GUIDELINE SERIES
OAQPS NO. 1.2-W6
GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF
A REGIONAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
US. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A
REGIONAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
March 1976
OAQPS No. 1.2-046
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Control Programs Development Division
Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
Prepared by
Daniel J. deRoeck
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ......................... 1
1.1 Definition of Regional New Source Review Program ....... 2
1.2 Summary of Responsibilities ................. 9
2.0 Regional Coordination of New Source Review Activities .... 12
2.1 Special Coordination with Other Environmental Reviews .... 13
2.2 Identification and Notification of Potential New Sources ... 14
2.3 Time Schedule for Conducting New Source Review ........ 17
3.0 Purpose of the Technical Review ............... 27
3.1 Confidentiality of Trade Secrets ............... 28
3.2 Estimating New Stationary Source Impact ........... 29
3.3 Emission Limitations ..................... 31
3.4 Best Available Control Technology .............. 32
3.5 Air Quality Standards .................... 37
3.6 Air Quality Deterioration (PSD) Increments .......... 41
4.0 Transferring New Source Review Program Responsibility to States 45
4.1 EPA Technical Assistance for State New Source Review Programs 49
4.2 EPA Overview of New Source Review Activities ......... 51
Appendix 1 Sample Information Package for Distribution to 55
Potential New Sources ................
Appendix 2 Sample Letters for Approval and Disapproval of New 65
Source Construction .................
Appendix 3 EPA Policy for Legal Remedy Against Improper State 69
Permits .......................
ii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Tab1e No- Title
1. Federal Regulations Concerning New Source Review for
Stationary Sources ................. 3
2. Summary of Regulations Impacting on the Construction
of New Stationary Sources ............. 4
3. Principal Facilities Requiring BACT Determination 34
and NSPS Status ..................
LIST OF FIGURES
Fl'gure No- Title Page
1. 90-Day Schedule for New Source Reviews ....... 19
2. Steps to Follow in Preparing an Application for 20
Technical Review ..................
3. Suggested Format for Air Quality Impact Appraisal . 23
4. Example Public Notice of Preliminary Determination 24
to be Placed in Public Newspaper (s) ........
iii
-------
GUIDELINES FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF A REGIONAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW
PROGRAM FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to authority of the Clean Air Act, as amended, EPA has re-
quired that.States develop legally enforceable procedures to review new
sources with respect to their air quality impact and conformance with emis-
sion limitations. Originally, this meant that the States were to conduct
a preconstruction review of new stationary sources (SSR) in order to pre-
vent the construction of any source which would cause or contribute to a
violation of a national standard or of any applicable emission limitation
or other portions of the control strategy for each State. Subsequent to
this requirement, EPA acted to require that specified stationary sources
also be reviewed to prevent significant deterioration of air quality (PSD).
In order to meet these requirements, each State must develop adequate
procedures, which upon approval by EPA, will become a part of the State
Implementation Plan (SIP). Most States have legally enforceable procedures
to conduct a preconstruction review of new stationary sources to prevent
violations of national standards and control strategies. (It is doubtful
that all States are actually carrying out the complete air quality impact
analyses described in their plans.) But in most cases, such procedures
do not include a similar review for preventing significant deterioration of
air quality.
Federally-promulgated regulations have been developed wherever necessary
to meet the deficiencies in SIPs. In addition, Federal regulations (not
-------
required in SIPs) have been developed purusant to the Clean Air Act to set
emission standards for hazardous air pollutants CNESHAP) and standards of
performance for new sources CNSPS) for selected source categories. Both
the NESHAP and NSPS regulations have provisions for a preconstruction re-
view which is required in the former case and optional (.at the request of
the owner as technical consultation) for the latter. Currently, three
Federally-promulgated regulations (Tables 1 and 2) directly impact upon the
construction of new stationary sources by requiring preconstrction review
and approval. Since states have not taken the necessary steps to ensure
that all new source review requirements for stationary sources are met,
EPA may need to assume a major part of the responsibility at least tempo-
rarily. This guidance sets forth recommended procedures and EPA policy
which seek to consolidate the individual new source review requirements.
In this way, it will be possible to conduct one Regional Office review for
any particular new source and thereby eliminate a duplication of effort
known to currently exist in some regions. While, in many cases, the new
source applicant will still have to undergo a state permit review as well,
there will not be the added confusion of having to deal independently with
separate Regional Office units when seeking authorization to construct.
1.1 DEFINITION OF REGIONAL NEW SOURCE REVIEW PROGRAM
The concept of a Regional New Source Review Program (henceforth refer-
red to as the Regional NSR Program) encompasses a regional level of effort
to put into effect any or all new source review requirements where the
states are not doing so, and to provide technical assistance to states so
that more of the review activities can eventually be transferred to them.
Necessarily, the Regional Offices will have to make some important decisions
-------
Table 1. FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONCERNING NEW SOURCE REVIEW
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
Type of
review
40 CFR
reference
,
Pollutants affected^/
Requirement
for preconstruction
review and approval
1. General new source Part 52
review-stationary
source (SSR)
2. Prevention of §52.21
significant
deterioration (NSD)
3. NESHAP Part 61
4. NSPS Part 60
misc.
subparts-'
S02 TSP CO HC/0X NOX Other
X X X X
X X
Yes
X X X X XX-
-7
No£/I/
- Individual sources will not necessarily emit all of the pollutants covered by each of these
reguIations.
(§52.233); Indiana (§52.780); Michigan (§52.1176); Nevada (§52.1478);
-'For selected sources only. Refer to Table 2.
A/Asbestos, Beryllium and Mercury.
I/Fluorides, Sulfuric Acid Mist, Hydrogen Sulfide.
I/Owner or operator may request a preconstruction review for technical assistance.
-------
Table 2. SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
New source review (SSR)
(Maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
I. D. of sources
subject to review
AH new stationary sources must
apply for approval to construct
except as specifically
exempted by the appropriate
Federally promulgated
regulation for certain states.
The following new sources 1n any
state must apply for approval to
construct under the significant
deterioration regulations:
1. Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam
Electric Plants of more than
1000 million B.T.U. per hour
heat Input.
2. Coal Cleaning Plants.
3. Kraft Pulp Mills
4. Portland Cement Plants.
5. Primary Zinc Smelters.
6. Iron and Steel Mill
Metallurgical Furnaces.
7. Primary Aluminum Ore
Reduction Plants.
8. Primary Copper Smelters.
9. Municipal Incinerators
capable of charging more
than 250 tons of refuse per
day.
10, Sulfurlc Acid Plants.
11. Petroleum Refineries.
12. Lime Plants.
13. Phosphate Rock Processing
Plants.
14. By-Product Coke Oven
Batteries.
15. Sulfur Recovery Plants.
16. Carbon Black Plants
(furnace process).
17. Primary Lead Smelters.
The following new sources must
apply for approval to construct
under the NESHAP regulations:
For Asbestos
1. Asbestos ml 11s
2. Buildings and structures 1n
which the following opera-
tions are conducted or di-
rectly from any of the fol-
lowing operations If they
are conducted outside of
buildings or structures.
The manufacture of-
(a) cloth, cord, wlcks,
tubing, or other textile
materials.
(b) cement products
(c) fireproofing and Insu-
lating materials
(d) friction products
(e) paper, millboard, and
. felt
(f) floor tile
(g)
paints, coatings, caulks
adneslves and sealants
(h) plastics and rubber
materials
(1) chlorine
3. Buildings or structures which
will be constructed using
asbestos Insulating products
(§61.20)
The following new sources must con-
duct performance tests and furnish
data In a manner consistent with the
appropriate Federal regulat1ons(§60.l)
1. Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
exceeding 250 xlO° Btu per hour
heat input (§60.40)
2. Incinerators exceeding 50 tons
per day charging rate (§60.50)
3. Portland Cement Plants (§60.60)
4. Nitric Add Plants (S60.70)
5. Sulfurlc Acid Plants (§60.80)
6. Asphalt Concrete Plants(&60.90)
7. Petroleum Refineries: fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators, fluid catalytic
cracking unit incinerator-waste
heat boilers, and fuel gas
combustion devices. (§60.100)
8. Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids exceeding 40,000 gallons
storage capacity (§60.110)
9. Secondary Lead Smelters(i60.120)
10. Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot
Production Plants (§60.130)
11. Iron and Steel Plants - Basic
oxygen process furnace (§60.140)
12. Sewage Treatment Plants which
burn sludge produced by munici-
pal sewage treatment facilities
(§60.150)
-------
Table 2 (continued). SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
I. D. of sources
subject to review
(continued)
New source review (SSR)
(maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
18. Fuel Conversion Plants.
19. Ferroalloy Production
Facilities.
[§52.21(d)(l)]
NESHAP
For Beryllium
1. Extraction plants, ceramic
plants, foundries, incine-
rators, and propellant
plants which process beryl-
lium ore, beryllium, beryl-
lium oxide, beryllium alloys
or beryllium-containing
wastes. (§61.30)
2. Machine shops which process
beryllium oxides or any
alloy when such alloy con-
tains more than 5 percent
beryllium by weight.
(§61.30)
3. Rocket motor test sites
(§61.40)
:or Mercury
I. Facilities processing ore to
recover mercury.
2. Facilities using mercury
chlor-alkali cells to pro-
duce chlorine gas and alkali
metal hydroxide.
3. Facilities which Incinerate
or dry wastewater treatment
plant sludge. (§60.50)
NSPS
13.
Steel Plants - Electric Arc
Furnaces (§60.270)
Phosphate Fertilizer Industry
(14 thru 18)
14. Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid
Plants (§60.200)
15. Superphosphoric Acid Plants
(§60.210)
16. Diammonium Phosphate Plants
(§60.220)
17. Triple Superphosphate Plants
(§60.230)
18. Granular Triple Superphosphate
Storage Facilities (§60.240)
19. Primary Conner Smelters
(§60.160)
20. Primary Zinc Smelters
(§60.170)
21. Primary Lead Smelters
(§60.180)
22. Coal Preoaration Plants
(§60.250)
23. Primary Aluminum Reduction
Plants (§60.190)
-------
Table 2 (continued). SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
New source review (SSR)
(maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
Criteria for
Degree of Control
Each new source must not-
(a) violate any local, state
or Federal regulations which
are part of an applicable SIP,
and
(b) cause or exacerbate a
violation of any national
standard. (§51.18(a)j
Each new source must not
cause an increase in ambient
air quality concentrations
beyond prescribed significant
deterioration Increments.
The source will meet an
emission limit which represents
that level of emission reduction
which would be achieved by the
application of best available
control technology.
(S52.01(f), 5
Each new source must not violate
national emission standards for
specified hazardous pollutants.
§61.08(b), 61.22, 61.32(a).
61.42.61.53)
An alternative to $61.32 provide
for an ambient concentration
limit on beryllium In the
vicinity of the stationary
source. (§61.32(b))
Each new source must meet
emission standards as
determined by prescribed
performance tests. (S60.8)
Pre-Construction
Notification
Requirements
Ye-constructlon approval Is
required; however, no submlttal
date is specified. (The review
process normally Involves a
90-day time schedule. The
applicant should consider this
when requesting construction
approval.)
(§51.18(b))
Pre-constructlon approval Is
required; however, no submittal
date is specified. (The review
process normally Involves a
90-day time schedule. The
applicant should consider this
when requesting construction
approval.)(S52.21(e))
Demolition - Written notice
of demolition shall be
jrovided to the Administrator.
Such notice shall be postmarked
at least 20 days prior to the
commencement of such demolition
When requested to do so by
owner or operator, the
Administrator will determine
whether actions Intended to
be taken constitute construction
or modification or the commence-
ment thereof within-the meaning
of this part. (§60.5)
Review of plans
No owner or operator shall
commence construction of a
tationary source without
first obtaining approval from
the Administrator of the
ocation and design of such
source. (§51/18(h))
No owner or operator shall
commence construction of the
source unless the Administrator
issues the necessary approval
to do so based on information
submitted pursuant to this
regulation. (§52.21(d)(2))
The owner or operator of any
stationary source for which
this standard 1s applicable
shall submit to the Adminis-
trator an application for
approval of such construction.
§61.05, §61.07)
When requested to do so by
n owner or operator, the
Administrator will review
ilans for construction for
he purpose of providing
technical advice to the
owner or operator. (§60.6(a))
-------
Table 2 (continued). SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
New source review (SSR)
(maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
Post-construction
Requirements
Any owner or operator subject
to this part shall furnish the
Administrator;
(1) A notification of the
anticipated date of Initial
startup of source not more than
60 days or less than 30 days •
prior to such date.
(11) A notification of the
actual date of Initial startup
within 15 days after such date.
The owner or operator shall con
duct a performance test(s) and
furnish the Administrator a
written report within 60 days
after achieving maximum produc-
tion rate but not later than
180 days after initial startup
of source. Fifteen days prior
notice of the performance test
shall be provided to the
Administrator.
Approval to construct may be
conditioned with post-
construction requirements
determined by the Regional
Administrator (e.g., perfor-
mance test, reporting malfunc-
tions, etc.).
Any owner or operator shall
furnish the Administrator a
notification of the actual date
of initial startup of the source
within 15 days after such
startup. (§61.09(a)(2))
Emission tests and monitoring
shall be conducted and results
reported 1n accordance with
prescribed test methods and
reporting requirements.
(S61.12(a))
Beryl 11 urn
Stationary sources shall locate
air sampling sites in accor-
dance with a plan approved by
the Administrator. (§61'.34(a))
Concentrations measured at all
sampling sites shall be
reported to the Administrator
every 30 days. (§61.34(d))
Beryllium and Mercury
The Administrator shall be
notified at least 30 days prior
to an emission test so that he
at his option may observe the
test. (§61.33(b). i61.44(d),
§6l.53(a)(11){2))
Any owner or operator subject
to this part shall furnish
the Administrator written
notification of the anticipated
date of initial startup of an
affected facility not more than
60 days or less than 30 days
prior to such date. (§60.7(a)).
The owner or operator will fur-
nish the Administrator written
notification of the actual date
of Initial startup of an affected
facility within 15 days after
such data. (§60.7(a)(2)).
The owner or operator shall
maintain (for 2 years) a record
of the occurrence and duration
of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. (§60.7(b))
A written report of excess emis-
sions shall be submitted to the
Administrator for each calendar
quarter. (§60.7(c)).
The owner or operator shall main-
tain a file of all measurements,
Including monitoring and perfor-
mance testing measurements, etc.
(§60.7(d))
-------
Table 2 (continued). SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES
New source review (SSR)
(maintenance of standards
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
Public Comment
Requlrements
The Administrator shall notify
the public of the opportunity
for written public comment on
the Information submitted by
the owner and the Adminis-
trator's preliminary deter-
mination. (§51.16(h)(1))
The Administrator shall notify
the public of the opportunity
for written public comment on
the Information submitted by
the owner and the Adminis-
trator's preliminary deter-
mination. (§52.21(e)(l)(11)(c))
None
None
CO
-------
as to what level of effort needs to be and can be realistically provided
at the regional level. (See section 2.0.)
Throughout this document the term "new source" is used in lieu of the
more lengthy "new or modified source" for the purpose of brevity. It must
be remembered, however, that all new source review regulations (see Tables
1 and 2) apply to sources which intend to "modify" an existing operation
as well as those proposing to construct a completely new plant.
In a similar manner, the term "construction" or "to construct" may
indicate an intent to modify an existing source as well as the more ob-
vious meaning of erecting an entirely new facility. The term " modification"
or "modified source" is defined in §52.01(d); however, the 860.2(h) defini-
tion of "modification" and, in particular, the exemptions applicable to
this definition, shall apply to the Part 60 standards of performance (NSPS).
Additional terms may require clarification from time to time,
especially as more involvement with NSR activities occurs. In fact, some
clarifications are currently underway. Guidance for interpreting the
term "commenced construction" as that term is used in EPA's regulations
to prevent significant deterioration of air quality was provided in a
memorandum from Roger Strelow to all Regional Administrators on December 8,
1975. Special assistance for clarifying or interpreting additional new
source review terminology can be obtained through the Control Programs
Development Division (CPDD). Mr. Michael Trutna (8-629-5365) is serving as
the point of contact for all Regional Office needs regarding NSR activities.
1.2 SUMMARY OF RESPONSIBILITIES
This guidance package describes the following responsibilities which
are pertinent to the Regional NSR Program:
-------
1. Ensure that owners or operators apply for and obtain appropriate
authorization prior to construction of a new facility.
An identification and notification system (section 2.2) should be
implemented as part of the NSR program. References for identifying
potential new source construction projects are provided. All potential
sources should be provided with information describing all EPA preconstruc-
tion requirements and procedures for seeking construction approval. The
utilization of application forms is discussed in section 2.3.
2. Determine the air quality-related performance of proposed sources
subject to review.
Stationary sources must undergo a thorough technical review in order
to determine compliance with emission limitations, best available control
technology (BACT), national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS), and
significant deterioration (PSD) increments, where applicable. Sections 3.2
through 3.6 describe technical review procedures for stationary sources;
EPA policy is also discussed. Technical documents are referenced to assist
in the review process.
3- Approve or deny requests to construct proposed sources.
A preliminary determination to approve or deny construction, based
on the technical review, must be presented for public comment. A sug-
gested format for presenting material for public comment is provided on
Pa9e 23 . The final determination must take into account public com-
ments as well as the applicant's response to public comment. Sample
letters for public notification and approval and denial to construct
are provided.
10
-------
4. Work with states to transfer EPA Regional Office review
responsibilities to state and local agencies.
The states are expected to adopt their own legally enforceable
procedures to meet SIP requirements for new source reviews (SSR and PSD)
and to accept delegated responsibility for NSPS and NESHAP reviews as
part of a comprehensive new source review program. Delegation of EPA
authority is regarded as an interim means of transferring SSR and PSD
responsibility to states. Section 4.0 provides a discussion of these
considerations.
5. Assist the states with the implementation of a new source
review program at the state and local level.
EPA assistance is foreseen in the areas of engineering evaluation,
air quality impact analysis, and enforcement support. Air quality con-
siderations can involve multi-state and multi-region cooperation which
should be actively supported by EPA. EPA may have to retain enforcement
responsibility in some states where adequate legal authority does not
exist. Even in states with adequate legal authority EPA legal assistance
may sometimes be necessary.
6. Monitor the effectiveness of state NSR programs.
Periodic overviews of state actions will be instrumental in deter-
mining the effectiveness of state new source review programs and can be
useful in monitoring progress toward helping to meet national clean air
goals via new source review programs. Special investigations should be
held when there is reason to believe that a permit is being wrongfully
issued. In some cases it may be necessary to seek to invalidate a
state-issued permit.
11
-------
2.0 REGIONAL COORDINATION OF NSR ACTIVITIES
A thorough, assessment of regional needs should precede the implementa-
tion of the Regional NSR Program. A program work plan should project, to
the extent possible, both the number and types of new source reviews antici-
pated in each state for which EPA is responsible. Although this guidance
is designed to describe the responsibilities of an optimum Regional NSR
Program, it is recognized that some Regional Offices may find that the
anticipated workload exceeds the Region's available resources. This guid-
ance document does not preclude discretionary action on the part of the
Regional Administrators to establish program limitations so that the Region
can function within its means. Wherever possible assistance should be
sought from state and local air pollution control agencies even when they
will not immediately accept an official transfer of NSR responsibility.
Some Regional Offices have already developed an informal work-sharing pro-
gram with state and local air pollution control agencies. In such cases EPA
retains responsibility for enforcing any actions which must be taken pursuant
to the issuance of a final determination (i.e., approval/disapproval to
construct).
Unless the assessment clearly indicates that the degree and/or duration
of Regional Office responsibility will be minimal, it is recommended that
the NSR program work plan provide for a functional unit to serve as the
focal point for most, if not all, new source review actions. For example,
such a unit could assume primary responsibility for at least the following
key actions;
1. Distribute NSR information to potential applicants;
2. Provide appropriate pre-application instruction to applicants;
12
-------
3. Receive and review applications for informational deficiencies;
4. Prepare for public inspection a preliminary determination package
based on all applicable NSR requirements.
5. Prepare and distribute final determination for all construction
requests.
2.1 SPECIAL COORDINATION WITH OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS
The same unit(s) given responsibility for the Regional NSR Program may
or may not currently participate in other environmental reviews conducted
by each Regional Office. This document does not intend to describe other
environmental review procedures such as those required for new Federal
facilities, or for sources subject to new source water discharge (NPDES)
permits. It is important, however, that any existing procedures be revised
to provide an opportunity for the NSR unit to examine the environmental im-
pact statement (EIS) or any other environmental assessment which may be
required. Any new sources recently issued permits by the NSR unit to con-
struct in the vicinity of a proposed Federal construction site, for example,
should be described, if they have not already been accounted for, in the
EIS. All comments relevant to the proposed source and its proposed location
should be submitted in writing and duly considered prior to the issuance of
a final determination regarding the source. When a final decision is issued,
the NSR group should be notified so that all air pollutant contributions
from the source (if approved) can be accounted for in subsequent new source
rev i ews.
Any reference in this document to the transfer of NSR responsibility to
states will not apply to EPA's responsibility for reviewing Federal facili-
ties. In accordance with Executive Order 11752, the Administrator's
13
-------
authority for implementing new source reviews for Federal facilities shall
not be delegated, other than to the Regional Offices. Where specific EPA
policy specifies otherwise, such as in the case of delegation of NSR
responsibility for new sources on Indian reservations, the appropriate
guidance should be followed.
2.2 IDENTIFICATION AND NOTIFICATION OF POTENTIAL NEW SOURCES
All prospective new source owners and operators are required to submit
an application for authority to construct in accordance with the NSR regu-
lations published in the Federal Register. While EPA is under no obligation
to identify and notify sources needing review, any initial Regional Office
effort to identify proposed new source construction projects will be bene-
ficial to both EPA and to new source owners. Unapproved construction
(unintential or otherwise) could certainly lead to legal abatement action
and possible financial losses. There are certain sources of information
which EPA can refer to in order to attempt to identify new source construc-
tion projects in the event that applications are not otherwise submitted.
The following sources of information may be utilized:
1. "Dodge Reports" - Identifies letting of construction contracts.
2. Newspapers and newsletters.
3. Professional and Trade Associations, including their magazines
and periodicals. Some of the publications available are as follows:
• TAPPI - Technical Association of the Pulp and Paper Industry, Inc.
• Pulp and Paper (Miller Freeman Publications, Inc.)
• Rock Products (Maclean-Hunter Publishing Corp.)
• Power - Power Generation and Plant Utilities Engineering
(McGraw-Hill Publications Co.)
14
-------
• Chemical Week. (.McGraw-Hill Publications Co.)
• Chemical Engineering - Semiannual listing of major chemical
process industries' projects announced as being in the planning
stage, under construction, or newly completed; published in
March and September issues each. year. tMcGraw-Hill Publications,
Co.)
• Hydrocarbon Processing - Special supplement on construction
projects published in February, June, and October; status of
projects reported as planning, engineering, under construction,
or completed. (Gulf Publishing Co.)
4. Department of Commerce and other Federal agencies (including
OSHA Regional Offices where NESHAPS apply).
5. Other EPA elements, including Water Programs, EIS Branch, S & A,
etc.
6. State and local agencies.
If possible, assistance from state and local air pollution control
agencies should be sought as the primary mechanism for obtaining new
source information, although other governmental entities including
building departments, water and sewer departments, labor departments,
business licensing departments, and public utilities departments, may also
be instrumental in identifying certain sources. (The appropriate state/
local officials should be contacted in order to attempt to establish a
notification procedure.) Most developers are aware of the preconstruction
requirements placed upon them by state and local air pollution control
agencies; if not, one of the other governmental organizations mentioned
above would likely be contacted. Once a state or local agency has, in
15
-------
fact, received notification of intent to construct, the basic information
(name and type of source, and name and address of person to contact)
should be forwarded to the Regional Office, either directly or through
the appropriate air pollution control agency. The Regional Office would
then follow through by defining Federal regulations to the potential
source, and requiring (if applicable) an official request for authority
to construct.
When any new source construction project is Identified, a prepared
information package (Appendix 1) should be sent to the source owner or
operator. An information package should include at least the following
i terns:
1. Introductory letter.
2. Application form (optional).
3. Federal requirements for a preconstruction review.
4. General NSR standards CNAAQS and PSD increments).
5. Emission limitations (if source type if known).
The introductory letter serves to alert potential sources of all
Federal requirements imposed on new source construction (Table 2). It is
important that the letter identify the information required to properly
analyze all aspects of the air quality impact attributable to the source.
(Chapter 3 discusses the NSR standards which must be considered.) Some
Regional Offices may be using OMB Form 158-R75, Air Pollutant Emissions
Report (APER). as an application form for NSR information. This form was
not originally designed to obtain NSR information, and it is not required
16
-------
for such use. Even if used by some Regional Offices, required information
that is not requested on the APER fonn will have to be defined within the
introductory letter.
At least one Regional Office has experienced success in obtaining
all required information without the APER form. Instead, all Information
requirements are stated in a letter with an invitation for further
consultation via telephone or at a scheduled conference tat the request
of the applicant) prior to the subraittal of a written request to construct.
Minimum information requirements are identified by each Federally-»promul-
gated NSR regulation. Additional information requirements must be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis. In addition, such information should be
clearly identified for the applicant and submitted as part of a complete
application submittal.
If the applicant has any questions concerning information require-
ments or the applicability of Federal NSR requirements in general, these
matters should be rectified promptly. An incomplete application will
postpone the official submittal date and will delay the review process as
a result.
2.3 TIME SCHEDULE FOR CONDUCTING NEW SOURCE REVIEW
In order to properly process each request to construct a new source,
the Regional Office must follow a prescribed time schedule as outlined
in Figure 1 and described below. It should be noted that this schedule
is not presently applicable to the NESHAP review or NSPS requirements.
A determination will be forthcoming as to whether it is desirable to make
17
-------
the NESHAR review, schedule cons.is.tent with, the schedule described
below.
Each application should be logged in on the day it is received by
the Regional Office to document receipt of the application as well as
to monitor progress throughout the required review process. A log form
should contain at least the major elements Csee Figure 1) of the review
procedure so that checkpoints can be established. Checkpoints should
then be monitored to ensure that an application is making adequate progress.
Each application should be screened to identify informational
deficiencies. If an application does not contain sufficient or adequate
data to perform a technical review of new source impact, the applicant must
be notified within 20 days of receipt. In the meantime, the application
should be ruled incomplete, indicated as such in the log, and withheld
from further consideration until the required information is submitted.
(It will not be necessary to return the application package to the applicant
unless gross deficiencies are identified.) The official submittal date for
the purpose of the review process will be that date upon which a complete
application is received by the Regional Office. The above processes
illustrated in Figure 2.
EPA policy provides for full review of each application on a first-
come, first-served basis as determined by the offical submittal date (i.e.,
the application having the earliest official submittal date will receive
first consideration for approval). This concept becomes significant when
an application is ruled incomplete and the original submittal date is
thereby voided. Should an application from a second source be received
prior to a re-subraittal of the incomplete application, the second source
18
-------
Phase Calendar days (from, receipt of complete application)
II -<
III
0
I
20 Within 20 days of receipt, notify applicant of any
~*~ deficiency in information submitted
30*—Within 30 days -
(a) make preliminary determination of
approval/conditioned approval/denial.
(b) make available a copy of materials
submitted by applicant. Administrator's
preliminary determination, etc.
(c) notify the public of opportunity
to comment.
60*-—Within 30 days after information is made publicly available
"*" public comments may be submitted
70 No later than 10 days after close of public comment period,
""" applicant may submit written response to public comment.
90*—Within 30 days after close of public comment period,
Administrator shall take final action.
* Administrator may extend each of these time periods (i.e.,
Phases I, II and III) by no more than 30 days, or for such
period mutually agreed upon by the Administrator and the
applicant.
Figure 1. 90-Day Schedule For New Source Reviews
19
-------
IDENTIFICATION
OF NEW SOURCE
CONSTRUCTION
PREPARE INFORMATION
PACKAGE
— >
SEND PACKAGE TO
POTENTIAL SOURCE
rAPPLICABLE UNO-
NO FURTHER ACTION
EQUEST
PRE-APPLICATION
CONSULTATION?
SCHEDULE VISITATION OR
TELEPHONE COMMUNICATION
RECEIVE
APPLICATION
LOG IN APPLICATION
PREPARE FOLDER
COMPLETED NO
APPLICATION
REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
SUBMITTAL DATE VOIDED
APPROVED FOR
TECHNICAL REVIEW
Figure 2. Steps to follow in preparing an application
for technical review.
20
-------
would then be given priority for air quality impact consideration for
approval before the original applicant (.unless and until the second
source's application is subsequently ruled incomplete as well). Therefore,
it is recommended that each, application undergo an initial screening as
soon as possible so that the applicant can complete the application and
reestablish the submittal date. Immediate screening is also advised for
two additional reasons: first, current procedures do not provide for an
extension of the 20-day screening period; and second, if the full 20-day
period allowed for a deficiency check is exhausted and no deficiencies are
found, the Regional Office will have only ten days remaining to (a) make
a preliminary determination whether the application should be approved,
approved with conditions, or disapproved (based on a technical review
which is discussed in greater detail in Chapter 3); (b) make available for
public inspection a copy of materials submitted by the applicant along with
the EPA preliminary determination; and (c) notify the public of the oppor-
tunity to submit comments. An extension for Phase I (not to exceed thirty
(30) days unless mutually agreed to by applicant) may be granted by the
Administrator to provide more time to make a preliminary determination,
but proper planning of the review process should help to eliminate the
need for an extension at this point.
Where the preliminary determination is that the application should
be disapproved, and there is a chance that the facility owner might be
willing to modify his proposal in such a way that approval could be
granted, the region should inform the owner of all inadequacies prior to
announcing the preliminary determination to the public. The owner would
have the option of formally withdrawing his application for amendment and
21
-------
resubmittal, or not withdrawing his application and allowing the determina-
tion process to continue.
In the event that the application is not withdrawn (despite conditions
for approval established by EPA), or the application is approvable (on a
preliminary basis) as submitted to EPA, the following information should
be made available:
1. A copy of all materials submitted by the applicant.
2. A copy of the EPA preliminary determination based on a technical
review of the application, including conditions for approval established
by EPA.
3. A copy or summary of other materials, if any, considered by the
Regional Office in making the preliminary determination.
A suggested format (Air Quality Impact Appraisal) for presenting the
above items for public display is shown in Figure 3. It is recommended
that the above package of information be placed in at least two locations
where the public will have ready access. One copy could be made available
at the Regional Office, while the second copy should be at a point nearer
to the new source construction site. The city hall, state or local air
pollution control agency, post office, or public library are among those
locations suitable for displaying the information for public inspection.
Public notification should be made by prominent advertisement in the
legal notices section of a newspaper of general circulation in the AQCR
in which the proposed facility would be constructed. For large AQCRs it
may be necessary to place the public notice in several newspapers in order
to adequately disseminate the necessary information. An example notice is
shown in Figure 4.
22
-------
I Applicant Information
Name of Source
Address
II Project Location
Geographical location of the proposed project
Indicate proximity of proposed source to other major sources,
geographic boundaries, cities, etc.
Ill Project Description
Type of project - Construction/Modification
Types of facilities within project and appropriate air pollution
control devices
Pertinent source information (e.g., production capacity, product
utilization.
IV Analysis of Air Quality Impact
Identify applicable standards (NAAQS, deterioration Increment,
emission standard)
Types of analyses performed (e.g., emission estimates, air quality
monitoring, modeling, air quality projections, etc.)
Discuss pertinent meteorological, geographical, technical, and
economic considerations
Identify assumptions made to complete analysis
V Conclusions
Source's ability to meet standards
Indicate all considerations.made
Clearly state tentative determination (Approval/denial)
VI Appendix
Include information submitted by applicant and additional Information
furnished by the Regional Office to perform impact analysis.
Provide all emission and air quality estimates (calculations) and
modeling results.
Figure 3. Suggested Format for Air Quality Impact Appraisal
23
-------
Notice 1s hereby given that the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to (approve/
disapprove) the construction of (name of source), pursuant to the
following federal regulations; CFR (F.R. Cite and date),
etc. This (state kind of facility and give some description) is
proposed to be located at (site address).
(Provide a brief summary of EPA findings resulting from a
technical review of information submitted by the applicant. Specify
evaluative technique(s) used; adequacy or degree of proposed controls;
extent of violations, if any, etc.)
A copy of all materials submitted and the Administrator's
preliminary determination are available for public inspection at
(give locations).
The Regional Administrator of EPA invites written comments from
all interested parties. Comments will be accepted until (give date
30th day elapses). Comments should be sent to (Division Director),
(Division), EPA, (Regional Office address). A final determination to
approve, approve with conditions, or to disapprove the application will
be made pursuant to a complete review of all relevant comments and
further review of the record.
Figure 4. Example public notice of preliminary determination.
24
-------
A copy of the notice should also be sent to the applicant and to
officials and agencies having cognizance over the location where the new
facility will be situated, as follows:
1. State and local air pollution control agencies;
2. Chief executives of the city and county;
3. Comprehensive regional land use planning agency; and for sources
subject to significant deterioration regulations;
4. Any state, Federal Land Manager or Indian Governing Body whose
lands may be affected by the source's emissions.
p"ase II provides a 30-day period for the public to submit written
comments. Such comments may concern the information submitted by the
applicant as well as the preliminary determination issued by the Regional
Administrator. All comments shall be made available for public inspection
at the location specified by the original public notification.
Phase III allows the applicant to respond to public comment prior to
a final determination by the Regional Administrator. Any response should
be written and must be submitted no later than 10 days after the close of
the public comment period (Phase II). Some flexibility should be allowed
for the applicant to respond to comments postmarked by the 30th day of the
official review period but received late by the Regional Office. However,
the applicant should not generally be given more than 10 days to respond to
any public comments. (The applicant's response is also to be made available
for public inspection.) Final action should be taken subsequent to the
applicant's response to public comment and within 30 days after the close
of Phase II, unless an extension beyond the normal 30-day period is granted.
(Extensions for a period to exceed an additional 30 days require mutual
25
-------
consent of Regional Administrator and applicant.)1 The final determination
must consider all written public comments as well as the applicant's re-
sponse to public comments.
The approval/disapproval action should be explicitly documented.
Documentation should be made in two specific ways: first, in a letter to
the applicant (Appendix 2), and second, in a record (background document)
to the EPA files. Such EPA record should include the Air Quality Impact
Appraisal, as well as all comments received, the owner's response to com-
ments, and a clear indication of the rationale used by the Regional Office
to make a final determination.
A letter of approval should make it clear that the determination is
based on the assumption that the source will be built in accordance with
the application and supportive facts submitted for EPA review. If the
letter contains conditions of approval, it should be clearly indicated
that a violation of any condition violates the authority to construct and
is subject to enforcement action.
A letter of disapproval must be clear as to why construction authority
is being denied. All materials and information used as a basis for denial
should be available for the applicant's inspection, and the applicant
should be invited to meet with Regional Office representatives should he
desire to do so.
26
-------
3.0 PURPOSE OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW
The purpose of the technical review is to provide the Regional Office
with an enforceable basis for making the determination to approve or deny
construction of a new source. Each application (request to construct)
submitted to EPA will undergo a technical review to determine the impact
of a new source based on a set of applicable NSR standards. Four types of
NSR standards for new source reviews will be discussed in this chapter.
These standards include emission limitations, best available control
technology (BACT), national air quality standards (long-term and short-
•
term), and significant deterioration (PSD) increments.
Each technical review is to be made available for public inspection.
For this reason the review should be well documented and maintained in a
file with the application and any other information used to make the
determination to construct.
There is no attempt to determine for each Regional Office the specific
in-house group which should perform any particular technical review exer-
cise. Some Regional Offices have already given this ample consideration.
However, if the responsibility is not given to a special NSR Unit as dis-
cussed in section 2.1, then careful attention must be given to monitoring
progress and coordinating the technical review with other regional groups
who are involved during the review process.
Subsequent sections of this chapter will discuss general procedures
and policy to conduct the technical review. These discussions are not
intended to be of a technical nature and therefore are insufficient to
actually complete a new source technical review. Wherever appropriate,
27
-------
technical documents are referenced so that any Individual who Is respon-
sible for the technical review can obtain the documents and apply the
correct techniques.
3.1 CONFIDENTIALITY OF TRADE SECRETS
The question of confidentiality of trade secrets may arise if the
applicant makes a specific request to withhold certain information from
public inspection. Wherever applicable the Regional Office must adhere
to the confidentiality provisions of 40 CFR 2.107, which requires that
the Regional Counsel determine the confidentiality of source information
prior to public release. Even a public request citing the Freedom of
Information Act (FOI) is not sufficient grounds for releasing information
adjudged to be a trade secret. (FOI guidance is provided by EPA Order
1550.IB, May 13, 1975.) The wrongful or negligent release of trade secrets
which are to be treated with confidentiality can result in criminal prose-
cution of the EPA employee responsible for the action. Regional personnel
should therefore become sensitive to all rules governing disclosure.
3.2 ESTIMATING NEW STATIONARY SOURCE IMPACT
The technical review performed by EPA is to be performed on the
basis of Federally-promulgated NSR regulations. Two distinguishable
components comprise the source impact analysis which is to be prepared:
(1} An emissions and design analysis of the proposed source to assure
that emission limitations and BACT requirements are met; and (2) a
determination whether the estimated emissions would contribute to pro-
jected air quality levels in such a way that a violation of either NAAQS
or PSD increments may result. In those cases where the proposed source
28
-------
source cannot meet the applicable emission requirements, including BACT
(where required), the Regional Office will have sufficient grounds for
issuing a preliminary determination to disapprove the application. (The
preliminary determination is discussed in section 2.3; a recommended
alternative to preliminary disapproval of the application is described
on page 21.)
When the source is able to comply with emission requirements, the
technical review should continue into the second phase (i.e., source im-
pact on NAAQS and/or PSD increments) only for stable pollutants. (See
discussion pp. 37-38.) A source which meets the applicable emission
requirements may be preliminarily approved to construct if the second
phase of the analysis reveals that the source is not expected to interfere
with the attainment and/or maintenance of NAAQS, and will not cause the PSD
increments to be exceeded. On the other hand, the Regional Office should not
immediately act to issue a preliminary disapproval of an application when the
second phase of the analysis reveals that the source is likely to have an
adverse impact. Special NSR policy and guidance is being developed to
further define what constitutes "interference with attainment or maintenance
of NAAQS." This special NSR guidance (not included in this document) will
deal primarily with sources seeking to construct in non-attainment areas,
but it is also applicable where the proposed source could cause a violation
in an area where none existed previously. ATJ,applications considered for
further review pursuant to the special NSR guidance should first be brought
to the attention of the Regional Administrator.
29
-------
Where a state emission standard more stringent than the Federal
emission standard is part of an approved SIP, the Regional Offices respon-
sible for SSR should utilize the more stringent standard as the basis for
the SSR review. However, in no case will the Region review an application
against any ambient air quality standard more stringent than NAAQS. States
having more stringent ambient air quality standards must implement a state
NSR procedure in order to enforce such standards against new sources.
The amount of effort which goes into any particular new source tech-
nical review is a matter generally left up to the Regional Office, taking
various factors into account. Small sources, in general, and perhaps most
sources which seek to locate in isolated areas relatively free from pol-
lutant interactions with other sources, should typically not need extensive
modeling efforts. Large point sources, on the other hand, must be carefully
reviewed in order to thoroughly assess their impact on air quality. Special
attention should always be given to the prevailing meteorological conditions
which could cause rare and/or unique pollution conditions. Special mod-
eling techniques are likely to be required when special meteorological and
topographical conditions exist and apparent violations are initially
identified.
Where more than one Federally-promulgated NSR regulation (i.e., SSR,
NESHAP, PSD, NSPS) is to be considered, the impact analysis for a new
source will be based on the ability of the source to comply with all
of the applicable NSR standards. (It is not uncommon for EPA to share
overall NSR responsibility with state agencies. This does not alter the
requirement that all NSR requirements be met before a source can be
30
-------
allowed to construct.) As an example, the Regional Office may have to
review an asbestos mill or an asbestos manufacturing plant for compliance
with emission limitations for particulate matter and the hazardous pol-
lutant, asbestos, as well as for compliance with the NAAQS for particu-
late matter. The sections which follow provide separate discussions con-
cerning air quality impact determinations for each of the NSR standards.
When a technical review requires that any combination of NSR standards be
considered, it becomes a relatively straightforward procedure to incorpo-
rate the requirements described under each separate standard to prepare a
comprehensive assessment of the air quality impact of any proposed source.
3.3 EMISSION LIMITATIONS
Table 2 (pp. 5-8) identifies specific source categories and types of
operations for which an emission limitation is required under NESHAP and
NSPS regulations. Sources are required to submit emission estimates as
part of the application for construction authority. Emission estimate cal-
culations should be submitted to the Regional Office with sufficient detail
(including emission factors, design parameters and any assumptions which
the estimates were based on) to allow verification of such calculations.
Chapter 5 (Engineering Evaluation of the Application for Permit to Construct)
and Chapter 6 (Examples of Permit Reviews) of the Guide to Engineering Permit
Processing (APTD-1164) should be referred to for technical guidance to review
construction applications and to assess the air pollution potential of a
stationary source. Emission factors for both controlled and uncontrolled
conditions for many processes are contained in Compilation of Air Pollution
Emission Factors. (AP-42).
31
-------
3.4 BEST AVAILABLE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY (BACT)
New sources subject to a new source review to prevent significant
deterioration are required to utilize BACT for particulate matter and sulfur
dioxide as a condition for construction approval. BACT is deemed equal to
NSPS, where such NSPS applies. Where the source or a particular facility
within the source is not presently subject to NSPS, the concept of BACT
must be determined on a case-by-case basis. §52.01(f) lists the following
variables as considerations for case-by-case determinations of BACT:
1. The process, fuels and raw materials available and to be employed
in the facility involved.
2. The engineering aspects of the application of various types of
control techniques which have been adequately demonstrated.
3. Process and fuel changes.
4. The respective costs of the application of all such control tech-
niques, process changes, alternative fuels, etc.
5. Any applicable state and local emission limitations, and
6. Locational and siting considerations.
It would be difficult to provide precise guidance concerning any of
the above variables because the conditions which may exist for any new
source proposal vary widely from site to site. However, some uniformity
to the application of the BACT concept must be assured so that cases of
unreasonable and avoidable BACT variation will not occur. In the absence
of firm procedures it is recommended that Regional Offices identify those
control techniques which allow for the greatest degree of overall emission
control and use the above items 1 through 6, wherever applicable, to make
special and necessary deviations from the greatest degree of control. The
32
-------
Control Programs Development Division (CPDD), OAQPS, will be the focal point
for receipt of all case-by-case determinations of BACT made by Regional
Offices. Once received, such information will be distributed to all Regional
Offices for further reference and application where appropriate. CPDD is
responsible for distributing such information to all Regional Offices and will
respond to any Regional requests for assistance in making BACT determinations
when difficulties are encountered during the review process. Many of the
sources not presently subject to NSPS will or already have such standards
1n the proposal phase of development. Table 3 lists principal facilities
which should be reviewed to prevent significant deterioration and indicates
the current action being taken to develop NSPS. In some instances, where a
standard has not yet been proposed, the results of the EPA technical inves-
tigation and recommended NSPS are documented as a standards support and
environmental impact statement (SSEIS). Where a date has been projected
for the NSPS proposal for any source or facility therein, it may be assumed
that a SSEIS is available for review. These SSEIS documents should be ob-
tained and utilized in the determination of BACT. However, since the SSEIS
documents are subject to change up through the final promulgation of the
standard, requests should be made only when information on a specific source
is needed. (Requests for specific SSEIS documents, as well as advisement
on applicable emission points and BACT determinations, should be submitted
to CPDD through Michael Trutna at 8-629-5365.)
The requirement for BACT for most new sources can be expressed in
terms of quantitative emission limitations; however, there may be techno-
logical or economic limitations which prevent the application of a measure-
ment technique to quantify source emissions. Where an emission measurement
33
-------
Table 3. PRINCIPAL FACILITIES REQUIRING BACT DETERMINATION AND NSPS STATUS
CO
Source type
Fossil fuel steam
electric plants
Coal cleaning
plants
Kraft pulpmills
Portland cement
plants
Primary zinc
Iron and steel
Primary aluminum
ore reduction
Primary copper
smelters
Municipal incinerators
Principal facilities
requiring BACT
determination*
Coal and oil boilers
Refuse- coal boilers
Thermal dryers
Air tables
Recovery furnace
Smelt dissolving tank
Lime kiln
Kiln
Clinker cooler
Roaster
Sintering
BOF
Electric arc
Sintering machine
Scarfing
Blast furnace
Pot room
Anode bakeplant
Roaster, smelting furnace,
converter
Incinerator
Pollutants
affected
(SOX, PM
(SOX, PM)
(PM)
(PM)
(PM, SOX via
TRS standard)
(PM)
(PM, SOX via
TRS standard)
(PM)
ISf'
(PM)
(PM)
(PM)
(PM)
(PM)
(PM via F
standard)
(sox)
(PM)
=========
NSPS standards
F (12/23/71)
SSEIS (3/76)
F (1/15/76)
F (1/15/76)
SSEIS (3/76)
SSEIS (3/76)
SSEIS (3/76)
F (12/23/71)
F (1/15/76)
F (1/15/76)
F (3/8/74)
F (9/23/75)
SSEIS (3/76)
F (1/26/76)
F (1/15/76)
F (12/23/71)
-------
Table 3'(continued). PRINCIPAL FACILITIES REQUIRING BACT DETERMINATION AND NSPS STATUS
(A)
cn
Source type
Sulfuric acid plants
Petroleum refineries
Lime plants
Phosphate rock
processing plants
By-product coke oven
Principal facilities
requiring BACT
determination*
Pollutants
affected
Sulfur recovery plants
Carbon black plants
Process equipment
Catalytic cracker
Process gas combustion
Oil and coke process com-
bustion
Klaus plant (see sulfur
recovery plants)
Rotary kiln
Hydrator
Triple superphosphate
diamonium phosphate
Crushing, screening, drying,
and calcining
Coal handling
Charging, topside leaks, and
fuel combustion
Pushing
Chemical recovery plant
Quenching
Refining sulfur recovery
Natural gas production
Furnace
(sox)
PM, SOX)
SOX via H2S
standard)
(S02, PM)
(PM)
(PM)
(PM via F
standard)
(PM)
(PM)
(PM)
(PM)
(SOX)
(SOX)
(sox)
(PM)
NSPS standards
F (12/23/71)
F (3/8/74) PM only
F (3/8/74)
SSEIS (3/76)
SSEIS (3/76)
F (8/6/75)
SSEIS (3/76)
P (6/76)
SSEIS (3/76)
P (9/76)
SSEIS (4/76)
SSEIS (4/76)
-------
Table 3 (continued). PRINCIPAL FACILITIES REQUIRING BACT DETERMINATION AND NSPS STATUS
CO
Source type
Primary lead smelter
Principal facilities
requiring BACT
determination*
Pollutants
affected NSPS standards
Sintering (SOY, PM) F (1/15/76)
Blast furnace (PM) F (1/15/76)
Fuel conversion plants
Ferroalloy plants
Dross reverb, furnace
Electric smelting furnace
Converter
PM) F (1/15/76)
SOJ F (1/15/76)
(SOx) F (1/15/76)
Coal gasification (SOX, PM) SSEIS (5/76)
Coal liquefi cation
Oil shale
SOX, PM)
[SO;;, PM)
Electric submerged arc (PM) F (6/76)
furnaces
Dust handling equipment (PM) F (6/76)
F = Final promulgation
P = Proposal
SSEIS= Standards Support and Environmental Impact Statement Document
* Boilers and furnaces for power generation, process purposes, and space
heating generally not listed; BACT determination may not be necessary
or feasible.
-------
technique cannot be applied 1t becomes pointless to establish an emission
standard (assuming NSPS has not been finalized). In such cases, (i.e.,
certain case-by-case determinations) it is more appropriate to define BACT
in terms of design, equipment and/or operational requirements which, in
effect, require the application of BACT.
3.5 AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
A technical review based on the NAAQS can be thought of as involving
the following simplified three-phase procedure:
' estimate the ground-level pollutant concentrations of the prospective
source;
• project air quality levels (exclusive of the prospective source) due
to all "existing" sources as of the date the proposed new source will
begin operation (page 40); and
' superimpose estimated new source pollutant concentrations over the
projected air quality levels (page 41).
EPA's Guidelines for Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis,
Volume 10: Reviewing New Stationary Sources (September 1974; currently
being revised) provides the reviewer with first-level methods to estimate
the ground-level pollutant concentrations of stable pollutants (S02, CO,
and particulate matter) from point sources. Procedures are described for
estimating maximum short-term concentrations, short-term concentrations
at critical locations, and annual mean concentrations.
Volume 10 procedures are recommended to initially screen out those
sources that clearly will not interfere with the attainment of the NAAQS.
This test should not, however, be used to conclude that a source should not
37
-------
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-0X and NOX) are somewhat more difficult to
deal with at the present time. Existing modeling techniques do not appear
to adequately 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 is 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 NSR guidance for non-attainment areas in
order to adequately review major sources of HC-0 and/or NO .
A X
Air quality concentrations should be estimated in accordance with
the definition of "ambient air" (40 CFR, §50.1(e)). The term "ambient air"
is defined as that portion of the atmosphere, external to buildings, to
which the general public has access. It will be the responsibility 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 beyond the "fenceline" which divides privately-owned space
from space considered to be public (accessible to the general public).
38
-------
Although it can normally be assumed that significant air quality
impact will not occur beyond 100 km (60 mi.), it would be totally
unnecessary to estimate pollutant levels to this distance in the majority
of cases. Pollutant dispersion is primarily affected by meteorological
conditions and to a lesser extent by stack height and source size. For
any given review these parameters should be carefully considered. There-
fore, in order to determine the appropriate impact area for each new
source review, it is recommended that pollutant concentrations (TSP, S02,
CO) from the proposed source be estimated in all directions outward from
the source to the point whereupon the concentration (in each direction)
approximates the Class I increment for TSP and S02, and two percent of
the appropriate NAAQS for CO.
It may be necessary, in some instances, to extend the impact area in
certain critical directions to more thoroughly account for special problem
areas where even a smaller pollutant contribution than specified above
cannot be allowed. Special attention should be given to isolated "hot
spots" or to adjoining non-attainment AQCRs. Special considerations such
as these should be based upon case-by-case conditions at the discretion of
each Regional Office.
Source location and design parameters are obtained from the information
submitted by the applicant. (The sufficiency of such data should have been
checked within a 20-day period after the application was received by the
Regional Office.) Meteorological data is also essential but need not be
requested from the applicant. In some AQCRs meteorological parameters are
routinely measured and recorded along with air quality measurements. The
reviewer should determine the local availability of such information prior
39
-------
to attempting to obtain it from either the National Climatic Center in
Asheville, North Carolina, or from other offices of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration.
The second step—projecting air quality levels caused by existing
sources—is not intended to be a complex procedure requiring detailed
demographic data, long-term industrial growth patterns, etc. The utiliza-
tion of these types of parameters becomes necessary when making long-term
projections, such as the five-year projection intervals required for air
quality maintenance planning. The projection interval for many new source
reviews will generally be of a short-term nature (approximately one year
or less) so that the impact of long-term projection parameters, in such
cases, becomes relatively insignificant. As a general rule, the air
quality projections for the technical review should take into account
emission reductions which can be anticipated (based on existing enforce-
able regulations and approved compliance schedules) by the date of
operation of the proposed source, and emission increases resulting from
approvals to construct other new sources, even though such sources may not
yet be in operation on the operation date of the proposed source.
Various modeling techniques are available to estimate the air quality
levels exclusive of the proposed new source. The extent to which any
particular model is suitable will depend upon the pollutant(s) under
consideration as well as other factors, including (a) the detail and
accuracy of the data base (i.e., emissions and measured air quality data),
(b) the meteorological and topographic complexities of the area, (c) the
technical expertise of those undertaking such highly specialized simulation
modeling, (d) the potential for the source to adversely impact on one or
40
-------
more of the NSR standards, and (e) the resources available. A good
discussion of the data requirements for dispersion modeling procedures
can be found in Appendix A of Guidance for Specifying Primary Standard
Conditions Under ESECA (OAQPS No. 1.2-035). In addition, Guidelines for
Air Quality Maintenance Planning and Analysis. Volume 12; Applying
Atmospheric Simulation Models to Air Quality Maintenance Areas examines
various multi-source models which EPA has made available. Regional users
should refer to Volume 12 for a description of the emissions and meteoro-
logical requirements to operate the individual models.
When superimposing the estimated new source concentrations over the
projected air quality levels, it should be clear that no violation of the
air quality standards can be allowed to result. If careful analysis reveals
the likelihood that resulting air quality levels would exceed NAAQS, it will
be necessary to inform the Regional Administrator and subject the application
to further review under the special NSR guidance mentioned in section 3.2.
However, just because NAAQS may already be exceeded somewhere in a review
area (AQCR, county, or any other legal boundary), this does not automatically
preclude further construction throughout that boundary. A new source should
be allowed to construct in any area where it would not contribute to air
quality concentrations exceeding the standards, as long as no other NSR
regulations are violated as a result. Many AQCRs exceeding the standards
have "clean" areas where it is legally allowable to permit new source
construction without affecting areas in violation.
3.6 AIR QUALITY DETERIORATION (PSD) INCREMENTS
In areas designated as Class I or II for the purpose of preventing
significant deterioration, nineteen (19) source categories defined by
41
-------
40 CFR 52.21(d), are subject to a technical review if they have not com-
menced construction prior to June 1, 1975. The technical review will be
based on PSD increments and the application of best available control
technology (BACT). The technical reviews conducted by the Regional Office
are generally limited to Class II areas. Class I and III areas will have
been brought about by reelassification procedures which require the state
seeking reclassification to also accept delegation of at least the
administrative/technical functions of the new source review to prevent
significant deterioration. However, EPA will continue to review new
Federal facilities and sources constructed on Federal lands regardless of
area reclassification.
Initially, there should be no problem using the single-source air
quality estimating procedure described in Volume 10. For example, air
quality concentration increases caused by three or four new sources can
be estimated individually and then superimposed to determine the net
impact on the deterioration increment. However, as time goes on and the
interaction of more new sources must be considered, a multiple point
source atmospheric simulation model appears necessary to make a more
accurate appraisal of the impact of all new sources constructed since
January 1, 1975. A headquarters effort is underway to develop the neces-
sary model for Regional Office (or state/local) utilization.
The term "all new sources" as used above includes not only sources
subject to the PSD review, but area sources not subject to PSD, any fuel
switches specifically exempted from review, and any other sources which may
or may not be subject to any of the preconstruction review requirements
described in this package. Therefore, it is possible for the entire PSD
42
-------
increment to be fully consumed by sources not actually undergoing the PSD
review. It should be noted, however, that sources approved prior to January
1, 1975, pursuant to applicable NSR requirements, but not yet operating
prior to January 1, 1975, should not be counted against the increment
Any new source which does receive approval to construct after January
1, 1975, will be regarded as an "operating source" and, as such, will also
consume a share of the allowable deterioration increment -from the time
approval is granted. This means that the effects of approved sources which
have not yet begun to operate must be taken into account when performing
subsequent PSD reviews.
The significant deterioration regulations also allow the Regional
Office to take into account subsequent air quality improvements which
result from the reduction of emissions from existing sources through
compliance actions supported by adequate verification, and permanent plant
shutdowns. (Pursuant to §51.7(b)(3)(iii) states are required to identify
and report to EPA each source emitting a total of 100 T/yr of any one
criteria pollutant which ceases operation. When similar information for
smaller sources is needed, it is recommended that such information be
sought from the state as needed on a case-by-case basis.) As a result, it
will be possible to "add back" to the allowable increment by an amount
commensurate with the air quality improvement. Such actions provide an
opportunity for additional new source construction.
The recommended general procedure for determining the impact area
for the PSD test is similar to the procedure described in the previous
section (page 31). In other words, pollutant concentrations should be
43
-------
estimated to a distance from the proposed source where the concentration
approximates the appropriate Class I increment. As the PSD increment is
consumed by operating sources, more careful consideration must be given
to the available increment rather than merely assuming that levels equiva-
lent to the Class I increment will be sufficient. In all cases, special
attention should be given to adjoining Class I areas and localized "hot
spots" which place more restrictive conditions on sources which would
impact on such areas. Wherever a Class I area enters into the review,
either by proximity or because a source chooses to locate therein, the
entire Class I area should be considered as part of the impact area. The
PSD test should always rely heavily on qualified meteorological assistance.
The EPA review must include consideration of the effects of transported
pollutants in reclassified (I and III) areas, even though EPA is usually
not responsible for the PSD review of new sources which propose construc-
tion in the reclassified area. (Federal facilities and new sources on
Federal lands continue to be reviewed by EPA.) It is also apparent that
some analyses may involve interstate as well as inter-regional considera-
tion. Such conditions should be identified as early as possible so that
the appropriate communications can be established.
44
-------
4.0 TRANSFERRING NSR PROGRAM RESPONSIBILITY TO STATES
Previous chapters have described EPA procedures and policy necessary
to meet NSR requirements where state programs are deficient. Any effort
at the Regional level to administer a permit system represents, to a
certain degree, a duplication of effort with state-operated permit sys-
tems. While EPA's involvement in the implementation of NSR procedures
is only temporary, it must continue until states accept full responsi-
bility. Current EPA policy is to encourage states to implement and
enforce the entire NSR program. To achieve this objective in the
majority of cases means that states must accept responsibility for PSD
as well as NESHAP and NSPS regulations.
The transfer of NSR program responsibility can be accomplished in
two ways. First, the states may submit a legally enforceable NSR pro-
cedure to EPA. If the procedure is approved, it is then incorporated
with the appropriate SIP and the federally-promulgated procedure is
rescinded. State adoption of NSR procedures is the more desirable
method for transferring responsibility.
The second method requires that the states request delegation of
EPA authority to implement the federally-promulgated NSR procedures.
In some cases EPA will accept state assumption of the administrative/
technical functions, while Regional Offices retain enforcement responsi-
bility. In any case delegation is an interim approach (for SSR and
PSD only) to the problem of dual (Federal/state) permit issuance.
Delegation should be used when states cannot, for some valid reason,
adopt their own legally enforceable procedures. States accepted for
delegation must be reminded that efforts to establish a complete state-
adopted NSR program are to continue.
45
-------
It will be necessary for EPA to permanently delegate NSPS and NESHAP
responsibility to states even when a state has adopted its own legally
enforceable regulations. This practice is necessary because NSPS and
NESHAP were not designated as SIP-required regulations, and unless these
regulations are delegated to the states EPA would need to continue imple-
menting and enforcing them even though states may have their own similar
regulations in effect.
In both of the above methods—state adoption or state delegation—
EPA approval is a prerequisite to the transfer of NSR responsibility
to states. EPA Order 1265.1A (approved September 15, 1975; supersedes
EPA Order 1265.1) delegates from the Administrator to the Regional
Administrators responsibility for approving state NSR procedures and
for delegating authority to states to implement and enforce the asso-
ciated federally-promulgated regulations.
Guidance to assist Regional Offices in delegating NSR authority has
been prepared as a separate package. (Guidelines for Delegation of New
Source Review Authority to State and Local Agencies. January 1976; OAQPS
1.2-045). Included in that package is a list of criteria which should be
checked to ensure that each state program can effectively implement the
NSR program when delegated the necessary authority. The criteria mentioned
are also useful in order to evaluate the adequacy of a state program
prior to giving approval to the state to implement its own legally enforce-
able procedure. In addition, further guidance is being planned to assist
the Regional Offices in determining the acceptability of state NSR
programs.
The air program grant mechanism provides the Regional Offices with
some leverage to initiate the transfer of NSR responsibility to states.
46
-------
Regional Offices should require that a specified portion of the program
grant money awarded annually to the states be committed to the implemen-
tation of the NSR program. This serves as a fiscal incentive, and at the
same time, a sanction in that grant monies to any state program could be
reduced proportionately for each aspect of the NSR program not undertaken
by the state. Some Regional Offices have begun to negotiate with states.
Negotiated outputs made part of the grant award would confirm a commit-
ment by the state to take an increased responsibility. Whenever grant
conditions are established, state outputs should be expressed in terms of
specific milestones of achievement and tied to a specified portion of the
total grant award. Milestones should be monitored regularly by the
Regional Offices.
Means to eliminate the current program fragmentation that results
from separate Federal and state permit systems should continually be
sought. Wherever appropriate, the following advantages of a state NSR
program should be identified when encouraging states to accept full
program responsibility:
1. No additional burdens are placed on sources in regard
to control costs by virtue of State implementation of
the NSR program. The sources must meet the applicable
requirements regardless of whether they are enforced
by Federal or state agents.
2. State implementation of the NSR program should be more
convenient for sources since in many cases the state
offices will be located closer to the source than would
be the EPA Regional Office.
47
-------
3. The possibility for inconsistent Federal-state actions
relative to a particular case is much reduced if the
state takes over the NSR function.
4. State agencies will usually have more complete infor-
mation available on aY\_ aspects of a proposed source
than would a remote Federal office and therefore should
be able to make a better over-all decision in the public
interest and in accordance with all applicable state and
local laws and regulations.
5. State agencies generally administer most of the laws and
regulations applicable to a proposed source, while EPA,
when involved in NSR programs, would be responsible for
the air pollution aspects only. Thus, state and local
agencies should be better able to simplify regulatory
actions relating to a source and better integrate all
actions than EPA would be.
48
-------
4.1 EPA TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE NSR PROGRAMS
Many states will be unable to implement a comprehensive NSR program
without some type of EPA technical assistance. While it would be impos-
sible to predict the variety of problems that each state may experience,
it is possible to identify certain major areas of difficulty. Regional
Offices should be prepared to offer assistance to the extent necessary
in the following areas: engineering studies, air quality impact analyses,
and enforcement support.
While some states may not request delegation of NSR responsibility
for all source categories covered by current regulations, it is hoped
that most states will seek to do so. However, there may be some reluc-
tance on the part of the states unless EPA makes known its willingness
to provide technical assistance. In the engineering evaluation of compli-
cated sources, a particular area of concern is the case-by-case deter-
mination of BACT, which requires expert knowledge on state-of-the-art
control techniques and the feasibility of applying such techniques to
specific sources. EPA assistance in this area could include direct
engineering support as well as the collection and distribution of case-
by-case BACT determinations which may have already been made in other
states.
EPA assistance for air quality impact analyses may range from merely
advising states as to the best or most appropriate technique to actually
providing direct modeling support, including the utilization of EPA
computer capability. It is likely that many new source reviews could be
completed without the use of a complex computer model. Source size,
49
-------
multi-source interactions, and meteorological conditions will oftentimes
be determinants of the level of analysis necessary. EPA consultation on
such matters could save states time and resources devoted to new source
reviews. Special problems may arise when pollutants transported from
adjacent states need to be considered for (1) projecting air quality
levels caused by existing sources (Section 3.5) and (2) accounting
for consumption of the deterioration increment (Section 3.6).
Regional Offices should provide any needed assistance to hasten inter-
state communications and to support states in order to obtain the neces-
sary data if the Regional Office cannot readily provide such data.
Regional Offices should inform each state of the availability of
the User's Network for Applied Modeling of Air Pollution (UNAMAP).
States have the option of purchasing the executable package to use on
their own computer system, or gaining access to the available air quality
simulation models via a commercial teleprocessing network for which there
is a service charge. (Computer Sciences Corporation is currently under
6SA contract to provide non-EPA users with access to UNAMAP.) Regions
can obtain pre-assembled information packages to distribute to states
by contacting D. B. Turner; MD-80; ESRL-EPA; RTP, N.C., 27711.
EPA enforcement assistance may be requested when state NSR determi-
nations are contested, or when sources are found to be in violation of
any condition of a state-issued permit. Generally, such assistance would
be of a technical nature and directly related to the areas of assistance
discussed above. States should be encouraged to keep thorough and
50
-------
accurate records of all NSR actions. When Regional Office assistance
is provided, it is necessary for such assistance to be documented by that
Region as well. Formats provided in this guidance Ce.g., Air Quality
Impact Appraisal, approval/disapproval letters) are recommended for state
use unless equivalent forms are developed by the states themselves.
4.2 EPA OVERVIEW OF NEW SOURCE REVIEW ACTIVITIES
EPA Regional Offices are expected to review, on a periodic basis, all
state and local NSR program activities to ensure that procedures are being
implemented effectively, and to document any progress toward meeting national
clean air goals via new source review programs. Recognizing regional
resource limitations as well as the need for some active review system,
it is recommended that an annual on-site review of state and local pro-
grams should be made. In this way, a review of NSR activities could
readily be coordinated with the annual agency performance evaluation
(grant related program review) required in accordance with 40 CFR 35.410
and 35.538-1. In the event that special circumstances arise (e.g.,
public complaints, specific agency requests, etc.) immediate investiga-
tive action should be initiated.
Existing EPA reporting requirements are considered sufficient to
obtain pertinent information from states prior to the annual NSR review.
The reporting requirements in 40 CFR 51.7 require quarterly and semi-
annual submittals involving air quality and emissions data, respectively.
In addition, 40 CFR 35.530(c) authorizes the Regional Administrator to
request information from grantees as necessary to carry out his functions.
51
-------
Grant conditions negotiated with individual grantees should include,
wherever appropriate, periodic status reports relative to the fulfill-
ment of specific NSR commitments.
During the on-site review, an EPA reviewer should seek to deter-
mine the extent to which specialized individuals (i.e., engineers,
program analysts, and meteorologists) are involved in the technical
portion of the NSR program. In addition, the reviewer should examine
a sample of the agency's permits (approximately ten percent) issued to
sources having the potential to emit at least 100 T/yr of any criteria
pollutant. Such an examination should enable the reviewer to determine
the level of effort being afforded to the permit analyses, as well as to
verify that sound policy is adhered to in the issuance of permits. States
are expected to maintain well-documented records of all permits issued and
of all technical support data related to each permit analysis.
Where inadequacies are revealed by the EPA review the proper documen-
tation should be made and the specific problems made known to the respon-
sible state or local agency. If necessary, grant conditions should be
proposed and negotiated for the next grant period so that the appropriate
changes can be implemented. Every effort should be made to get the state
to accept the recommended changes; however, in certain cases the Regional
Office may have no alternative except to take over complete or partial NSR
responsibility. Any reductions in the level of responsibility taken from
the affected agency should generally be accompanied by a proportionate
reduction in grant funds. Advance notice should always be provided by the
Regional Office when a grant is reduced.
52
-------
Further guidance is being planned to assist the Regional Offices in
evaluating the adequacy of individual NSR programs. Until such guidance
is available, Regional Offices may be reluctant to implement severe
penalties on marginal state NSR programs. However, in the interim Regions
should still prevent states from issuing any permits which result in a
clear violation of local, state, or Federal regulations.
If there is reason to believe that a permit will be wrongfully issued
by a state, a Regional decision to remedy the situation should be acted on
as soon as possible. When the state permit determination has not gone
beyond the preliminary stage EPA's input should be provided during the
public comment period if at all possible. A full investigation should be
conducted by the Regional Office, if necessary, even if this involves
requesting that the state extend its public comment period. If certain
information is needed before potential problems can be adequately assessed,
then such information should be sought directly from the state. Any
objections concerning the proposed issuance of an improper permit should be
submitted in writing to the state (and a copy forwarded to the applicant)
with the appropriate support data. A thorough record of all EPA actions
and communications should be maintained in the Regional Office.
When EPA cannot successfully prevent the issuance of a state permit
(or, in the case of a permit already issued, cannot persuade the state
to revoke the permit), legal action may be necessary in order to seek to
invalidate the permit. Preliminary guidance in this regard is provided
in the March 2, 1976, memorandum from Richard 6. Stoll (06C) to Richard
Wilson (DSSE). The memo is included as Appendix 3 of this document. If
the state permit represents the final administrative authorization for
53
-------
construction of the source, such legal action as described in Appendix 3
may be the only effective way to seek to prevent construction of the source.
However, since the Regions often share NSR responsibility with the states,
further leverage may be available through any NSR determinations not yet
issued at the Federal level. When this is the case, the Regional Office
may choose to defer action on its own permit determination while at the
same time pursuing legal action to revoke the state permit. This combina-
tion of actions should ensure that the source would not attempt to build
while the necessary litigation is being sought. In any event, more precise
advisement should be sought from the Regional Counsel, the Office of
General Counsel, and the Office of Enforcement before any action is taken.
54
-------
APPENDIX 1
SAMPLE INFORMATION PACKAGE FOR
DISTRIBUTION TO POTENTIAL NEW SOURCES
55
-------
Regional Office Letterhead
Company
Address
Subject: Review of Proposed Construction or Modification of
Stationary or Indirect Sources
Gentlemen:
This letter is to alert you to the Federal regulations which require
that construction or modification of stationary sources subject to any of
the applicable regulations be approved by the Regional Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency prior to construction or modification.
Information reaching this office indicates that the construction or
modification of (specify type of source) proposed to locate at (address)
may be subject to one or more Federal regulations which require a precon-
struction review and approval. The Regional Administrator ordinarily will
act on an application within 90 days after it is received by this office.
(Extensions of this time period may be necessary in some instances.) It
is, therefore, recommended that you submit an application far enough in
advance to preclude interference with your schedule for construction.
Incomplete applications will be held until the missing data is furnished,
thereby causing a delay in the review process.
In order to conduct a review of (name of source) it will be necessary
for you to submit a written request, properly signed and containing suppor-
tive information which is to include site information, plans, description,
specifications, and drawings showing the design of the proposed source.
You must also submit emission information (including emission calculations)
for any air pollutants to be emitted so that a determination of the impact
on air quality levels and any applicable emission standards can be made.
56
-------
It is oftentimes to the advantage of all concerned parties to schedule
a pre-application conference in order to discuss informational requirements,
as well as the criteria (e.g., air quality standards, emission limitations,
etc.) upon which the preconstruction review will be based. A conference
will be arranged upon your request.
Enclosed with this letter is an information package containing a sum-
mary of the regulations and Federal standards which your proposed source
may be subject to. Your response should be directed to (Division Director),
( Division, EPA, (Regional Office address). If you feel that you
need to contact this office for immediate assistance in submitting an
application, or if you have any questions regarding the applicability of
the new source regulations, please call (responsible regional person) at
(telephone number).
Sincerely yours,
Regional Administrator
Region ( )
Enclosure
cc:
57
-------
FEDERAL REGULATIONS CONCERNING NEW SOURCE REVIEW
FOR STATIONARY SOURCES
C71
00
Type of
review
1 . General new source
re v i ew- s ta t i o na ry
40 CFR
reference
Pollutants affected^/
Part 52 - misc.
subparts^-'
S02 TSP CO
XXX
HC/0X NOX Other
X X
Requirement
for preconstruction
review and approval
Yes
source (SSR)
2. Prevention of §52.21
significant
deterioration (NSD)
3. NESHAP Part 61
4. NSPS Part 60
Yes^/
-'Individual sources will not necessarily emit all of the pollutants covered by each of these
regulations.
^/Arizona (§52.129); California (§52.233); Indiana (§52.780); Michigan (§52.1176); Nevada (§52.1478);
and Utah (§52.2328).
—'For selected sources only. Refer to Table 2.
-'Asbestos, Beryllium and Mercury.
-/Fluorides, Sulfuric Acid Mist, Hydrogen Sulfide.
-'Owner or operator may request a preconstruction review for technical assistance.
-------
SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (continued)
New source review (SSR)
(Maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
I. D. of sources
subject to review
All new stationary sources must
apply for approval to construct
except as specifically
exempted by the appropriate
:ederally promulgated
regulation for certain states.
in
10
The following new sources In any
state must apply for approval to
construct under the significant
deterioration regulations:
1. Fossil-Fuel Fired Steam
Electric Plants of more than
1000 million B.T.U. per hour
heat Input.
2. Coal Cleaning Plants.
3. Kraft Pulp Mills
4. Portland Cement Plants.
5. Primary Zinc Smelters.
6. Iron and Steel Mill
Metallurgical Furnaces.
7. Primary Aluminum Ore
Reduction Plants.
3. Primary Copper Smelters.
9. Municipal Incinerators
capable of charging more
than 250 tons of refuse per
day.
10. Sulfurlc Acid Plants,
11. Petroleum Refineries.
12. Lime Plants.
13. Phosphate Rock Processing
Plants.
14. By-Product Coke Oven
Batteries.
15. Sulfur Recovery Plants.
16. Carbon Black Plants
(furnace process).
17. Primary Lead Smelters.
The following new sources must
apply for approval to construct
under the NESHAP regulations:
For Asbestos
1. Asbestos mills
2. Buildings and structures 1n
which the following opera-
tions are conducted or di-
rectly from any of the fol-
lowing operations if they
are conducted outside of
buildings or structures.
The manufacture of-
(a) cloth, cord, wlcks,
tubing, or other textile
materials.
(b) cement products
(c) fireproofing and Insu-
lating materials
(d) friction products
(e) paper, millboard, and
felt
(f) floor tile
fg) paints, coatings, caulks
adhesives and sealants
(h) plastics and rubber
materials
(1) chlorine
3. Buildings or structures which
will be constructed using
asbestos Insulating products
(§61.20)
The following new sources must con-
duct performance tests and furnish
data in a manner consistent with the
appropriate Federal regulations(§60.1
1. Fossil-Fuel-Fired Steam Generators
exceeding 250 xlO6 Btu per hour
heat Input (§60.40)
2. Incinerators exceeding 50 tons
per day charging rate (§60.50)
3. Portland Cement Plants (§60.60)
4. Nitric Add Plants (§60.70)
5. Sulfurlc Acid Plants (§60.80)
6. Asphalt Concrete Plants(S60.90)
7. Petroleum Refineries: fluid
catalytic cracking unit catalyst
regenerators, fluid catalytic
cracking unit Incinerator-waste
heat boilers, and fuel gas
combustion devices. (§60.100)
8. Storage Vessels for Petroleum
Liquids exceeding 40,000 gallons
storage capacity (§60.110)
9. Secondary Lead Smelters(S60.120)
10. Secondary Brass and Bronze Ingot
Production Plants (§60.130)
11. Iron and Steel Plants - Basic
oxygen process furnace (§60.140)
12. Sewage Treatment Plants which
burn sludge produced by munici-
pal sewage treatment facilities
(§60.150)
-------
SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES Continued)
New source review (SSR)
(maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
I. 0. of sources
subject to review
(continued)
18. Fuel Conversion Plants.
19. Ferroalloy Production
Facilities.
[§52.21(d)(l)]
For Beryllium
1. Extraction plants, ceramic
plants, foundries, incine-
rators, and propel1 ant
plants which process beryl-
lium ore, beryllium, beryl-
lium oxide, beryllium alloys
or beryllium-containing
wastes. (§61.30)
2. Machine shops which process
beryllium oxides or any
alloy when such alloy con-
tains more than 5 percent
beryllium by weight.
(§61.30)
3. Rocket motor test sites
(§61.40)
For Mercury
1. Facilities processing ore to
recover mercury.
2. Facilities using mercury
chlor-alkali cells to pro-
duce chlorine gas and alkali
metal hydroxide.
Facilities which incinerate
or dry wastewater treatment
plant sludge. (§60.50)
13. Steel Plants - Electric Arc
Furnaces (§60.270)
Phosphate Fertilizer Indus try
(14 thru 18}
14. Wet-Process Phosphoric Acid
Plants (§60.200)
15. Superphosphorlc Acid Plants
(I60.P10)
16. Diammonium Phosphate Plants
(§60.220)
17. Triple Superphosphate Plants
(560.230)
18. Granular Triple Superphosphati
Storage Facilities (§60.240)
19. Primary Copner Smelters
(§60.160)
20. Primary Zinc Smelters
(§60.170)
21. Primary Lead Smelters
(§60.180)
22. Coal Preparation Plants
(§60.250)
23. Primary Aluminum Reduction
Plants (§60.190)
-------
SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (continued)
New source review (5SR)
(maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
Criteria for
Degree ofTohtrol
Each new source must not-
(a) violate any local, state
or Federal regulations which
are part of an applicable SIP,
and
(b) cause or exacerbate a
violation of any national
standard. (§51.18(a))
Each new source must not
cause an Increase In ambient
air quality concentrations
beyond prescribed significant
deterioration Increments.
The source will meet an
emission limit which represents
that level of emission reduction
which would be achieved by the
application of best available
control technology.
(§52.01(f), 5
Each new source must not violate
national emission standards for
specified hazardous pollutants.
561.08(b), 61.22, 61.32(a).
61.42,61.53)
An alternative to sSl.32 provide
for an ambient concentration
limit on beryllium In the
vicinity of the stationary
source. (§61.32(b))
Each new source must meet
emission standards as
determined by prescribed
performance tests. (§60.8)
Pre-Constraction
NotHl
Requl
Fication
rements
Pre-constructlon approval Is
required; however, no submittal
date Is specified. (The review
irocess normally involves a
90-day time schedule. The
applicant should consider this
when requesting construction
approval.)
(§51.18(b))
Pre-constructlon approval is
required; however, no submittal
date is specified. (The review
process normally Involves a
90-day time schedule. The
applicant should consider this
when requesting construction
approval.)(§52.21(e))
DemoUtion - Written notice
of demolition shall be
provided to the Administrator.
Such notice shall be postmarked
at least 20 days prior'to the
commencement of such demolition
When requested to do so by
owner or operator, the
Administrator will determine
whether actions Intended to
be taken constitute construction
or modification or the commence-
ment thereof within the meaning
of this part. (§60.5)
Review of plans
No owner or operator shall
commence construction of a
stationary source without
First obtaining approval from
the Administrator of the
location and design of such
source. (§51/18{h))
No owner or operator shall
commence construction of the
source unless the Administrator
issues the necessary approval
to do so based on Information
submitted pursuant to this
regulation. (§52.21(d)(2))
The owner or operator of any
stationary source for which
this standard is applicable
shall submit to the Adminis-
trator an application for
approval of such construction.
(§61.05, §61.07)
When requested to do so by
an owner or operator, the
Administrator will review
jlans for construction for
the purpose of providing
technical advice to the
owner or operator. (§60.6(a))
-------
SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (continued)
new source review
(maintenance of standards)
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
Post-constraction
Requirements'
en
ro
Any owner or operator subject
to this part shall furnish the
Administrator;
(1) A notification of the
anticipated date of Initial
startup of source not more than
60 days or less than 30 days •
prior to such date.
(11) A notification of the
actual date of Initial startup
within 15 days after such date.
The owner or operator shall con
duct a performance test(s) and
furnish the Administrator a
written report within 60 days
after achieving maximum produc-
tion rate but not later than
180 days after Initial startup
of source. Fifteen days prior
notice of the performance test
shall be provided to the
Administrator.
Approval to construct may be
conditioned with post-
construction requirements
determined by the Regional
Administrator (e.g., perfor-
mance test, reporting malfunc-
tions, etc.).
Any owner or operator shall
furnish the Administrator a
notification of the actual date
of Initial startup of the source
within 15 days after such
startup. (§61.09(a}(2))
Emission tests and monitoring
shall be conducted and results
reported 1n accordance with
prescribed test methods and
reporting requirements.
(§61.12(a))
Beryllium
Stationary sources shall locate
air sampling sites In accor-
dance with a plan approved by
the Administrator. (!61.34(a))
Concentrations measured at all
sampling sites shall be
reported to the Administrator
every 30 days. (§61.34(d))
Beryllium and Mercury
The Administrator shall be
notified at least 30 days prior
to an emission test so that he
at his option may observe the
test. (§61.33(bJ. §61.44(d).
561.53(a)(11)(2))
Any owner or operator subject
to this part shall furnish
the Administrator written
notification of the anticipated
date of Initial startup of an
affected facility not more than
60 days or less than 30 days
prior to such date. (§60.7(a)).
The owner or operator will fur-
nish the Administrator written
notification of the actual date
of Initial startup of an affected
facility within 15 days after
such data. (§60.7(a)(2)).
The owner or operator shall
maintain (for 2 years) a record
of the occurrence and duration
of any startup, shutdown, or
malfunction. (§60.7(bJ)
A written report of excess emis-
sions shall be submitted to the
Administrator for each calendar
quarter. (§60.7(c)).
The owner or operator shall main-
tain a file of all measurements.
Including monitoring and perfor-
mance testing measurements, etc.
(§60.7(d))
-------
SUMMARY OF REGULATIONS IMPACTING ON
THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW STATIONARY SOURCES (continued)
New source review (SSR)
(maintenance of standards)
The Administrator shall notify
the public of the opportunity
for written public comment on
the Information submitted by
the owner and the Adminis-
trator's preliminary deter-
mination. (§51.16(h)(1))
Significant deterioration
NESHAP
NSPS
Public Comment
Requirements
The Administrator shall notify
the public of the opportunity
for written public comment on
the Information submitted by
the owner and the Adminis-
trator's preliminary deter-
mination. (S52.2l(e)(l)(11)(c))
None
None
en
CO
-------
SUIWWY Or HATICIIAL AMSIENr AIR QUALITY STAWMUS
POLLUTANT
PARnCUUTE
MATTER
SULFUR
OXIDES
CO
"°2
PHOTOCHEMICAL
02ISA.1TS
HrOaOCARCim
(ifon-;:ethane)
AVERAGING \
TIME
Annie 1
(Georetrtc (lean)
V, • Hour*
Annual
(Arlthnetk Mean)
24 - Hour*
3 - Hour*
8 - Hour*
1 - Hour*
Annual
(Arithmetic Nean)
1 - Hour*
} - Hour*
(6 to 9 i.o.)
PRIKARr
STAMAROS
75 L.g/«l'
260 ug/n»
80 vg/a> (0.03ppei)
3C5 tg/n' (O.Upin)
10 ng/-,' (Sspsi)
40 ng/r* (3Sppn)
100 ug/a" (O.OSppm)
160 n/n» (O.OBppn)
1(0 ug/rn' (0.24ppa)
SECO IDAir
STMSAMS
60 ,g/n'
ISO ,9/c1
1300 ng/pj (O.Sppn)
(Sane as
. Pi-lrary)
(Saxe as
Prlaary)
(Saire as
Prlrary)
(Sane as
Prlwry)
FEDERAL'
REFEIEhCE
HETHOD (FRN)
Hl-Volune
Sacpler
Pararosanlllne
Non-DlsperslvB
ln:rared
Spectrcnetry
Cheml lumines-
cence
Chcalluulnej-
cence
Flute
Ion1»tton
• <
CO~:EITS
The secondary annual standard (60.g/r>)
it a guide for assessing SI?s to
acnteve the 24-^ur secondary standard.
Procedure to be published In
Federal Reqlster. Soring 197S.
Sodium Arsenfte (Christie) and
TGS are equivalent methods.
The FRM measures Oj (oione)
The HC standard Is a guide ,to devising
SIPs to achieve the Onldant standard.
The HC standard doos not have to be
net If the o»ldant standard ,ls ret.
(lot to be exceeded care than once per year.
10TE The air quality standards and a description of the reference nethods vere published on April 30. 1971 in 42 CFR 410. modified
to 40 CFR SO on November 25. 1972.
January 30. 1974 - JOC
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
!52.21{c)(2)
Pollutant
Class I
(ug/m3)
Class II
Partluilate matter:
Annual geometric mean
24-hr, maximum . . .
Sulfur dioxide:
Annual arithmetic mean.
24-hr, maximum . . . .
3-hr maximum . . . .
S
10
2
5
25
10
30
15
100
700
Arcu> designated as Class III shall be limited to concentrations
of participate nutter and sulfur dioxide no greater than the national
ambient air quality standards.
64
-------
APPENDIX 2
SAMPLE LETTERS FOR APPROVAL AND
DISAPPROVAL OF NEW SOURCE CONSTRUCTION
65
-------
Regional Office Letterhead
Company:
Address:
Subject: Approval of Application for Construction of (Name of new source)
A review of your application for authority to construct (name of
new source), a (n) (source category) at (address) has been completed by
the Environmental Protection Agency. The Regional Administrator has de-
termined that the operation of your proposed facility at the location
specified will not cause or exacerbate a violation of National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (and air quality deterioration increments, if
applicable), and will meet the emission limitation requirements for
(specify pollutant(s)).
A request for public comment regarding EPA's proposed action on
the above application was published on (specify date). After considera-
tion of the expressed views of all interested persons, including State and
local agencies and pertinent Federal statutes and regulations, this
Authority to (construct/modify) a Stationary Source is hereby issued
for the facility described above, in accordance with the following
conditions:
Please be advised that a violation of any condition issued as part
of this approval, as well as any construction which proceeds at variance
with material information submitted in the application, is regarded as a
violation of construction authority, and is subject to enforcement action
66
-------
Authority to (construct/modify) shall take effect on the date of
this notice. If (construction/modification) hereby authorized is not
commenced within 18 months from this effective date, or if construction is
discontinued for a period of 18 months or more, the authority shall become
invalid. An extension of this authority may be granted if appropriate
justification is provided to the satisfaction of this office.
The complete analysis, including public conroents, which justifies this
authority has been fully documented by the EPA Regional Office for future
reference, if necessary. Any questions concerning this approval may be
directed to (regional representative) by phone at (telephone number) or by
letter to this office.
Sincerely yours,
Regional Administrator
Region ( )
67
-------
Regional Office Letterhead
Company:
Address:
Subject: Denial of approval to Construct (name of new source)
Gentlemen:
A review of your application for approval to construct (name of
new source), a(n) (source category) at (address), has been completed.
On the basis of information which you submitted to this office, 1t has
been determined that the operation of (name of new source) would (clearly
specify any violations which the regional new source review has revealed).
A request for public comment regarding EPA's proposal to disapprove
this application was published on (date). After consideration of the
expressed views of all interested persons, including State and local
agencies and pertinent Federal statutes and regulations, no cause has been
found to alter the proposed disapproval action.
Due to these considerations, the Regional Administrator denies
approval to construct the (name of source) at (address).
The complete analysis, including all public comments which support
this disapproval have been fully documented and are available for your
inspection at any time during working hours at this office. It 1s also
possible to arrange a meeting to discuss any questions you may have
concerning the review by contacting (regional representative) at
(telephone number) or by writing him at this office.
Please be advised that construction of the above source without the
approval of the Regional Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency 1s punishable by a fine of not more than $25,000 per day of
violation or by imprisonment for not more than one year or by both.
Sincerely yours,
Regional Administrator
Region ( )
68
-------
APPENDIX 3
EPA POLICY FOR LEGAL REMEDY
AGAINST IMPROPER STATE PERMITS
69
-------
EPA's Legal Remedy Against .\ SIP
S'Jr- ;:<""!• Permit Which Would Allow Amoient O-.Tf March 2, 1976
Violations
.
t-'RO. Richard G. Stoll, Jr., Attorney
Air Quality, Noise and Radiation Division (A-133)
:. Richard Wilson, Director
Division of Stationary Source Enforcement (EN-341)
THRU: Michael A. James, Associate General Counsel
Air Quality, Noise and Radiation Division (A
BACKGROUND
This memo summarizes, synthesizes, and refines my
memoranda to you of July 15, 1974, and November 11, 1975. I
am writing this because OAQPS desires to include the high-
lights of our policy on the above-referenced subject in
guidelines for EPA's Regions. My previous memoranda to-
gether comprise 13 single-spaced pages, much of which is
extraneous to the subject. I hope that this memo will
provide more succinct and useful guidance to the Regions.
THE PROBLEM
^Scate implementation plans (SIP's) are required by 40
CFR 51.18 to contain procedures for precons true t ion review
of new sources to assure that such sources will not violate
the ambient standards. What legal remedy does EPA have when
a Suare erroneously issues a permit to a source which will
violate the ambient standards?
RECOMMENDED APPROACH
EPA nay bring an action in Federal Court seeking (!', a
declaration that the permit is invalid and (2) an injunction
against construction or modification unless and until a
valid permit is issued.
Log.J.l Bases for Court Action
Under §110 (a) ( 2) (B) , attainment and maintenance of the
ambient standards must be insured by the SIP. Under §§110
(a) (2) (D) and (a) (4) , as well as 4o"cFR 51.18, no new source
which would violate the standards may be allowed to construct
undor the SIP.* If a SIP permit allowed a violation of the
Fine questions relating to "trade-offs"ar£j beyond the
scope of this memorandum.
70
-------
Federal ambient standards, the permit would therefore be
contrary to Federal law.
28 U.S.C. §§13/5, 1331, and 1337. Since the State
permit would purport to be the final administrative autho-
rization for construction of the source, EPA's allegations
that the permit must be invalidated should certainly present
a ripe and live" case or controversy fit for judicial '
resolution. EPA should be able to have its claim decided on
the merits in a Federal District Court by citing three
statutory bases of jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. §§1345, 1331, and
First, 28 USC §1345 provides:
Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress,
the district courts shall have original jurisdiction of
all civil actions, suits or proceedings commenced by
the United States, or by any agency or officer thereof
expressly authorized to sue by Act of Congress.
The most comprehensive judicial discussion of this
£r?r?™n,SI;e^S *? J?Vn United States v. California. 328
F 2d 729 (9th Cir. 1964). The Court ruled there that 28 USC
§1345 constitutionally grants jurisdiction in the District
Courts over civil suits brought by the United States against
a state' regardless of the nature of the controversy
provided the issue is justiciable. 328 F.2d at 731~.
Second, 28 USC §1331 provides general Federal Question
jurisdiction in the District Courts so long as a $10 000
punsdictional requirement is met. It would seem that at
least $10,000 would be "on the line" any time a source
subject to new source review is being considered. Moreover,
the issue, of whether a Federal ambient standard would be
violated is clearly a Federal question.
F^/^V28 USS §1337 9enerally confers jurisdiction upon
Federal District Courts to hear "any civil action or pro-
ceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce,
Many cases have made clear that the Clean Air Act is an Act
of Congress regulating commerce.
If the Court declares the permit invalid, then an
injunction against construction should automatically follow
An additional remedy for EPA, once the permit is declared
invalid, would be to proceed directly against the source
under §113 since the source would be violating a SIP by
constructing v/ithout a valid permit.
71
-------
§113. EPA may also proceed against the State under
§113 to invalidate a permit, but this theory sterns less
appealing than when first suggested. Such a suit would be
brought under the following logic: (1) 40 CFR 51.18 pro-
vides that State procedures "will prevent" construction
which violates ambient standards; (2) approved SIP's must
therefore place an affirmative, unconditional duty upon
States to deny violating sources; and (3) an improper permit
would therefore constitute a violation by the State of its
own SIP. (EPA can proceed under §113 against "any person"
violating a SIP. A State is a "person" under the Act.
§302(e).)
The basic problem with this logic is in step (2) above.
Since writing my 1974 memorandum, I have learned that many
(if .iot most) State regulations are not as tight as they
should be, and it would often be hard for EPA to show that
a S-^te would actually violate its SIP by issuing an improper
perr-it.*
Another problem with §113 is that a notice of violation
and opportunity for conference are prerequisite to direct
Court" action. This could slow down, the machinery where an
almost immediate injunction is needed.
I recommend that a §113 action against the State be
considered merely as a supplement to the above-cited bases
of jurisdiction if_ the State's regulation is "tight" enough.
Ilorecver, if under the circumstances of the case use of §113
wou.'.d ar.duly delay the proceedings, I would forget it
altogether.
Add:tional Reminders
Whenever there is a possibility that EPA might choose
to pursue the judicial remedies suggested aoove, -.PA should
nafrp its reservations known as early as possible, both to
the source and to the State. 40 CFR 51.18(n) (4) requires
the State to send EPA notice of all proposed approve Is. EPA
should monitor these notices carefully, and notify the State
(and the source) within the public comment period of EPA's
technical objections to a proposed approval. Thus, whenever
EPA seeks to invalidate the permit and enjoin construction
in Court, nobody will be able to claim unfair surprise or
that EPA has waived its rights.
*For instance, New Mexico's regulation simply says the
State "may" deny approval to violating sources. Other
regulations are written in highly discretionary terms
(i.e. "shall disapprove if he finds in his judgment")
which make State "violation" difficult if not impossible
72
-------
Finally, it goes without saying that EPA's Court actions
in chis area will often have to be speedy. Otherwise a°nS
source's construction might move forSardto such a sub-
stantial degree that a Court could become unwilling to
seeSna an ?™LS°\StTti0n- EPA Sh°uld ^riously consider
ever ?? Jn.immediate t.r.o. or preliminary injunction when-
ever it brings an action under this theory.
73
------- |