are
acceptable, many of the reasons given for not requiring acid gas controls
are unacceptable—even within the context of a case-by-case analysis.
Specifically:
1) The fact that the new source performance standard (NSPS) for this
source category (40 CFR 60, Subpart Ob, June 19, 1986) does not require
sulfur dioxide (SOg) scrubbing should not influence the BACT analysis.
In a BACT analysis, an NSPS simply defines a minimal level of control. The
fact that a technology was not selected for the NSPS (or that a pollutant
is not regulated by the NSPS) 1s in no way Indicative of the qualifications
of a technology as a BACT candidate. The only reason for comparing
control options to an NSPS 1s to determine whether the control option
would result 1n an emissions level less stringent than the NSPS. If so,
that option Is unacceptable.
-------
3.15
2) It is not correct to factor into tne BACT analysis the contention
that the proposed facility would be less polluting than any coal-fired
boiler Redstone Arsenal would contemplate building if steam were not
available from the proposed facility. Any emitting facility constructed
by Redstone Arsenal would be a separate source and would be required to
comply with all'applicable environmental regulations. If the Redstone
Arsenal were to constuct a coal-fired facility or its own incinerator, it
would also have to apply BACT. In fact, BACT for a coal-fired boiler
might result in lower emissions than would a steam-producing incinerator.
3) In regard to ADEN'S argument that the Huntsville plant would
produce steam which is a less valuable commodity than the electricity
produced at other similar plants, it is difficult to determine the validity
of the argument without a detailed economic assessment. Even though
electricity may be a more valuable product than steam (for some municipal
waste Incinerators), steam is cheaper to produce both from the point of
capital and annualized costs. Depending on the purchase price of the
steam, it may even be a more profitable alternative for those facilities
where a buyer for the steam is on hand.
The ADEN has indicated that since the steam purchase agreements are
already signed it is not possible for the applicant to consider raising
the purchase price or the steam to defray tne increased tipping cost that
the applicant contends would result from the cost of SOg controls. In
most cases, this type of argument should be ignored. A reviewing agency
1s no more bound by an applicant's unfounded assumption regarding what
level of control Mill constitute BACT than a bank is bound by an assumption
of a certain interest rate on the applicant's loan or a supplier by an
assumption on the applicant's part regarding the costs of materials or
equipment. This is one case where it it acceptaoie for a BACT determination
to make it uneconomical for a source to construct.
The EPA has no choice other than to Ignore such arguments. If
financial agreements like this were taken into account, applicants could
simply sign contracts based on meeting the NSPS or even using no control
whatsoever, then use those contracts to justify the level of control
that they preselected.
In further response to the specific questions raised in your memo:
1) The document titled "Guidelines for Determining Best Available
Control Technology (BACT)/ dated December 1978, was issued for the
purpose of providing the framework for a consistent approach in determining
BACT. The document, however, Is general in its attempt at defining the
BACT process, and at best focuses on specifying the parameters which
should be considered in the BACT analysis.
In October 1980, EPA published the "Prevention of Significant
Deterioration Workshop Nanual." This document, 1n the hopes of bringing
greater consistency to the BACT review process, presented an analytical
format for the BACT analysis. Although the document recognizes the need
-------
8.15
for evaluating BACT on a case-by-case basis, it does provide more specific
guidance than the 1978 document in defining how economic, energy, and
environmental factors are to be evaluated. If applied correctly, the
methodology described in the workbook should result in a BACT determination
consistent with the definition of BACT and acceptable to EPA.
Probably the best method of determining BACT, an approach that
assesses BACT starting from the most effective control option available,
is being successfully implemented by some State and local agencies. This
approach, in conjunction with the PSD workshop manual, can be used to
evaluate the State's proposed BACT decision. For further information on
the implementation of this approach, contact Wayne A. Blackard, Chief,
New Source Section. EPA Region IX (FTS 454-8249).
2) As you have pointed out, States are to decide how their
environmental resources (such as increments) are used. A State may, for
example, decide that a proposed source would consume too much- Increment
and therefore prevent that source from being built or allow it to oe
built only if increment consumption is further reduced.
The BACT determination, however, is made totally independent or the
amount of Increment or air resources available. The environmental impact
aspect of BACT 1s designed to ensure that a more costly control system .
will result In a decreased environmental Impact (e.g., fewer emissions,
smaller impact area, lower maximum ground level concentration, etc.).
This environmental assessment should not be confused with the concept of
using up the increment by "relaxing" BACT, a concept that EPA does not
accept.
Once determined, BACT can only be made more stringent (not less) by
environmental considerations. Examples Include cases where BACT is not
stringent enough to prevent exceedances of a national ambient air quality
standard (or an Increment) or where the State will not accept the level
of control selected as BACT and demands more stringent controls to preserve
increment. In both cases, the source has a choice of locating elsewhere
or reducing either its emissions or Its impact. Efforts to reduce emissions
bring about the "technology-forcing" aspect of BACT and lowest achievable
emission rate that Congress envisioned as part or a system designed to
hold new emissions to an absolute minimum. If it works, the "forced"
technology will likely become the new BACT level of control.
Possible grounds for overturning a BACT decision Include an
Inappropriate review (e.g., BACT procedures not correctly followed, BACT
decision not correctly justified), an Incomplete review, a review based
on false or misleading Information, or a permit which is not enrorceaoie
as a practical matter. This is not a complete 11st; these are just some
of the most common problems.
3) The PSD Workshop Manual also addresses tnis point by recognizing
that "additional financing required for an alternative control strategy
may jeopardize the financing of the entire project." However, the
workshop manual also points out that "Information is available on the
-------
3.15
value of various emissions reductions that EPA and affected industries
generally agree are reasonable." Since an applicant can bias the economics
of a proposed project towards a less stringent control option, it is best
in nearly all cases to evaluate the costs of controls against established
norms. Many State and local agencies currently evaluate 8ACT proposals
aaainst dollars oer ton criteria or against acceptable control costs for
the category of source in question. This helps to ensure that the applicant
does not bias the economics of the project against an otherwise acceptable
control option. These types of approaches help to bring nationwide
consistency to the BACT determinations while still allowing for a case-by-case
determination.
The burden of proof always rests on the applicant to demonstrate why
a generally accepted and established control option is unacceptable for
the proposed project. The demonstration deserves special scrutiny when
the applicant claims that an established control option would prevent the
source from being constructed. It should be noted that the reason for
applying economics to the source category overall and then requiring
extensive justification for less stringent control for an individual
facility 1s that EPA cannot be placed 1n the position of allowing less
stringent (or no) controls simply because an applicant cannot afford what
similar sources are required to use.
Economic considerations will vary from project to project, but
within the sane general source category, construction and operation costs
should not vary to the extent that the requirement to apply an established
control option can stop a project. This type of argument generally is
not acceptable. In most cases, a source simply should not be granted a
permit if financing Is inadequate for proper controls.
The caveat in existing BACT guidance about stopping a project 1s
intended to prevent BACT determinations by a reviewing agency that are so
much more expensive than the norm that a typical source could not reasonably
be built. Examples might Include requirements for a series of two or
more baghouses or a control system whose cost greatly exceeds that of the
base facility.
4) The Region's nonacceptance of the "alternative build scenario" appears
appropriate in this ease.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact me at FTS 629-5592, or have your staff contact David Solomon at
FTS 629-5375.
cc: HSR contacts
-------
3.15
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
343 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 10383
MEMORANDUM
DATE: ' 'T37
SUBJECT: Huntsville Incinerator - Determining BACT Under PSD
FRCMt Bruce P. Miller, Oiief
Air Programs Branch
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division
TO: Gary McCutchen, Chief
New source Review Section
Office of Air Quality Planning Standards
SUMMARY;
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide you with background information
concerning the circumstances surrounding the proposed BACT for the Huntsville
incinerator and solicit Headquarters' guidance and interpretation of the
December 1978 "Guidelines for Determining Best Available Control Technology
(BACT)* as it relates to the Huntsville Incinerator facility.
On December 31, 1986, the Ala**"1"" Department of Environmental Management
(ADEN) submitted a draft PSD preliminary determination (Attachment I) for
the Huntsville Municipal Incinerator. The proposed project will process
690 tons/day of municipal solid wasta (NSW). The MSW, along with dried
sewage sludge will be orocessed in two (2) 345 tons/day units which will
generate steam to heat the Redstone Arsenal. The draft preliminary deter-
mination set forth BACT emission limits for the regulated pollutants subject
to review. In oarticular, the emission limits set were 0.02 gr/dscf cor-
rected to 12% CO? for particulate matter and 0.28 Ib/mnBtu for sulfur dioxide
(SO2). No emission limits were required for the nonregulated pollutants.
Acid gas controls were not required to be installed.
The reasons given by the ADEN for not requiring acid gas controls for SC?
and H2S04 emissions at the Huntsville plant were as follows:
0 First, the Huntsville plant would produce steam while most of the other
plants produce electricity, which must be purchased by the appropriate
utility at the avoided cost to the utility. Second, the tipping fees
currently charged elsewhere are generally several times the rate charged in
Huntsville. The tipping fee generally reflects the availability of land
for siting a landfill. A low tipping fee reflects the availability of low
cost land, while a high fee reflects the opposite.
0 Secondly, EPA proposed sulfur dioxide (40 CFR 60, Subpart Ob, June 19,
1986) emission standards for industrial-ccmnercial-institutional steam
generating units under NSPS. An emission limit was not proposed for
sulfur dioxide or the other gases in question from this type af unit,
MSW-fired boilers, which indicates that no control equipment was con-
sidered appropriate. Sulfur dioxide emissions would be low due to the
inherent low sulfur content of MSW.
-------
8.15
-2-
0 Thirdly, ADEM's BACT detennination included olans by Redstone Arsenal
to build a coal-fired boiler(s) if stean cannot be purchased Eron the
Kuntsville incinerator. Installation of a coal-fired boiler(s) with
equivalent stean production by Redstone Arsenal would result in sulfur
dioxide emissions* 1.5 to 3.0 tines higher than emissions frcm the proposed
MSW-fired and package boilers. Because of these factors and the inherent
low sulfur content of the MSW fuel, an 0.28 Ib/ramStu SO2 emission limit was
determined to be BACT for the MSW boilers with no acid gas control.
On February 10, 1987, EPA met with representatives from the ADEM, the City
of Huntsville, and consultants to the City to discuss any comments that EPA
had on the draft preliminary determination. (Attachment II is a list of the
comnehts EPA presented to ADEN and the other parties). The discussions pri-
marily focused on whether the installation of acid gas controls were war-
ranted and should be required.
ADEM and City officials presented the agrument that the installation of
acid gas controls in addition to particulata emission controls would cause
the tipping fee to go from S4/ton to $21/ton of garbage disposed. For the
installation of only particulate emission controls, the tipping fee would
rise to $9/ton of garbage disposed. The ADEN stated that the imposition of
the installation of acid gas controls would kill the project and require
the City to revert back to the landfill for disposing' of its refuse. Further-
more* ADEN argued that if the incinerator was not built and the steam was
not able to be generated, the Redstone Arsenal would have to rebuild the
existing coal-fired boiler or replace it as it is presently in violation of
the existing SIP. operation of the existing coal-fired boiler would cause
more pollutants to be emitted to the atmosphere than frcm the incinerator
project.
SPA informed ADEM and the City of Huntsville at the meeting that the PSD
regulations do not a3*"»« the issue of whether a project goes forth or not
but only that the BACT is employed while taking into account energy, environ-
tental, and economic Impacts and other costs. We do not feel that PSD regu-
lations allow the flexibility to consider alternative build scenarios in
determining BACT. In addition, EPA argued that if you consider the impact
frcm the North County Remand on this project regarding the consideration of
hazardous yet unregulated pollutants like dioxins, furans, heavy metals, and
acid gases, the installation of acid gas control is warranted. Based upon
the incremental cost differential for the installation of the acid gas con-
trols and the anount of pollutants removed, the cost per ton of pollutants
appears reasonable. For an incremental cost of 52.4M (annualized costs),
1589* tons of pollutants (SO2, BC1, R^SOA' and dioxins) would be removed.
This equates to an incremental cost of $151C/ton ot additional pollutants
removed.
70% of 321.1 TPY Of S02 I
90% of 1502.3 TPY Of SCI j
90% of 13.1 TPY of H2S04 1-1589 TPY
90% of 5.4 x LO"4 TPY of dioxin |
-------
8.15
-3-
Subsequent to this meeting, Mr. Richard Grusnick, ADEN, wrote EPA on
February 23, 1987, outlining the major area of disagreement between our
agencies as it relates to the factors allowed to 'be considered in making a
BACT determination (Attachment III-Feb. letter). In his letter, Mr. Grusnick
submitted a copy of EPA's December 1978 policy entitled "Guidelines for
Determining Best Available Control Technology (BACT)." Mr. Grusnick's
opinion is that this policy supports the factors considered in his draft
preliminary determination which he feels provides a large degree of latitude
to States in evaluating these factors; specifically:
1. indirect energy impacts, such as the fact that the solid waste will sub-
stitute for fossil fuels otherwise burned, may be considered.
2. Assessing the significance of additional controls based primarily on
air quality impact is allowed under the policy.
3. The environmental consequences of the fact that solid waste oust be
buried if the incinerator is not permitted is a relevant solid waste
disposal impact*
4. The localized economic impacts are relevant, such as the low tipping
fee presently charged by Huntsville when compared to other parts of the
country.
5. The guidance contains implications that BACT which would preclude »±e
operation of a unit would not be expected.
Finally, rtr. Grusnick argues that the 1973 guidelines clearly envisions.
different levels of control at identical units located in different places
based on different circumstances and,, in fact, different weighing of relevant
factors and identical circumstances. It is his opinion from reading tne
guidelines that "State judgement and the federal emission standards are the
foundations for the BACT determination".
The issues raised in Mr. Grusnick's February 23 letter are fundamental issues
with respect to EPA13 role to oversee the State responsibility of implementing
the PSD rules properly. Although we do not entirely agree with Mr. Grusnick's
arguments, we feel it is important to raise these issues with your office and
get Headquarters' interpretation on these issues and whether the 1978 guide-
lines are being interpreted correctly by the ADEN.
Specifically, we would like your office to respond to the following questions:
1. The guidance for determining BACT under PSD dated December 1973, is this
current Agency guidance or has this been superseded?
-------
3.15
-4-
2. Concerning Mr. Grusnick's point that the State's judgment ana the federal
snission standards are the foundation for the BACT determination, EPA
agrees that State judgment is a factor in determining BACT. However,
it has been Region IV1 s opinion that where a State's judgment concerning
BACT emission limits is inconsistent with the BACT analysis considering
energy, environmental, and economic impacts and other costs that it was
our duty to renegotiate changes in the State permit or overturn that per-
mit. Even if the State followed the correct procedures for determining
a BACT emission limitation out came to a different conclusion than we
would have (i.e., the State BACT emission limitations were less stringent
than what EPA would have proposed), Region IV believes it can overturn
that permit. Do you agree with Region IV' s position? What is your
position on Mr. Grusnick's contention? Finally, on what, if any, basis
do you believe EPA should overturn a state PSD permit (i.e., not a dele-
gation of the Federal PSD program) pursuant to BACT, and what do you con-
sider to be our burden of proof?
3. How would you interpret the guidance which contains implications that
BACT decisions should not force new projects to the brink of cancellation?
It is Region TV's opinion that if an appropriate Level of controls
represent BACT, we would not require additional air pollution controls
just for the sake of control if it wasn't reasonable'(i.e., profitability
of the project is independent of the BACT analysis). We do not believe
that we should allow lesser than appropriate level of control to be
installed even if the profitability of the project would be such that
the project is cancelled. Do you-agree with Region TV's opinion?
4. Concerning Mr. Grusnick's items 1, 2, and 3, do you agree with his agru-
ments chat alternative build scenarios should be considered in determin-
ing BACT as it relates to energy, enviromental, and economic impacts
and then cost considerations? It has been our position that alternative
build scenarios do not enter into the BACT analysis. Do you agree with
Region TV's position?
ACTICN;
Please review the attached information and provide responses co the issues
raised in this memorandum. He would appreciate a response by April 15, 1987,
if at all possible.
BACKGROUND:
See attached information.
Attachments
-------
8.15
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 2771 1
BUT
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Salt Hater Drift from Cooling Towers
FROM: Gary 0. McCutchen, Chief
New Source Review Section, CPOO (MO-15)
TO: Bruce P. Miller. Chief
Air Programs Branch. Region IV
This is in response to your April 10. 1987. memorandum regarding the
detenrinat on of IS? available coStrol technology (BACT) for the existing
™ towers at Florida Power Corporation's Crystal River units 4 and 5.
Your neno states that cooling tower emissions (parti cul ate matter in
5 tea result rt that time they were neither required to apply BACT
PSD analysis was complete.
Tn tMc oartleular case, the requirement to apply BACT on an emissions
ffiSSSSsS^
policy guidance Issued on BACT to date.
-------
8.16
This decision should not be considered a precedent It leaves
undecided nearly all the important issues that would arise in cases where
BACT is actually being derived after a source has been constructed (e.g.,
should retrofit costs be considered, should technology not available then
be considered).
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please feel free to
contact me at FTS 629-5592 or have your staff contact David Solomon at
FTS 629-5375.
cc: NSR contacts
-------
8.16
.UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
349 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30349
MEMORANDUM
DATE: '" - • 1387
SUBJECT: Salt Water Drift From Cooling Towers
FROM: Bruce P. Miller, Chief
Air Programs Branch
TO: Gary McCutchen, Chief (MD-15)
New Source Review Section
Summary;
Region IV is requiring Florida Power Corporation (FPC) to
reevaluate their air quality analysis for a previously issued
PSD permit in order to include the TSP impact from two salt
water cooling towers. At the time of the original PSD appli-
cation (1979) we overlooked the requirement that the cooling
tower emissions (participate salt emissions) were to be
included in the air quality analysis. We discovered this
oversight as part of a current environmental impact assessment
where R-IV is considering a requirement that FPC add three
additional cooling towers to their facility to prevent further
thermal deterioration in the Gulf of Mexico due to the current
cooling water discharges. At present, two coal-fired boilers
(Nos. 4 and 5) are each tied in with a cooling tower. Two
other coal-fired boilers (Nos. 1 and 2) and a nuclear unit
(No. 3) are being proposed for a tie-in to three proposed
cooling towers. Before we can proceed with the additional
cooling tower impact assessment, we find it necessary to
determine the additional impact of the two existing-cooling
towers on the PSD increment and on the MAAQS.
In response to our requirement, FPC has submitted protocols
for modeling and monitoring along with a request that the
BACT analysis for the cooling towers should be based on the
technology at the time the original PSD analysis was comple-
ted (1979). (See attached letter.) Region IV concurs with
FPC's interpretation that BACT should be based on the techno-
logy at the time the original PSD analysis was completed.
Action;
Please let us know whether you concur with our position that
the BACT determination should be based on proven technology
at the time the original PSD analysis was completed. A re-
sponse by April 20, 1987, is requested.
Enclosure
-------
(tO SfcK. „ i —
J* T* 2. -7
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
4APT-AC J4S COURTLANO STREET
„„ „ ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30363
JUN - 3 1987
CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT
Mr. Halt Walters, President ' j;~.
NRG/Recovery Group **••• /*
1616 Athens Street
Lakeland, Florida 33802
Dear Mr. Walters: • ...
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) notified you by
letter dated February 11, 1987, that the Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) permit issued on September 24, 1986, by the Florida
Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) for the construction of
the Lake County Waste to Energy facility was deficient. Furthermore,
the aforementioned letter stated that unless the DER PSD permit was
modified to reflect what EPA considers to be Best Available Control
Technology for the Lake County Waste to Energy facility, EPA may initiate
appropriate enforcement action to prevent or delay the construction of
the facility. In addition, EPA notified the Florida DER of EPA's position
by letter dated February 11, 1987.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 167 of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S. C.
§7477, the NRG/Recovery Group (Lake County Waste to Energy facility)
is hereby required to comply with the terms specified in the enclosed
Administrative Order.
Should you have any further questions, please feel free to call me at
(404) 347-4727 or Winston A. Smith, Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division, at (404) 347-^043.
Sincerely yours,
Tack E. Bivan
Regional Administrator
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Steve Snail wood, P.E., Chief
Bureau of Air Quality Management
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation
-------
3.17
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
In the matter of: )
LAKE COUNTY WASTE TO ENERGY FACILITY )
Order
OKAHUMPKA, FLORIDA
PROCEEDINGS UNDER
SECTION 167 OF THE CLEAN
AIR ACT, AS AMENDED, 42 U.S.C. §7477
ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER
This Administrative Order is issued this date by the
Regional Administrator, Region IV, United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), pursuant to Section 167 of the clean
Air *ct (the Act), 42 U.S.C. S7477.
FINDING OF FACT
1. The NRG/Recovery Group, Inc., proposes to construct and
operate a Lake County Waste to Rnerqy Facility (Lake County)
in Okahumpka, Lake County, Florida. The Lake County facility
will consist of two mass burn incinerators which will each
incinerate approximately 250 tons per day of municipal solid
waste. The'se incinerators will be fueled with a combination
o€ municipal solid waste and wood chips. These incinerators
will emit particulate matter, sulfur dioxide (S02>, nitrogen
oxides, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, lead,
beryllium, fluoride, sulfuric acid mist, mercury, dioxins,
-------
3.17
- 2 -
•dibenzofurans, and hydrogen chloride. All of the afore-
mentioned pollutants are regulated by the Act except dioxins,
uibenzofurans, and hydrogen chloride.
2. The area of construction of the Lake County Waste to
Energy Facility is located in an attainment area for all
pollutants regulated by the Act. [40 Code of Federal Regulations
(C.F.R.) §81_.310] The facility is considered a major stationary
source because its potential emissions (which are subject
to regulations under the Act) are above the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) of Air Quality threshold
level. Consequently, this facility is regulated under the
PSD rules and regulations.
3. On March 11, 1986, the NRG/Recovery Group applied to
the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation (OCR) for
a PSD permit to construct and operate two 250 tons per day
municipal solid waste energy recovery units at its Lake County
facility located on Jim Rogers Road in Okahumpka, Florida,
f
pursuant to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP)
[Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 17-2.500 et seq.].
4. Cn Nay 20, 1986, in response to said PSD application,
the Florida DER issued a Preliminary Determination which
contained, in the State's judgment, the Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for the proposed incinerators.
The BACT Determination contained emission limits for all
applicable-pollutants regulated by the Act and contemplated
that a baghouse (to control particulates) in combination
-------
8.17
-3-
wlth a scrubber (to control acid gases) constituted BACT.
5. On July 2, 1986, EPA notified the Florida DER that
f.he SO2 emission limit contained in the Florida DER BACT
Determination may not adequately reflect BACT (i.e., proposed
SO2 emission limit not sufficiently stringent) and that the BACT
Determination should also consider the effect of controlling
SO2 on unregulated pollutants such as hydrogen chloride and
dioxin. Furthermore, EPA informed DER that it was EPA policy
that the control of nonregulated air pollutants may be
considered in imposing a more stringent BACT limit on regulated
pollutants, if there is a reduction in the nonregulated air
pollutants which can be directly attributed to the control
device selected for the abatement of the regulated pollutants.
6. On August 15, 1986, DER issued a second PSD Preliminary
Determination with a modified BACT Determination. The modified
BACT Determination no longer contained the requirement for acid
gas controls, but only required that the applicant leave
space for the acid gas control equipment in the event there
would be a future state rule change for resource recovery
facilities. Removal of the requirement to employ acid gas
control meant the modified BACT Determination could not
adequately address EPA's concern about a more stringent S02
emission limit.
7. On September 19, 1986, EPA-notified DER that EPA was
not persuaded by Lake County's contention that municipal
solid waste incineration with acid gas control is not
-------
8.17
-4-
econonically feasible.
8. On September 24, 1986, the Florida DER issued its
Final Detcmi nation and PSD permit to the NRG/Recovery Group
for the proposed Lake County facility. The Final Determination
and State PSD permit did not require the installation of acid
gas control.
9. On October 23, 1986, EPA notified the Florida DER
that EPA did not concur with DER's Final Determination
regarding the issue of BACT. EPA recommended that the Final
Determination and the Florida DER permit be reissued with a
BACT Determination which reflects state-of-the-art technology
(acid gas control and more stringent emission limitations
for particulate matter and S02).
10. On January 30, 1987, EPA-Region IV prepared an
independent BACT analysis, which varied from DER's Final
Determination, in that it contained more stringent emission
limitations for particulate^matter and 502 (achieved through
the use of high efficiency particulate emission and acid
gas controls).
11. On February 11, 1987, EPA notified Florida DER that
the DER PSD permit issued to the NRG/Recovery Group for the
Lake County facility on September 24, 1986, was deficient and
that EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement action against
the Lake County facility to prevent or delay the construction
of the facility.
12. On February 11, 1987, EPA notified the NRG/Recovery
-------
8.17
-5-
Group that the Florida D£R PSD permit was deticient and that
unless the DER PSD permit was modified to reflect what EPA
considers BACT, EPA may initiate appropriate enforcement
action to prevent or dc.-J.dy the construction of the facility.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. The Administrator of the EPA pursuant to his authority
under Section 109 ot the Act, 42 U.S.C. §7409, promulgated
National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) for certain criteria pollutants, including total suspended
particulate matter, sulfur oxides (SO2), nitrogen oxides,
carbon monoxide, ozone, and lead. (40 C.F.R. SS5U.4 - 50.12)
2. Pursuant to Section 110 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §7410,
the Administrator of EPA, in 45 Federal Register 52676
(August 7, 1980), promulgated amended regulations for PSD
in areas where the existing air quality is better than
said ambient standards and incorporated said regulations
f
into the various implementation plans ot each state. The
relevant regulations are codified at 40 C.F.R. §51.24.
3. The Florida SIP contains federally approved PSO
regulations, based on the above-referenced PSD regulations,
for such attainement or "clean air" areas. (F.A.C. Rule
17-2.500)
4. The area of construction for the Lake County Waste to
Energy facility is an attainment area for NAAQS for all
pollutants. (40 C.F.R. §81.310)
-------
3.17
- 6 -
5. NRG/Recovery Group is the owner: and operator of the
major emitting resource recovery facility in Lake County,
Florida, and proposes to cor truct at that site pursuant
to the PSD permit issued f ;-, Lake County Waste to
Energy facility by Flori .R on September 24, 1986.
6. EPA finds the Florida DER PSD permit issued to
the Lake County Waste to Energy facility to be deficient
in that it tails to require the installation of acid
gas control. The Florida DER PSD permit also fails to
require more stringent emission limitations tor particu-
late matter and S02. These deficiencies invalidate the
State-issued PSD permit.
7. The construction of the Lake County Waste to
Energy facility pursuant to an invalid permit will violate
Section 165(a) ot the Act, 42 O.S.C. $7475(a), and 40 C.F.R.
551.24. Consequently, the issuance of this order, pursuant
to Section 167 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. §7477, is required
to prevent such construction.
8. The authority of the Administrator of EPA pursuant
to S113(a) of the Act, 42 U.S.C. S7413(a), to make findings
of violation of the Florida SIP, to issue notices of violation
and to confer with the alleged violator has been delegated,
first, to the Regional Administrator [earlier delegation
consolidated to Delegations Manual, No. 7-6 (July 25, 1984)]
and second,1 to the Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division, Region IV [earlier delegation consolidated
-------
3.17
- 7 -
in Region IV Delegation Manual, No. 4-2 (M«i-:h '-5, 1985}].
9. The authority of the Administrv- •, ;PA to issue
orders pursuant to Section 167 of the (J.S.C. §7477,
was delegated to the Regional Admin.'.str &>•... [earlier delegation
consolidated to Delegations Manua' No. 7-J8 (July 25, 1984)].
The Regional Administrator, Region IV, has also consulted
with the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air and the Director
of the Stationary Source Compliance Division pursuant to
delegation requirement.
ORDER
Consequently, based upon investigation and analysis of
all relevant tacts, including any good taith efforts to
comply, and pursuant to Section 167 of the Clean Air Act,
42 U.S.C. §7477, the NRG/Recovery Group, Inc. (Lake County
Waste to Energy facility), is hereby ORDERED:
1. effective immediately upon receipt ot this Order,
not to commence any on-site^construetion activity of a
permanent nature on its two 250 tons per day municipal solid
waste energy recovery units, including, but not limited to,
installation of building supports and foundations, paving,
laying of underground pipe, construction of permanent storage
structures and activities of a similar nature.
2. not to commence any on-site construction activity
until it has received a Prevention of Significant Deterioration
•
(PSD) permit and Final Determination that incorporates all
V.
-------
•3.17
-8-
the requirements for PSD pursuant to and in e - • --a with
the provisions of Part C, Subpart 1 of the Cl •- Act, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. §7470 et. seq., the regulation- promulgated
thereunder at 40 C.F.R. §51.24 and/or the recul.ition* of the
federally enforceable Florida State Implementation flan, Rule
17-2.500 of the Florida Administrative Code, and Chapter 403
of the Florida Statutes including EPA's Best Available Control
Technology analysis, dated January 30, 1987 (which addresses
acid gas control and more stringent emission limitations for
sulfur dioxide and particulate matter), and;
3. to submit, no later than ten (10) days after receipt
of this Order, certification that the prohibition in paragraph
one (1) of this Order has been observed and will continue to
be observed until the permit referenced in paragraph two
(2) of this Order has been issued. Such certitication
shall be submitted to:
Winston A. Smith, Director
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics
Management Division
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30365
(404) 347-3043
JUN - 3 1987 /^ ff ,-
^^
Date Jack E. Ravan
Regional Administrator
•
:*?•=•
-------
3.13
ft 3.
O8I44
• ex INFO
FAOIMIIE RgQUBBT AND CQVEH gHiiT
NAYME flLXCXAM
AZX MAHAGSMZNT DIVI31051
454-8249
RBGION XX
SAN FRANCISCO
JOHN ULTZLDSR
382-4724
MM, COM
A-101
OFTIC2 OF TBZ AOifZSZBTMTOR
9ATI
23, 198?
10
INFORMATION POM MNOINQ MCSIMIU
MEMAQ1S TO IFA HEAOQUAHTMf
IUP1COM
FANAfAX
PANAfAX
MAMUAL
(202) 382*7183 (auto)
(202) 3*2-7884 (lUM)
(202) 382-7886 (aim)
(202) 382-2078
(202) 382-2078
(202)382-2078
(202) 382*2078
-------
a.is
• •» *•
MAIL
D.C,;:; Kj:;J
Zn the Matter oft
Roaolultt Resource
Rscovery facility,
Applicant
no Appeal so. 86-a
RJMAHD
Sierra Club, Conservation Council for Hawaii, American lung
Association of Hawaii, Lift of the Und, and Jovtph Singer (Peti-
tioners) jointly requett r«vi«r of a Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD) penait deteraination that will authorise the
City and County of Honolulu to construct the Honolulu Resource
I/
eeovezy Facility (B-Pcver), a mnicipal waste burner* A
final decision to issue a permit was made on Vovcafeer 17, 1986,
by the Hawaii Departaent of Health (BOOB), with IPX Region EC's
concurrence, pursuant to a delegation agreement between legion
XX and BOOR. BBOR's action in issuing the perait is subject
to the review provisions of 40 en {124.19* because the
I/ Birejl Abe also submitted a petition for review dated
Seceaber 20, 19M* which this office received on December 30,
198*3. The rules require that petitions for review of a penait
deterainatioa be filed within 30 days of issuance (plus wiling
time). 40 cm If 124.19 and 124.20. Zn this ease a petition
had to be poetsarked by Deceober 20, 1984. The record contains
no evidence of when Mr. Abe mailed the petition, but the fact
that the petition wee not received until Docesfeer 30 leade to
a conclusion that the petition is untiaely. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed. Additionally, Z note that Mr. Abe doee
-*ot. raise any issues not encompassed by Petitioner's petition
ir review.
2/ All rsfsrsncss to the Code of Fsderal Regulations (C7H) are
to the 1986 edition.
• *-
-------
S.1S
•*-
permit ia dooaod to bo to m-i.ned pondt undo O»
CF* « 1*4.41 » 41 Pod. Bag. J|,41I (Nay If} 1990). Ontil Vaviav
io complatod the B-Powar facility it without aa affective permit
•ad therefore ia not authoriced to begin construction.
Petitionort protatt itauaae* of tho porait b«oaui« th«y bo-
liovo it dooo not roquiro, tt it it fuppofo to, oao of tho boot
available control tachnolooy (BACI) for tulAir dioxida («O2) ^
and bacauaa thay baliava tha permitting authority did not avaluatc
tho iapact of tha 8O2 control tachaology on uaraoulatad pollntaata,
aa rcquirad by Sorth County Rateurca Racovarv Aaaociataa. pso
Appaal Ho. 85-2 (Juao 3, 1986). la raaponaa to tho patitioa
for ravicv, R«fion IX atataa that it has raavaluatad tha racerd
aad conaidarad naw laformtiaa oa municipal vaato iaciaaration«
and now conclude! that tha BACT determination for B-Vovar nay
not ba appropriata. In view of tha Hefion'i raaponaa and after
conaidaring tho patitioa for review aad tho varioua r upon tea,
Z agraa with tha Region that HDOH'i BACT determination for SO*
•ay ba inappropriate. Alao, tha aaalyaia required by gorth
County of tho iapact of control! on aaiaaioao of unregulated
pollutant* appears to ba Inadequate. Therefore, X an reaanding
tho concurrence to tha Xagioa for reconsideration.
3/ Although Patitionara also daelara that tha BACT determination for
particulate natter and hydrochloric acid ia unlawful, their petition
only addresses the BACT determination for SO^ and fails to provide)
any supporting arguaents for thess other olaiaa. Tor thii reaeon,
tha Region and HOOH direct their responses to the SO} BACT determi-
nation and this remand concerna only the SO3 BACT determination.
-------
3.18
:-.S5; . i-
•I-
Piaeuaaioa -
• •
Before a major now facility can be constructed IB aa tftt
that it meeting, the Rational Ambisnt Air Quality Standards (XRAOB),
the owner oust obtain a PSD permit to oeMtruet and operate the fa-
cility. 42 U.i.C. H7470-79. The Claaa Mr act oondltieM paxadt
iaauaaea on a •hewing that tha proposed facility will eoploy BACT
for each raoulatad pollotaat «aitt«d from it ia aigaifieaat aaouata.
42 U.S.C. |747S. Section 169 of the Act defiaea 1ACT ae aa
•emisaioa limitation reflectiae the maxima degree of reductioa*
that the "permitting authorityt* on e aeaae-by-ceao baiii,
taking into account energy, environmeatali and economic impact*
end other coeta' deterninae ie "achievable." 42 U.i.C. |7479(3).
EPA Region IX delegated ita authority to isauo PSD permita to
HOOR in 1963, subject to the Region*a concurrence on BACT
deterainations for the firat five permits. 48 red. Reg. 31,682
(November 10. 1983).
»
H-Povor, a reaource recovery facility that vill bum aunici-
pe,l aolid waste aad generate electricity from this process, ia the
firat source to receive a permit determination from BDOS under the
delegation. BOOB made a final deciaioa to issue a permit for H-Power
on Vovcober 14, 1986, and E»A signed the penit to concur in the
BACT determination on Hoveaber 17, 1984. Pursuant to §124.19, a
final permit decision becomes effective 30 daya aftar service of
4/ H-Pow«r will be located In an arsa designated as being In
attainment of the 803 SXAQS. 40 CFX 181.312.
-------
8.18
notiea of tilt daeiaion gnlaaa roviav it raojuaatad andar
'•"" ""•"• i/
Petitioner* requested review under }124.1t in a tiaely
thua tha permit daeiaioa it aet affective. J;~
• **
Tht •vtnti leading to the HDOH permit dooiaioa need not
be detailed hare i the hlflhlightt will mffle*.
Znitially* HDOR iiauad i drift p«radt containing «0j llaita
of 191 parti par Billion (ppa) and 349 Iba/hr (3 -hour avaraga)
but requiring nothing in taras of technological amiaaion eontrola
for SO^. Ragion XX axpraaaad its disapproval* taking tha
poaition that BACT for a municipal vaata burnar aueh aa H-Powar
call a for uaa of a dry torubbar, tinea it would anabla tha
facility to aehiava SO} aoiaaion limita of 30 ppa (approiimataly
80% raooval affieianey). HDOH paraiatad* hovavar, raitaratiag
ita peaition that local anvironnantal, aeonomie* and anargy
iapaeta aupport a eoneluaiea that eorubbara ara not raquirad
for H-Povar. In tha and tha Ragion and HDOH raaehad a eooproodaa
S/ BEOS argoaa that tha patition aheuld ba diaadaaad undar i 124.19
lor failura to includa a "daavnatration* that tha iaauaa baing
raiaad in tha patition vara raiaad daring tha public eoanant
period. Tha Ragion agraaa that tha patitioa deaa not ineluda a
atatanant to thia affaet, but point• out that tha axhibita
aubmittad vith HfiOB'a raaponaa thov that tha iaauaa vara iadaad
raiaad during «ha public coanant pariod. So, tha Ragion auggaata
that tha ?atitionara' failura to ceoply vith thia "technical*
raquiramant ia harmlaaa arror. X as inelinad to agraa with tha
Ragion. Tha purpoaa of tha requireaant ia to inform tha Adaini-
atrator whathar a patition for reviev M«ta tha praraajuiaitaa
for conaidaration, i.a., that tha permit iaauar had aa opportunity
to addreaa tha iaaua during tna public conaant pariod prior to
iaauing tha parait. 40 C7R {124.13. Sinca tha ezhibita tuppla-
nwnting tha raapoaaaa by tha parti aa indicate that Patitionara
did raiie tha ieauea below, Z tea no harm eauaad by Petitioner a
onl a a i on •
-------
3.18
ia a final porait decision that aata 10* Uaita at 141 mm "JHJ ..
349 Ibs/hr on a 3-hour average (only a 231 reduction according to
the Region) to bo Mt without scrubbers, by rowing high-sulfur
bearing materials prior to combuatioa of tho waste, la Addition*
tho ponit provides for the Utor addition of a dry lorbant
injection lyttra if naeanary to M«t tho aaiaaioaa livita in
tho paraitt
Bat«d on a revaluation of th« record and n«r information
I/
on municipal vaata inoin«r§tion, th« Mgion now b«ll«v«a that
BDOH's BACT d«t«rain«tion may not e« appropriate* Th« Region
points out that 17 of 21 municipal waata burnara in th« Region
will have terubbera and of the reaaining four, three will achieve
•/
SOj control of over 90% efficiency* Conaidering the differen«e
in control efficiency between B>Pcwer and theee other reeource
recovery projects, the Region conclude* that KB08 haa net
preeented a compelling eaae that local faotora aro sufficient
to warrant allowing a !•§• effective control technology for
-------
8.18
— V
-i-.n csr-.-
II - ---------
H-Powsr. Furthermore, the Xogioa asserts that HDOf
to analyse tho impact of tho proposed controls on unregulated
10/
pollutants as required by »orth County* for these reasons,
th€ Region reonieete th* Msinist rater te grant reritt? sn ths
BACT determination.
Administrative review of P8D permit decisions is not anally
granted unl««a th« p«ralt d«ci«ton 10 ol«*rly •rroa«cut or iavolvoa
an «x«reia« of di •oration or polloy that if inportaat and thorofors
should bo roviowod by tho Administrator at a diaerotionary aattor.
40 en. (124.19* 'Thi* pow«r of wriow should bo only sparingly
•zoreisad . . . .' 45 Pod. Rog. 33,412 (May 19V 1980). Tho
regulations onvisioa that disputad ponoit conditions will bo
rtsolved for tho nost part at tho rsgional Isvol. Id. This is
Sioply bocauso aost of tho municipal vasts barnors in tho
Ifogion will «mploy serubbors for 80? control doss not. as a oattor
of law, conpol a conolusiqn that B-Povor nust havo sexubbors. Boo
•orthorn Plains Rssourco Council v. U.S. IPA« 645 F.2d 1349 (9th
Cir. 1981 )r In ths Nattor of Vov York Pevor Authority. P80 Appoal~
?w. oS-t {S«w» 9, i»o3;. Sovovor* tho faox that sssantiaiiy ail
miniclpal wasto burnors will havo sorubbors- and boeauso thoso
•erubbors aro off active in controlling aadssions of potsntially
toxic organic and hsavy astal pollutants, and acid gasos othor
than 302, domonstratsa that tho technology i* availabls. Accord-
ingly substantial and unigjuo local factors sust bo shown to
justify a looo offieiant control technology*
10/ BS08 dooo not elaia that its BACT dvtsraination included an
evaluation of the inpact of the SOj controls on unregulated pol-
lutants? rather it argueo that in the proceee of oaking a final
permit decision, it evaluated the potential impact of unregulated
pollutante emitted from R-power and revised the permit to -buffer
these impacts" by including a requirement for Mcher combustion
temperaturee and longer retention time in the boilers. HDOH
also added a term that requires compliance with any Additional
guidance developed «• » raeult of the Worth County r«nand.
HDOH claias this fatitfiss ths requirements of Horth County.
-------
8.18
•9-
partioalarly trao lev IACT datandaatioaa "bacaaaa thay iavolra
• ••*: ••-•.-:
individualiiad ooaaidaratioa of tho fact* of aach aasa. iaa
la tho aattsr ef CartaiaTaad Corporation. NO Appeal 10. 81-2
(Oaoanbar 21, 19M). oivaa tho liaitad purpose of thit rarisv
4nd tho fact that BftCT determinations should bo nade, at loaat
•
la tho firit iastaaeo, tt tho regional or local Uvol, X aa
remanding th« eonourr«no« to th« Roglon for roeoMidaratioa.
•
Sinea tha Ragion aow axprtataa doubt about itt eoacarraaea on
tha BACT, Z eoaeluda that tha propar eourta of aetioa ia for
tha Ragion to raoonaidar ita daciaioa and aithar find that tha
avidaaea fupporta it§ initial daciaioa to concur or* if not* to
!!/
aaka what it conaidara tha corract datarmiaatioa* Tho lagion
will hava to dataraiaa vhathar tha applicant haa nat ita bardan
of damonatrating that significant taehaical dafacta, or aubataatial
local aconomiCf «nargy« or •avironaaatal factora or othar coats
warrant a control technology laaa affioiaat than aorabbara.
In raconsidariag ita 'concurranca tha Ragion should consult
with national or othar regional lovol SPA prograa officials, and
say obtain aora information from BDOfl or H-Powar, parfom
additional analysis, or othanriaa work with HSOB« aa appropriata.
ll/ HDOH points to tha Region's official concurranea ia tha
BXcr determination and arguas that tha Region's currant petition
is inconsistent with tha dalsgatioa agraanant. In making this
argunant. BOOB ignores tha nature of tha dalsgatioa tgraaswat
and th« fact that it is subject to the permitting procedures in
Part 124. The delegation agreement is not a private bond
indenture or leaser it is an instrument for implementing a Law
enacted in the public intsrsst. As statad a decade ago In aa
SPA permit proceedings
(Footnote continued)
-------
a.ia
After euch reconsideration, the legion is to issue • fail""
report to «*e Administrator and th« partial oa iti declaim aad
the supporting reasons. Whatever the legion decides must be
adequately supported by the existing administrative record
ia/
end any supplements thereto. If tne Region decides to with-
draw ita concurrence, it must set out ita ova BACT determination
and include a discussion of why the local facton raited by HDOH
are not sufficient to Justify the initial BACT determination.
(footnote 11 continued)
The Agency is the repreaentative of the public iatereat
and ie net "an umpire blandly calling belle and strikee
for adversaries appearing before it; the right of the
public met receive active and affirmative protection*
at the handf of the Agency. [Scenic Budaon Preservation
Conference v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 1965) cert.
denied 384 0.8. 941 (1966).] The courts have made clear
th»t the Agency must take affirmative ttepa to obtain the
information neeeeaery to eoond deeieioae under the etatutee
it adminiatere* even at the coat of delay
* • • •
Za re Public Service Company of Vev Hampshire, et. al. (fleabrook
•tation. Unite 1 aad 2), 10 KM 1257, 1263 (19777. Iho inetaat
oaae repreeeate a •ituatioa where the Xegioa retained authority
ia tha delegation agreement to review and concur ia UCT deter-
•iaatione and now the legion expresses second thoughts about
Ita concurrence. Aa Justice frankfurter stated* "Wisdom too
often never cornea, and so one ought not to reject it merely
because it cornea late.* Henalee v. Union Planters Vat. Bank 4
Trust Co.* 335 U.S. 595, 600, 69 8. Ct. 290, 293, 93 L 3d 259
(1948). Certainly, the Administrator, with his statutory
responsibility to protect the environment, should Look at the
Region's concerns or, if appropriate, direct the legion to
reconaider ita decision to concur. The permit, after all, is
not yet effective.
137 In ite response to the petition, HDOH argues that 40 CT* {124.13
prohibits consideration of new information becauee this information
is not part of the admlnistrative record. I disagree. Section
124.13 directs partiee objecting to iny conditions of the draft
permit to eubmit their comments during the public comment period.
(footnote continued)
-------
8.18
Aftor reviewing the legion's decision on remand and any
responses by tho parties, Z will issue a ruling en the petition
for review. In tho meantim, the ponding petition for review
will bo hold in abeyance.
During the tin* tho Region it reconsidering it* concurrence,
tho Region and BOOB aay choose to negotiate roviiio&i to tho
R-Pw«r BACT dctcxainatioa and iasu« 4 a«w pcndt daeiaion. If
•o, any rcviaod p«rait daeiiion, unl«i« app«al«d« will bceoat
final within 30 day» of ••nde« of aotieo to tho Petitioners,
the permit applicant« and any other partiee previously antitled
to notice under 40 CFR $124,15.
80 ordered.
Datedi
ffTrooemo
Adainiatrator
(footnote 12 continued)
Zt doe* not apply to the permitting authority or. in thla eaao,
to Region ZZ beeauee of the Region'• relationship to the permit-
ting authority under the delegation agreement. Sor doee 1124.1J
prohibit the Administrator from considering new information. Zn
view of the Adainittrator't broad authority to review permit
decieions, including the right to remand under $124.15, the
Administrator has the power to direct the Regional Administrator
or HOOH to consider new information and to seek further evidence
n relevant points. See Zn the matter of 170 Alaska Placer
ners, More or Less,~R7DS8 Appeal Ho. 79-1 (Mar. 10. I960); Zn
.4 Public Service Canpaay of Sew Hampshire* et. al. (Seabrook
Station. Units 1 and :), 10 ESC 1357 (Decision oT^Ae Administrator.
1977).
-------
-. / , 8.18
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C.
In the Matter of: )
Honolulu Resource )
Recovery Facility, ) PSD Appeal No. 86-8
Applicant )
REMAND
Sierra Club, Conservation Council for Hawaii, American Lung
Association of Hawaii, Life of the Land, and Joseph Singer (Peti-
tioners) jointly request review of a Prevention of Significant f
Deterioration (PSD) permit determination that will authorize the
City and County of Honolulu to construct the Honolulu Resource
Recovery Facility (H-Power), a municipal waste burner. ~" A
final decision to issue a permit was made on November 17, 1986,
by the Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH), with EPA Region IX's
concurrence, pursuant to a delegation agreement between Region
ZX and HDOH. HDOH's action in issuing the permit is subject
I!
to the review provisions of 40 CFR §124.19, because the
I/ Hiroji Abe also submitted a petition for review dated
December 20, 1986, which this office received on December 30,
1986. The rules require that petitions for review of a permit
determination be filed within 30 days of issuance (plus mailing
time). 40 CFR $$124.19 and 124.20. Zn this case a petition
had to be postmarked by December 20, 1986. The record contains
no evidence of when .Mr. Abe mailed the petition, but the fact
that the petition was not received until December 30 leads to
a conclusion that, the petition is untimely. Accordingly, the
petition is dismissed. Additionally, Z note that Mr. Abe does
not raise any issues not encompassed by Petitioner's petition
for review.
2/ All references to the Code of Federal Regulations (CTR) are
To the 1986 edition.
-------
8.18,
-2-
permit is deemed to be an EPA-issued permit under EPA rules. 40
CFR §124.41; 45 Fed. Reg. 33,413 (May 19, 1980). Until review
is completed the H-Power facility is without an effective permit
and therefore is not authorised to begin construction.
Petitioners protest issuance of the permit because they be-
lieve it does not require, as it is suppose to, use of the best
3/
available control technology (BACT) for sulfur dioxide (S02>
and because they believe the permitting authority did not evaluate
the impact of the SO2 control technology on unregulated pollutants,
as required by North County Resource Recovery Associates, PSD
Appeal No. 85-2 (June 3, 1986). In response to the petition
for review, Region ZX states that it has reevaluated the record
and considered new information on municipal waste incineration,
and now concludes that the BACT determination for H-Power may
not be appropriate. Zn view of the Region's response and after
considering the petition for review and the various responses,
Z agree with the Region that HDOH's BACT determination for 502
may be inappropriate. Also, the analysis required by North
County of the impact of controls on emissions of unregulated
pollutants appears to be inadequate. Therefore, Z am remanding
the- concurrence to the Region for reconsideration.
^J Although Petitioners also declare that the BACT determination for
particulate matter and hydrochloric acid is unlawful, their petition
only addresses the- BACT determination for SO2 and fails to provide
any supporting arguments for these other claims. For this reason,
the Region and HDOH direct their responses to the SO2 BACT determi-
nation and this remand concerns only the SO2 3ACT determination.
-------
8.18
-3-
Diseusaion
Before a major new facility can be constructed in an area
that is meeting the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS),
the-owner must obtain a PSD permit to construct and operate the fa-
cility. 42 U.S.C. §§7470-79. The Clean Air Act conditions permit
issuance on a showing that the proposed facility will employ BACT
for each regulated pollutant emitted from it in significant amounts.
42 U.S.C. §7475. Section 169 of the Act defines BACT as an
•emission limitation reflecting the maximum degree of reduction"
that the "permitting authority," on a "case-by-case basis,
talcing into account energy, environmental, and economic impacts
and other costs" determines is "achievable." 42 U.S.C. §7479(3).
EPA Region IX delegated its. authority to issue PSD permits to
*
HEOH in 1983, subject to the- Region's concurrence on BACT
determinations for the first five permits. 48 Fed. Reg. 51,682
(November 10, 1983).
H-Power, a resource recovery facility that will burn munici-
pal solid waste and generate electricity from this process, is the
first source to receive a permit determination from HDOH under the
delegation. BOOB made a final decision to issue a permit for H-Power
on November 14, 1986, and EPA signed the permit to concur in the
BACT determination on November 17, 1986. Pursuant to §124.15, a
final permit decision becomes effective 30 days after service of
4/ H-Power will be located in an area designated as being in
attainment of the SO2 NAAOS. 40 CPR §81.312.
-------
8.18
notice of the decision unless review is requested under §124.19.
S/
Petitioners requested review under §124.19 in a timely manner;
thus the permit decision is not effective.
The events leading to the HDOH permit decision need not
be detailed here; the highlights will suffice.
Initially, HDOH issued a draft permit containing 502 limits
of 191 parts per million (ppm) and 349 Ibs/hr (3-hour average)
but requiring nothing in terms of technological emission controls
for S02« Region IX expressed its disapproval, talcing the
position that BACT for a municipal waste burner such as H-Power
calls for use of a dry scrubber* since it would enable the
facility to achieve SO2 emission limits of 30 ppm (approximately
80% removal efficiency). HDOH persisted, however, reiterating
its position that local environmental, economic, and energy
impacts support a conclusion that scrubbers are not required
for H-Power. In the end the Region and HDOH reached a compromise
5/ HDOH argues that the petition should be dismissed under §124.19
lor failure to include a "demonstration" that the issues being
raised in the petition were raised during the public comment
period. The Region, agrees that the petition does not includes a
statement to this effect, but points out that the exhibits
submitted with HDOH's response show that the issues were indeed
raised during .the public comment period. So, the Region suggests
that the Petitioners' failure to comply with this "technical"
requirement is harmless error. I am inclined to agree with the
Region. The purpose of the requirement is to inform the Admini-
strator whether a petition for review meets the prerequisites
for consideration* i.e., that the permit issuer had an opportunity
to address the issue during the public comment period prior to
issuing the' permit. 40 CPU §124.13. Since the exhibits supple-
menting the responses by the parties indicate that Petitioners
did raise the issues below, I see no harm caused by Petitioners'
omission.
-------
8.18
-5-
in a final permit decision that sets SO2 limits at L43 ppm and
349 Ibs/hr on a 3-hour average (only a 25% reduction according to
6/
the Region) to be met without scrubbers, by removing high-sulfur
bearing materials prior to combustion of the waste. In addition,
the permit provides for the later addition of a dry sorbent
injection system if necessary to meet the emissions limits in
the permit.
Based on a reevaluation of the record and new information
!/
on municipal waste incineration, the Region now believes that
HDOH's BACT determination may not be appropriate. The Region
points out that 17 of 21 municipal waste burners in the Region
will have scrubbers and of the remaining four, three will achieve
a/
SO2 control of over 90% efficiency. Considering the difference
in control efficiency between H-Power and these other resource
recovery projects, the Region concludes that HDOH has not
presented a compelling case that local factors are sufficient
to warrant allowing a less effective control technology for
6/ HDOH asserts that 57% reduction of SO2 emissions will result
fVom the 143 ppm rate.
7/ According to ZPA Region IX, the new information includes pre-
sentations at three recent conferences 1) the American Pollution
Control Association Conference entitled "Burning Our Garbage:
Issues and Alternatives," October 30-31, 1986 in San Francisco;
2) An EPA workshop on municipal waste combustion, December 9-10,
1986 in North Carolina: and 3) the "First National Regulatory
Agency Resource Recovery Workshop" sponsored by the California
Air Pollution Control Officers Association and Northeast States
for Coordinated Air Use Management, January 15-17, 1987 in Los
Angeles.
8/ The last project is small and will have SO^ emissions of
45 ppm*
-------
3.18
-6-
!/
H-Power. Furthermore, the Region asserts that HDOH failed
to analyze the impact of the proposed controls on unregulated
!£/
pollutants as required by North County. For these reasons,
the Region requests the Administrator to grant review on the
BACT determination.
Administrative review of PSD permit decisions is not usually
granted unless the permit decision is clearly erroneous or involves
an exercise of discretion or policy that is important and therefore
should be reviewed by the Administrator as a discretionary matter.
40 CFR 5124.19. "This power of review should be only sparingly
exercised . . . ."45 Fed. Reg. 33,412 (May 19, 1980). The
regulations envision that disputed permit conditions will be
resolved for the most part at the regional level. Id. This is
9/ Simply because most of the municipal waste burners in the
Region will employ scrubbers for S02 control does not, as a matter
of law, compel a conclusion that H-Power must have scrubbers. See
Northern Plains Resource Council v. U.S. EPA, 645 F.2d 1349 (9th—
Cir. 1981)? In the Matter of New York Power Authority, PSD Appeal
No. 82-4 (Dee. 6, 1983). However, the fact that essentially all
municipal waste burners will have scrubbers and because these
scrubbers are effective in controlling emissions of potentially
toxic organic and heavy metal pollutants, and acid gases other
than S02, demonstrates that the technology is wailable. Accord-
ingly substantial and unique local factors must be shown to
justify a less efficient control technology.
!£/ HDOH does- not claim that its BACT determination included an
evaluation of the impact of the SO2 controls on unregulated pol-
lutants; rather it argues that in the process of making a final
permit decision, it evaluated the potential impact of unregulated
pollutants emitted from H-power and revised the permit to "buffer.
these impacts* by including a requirement for higher combustion
temperatures and longer retention time in the boilers. HDOH
also added a term that requires compliance with any additional
guidance developed as a result of the North County remand.
HDOH claims this satisfies the requirements of North Countv.
-------
3.1*
-7-
particularly true for BACT determinations because they involve
individualised consideration of the facts of each case. See
•
In the matter of CertainTeed Corporation. PSD Appeal No. 81-2
(December 21, 1982). Given the limited purpose of this review
and the fact that BACT determinations should be made, at Least
in the first instance, at the regional or local level, I am
remanding the concurrence to the Region for reconsideration.
Since the Region now expresses doubt about its concurrence on
the BACT, I conclude that the proper course of action is for
the Region to reconsider its decision and either find that the
evidence supports its initial decision to concur or, if not, to
il/
make what it considers the correct determination. The Region
will have to determine whether the applicant has met its burden
of demonstrating that significant technical defects, or substantial
local economic, energy, or environmental factors or other costs
warrant a control technology less efficient than scrubbers.
In reconsidering its concurrence the Region should consult
with national or other regional level EPA program officials, and
may obtain more information from HDOH or H-Power, perform
additional analysis, or otherwise work with HDOH. as appropriate.
ll/ HDOH points to the Region's official concurrence in the
BACT determination and argues that the Region's current position
is inconsistent with the delegation agreement. In making this
argument, HDOH ignores the nature of the delegation agreement
and the fact that it is subject to the permitting procedures in
Part 124. The- delegation agreement is not a private bond
indenture or lease; it is an instrument for implementing a law
enacted in the public interest. As stated a decade ago in an
ZPA permit proceeding:
(Footnote continued}
-------
e.18
-8-
After such reconsideration, the Region is to issue a full
report to the Administrator and the parties on its decision and
the supporting reasons. Whatever the Region decides must be
adequately supported by the existing administrative record
ii/
and any supplements thereto. If the Region decides to with-
draw its concurrence, it mist set out its own BACT determination
and include a discussion of why the local factors raised by HDOH
are not sufficient to justify the initial BACT determination.
(Footnote 11 continued)
The Agency is the representative of the public interest
and is not "an umpire blandly calling balls and strikes
for adversaries appearing before it; the right of the
public must receive active and affirmative protection"
at the hands of the Agency. [Scenic Hudson Preservation
Conference v. FPC, 354 F.2d 608, 620 (2d Cir. 1965) cert.
denied 384 O.S. 941 (1966).] The courts have made clear
that the Agency must take affirmative steps to obtain the
information necessary to sound decisions under the statutes
it administers, even at the cost of delay ....
In re Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et. al. (Seabrook
Station, Units 1 and 2), 10 ERC 1257, 1263 (1977T. ~The instant
case represents a situation where the Region retained authority
in the delegation agreement to review and concur in BACT deter-
minations and now the Region expresses second thoughts about
its concurrence. As Justice Frankfurter stated, "Wisdom too
often never comes, and so one ought not to reject it merely
because it comes late." Henslee v. Union Planters Nat. Bank &
Trust Co., 335 U.S. 595, 600, 69 S. Ct. 290, 293, 93 L Ed 259
(1948). Certainly, the Administrator, with his statutory
responsibility to protect the environment, should look at the
Region's concerns or, if appropriate, direct the Region to
reconsider its decision, to concur. The permit, after all, is
not yet effective.
12/ In its response to the petition, HDOH argues that 40 CFR $124.13
prohibits consideration of new information because this information
is not part of the administrative record. I disagree. Section
124.13 directs parties objecting to any conditions of the draft
permit to submit their comments during the public*comment period.
(Footnote continued)
-------
8.18
-9-
After reviewing the Region's decision on remand and any
responses by the parties, I will issue a ruling on the petition
for review. In the meantime, the pending petition for review
will be held in abeyance.
During the time the Region is reconsidering its concurrence,
the Region and HDOH may choose to negotiate revisions to the
H-Power BACT determination and issue a new permit decision. If
so, any revised permit decision, unless appealed, will become
final within 30 days of service of notice to the Petitioners, •
the permit applicant, and any other parties previously entitled
to notice under 40 CFR §124.15.
So ordered.
0
N. Thomas
Administrator
Dated: >i* «• "l">^
(Footnote 12 continued)
It does not. apply to the permitting authority or, in this case,
to Region XX because of the Region's relationship to the permit-
ting authority under the delegation agreement. Sor does §124.13
prohibit the Administrator from considering new information. In
view of the Administrator's broad authority to review permit
decisions, including the right to remand under §124.19, the
Administrator has the power to direct the Regional Administrator
or HDOH to consider new information and to seek further evidence
on relevant points. See In the matter of 170 Alaska Placer
Miners, Wore or Lesa,~NPDES Appeal So. 79-1 (Kar. 10, 1980); In
re Public Service Company of New Hampshire, et^ al^ (Seabrook
Station, Units 1 and 2), 10 ERC 12S7 (Decision of the Administrator,
1977).
-------
9 «•»
^ • «.U
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that the copies of the foregoing Remand
in the Matter of Honolulu Resource Recovery Facility, PSD
Appeal No. 36-8, were served upon the following persons by 1st
class mail, postage prepaid:
John C. Lewin. M.D.
Department of Health
State of Hawaii
P.O. Box 3378
Honolulu, Hawaii 96801
Judith E. Ayres
Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Joseph J. Brecher, Esq.
506 15th Street
Oakland, CA 94612
Jeremy Harris
Managing Director
City and County of Honolulu
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Joseph A. Cannon, Esq.
Suite 1100
1667 K Street, H.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
John C. Wise
Deputy Regional Administrator
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
David P. Howekamp, Director
Air Management Division
U.S. EPA, Region IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
Hiroji Abe
P.O. Box 4285
Honolulu, Hawaii 96812-4235
_
*"~" Brenda H. Selden
Dated: JUN 23 \98T Secretary to the Chief
Judicial Officer
-------
3.19
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality lannmg and Standards
Research Triangle Park North Carolina 27711
WUL ? 4
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Ca 1^1 at«g AMrtized Capital Co«ts
FROMiX' Ro&rt 0. Bauman, Chief
" Standards Implementation Branch, CPOD (MD-15)
TO: Stephen H. Rothblatt, Chief
Air and Radiation Branch, Region V (5AR-26)
This is in response to your April 21, 1987, memorandum requesting
clarification regarding the appropriate criteria to be used in calculating
the amortized capital costs of control options in the selection of best
mllrtle control technology (BACT). The 1980 "Prevent on of Significant
Deterioration Workshop Manual" states that U.S. Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) criteria should be used to determine equipment life expectancy.
However EPA in developing new source performance standards (NSPS), uses
economic assumptions based™ "useful economic life." You wish to know
which set of criteria to use in the BACT economic analysis.
The EPA still relies on IRS criteria, but there are now several
different IRS equipment life estimation systems and several EPA equipment
life information sources based on IRS data, so it is more difficult now to
know what information to use. Our policy is that unlessthe source can
offer compelling data to the contrary, the useful life of a control option
should be selected from one of the following:
0 For process-related controls, use:
— the NSPS/national emission standard for hazardous air pollutants
(NESHAP) Background Information Document (if a source is subject
to an NSPS or NESHAP), or
— the IRS Class Life Asset Depreciation Range (CLADR) system
guideline with a mid-point estimate (if no NSPS/NESHAP applies).
0 For "add-on" controls, use the Economic Analysis Branch Control
Cost Manual, which is based on CLADR data. •
Regarding the appropriate annual interest ("discount") rate to use in
theseanalyses, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guide ines
recommend 10 percent for regulatory impact analyses. Because all NSPS are
summed to OMB for review? we have typically used 10 oercent in our
-------
analyses. However, this value represents a very high rate of return because
it is a "real" discount rate (i.e., it does not incorporate inflation). The
OMB has assembled a task force which is now studying this matter and win
likely recommend a substantially lower value to be used in future EPA risk
assessment analyses; we plan to use the lower value when and if it is
adopted.
The two attachments provide additional information on the economic life
criteria discussed above. I hope this memorandum clarifies the BACT
guidance in this area. If you have any questions about it, Pjease feel
free to contact me at FTS 629-5629 or David Solomon at FTS 629-5375.
2 Attachments
cc: NSR Contacts
-------
8.19
Attacnmen- 1
Background Information on Capital Cost Criteria
When the 1980 "Prevention of Significant Deterioration Workshop Manual"
stated that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) criteria should be used
to determine equipment life standards, it was referring to the IRS Class
Life Asset Depreciation Range" (CLADR) system which provides a range of
depreciation periods for each class of assets. Although the CLADR system
was repealed for tax purposes for property placed in service after 1980,
these guidelines still provide estimates of low, medium, and high useful
lives for depreciable assets used in a wide range of business, industrial,
and other activities. The CLADR should not be confused with the current
IRS rules for the Accelerated Cost Recovery System (ACRS). The ACRS is_not^
recommended for equipment life expectancy because it uses recovery periods
which, for many types of equipment, are considerably less than actual useful
equipment life.
In our opinion, the "useful economic life" criterion using CLADR data
is the most realistic one to use when estimating the amortized capital
("capital recovery") costs for control options, be they "add-on" or process-
related controls. The only exception should be if documentation, proving
that the equipment life is shorter, is provided. The CLADR provides a
range of estimates; we recommend using the raid-point CLAOR life to obtain
the best estimate of "useful economic life."
Under CLADR, "useful economic life" may vary not only with the type of
equipment but also with where and how that equipment is being used. Consider
a gas turbine installed in an industrial facility for purposes of generating
(or cogenerating) electricity for consumption on site. If the total rated
capacity for electrical production/distribution at the site were greater
than 500 kilowatts (kH), the turbine would fall under "Asset Guideline Class (AGC)
UuTT: "Industrial Steam and Electric Generation and/or Distribution Systems.
The "asset depreciation range" for this class provides a lower limit of
17.5 years, a mid-point of 22 years, and an upper limit of 26.5 years.
However, if this turbine is installed at, say, a plant producing breakfast
food and the electrical product!on/distribution capacity at this facility
is less than 500 kW, the lives to use would be 13.5 (low), 17 (mid-point),
and~Zu75~years (high) (AGC 20.1, "Manufacture of Grain and Mill Products ).
A complete listing of the CLADR values can be found in IRS Publication 534.
Ideally, all control options should be amortized using useful lives
that are not only representative but standardized. The IRS CLAW meets
both requirements in this respect, as do the background information documents
(BID) written to support the setting of new source performance standards
and national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants. A BID's cost
and economic analyses contain useful life data for the source category
subject to the standard. These life data have been based, in turn, on
information obtained from the industry (e.g., via section 114 letters),
control equipment vendors, and other reliable sources.
-------
8.19
It may prove difficult in some cases to determine useful life of
add-on control equipment in the IRS listings. Accordingly, EPA has tabulated
low, midpoint, and high economic lives for eight commonly used add-on
control devices (see attachment). These data were taken from Capital and
Operating Costs of Selected Air Pollution Control Systems (EPA 450/5-80-002,
December 19/8).This report, now retitled the Economic Analysis Branch
Control Cost Manual (Third Edition), is being revised; for a copy, contact
Bill VatavuJc at (FT5) 629-5309.
Attachment
-------
Attachment 2 8.19
TABLE 3.6 GUIDELINES FOR PARTS AND EQUIPMENT LIFE'
MATERIALS AND PARTS LIFE
Filter bags
Adsorbents
Catalyst
Refractories
EQUIPMENT LIFE
Electrostatic Preci pita tors
Venturi Scrubbers
Fabric Filters
Thermal Incinerators
Catalytic Incinerators
Adsorbers
Absorbers
Refrigeration
Flares
LOW
(Years)
.3
2
2
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
AVERAGE
(Years)
1.5
5
5
5
20
10
20
10
10
10
10
10
15
HIGH
(Years',
5
8
8
10
40
20
40
20
20
20
20
20
20
Based on discussions with manufacturers and operators with corroborating
data from refs. 19. 20, 37. 38. 40. 78 and 82.
jurce: Caoical and Ooeracing Costs of Selected Air Pollutior. Control
Svscems (£?A ^50/5-80-002, December 1978).
3-16
-------
3.20
\\9 **«!>*
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning md Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JUL 281987
Mr. Richard E. Grusrrick
Chief
Air Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Mr. Gnisnlck:
This is in response to your June 19, 1987, letter concerning best
available control technology (BACT) determinations. The issues you raise
highlight perhaps the most crucial aspects of BACT determinations, and I
hope that the following responds adequately to them.
The first issue you raised concerns the role of new source performance
standards (NSPS) 1n BACT determinations. The NSPS are established after
long and careful consideration of a standard that can be reasonably
achieved by every new source anywhere in the nation. This means that
even a very recent NSPS does not represent the hest technology available;
it instead represents the best technology available nationwide, regard-
less of climate, water availability, and many other highly variable
case-specific factors. The NSP.S is the least common denominator and nust
be met; there are no variances. The BACT requirement, on the other hand,
is the greatest degree of emissions control that can be achieved at a
specific source and accounts for site-specific variables on a case-by-case
basis.
Since an applicable NSPS must always be met, it provides a legal
"floor" for the BACT, which cannot be less stringent. A BACT determination
should nearly always be more stringent than the NSPS because the NSPS
establishes what every source can achieve, not the best that a source
could do. In only a few BACT cases should you encounter the same criteria
that limited the stringency of the NSPS, so BACT should usually be more
stringent than-the NSPS.
States, as you pointed out, don't always have the technical expertise
that is available to EPA. For that reason, the BACT determination process
best for many agencies is that which is currently used by many State/local
permit agencies. This process consists of requiring the source to either
use the most stringent control technology or to show in detail why it
cannot. The BACT/LAER* Clearinghouse is often used to find the most
stringent control tecnnology, as are calls to experienced permit review
lowest achievaoie emission rate
-------
8.20
engineers in other States, discussions with control equipment manufacturers,
and reviews of literature such as the Mcllvaine newsletter. This approach
was alluded to by the EPA Administrator in the recent H-Power remand
(copy enclosed) where it states that 'substantial and unique factors oust
be shown to justify a less efficient control technology." For additional
detail on this approach, contact Wayne Bladcard, Chief, New Source Section,
EPA, Region IX, 215 Fremont Street, San Francisco, California 94105,
(415) 974-3249.
The second issue involves the relationship between BACT and air
quality impacts. The application of BACT is a specific requirement for a
prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) permit that stands alone in
the sense that, as a minimum, a PSD source must install BACT regardless
of the air quality impact. In other words, BACT is BACT, even if the
source would only consume 5 percent of the available increment. I certainly
did not mean to imply that EPA "decides" how much increment a source can
have; EPA does, however, have oversight responsibilities in BACT decisions.
In your example, EPA would not deny a permit to a source consuming 95
percent of the increment provided all else was acceptable, including the
BACT determination. However, modeled violations of a national ambient
air quality standard or PSD Increment may drive a BACT determination to a
greater level of control. What we would deny is a permit for a source
where a BACT determination was "relaxed" (or even no control at all was
required) simply because the source did not consume all of the increment.
Other aspects of the env'fronmental impact of the BACT decision occur
when a control option increases the emissions of one pollutant while
reducing emissions of another, or a control option may produce an environ-
mentally harmful byproduct. For example, the use of water injection in •
controlling nitrogen oxides from gas turbines will increase carbon monoxide
emissions.
In summary, section 169 of the Clean Air Act defines BACT as "based
on the maximum degree of reduction ... on a case-by-case basis." Conse-
quently, BACT represents the best level of control the source can provide
and should not be based on a category-wide minimal standard like an
applicable NSPS.
Sincerely,
Cni'ef
New Source Review Section
1 Enclosure
cc: Bruce Miller
-------
, ^^ ', UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* ^HB? 3 Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
*M|£^./ Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
,,-„
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of North CounjU^tesm»«e Recovery PSD Remand
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Directj_ .
Office of Air Quality'ngTTnTn^and Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, and X
On June 3, 1986, the Administrator remanded a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permit decision, involving the North County Resource
Recovery project, to Region IX for their reconsideration. The permit was
for a 33-megawatt, 1000 tons-per-day facility to be located in San Marcos,
California. At issue was whether appropriate consideration had been given,
within the best available control technology (BACT) determination, to the
environmental effects of pollutants not subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act (Act).* The remand strongly affirms that the permitting
authority should take the toxic effects of unregulated pollutants into
account in making BACT decisions for regulated pollutants. This obligation
arises from section 169(3) of the Act, which defines BACT as the maximum
degree of emissions decrease which the permitting authority determines is
achievable, taking into account "environmental . . . impacts." Essential
to this process is the notification to the public of how the effects of
toxic air pollutants, including those that are unregulated, have been
considered in the PSD review and the subsequent consideration of the comments
in making the final BACT decision. The purpose of this memorandum is to
advise you of the impact of the remand on PSD permitting and to provide
implementation guidance. This document builds upon and makes final the
draft guidance of August 1986.
Coverage
Although the Act has given us the authority to review directly the
considerable range of regulated pollutants, the remand clearly indicates
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should incorporate considera-
tion of all pollutants within.its PSD determinations for all sources subject
to PSD. This result is consistent with the fact that the PSD permitting
process is charged '. . .to protect public health and welfare from any
*A "regulated pollutant," or "pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act," is one which is addressed by a national ambient air
quality standard, a new source performance standard, or is listed pursuant
to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants program.
-------
8.21
actual or potential adverse effect . . . from air pollution . . . ." and that
increases in air pollution should be permitted ". . . only after careful
evaluation of all the consequences . . . ." [section 160(1) and (2)].
Revisions to State implementation plans (SIP's), to comport with the
Administrator's decision, should not be necessary. State or local agencies
with delegated PSD programs automatically trade this change in policy.
Agencies implementing their own SIP-approved programs are also unlikely to
need any regulatory changes. This is because the remand is based on an
interpretation of Act language, notably the definition of BACT, that is in
most cases already contained in the plan. I ask that you confirm this with
your States and applicable local agencies.
Transition
As with any change in the way EPA does business, we have developed a
transition plan for Its implementation. The situations can be addressed
most logically by dividing all PSO sources into three groups based on phase
of permitting activity: those sources for which permit applications had
not been filed, those for which permits had already been granted, and those
for which applications had been filed but permits not yet granted.
First, all PSD sources for which complete applications had not been
filed as of the Administrator's June 3, 1986, decision are fully subject to
the remand's requirements. Earlier applications present more complex
policy considerations.
One could argue, since the Administrator's decision is an interpretation
of existing Act provisions, rather than a new requirement, that all PSD
permits issued under the terns of the 1977 Amendments to the Act should be
subject to the remand. -However, program stability and equity to sources, in
this second group, that have relied upon properly Issued PSD permits militate
strongly against such an approach. For these reasons, I have decided to
exempt from the requirements of the remand all sources holding finally
issued permits as of June 3, 1986. (Subsequent major modifications to such
existing sources are, of course, subject to PSD review, including the
application of the requirements of this remand.)
The third group of sources consists of those for which PSD permits
were in the pipeline (I.e., complete application filed but permits not yet
issued) as of the date of the remand. It Is appropriate that these sources
also be subject to the terms of the remand. However, for permit applications
which have successfully passed through the public comment period without
environmental effects concerns being raised, the Regional Office may, at its
discretion, Issue these in final without further delay.
The above enunciated transition policy applies directly to all EPA
permit issuance procedures and also to those used by State agencies issuing
PSD permits under a delegation of authority agreement pursuant to 40 CFR
52.21(u). This transition policy does not automatically apply to PSD
-------
ermit decisions by States under SIP-approved PSD programs, except to the
jxtent that environmental effects issues are raised by commenters. The
policy does apply prospectively in a uniform fashion to all applications
filed after June 3, 1986. States with SIP-approved PSO programs are, of
course, responsible for enunciating reasonable transition schemes and I ask
that you encourage them to adopt policies consistent with this one. These
transition schemes, as with the substantive program itself, are unlikely to
require rulemaking; however, the policies should be set forth in formal
statements so as to further the goals of public awareness and consistent
application. These policies and their implementation will be reviewed
within the National Air Audit System to assess the need to require greater
conforraance.
Required Analyses
The BACT requirement outlined in section 169(3) of the Act contemplates
a decision process In which the best available controls are defined for
each regulated pollutant that a PSD source would emit in significant amounts.
This case-by-case process is to take into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs. The toxic effects of unregulated pollutants
are to be accounted for in deciding if the BACT otherwise being prescribed
for regulated pollutants still represents the appropriate level and type of
control. If the reviewing authority judges the potential environmental
effects of such unregulated pollutants to be of possible concern to the
public, then the final BACT decision for regulated pollutants should in all
:ases address these effects and reflect, as appropriate, control beyond what
might otherwise have been chosen.
A recent remand determination made by the Administrator in another case
provides further elucidation of the BACT process. In that case, Honolulu
Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H-Power), PSD Appeal No. 86-6, Remand
Order (June 23, 1987), the Administrator ruled that a PSD permitting
authority has the burden of demonstrating that adverse economic Impacts are
so significant as to justify the failure to require the most effective
pollution controls technologically achievable as BACT.
The broad mandate with respect to toxics that is presented by the
remand is not readily amenable to highly detailed national guidance that
provides the appropriate permitting requirement in each case. There is no
specific formula for making BACT decisions; this is a case-by-case process
Involving the judgment of the reviewing authority. While it may be possible
to develop a framework of guidance based upon such factors as risk assessment
and reference doses, this would entail a large effort that seems inappropriate
at this time. It 1s more practical, however, for EPA to develop guidance
for specific source categories that are of particular importance. The EPA
has recently provided such BACT guidance with respect to municipal waste
combustors. See memorandum entitled 'Operational Guidance on Control
Technology for New and Modified Municipal Waste Combustors," from Gerald A.
Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated
June 26, 1987. Guidance on other source categories may be issued from time
:o time as appropriate.
-------
8.21
Today's policy charges the PSD review authority with analyzing at the
outset the environmental impacts of proposed construction projects with
respect to air toxics which might be of concern, even if such matters are
not initially raised by the public. Other types of environmental effects
should also be addressed in response to public concerns, within the limits
of the ability to do so. For PSD reviews consistent with this policy, each
applicable permitting authority should initiate an evaluation of toxic air
pollutants (unregulated as well as regulated) which the proposed project
would emit in amounts potentially of concern to the public. The review
authority should evaluate unregulated pollutants for both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic effects. The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
(NATICH) data base contains considerable information relevant to evaluating
the effect, sources, and control techniques available for unregulated
pollutants. I encourage you to urge permitting authorities to use NATICH
as a source of information as they conduct the analyses. Further information
may be obtained by calling the NATICH staff at 629-5519.
The response to the Administrator made by EPA Region IX in its analysis
of the North County permitting decision is attached. Although this example
illustrates only one of several acceptable approaches, it is a well thought
out analysis that provides a useful example to consider for future permitting
exercises.
Headquarters has several other mechanisms in effect to support analyses
with respect to toxics. These include a recent report which helps to
estimate toxic air emissions from various sources (Compiling Air Toxics
Emission Inventories, EPA-450/4-86-010). The burden of proof regarding
emissions estimates, of course, rests with the applicant, but the techniques
discussed in the document should be useful In determining if the applicant s
estimates are reasonable and address appropriate pollutants. In addition,
the Office of Research and Development (ORD) has released a control technology
manual which Is valuable in evaluating how control devices for particulate
matter and volatile organic compounds differ In their abilities to control
various toxic species of these criteria pollutants (Control Technologies
for Hazardous Air Pollutants, EPA-625/6-86/014).
Support will also be available on a case-by-case basis from the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and ORD. In particular, we
have formed a control technology center to provide assistance to the review
authority in determining BACT. This center can offer a range of activities,
including evaluation of source emissions, identification of control techniques,
development of control cost estimates, identification of operation and
maintenance procedures, and, in a few situations, in-depth engineering
assistance on individual problems. Other planned activities include the
publication of technical guidance to assist 1n the evaluation of selected
types of sources. Contact points for the control technology center are
Lee Beck In OAQPS (629-0800) and Sharon Nolen in ORD (629-7607). We expect
this support to limit the effort required of PSD reviewing authorities.
-------
8.21
Public Participation
One of the most important features of this policy is the requirement
that the affected public be fully informed of the potential toxic emissions
from a proposed project and of what the reviewing authority has done to
minimize this potential within the BACT decision. A specific discussion of
toxics concerns 1n a technical support document might be helpful in accom-
plishing this Information transfer. Additional concerns related to the
environmental effects of unregulated pollutants raised by commenters must
then be addressed in the final BACT determination. This process is of
central importance to PSD permitting and comments received must be adequately
addressed in the final decision. Strong public participation is consistent
with the PSD goals contained in section 160 of the Act, which relate to
informing the public of increased air pollution, including that due to
unregulated pollutants.
It should be noted that although these analyses are used in the BACT
decision, they will not be used as the basis for disapproving a project
that has agreed to apply BACT. In other words, today's policy requires that
toxics be considered in the control of the proposed project only to the
extent that the level of control chosen as BACT is achievable.
Enforcement
In the case of delegated (as opposed to SIP-approved) PSD programs,
EPA has various enforcement tools. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19, any party
that participated in the public proceedings with respect to a proposed
permit may, within 30 days of the final permit decision, petition the
Administrator of EPA to review any condition of that permit decision. The
Administrator may also seek to review any such permit condition on his own
initiative. Should this appeals procedure be unavailable in a particular
case, EPA has the authority, depending upon the facts of the case, to
withdraw the delegation with respect to an Individual permit that is being
or has been issued inconsistently with the terms of that delegation. Thus,
EPA may be able to directly intervene in the issuance of a PSD permit to
ensure implementation of today's policy. This withdrawal of delegation is
not the preferred course of action but it may be available if needed.
The consideration of air toxics in PSD permitting is a requirement of
the Act and, through the definition of BACT, is incorporated in the SIP's.
Therefore, violation of this policy would constitute a SIP violation and be
enforceable by EPA. Section 113(a) of the Act provides for Federal issuance
of a notice of violation in the case of a violation of a SIP. If the
violation continues for more than 30 days, section 113(b) provides that the
Administrator shall commence an action for Injunction or civil penalty, or
both. In addition, section 167 of the Act specifically provides that EPA
take legal action to prevent the construction of a major emitting facility
that does not conform to the requirements of PSD. Under section 167, EPA
can Issue an administrative order or commence a civil action. Since no
-------
0.4.1
notice of violation would be necessary, in this case, EPA can use section
167 to order immediate cessation of construction or operation. Note also
that this section has been construed as providing EPA with authority to take
enforcement action against sources out of compliance with PSD even if they
have already been constructed. These remedies are more likely to be used
in the case of SIP-approved programs than with delegated programs, for
which an appeal under 40 CFR Part 124 would generally be the preferred
course of action.
Enforcement actions are pursued after reviewing a range of factors
relevant to each particular case. For this reason, I am not setting forth
detailed provisions as to required enforcement measures. There are, however,
certain situations in which enforcement action is generally appropriate.
These include procedural deficiencies, such as failure to solicit public
comment on air toxics issues for applicable permits, and failure to address
the air toxics concerns raised by public comment. Enforcement with respect
to permits already in the pipeline should follow the transition scheme in
today's policy for delegated programs and the State or local agreement
established with EPA for.SIP-approved programs.
The Act and the PSD regulations require that States submit a copy of
the public notice for proposed permits to EPA. I urge the Regional Offices
to ensure that such notices are submitted and are reviewed for conformance
with the criteria contained in this document. Although enforcement mecha-
nisms are available to address noncomplying sources, our efforts to implement
today's policy will be much more effective if taken prospectively and in
coordination with the State permitting process.
Conclusion
Today's guidance summarizes the broad ranging impact of the June 3,
1986, remand and provides some insight into the analyses and public
disclosure that now should take place. We will continue to support and
monitor subsequent decisions and to assess the need for more detailed or
expansive guidance. Questions on today's guidance should be addressed to
Michael Trutna (629-5345) or Kirt Cox of OAQPS (629-5399).
Attachment
cc: C. Potter
A. Eckert
D. Clay
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
8.21
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1986
SUBJECT: North County Resource Recovery Associates
PSD Appearl/
FROM:
TO:
rrector
Afr Management Division, Region 9
Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This is in response to the June 3, 1986 remand of
Region 9's April 2, 1985 determination to issue a .Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the North
.County Resource Recovery Associates for the construction
of a 1000 ton per day resource recovery facility. The
remand charged Region 9 with reconsidering the effects
of unregulated pollutants when making PSD determinations.
Region 9 has reviewed the' relevant BACT decisions
and has prepared a response to the Administrator's remand,
as recommended in the July 21, 1986 guidance, memo from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Our response with supporting materials
is attached.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed
materials please contact me at 454-3201 (FTS) or have your
staff contact Wayne A. Blackard, Chief of our New Source
Section at 454-8249 (FTS).
Enclosures
-------
8.21
RESPONSE TO PSD REMAND
NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY CENTER
(PSD Appeal No. 85-2)
On April 2, 1985 the Director of the Air Management
Division, EPA Region 9, made a determination to issue a Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the North County
Resource Recovery Associates (NCRRA) for the construction and
operation of a 33 megawatt, 1000 ton per day resource recovery
facility. During the following appeal period EPA received
three petitions filed pursuant to 40 CPR 124.19 requesting the
Administrator to review Region 9's decision to issue the PSD
permit. The Office of the Administrator reviewed the petitioners'
comments and Region 9's responses to the comments and determined
that Region 9 had satisfactorily addressed all of the petitioners
allegations with the exception of Region 9's assertion that EPA
lacked the authority to "consider" pollutants not regulated by
the Clean Air Act when making a PSD determination. The Adminis-
trator felt that Region 9's assertion was overly broad and that
when making a PSD determination, in particular a best available
control technology (BACT) decision, a permitting agency must
consider not only the environmental impact of the controlled
regulated pollutant but must also consider the environmental
impacts of any unregulated pollutants that might be affected by
the choice of control technology. For this reason the Adminis-
trator remanded the PSD determination to Region 9 for recon-
sideration and action consistent with the above interpreta-
tion of EPA authority.
In response to the above, Region 9 has reviewed the BACT
decisions made for the NCRRA PSD permit. Under the PSD regula-
tions NCSRA must apply 9ACT to control emissions of S02» NO*,
lead, mercury, and fluorides from their proposed resource
recovery facility. BACT is defined in the Clean Air Act as
"...an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of
reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this
Act...on a case-oy-case basis, taking into account energy,
environmental and economic impacts and other costs..." Under
environmental impacts our review of the original BACT determination
included the impacts from both regulated and affected unregulated
pollutants. The control of particulates, CO, and VOC emissions
are not directly subject to the federal PSD BACT review, but
are subject to the nonattainment permitting regulations which
are administered by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
NCRRA is proposing to use a dry scrubber with a baghouse
to control emissions of S02, acid gases, and particulate matter
from the proposed resource recovery project. The dry scrubber
•onsists of a spray dryer and a baghouse. The spray dryer injects
an atomized lime slurry sorbent into the flue gas stream. The
baghouse removes the dried sorbent and flyash (particulate matter)
f-om the flue gas. The cry scrubber will be designed for a
flue gas flow of 225,000 acfm at an inlet temperature of
-------
-2-
340 degrees P and a maximum outlet temperature of 265 degrees P.
NCRRA expects the dry scrubber system to provide 83% removal of
SO2 and 95% removal of acid gases as well as 99.5% removal of
particulates.
Recent tests of emissions control devices for waste fired
boilers (the latest being the Quebec City Test Program) have
shown that properly designed and operated control devices can
significantly reduce emissions from resource recovery facilities.
In particular, an acid gas scrubbing system operating at optimal
stoichiometric ratios, at low temperature, in tandem with a
baghouse can achieve very high removal efficiencies of particu-
lates, S02, RC1, organics, and heavy metals. The tests indicate
that the NCRRA's proposed emission control system (lime slurry
spray dryer, baghouse, low temperature flue gas) is the most
efficient for controlling the unregulated pollutants from a
resource recovery facility. While certain technologies may have
the potential for greater removal of regulated pollutants (e.g.
a wet scrubber may yield greater SO2 removal), available data
suggests that greater control of unregulated pollutants will
not result. Region 9 believes that the NCRRA's proposed control
technology will have very high collection efficiencies of
dioxins, furans, and heavy metals, with collection efficiencies
of 95% for HC1, and greater than 90% for mercury. He conclude
that a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse provides the
greatest degree of control currently achievable for the relevant
air toxics concerns and therefore, emission limitations based
on the operation of a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse
and continuous emission monitors constitute BACT for the control
of SO2, lead, mercury, and fluorides from the NCRRA facility.
In addition to the proposed acid gas BACT, Region 9 also
reviewed the BACT decisions made for controlling NOX emissions
from the NCRRA facility. NCRRA has proposed to control NO,
emissions with low excess air and staged combustion. After
reviewing all of the available control technologies, Region 9
believes that the alternate NO, control technologies currently .
available for resource recovery do not offer any better control
of the affected pollutants (organics such as dioxins and furans)
than do the controls proposed for the NCRRA facility. Our
review included staged combustion, selective non-catalytic
reduction, selective catalytic reduction, wet flue gas de-
nitrification, and the different categories of source separation;
Our review also took into account the effects of the district
permit requirements designed to reduce organic toxic pollutants
(minimum 1800* P furnace temperature and minimum 2 second
residence time in the combustion zone). We conclude that an
emission limitation based on the use of low excess air and
staged combustion and with continuous emission monitors is BACT
(considering the effect of unregulated pollutants) at this time
for the control of NO, emissions from the NCRRA facility.
As part of our BACT review of the NCRRA PSD permit, Region 9
prepared several charts listing the available SO2 and NO, control
options for the NCRRA facility, ranked in order of control
-------
8.21
-3-
^ffectivenesa, witth the estimated impacts of the controls on
.he projects' other air pollutants. The charts were prepared
using data from existing Region 9 PSD permits, permit applications,
district permits, emission control technology reports from the
California Air Resources Board and the New york City Department
of Sanitation, and from reports on the Quebec City Test Program.
The impacts on other pollutants were estimated using our best
engineering judgement based on the available data. He have
included these charts with this report for your review.
After reviewing the above facts, Region 9 has concluded
that no greater controls for the regulated pollutants can be
applied that would be more effective in reducing the emissions
of unregulated pollutants. Therefore, the BACT proposed by NCRRA
and-the BACT decisions made by Region 9 in the April 2, 1985
PSD determination are reaffirmed as BACT for controlling S02i
SOX, lead, mercury, and fluoride emissions from NCRRA's
proposed North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center.
-------
8.21
•4-
REFERENCES
'erv
California Air Resources Boaro", May 24"7~T984T
1. Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities,
i
W
2. Clarke, Marjorie J., Emission Control Technologies for
Resource Recovery, New York City Department of Sanitation,
March 15, 1986.
3. Ray, D.J., Finkelsteim, A., Klicuis, R., Masentette, L.,
"The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program:
An Assessment of A) Two-Stage Incineration B) Pilot
Scale Emission Control", Presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
June 22-27, 1986, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
-------
tVA Keg ion 9 - New Source Be*-
BACT ANALYSIS
(Ranked in Decreasing Order of Control Errectivenesa)
—
Project Typei 1113 TPP, V
Pol lutant t 9CH
Dates Auq 15, 1986
~
Project Engineeri Bob Baker
Control Options
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, Baghouse
Spray Dryer, Lime Slurry,
BagtKHiee
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, ESP
Dry Injection, Sodium
Sort >ent, Baghouae
Spray Dryer, Lime Slurry,
ESP
Dry Injection, Lime,
Bdtjttouae
Wet Scrubbing, Alkaline
Dry Injection, Sodium
Sot bent, ESP
Dry Injection, Lime, ESP
% Control
80-95
75-90
75-90
70-85
65-85
65-80
50-90*
50-75
40-70
Ekni salon
Rates
Ibs/ton
(ppn)
-------
a - New source Secf'->o
BACT ANALYSIS
(Ranked in Decreasing Order of Control Effectiveness)
Page 2
Project Typet 1113 TPD, RDF/
Pol lutant t 9Ch
Datei Auq 15, l9fl£ ;
Project Engineer i Bob Baker
MM
Control Options
Dry Injection, Limestone,
ESP
Met Scrubbing, Water
Source Separation
% Control
25-40
20-30
5-10
Emission
Rates
Ibs/ton
(DP*) «
3.13-3.91
(106-132)
3.65-4.17
(124-141)
4.69-4.95
(159-168)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
636-795
742-848
954-1007
Control Effectiveness on
Other Pol lutant a
Heavy
Metals
Fair
Poor
Poor
Dioxin
Purans
Poor
Poor
Fair
na
Good
Fair
Fair
Hg
Poor
Poor
Poor
Lead
Fair
Fair
Poor
(1 Oorrected to 12% O32, 24 hour average.
-------
*-+~f\~t\.m «\JIA
fcl>A Region 9 - New Source Se.
BACr ANALYSIS
-------
Region 9 - New Source
BACF ANALYSIS
(Hanked in Decreasing Order ot Control Effectiveness)
f ro ject ; North (jaunty HHi;
Project Category; Reaourc covert
Project Type; 1113 TTO. lujr .~l6~fM
---
NOl
Pollutant;
Date: _ Aug 15. 1986
Project engineer; Bob Baker
Control Options
Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) <2
Wet Flue Gas Denitrifica-
tion (PGDn) <2
Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNOR)
lx>w Excess Air/Staged
Combustion
Flue Gas Recirculation
Source Separation
% Control
90-95
80-90
30-60
30-35
10-15
Minimal
Emission
Rates
Ibs/ton
(ppm) (1
0.31-0.61
(15-30)
0.61-1.21
(30-60)
2.43-4.25
(110-200)
3.94-4.25
( 185-200)
5.16-5.46
(240-260)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
65-129
129-258
473-860
795-860
1032-1118
Control Effectiveness on
Other Pollutants
Dioxin
Furans
Unk
None
None
Uhk
Worsen
fair
voc
Poor
None
None
•
Uhk
Worsen
Poor
CO
Poor
None
None
Unk
Worsen
Poor
Heavy
Metals
None
Poor
None
None
None
Poor
(1 Corrected to 12% CO2» 24 hour average.
(2 'Iliis control technology has not yet been applied to refuse combustion, and has not been considered as a
transferable technology due to as yet unresolved technological problems.
-------
8.21
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park. North Carolina 27711
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Implementation of North Countjfc'ffesAuese Recovery PSD Remand
FROM: Gerald A. Emison, Directs
Office of Air Quality<*faTfnTng-"and''Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air Management Division, Regions I, III, V, and IX
Director, Air and Waste Management Division, Region II
Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, Regions IV and VI
Director, Air and Toxics Division, Regions VII, VIII, and X
On June 3, 1986, the Administrator remanded a prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permit decision, involving the North County Resource
Recovery project, to Region IX for their reconsideration. The permit was
for a 33-megawatt, 1000 tons-per-day facility to be located in San Marcos,
California. At Issue was whether appropriate consideration had been given,
within the best available control technology (BACT) determination, to the
environmental effects of pollutants not subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act (Act).* The remand strongly affirms that the permitting
authority should take the toxic effects of unregulated pollutants into
account in making BACT decisions for regulated pollutants. This obligation
arises from section 169(3) of the Act, which defines BACT as the maximum
degree of emissions decrease which the permitting authority determines is
achievable, taking into account "environmental . . . impacts." Essential
to this process is the notification to the public of how the effects of
toxic air pollutants, including those that are unregulated, have been
considered in the PSD review and the subsequent consideration of the comments
in making the final BACT decision. The purpose of this memorandum is to
advise you of the impact of the remand on PSD permitting and to provide
implementation guidance. This document builds upon and makes final the
draft guidance of August 1986.
Although the Act has given us the authority to review directly the
considerable range of regulated pollutants, the remand clearly indicates
that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) should incorporate considera-
tion of all pollutants within its PSD determinations for all sources subject
to PSD. This result is consistent with the fact that the PSD permitting
process is charged "... to protect public health and welfare from any
*A "regulated pollutant," or "pollutant subject to regulation under the
Clean Air Act," is one which is addressed by a national ancient air
quality standard, a new source performance standard, or is listea pursuant
to the national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants program.
-------
8.21
actual or potential adverse effect . . . from air pollution . ..." and that
increases in air pollution should be permitted ". . .only after careful
evaluation of all the consequences . . . ." [section 160(1) and (2)].
Revisions to State implementation plans (SIP's), to comport with the
Administrator's decision, should not be necessary. State or local agencies
with delegated PSD programs automatically trade this change in policy.
Agencies implementing their own SIP-approved programs are also unlikely to
need any regulatory changes. This is because the remand is based on an
interpretation of Act language, notably the definition of BACT, that is in
most cases already contained in the plan. I ask that you confirm this with
your States and applicable local agencies.
Transition
As with any change in the way EPA does business, we have developed a
transition plan for its implementation. The situations can be addressed
most logically by dividing all PSO sources into three groups based on phase
of permitting activity: those sources for which permit applications had
not been filed, those for which permits had already been granted, and those
for which applications had been filed but permits not yet granted.
First, all PSD sources for which complete applications had not been
filed as of the Administrator's June 3, 1986, decision are fully subject to
the remand's requirements. Earlier applications present more complex
policy considerations.
One could argue, since the Administrator's decision is an interpretation
of existing Act provisions, rather than a new requirement, that all PSD
permits issued under the terms of the 1977 Amendments to the Act should be
subject to the remand. However, program stability and equity to sources, in
this second group, that have relied upon properly issued PSD permits militate
strongly against such an approach. For these reasons, I have decided to
exempt from the requirements of the remand all sources holding finally
Issued permits as of June 3, 1986. (Subsequent major modifications to such
existing sources are, of course, subject to PSD review, including the
application of the requirements of this remand.)
The third group of sources consists of those for which PSO permits
were in the pipeline (i.e., complete application filed but permits not yet
Issued) as of the date of the remand. It is appropriate that these sources
also be subject to the terms of the remand. However, for permit applications
which have successfully passed through the public comment period without
environmental effects concerns being raised, the Regional Office may, at its
discretion, issue these in final without further delay.
The above enunciated transition policy applies directly to all EPA
permit Issuance procedures and also to those used by State agencies issuing
PSD permits under a delegation of authority agreement pursuant to 40 CFR
S2.21(u). This transition policy does not automatically apoly to PSD
-------
8.21
permit decisions by States under SIP-approved PSD programs, except to the
extent that environmental effects Issues are raised by commenters. The
policy does apply prospectively in a uniform fashion to all applications
filed after June 3, 1986. States with SIP-approved PSD programs are, of
course, responsible for enunciating reasonable transition schemes and I ask
that you encourage then to adopt policies consistent with this one. These
transition schemes, as with the substantive program itself, are unlikely to
require rulemaking; however, the policies should be set forth in formal
statements so as to further the goals of public awareness and consistent
application. These policies and their implementation will be reviewed
within the National Air Audit System to assess the need to require greater
conformance.
Required Analyses
The BACT requirement outlined in section 169(3) of the Act contemplates
a decision process in which the best available controls are defined for
each regulated pollutant that a PSO source would emit in significant amounts.
This case-by-case process is to take into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs. The toxic effects of unregulated pollutants
are to be accounted for in deciding if the BACT otherwise being prescribed
for regulated pollutants still represents the appropriate level and type of
control. If the reviewing authority judges the potential environmental
effects of such unregulated pollutants to be of possible concern to the
public, then the final BACT decision for regulated pollutants should in all
cases address these effects and reflect, as appropriate, control beyond what
might otherwise have been chosen.
A recent remand determination made by the Administrator in another case
provides further elucidation of the BACT process. In that case, Honolulu
Program of Waste Energy Recovery (H-Power), PSD Appeal No. 86-6, Remand
Order (June 23, 1987), the Administrator ruled that a PSO permitting
authority has the burden of demonstrating that adverse economic impacts are
so significant as to justify the failure to require the most effective
pollution controls technologically achievable as BACT.
The broad mandate with respect to toxics that is presented by the
remand is not readily amenable to highly detailed national guidance that
provides the appropriate permitting requirement in each case. There Is no
specific formula for making BACT decisions; this is a case-by-case process
involving the judgment of the reviewing authority. While it may be possible
to develop a framework of guidance based upon such factors as risk assessment
and reference doses, this would entail a large effort that seems inappropriate
at this time. It 1s more practical, however, for EPA to develop guidance
for specific source categories that are of particular importance. The EPA
has recently provided such BACT guidance with respect to municipal waste
combustors. See memorandum entitled "Operational Guidance on Control
Technology for New and Modified Municipal Waste Combustors," from Gerald A.
Ernlson, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, dated
June 26, 1987. Guidance on other source categories may be issued from time
to time as aoprooriate.
-------
8.21
Today's policy charges the PSD review authority with analyzing at the
outset the environmental impacts of proposed construction projects with
respect to air toxics which might be of concern, even if such matters are
not initially raised by the public. Other types of environmental effects
should also be addressed in response to public concerns, within the limits
of the ability to do so. For PSD reviews consistent with this policy, each
applicable permitting authority should Initiate an evaluation of toxic air
pollutants (unregulated as well as regulated) which the proposed project
would emit in amounts potentially of concern to the public. The review
authority should evaluate unregulated pollutants for both carcinogenic and
noncarcinogenic effects. The National Air Toxics Information Clearinghouse
(NATICH) data base contains considerable information relevant to evaluating
the effect, sources, and control techniques available for unregulated
pollutants. I encourage you to urge permitting authorities to use NATICH
as a source of Information as they conduct the analyses. Further information
may be obtained by calling the NATICH staff at 629-5519.
The response to the Administrator made by EPA Region IX in its analysis
of the North County permitting decision is attached. Although this example
illustrates only one of several acceptable approaches, it 1s a well thought
out analysis that provides a useful example to consider for future permitting
exercises.
Headquarters has several other mechanisms 1n effect to support analyses
with respect to-toxics. These include a recent report which helps to
estimate toxic air emissions from various sources (Compiling Air Toxics
Emission Inventories, EPA-450/4-86-010). The burden of proof regarding
emissions estimates, of course, rests with the applicant, but the techniques
discussed in the document should be useful 1n determining if the applicant's
estimates are reasonable and address appropriate pollutants. In addition,
the Office of Research and Development (ORO) has released a control technology
manual which is valuable in evaluating how control devices for particulate
matter and volatile organic compounds differ in their abilities to control
various toxic species of these criteria pollutants (Control Technologies
for Hazardous A1r Pollutants, EPA-625/6-86/014).
Support will also be available on a case-by-case basis from the Office
of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) and ORO. In particular, we
have formed a control technology center to provide assistance to the review
authority in determining BACT. This center can offer a range of activities,
including evaluation of source emissions, identification of control techniques,
development of control cost estimates, identification of operation and
maintenance procedures, and, in a few situations, In-depth engineering
assistance on Individual problems. Other planned activities include the
publication of technical guidance to assist 1n the evaluation of selected
types of sources. Contact points for the control technology center are
Lee Beck in OAQPS (629-0800) and Sharon Hoi en in ORD (629-7607). We expect
this support to Unit the effort required of PSD reviewing authorities.
-------
8.21
Public Participation
One of the most important features of this policy is the requirement
that the affected public be fully informed of the potential toxic emissions
from a proposed project and of what the reviewing authority has done to
minimize this potential within the BACT decision. A specific discussion of
toxics concerns in a technical support document might be helpful in accom-
plishing this information transfer. Additional concerns related to the
environmental effects of unregulated pollutants raised by commenters must
then be addressed in the final BACT determination. This process is of
central importance to PSD permitting and comments received must be adequately
addressed in the final decision. Strong public participation is consistent
with the PSO goals contained in section 160 of the Act, which relate to
informing the public of increased air pollution, including that due to
unregulated pollutants.
It should be noted that although these analyses are used in the BACT
decision, they will not be used as the basis for disapproving a project
that has agreed to apply BACT. In other words, today's policy requires that
toxics be considered in the control of the proposed project only to the
extent that the level of control chosen as BACT is achievable.
Enforcement
In the case of delegated (as opposed to SIP-approved) PSO programs,
EPA has various enforcement tools. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19, any party
that participated in the public proceedings with respect to a proposed
permit may, within 30 days of the final permit decision, petition the
Administrator of EPA to review any condition of that permit decision. The
Administrator may also seek to review any such permit condition on his own
initiative. Should this appeals procedure be unavailable in a particular
case, EPA has the authority, depending upon the facts of the case, to
withdraw the delegation with respect to an individual permit that is being
or has been issued inconsistently with the terms of that delegation. Thus,
EPA may be able to directly intervene in the issuance of a PSD permit to
ensure implementation of today's policy. This withdrawal of delegation is
not the preferred course of action but it may be available if needed.
The consideration of air toxics in PSD permitting is a requirement of
the Act and, through the definition of BACT, is incorporated in the SIP's.
Therefore, violation of this policy would constitute a SIP violation and be
enforceable by EPA. Section 113(a) of the Act provides for Federal issuance
of a notice of violation in the case of a violation of a SIP. If the
violation continues for more than 30 days, section 113(b) provides that the
Administrator shall commence an action for Injunction or civil penalty, or
both. In addition, section 167 of the Act specifically provides that EPA
take legal action to prevent the construction of a major emitting facility
that does not conform to the requirements of PSD. Under section 167, EPA
can issue an administrative order or commence a civil action. Since no
-------
8.21
notice of violation would be necessary, In this case, EPA can use section
167 to order Immediate cessation of construction or operation. Note also
that this section has been construed as providing EPA with authority to take
enforcement action against sources out of compliance with PSD even if they
have already been constructed. These remedies are more likely to be used
in the case of SIP-approved programs than with delegated programs, for
which an appeal under 40 CFR Part 124 would generally be the preferred
course of action.
Enforcement actions are pursued after reviewing a range of factors
relevant to each particular case. For this reason, I am not setting forth
detailed provisions as to required enforcement measures. There are, however,
certain situations in which enforcement action is generally appropriate.
These include procedural deficiencies, such as failure to solicit public
comment on air toxics issues for applicable permits, and failure to address
the air toxics concerns raised by public comment. Enforcement with respect
to permits already in the pipeline should follow the transition scheme in
today's policy for delegated programs and the State or local agreement
established with EPA for SIP-approved programs.
The Act and the PSO regulations require that States submit a copy of
the public notice for proposed permits to EPA. I urge the Regional Offices
to ensure that such notices are submitted and are reviewed for conforraance
with the criteria contained in this document. Although enforcement mecha-
nisms are available to address noncomplying sources, our efforts to implement
today's policy will be much more effective if taken prospectively and in
coordination with the State permitting process.
Conclusion
Today's guidance summarizes the broad ranging impact of the June 3,
1986, remand and provides some Insight into the analyses and public
disclosure that now should take place. We will continue to support and
monitor subsequent decisions and-to assess the need for more detailed or
expansive guidance. Questions on today's guidance should be addressed to
Michael Trutna (629-5345) or Kirt Cox of OAQPS (629-5399).
Attachment
cc: C. Potter
A. Eckert
D. Clay
Regional Administrator, Regions I-X
Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I-X
-------
8.21
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco. Ca. 94105
MEMORANDUM
DATE: August 15, 1986
SUBJECT: North County Resource Recovery Associates
PSD Appeal,
FROM:
Air Management DiviMon, Region 9
TO: Lee M. Thomas, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
This is in response to the June 3, 1986 remand of
Region 9's April 2, 1985 determination to issue a .Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the North
County Resource Recovery Associates for the construction
of a 1000 ton per day resource recovery facility. The
remand charged Region 9 with reconsidering the effects
of unregulated pollutants when making PSD determinations.
Region 9 has reviewed the relevant BACT decisions
and has prepared a response to the Administrator's remand,
as recommended in the July 21, 1986 guidance memo from
Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning
and Standards. Our response with supporting materials
is attached.
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed
materials please contact me at 454-3201 (FTS) or have your
staff contact Wayne A. Blackard, Chief of our New Source
Section at 454-8249 (FTS).
Enclosures
-------
8.21
RESPONSE TO PSD REMAND
NORTH COUNTY RECYCLING AND ENERGY RECOVERY CENTER
(PSD Appeal No. 85-2)
On April 2, 1985 the Director of the Air Management
Division, EPA Region 9, made a determination to issue a Prevention
of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit to the North County
Resource Recovery Associates (NCSRA) for the construction and
operation of a 33 megawatt, 1000 ton per day resource recovery
facility. During the following appeal period EPA received
three petitions filed pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19 requesting the
Administrator to review Region 9's decision to issue the PSD
permit. The Office of the Administrator reviewed the petitioners'
comments and Region 9's responses to the comments and determined
that Region 9 had satisfactorily addressed all of the petitioners'
allegations with the exception of Region 9's assertion that EPA
lacked the authority to 'consider' pollutants not regulated by
the Clean Air Act when making a PSD determination. The Adminis-
trator felt that Region 9's assertion was overly broad and that
when making a PSD determination, in particular a best available
control technology (BACT) decision, a permitting agency must
consider not only the environmental impact of the controlled
regulated pollutant but must also consider the environmental
impacts of any unregulated pollutants that might be affected by
the choice of control technology. For this reason the Adminis-
trator remanded the PSD determination to Region 9 for recon-
sideration and action consistent with the above interpreta-
tion of EPA authority.
In response to the above, Region 9 has reviewed the BACT
decisions made for the NCRRA PSD permit. Onder the PSD regula-
tions NCRRA must apply 3ACT to control emissions of SOj,
lead, mercury, and fluorides from their proposed resource
recovery facility. BACT is defined in the Clean Air Act as
'...an emission limitation based on the maximum degree of
reduction of each pollutant subject to regulation under this
Act...on a case-by-case basis, taking into account energy,
environmental and economic impacts and other costs..." Under
environmental impacts our review of the original BACT determination
included the impacts from both regulated and affected unregulated
pollutants. The control of particulates, CO, and VOC emissions
are not directly subject to the federal PSD BACT review, but
are subject to the nonattainment permitting regulations which
are administered by the San Diego Air Pollution Control District.
NCRRA is proposing to use a dry scrubber with a baghouse
to control emissions of S02^ acid gases, and- particulate matter
from the proposed resource recovery project. The dry scrubber
consists of a spray dryer and a baghouse. The spray dryer injects
an atomized lime slurry sorbent into the flue gas stream. The
baghouse removes the dried sorbent-and flyash (particulate matter)
from the flue gas. The dry scrubber will be designed for a
flue gas flow of 225,000 acfm at an inlet temperature of
-------
8.21
-2-
340 degrees P and a maximum outlet temperature of 265 degrees P.
NCRRA expects the dry scrubber system to provide 83% removal of
SO2 and 95% removal of acid gases as well as 99.5% removal of
particulates.
Recent tests of emissions control devices for waste fired
boilers (the latest being the Quebec City Test Program) have
shown that properly designed and operated control devices can
significantly reduce emissions from resource recovery facilities.
In particular/ an acid gas scrubbing system operating at optimal
stoichiometric ratios, at low temperature, in tandem with a
baghouse can achieve very high removal efficiencies of particu-
lates, S02, HC1, organics, and heavy metals. The tests indicate
that the NCRRA's proposed emission control system (lime slurry
spray dryer, baghouse, low temperature flue gas) is the most
efficient for controlling the unregulated pollutants from a
resource recovery facility. While certain technologies may have
the potential for greater removal of regulated pollutants (e.g.
a wet scrubber may yield greater S02 removal), available data
suggests that greater control of unregulated pollutants will
not result. Region 9 believes that the NCRRA's proposed control
technology will have very high collection efficiencies of
dioxins, furans, and heavy metals, with collection efficiencies
of 95% for HC1, and greater than 90% for mercury. He conclude
that a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse provides the
greatest degree of control currently achievable for the relevant
air toxics concerns and therefore, emission limitations based
on the operation of a lime slurry spray dryer with a baghouse
and continuous emission monitors constitute BACT for the control
of S02, lead, mercury, and fluorides from the NCRRA facility.
In addition to the proposed acid gas 3ACT, Region 9 also
reviewed the BACT decisions made for controlling NOX emissions
from the NCRRA facility. NCRRA has proposed to control NO,
emissions with low excess air and staged combustion. After
reviewing all of the available control technologies. Region 9
believes that the alternate NO, control technologies currently
available for resource recovery do not offer any better ccntrol
of the affected pollutants (organics such as dioxins and furans)
than do the controls proposed for the NCRRA facility. Our
review included staged combustion, selective non-catalytic
reduction, selective catalytic reduction, wet flue gas de-
nitrification, and the different categories of source separation;
Our review also took into account the effects of the district
permit requirements designed to reduce organic toxic pollutants
(minimum 1800*-P furnace temperature and minimum 2 second
residence time in the combustion zone), we conclude that an
emission limitation based on the use of low excess air and
staged combustion and with continuous emission monitors is BACT
(considering the effect of unregulated pollutants) at this time
for the control of 10T emissions from the NCRRA facility.
As part of our 3ACT review of the NCRRA PSD permit, Segion 9
prepared several charts listing the availaole SC2 and MOT control
options for the NCRRA facility, ranked in order of control
-------
effectiveness, witth the estimated impacts of the controls on
the projects' other air pollutants. The charts were prepared
using data from existing Region 9 PSD permits, permit applications,
district permits, emission control technology reports from the
California Air Resources Board and the New York City Department
of Sanitation, and from reports on the Quebec City Test Program.
The impacts on other pollutants were estimated using our best
engineering judgement based on the available data. We have
included these charts with this report for your review.
After reviewing the above facts. Region 9 has concluded
that no greater controls for the regulated pollutants can be
applied that would be more effective in reducing the emissions
of unregulated pollutants. Therefore, the BACT proposed by NCRRA
and the BACT decisions made by Region 9 in the April 2, 1985
PSD determination are reaffirmed as BACT for controlling SC<2,
NOj, lead, mercury, and fluoride emissions from NCRRA's
proposed North County Recycling and Energy Recovery Center.
-------
8.21
REFERENCES
1. Air Pollution Control at Resource Recovery Facilities,
California Air Resources Board, May 24, 1984.
2. Clarke, Marjorie J., Emission Control Technologies Cor
Resource Recovery, New York Caty Department of Sanitation,
March IS, 1986.
3. Hay, D.J., Finkelsteim, A., Klicuis, R., Masentette, L.,
"The National Incinerator Testing and Evaluation Program:
An Assessment of A) Two-Stage Incineration B) Pilot
Scale Emission Control*, Presented at the 79th Annual
Meeting of the Air Pollution Control Association,
June 22-.21, 1986, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
-------
EPA Region 9 - New Source & .1
BACT ANALYSIS
(Ranked in Decreasing Order of Control Effectiveness)
Project Category i Resource ' ary
Project Type i 1113 TTO, RC A MM
Pol 1 utant t
Date i Aug 15,
Project Engineer i Bob Baker
Control Options
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, Baghouse
Spray Dryer, Lime Slurry*
Bagttoiiee
Spray Dryer, Alkaline
Slurry, ESP
Dry Injection, Sodium
Sort >ent, Baghouae
Spray Dryer, Line Slurry,
ESP
Dry Injection, Lime,
fayliouse
Wo I Scrubbing, Alkaline
Dry Injection, Sodium
Sot bent, ESP
Dry Injection, Lime, ESP
% Control
60-95
75-90
75-90
70-85
65-85
65-80
50-90 »
50-75
40-70
Eftnlssion
Rates
Ibs/ton
(ppn) U
0.26-1.04
(9-35)
0.52-1.30
(18-44)
0.52-1.30
(18-44)
0.78-1.56
(26-53)
0.78-1.82
(26-62)
1.04-1.82
(3S-62)
0.52-2.61
(18-88)
1.30-2.61
(44-88)
1.56-3.13
(53-106)
Emissions
(tona/yr)
53-212
106-265
106-265
159-318
159-371
212-371
106-530
265-530
318-636
Control Effectiveness on
Other Pollutants
Heavy
Metals
Exc
Exc
good
Exc
Good
Good
Poor
Fair
Fair
Dioxin
Parana
Exc
Exc
good
Poor
Good
Poor
Poor
Poor
Poor
Ha
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Exc
Good
Hg
Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Fair
Poor
Pair
Poor
Poor
Lead
Exc
Exc
Good
Good
Good
Good
Fair
Pair
Fair
(1 Corrected to 12% 2, 24 hour average
-------
EPA Region 9 - New Source Secti
BACT ANALYSIS
< Ranked in Decreasing Order of Control effectiveness)
Page 2
__ ____
Project Category! Reeouroe Re ry
Project Typei 111J TPD/RDP. "To ml
Pol lutant i
an i ?
Aug I&/
t Engineer!
Project Engineer! Bob Baker
Control Options
Dry Injection, Limestone,
ESP
Wet Scrifcbing, Water
Source Separation
% Control
25-40
20-30
5-10
Ehilssion
Rates
ibs/ton
(Mm) H
3.13-3.91
(106-132)
3.65-4.17
(124-141)
4.69-4.95
(159-168)
Emissions
(tons/yr) '
636-795
742-848
954-1007
Gbntrol Effectiveness on
Other Pollutants
Heavy
MeUls
Ffelr
Poor
Poor
Dioxln
Furans
Poor
Poor
Fair
Hd ~
Good
Fair
Fair
Hg
Poor
Poor
Poor
Lead
Fair
Fair
Poor
(I Corrected to 12% O>2. 24 hour average.
-------
cjuut iwr
U'A Region 9 - New Source Ser
BACT ANALYSIS -
(Hanked in Decreasing Order ol Control Effectiveness)
_
Project Category. Resource "very
Project Type; 1113 TPD, Rf j6 MJ
Pol 1 utant s _ NOg _ : _ *~"
Date; Auq 15, 1986 _
Project Engineer: Bob Baker _
Control Options
Seluctive Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) <2
Wet Flue Gas Denitrified-
tion (KU>n) '*
Seluctive Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SUCH)
Low Excess Air/Staged
Oouiujat ion
Flue Gas Recirculation
Source Separation
t Control
90-95
BO-90
30-60
30- 35
10-15
Minimal
Emission
Rates
Ibs/ton
{l
0.31-0.61
( 15-30)
0.61-1.21
(30-60)
2.43-4.25
(110-200)
3.94-4.25
(185-200)
5.16-5.46
(240-260)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
65-129
129-258
473-860
795-860
1032-1118
•
Control Effectiveness on
Other Pollutants
Dioxin
Furans
link
None
None
Uhk
Worsen
Fair
voc
Poor
None
None
link
Worsen
Poor
CD
Poor
None
None
Uhk
Worsen
Poor
Heavy
Metals
None
Poor
None
None
None
Poor
(1 Corrected to 12« O32, 24 hour average.
(2 'llus control technology has not yet been applied to refuse combustion, and lias not been considered as a
transferable teclrmlogy due to as yet unresolved technological problems.
-------
EPA KV.UJIOO 9 - New Source Section
DACI ANALYSIS
(Ranked in Decruasing Order ot Control Effectiveness)
Project; North County RHF
Project Category. Resource to
Project Type; 1113 TPD. RDFT 36
Pollutant! NOy
Pate; Aug 15, 1986
Project Bigineer; Bob Baker
Control Options
Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SCR) <2
Wet Flue Gas DenUrifica-
tioo (rcon) (2
Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction (SNCH)
low excess Air/Staged
Combustion
Flue Gas Recirculation
Source Separation
1 Control
90-95
80-90
30-60
30-35
10-15
Minimal
Emission
Rates
Ibs/ton
(ppn) Cl
0.31-0.61
(15-30)
0.61-1.21
( 30-60)
2.43-4.25
(110-200)
3.94-4.25
( 185-200)
5.16-5.46
(240-260)
Emissions
(tons/yr)
65-129
129-258
473-860
795-860
1032-1118
«
Control Effectiveness on
Other Pollutants
Dioxin
Furans
Unk
None
None
Uhk
Worsen
Fair
woe
Poor
None
None
Uhk
Worsen
Poor
CO
Poor
None
None
Uhk
Worsen
Poor
Heavy
He Lais
None
Poor
None
None
None
Poor
(1 Corrected to 12% CO2, 24 hour average.
(2 HUB control technology liaa not yet been applied to refuse combustion, and has not been considered as a
ttausterabla teclnology due to as yet unresolved technological problems.
O9
.
K)
-------
L'NITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
* \SHINGTO\D.C. 20*60
OFFICE OF
SVSJSCI: Improving New Source Review (NSR) Implementation
r?C*.: J. Craig Potter
Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation (ANR-443)
TO: Sec: oriel Administrator
Recier.s »1
Or. June 2", 1956, I established a special task force to address
growing concerns about the consistency and certainty of permits issues
j-.cer tr.e Clear. Air Act's prevention of significant deterioration end
-cnattainmer.t area NSR programs. Sased on "the findings and recononencations
c: tr$e tasic force, I ST. tocay estabiishinc certain program initiatives
ces:nec zc ircrove tr.e tireiiness, certair.ty, and effectiveness of these
A creat deal cf effort will be required to overcome the probleos
-•-icr. .-.eve developed, but it is my belief that these problems, with your
f-11 cooperation and assistance, can be resolved so that these essential
=:r rar.acensr.t programs can fulfill their intended roles. Therefore, I
:r=r each c: yo!- to prcvics the ireximum priority and resource contnitner.ts
T'-.e c-.tsta-.cing ccr.cerr. we now face in tr.ese programs is inadequate
i"lener.teticr.. Trie Office cf Air ana Radiation intends to apply its
resource cctrrr.iwer.ts so ss to ennance its ability to provide technical
support er.d guidance, training, workshops, auditing, and eruSorcemsnt
E.ppcrt to tr.e r.egicns and relegated programs. Tr.e P.egior.s.1 Offices —ust
-5
-------
o--o
- 2 -
7ne following is £ list cf the specific program initiatives I am
neresy instituting to brine about irorovements in NSR irolenie.-tatior.:
ic Permit Actions—Initially and until sucn tine as permit
quality car. x ass-red, : ar requiring that-eacn Regional Office establish
(if'not already in place) a program to ensure a timely and comprehensive
review cf all State end local agency-issued mapr source permits and
certain r.inor source permits. Inrlerentation of the progre.T will be made
pert of tne Regional Office "lanagement System and will require the "real
tine" exchange and"review of information oetween the Regional Office end
tne State and local agencies when a key milestone is reached curing the
permitting process.
effective corjiunication between the permitting agency and the Recional
Office is essential to improving program implementation. Tnerefore, the
Regional Offices will need to ensure"that State and local permittinc
agencies folio--- certain notification procedures such as:
- Notify the Regional Office and other affected parties (e.g., the
~ed=ral lend rrar.eoer if Class I areas are iroactec), witr.ir. a reasonable
tire, of tne receipt of a new major source permit application. This can
ta'se tne fcrr. of a complete copy of the application "itself or a brief
description cf the proposed project. Notification can be made as each
application is received or tne ir^orrretion may be submitted to the Recional
Office in a periodic report.
- £u^T»t tc tne Regional Office a complete public--notification
psc«:age at tne begi.-.-.ir.c cf the public notice period. The peckaoe nust
co-tain the puoiic notice language, the proposed permit, and a technical
analysis demonstrating now the proposed project complies with the technical
review requirements cf tne regulations [e.g., best available control
tec.-.-.clogy ;=.i.C7} or lowest achievable e,T,issior. rate (LAER), air cuai
-------
- 3 -
Planr.ing and Standards (CA2?S) to start p«crk or the development cf a
permit review checxlist for use by the Regional Office curing the public
corrae.-t period. The cneccificctio-. frcrr. a r«nor review (e.g. , "synthetic" minor sources, major
sources netting out of review, end 99.9 or 249.9 tons per year sources).
T.-.e rest critical sisner.t of these initiatives is the Regional Office
sr.t period. 3y uniformly reviewing all manor source permit actions
;-rir.g t.->e cccner.t period, I?A is able to address deficient reviews or
=•=:-! ts oefcre trie final perxt is issued. Tnis net only promotes acre
"-.sistsr.cy :r. tr.e permitting process aiong the States, but else provides
— •= -ir-.sst decree cf certair.ty to tne applicant that the permit will not
:•= cr=lle.-.;ed by EPA =t = later date. Moreover, if tne perr.it is not
:•=-le-ed e.-.d ccrner.ted cr. pricr to issuance, tne possibility of successful!}
:.-=llrr:rirsc tr.* actier. is erectly ciminis.iec, as is the opportunity tc
irrrcve t.ie er.fcrceacility'cf the permit. "* '•
SAr: Detertinatier^—:-f all tr.e SS?. processes, SACT (and LAIR)
determinations are perr.aps tne most misunderstood'and the least correctlv
arpii'-.. The EACT alternatives, if presented by the applicant at all,
are often poorly documented or biased to achieve the decision the applicant
desires.
To bring consistency to the BACT process, I-have authorized OAQPS to
proceed with developing specific guidance on the use of the "top-down11
approach to BACT. The"first step in this approach is to determine, for
trie emission source in question, the most stringent control available
fcr a sir.ilaf or ider.t:c"sl source or source category, if it can be shown
t.-.at tr.is level cf cc-.t:cl is tecnr.ically cr eccno?7ilcally infeasibie for
-------
tr-e source in question, t.-er. the next most stringent level of control is
determined and s^ilarly evaluated. Tnis process continues until tne
51.77 level under consideration cannot be eliminated by any substantial or
ur.iqje tecnnical, environmental, or economic objections. Tnus, tne
"v
control; the other processes required a full analysis of all possible
types and levels of. control acove the baseline case. '
Tne "top-down" approach is essentially already required for imnicipai
waste combustors pursuant to the June 22, 1987, Administrator's remand to
Serion IX of the E-?ower 3ACT decision and the OA3PS June 26, 1967,
"Operational Guidance on Control Technology for New and Modified Municipal
across tne board.
Training— Nc fcr^ie: trsininc workshops specific to NSR have been
r.sld sir.ce lr£0. Mar.y Stste and local agencies, as well as the Recicnal
:f:;ces, rave experience: s. r.igr. rate of ~NSR personnel turnover since
-..-•=.-.. ter.y of t.-.e sasic problems that ere occurring in KSR irolenentation
:s- ze trec&i tc t.-.e lac', c: ccrcrehensive, ccr.tir.Jina traininc for new
?.-rgior.el Office and State soency personnel.
Ts rectify rhis si-.jsticn, in ?Y 1936, OACPS will work on developina
-£i=ri=ls for e cor.pre.-.s-s:ve trainir.g prograr. in tne fonr, of Recional "
-cr
-------
Ir. adciticr., Regional Offices should reserve the funds necessary to
send at least one I?i. staff representative to the NS* workshops (for EPA
=-ly) held sertier.njelly a: Denver, Colorado (FeDruery), arc Southern Pines,
N'or'tr. Caroline (July), i.ttendence at these wcrKShops plays a vital role
ir. *eeri-:g tr.e ?.egior.s up'to date on program urcierentatior and new and
ererging policy.
Pel icy and Guidance—Continuous litigation end regulatory changes
r.ave corained vitn the complexity of NSS rules to create a log nem of the
policy and guidance needed"to help interpret and effectively apply these
"rules" Therefore, : a-r. directing'that in FY 1965 OAQPS dedicate at least
cne Swiff person to ensuring a timely response to policy and guidance
requests. In the interim, I intend to continue OAQPS's efforts to
csr.piie snd organize NSR reference end guidance materials/ such as the
SSR electronic bulletin board.
I rsalire trict the initiatives discussed above constitute only the
first steps of a continuing process to address concerns and needs relating
to NSR program urolenentation. In recognition of the possible need to
-einiair. flexibility ir. TEneging and insroving tne NSR process I will, as
i.-.dicctec earlier, estaciisn a group to nonitor our progress under this
-9« pclir/. T.-.5 group -ill be cororised of representatives from E?A
••esdcjarters and Segionai Offices and we will consult with State and
Icccl" cosncy officials as part of our effort to ootain timely feedback as
-s irrls^sr.t tr.ese initiatives.
i.=fiticr.al specific guidance on inprovensr.ts in the program areas
cisrussec ascve will oe issued in the near future. In the meantime, each
P.ecional Office is directed to work closely with its State and local
agencies to ensure tr.at all aspects of the SS3 perrit progranB comply
wit.-, all applicable State and Federal program requirements.
:'cjr cr-.-er.ts ar.d suggestions are welcome. Please direct then to
3=r.- .".rCjtr.-.er., Trie:, Sesl-'source Review Section, *O-15, Researcn Triancle
? = :•-, -::rtr larclir.a I^'ll (-TS 625-5552).
r=: Air ^ivisicr. rirectcrs, Regions I-X
-------
Source Aeview, Prevention of Significant jetc
and Nonattainmen-t Area Guidance Notebook
Discussion flower: \.2*
Citation: '.:urr»nt) 40 Cc-{
(old.
.2: J.jne 25, 1987
To: Director, Mr 1dii.vj.3i.2n: "•!•/•;-31
Regions I-X
Froi-i: Gerald A. t-nison, direct
OAQPS
Subject: Operational Guidance on Cont-il
For l',e\i and Modified :-UIC's
iviswi.-ia aut-iori :i.;s, in
control options duri-uj toe DACf
1ei«ir:ni nation process for MwC's, ~. 2
consider ^ dry scrubber 3,-iJ i ^jjr1 :
Filter or electrostatic oracioi-ator as
3ACT for SOo and ?V, ana
control - -is 3AC7 rjr JJ.
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
/ - Office of Air Quality Pfenning and Standards
' — "^- Research Triangle Park. Norm Carolina 27711
2 S "!M :S27
• wwli l>9/
"EMORAND'JK
SUBJECT: Operational Guidance on Control Tecnnology for New and
Modified Municipal Waste Combustors (MWCs)
FP.OM: Gerald A. -mi son, Di re
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-iO)
.t division Directors
Regions I, III, V and IX
Air and Waste Xanageraent Division Director
P.egicn II
Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division Directors
!V and VI
Air ano Toxics Division Directors
=esicns VI!, VI 1 1 and X
. As you know, nurae-ous Questions regarding the selection of appropriate
:c""'.ticn ccr.trol rssuirements for MWCs have ar-'sen durino recent vears
;- -j-c- s:.-ce :e— ittinc :-cceec:r.=s -jntie' tr.e :-evention cf sic'nificar.t
:=:=r-cr£--3n •=£:', :-ov:s:ors cf D»»-t C o* -r.e :*.*2n iir ;ct anc't^.e
•:-£tta--.-e-t r.*w s=.-:= -sview (*JSS) provisions sf Part D of tne Act.
iQIS
jnder
:-.stts-"ie-.t '.'Sr. i-.c to resuce delay anc csr.f-.-sic? ir, tne se-Tr.itfino
:-::sii. ~".s :.-.:•':; -ec-jires -ev-ewi-.c autrc-r'es, in cors-'cerirc tne
- = -?e zf ::tr"f.s' ::-t-s" c:ticns d-j-inc t!-,e EACT c=terT5ir.et:cr. process
-:r *;:s, to ccns-'cer c cry scruofcer enc a faaric filter or electrostatic
srecipitator as 3ACT for sulfur dioxioe (SOg) end particulate matter (?M),
and combustion controls as BACT for carbon monoxide (CO).
The Administrator remanded to Region IX on June 22, 1S87, their previous
concurrence or a PSD oermit for the H-Power MWC to be constructed in Honolulu
Hawaii. Petif"cners hao argued that, (a) BACT for this facility did not
aoeauately justify the failure to require the use of an acid gas scrubber,
c-.c i:-- the remitting authority did not evaluate the effectiveness of ac''d
"as 3CT'j5sei-s -in -educing emissions of unregulated pollutants, as recu'rec
-------
;;;•• the June 1986 North County Resource Recovery Associates PSD Appeal
decision (or North County remand). In remanding the H-?ower permit appli-
cation to Region IX for further proceedings, the Administrator made it
clear that the Agency consioers acid gas scrubbers to be an available
•.rrr.rioiccy for excess air KWCs that fire refuse-derived fuel (RDF) such as
*...'. H-55-er facility. The attached operational guidance states that th's
type of post-ccmpustion control is one coraponent'of available tecnnoloov
-or modular, starved air MWCs and massburn, excess air MWCs, in addition to
-.3F-fired, excess air MWCs.
As stated above, the operational guidance includes a second component
of available technology, which is combustion control for the criteria
pollutant CO. Since the effectiveness of the two components of available
technology in controlling unregulated pollutants is an important consideration
in individual BACT determinations (per the North County remand), the
attached guidance states that (a) acid gas scrubbers followed by fabric
'ilters or electrostatic precipitators are effective in controlling
:cter.tially toxic organic and metal pollutants, as well as acid gases
cfe- tr.an sulfur cioxide, and (b) combustion controls are effective in
::-trs". '.•;.-. c pctsntie'i'y tcxic organic pollutants.
~w.e technical tasis for the operational guidance is documented in
five reports which are a part of tne Agency 's'comorehensive study of MWC.
ir.ese vc.jp.es are listed in the Refe-ences section of the guicance. You
*i" -.cts tr.at the g-.-icaice i-.cicates "specified values' sr.sulc be selectes
:• a^s-.ts specific sasis for several cesign anc operating parameters of
tns facility end for err.issions of criteria pollutants. A thoroucn ciscussicn
of tr.e factors to be considered in choosing the "selected values'" is
•nc'uoed in .the five reports from the comprehensive KWC study.
As noted unoer Section V, this guidance should be transmitted to el1.
rtit* ="-^"_::a" e:5-c-ss_tc wr.icr. PSD oe-rittinc authority r.as been seleceted
.*:r- -, Cr- 3r:t':" 52.21 ui. ~*.e trsr.s.r-ttc'! "etts' shcu'.i sreci'v tr.It
:ne celegation agreement is emenoed to include -tnis suidance. States whi"ch
-=»e received SI5 arcroval cf a »SD program under iC'CFR Section 51.156
*:—•«-•;. S=:v:r -1.2^5 s-s.-lc a'sc 2s i-fc-r*c :* this c-.-iia^cs and cf
•.;A's exreciaticr. tret i: se f
cc: James DeMocker
Gregory Foote (LI-132A)
Steve Greene (WH-565)'
Joseph E. Lees (ANR-443)
J. Craig Potter (ANR-443)
John C. Ulf elder (A-101)
Ma re i a Williams (VH-562)
-------
OPERATIONAL GUIDANCE ON -CONTROL
TECHNOLOGY FOR NEW AND MODIFIED
*.'JNICIPAL WASTE COMBUSTORS
I. Tne Need for Guidance.
The concustion of municipal waste represents an increasingly inDortant
element of the solid waste cisposal problem in the U-.S. However, tne
cseration of municipal waste combustors (MWCs) releases potentially naraful
pollutants to the air. Human exposure can occur directly or indirectly,
and there is also concern that the environment could be vulnerable to
".-g-te-r. accL^'-'sticn of emitted pollutants. £SA is aadress:nc tnese
•ss.-es •-• & c:-3-e-=-.5ive, ir.tegratei ".unicisal Waste Ccabusticn St-Sy £nc
• •-*. tvs c:-er»:icr.e'1. guidance.
N->fnerous c-jesticrs regardr,g the selection of aspropriate pollution
::-t-:" -ecj-ire-e":: -.=ve s'-isen durir.: recsrt yeirs :r. tr,cjor source
--'""••-•'r= crcceecir.es ur.ier the preventer, cf significant Deterioration
.-$:) provisions of Part C of the Act and the nonattainment new source
-=.-5« .'.•:-, :-c.-s-.c-.y :f =ert : of tne Act. yrcertainty over these
:.es:-c.-.s -.is ',*: ;c corfiict ever mnimum ".eoal rssu;remer.ts ar.fi ccnsequer.-
:=•=> ;- t-e :r-r--<-c £r: ccr-stryct-on cf *v:s. Herce, tne-e is a need
*":- :-iC£-.ce wC -esc've controversies wnich cay arise as tc facil-ities
-:--;'y, ?»A is :ss-ing t^.'s c:er£t:on£l g-.icance
for use in making best available control technology (BACT) determinations
under PSD and lowest achievable emission -ate (LAER) determinations under
nonattainment NSR. EPA believes that this guidance will promote consistency
in control requirements, and reduce delay and confusion in the permitting
-------
rrccess. At the same time it will allow permitting authorities to give
asoropriate consideration to local factors in making case-by-care SACT
•"*ters:i nations as reouired L-nder law.
".I. ACT.-,r.istrative History.
Section 169(2] of the Act provides that 3AC7 aeterminaticns in ?SD
•.«-T?nts must be "based on tne maximum degree of reduction of eacn pOML'tant
subject to regulation under this [Act] . . . which the permitting authority,
on a case-by-case basis, talcing into account energy, environmental, and
economic impacts and other costs, determines is achievable." EPA's
recu-'cticns track this language. See 40 C.F.R. 52.2Kb) (12), *0 C.r.R.
-~1. !£5!b) !12 ;. ;i eccition, in two administrative araeels involving
resource recovery facilities, £?A has further refined tne analysis whicn
?e-—tv-.: a.".-:-; ties r,.s: ::-,c.-ct in -,ekir.: EACT date-sir.eticr.s.
'." ^o-tr. !:j-ty Resource ^eccvc-y Associates, s£2 Aroeal S'c. £5-2
•'June 2, 1566'/, the Administrator issued a Remand Order which held that,
•ir. r.ek--.c EACT ieterminations for a regulated a:r pollutant, the permitting
:_•:•:-:/ -•-£- c:-sice- t-.e effect cf tu.=t iec-s-'on on erissicns of zc'-'-ta-ts
-:t -ecjlated -jnder the C'.ean Air Act. Morth C-cy".ty provided that the
••i. -.--' :s:-i-:- £-;.': C::-TJS t-sss e-..irc—snte" irpects. £r.c tr.et
:••= ::—•':-•'-: s_t-:—'t> ~ey j'iti-ats'.y :-.cose ":re st—:^g=-t ertiss-cris
".:- its tiers for tne -egy*. dtsc pollutant tnar. •, t -ou'iS ctne-»ise nave cr.cser:
if it would have the collateral benefit of restricting emissions of the
unregulated pollutant. In the North County case, the permitting authority
had reouired the use of a dry scrubber and fabric filter as BACT for sulfur
o:oxide, but had failed to consider the effect of that decision on emissions
-------
c* certa-.n unregulated pollutants -• dioxins -and furans, heavy metals, end
eCic cases -- on the grouncs tnat it lacked authority to do so. Various
PC-sons aetif.oned tne Airr.inistrator under 40 C.r.R. Part 12*. In response
tc tie ;cnrimstrator' s suosequent remand oroer, tne permitting authority
d-e'yiei the effect of various control options on these three classes of
:c". "'.tar.ts, end fc'jnd that no otner controls on regulated pollutants woul -
be more effective in reducing emissions of the unregulated pollutants. The
Acmnistrator tnen ruled that the permitting authority had satisfied the
requirements of the remand order, and denied the petitions. See North
"...---/ =5sc-r:e ^eccve-v Associates, ?SD Arpeal No. 55-2, Order Denying
•-••e* !S=rtc-.re- -. 19ScK
Tne Adninisfatcr ruled in Honolulu Resource Recovery Facility
---:-=- . "i: -"•:•' sc. -5-5, =ec,2r.c C-csr JJ-.-r.e 22, 1567), that i ?S3
• -—tf": i.fC'-'t* ".ds tw-e b-jraei cf de^cr.strstinc that acverse econoinic
" • • •
•-racts justify tne failure to require as BACT the most effective control
-.«:•"•:"scy w^-.ich -is cve-ila&'e. he also found that acid gas scrubbers are
:- :. = :';:'e ::•*.-:" t=:--.c':sy *cr sulfjr diox-ice (SC^). Tne H-?o*er
:e:-s:cn a:sc p-cv-:<;ed tnat the economic impacts must be specific to the
>:-•:* :'. ;ta=st-:' =-c s-:stir.f.cl. Tnus, -ece.se t.-.e Acr:-.'stratc-
d:-=e: -'t- £:i :.f:-:r I-' tr.it '•iawe'i had r.ct acecjats'y csrcistratec tr»e
oasis for its ccr.c'jS'.cn that economic factors justified the essence of
flue gas treatment as EACT for S02, he remanded the matter for further
•srcceedings.
-------
EPA today also araws upon the technical data referenced belo*. anc
•ts experience in issuing, reviewing, and enforcing PSD permits for MWCs.
=scent emission test date have demonstrated that participate natter (?M),
SC>2, er.c ctner air pc'.'iutsr.ts i:ncsucing srgar.ics, heavy sietcls, and eci:
gases) can be controlled effectively by acid gas scrubbing oevices (cry
sc-jsbe-si equipoec *itn efficient particu'iate collectors. Over 23 MWC
facilities in Europe are known to be operating with dry scrubbers and
participate collectors, and at least 37 such facilities are known to exist
in Japan. In the United States, three facilities currrently are in operation
-:-c at least 15 u,ave been serv;tted to construct with dry serusDing end
•;-.—.-ci/.cte cc.-.t-s' eev-ces as the specified technology. Thirteen of tnese
•"ac-.lities are expected to oe operating by OecenDer 19S8.
li-=: :• t-'E •r'c-.av:-., :t is c'.ear thdt & d-y scr^:er fcllowed
:.- s'r-e- = Js5-': 'i'.tef :r electrostatic ?rec-':--t£tcr are "evaiUtle"
-.ecftnolsc-es for effective control of the 502 «nd ?« emitted by MrfCs, and
tr.at t-.ese tecnnc^ocies also are effective in controlling emissions of
::;*'-.-a"-/ t:x-': crcamc an: heavy metal sollutants, and ecis oases
:-.us- tf.en S02- '.r, addition, the data show that these technologies are
-•:' i-'* i'c -sss:-s:'..- s"crcaa:e. Sisr.er'.y, :c-.:-Mstion c:-t.-:'.« d-e
i". i.5-"s:'e :=:--:'::y *:r :•?• control of ca-S:-. -.cncxii* ;;:; **--.--*s
:v ww:s, e.na ere ef'ecf.ve :r controlling tnat criteria poV.-tant anc
potentially toxic organic .pollutants. EPA's information indicates that
this technology also is reliable and reasonably affordable.
-------
::".. £AC7 Guicance for S02, PM, and CO.
Accordingly, • n considering the range of potential control options
cj-inc tne 5AC7 iets-aii nation process for MWCs, the reviewing authority
-»st ccnsioer a c-y scrueber anc a fasric fi":te|p or electrostatic precipitatcr
cs 5ACT for SOj and ?M, ana combustion controls as BACT for CO. In crcer
:: jusr-y a EACT Getern naf.cn calling for a lesser oegree of err.issior.s
control tr.an can be achieved using these technologies, the serai tting
authority must demonstrate, based on information contained in tne permit
file, that significant technical defects, or substantial adverse economic,
= ~s~s.v. 2" s-vi-cr.rs^ta'i iT.zects or other costs would arise that are
:r::*:c tc t"£ M-C '-. cjesticr.. 3ermittirg authorities rer.ain free to
~e'
-------
" .;r.-its for PSD pe-nits. In addition, today's guidance only addresses
ccr.trol technologies currently in widespread use for MWCs, and establishes
— r-ryjrr. criteria for 3AC7 determinations. Permitting authorities a-e not
-s'-,5vec cf tne-ir respcr.siii" ity ts consider, cr. g case-sy-case -asis,
--atsve- available tecnnc'iogies may be anticipated to provide c greate-
-•.-7-« cf cor.trc'. "an tnose aasressea today. Similarly, because centre:
technologies end the other factors in forming BAC7 determinations are
constantly evolving, the technology providing the greatest degree of
emissions control talcing economic, energy, and environmental impacts into
:-::.nt may likewise c-,ance over time. As one examole, flue gas treet-Tie-it
•-•:--:'cay *ar f.e cr-.ter-.a pcT.utant nitrogen oxices iNOx) is in operafor.
«: o-.e "«; in tne J.S., and tnis technology shou'.d be considered by pernritrr.c
'..".':•''••:'. •• -C-.--.C l'-.Z~ csterr:nst:'cns. In eCC'ific^r., e~e"c-'nc techr.c'cc:e:
•• -".* : = s c'=*-••-: T.SV aevelc: «-"icr^ car attain tr.e ":evel cf Hju'itlBoTmtatt
::tt-si currently cenionstrated by dry scrubbing/particulate aatter controls,
a-.c tecr-.olocies sue?-, as t^se snould be conside-ed in future 3ACT oeterniinaf.cns.
•= :f--c s.t-.o-':•=< £".c arc'iicants must see: s^cgcst of new cevelcrne-.ts.
"• c:«r 3y,. 33, £-c S'C.
•c'.e a".". :£gr. sjc:sssr\"i",y '.r.p;ese.-ited, ar.c thjs have been "ac.^ievec
• practice" by HUCs within the meaning of section 171(3i of the Act.
rience, in nonattainnent areas -here NSR requirements apply and major new
sources and mci'fications must apply LAER, no less effective pollution
cc-tro". techno",ccies nay be imcosed as LAER.
-------
». Implementation.
Tocay's guidance applies to all ongoing PSD and K'SR proceedings, as
-ell as to a1! new permit aeplications. In consideration of the needs
-~cr jrcgre.? stair. ":ity ar.a s;jity to sources ^nicf, have in good faith
-e'-iei on pre-existing permitting guidelines, this guidance does not
;:::;•• t: ?S2 ar,c KS?. oe-rr. t proceedings for wmch, as of June 26, 1967,
-"•,nal permits have alreaoy been issued and, with respect to PSD permits
•ss-jed by £CA. agency review procedures under 40 C.F.R. Part 124 have been
exhausted.
""is cce^cf.sna'i c-jicence asplies to PSD permits issued by EPA directly
-.•-:.:-. :ts Rec'cr.al offices a.ic incirectly tnrcugh State and local
agencies pursuant to celegation agreements inade unoer 40 C.F.R. 52.21(u).
..:- =:=-.:•£! «-:". i= -::-*-r: iy letter cf tv:« s-jidance. It will
•:-s'--:.te a-. a^s-.c-5".t to :r,e pre-exisfir.g oe'ie?ation agreements. £?«
:>£C',cr,al offices "'ill rev:en ell craft permits for KWCs issued by delegate
:=5^c-'es Curing tne public consnent period to insure proper application.
•".-f.e1- :-::-ar. evs'jatior, .ill ta'^e slece unoer me National Air Auoit
. 5/£ts^ f'iAASK :f delegate agencies should fail to adhere to this guidance,
::- i's.:- -•; •-•:•£-£ s.--;-;strc-.-:vg e:;ci' ;r;;eec-;ngs ur.cgr iC C.r.R.
:i". '.2- '• =?:-::-• st= cases. Such action WQU' c" be approrr-iate wnere. *or
r;=r;':e, fci'.^re -.0 fc'.'.c- -.re sjicance results '.n a finding of fact or
• conclusion of law which is clearly erroneous, or involves en exercise of
iiscretion or an important policy consideration which the Aflministrator
should review.§ See 40 C.F.R. 124.19U). Action'would also be appropriate
-r,e-e failure to follow the guidance resulted in an inability to determine,
-------
0
-csec on the recora, whether e clear error occurred. If necessary, EPA
say also revoke the delegation of ?SD authority to the State or local
ogeicy.
'•••tr. respect tc State -SZ permits issued purs-ant to a State implementation
:'a- is:5) program enproved by EPA under CO C.F.R. 51.166 (formerly 51.24),
a-.c 2:2te N'S* programs ascrovec unoer Part 3 of tne Act and iO C.F.R.
:1.1:5 (formerly 51.18(j)), EPA expects States to follow toaay's guidance
•'p. generally the same fashion as delegate agencies. EPA will use the
guidance as a reference point in its oversight of State MWC permit actions.
-- -•-.-. ie^eccted :enr.its E3i will participate in permit proceedings and
.:-:.:•. NAAS evc'u-aticns. If agencies processing KSR permits or PSD
:e—'its unoer approved State programs should fail to adhere to this
r--:i-:= E-r: -c;- ---t'ete c:--:--;s:rd:-;v£ e".£/c- ;ui::ial action ur.cier
= i::-:-s li: =ic c- 1£T :* tne ict in ar:-cpr:a:e cases.- Such action
-c.'.c be appropriate where, for example, failure to follow the guidance
-es.'ts «^ •••*."**••*.•..'_* •_* ^ • •
- " - • Z • 5T ^^ i« "Si • S • ' V * ^* ' flT!c ^ * fij(*€**»»«» rfi^ola^C^M^ p n^ f*^^^^
•-.:'wr-.c Agency acv.s-.s el-eefiy -ace by tne Ac-inistrator in tne Nortn
County and H-Power cases. .To the extent the guidance addresses the technical
•;ss-jes of availability, effectiveness, and cost of control technologies for
MWCs, it exprenes EPA's view regarding the proper usage, in permit proceedings
--.:s- existing PI regulations and SI? programs, of the factual data containec
-------
•r. tne five aocuments referencec below. Those cocuments present- ir.fcrr.at-.or,
:r. tne a Iterative controls available for MWCs, the performance cap sin"! •: ties
c~c costs of these controls, and the methods for monitoring and measuring
c-"-5i'-cns •"-:• ••'.R'CS. ractcrs tc se cons'.aerec in cnccsinc tne "soecifiec
vc'ies" tc 3e -inc'.-jced i" Derrits, as noted in the guidance, such as -.ax-.mum
.:-ci".fcf.cr. c: Z', '. r. sT.isSicns anc minimum value cf furnace temoerct«-s,
are contained in these references. Thus, the guidance does not constitute
r.'eT.aking wiih:n the meaning of section 207(d) of the Act or uncer tne
;dninistrative Procedure Act. Accordingly, it is not necessary to implement
•-•': ;L-':;-iC5, as t: i=t 2em:ts issued by Regional cffices o'r State anc
' :.i' ccer.c-es, tr'-c-cn cnenses in the ?SD recu'ations at-0 C.'.R. £2.21.
-•re«-se, »-e:erc:f-c ecproved State PSD programs, it is not necessary tc
:••:* -I :.".:.. Cl.l:: =-.c rec.-i-e csrresr:"circ SI- rev-si ens.
~c;-••-:" "._• ; » ^ •; s .
"ccsy's oae'et^oie'i guioance applies to three types of MWCs:
-as::.r'., excess a:r M.WCs; excess air MWCs that fire refuse-derived fuel;
:•; -::.•"=-. i'.s-.rc *•- VP.'C«. *.t arsliss t: t"tse '-"WCs that cse'-ete »'t^
£-=-:;. *e:c.-=-y a'-d these that operate without B".ercy recove'-y. It applies
:. :::- -=.:- '=- •-: -£;":• -.::-.f-.ec fee:",-,t-.es cf t-.ese types. _ Tne c-j:cence
"r:.'"5: fit -i'.ri ":* e~':S'.CT lir'tS e"C CZr'sf-.C Zi'c'etr'S 16 £:€C'.':=
One component of control technology for MWCs is the application of the
a?=-c;r-2te oost-ccroustion contra! equipment. The £?* has identified .
tms eauipmentits s. dry scrubber with fabric filter or with electrostatic
-------
•-ec-pitetcr. "r.e ccncer.trar. zr 5- sarti cylate emissions '-•. tne *zrc^z
:=ses f'ctr. the sost-cornfcustion control ecuipaient shall not exceed a
soec-.fiec maximum value; anc tne SD2 emissions in the exhaust gases
f-'i&°' -.:• exceec a soecifiee r.a?-r,yp concentration value o^ tne oercent
-ecucticn in SOg eiR'issicns across the pcst-conbustion control sou:3".ent
sr.c'i" -.:t ae "ess t-.ar. a s^ecif-.ec vaiue. Performance c: the cry scr-j^
:~c fasric filter or electrostatic precipitator in contrcll''r.g ac~c
:isas, potentially toxic metals, enc potentially toxic organic scr.utc.rt
is affected sicificentlv by the reauction in flue gas temperature wirich
•::.-: •'• t*»e c-y sc—jtbe''. ~wr co^fol system shaV, be des^ciec1 =-i
:i-:*.= : ;.:• fit t-e '"ue :a; ts'rs-at-j-e at t~e c»t".st frcr. t-.e c-y
;.-.::*• ::es -:t 6^:eec a sssc'f:ec value.
C c:-r:re"t cf cc-t-c'. technology for M.wCs is prooer desicr,
:;••.: ;-;i": :c'".ta*ts. '•"'—.-—• ccnc2r.t-=tirrs cf 1C in eT-'ss-'or.s fr:
"•!s are associetec *ith tne ir.o'enientafSon of several good conoustion
:-s:f:*s. "- = = = :-s:f,C5S erg a".sc rs'ated to tr.e effective cestr-jcfi:
•--2"S. ":-ce-t->f"cr$ c*" CC <:? furnace exh&ust cases snail not exceed a
::fcif'=c ~?.xi-..T va'je, and CO and 03 concentr»t::ns in the sxr.iust cases
;•=" :s ~:--t:-=: ::-f'-.-c-js"y. In acc-f.r", '-jr-.ace cce-st:?c t=-re-it_--es
snail be no lower than a specified minimum value, ana a croceaure for continuous
T.onitor-ns snail ae established to ensure that the soficified temoer»turs -'s
•na-'ntained.
-------
li
The capabilities to control flow rates anc distributions of underfire
;;ri:r.ary) and overfire (secondary) air, to monitor continuously CO
-cncertration anc furnace temperature, to maintain thermal lo'ed within a
s:ec::"•.ec <-ar.ge, anc tc contra", the process to maintai-n CO end temperature
:* tr.e •"•-•rnace at apprcjriate Teve1s are all important- to' good conoustion.
"g'a-'ec ir.r"or:,at:on ••sca'-oing tne numerical values to:be assigned to tr.e"
enssion levels and equipment design and operating parameters associated'
w-t^ coed combustion are provided in the documents cit«d under''References.
:•:•" .£31= Cc-ijsfcr St^c/: In-issior, Zz".- Ease for
!:al •'::*•?.::"••svcn s*--2.v: Combustion Control of Organic Enissic^s
•': = " -iste Cc-rjsf'or1 Stjcy: -lue Gas C'ssr.i'n: Techr.olboy'.
.. . .. «?•« "
-«-i«-C -wi.w
•:cl waste^p-bustion Study: Cost of Flue Gas Cleaning Technologies.
2C-SW-S7-C21E
'•:** '-aste 3:-Djst:oi Stjdy: Sampliac anci*naiysii.
------- |